[QUOTE=mugofbeer;305630]Find the contradiction in that you ask. To begin with, you were doing ok right up to the point where you praised the City for their leadership regarding bond issue projects.

And considering the destruction of our economy starting that same year, exactly what have they done wrong with regard to the bond issue?

[QUOTE=andy157;305675]

And considering the destruction of our economy starting that same year, exactly what have they done wrong with regard to the bond issue?

What bond issues are in question?

Video of the Urban Land Institute's presentation is now online at okc.gov: http://media.okc.gov/OnDemand/ULI.wmv

I agree with everything you have said. Hopefully when its time to do MAPS4 in order to save time, money, and confussion, the City leaders will cut to the chase and bring in the ULI from the get-go.

It would be nice to have their input in the process, unfortunately my understanding of the ULI is that they don't offer these services to everyone, nor can they afford to or logistically support it. However, where projects reach the scope and potential city changing significance such as is found in the MAPS initiatives, they will choose those to provide a review of and make recommendations on. But they have to be viable and funded ones. Unless they are planned, and funded there is nothing for them to review. Mere pipe dreams, which they cannot afford to spend their limited time and resources on. Plans without funding are enticing, fun, and romantic because they are free from any constraints that reality imposes.

In architecture school much of the tireless, unrelenting work that chased many away from that profession, involved the fact that the professors could not effectively critique an idea until that idea was articulated clearly. (In the form of sketches, drawings, models etc.) Upon which the recommended corrections and direction that might more fully accomplish the stated result, involved major revisions to the articulation of the work, with this process repeated over and over until the time for the project was due. With the thought that hopefully at that point the project was by far more dialed in and successful in its aims at satisfying its intended purpose, than the many previous iterations. It is a process that unfortunately is a bit uncomfortable if you are not used to it, but time and time again lends to much more successful place making and projects that really have an impact where they are installed.

Applying the constraints of the real world, opinions of the citizens, land use and planning issues, eminent domain, financing, working to spur private investment, supporting business and tourism in while improving and creating a quality urban environment, and quality of life for its residents thus hopefully translating to the possibility of retaining the creative class, spurring private investment, and drawing corporate employers from less business friendly locations to our great city. It is a tall order to try to accomplish and not everyone is going to agree all of the time. But it is so worth the effort to be willing to make mid course adjustments now before the dirt begins to move. The potential benefits will garner rewards and positive impact for generations if done well. The converse is equally true which is why the recommendations should be given such consideration.

Point 1 - Yeah, just like hitting a lot of fly balls to left in Fenway park result in home runs, but hitting a fly ball to left in Fenway Park doesn't = a fly ball. You know what I meant. You're not that dumb.

Point 2 - I don't have time to go back and re-read the 10000 posts about MAPS3 but it was said early on that state law prevents the ballot from listing out the specific projects and earmarking specific funds that way.

Point 3 - what in the world does it matter if the CC is built first or last? I am far and away more concerned it is built in the right place, it is built in an architecturally successful way and that it doesn't detract from everything else done in downtown.

Our city leaders are just that - city leaders. They aren't urban planners, they aren't architects (I don't think) and they aren't urban sociologists. When a group such as the Urban Land Institute sends advisors who are of such prominence and they, as a group, tell the city leaders that some things should be changed, I hope the city leaders pay close attention!


In the infinite words of Councilman Pete White Ward 4, " Am I just asleep at the wheel" or is the Maps 3 vote over with?

Maps 3 has passed.

I think that most of the people on here who are showing concern, are concerned about the city leaders doing what they are saying they are going to do, with no ties to special interests groups. Those projects need to be built with the public in mind, not the money or influence of the special interest groups. The projects need to be built on time and under budget.

Our city leaders are going to be held accountable for any and all campaign promises during MAPS 3. That is to include building all of the projects listed, in the order that they are to be built and the time frames that they will be built in.

Why didnt we have all of the experts in place prior to the Maps3 vote?
Why wasnt a study done at that time in order to pinpoint the placement of the Maps3 projects, before the MAPS3 vote.

We have paid for many studies by experts over the years, such as independent studies on public safety, a study for the placement of furniture in a city building, also a study of the feasiblity of hosting a grand prix car race in the downtown area. What is one more study when you are talking about something as important as MAPS3 projects.

My guess is this, the convention center will be moved up to the first project just like all the NOT THIS MAPS supporters said would happen. Then, we are going to run over on budget and over on time. That 93 month tax will expire and all of the projects that were supposed to be built will not be built.
I just hope its not the project that you voted "yes" for that gets omitted.

We need to keep this from happening. Like I said in an earlier post, we need citizens on this oversight board who are not puppets for the mayor and city manager, because we all know who pulls their puppet strings.

I am all for any citizens oversight board. Didn't they do that on all the other MAPS projects?

You know, considering the time frame of the MAPS projects, projected increases in inflation and such, it would shock me if everything came in on-time and on-budget. Where many public tax projects go very wrong is when they present a far too rosy picture of tax revenues. I'd preferred that MAPS3 tax had been for like 6 months longer just to be sure they got all the money they needed. There may be a reason why they didn't though.

MikeMarsh51 sure brings entertainment to this thread. I wish I could count it as more than just entertainment but when someone is redundantly negative/against everything it sure makes it hard.
I'm glad I'm not that cynical about my city and it's future.
(looking forward to another yelling/screaming with "!!!!!" at the end of your sentences response...maybe some CAPS)

Its kind of like it would be talking politics with Sean Penn.

You know, considering the time frame of the MAPS projects, projected increases in inflation and such, it would shock me if everything came in on-time and on-budget.

MAPS for Kids budgeting came within half a percent. Same guys used on MAPS3...

alright... let's keep things civil. -M

You got it, mmm. How about a say something nice about Mike to make it up?

I do have to give big respect for using your real name when most people won't...it's easy to just get a fake name and say whatever you want behind a shield, I'm glad you don't do that.

I believe you're a fireman (if my memory serves me right) so thank you for all you do for us.

(ok, mmm I gave two things)

Ditto, I'll also thank mm for his fire service. I'll also give him credit for some very insightful things at times. Everyone feel better?

Love and Hugs to everyone!!!! Remember we all get to have our own opinions.

Love and Hugs to everyone!!!! Remember we all get to have our own opinions.

Great point, and one we should all consider.

To say it more clearly, Mike, you're right, you're entitled to your wrongheaded, misguided opinions.

:)

Hey, even Sean Penn is entitled to an opinion!

Love and Hugs to everyone!!!! Remember we all get to have our own opinions.

What's the old saying about opinions? You know, opinions are like ........, everyone has one.

I do have to give big respect for using your real name when most people won't...it's easy to just get a fake name and say whatever you want behind a shield, I'm glad you don't do that.
Hear hear! :kicking:

Soonerguru, you need to stay off of here, the adults are talking!

Soonerguru, you need to stay off of here, the adults are talking!

And exhibiting such civilized, adult behavior!

Soonerguru, these are called discussions, now off to your room, Barney reruns are coming on.

Point 2 - I don't have time to go back and re-read the 10000 posts about MAPS3 but it was said early on that state law prevents the ballot from listing out the specific projects and earmarking specific funds that way.

Actually, that is precisely the way it is supposed to be done. Each project listed as a separate proposition (or at least the "like kind" ones grouped appropriately). This is the way the G.O. and School bond issues are done. The overly broad, generic "capital improvement" can apply to just about anything. Even if the anti-log rolling provision doesn't apply to cities like it does the Legislature as Midtowner pointed there is a constitutional requirement that the projects be described in "specific". Since none of the proposed projects are mentioned or even referenced (i.e. "Exhibit A - Letter of Intent"), it would appear that MAPS 3 is unconstitutional (just as MAPS 1 most likely was, not because it listed the projects, but it lumped them all together in an "all or nothing" format). The City got away with it because no one challenged it. The City will get away with the MAPS 3 Ballot/Ordinance as well, unless someone challenges it. Unfortunately, that takes money and resources.

And, Larry, I suspect many of the voters would have preferred the original type of ballot, unconstitutional or no. We appreciate that many things got done in the first MAPS that might not have passed individually and, with retrospect, were a good idea. The majority of voters had the opportunity to vote against the ballot in it's current language and voted "for", regardless of the vaugueness.

Still amazes me that some really don't care if what they want is done legally or not. Don't you understand that is precisely why log rolling is illegal? You know, the grouping of unpopular items with the popular ones just so someone can get their pet project passed. I'm sorry, but if a project can not stand on its own merits, then it deserves to fail. Don't forget the Mayor said: NewsOK (http://newsok.com/city-maps-out-big-plans/article/3402004)
"I think the citizens are going to look at this with a very discerning eye. Each of these projects is going to have to stand on its own.”

Still amazes me that some really don't care if what they want is done legally or not. Don't you understand that is precisely why log rolling is illegal? You know, the grouping of unpopular items with the popular ones just so someone can get their pet project passed. I'm sorry, but if a project can not stand on its own merits, then it deserves to fail. Don't forget the Mayor said: NewsOK (http://newsok.com/city-maps-out-big-plans/article/3402004)The reality was none of them had to stand on their own. But you have to admit, it sure sounded good when the Mayor said each of them would have to.

I still don't see what any of this has to do with whether the CC is built first or last. What difference does it make? The important things are WHERE it is built, it's design and functionality and it's architectural significance.

I'd far rather our city leaders seek, listen and consider the advice of a panel of world-renowned experts than have something in concrete that can't be altered in the least that was put together by OKC planners. Nothing against the OKC planners, but they had to put a proposal together to present to the citizens. As long as the elements are intact, who cares? If the goal is 6, and 2 + 4 = 6, who cares if it's presented as 4 + 2 = 6 or 3 x 2 = 6?

As I said before, our city leaders did pretty good jobs with the last 4 tax proposals, they've earned some discretion on how this is done. With a decent oversight board and watchful citizens like the people on this board, they will be routed out if something is done that isn't in the best interest of the MAPS3 goals.

From what I have read, only one ULI panelist said that the convention center should be built first and he gave no strategic reason for doing so. Therefore, I do not feel the city should be bound to complete the CC first. My thought is that the river projects should be done first along with the rail being installed in conjunction with project 180. My reason for the river projects is for the purpose of cementing our reputation as the up and coming premier rowing venue in the country, if not the world. You can almost count on someone trying to get there first if we do not. After all, Tulsa trys to copy just about everthing we have done with maps and copying our ideas for the rowing sports is sure to come.

From what I have read, only one ULI panelist said that the convention center should be built first and he gave no strategic reason for doing so. Therefore, I do not feel the city should be bound to complete the CC first. My thought is that the river projects should be done first along with the rail being installed in conjunction with project 180. My reason for the river projects is for the purpose of cementing our reputation as the up and coming premier rowing venue in the country, if not the world. You can almost count on someone trying to get there first if we do not. After all, Tulsa trys to copy just about everthing we have done with maps and copying our ideas for the rowing sports is sure to come.

Good points!!!!!!!

So if that's the case then the issue is moot and all those who are accusing the mayor and all the city leaders of somehow trying to cheat us out of all that MAPS money have pretty much imagined their entire arguement.

IF I were a developer, here is what I would like to see...

http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs082.snc3/14999_106440696041142_100000256365178_165618_66184 55_n.jpg

If the City did 3 things, it would tempt me to purchase areas in blue.
1. Build Conv Center on W side of tracks
2. Build the Boathouse district and finalize world class river facilities & events centers
3. Even if they were to just bulldoze and put soccer/FB/Baseball fields like at Wheeler Park, just make the pedestrian bridge an attraction by connecting the parks. Then, even if developers want to tap into that park area south of the Crosstown, at least they will have cleared land and there will be a bit of a cusion between them and the blighted area.

The sole reason I skipped the coop is cost. If it costs the developers too much, it will cost the city too much.
If the convention center is to be built on the E side of Shields, then where will the Hotel go? The hotel will need to be nearest to the events centers, on the north side. That means the convention center would be pushed south in the Co-Op area, which escalates the cost greatly.
So while the ULI recommends the Convention Center be built on the Lumber yard, they also recommend a 700 room hotel. Both will not fit on the lumber yard, but would fit on the west side together with parking and the hotel will be primely situated.
The lumber yard is already prime realestate and will sell quickly being it is along the new Boulevard. And Rocktown Climbing Center is already a hit. I say leave the expensive COOP alone and build around it for now. Save it for another Maps. It should be prime area...between the river and Bricktown, near the proposed park and the Ford Center. But, if the COOP is the place to build, why haven’t Private developers been knocking down doors to buy it? The COST, thats why!

The parks can be improved in stages, as long as the 'Beauty' is foreseeable, I say just clear the park areas and improve in stages in order to encourage foot traffic between the river and Myriad Gardens, even a simple jogging/bike trail would help, just keep it extremely manageable for the first few years.

Should the Boat house district be finished, and the summer events hoped for become a reality, the blue zones become prime zones for retail and the mixed use triangle suddenly becomes prime real-estate. Notice how few blue zones there are. I dont see much retail demand in the next 10 years. But if all 3 elements are built, I think alot more mixed use retail will be built in the 10 years following its completion, south of the Crosstown 40 between Wheeler park and the newly built park along Shields.

Build those three things, and they will come!
It's just my opinion...Signing out.

From what I have read, only one ULI panelist said that the convention center should be built first and he gave no strategic reason for doing so. Therefore, I do not feel the city should be bound to complete the CC first. ...

Same could be said about all of the recommendations as each panelist had their own specialty. Will have to go back and rewatch it, but I believe they did give the reasons for doing it first...will repost later

Also, the City is bound by any of the recommendations by experts in their respective fields. The experts of course can be wrong...

Same could be said about all of the recommendations as each panelist had their own specialty. Will have to go back and rewatch it, but I believe they did give the reasons for doing it first...will repost later

Also, the City is bound by any of the recommendations by experts in their respective fields. The experts of course can be wrong...

My statement was based on the article Steve wrote after the ULI comments were made. I have since read a more comprehensive article in the OKC Review which mentioned another panelist promoting the idea and reasons were given.

Popsy, thanks for the followup post

Correction to my original post...should be: "Also, the City is NOT bound ..."

IF I were a developer, here is what I would like to see...

I still like the convention center on the east side of the tracks, incorporating the U-haul building, spanning the new I-40 boulevard and then going south into the CO-OP land. Its close to bricktown and its close enough to downtown and leaves the land along the east side of the park available for residential.

I still like the convention center on the east side of the tracks, incorporating the U-haul building, spanning the new I-40 boulevard and then going south into the CO-OP land. Its close to bricktown and its close enough to downtown and leaves the land along the east side of the park available for residential.

The Tampa Convention Center spans Platt St (a pretty major one way street) in downtown Tampa. I always thought it was kind of cool driving under/through the Convention Center. You can check it out on Google Earth.

The Tampa Convention Center spans Platt St (a pretty major one way street) in downtown Tampa. I always thought it was kind of cool driving under/through the Convention Center. You can check it out on Google Earth.

The Dallas Convention Center also has a street running underneath it.

Denver has both a street and a light rail line + it has a 5000 seat auditorium suitable for rock concerts attached to it.

And don't forget the 20 foot tall blue bear peering in the window.

Could someone suggest the best way to find out who actually owns the different parcels of land in Core to Shore? Is there, by chance, a list of all the street addresses of the properties involved?

I'm simply interested in finding out who stands to gain the most in this deal?

Thanks

Core to Shore places new convention center next to central park, but others don?t agree | OKG Scene.com (http://www.okgazette.com/p/12776/a/5821/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBEAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQB zAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAyADkA)

Could someone suggest the best way to find out who actually owns the different parcels of land in Core to Shore? Is there, by chance, a list of all the street addresses of the properties involved?

I'm simply interested in finding out who stands to gain the most in this deal?

Thanks

Try this site. I could spend hours on here.

Geocortex Internet Mapping (http://oklahoma.latitudegeo.com/imf/sites/oklahoma/launch.html)

If you are trying to find economic or business related data try this site. I have spent hours on this site.

Oklahoma City Economic Development Available sites, buildings, demographics, businesses and GIS mapping-- (http://www.okcedis.com/)

Core to Shore places new convention center next to central park, but others don?t agree | OKG Scene.com (http://www.okgazette.com/p/12776/a/5821/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBEAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQB zAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAyADkA)

Kind of an underwhelming article, but at the least, it's good to see the Gazette following up on a lot of the concerns we've been raising lately, with SandRidge, and now the convention center we're paying for.

Kind of an underwhelming article, but at the least, it's good to see the Gazette following up on a lot of the concerns we've been raising lately, with SandRidge, and now the convention center we're paying for.

Do you really think that the Gazette hinges their stories on what they might or might not see in this forum? These are timely topics you are talking about and likelihood of media coverage is substantial. Also, where do you come up with the "we're paying for", as I thought you lived in Canada. If you were referring to the 'collective we', that is still fairly strong as a large number of active forum posters do not live in OKC either, although some do live close and probably spend a little in OKC from time to time.

I know this is going to shock some people, but on an encouraging note...

“I don’t have a preference at this point.” -- Mayor Cornett

Plus, if the City was already settled on the Park site, seems unlikely they would be running the bejeebers out of the ULI presentation on Cox (understand it is also available for download from the City's site).

Some saw the ULI recommendations as being all negative just because they disagreed with some of the City's expressed preferences. I didn't see it that way at all. They said that we had a good plan overall with core to shore, that some things would work better than others...just needed some tweaking.

Also, where do you come up with the "we're paying for", as I thought you lived in Canada. If you were referring to the 'collective we', that is still fairly strong as a large number of active forum posters do not live in OKC either, although some do live close and probably spend a little in OKC from time to time.

Do we need to go down this path? While many of us are from outside OKC, we do visit and pay sales taxes that go to MAPS and MAPS type projects. Do we pay as much? Nope. Do we benefit as much? Nope.

No Kerry, we don't, but I could not stop myself. Spartan is negative about so many things in OKC when I feel so positive about the way things are going and today I think I had one nerve left and his statement seemed to step on it. I was not being critical of those that live out side of OKC. I will try to buy protection for the days that I only have one nerve left.

No Kerry, we don't, but I could not stop myself. Spartan is negative about so many things in OKC when I feel so positive about the way things are going and today I think I had one nerve left and his statement seemed to step on it. I was not being critical of those that live out side of OKC. I will try to buy protection for the days that I only have one nerve left.

I can buy that.

OMG, I am so sorry Popsy, you incoherent little Internet worm. Allow me to go back to telling people I'm from Texas due to the harsh embarrassment of being from Oklahoma City thanks to people like you. Go back to thinking Tim McVeigh contributed to the renaissance of OKC.

Just kidding. Since you wrongly accused me of being negative, I just thought I would show you what real negativity is like. That way you will know when I am truly being negative, and not when I'm just advocating for a better way for my hometown.

I am not "from Canada." I am from the Oklahoma/Texas region and I probably have a worse accent than you do, which makes me as Okie as anyone, and no matter how hard I try to shake off my damn accent, I can't get it to go. As for the Gazette "reading this forum," I didn't say that nor mean that.. who do you think I am, Metro? Lol.

The reality is that many of us are in real community discourse over these issues, and I've met with 4 or 5 posters who also read my blog in person. When I said the "issues we've raised," I meant "the currents being shared in public discussions across the city by people like us." Is that vague enough for you?

As for reporting, the reality is that no, a lot of the concerns we have about the C2S/MAPS 3 establishment get stonewalled, hence why Bryan Dean covered anything MAPS-related. It was evident that the Oklahoman didn't want critical questions raised about MAPS, and I don't know if that's still the case post-passage, but I'm sure it depends on how severe. The Gazette, being an alternative media source, is usually pretty good at reporting issues that go against the establishment. Although I didn't think they did too brilliant an article this time, ergo my being underwhelmed.

They have not been going into nearly the depth that they could with their alternative weekly format, but nonetheless I'm glad for their rudimentary reporting on the issue because some people do at least read the Gazette, which has recently won many awards for being among the best newspapers.

Bottom line Nick is that I see you as being the most negative poster in this forum. You tend to take pot shots at almost every thing. I wish it were not the case and I can not understand you motivation for doing so, unless you feel it makes you appear superior or intelligent. You are what you are and the only thing I can do is ignore your posts in the future.

no matter how hard i try to shake off my damn accent, i can't get it to go.

hater!!! ;-)

http://media.okc.gov/OnDemand/ULI.wmv

http://media.okc.gov/OnDemand/ULI.wmv

I'm going to have to watch this, now finding the time is another matter.

Bottom line Nick is that I see you as being the most negative poster in this forum. You tend to take pot shots at almost every thing. I wish it were not the case and I can not understand you motivation for doing so, unless you feel it makes you appear superior or intelligent. You are what you are and the only thing I can do is ignore your posts in the future.

Well I don't need to apologize to you for taking a shot against things I don't believe in. Have fun ignoring my posts.

Here is some Kool-Aid, enjoy drinking it. :)

http://www.americansweets.co.uk/ekmps/shops/statesidecandy/images/cherry-kool-aid-new-large-tub-1640-p.jpg