I would like to be clear, that I am objectively commenting on Rand Elliot's designs and how they turn out in reality. In no way am I commenting on the Boathouse District or the Foundation, which I have been a strong positive voice for over and over again on this forum. I love the Boathouse District and wish for it's continued success and hope that it touches the lives of many, many more residents.

Nothing to get excited about. This is all business as usual. Everything will be completed eventually with the assurances that it was all done as promised, on time and on budget. No matter what the obvious inaccurate reporting and documented facts would otherwise indicate. Move along. Nothing to see here...

Nothing to get excited about. This is all business as usual. Everything will be completed eventually with the assurances that it was all done as promised, on time and on budget. No matter what the obvious inaccurate reporting and documented facts would otherwise indicate. Move along. Nothing to see here...

Same Song--Same Dance

I'd rather then straighten out Broadway/EK Gaylord than "fix" Bicentennial Park.

Same Song--Same Dance

Exactly ... we agree

Nothing to get excited about. This is all business as usual. Everything will be completed eventually with the assurances that it was all done as promised, on time and on budget. No matter what the obvious inaccurate reporting and documented facts would otherwise indicate. Move along. Nothing to see here...

Nothing to get excited about. This is all business as usual. Every post by Larry OKC will be filled with the same negativity of every one of his previous posts. No matter the cities continued renaissance and the immense overall success of the MAPS projects otherwise indicate. Move along. Nothing to see here...

Shoot the messenger....

Shoot the messenger....

If you balanced your non-stop negativity and criticism of everything then people would take you seriously, but you have no balance. No one wants to shoot you. They just want you to quit bringing only the negative half of every message.

I think a staunchly critical voice like Larry's is a valuable thing to have. I have strongly disagreed with him a lot of times, but the thing is that his facts are usually spot-on. He does have a negative take on most things, but they are usually at least very well supported arguments. I can at least always admire a cogent argument, because they are so few and rare.

Bicentennial Park does not need a complete overhaul, just some freshening up. New benches, additional trees/landscaping, a new fountain, some dedicated programming, a lunchtime bistro, and game tables. A miniature Bryant Park if you will.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_WtjDr4yZ82g/TNKhL75fCgI/AAAAAAAAAYU/nmJJENSHhVU/s400/BryantPark_WWW_commom_eleme.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/56/152451098_8d1dc5349e.jpg

http://www.nycaddict.com/parks/pics/bryant_park_side_view.jpg

I have to say, do they not have a single completed rendering of this park overhaul available for us to see? Sounds like a lot has been added from what I last saw.

So, who believes that Project 180 is going well?

I think that the overall results of the completed projects are impressive and should be commended. However, I also think that there have been a great many missed opportunities as well.

"Going well?"... If you mean from a programming standpoint and adhering to their own self imposed schedule, not well.

Exactly ... we agree

No we don't. The City or State does something to enhance the living for it's citizens, you moan, groan and complain about everything.

What I would like to see is a very wide art deco fountain on the the main lawn, similar to the Cibeles Fountain in Madrid:
http://www.beautifulhorizons.net/photos/spain_november_2000/fountain_near_atocha.jpg
Instead of having a monument in the middle, there could be a second, appropriately wide, level above it. I've always been disappointed by the lack of fountains in this city compared to the great ones. Obviously it would be hard to pull off the high-shooting water jets because of the wind. The reason more fountains would be good is that people are attracted to parks with two main features: changes in elevation and water features. Considering the image we are fighting of a dusty cow town, a city-wide fountain initiative would be a great way of combating this.

A good large scale statue of Ralph Ellison is definitely needed and this would be the perfect place for it. The style of Robert Graham's monuments could be emulated:
http://www.robertgraham-artist.com/civic_monuments/index.html
Even NYC has an Ellison tribute:http://www.nycgovparks.org/art-and-antiquities/monuments/black-history-month/invisible-man

Then then all that would be needed would be to widen the sidewalks to allow for limestone benches shaded by tall hardwood trees.

Questions remain about downtown Oklahoma City public art, street furniture (http://newsok.com/questions-remain-about-downtown-oklahoma-city-public-art-street-furniture/article/3642856#ixzz1kLC3CkYF)

Key decision makers overseeing the reconstruction of downtown Oklahoma City have yet to address what is to be done with existing public art and street furniture.

BY STEVE LACKMEYER slackmeyer@opubco.com
Published: January 24, 2012

Downtown is, without a doubt, “under construction.” And as noted previously, the pain associated with the closing of streets, the noise, and the sheer volume of contractors' vehicles taking up precious parking is all a part of creating an even better urban core for future generations.

If you balanced your non-stop negativity and criticism of everything then people would take you seriously, but you have no balance. No one wants to shoot you. They just want you to quit bringing only the negative half of every message.

Fair enough. If my posts are factually incorrect, please feel free to post the correct information. I admit I was being a bit sarcastic in the post you responded too (sorry if that wasn't clear, but things don't always translate), but the truth is, that is what will most likely happen as we have seen it happen time and again. The "negative half" as you put it is to counter-balance those on this forum who are from the Pollyanna-leadership-can-do-no-wrong types. Those that refuse to face the hard and cold facts. What I try to do is to correct misinformation that gets posted, often because the person making the statement is not aware of the facts. If that comes across as being negative, I am open to suggestions on how to improve.

My apologies to RCJunkie, as I thought mistakenly thought he was talking about the "Same Song--Same Dance" we have been getting from City leadership over the years/decades. The faces change but they keep playing the same tune. As soon as they change the song and play something that I can dance to, then I will change as well. Until then....

Larry,

Why don't you run for a seat on the council so you can fix things ?

No need. I am in Councilman Shadid's ward and he represnts most of my views.

No need. I am in Councilman Shadid's ward and he represnts most of my views.

Fair enough.

No need. I am in Councilman Shadid's ward and he represnts most of my views.

Of course, if you were to move to another ward, run and win, there would be two of you on the horseshoe. Your politico could use another voice at times.

Everyone has a part to play and maybe Larry's is not on the City Council. For every General there are thousands of foot soldiers. Each one plays their part. Should people not complain or offer input unless they are willing to run for local office? If that is the case OKCTalk might as well shut down.

With all the rumors of another tower immediately following Devon completion, is it reasonable to expect another TIF, similar to what was setup for Devon, would be established, for use to complete Project 180 and them some? Or I guess the same TIF would be used? And wouldn't the timing work out okay if a similar TIF-backed loan was taken out by the city upon the announcement of the new tower? I don't know anything about this stuff, so pardon the ignorance if this is an impractical question based on false logic.

Great question.

With all the rumors of another tower immediately following Devon completion, is it reasonable to expect another TIF, similar to what was setup for Devon, would be established, for use to complete Project 180 and them some? Or I guess the same TIF would be used? And wouldn't the timing work out okay if a similar TIF-backed loan was taken out by the city upon the announcement of the new tower? I don't know anything about this stuff, so pardon the ignorance if this is an impractical question based on false logic.

I would expect the city would at least discus the options with making their own. Devon's TIF could not be used, it is bound to the property they built on, but in any case their is one that covers old i40 to NW 13th & i235 to Western anyway if the rumored tower owner does not wish to create a new one.

With all the rumors of another tower immediately following Devon completion, is it reasonable to expect another TIF, similar to what was setup for Devon, would be established, for use to complete Project 180 and them some? Or I guess the same TIF would be used? And wouldn't the timing work out okay if a similar TIF-backed loan was taken out by the city upon the announcement of the new tower? I don't know anything about this stuff, so pardon the ignorance if this is an impractical question based on false logic.

It depends where it's built downtown. If its in a pre-existing TIF district or not.

I agree, great questions and I hope somewhere in my reply is an answer. LOL

The Devon TIF was carved out of an existing TIF, so it would most likely be shifting money from one pile to another for any new potential tower. Also, remember that the City was advanced around $100 million dollar line of credit by Devon (instead of using a bank) to facilitate the prompt completion of P180 by the time Devon's tower opened. Steve Lackmeyer has done a few articles/blogs detailing it. Here's one:
Robinson to be 1st Devon project (Oklahoman, 10/15/09)

The agreement between the city and Devon calls for improvements throughout the central business district to be completed by when the tower is open in 2013.
Why the time element to complete P180 is no longer important, who knows? The "advanced" money from Devon is borrowed money itself (that has to be paid back with interest). They are going to use the revenue stream from the Devon TIF (itself borrowed money) that is to be paid back with the anticipated rise is appraised value of the property some years down the road. This article indicates that Devon is exempt from the TIF for the first 5 years and lasts for 25 years. Then when the TIF expires, the tax monies are to revert back to their usual recipients (schools, etc).
TIF district proposed to support Devon Tower (Journal Record, 12/3/08)

The district, the eighth created in the city, would last 25 years and tap into ad valorem and construction sales tax revenues. And it would be composed only of the Devon property, already within an existing TIF district.

O’Connor said the plan is based on several assumptions, including an expectation that Devon will pay at least $11 million per year in ad valorem taxes once the building is open. Although Devon wouldn’t generate ad valorem in the first five years of the plan, it would still pay about $20 million in city sales taxes during the construction phase. With a combination of cash already on hand, an unspecified amount of debt at 6-8 percent interest rates...

http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2012/02/03/care-to-weigh-in-time-is-running-out/

Vote: Move Forward with Civic Center Park Makeover or Redesign? (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2012/02/04/vote-move-forward-with-civic-center-park-makeover-or-redesign/)

A Close Look at the Civic Center Spinner Tower (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2012/02/04/a-close-look-at-the-civic-center-spinner-tower/)

One of the features of the proposed makeover is a series of “spinner towers” that would be funded through private donations. It just so happens that one of these towers is on display outside of architect Rand Elliott’s offices at 6th and Harrison.

I have been following all of this coming out lately, my silence on the issue has mostly been because I don't yet know how I feel about it. I am still waiting to here more facts, see more info, and I'm curious what other people think should be done.

The one thing I know, and strongly believe, is that somehow this public space has to be showcased and turned into a landmark space. Right now, Bicentennial Park is an enormous opportunity we just aren't taking advantage. The existing monuments are a little dated and underwhelming, and I do much favor updating the monuments as Rand proposes, but I want to see a plan for reusing the monuments and keeping anything that IS important where it is.

I also would like to see some of the greenery be reused in a new landscaping masterplan. I understand that some of it is just out of sync, is beyond pruning, but I firmly believe that no serious thought was given to landscape preservation to begin with. Instead of starting off with baby tree planters, I would love to see a new scheme that takes advantage of those big mature oak trees.

I love the linear visual elements of Rand's proposal though (I hope I am being fair to both sides). Rand has an excellent understanding of this space as a very linear public park. The dominant sense is lines everywhere, with the streetwall (or what should be the streetwall), the skyline peering over (tall lines), a very linear Couch Circle, and so on. The existing configuration almost tries to defy the linear nature and feel of the site, so we definitely need a divorce from that, and I do think it will involve relocating some monuments elsewhere downtown and losing SOME trees.

Does anyone know where I could find every rendering that exists for Bicentennial Park?

History of the Civic Center via our good friend Doug.

http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/01/civic-center.html

What a mess.

http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2012/02/08/a-question-of-priorities/

On the plus side, the Mayor found "multiple millions" for a little project on the south riverbank. Alas, if you think things are fun now, wait until the new employees for SandRidge and Continental show up. Hopefully this will all be done by the time Company X moves into Mystery Tower.

Where is the leadership from Mayor Cornett? He's been silent on the matter.

Where is the leadership from Mayor Cornett? He's been silent on the matter.

crickets...

I'm not sure that the mayor or the council fully understand or have been apprised of what is going on. I have not seen a single soul go to council to publicly speak on the matter.

It may have the blog community outraged, but I might suggest that all may not have the time to comb through OKC TALK or OKC CENTRAL.

Perhaps some of you might get away from your computer and speak up personally if you have opinions about P180 staff priorities and implementation.

this would be terrible .. we need to get the street to 2 way as quickly as possible ...

Regarding the mayor, when the last P180 update was given at the city council meeting, he was quick to stick up for the city staff, brushing off Shadid's pointed questions with "something had to come first". It was a silly non-answer to a specific question: Why was EK Gaylord (and other main thoroughfares) cut in favor of other, less-traveled streets?

The way this was presented to the council is completely outrageous. First of all, the issues were only recently presented and after just about the entire budget had already been committed. Secondly, the presentation was incredibly deceptive. Keep in mind the council has sometimes almost one hundred items on their agenda and they rely on the two other sub-committees (Devon TIF and latest version of OCURA) and the full-time city staff to stay on top of these things.

Read these quotes from Eric Wegner (city staff) and remind yourself what he is presenting is a more than 40% reduction in work that will be completed:


“The scope has been slightly adjusted”

“As we've present today, we have made the same delivery to those two other groups” (Read: the two oversight committees are already okay with this)

“Also unchanged is the project area of Project 180, it's always included the areas bound by NW 6th and SW 2nd, Lee Avenue to EK Galord” (only 40% of that area will be complete with the current budget).

“Those streets are not necessarily out of the scope but are going to be considered as future work at a later date and we've actually identified some of those in the brown color” (Future work?? They have absolutely no money to do these streets under the current budget.)

“After that (Package 6) I would not tell you that Project 180 is complete, we are going to be working with new revenues but this is going to be taking more time” (More revenues means only one thing: more tax dollars.)

To add to my previous post...

What the city staff is doing with this project is a crazy shell game.

Project 180 was initially approved to do a specific scope of work for a specific budget. They want to give the appearance all this will still get done but what they are not saying is that it will cost almost twice what was budgeted.

You can't keep moving the line when you report on a specific project. Updates should ALWAYS be given in comparison to original scope and budget! This is how it is done in the real world, I assure you.

Imagine going to your boss to get a project approved then two years later saying, "We're still on track. It's just half what we promised is going to be future work to be completed at an undetermined time and with money we don't have. But it will definitely get done, you just need to give me double the money. Oh, and by the way, we've done as much as we've can for now and it's too late to change our priorities which will leave almost everything partially complete."

Any self-respecting business person would ask:

Why are you just telling me this now when you've clearly been over budget from the outset?
Why did you make multiple presentations over the last two years without reporting against budget (I should never allowed this)?
Why did you continue to tackle low-priority projects when you knew you were running out of money?
Explain why you decided to start new initiatives without being able to finish the important ones already commenced?
Do you understand that even if you do get additional funds that all comes out of the same bank account? The one that is used to fund all of our projects? Are you prepared to demonstrate why you should be given money over these other projects, especially when you've demonstrated it can't be done with your own budgets?
If you had accurately budgeted this project at the outset, do you think it would have been approved?

By the way, they will need about another $100 million (!!) to come close to completing the original scope of this project.

They will never, ever get that so in addition to taking tens of millions at the expense of a laundry list of other much-needed projects (quiet zone, AICCM, schools, streets, parks, etc., etc.) we will end up with a patchwork, nowhere near the total transformation promised.

Not to mention the best case scenario will put the "future work" years and years behind schedule.

I'm not sure that the mayor or the council fully understand or have been apprised of what is going on. I have not seen a single soul go to council to publicly speak on the matter.

It may have the blog community outraged, but I might suggest that all may not have the time to comb through OKC TALK or OKC CENTRAL.

Perhaps some of you might get away from your computer and speak up personally if you have opinions about P180 staff priorities and implementation.
Jeff, not all have the luxury such as yourself to be self employed and get away during the day. Most employers strictly do not allow it, and even can be grounds for termination. I'd love to go like I used to, but most employers don't allow flex schedules. If we were like some of the "progressive" cities, the city would hold some of their meetings at night, when the working man can attend.

Furthermore, I don't think it's our job to have to expect the Mayor and council to read this site, but I do think the mayor should be more aware and vocal of things he is responsible for and is the figurehead for our city on, especially high profile projects such as this.

I am not disagreeing with you Metro. But that is your situation. My point still stands that not a single person has shown up out of the dozens that write and hundreds that read. Just say'in.

I don't disagree that it is their responsibility to be informed. But, our elected officials often have full-time jobs as well since they are paid a meager amount for their service. They rely heavily on City Staff and the trust issue is inherent.

Sometimes it takes their constituents to speak up and point out something like Steve just has on OKC Central, that doesn't make sense. Two-way/one-way/two-way streets; I doubt the majority of council is aware of it.

They should rename it Project 90, for the half a&% job the City is doing on this project, this is turning out to be a failure.

They should rename it Project 90, for the half a&% job the City is doing on this project, this is turning out to be a failure.

LOL, good one. Something I can agree with you on.

So problem identified - how do you solve it?

Can the remaining streets be converted to two way without have to reconstruct the streets?

If you check Steve's blog, it sounds like the city is now open to resolving this problem.

I don't understand why the City can't use G.O. bonds to finish Project 180. Project 180 falls under Public Works, which is funded by G.O. bonds.

Moreover, according to the City's CIP or Capital Improvement Plan for FY11 - FY15, it shows the City will spend $20 million on a new WiFi system replacement in FY14-FY15, so whats more important WiFi or good streets?

If you check Steve's blog, it sounds like the city is now open to resolving this problem.

Maybe. If you look at the comment left by Ed Shadid, where he was leaving an answer provided by public works, it could be seen as an attempt to set up an excuse for more delays. But in my years of covering these things, I've seen time and time again where a "study" is actually code for "send it into a dark, murky abyss where it will die or linger for years until we're ready to deal with it." In this case, the city's public works department was supposed to have studied the heck out of this matter since they were first instructed by council to do so in 1999. After more than a decade of study, what's left?

Yeah, the study this is totally silly because there certainly seemed to be no problem when the plan was to complete the original scope of P180 -- two-way streets and all -- by 2014.

All that has changed is they have run out of money.


Keep at 'em Steve! Great job by you... I love the obvious increased latitude of your new management team.

LOL. I was working for Downtown OKC Inc in 2000, and we hosted a meeting where public works unveiled the study and their plans for eliminating all of the one-ways. It was all very exciting. The day I legally drive south down the length of Walker is the day I will believe that it's ever actually going to be two-way.

What do you think Larry Nichols thinks about Project 90?

What do you think Larry Nichols thinks about Project 90?

As long as the land between Devon Tower and the new CC is done he is probably good with it.

Pete, you should rename this thread Project 90, lol.

Pete, you should rename this thread Project 90, lol.

I had earlier proposed P108 (60% x 180 per Pete's earlier calculations) but I guess we're down to P72 now (40% x 180). Perhaps we can have "and a bit" if we're lucky.

BoulderSooner just pointed out on the Devon thread that Project 180 is now paying for the connection of Devon Tower to the skywalk system.

About a year ago, the Downtown Design Review committee approved plans to link the Devon rotunda to a dedicated walkway through the third level of the City Center East garage then connecting to the skywalk that leads into Oklahoma Tower and the Underground system.

Originally budgeted at $605,000 this has now ballooned to $750,000 and will be paid for by Project 180 tax dollars. I never saw anything in any of the P180 presentations or definition of scope that mentioned this project and it doesn't make sense to include it. P180 was for parks and streets not things that would actually detract from street activity.

This has not yet been approved by City Council. Perhaps this money should be put towards finishing a street or two??

Pete, you should rename this thread Project 90, lol.

And he did too!! ROAR!!
That's hilarious Pete!

Just saw in a revised budget approved by the mayor in July 2011 that in addition to the $750K to build an air conditioned corridor through the City Center East garage, there is also $1.75 million budgeted for pedestrian access on the east side of that garage.

I suppose this is for the area between the garage, Corporate Tower and IRS building. Again, I never saw this as part of the original P180 plans.

My 2¢. Abandon doing anything to Civic Center Park at this time. Any money that was to be used for it should go to the street projects. CCP can wait!