Pete, Hudson west of Devon.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8287/7762366806_74e83034ff.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbridgesokc/7762366806/)
Hudson Ave. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbridgesokc/7762366806/) by Matthew Bridges (http://www.flickr.com/people/mattbridgesokc/), on Flickr
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7275/7762367234_4601280065.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbridgesokc/7762367234/)
Hudson Ave (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbridgesokc/7762367234/) by Matthew Bridges (http://www.flickr.com/people/mattbridgesokc/), on Flickr
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8286/7762366388_ba599f57ca.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbridgesokc/7762366388/)
Hudson Ave. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbridgesokc/7762366388/) by Matthew Bridges (http://www.flickr.com/people/mattbridgesokc/), on Flickr
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8440/7762367830_cb17b7ddef.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbridgesokc/7762367830/)
Hudson Ave (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbridgesokc/7762367830/) by Matthew Bridges (http://www.flickr.com/people/mattbridgesokc/), on Flickr
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8429/7762368202_d4ef983b66.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbridgesokc/7762368202/)
Hudson Ave (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbridgesokc/7762368202/) by Matthew Bridges (http://www.flickr.com/people/mattbridgesokc/), on Flickr
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8434/7762368694_a848c3287d.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbridgesokc/7762368694/)
Hudson Ave (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbridgesokc/7762368694/) by Matthew Bridges (http://www.flickr.com/people/mattbridgesokc/), on Flickr
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8439/7762369196_3af2fd5987.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbridgesokc/7762369196/)
Main & Hudson (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbridgesokc/7762369196/) by Matthew Bridges (http://www.flickr.com/people/mattbridgesokc/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8439/7762369196_3af2fd5987.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbridgesokc/7762369196/)
Main & Hudson (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbridgesokc/7762369196/) by Matthew Bridges (http://www.flickr.com/people/mattbridgesokc/), on Flickr

I drove down Main Street the other day for no particular reason... and I was like, "Thank God!... It's about time."

Anyone know why they're digging up the previously completed corner of Main and Robinson?

These are from the P180 Facebook page.

I believe they are newer, reflecting the final design (after adding back some of the monuments and deleting the spinning towers):


http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/395902_514507211899240_1710508287_n.jpg

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/200797_514507588565869_751569971_n.jpg

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/533229_514507685232526_2063606994_n.jpg

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/391443_514507751899186_1142037813_n.jpg

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/3389_514508511899110_1825863399_n.jpg

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/200814_514509721898989_853782683_n.jpg

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/540254_514510018565626_311402253_n.jpg

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/304627_514510685232226_1030243290_n.jpg

Looks like a memorial.

I really like these renderings and am excited to see the final product. I do wish they had left the older trees, but what's done is done.

The trees that were removed won't be missed nearly so much if trees of the caliper shown in the drawings are planted.

Looks like a memorial.

Indeed

It looks as if there are some kind of metal canopies on the SW & NW corners of the park.

Some pretty respected posters seem okay with it so I'm probably off base here, but... it just seems pretty boring. I guess it doesn't seem like a big enough change to spend all this money completely redoing the park. Why are others excited about (e.g., specific features)?

I'm not excited. Personally, I believe they should have kept Project 180 money on the streets but they haven't. I can't really do anything about that. The park is blah and honestly I laughed at the rendering with the old couple on the bench cause unless there is to be a senior wellness center a block from here, there isn't gonna be any old couples kickin it at this park.

Some pretty respected posters seem okay with it so I'm probably off base here, but... it just seems pretty boring. I guess it doesn't seem like a big enough change to spend all this money completely redoing the park. Why are others excited about (e.g., specific features)?

That was my thought. It's not bad, but it just doesn't seem much better than what was there before. I can't see myself saying, "hey, let's go sit in Bicentenial Park."

I'm not a respected poster, but I like the new renderings a lot more than the older ones. Agree that it could have been better, though.

It seems like we could have spent a fraction of the budget and just spiffed up what was already in place.

Simply deleting the silly spinners is a vast improvement. This looks much better and more fitting of its location. I hope money will be spent on getting the most mature trees possible - and hopefully they will live.

It seems like we could have spent a fraction of the budget and just spiffed up what was already in place.

Exactly what I thought.

Yes, by the time they made all the compromises, many of the elements had been removed and most the plaques and memorials were going to stay.

Hopefully it will look really slick when finished and will feel worth the expense and trouble.

Still, it's a big improvement over the original depictions. Not all of our downtown parks areas have to be high activity.

just a note but the west side sidewalk between main and park has been removed and is almost back in and will be up to full p180 standards ..

confused. I thought they were pulling the meorials and spreading them around town to other small parks.

As for this design, for me it is not so much that this is spectacular as it is that this doesn't sharply inhale rotting goose snot the way the earlier proposal did. Was not a fan.

They relocated some of the statues, although looking at the new design I'm not sure why they couldn't have just included those as well.

Electronic signs have been installed at Bicentennial Park:

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/386849_519121234771171_2022442491_n.jpg

Pete, I thought that was previously at the park?

No, these are similar but new.

Here are the old ones:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7185/6819206380_f7af18e7a7_b.jpg

Those signs do nothing for me.

The same could be said for the entire project for me.

I hope those look better in person because they look terrible on the internet. It is a shame that with all the 1920/30's architecture in the area they couldn't make a park to match it.

I like the new sign quite a bit. Its less authoritative and more stylish than the old one. It seems inspired by a marquee-type sign. It builds the streetwall and could encourage activity.

I hope those look better in person because they look terrible on the internet. It is a shame that with all the 1920/30's architecture in the area they couldn't make a park to match it.

It's almost like Back to the Future Part II...old town square with future out of this world signage, lol.

I hope those look better in person because they look terrible on the internet. It is a shame that with all the 1920/30's architecture in the area they couldn't make a park to match it.
I thought they did, if you look at the renderings, the landscaping mimiced the art deco patterns in the buildings.

I thought they did, if you look at the renderings, the landscaping mimiced the art deco patterns in the buildings.

You might be right Larry, I haven't seen it at ground level. All I have seen are aerial rendition and construction photos. However, those electronic signs are definately NOT art-deco.

I was by there yesterday and they didn't look bad.

As it takes shape, the park seems to be using clean sweeping sleek lines using elevations and walls with traditional materials to complement the actual civic center's clean deco like lines. Like many modern structures that recall the deco style, it seems to keep the essence, while not totally replicating it. It is a long way from finished, but still too early to declare the design a success or failure. And I think looking at it live is very different than looking at it on a screen. Like everything, looking at the signs out of context is misconceiving. Once the park is complete and the landscape semi-mature, and we go visit and use it, then we will be able to render a totally fair opinion.

JTF: it was the aerial renderings that I was talking about and from what I have seen of it, it is similar...the sweeping arcs of the landscaping were reflective of the pattern in some of the windows(?) but probably can't see it too much from ground level though...I do agree about the signage...just doesn't match...but it is an attempt of mixing old with the new? It can be done well but isn't always the easiest thing to pull off and make it look right.

Agree with Rover with this one at this point.

From today:

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/582585_520010274682267_1679954063_n.jpg

You might be right Larry, I haven't seen it at ground level. All I have seen are aerial rendition and construction photos. However, those electronic signs are definately NOT art-deco.

You are correct. The signs are not art deco. They are modern, which is an evolution of the principles of art deco. It is difficult to apply modernist elements to an art-deco environment in a way that isn't beautiful. They naturally work well together. You could think of modernism as a more mature, essential progression of art deco. As a professional designer and an architecture enthusiast, I would have sought a similar style for the signs and the park as a whole. They have done a wonderful job revitalizing the space consistent with its style and heritage.

I was by there yesterday and they didn't look bad.

As it takes shape, the park seems to be using clean sweeping sleek lines using elevations and walls with traditional materials to complement the actual civic center's clean deco like lines. Like many modern structures that recall the deco style, it seems to keep the essence, while not totally replicating it. It is a long way from finished, but still too early to declare the design a success or failure. And I think looking at it live is very different than looking at it on a screen. Like everything, looking at the signs out of context is misconceiving. Once the park is complete and the landscape semi-mature, and we go visit and use it, then we will be able to render a totally fair opinion.

Exactly. Well put.

You are correct. The signs are not art deco. They are modern, which is an evolution of the principles of art deco. It is difficult to apply modernist elements to an art-deco environment in a way that isn't beautiful. They naturally work well together. You could think of modernism as a more mature, essential progression of art deco. As a professional designer and an architecture enthusiast, I would have sought a similar style for the signs and the park as a whole. They have done a wonderful job revitalizing the space consistent with its style and heritage.

You wouldn't by chance have any links to pictures of a true art-deco park would you. I have looked everywhere and can't find any. At best all I get are pictures of some metal sidewalk fixtures that go around trees. Both MGM Studios and Universal Studios have Art-Deco sections but no park space in those areas.

http://curiouscat.com/travels/2006/newyorkcity/images/picture_066.jpg

From today...

Love all the rapid progress but it begs the question: Why are they so incredibly slow on every other P180 project???

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/557289_520582697958358_1410100018_n.jpg

I did just find this but it is a former amusement park

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2385/2475300874_f13fd9708f.jpg

From today...

Love all the rapid progress but it begs the question: Why are they so incredibly slow on every other P180 project???



Because when it's completed, they can say they've finished a major component of the project.

Pete: may have had something to do with the urgency of getting it done because the Civic Center Music Hall has an "important" anniversary coming up and they wanted it to be completed by then? At least that is what was reported when the fuss was raised about the earlier design (that some board in the City turned down).

You wouldn't by chance have any links to pictures of a true art-deco park would you. I have looked everywhere and can't find any. At best all I get are pictures of some metal sidewalk fixtures that go around trees. Both MGM Studios and Universal Studios have Art-Deco sections but no park space in those areas.

http://curiouscat.com/travels/2006/newyorkcity/images/picture_066.jpg
Was that pic taken at the Disney/MGM? Wouldn't be surprised at all since Disney is known for details like that, that most don't ever notice

Was that pic taken at the Disney/MGM? Wouldn't be surprised at all since Disney is known for details like that, that most don't ever notice

That is in NYC. I could be wrong but I don't think Bicentinal Park is going to have anything like this. I also wish they could have taken the lamp posts that are in front of the Civic Center and used them around the park.

More progress at Bicentennial Park:

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/603348_523282781021683_743184749_n.jpg

From today...

Love all the rapid progress but it begs the question: Why are they so incredibly slow on every other P180 project???

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/557289_520582697958358_1410100018_n.jpg

This one began with intense scrutiny and they got it over people's dead bodies by demanding an expedited time table...sound similar?

This will look fabulous, mainly because of the surrounding space itself though. We will never get to see what a primo design would have yielded for this environment, but it will be good enough..

I'm a bit perplexed by all the complaining about the park. I was saddened by the loss of all the great, old trees, but what exactly would constitute this primo design you speak of?

I'm really looking forward to the finished product.

I hated to see all the mature trees go but am really optimistic about this turning out great.

Here's a shot from a couple of years ago, for comparison:

http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1031/4733456745_090b16c46e_b_d.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bjmccray/4733456745/in/photostream/)

I think it looked pretty good as it was. Lots of lovely, mature trees. The new look will be more formal and stately, I guess.

I believe part of the issue is that many existing trees around town are less than optimal in terms of species, spacing, etc.

Almost all the trees in OKC were planted, not naturally grown. Landscape architecture is now much more sophisticated and much more is known about the right types of trees for various settings and climates.


As an example, my family bought a home near 63rd & Meridian in the early 60's and there were no trees on our lot or anywhere else in the neighborhood. 50 years later, almost all the trees that were planted are gone, as many became diseased, were planted too close to the homes, or couldn't hold up to the weather.

When we sold our house in the late 80's, there were 8 huge trees on our lot. Now, only one remains.

To paraphrase James Kunstler - the antidote to bad urban design isn't the introduction of nature - it is better urban design. As Pete said, tree in the urban part of OKC were planted without rhyme or reason. They just plopped them down wherever and hoped they lived. The trees in the original park didn’t define any space, it just looked like a forest (much like the area in front of Sandridge now).

You wouldn't by chance have any links to pictures of a true art-deco park would you. I have looked everywhere and can't find any. At best all I get are pictures of some metal sidewalk fixtures that go around trees. Both MGM Studios and Universal Studios have Art-Deco sections but no park space in those areas.

http://curiouscat.com/travels/2006/newyorkcity/images/picture_066.jpg

Sorry, no. Haven't looked for anything like that in particular. I'm actually not a big fan of the early, overly-decorative art-deco. The fixture in this photo is wonderful though!

I think it looked pretty good as it was. Lots of lovely, mature trees. The new look will be more formal and stately, I guess.

Does anyone know how large a tree can be transplanted with a decent chance of survival? I think I recall during the uproar over the redesign someone stating they were going to plant large trees in the new park. I wonder how large is large?

When I lived in Florida, Disney used some new stuff too but they also incorporated some rather massive mature trees as well. Course they had the resources to not only secure the tree but to make sure it was maintained as well. Why spend thousands on a tree just to let it die because it didnt get the proper care?

Does anyone know how large a tree can be transplanted with a decent chance of survival? I think I recall during the uproar over the redesign someone stating they were going to plant large trees in the new park. I wonder how large is large?

A spade truck can move about a 30' oak tree, but that is one third to one half the size of a mature tree.

Does anyone know how large a tree can be transplanted with a decent chance of survival? I think I recall during the uproar over the redesign someone stating they were going to plant large trees in the new park. I wonder how large is large?

I've seen trees relocated that were much larger than the largest ones in the photo above from a couple of years ago. I know next to nothing about trees, but I would suspect size is not the only factor. Different species would likely cope differently and have different demands.

I am going to hope for the best. Despite many people's understandable misgivings about the park redesign, I think it may turn out well in the end. I hope they will invest in planting the largest trees possible and the effort to keep them alive. If they do that, I think most people will be pleased with the end result. With a few notable exceptions, the city has done a pretty good job with most projects when all is said and done.

you can move pretty much any tree .. it just cost a ton of money the bigger the tree

You may remember that during the Myriad Gardens reconstruction they pulled a bunch of large trees and stored them on-site by crating a big root ball.

However, I'm sure with Bicentennial Park they wanted to completely replace the various species and do things from the ground-up, for the reasons I mentioned earlier.

I agree, Pete. I've seen the same thing done in Southern California with two ~60-foot oaks in a suburban residential development that were moved from their original position (where houses were to be built) to a neighborhood park built nearby. They were crated for several months in crates about 15-feet square and 10-foot tall. I heard from a friend in city government in an adjacent city that it cost a couple hundred thousand dollars per tree and that relocating trees that size is a highly specialized service provided by only a handful of companies world-wide.

New trees already going in at Bicentennial Park:

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/393223_525667810783180_2009591310_n.jpg