They are really moving right along.

They had a stated goal of substantially finishing the park before the Civic Center's 75th anniversary celebration, and that's only in two weeks: Sept. 27th.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A2ryt_ZCcAMoUZi.jpg:large

Not withstanding, can they finish Couch & Colcord Drives at the same time?

Panorama from the doors of the Civic Center today.

2629


(obviously panorama mode is not perfect as I notice two art museums in this pic)

From today... think they'll make their Sept. 27th deadine? That's one week from today.

This project commenced at the end of March which means it will have been completed -- including the surrounding roads and sidewalks -- in about six months.

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/398990_530886680261293_995976737_n.jpg

I was across the street at City Hall yesterday and the park is looking pretty good. They spent some bucks on fairly large trees and that will help immensely. I think it is going to turn out very nice even though I hated to see to mature trees go.

This one made me do a "spit take"....

Maestro Joel Levine commended the audience for making it through the construction to the music hall. He then noted that our sun will die in 4 billion years. “It's a shame,” he said. “that Project 180 will have to be finished in the dark.”
Read more: Project 180's progress seems slow to some | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/project-180s-progress-seems-slow-to-some/article/3711793#ixzz27RG4YGjb)

Hahahahahaha!

Strikes a painfully funny cord.

That was only Mr. Levine's most recent P180 slam from the podium. MAPS 4 will apparently include new tires and allignment for the citizens of OKC. Also, if you are looking for the conductor statue (of Mr. Levine) that was moved for the park renovation, it's in his front yard.

I noticed that they are making the two outside lanes of Walker into parking/bicycle lanes.... Is it just me or does taking a former 4 lane one-way street and turning it into a 2 lane two-way street a bad idea?

I noticed that they are making the two outside lanes of Walker into parking/bicycle lanes.... Is it just me or does taking a former 4 lane one-way street and turning it into a 2 lane two-way street a bad idea?

A bad idea for whom, the person who lives close enough to work to ride a bike, or the person who chooses to live 20 miles from work and has to drive?

I noticed that they are making the two outside lanes of Walker into parking/bicycle lanes.... Is it just me or does taking a former 4 lane one-way street and turning it into a 2 lane two-way street a bad idea?

Just you.

I noticed that they are making the two outside lanes of Walker into parking/bicycle lanes.... Is it just me or does taking a former 4 lane one-way street and turning it into a 2 lane two-way street a bad idea?

Did you ever see how little traffic was on it throughout the day, even when it had an interstate interchange, now that it does not it has even less need to have that much priority paid to cars.

So walker finally being converted to 2 way the whole way?

The Civic Center's big 75th anniversary celebration is this Thursday.

The goal was to substantially complete Bicentennial Park and the surrounding streets by this date.

I bet there are tons of workers in that area trying to make that happen this week.

From today...

Bedding plants going in. Can they finish by Thursday??

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/550438_533430843340210_1720159490_n.jpg

They can throw some stuff in there and complete it with 1 second to go BUT to do it right...no.

They can throw some stuff in there and complete it with 1 second to go BUT to do it right...no.

You said exactly what was worrying me. Sure they can have it look done by Thursday, but I think it's going to be shoddy because they rushed to get it done.

I think most of what they have left is installing bedding plants and sod.

Most the hardscape is done and what remains can go very fast if need be.


I'm sure they'll have plenty of finishing touches afterwards. Exciting to see it all come together so fast.

I only see it at 7:00 to 7:30 in the morning as I'm coming to work and right now it's backing up at that time with the current 2 lane two way.

It gets worse when the people that park in the garage across the street from the City office in the middle of Walker cross there instead of waddling their wide bodies on down to the crosswalk and stoplight the taxpayers provided for them.

Right now the majority of traffic is funneling down Robinson or Western but once the boulevard is in place and traffic spreads across the downtown streets... I can see potential for traffic backups.

I could be wrong I guess. I've only been in the civil engineering field for 20 some odd years. Maybe in 20 more I'll know what I'm talking about.

I only see it at 7:00 to 7:30 in the morning as I'm coming to work and right now it's backing up at that time with the current 2 lane two way.

It gets worse when the people that park in the garage across the street from the City office in the middle of Walker cross there instead of waddling their wide bodies on down to the crosswalk and stoplight the taxpayers provided for them.

Right now the majority of traffic is funneling down Robinson or Western but once the boulevard is in place and traffic spreads across the downtown streets... I can see potential for traffic backups.

I could be wrong I guess. I've only been in the civil engineering field for 20 some odd years. Maybe in 20 more I'll know what I'm talking about.

With all due respect, as an engineer you are more concerned with how fast you can move the most volume of cars. We are more about how fast you can move a pedestrian through downtown while at the same time keeping a sufficient supply of capacity for vehicle traffic. Giving the entire street over to vehicular traffic is great for motorists but absolutely horrible for pedestrians...humans.

I only see it at 7:00 to 7:30 in the morning as I'm coming to work and right now it's backing up at that time with the current 2 lane two way.

It gets worse when the people that park in the garage across the street from the City office in the middle of Walker cross there instead of waddling their wide bodies on down to the crosswalk and stoplight the taxpayers provided for them.

Right now the majority of traffic is funneling down Robinson or Western but once the boulevard is in place and traffic spreads across the downtown streets... I can see potential for traffic backups.

I could be wrong I guess. I've only been in the civil engineering field for 20 some odd years. Maybe in 20 more I'll know what I'm talking about.

Shocking that an engineer would want more space for cars. That seems to be a reoccuring theme. Problem Solving 101 - move closer to work, maybe even close enough you don't need to drive a car at all. Let me guess, you are a Tea Partier that hates government spending unless it is to provide you with 4 comfy lanes for your driving enjoyment and a massive standing army ready to ensure the free flow of global oil at market prices (whatever market price means).

All joking aside... downtown is being transformed to cater to people who want to live there, not for people who visit for 8 hours a day.

Shocking that an engineer would want more space for cars. That seems to be a reoccuring theme. Problem Solving 101 - move closer to work, maybe even close enough you don't need to drive a car at all. Let me guess, you are a Tea Partier that hates government spending unless it is to provide you with 4 comfy lanes for your driving enjoyment and a massive standing army ready to ensure the free flow of global oil at market prices (whatever market price means).

All joking aside... downtown is being transformed to cater to people who want to live there, not for people who visit for 8 hours a day.

I do not believe that personal attacks such as these have a place in the forum. It is not right to condemn someone who disagrees with you.

I do not believe that personal attacks such as these have a place in the forum. It is not right to condemn someone who disagrees with you.

I agree. It does the "new urbanism" cause no good to attack those who do not agree. A better approach would be to explain the differences and let the individual weigh it in their mind. A lightbulb will either go off or it won't, but that doesn't mean they are incapable of understanding.

Sorry - my apologies to OK BBQ Eater. I need to include those smiley things more often. I did use the All Joking Aside statement if that helps.

All joking aside... downtown is being transformed to cater to people who want to live there, not for people who visit for 8 hours a day.

I wish it was 8 hours a day... I work for a living. I don't belong to a union.

@wschnitt - It's ok. Personal attacks only come from the ones that can't make a valid argument. If it's all you've got it's all you've got.

I personally have nothing against making our city more pedestrian and bicycle friendly. If there was a bike lane on I-35. I would ride my bike from Moore to downtown OKC to work. I also never once said I was against any of the changes. But from a realistic point of view. I see a potential for traffic problems when you narrow a 4 lane one-way to a 2 lane two-way. Thus the question I posed. Does anyone else think that it was a bad idea?

Sorry - my apologies to OK BBQ Eater. I need to include those smiley things more often. I did use the All Joking Aside statement if that helps.

Most of it was pretty inappropriate in jest as well. It's good to avoid alienating people based on things that are simply a part of who they are, such as profession or political views. In fact, your attack of "Tea Partiers" was completely out of context and unnecessary. OK BBQ Eater Anonymous didn't say anything that would have remotely indicated his political leanings.

I wish it was 8 hours a day... I work for a living. I don't belong to a union.

@wschnitt - It's ok. Personal attacks only come from the ones that can't make a valid argument. If it's all you've got it's all you've got.

I personally have nothing against making our city more pedestrian and bicycle friendly. If there was a bike lane on I-35 I would ride my bike from Moore to downtown OKC to work. I also never once said I was against any of the changes. But from a realistic point of view. I see a potential for traffic problems when you narrow a 4 lane one-way to a 2 lane two-way. Thus the question I posed. Does anyone else think that it was a bad idea?

As a union employee I will ignore your union comment, I also work for a living and work up to 16 hour days in the brutal Oklahoma weather all day long. That's a topic for a different thread, though.

I visit very dense urban downtowns very frequently (I travel very often across the country) and based on pure observation, they have just as much lane capacity as we do in the immediate downtown core, and have exponentially more people than we do working living and playing in their downtowns. I can't see with our current situation any reason to have more capacity than say downtown Chicago or San Francisco.

For full disclosure - I am a card carrying member of the Tea Party.

But from a realistic point of view. I see a potential for traffic problems when you narrow a 4 lane one-way to a 2 lane two-way. Thus the question I posed. Does anyone else think that it was a bad idea?

It's a possibility. I hope it won't be a problem. On the other hand, I think there may be an element of desiring to discourage traffic and to lower traffic speeds in order to contribute to a more relaxed ambiance in front of the Civic Center. If that's the goal, the hope is that there will be a decrease of drivers using it as a thoroughfare and that other streets can take up the slack.

I wish it was 8 hours a day... I work for a living. I don't belong to a union.

@wschnitt - It's ok. Personal attacks only come from the ones that can't make a valid argument. If it's all you've got it's all you've got.

I personally have nothing against making our city more pedestrian and bicycle friendly. If there was a bike lane on I-35. I would ride my bike from Moore to downtown OKC to work. I also never once said I was against any of the changes. But from a realistic point of view. I see a potential for traffic problems when you narrow a 4 lane one-way to a 2 lane two-way. Thus the question I posed. Does anyone else think that it was a bad idea?

No. I think it's an idea that is overdue. Most of the problems on Walker have stemmed from the construction narrowing. These will dissipate upon completion. Not disparaging your career, but the "let's move traffic as fast as humanly possible" paradigm is finally shifting.

For full disclosure - I am a card carrying member of the Tea Party.

OMG.

For a tea partier, you have very sensible ideas about investment in government infrastructure.

I wish it was 8 hours a day... I work for a living. I don't belong to a union.

@wschnitt - It's ok. Personal attacks only come from the ones that can't make a valid argument. If it's all you've got it's all you've got.

I personally have nothing against making our city more pedestrian and bicycle friendly. If there was a bike lane on I-35. I would ride my bike from Moore to downtown OKC to work. I also never once said I was against any of the changes. But from a realistic point of view. I see a potential for traffic problems when you narrow a 4 lane one-way to a 2 lane two-way. Thus the question I posed. Does anyone else think that it was a bad idea?

If there were a traffic problem on Walker, I am not saying there is or is not, I believe people would take other streets. As we have a grid system, it would be easy to find another route. But when we have a system of one-ways and super blocks, all traffic is likely to take one route, the designated "highway" streets-Shields, Reno, the old Hudson, the old Walker. But if there are no street that is designated for faster travel, I do not see how one street would have a traffic problem. Unless there is one place that everyone is trying to get to for parking. But even those massive parking decks have several different access points, Devon Garage-Harvey and Hudson, Santa Fe-EK Gaylord&2nd.

I can't see with our current situation any reason to have more capacity than say downtown Chicago or San Francisco.

That's probably true. I vaguely recall seeing something about a study saying Oklahoma City has the street capacity needed for a city with the population of Chicago. Chicago is what, four times bigger than OKC?

This is an important discussion because as much as many here want to see more bike lanes, more mass transit and traffic slowed in the urban core, there are lots of other people that wouldn't necessarily agree.

And since big changes in cities only happen with widespread support, it's always prudent to put forth your points and personal desires in a humble and respectful way. And at the same time, be prepared for many STILL not to agree with you.

OMG.

For a tea partier, you have very sensible ideas about investment in government infrastructure.

Scary isn't it. Hence my comment was actually directed at all my fellow tea partiers; I just choose one post to make the point in. Believe me, when I talk with my fellow right-wingers here in Jax I am stunned how many of them complain about traffic and want more lanes of traffic, as if those additional lanes are free.

It's a possibility. I hope it won't be a problem. On the other hand, I think there may be an element of desiring to discourage traffic and to lower traffic speeds in order to contribute to a more relaxed ambiance in front of the Civic Center. If that's the goal, the hope is that there will be a decrease of drivers using it as a thoroughfare and that other streets can take up the slack.

Good point.... And maybe once the boulevard is built and spreads the traffic along all the downtown streets it will not be a problem...... So maybe the problem is in the timing and not in the practice.

You might be surprised how many of us conservatives are on the 'right' side of the issue (sorry for the pun). Only neo-conservatives (ala social conservatives) and tin-foil conservatives (Agenda 21ites) have a hard time grasping the concept. I actually enjoy sharing these ideas with fellow conservatives. It makes the stop and think and usually they come around quickly. The notion that sprawl = immense waste and abuse isn't hard case to make.

Well both you and Just the Facts embrace urbanism, an idea that is not in the conservative mainstream. The implication of urbanist thinking among many conservatives is that it benefits "those people," i.e. inner-city minorities, gays and progressives. Kudos to both of you from a committed progressive.

You might be surprised how many of us conservatives are on the 'right' side of the issue (sorry for the pun). Only neo-conservatives (ala social conservatives) and tin-foil conservatives (Agenda 21ites) have a hard time grasping the concept. I actually enjoy sharing these ideas with fellow conservatives. It makes the stop and think and usually they come around quickly. The notion that sprawl = immense waste and abuse isn't hard case to make.

This. I'm with you, Sid.

I believe there are more conservatives than people think who realize that spending and infrastructure investment by a municipality should be a different mindset from county, state, and federal. Making our city better is something all of us should be able to agree on and work together to accomplish.

I am not saying there is or is not, I believe people would take other streets. As we have a grid system, it would be easy to find another route. But when we have a system of one-ways and super blocks, all traffic is likely to take one route, .

I agree... The reason I use Walker is because at the current time it has the least congestion of the streets into downtown from the south. The same could be said for the reason I use Sheridan from Walker instead of Main. The stoplight at Lee is biased towards the unused side street at this time but on Sheridan the timing is better. My traffic patterns do change based on when and where I know there are traffic issues.

I think that was a generation or two of conservatives. Not classical conservative beliefs nor fits well with Gen Ys and younger Xers.

Well there are very few "classical conservatives" left these days. Classical conservatives were not opposed to offering solutions to social ills. Today's bumper-sticker conservatives' embrace of "gubmit is evil" and "market solves everything" seems to be more en vogue. Witness the buffoons who run our state government.

Hold on Sid - I am also a social conservative and I spent 3 years living in the campground near Dobbins AFB which made me the only right-wing conspiracy theorist in America that really did have black helicopters flying over his trailer. If I had a dollar for every tin-foil hat picture someone used to reply to me on the Politics forum I could upgrade to Platinum. You're right though, the notion that sprawl = immense waste and abuse isn't a hard case to make.

Even in very urban areas, there is still a requirement for people movement in and out, sometimes in large volumes. For instance, in NYC there is a permanent residency of 1.6 Million people, but during the day there are approximately 4 Million people. The movement in and out has to be a combination of mass trans as well as motorized car, bus, etc. That is because the jobs are there and the shopping is there. For downtown OKC to support the kind of amenities that are desirable, especially to those who want to live downtown, there will always be a robust need for car access and parking. To make it hard for companies to bring in employees will risk sending those jobs to the burbs...just as is happening now in Vancouver and is considered a problem. Now their issue is daily out-commuting. They are shifting commuting from outside in to inside out, but it is still commuting.

Until such time as we have a balanced community and infrastructure, we should not condemn those that want to come into the core and help pay those who want to live there.

So, if the educated concensus is that the infrastructure of two lane streets is enough, then so be it. Let's just keep balance while we attempt this decades long transformation we hope happens in OKC. Our heritage is conflict between the ranchers and the farmers and this just seems to be a modern version.

Rover, you would have a better point if downtown OKC had been a robust creator of jobs over the past 30 years. However, the rebirth of downtown as a live/worl/play mixed use environment has produced more jobs in the last 5 years than downtown gained in the previous 25.

BTW - it was Jeff Speck who commented that downtown OKC had the road capacity to support Chicago traffic.

More from today:


http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/400904_533556693327625_897762562_n.jpg

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/304953_533419033341391_1703992832_n.jpg

Believe me, when I talk with my fellow right-wingers here in JaxI'm just curious when you say Jax are you talking about Jacksonville, Florida or somewhere else?

I'm just curious when you say Jax are you talking about Jacksonville, Florida or somewhere else?

Jacksonville, FL

I think that is part of art-deco stlye. I'm not sure how hot they actually get though. I have sat at similar ones recently and they weren't near as hot as I expected. It is just too bad they have to be bolted to the ground. Maybe some future tree will provide shade.

Nice but OMG those are going to be burn the fire out of your hiney in the summer. Odd they didn't go with concrete or stone like you usually see with that type of fixture.

I was thinking the same thing.... During the summer they can double as grills.

Well both you and Just the Facts embrace urbanism, an idea that is not in the conservative mainstream. The implication of urbanist thinking among many conservatives is that it benefits "those people," i.e. inner-city minorities, gays and progressives. Kudos to both of you from a committed progressive.

Sid makes the point a WHOLE LOT better than I can, but if you look at the potential revenue stream you get from urbanism without increasing the taxes on the individual, urbanism is totally conservative. If all you're looking at is dollars (and Sid and JTF both see so much more than that -- they see the human costs as well) urbanism is the ONLY conservative way to go within city limits. (Sid, JTF: feel free to correct -- I'm just stating what I think is the biggest benefit to urbanism from what should be a city government's point of view.)

Rover, you would have a better point if downtown OKC had been a robust creator of jobs over the past 30 years. However, the rebirth of downtown as a live/worl/play mixed use environment has produced more jobs in the last 5 years than downtown gained in the previous 25.

BTW - it was Jeff Speck who commented that downtown OKC had the road capacity to support Chicago traffic.
No, the oil business did. That's like saying Chesapeake is responsible for the suburbanization trend.

Nice but OMG those are going to be burn the fire out of your hiney in the summer. Odd they didn't go with concrete or stone like you usually see with that type of fixture.

Ouch!!! But they look good...right? :-)

Sid makes the point a WHOLE LOT better than I can, but if you look at the potential revenue stream you get from urbanism without increasing the taxes on the individual, urbanism is totally conservative. If all you're looking at is dollars (and Sid and JTF both see so much more than that -- they see the human costs as well) urbanism is the ONLY conservative way to go within city limits. (Sid, JTF: feel free to correct -- I'm just stating what I think is the biggest benefit to urbanism from what should be a city government's point of view.)

That pretty much sums it for me. Now for the ultimate in irony - I have to ride my bike in rush hour traffic to go to the pharmancy to get some cream to treat the skin cancer that I got this summer from replacing my fence around a sububan yard that I don't even want.

If everyone hasn't figured it out yet, urbanism is neither conservative nor liberal. Suburban sprawl has been the doing of both parties and providing thriving urban alternatives should be the work of people across the political spectrum because it makes sense. Of course, both parties would like to look at their ideologies and explain how it fits with theirs, but, in reality, it can work with any ideology that supports saving money and building vibrant communities. This is something Democrats and Republicans want.

I also agree with Kilgore's comments. It's unfortunate that the urban/suburban tension is stereotyped and oversimplified as a liberal/conservative tension. Liberals can't lay exclusive claim to love of urbanism and environmentalism any more than conservatives can lay exclusive claim to love of efficient government. For evidence that conservatives don't have to hate urban reinvestment, consider how Oklahoma City voted for Maps 3. In a county that voted widely for John McCain in 2008, Maps 3 passed (by however slim a margin - it passed). Obviously, there are many who are politically conservative that also love our city's effort at urban revitalization.

I also agree with Kilgore's comments. It's unfortunate that the urban/suburban tension is stereotyped and oversimplified as a liberal/conservative tension. Liberals can't lay exclusive claim to love of urbanism and environmentalism any more than conservatives can lay exclusive claim to love of efficient government. For evidence that conservatives don't have to hate urban reinvestment, consider how Oklahoma City voted for Maps 3. In a county that voted widely for John McCain in 2008, Maps 3 passed (by however slim a margin - it passed). Obviously, there are many who are politically conservative that also love our city's effort at urban revitalization.

Great points.

Please post more. :)

Until such time as we have a balanced community and infrastructure, we should not condemn those that want to come into the core and help pay those who want to live there.

Key word is balance. It is something missing in many areas of American civic life these days. I think balance is a good way to describe classical conservative philosophy.

While I hope to see the adverse affects of sprawl reversed in my lifetime, I recognize it isn't likely. We have over 50 years of our development patterns being radically skewed toward the automobile as the only means of transportation in too many cities. But as Sid and others have stated, I think we are moving toward being able to demand smart growth in the future.

And the park is coming along nicely. :D

If everyone hasn't figured it out yet, urbanism is neither conservative nor liberal. Suburban sprawl has been the doing of both parties and providing thriving urban alternatives should be the work of people across the political spectrum because it makes sense. Of course, both parties would like to look at their ideologies and explain how it fits with theirs, but, in reality, it can work with any ideology that supports saving money and building vibrant communities. This is something Democrats and Republicans want.

It is unfortunate THIS is not one of the primary focuses of civic and political discussion everywhere. I think we are beginning to see a growing number of people in OKC come to realize the problems created by unrestrained sprawl. Rover and KilgoreTrout's posts and all the follow on comments are the basis for a very beneficial discussion of how we evolve to "smart growth" of our cities.

Here is a novel idea - by definition wouldn't smart growth be integral to good government? If nothing else can unify us, this should when the economic, social, and security implications of not using our resources for the maximum benefit of everyone by providing better choices of where we live and work.

That pretty much sums it for me. Now for the ultimate in irony - I have to ride my bike in rush hour traffic to go to the pharmancy to get some cream to treat the skin cancer that I got this summer from replacing my fence around a sububan yard that I don't even want.

Wow...now suburbs cause cancer. That's amazing.

We are pretty far afield here.

Let's get back to discussing the specific around the various Project 180 projects.



Thanks.