http://www.okgazette.com/article/09-01-2010/This_boulevard_is_on_a_diet.aspx

I must have missed this video...

http://www.okgazette.com/files/boulevard%20aug%202009.wmv

That's depressing.

Well I can say it that it started out strong and just petered out. I know if you are going to wish, I would like to see Rand Elliot's turbine building somewhere along the blvd. and and a fountain or two.

http://www.okgazette.com/article/09-01-2010/This_boulevard_is_on_a_diet.aspx

This story fails to mention that you can't start building a boulevard when there's an elevated highway already in the way. Dismantling the current crosstown is going to take time. That is going to have to happen before any new road build-out.

This story fails to mention that you can't start building a boulevard when there's an elevated highway already in the way. Dismantling the current crosstown is going to take time. That is going to have to happen before any new road build-out.

that was already funded and scheduled in the 18-24 month timeline

The dismantling is already taking place, with each and every car and truck that drives on I-40.

This was a bit of a surprise to me. I didn't know the mayor opposed the boulevard as planned. That makes me more hopeful that narrowing it is a real possibility. If we have to go back to the federal government for approval of a narrower road, that's fine with me. I would assume being able to recycle all the steel in the current crosstown would help ameliorate some of the cost of dismantling.

"But one issue is emerging as a major factor that could alter the blueprint: The design paves the boulevard with six lanes. City officials and studies say that’s a problem.

“I have maintained from the very beginning, it needs to be a very narrow, pedestrian-friendly road,” said Mayor Mick Cornett."

I must have missed this video...

http://www.okgazette.com/files/boulevard%20aug%202009.wmv

That's depressing.

That is shockingly bad.

http://www.okgazette.com/article/09-01-2010/This_boulevard_is_on_a_diet.aspx

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

That's terrible.

If that is even remotely what the "world class" Boulevard is going to look like, thanks but no thanks!

May just be the angle, but looks like the Parking for Harkins, Toby Keiths etc is gone. No access to Bricktown, barriers and what the heck is the monstrosity to the left of the Ford? Is that supposed to be the Convention Center?

If that is even remotely what the "world class" Boulevard is going to look like, thanks but no thanks!

May just be the angle, but looks like the Parking for Harkins, Toby Keiths etc is gone. No access to Bricktown, barriers and what the heck is the monstrosity to the left of the Ford? Is that supposed to be the Convention Center?

Larry, no one seriously thinks that depiction is accurate past the exit off of I40. Who knows what the person who prepared that was thinking about but everyone who works for the city will be fired if that comes to pass. LOL

This was a bit of a surprise to me. I didn't know the mayor opposed the boulevard as planned. That makes me more hopeful that narrowing it is a real possibility. If we have to go back to the federal government for approval of a narrower road, that's fine with me. I would assume being able to recycle all the steel in the current crosstown would help ameliorate some of the cost of dismantling.

"But one issue is emerging as a major factor that could alter the blueprint: The design paves the boulevard with six lanes. City officials and studies say that’s a problem.

“I have maintained from the very beginning, it needs to be a very narrow, pedestrian-friendly road,” said Mayor Mick Cornett."

I agree, everything I recall reading up to this point was that the wider, less pedestrian friendly version in the Core to Shore Report was Cornett's idea/endorsement. Now, he says he thinks it should be narrow? May go dig up the stuff contradicting the Mayor but feel lazy tonight. Regardless, if he has come around on it and want s the narrower plan, more power to him I guess.

I agree, everything I recall reading up to this point was that the wider, less pedestrian friendly version in the Core to Shore Report was Cornett's idea/endorsement. Now, he says he thinks it should be narrow? May go dig up the stuff contradicting the Mayor but feel lazy tonight. Regardless, if he has come around on it and want s the narrower plan, more power to him I guess.

Larry, it almost sounds like you think the mayor should never change his mind. A good mayor should be flexible in planning as new ideas evolve instead of holding fast to old ideas.

LOL

The video is really funny. I don't think it will actually be like that. Who was the idiot that created this video?

Larry, it almost sounds like you think the mayor should never change his mind. A good mayor should be flexible in planning as new ideas evolve instead of holding fast to old ideas.

Not at all, if there is a valid reason for the change. However, when someone switches and then claims that was their position all along...

Now if I am wrong about this, please feel free to post links/etc where the Mayor said he was against the broader Core to Shore design all along...

Larry, it almost sounds like you think the mayor should never change his mind. A good mayor should be flexible in planning as new ideas evolve instead of holding fast to old ideas.

It's not that Larry thinks the Mayor shouldn't change his mind, Larry is (he'll bent) on turning any and everything involving Maps3 or Core to Shore into something negative or illegal.

When the boulevard was first suggested it made sense, place traffic back where they can see and access down-town as they go through OKC. But the more you think about it the less sense it makes. Most people passing through wont stop, the elevated high-way gives them a "gee-wiz" view - and that is going away. There already is a significant east-west road that parallels I-40 - Reno. The Core-to Shore already has to contend with this traffic and pedestrian wall, why build another wall going exactly the same way 1 block south? Wouldn't the money be better spent on improving Reno - resurfacing, lighting, pedestrian accesses across. Make the old 1-40 route a pedestrian route - bikes, paths, etc. that would go with the parks.

When the boulevard was first suggested it made sense, place traffic back where they can see and access down-town as they go through OKC. But the more you think about it the less sense it makes. Most people passing through wont stop, the elevated high-way gives them a "gee-wiz" view - and that is going away. There already is a significant east-west road that parallels I-40 - Reno. The Core-to Shore already has to contend with this traffic and pedestrian wall, why build another wall going exactly the same way 1 block south? Wouldn't the money be better spent on improving Reno - resurfacing, lighting, pedestrian accesses across. Make the old 1-40 route a pedestrian route - bikes, paths, etc. that would go with the parks.

Or just return the area to the original grid pattern.

Exactly Kerry, I suggested this to the powers that be (a couple of years ago now?) Do a reverse eminent domain type thing where you return that land to private ownership (sell it) and get it back on the property tax rolls so it can be developed etc.

Instead of it costing money it could be a revenue source

It's not that Larry thinks the Mayor shouldn't change his mind, Larry is (he'll bent) on turning any and everything involving Maps3 or Core to Shore into something negative or illegal.

As is often the case, you've got it backwards. I only point out the words/actions of those involved when they suddenly change what they had said before, or when things are clearly illegal. I don't make it my mission to search for these "gotchya" moments. Don't have to as the powers that be are quite capable of slipping up on their own. I just point it out when they do and I notice it. It is when someone says/does something and I remember, "Hey, that isn't what you said last week".

If you think it is my mission to do as you claim, then by all means, make it your mission to promote everything as positive and legal (even when it isn't). Am sure they could find a spot for you over at the Chamber.

When the boulevard was first suggested it made sense, place traffic back where they can see and access down-town as they go through OKC. But the more you think about it the less sense it makes. Most people passing through wont stop, the elevated high-way gives them a "gee-wiz" view - and that is going away. There already is a significant east-west road that parallels I-40 - Reno. The Core-to Shore already has to contend with this traffic and pedestrian wall, why build another wall going exactly the same way 1 block south? Wouldn't the money be better spent on improving Reno - resurfacing, lighting, pedestrian accesses across. Make the old 1-40 route a pedestrian route - bikes, paths, etc. that would go with the parks.

I can see your point and it is true that Reno is under utilized and has a great deal of potential, and is desperately needing some design attention. However, I think that the ULI folks were not blind to that fact either.

It you take a look at the list of priority projects there is a direct reason that they reccomended building the Boulevard and doing it in a singularly unique and placemaking kind of way. They go into extensive detail as to its importance in supporting the development of those areas and support of the connectivity of the downtown area on to core to shore.

Secondly if you review the reccommendations as to how to implement the Blvd. they mention using the Blvd. as a model for other streets in the area. Remember that the ULI is looking with a somewhat unique vision, not hindered by what we do not see today but what they can see based on thier experience could take place if certain key strategies were applied and in place. Reno may well grow to become very important as an artery for future development, and should in my opinion. I just can see what the ULI was trying to say by using the new Blvd to become a major unifying feature that is so unique and memorable that it will create its own draw for development.

Their reccomendations are basically a play by play with explanations as to why each component is important. It is dangerous and foolhardy to disregard any of them without the thourough analysis of all of the reasons and the possiblities that may be forgone if ignored.

Man I sure hope those that are critically involved in these decisions have or are really trying to internalize the report that the ULI provided!!! My worst fear would be that our key leaders, instead thinking that it was a feather in their hat to have them do a report and that they must somehow be on the right track without seriously reviewing and understanding their recommendations.

We are on the cusp of some amazing things taking place and I really think that execution of the recommendations will do wonders for our cities development and address so many of the deficiencies that many have complained about for ever on this site.

Larry, it almost sounds like you think the mayor should never change his mind. A good mayor should be flexible in planning as new ideas evolve instead of holding fast to old ideas.

I think you're reading too much into the skeptical comments about Mick Cornett. The mayor is trying to say he's ALWAYS favored the narrower blvd. We know this isn't true. I agree, I just think it's interesting that perhaps Mayor Mick is trying to delicately come around in a way that does not bring more credit to those of us who are challenging downtown design or the lack thereof.

We've been in a LOT of fights over the summer. The convention center, the boulevard, SandRidge, and many more. We lost SandRidge but it appears as though we have won the boulevard which was all-but decided to be a super wide Champs Elysses rip-off and it looks like the convention center is going to come around. We know that the convention center was definitively decided and that issue has now swung open as a result of our getting involved and taking the fight to them (I know I've spoken to the city council TWICE about the convention center). It looks like Mayor Mick is trying to make sure that the OG+E substation is removed some other way than replacing it with a convention center, and that's fine by me although I am also happy to suggest ways of keeping the substation, as I have.

I think you're reading too much into the skeptical comments about Mick Cornett. The mayor is trying to say he's ALWAYS favored the narrower blvd. We know this isn't true. I agree, I just think it's interesting that perhaps Mayor Mick is trying to delicately come around in a way that does not bring more credit to those of us who are challenging downtown design or the lack thereof.

We've been in a LOT of fights over the summer. The convention center, the boulevard, SandRidge, and many more. We lost SandRidge but it appears as though we have won the boulevard which was all-but decided to be a super wide Champs Elysses rip-off and it looks like the convention center is going to come around. We know that the convention center was definitively decided and that issue has now swung open as a result of our getting involved and taking the fight to them (I know I've spoken to the city council TWICE about the convention center). It looks like Mayor Mick is trying to make sure that the OG+E substation is removed some other way than replacing it with a convention center, and that's fine by me although I am also happy to suggest ways of keeping the substation, as I have.

Spartan, if he comes around to your way of thinking, what does it matter unless you're just trying to hold his feet to the fire?

Well, could you please restate what you're trying to say/assume/imply without using a murky euphemism?

Although it's not on topic for this thread, I agree with the mayor that the substation needs to go. Yes, it could be disguised, but shouldn't be in the location it will find itself. We need hotels/retail/restaurants and hopefully medium to high density housing adjacent to the park, not a big covered box, As I've said before, if we put a bank of apartments on the west side of the convention center as shown in one of the city's renderings, I'm even fine with the convention center there.

I know the park is terribly important to the mayor, as is it's success. Perhaps he's figured out that we HAVE to make it user friendly and attractive to developers to have it succeed. In light of the fact that we can't change the crosstown location, the single best thing we can do to encourage use and development is to have an attractive, pedestrian friendly boulevard on the north side. I still maintain the we could have the streetcar running along the boulevard as well, which would definitely funnel people towards the park. It could be attractive too. The St. Charles streetcar in New Orleans does not detract at all from the boulevard there. If that happens, I don't really care whether the mayor claims he believed it needed to happen all along. In this case, the end is what is important, not the process, IMO.

It looks as if it won't be too difficult to accomplish either:

"The state's top highway official this week promised that a boulevard intended to replace Interstate 40 south of downtown can be narrowed from its current plan of six lanes if that is the wish of Oklahoma City leaders."

http://www.newsok.com/funding-in-place-for-oklahoma-city-width-could-be-changed/article/3491717?custom_click=lead_story_title

How are you legitimately going to include a bank of private development along the park side?

First of all, it's still a super block. Second of all, who do you call for leasing, City Hall? SMG? Third of all, do we really expect this to happen?

I do agree with you though on the substation. I've thought about it more, and I think that the geographical plot of the substation in C2S is actually much larger than anything that has ever simply been recladded and it would be a large blank wall..even though there are things that can be done to mitigate the impact of that, still far from desirable.

What I think would be interesting to consider though is the feasibility of just letting a private developer pay OG+E for the land. We are putting a highly-programmed urban park right next door, right? Surely $30 mil would be a good price for a block adjacent to a park that's supposed to be on par with Millennium Park and Discovery Green.

Well, could you please restate what you're trying to say/assume/imply without using a murky euphemism?

Wow, I'm impressed with myself. (I think) I've never been accused of using a murky euphemism before. LOL.

Maybe I just should have said that I think you're trying to cast doubt on the Mayor's reason for what he says even if he is saying something that you may agree with instead of just being pleased with what he said.

Wow, I'm impressed with myself. (I think) I've never been accused of using a murky euphemism before. LOL.

Maybe I just should have said that I think you're trying to cast doubt on the Mayor's reason for what he says even if he is saying something that you may agree with instead of just being please with what he said.

Um, not casting doubt. It's well documented that he was pushing for a wide boulevard. In fact Jeff Speck went out of his way in his presentation to confront the City Council on the issue of the wide blvd. Mayor Mick says he's favored the narrow blvd all along, when that's not true--it's incredibly interesting that he is trying to say he wanted that all along, almost like he is concerned about his credibility here. Speaks to one's ego, more than anything. I am not making anything up just to cast doubt on the mayor's reasons for anything. He seems to be doing that all on his own just fine.

Keep in mind that I really am/was/am kinda pro-Cornett.

Um, not casting doubt. It's well documented that he was pushing for a wide boulevard. In fact Jeff Speck went out of his way in his presentation to confront the City Council on the issue of the wide blvd. Mayor Mick says he's favored the narrow blvd all along, when that's not true--it's incredibly interesting that he is trying to say he wanted that all along, almost like he is concerned about his credibility here. Speaks to one's ego, more than anything. I am not making anything up just to cast doubt on the mayor's reasons for anything. He seems to be doing that all on his own just fine.

Keep in mind that I really am/was/am kinda pro-Cornett.

I never said you were making anything up, Spartan. This was the part of your statement that I was referring to:

"I just think it's interesting that perhaps Mayor Mick is trying to delicately come around in a way that does not bring more credit to those of us who are challenging downtown design or the lack thereof."

That is clearly meant to cast a motive for what he said which is merely a supposition on your part.

This is one thing that has perplexed me from the 1st time I heard about the Boulevard and how it relates to Core to Shore...keep mentioning that is "connects" the rest of downtown with the Core to Shore area. I don't see how any street that has any significant width serves as a connector? Understand how the N/S streets (like the Harvey spine) achieve this, but how does a E/W one do that? Aren't you just replacing one barrier (the old crosstown) with another? And in the case of the relocated I-40, pushing that barrier a few blocks south and ending up with a second barrier (just not elevated). Why not change the orientation of the Boulevard to be N/S?

This is one thing that has perplexed me from the 1st time I heard about the Boulevard and how it relates to Core to Shore...keep mentioning that is "connects" the rest of downtown with the Core to Shore area. I don't see how any street that has any significant width serves as a connector? Understand how the N/S streets (like the Harvey spine) achieve this, but how does a E/W one do that? Aren't you just replacing one barrier (the old crosstown) with another? And in the case of the relocated I-40, pushing that barrier a few blocks south and ending up with a second barrier (just not elevated). Why not change the orientation of the Boulevard to be N/S?

Larry, How would a boulevard starting at Agnew and ending at Lincoln be changed to a N/S orientiation and what do you consider a street with "any significant width"? There has evidently already been a move to reduce the width of the boulevard. I've never understood that the purpose of the boulevard was to connect downtown to Core to Shore. That may have been mentioned at some point but I can't believe it was ever a major reason for the boulevard which was envisioned more, from what I understand, as a grand entrance into the downtown area from the East and West. I agree that it could be designed to enhance the Core to Shore area to flow into the main downtown area without a huge disconnect.

It appears to be a common tactic to try to force politicians in a corner by attacking them when their positions start to evolve. This is a great attack mechanism for people more concerned about getting people out of their way than how good policy evolves. Whether the mayor was for 6 or 4 lanes 5 years ago is much less relevant than what he is pushing NOW. Good grief, people SHOULD evolve and refine their ideas as things evolve. Politicians aren't the only ones who resort to misdirection and petty politics. Rather than rejoicing that he has come around to our own point of view he seemingly is being attacked for it.

It appears to be a common tactic to try to force politicians in a corner by attacking them when their positions start to evolve. This is a great attack mechanism for people more concerned about getting people out of their way than how good policy evolves. Whether the mayor was for 6 or 4 lanes 5 years ago is much less relevant than what he is pushing NOW. Good grief, people SHOULD evolve and refine their ideas as things evolve. Politicians aren't the only ones who resort to misdirection and petty politics. Rather than rejoicing that he has come around to our own point of view he seemingly is being attacked for it.

I agree 100%. But you don't think it's interesting that Mayor Mick is trying to ground himself and assert his past position by insisting that he has been against the wide blvd from the start? It would have been better if he had not made that comment and we could all rejoice that the mayor has made the right decision, and take solace in having a reasonable leader who IS listening to us apparently..

Spartan, to be fair, I'm not sure that I've ever heard Mayor Cornett advocating for a virtual highway where the boulevard is to be located. I know I've been pretty intense in my questioning of his policies and planning, but doesn't one have to give him credit for bringing Jeff Speck to Oklahoma City? I can't imagine it was easy for Cornett to keep the right amount of attention (to use a diplomatic word) on ODOT to ensure they didn't backtrack on funding for the boulevard, and that he couldn't get into a squabble on the width before getting the funding first. Now they've got funding (which shocks me!), and they're agreeing to listen to the city's wishes on the width, which Cornett is expressing.

Larry, How would a boulevard starting at Agnew and ending at Lincoln be changed to a N/S orientiation and what do you consider a street with "any significant width"? There has evidently already been a move to reduce the width of the boulevard. I've never understood that the purpose of the boulevard was to connect downtown to Core to Shore. That may have been mentioned at some point but I can't believe it was ever a major reason for the boulevard which was envisioned more, from what I understand, as a grand entrance into the downtown area from the East and West. I agree that it could be designed to enhance the Core to Shore area to flow into the main downtown area without a huge disconnect.

Obviously it wouldn't begin/end at those 2 points. Eliminate the E/W Boulevard completely. Has anyone looked at a map? In every article that mentioned it, they kept saying the Boulevard will follow the same path as the current Crosstown. The Crosstown is not a straight road (jogs n/s) and overall is at a angle compared to the street grid below. This will result in some very odd angles to existing streets and in some places, it will literally be within feet of current streets (again, this goes back to the question is there even a need for another street downtown)

What I am saying is apply the Boulevard idea to one of the N/S streets (one of the exits off the relocated I-40) that will most likely be the "gateway" people use to get downtown. Am sure some will use the Boulevard if coming from the Tinker area, just don't see people getting off at Agnew, dealing with stop/go traffic. Seems most likely they will stay on I-40 and then exit off and head north 5 blocks. This is one of the reasons touted for the MAPS 3 Park, was to give all of those people something to more appealing to look at than the blighted area. Same blighted area that has been there for decades now, just that no one noticed it because it was south of the crosstown. Reason for the SkyDancer bridge crossing the new I-40 and the massive lane count/traffic load it is being designed to carry. If everyone is exiting off on the Boulevard and its grand entrance, the whole I-40 relocation seems to be a waste.

Significant width: think everyone wants less than the 6 lane idea. Think Steve mentioned it would be the equivalent of Northwest Expressway. Seems though that to get the number of lanes needed for traffic, medians, some width is required (what is the low end, not really sure).

Seems every time the Boulevard was mentioned by Cornett, it was in conjunction with the Core to Shore/MAPS 3 park and that both were critical, essential (may not have been those exact words but don't have the articles handy at the moment) to the overall success of Core to Shore. Now what has never been explained, is WHY the Boulevard is critical otherwise the city "grinds to a halt"?

http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2009/04/17/before-you-make-those-2012-core-to-shore-plans/

Before You Make Those 2012 Core to Shore Plans … (4/17/09)


Cornett admits Core to Shore, the development of mostly blighted area between the river and downtown, can’t be launched without the boulevard. “The city grinds to a halt if that boulevard isn’t constructed when I-40 is relocated.”

Is there an Updated thread topic discussing the Boulevard?

Also where can I see plans for the new boulevard including the proposed route?

I think most of the boulevard talk recently is disbursed in "The New I-40 (Construction Updates)" and "Let's do THIS with the old I-40" threads