What's worse, buildings gone or buildings vacant and continuing to fall into disrepair.

Buildings gone, definitely. The rehabilitation of vacant/in despair buildings in midtown, auto alley, deep deuce, and bricktown show it's possible, and desirable, to save what some would be willing to tear down. Besides, it's not like these are totally dilapidated, boarded up and completely beyond repair. I still hope they are adapted for reuse at some point.

OKC@heart, I'm pretty sure that andy157 was being sarcastic.

IMO, if these buildings were that valuable (financially and historically), why hasn't someone stepped forward and done something with these properties. If I understand correctly, most have set vacant for a number of years. What's worse, buildings gone or buildings vacant and continuing to fall into disrepair.

I've been told the only thing that has stood in the way of these buildings being adapted into housing similar to the Park Harvey building is the willingness of an owner to step aside and let it happen. These buildings have had multiple developers eager to convert them into apartments or condos.

Steve. Why aren't these developers stepping up to make offers on those buildings. Seems to me that those developers were counting on Kerr Mcgee paying for it. Sandridge is not in the business of developing living units and they should not be expected to finance it. Who knows, perhaps OKC Talk could get Obama to give them a grant to buy and rehab those buildings and perhaps Metro would be willing to lead the way in seeking that grant.

Popsy, they have!

Steve, did they offer fair market value?

Popsy, if you're an insider on this deal, tell us what you know. Otherwise, what I can tell you is that these developer made offers they felt were reasonable in lieu of the work needed to make these buildings viable again. I'm not sure if anyone can say for certain what fair market value would be considering SandRidge deems them worthless...

This may be a case where OCURA should get involved.

Pay a reasonable price for these properties, issue an RFP then select the best proposal.

(I know, I know... They can't do anything right. But this is the way such an agency is SUPPOSED to work!)


It's absurd these buildings can be left vacant for years and years when there is legitimate interest in putting them to the highest and best use.

I'm sure the only reason SandRidge is holding on to them is so they can tear them down... Obviously if they are sold and actually used, they will never be turned into plazas for their own use.

Steve, did they offer fair market value?

Seems to me that if someone offered $1.50 for them that would be a better deal than spending a $100,000 to tear them down. That is a $100,001.50 swing.

Steve and Kerry. I don't think Sandridge sees them as worthless and even a $1.50 would not be enough as they have what they deem to be a real value on the property that lies beneath them. I feel certain they would give the buildings away if someone would remove them.

I probably won't get an answer to this question, but I have to ask. How did you become an urbanist. I think it would be really interesting if each urbanist in the forum could share.

I probably won't get an answer to this question, but I have to ask. How did you become an urbanist. I think it would be really interesting if each urbanist in the forum could share.

Self-proclaimed. It probably started for me as a child. I still remember the first building I saw that was over 2 stories. It was right at sundown and all the windows were lit. As a young child I thought it was pretty cool. Back then it didn't have any trees around it so it was just a tall building in a field. It was the first time I realized we lived in a town. Up until then my world consisted of elementary school, grandma's house, church, a gas station, and the grocery store. I was going with my dad to see Chico St play University of Pacific in football. Until then I had only seen football on TV.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3184/3051763920_0c4acdbc30_o.jpg

Some people on this board went to architecture school or got degrees in urban affairs or have read countless books. They have real expertise. Not me.
In 1997, I moved to St. Louis, MO. Up to that time, I had lived in OKC and in the college town of Columbia, MO. When I moved to St. Louis, I found that most of my college friends had made the collective decision to live in the more urban parts of the city. Maybe they were just young or thought they were hip, but it was striking that they all seemed to "want" to do that. For that reason, I started spending most of time in those areas. I remember going to visit a friend who lived in a 10th floor apartment. She suggested dinner and when we went down, rather than heading to her garage, we turned left on the sidewalk and just started walking. Within a few blocks, we had passed probably 10 outdoor patios and restaurants. We sat outside and she kept seeing people she knew. A friend from her building happened by and sat down and had a drink with us. We "peoplewatched" for hours. Later we walked to two different music clubs. All night we spent within walking distance of her apartment. It struck me, even at 22, how "connected" these people all seemed to be, "connected" to their neighborhood, their city. In my suburban, Memorial Road-ish apartment I didn't even know my neighbors. It all seemed very sophisticated to me at the time, almost like those 80s movies that took place in New York (or something like that). I eventually worked downtown, and over time, even though it was a big city, I came to recognize people, I would have casual experiences all the time of running into friends, of walking to my garage and getting stopped to have happy hour "around the corner." My friends in suburban office parks never seemd to have that experience. When you have to drive all the time and your friends are spread out, it didn't seem to happen. Those people left the office and went back to their isolated homes. I'm sure I'm romanticizing all this, but the more I lived, the more I became interested in this "connectivity" that seemed to come from just being around people all the time. The city dwellers took a real interest in everything that was going on, because it affected them on a more nitty-gritty level. They talked endlessly about things like "the state of the city" and why this building was thriving while this corner was dying, things like that. I don't think that makes me an "urbanist" in an academic sense but it increased my interest in urban issues. I feel like, even though I now live in a single family, in an inner-suburb, Crown Heights-ish area, I really "know" my town and am emotionally connected to it.

Just my two cents.

Some people on this board went to architecture school or got degrees in urban affairs or have read countless books. They have real expertise. Not me.
In 1997, I moved to St. Louis, MO. Up to that time, I had lived in OKC and in the college town of Columbia, MO. When I moved to St. Louis, I found that most of my college friends had made the collective decision to live in the more urban parts of the city. Maybe they were just young or thought they were hip, but it was striking that they all seemed to "want" to do that. For that reason, I started spending most of time in those areas. I remember going to visit a friend who lived in a 10th floor apartment. She suggested dinner and when we went down, rather than heading to her garage, we turned left on the sidewalk and just started walking. Within a few blocks, we had passed probably 10 outdoor patios and restaurants. We sat outside and she kept seeing people she knew. A friend from her building happened by and sat down and had a drink with us. We "peoplewatched" for hours. Later we walked to two different music clubs. All night we spent within walking distance of her apartment. It struck me, even at 22, how "connected" these people all seemed to be, "connected" to their neighborhood, their city. In my suburban, Memorial Road-ish apartment I didn't even know my neighbors. It all seemed very sophisticated to me at the time, almost like those 80s movies that took place in New York (or something like that). I eventually worked downtown, and over time, even though it was a big city, I came to recognize people, I would have casual experiences all the time of running into friends, of walking to my garage and getting stopped to have happy hour "around the corner." My friends in suburban office parks never seemd to have that experience. When you have to drive all the time and your friends are spread out, it didn't seem to happen. Those people left the office and went back to their isolated homes. I'm sure I'm romanticizing all this, but the more I lived, the more I became interested in this "connectivity" that seemed to come from just being around people all the time. The city dwellers took a real interest in everything that was going on, because it affected them on a more nitty-gritty level. They talked endlessly about things like "the state of the city" and why this building was thriving while this corner was dying, things like that. I don't think that makes me an "urbanist" in an academic sense but it increased my interest in urban issues. I feel like, even though I now live in a single family, in an inner-suburb, Crown Heights-ish area, I really "know" my town and am emotionally connected to it.

Just my two cents.

Well just because someone is well-versed in urban issues facing their community doesn't make them an academic, that comes from the ability to be boring on that subject. I really believe that urban issues are those facing the community, and they're people issues. Not complicated, irrelevant issues that don't affect anyone.

Of course the problem with that for OKC is that there are only 5,000 people living in Downtown OKC, as opposed to 50-60,000 people living around Westmoore or 100,000 people living around Lake Hefner..

SandRidge downtown campus plan faces opposition | OKG Scene.com (http://www.okgazette.com/p/12776/a/5822/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBEAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQB zAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAyADkA)

Geez, nothing mentioned about my walkability, connectivity and urban canyon arguments. Look for another follow up to this in next week's.

well 'Spartan', in downtown's defense, those other areas you list are hundreds' of times bigger in area than the downtown districts. OKC's downtown IS the most densely populated area of the region (if not the state) even with 5,000 actual residents currently.

but yes, I hear you. We do need to improve our actual downtown numbers to hopefully above 10,000 soon with a goal for 25,000 I'd say. Once we hit this, I think we could rest all of the 'problems' we've been having as a city in attracting the retail options we've all been eyeing and lusting after.

back to point though, I agree with and hope Pete's recommendation or something similar could be realized. As 'OKC@Heart' eloquently stated earlier, we as a city need to work WITH SandRidge (not against) to find a mutually beneficial solution. It could be as simple as - hey, sell one or two of the buildings to these developers who want to implement alternative use (hopefully retail on the bottom, housing/office/hotel on the top) in exchange for SandRidge tearing down the others and having a SMALLER plaza. Or another idea could be, tear them all down but replace the Robinson Front with new midrise 20-storey mixed use towers with the city/state offering a TIFF or some other sort of incentive to get the job done. ...

In any event, I am happy to see the city and so many people STANDING UP finally, for the good of OKC. Again, it is not against SandRidge nor wanting them to move - not at all. It is about retaining the urban fabric of OKC - what little urban canyon we have by either adaptive use OR replacement.

Can anyone here define nuance? Metro, Spartan, don't be so sure you've got this one nailed down....

How about defining self-importance?

Can anyone here define nuance? Metro, Spartan, don't be so sure you've got this one nailed down....

Why? Does Sandridge have a "deem and pass" plan in place? I'm not sure they thought this through all the way because I am not sure Sandridge wants to be known as the company that created open space in downtown OKC. How would you market that?

"Come visit downtown OKC with all the open space."

The whole dang state is open space! Beside Indians, it is what the state is known around the world for. Don't believe me; I take you back to the movie Dirty Rotten Scoundrels.

"You'll love Oklahoma - lots of open space for you to run around in"
"Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma...."


It is very simple - Sandridge wants their building to have a more prominent place downtown, and by prominent I mean they want people to see it from the sidewalk. You can do this in two ways. The first way is to remove everything between the sidewalk and the building. This essentially means making the sidewalk bigger (plazas) and this is the option they choose. The second way is to expand the building so it reaches the existing sidewalk. The second way is the approach I would have taken.

They claim they want a campus, but they don't, they want a park. A campus has buildings, a park has open space. To achieve a campus that brings the building to the sidewalk all they need to do is re-do the facades on the buildings around the tower. If they took the four existing buildings and resurfaced them to make them look like the main tower it would create the campus image they are looking for. There are 3 major developments (that I can think off the top of my head) that have done this.

1. Rockefeller Center - NYC
2. Embarcadero Center - San Francisco
3. Peachtree Center - Atlanta

These are complexes that have the exact same architecture spread across multiple buildings that create one large defined space. It would give Sandridge the corporate image they are looking for while simultaneously protecting the urban density.

I would like to ask 'what entity has the final say on the Sandrige plan?' Is it the City Council? If so, how many of those council members support the urban density argument? Will there be a large contingent of the populace that voices their anger over the Sandridge plan? Will those objecting to the plan be viewed as obstuctionists such as the fellow who fought the new I-40 because of a few railroad tracks which cost the tax payers millions in increased costs? Will Moshe Tal save the day and buy out Sandridge with his new wealth from his lawsuit and save the urban canyon? What is your take?

Popsy, you honestly give our city council and mayor too much credit. I talk and see these people fairly regularly. You people don't realize how "out of touch" they are with things like "urban canyons", walkability, connectivity, and other urban planning basics. I'm not claiming to be an expert, but many posters on OKCTalk know more about urban planning than our own City Council. Now I will say Mick does a heck of a job at PR and rightfully so considering his background. Meg Salyer probably knows more than the other council members, considering she and her husband came from NYC and own most of Auto Alley, however they don't have time or desire to read websites like OKCTalk, skyscrapercity, and other urban planning type blogs.

How about defining self-importance?

I'm not "self-important."

Popsy, you honestly give our city council and mayor too much credit. I talk and see these people fairly regularly. You people don't realize how "out of touch" they are with things like "urban canyons", walkability, connectivity, and other urban planning basics. I'm not claiming to be an expert, but many posters on OKCTalk know more about urban planning than our own City Council. Now I will say Mick does a heck of a job at PR and rightfully so considering his background. Meg Salyer probably knows more than the other council members, considering she and her husband came from NYC and own most of Auto Alley, however they don't have time or desire to read websites like OKCTalk, skyscrapercity, and other urban planning type blogs.Not trying to put words in your mouth here metro. However, if what you are saying is, that for the most part, the Council thinks, decides, and acts according to how staff recommends they should think, decide, and act on their decision, I agree. So if the staff is taking the position that Sandridge and their plan for Downtown be denied, then popsy has nothing to worry about. Of course that could all change if Sandridge decides to play hardball to gain approval for their plans. But then again I could be wrong.

Not trying to put words in your mouth here metro. However, if what you are saying is, that for the most part, the Council thinks, decides, and acts according to how staff recommends they should think, decide, and act on their decision, I agree. So if the staff is taking the position that Sandridge and their plan for Downtown be denied, then popsy has nothing to worry about. Of course that could all change if Sandridge decides to play hardball to gain approval for their plans. But then again I could be wrong.

I wish you were correct but didn't the staff recommend against a new Chamber of Commerce building that got approved by the council?

I think there continues to be widespread misinterpretation of popsy's points. Maybe I'm the only other person here fluent in sarcasm.

I think there continues to be widespread misinterpretation of popsy's points. Maybe I'm the only other person here fluent in sarcasm.

"Do you speak Sarcasm?"
"Of course I can, sir. It's like a second language to me..."
"Yeah, alright. Shut up."
"Shutting up, sir"
―Owen Lars and C-3PO[src]

"Oh stewardess! I speak jive!" - Jive Lady (Barbara Billingsley)

How politically incorrect is that? Nobody calls flight attendants "stewardesses" anymore.

I think there continues to be widespread misinterpretation of popsy's points. Maybe I'm the only other person here fluent in sarcasm.

I thought the questions I posed were all valid questions, with the possible exception concerning Moshe Tal, and only one of the questions has been answered provding Metro might of been telling us that our Council members might not see things as many members of this forum do.

How politically incorrect is that? Nobody calls flight attendants "stewardesses" anymore.

"Anything travels that far ought to have a stewardess on it, don't you think?" - Crash Davis, Catcher, Durham Bulls

I thought the questions I posed were all valid questions, with the possible exception concerning Moshe Tal, and only one of the questions has been answered provding Metro might of been telling us that our Council members might not see things as many members of this forum do.
Yeah, I wasn't saying they weren't valid at all. I felt like you were asking them mostly rhetorically to make a point, and some readers were missing said point. Based on other posts you've made, I was guessing you were trying to point out that the community in general and even members of the city council -- who could potentially make the ultimate decision here -- probably don't place the same importance on "urbanism," "streetwalls" and the like that some of the posters here do.

I think some of the folks have mis-read your posts as being supportive of the urbanism issue when in fact you've been mostly derisive regarding those positions. And I'm not condemning your viewpoint; only making an observation that I think a few people are missing. Am I correct?

Yeah, I wasn't saying they weren't valid at all. I felt like you were asking them mostly rhetorically to make a point, and some readers were missing said point. Based on other posts you've made, I was guessing you were trying to point out that the community in general and even members of the city council -- who could potentially make the ultimate decision here -- probably don't place the same importance on "urbanism," "streetwalls" and the like that some of the posters here do.

I think some of the folks have mis-read your posts as being supportive of the urbanism issue when in fact you've been mostly derisive regarding those positions. And I'm not condemning your viewpoint; only making an observation that I think a few people are missing. Am I correct?

You were correct. Seemed like a better way to get my misguided thoughts across. Comprehension seems to be a lost ability at times in this forum.

That's the nature of ANY internet forum Popsy, even wise ones like you should know that.

That's the nature of ANY internet forum Popsy, even wise ones like you should know that.

Metro. I do not claim to be wise, just opinionated with an open mind to others opinions that might change my own. On this subject however, my opinion has not changed.

I wish you were correct but didn't the staff recommend against a new Chamber of Commerce building that got approved by the council?I did say, for the most part, plus who plays hardball any better than the CoC.

I wish you were correct but didn't the staff recommend against a new Chamber of Commerce building that got approved by the council?

The City Council took no action on the CofC building. No matter concerning that building was ever before them.

The Board of Adjustment heard a variance request concering setbacks and signage (I think signage) and the Downtown Design Reveiw Committee heard the project as a whole. Both groups gave approval. An appeal of the Design Review is heard by the Board of Adjusment and an appeal from that group is heard by District Court. Neither group's decision goes before the City Council.

I think there continues to be widespread misinterpretation of popsy's points. Maybe I'm the only other person here fluent in sarcasm.

Possibly. I'm only fluent in self-importance..

The City Council took no action on the CofC building. No matter concerning that building was ever before them.

The Board of Adjustment heard a variance request concering setbacks and signage (I think signage) and the Downtown Design Reveiw Committee heard the project as a whole. Both groups gave approval. An appeal of the Design Review is heard by the Board of Adjusment and an appeal from that group is heard by District Court. Neither group's decision goes before the City Council.

Thanks. I couldn't remember where that ended up.

I'm not sure if anyone can say for certain what fair market value would be considering SandRidge deems them worthless...

Touche!

INVITE SANDRIDGE TO WORK WITH MASTER PLAN
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
By Steven Newlon

Following up on Kelley Chambers’ “Temple topple” article from the March 10, 2010, Oklahoma Gazette, I wanted to clarify a few of my thoughts I felt could easily be misconstrued by readers, and at the same time offer a public call of action for SandRidge to better work with the downtown community.

It’s reasonable to conclude that SandRidge (a good corporate citizen) understandably has PR envy in light of the new Devon Tower rising up and Chesapeake’s sprawling campus. SandRidge should study carefully how this benefits the overall master plan for downtown, and not just the SandRidge compound. If SandRidge has sought additional structural reports, it would be good PR for them to make those efforts public.

Many people thought the historic Skirvin Hotel was too far gone, but look at it today. The India Temple may take a few million extra to preserve and bring up to modern structural standards, but in the long run it will be worth it for both SandRidge and the City of OKC.

Preserving this historic building will build much more PR than SandRidge could ever buy with their current proposal.

Proof of funds for construction should also be in place before we allow any additional historic demolition. It makes me suspicious when there were previous plans in place by a local investment group to turn several of these buildings into housing just a couple years ago when Kerr-McGee was still in OKC, and now the buildings are suddenly deemed not structurally intact or historically relevant.

Destroying what is arguably Oklahoma’s best “urban canyon” or “street wall” along Robinson can have devastating effects on an already sparsely dense downtown core. As former executive director of OKC’s young professional organization, this proposal is the opposite of what the “creative class” (that the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber is desperate in attracting and retaining) is looking for when considering a location to start their career. Most young professionals are looking for a dense, urban location with a high quality of life.

The biggest issue with this is that it obstructs the walkability between districts. Another park in the core doesn’t make sense with Myriad Gardens nearby and “Central Park” coming on board. It is this continued suburbanization of downtown and goes against all of the effort Oklahoma City is putting toward walkability. Less building frontage at zero setback equals a less pedestrian-friendly environment.

Isn’t this what community is all about?
—Steven Newlon
Oklahoma City
Newlon, a marketing and PR professional, is a longtime downtown resident and homeowner.


INVITE SANDRIDGE TO WORK WITH MASTER PLAN | OKG Scene.com (http://www.okgazette.com/p/13085/a/5847/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBEAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQB zAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADMAMAA4ADUA)

Metro. Are you seriously ego bloated enough to think that the residents of this city care about what you care about? The PR worth of what you suggest is almost nil. You even stated recently that there are very few in OKC that care about urban canyons and streetwalls. Perhaps it made you feel good to write about it, but good grief, because Sandridge is a good corporate citizen they should not be attacked by obstructionists.

ego has nothing to do with it, just want to preserve what urban fabric we do have and at least I have the guts to do something about it instead of complain on a message board like 99%.

Metro. Are you seriously ego bloated enough to think that the residents of this city care about what you care about? The PR worth of what you suggest is almost nil. You even stated recently that there are very few in OKC that care about urban canyons and streetwalls. Perhaps it made you feel good to write about it, but good grief, because Sandridge is a good corporate citizen they should not be attacked by obstructionists.

Popsy I think that you might be surprised to know that there are a lot more citizens who are aware and concerned about these issues. Granted I know that it is not centrally important to everyones day to day way of life, but the loss by extension whether they are aware of it or not will impact them. There is a ballance that must be struck here and yes Sandridge as a good corporate citizen needs to consider this as feedback and examine what the possible unintended consequences there may be to the plan. Just becuase they spent money on it doesn't mean it shouldn't be evaluated and questioned. That is the reason we have design review commitees. There is a great opportunity for Sandrige to do exactly what they have expressed that they would like to do. It just might need to be tweeked and adjusted so that it really does end up meeting thier needs and showing an expression of integration with the City as a corporate citizen who is eager to contribute to the growth taking place in our dynamic city.

ego has nothing to do with it, just want to preserve what urban fabric we do have and at least I have the guts to do something about it instead of complain on a message board like 99%.

Metro does deserve credit for actually getting involved and trying to make a difference.

If more people on the board did the same (and more people in general) OKC would be a better place.

OKC@heart. I am not totally unsympathetic to the urbanist view, however I cannot help but think that this city owes Sandridge the respect to allow their plan to go forth without a fight. Sandridge did not have to move here. They had corporate offices in Amarillo and moved here at considerable expense. With out them you would be looking at considerably more empty space in the core of the city. With Devon about to vacate 900,000 sq. ft. of space, coupled with the existing inventory the numbers are going to look pathetic. Letting some useless buildings be torn down will help with those numbers. Yes, some of them might have been converted, however that does not fit the Sandridge plan. I say let them build their plazas now and if they grow as I think they will we might be looking at another tower being constructed on that site in the future.

Metro. I admit you have courage of your convictions, however do you realize you run the risk of being looked at as another Moshe Tal or the guy that fought for the rail lines, whose name I can never remember?

Pete. I will gladly give up credit to Metro for getting involved, but involvement does not always equate to the good of the city. Sometimes it is simply obstuctionism and costly to the tax payers. To the apparent urbanist majority of this forum fighting Sandridge would be good for the City, but for the majority of the city it might not be quite so good.

Popsy do you realize Sandridge only employes about 300 downtown? They have TONS of room for growing before a "second tower" would be ever considered. You also never hear about them hiring or growing like the other companies. Devon employes about 3000 downtown, big difference.

Metro. They are young. They will grow, unless some one takes them over.

Popsy, you will find that I am very pro business and am very pleased that Sandridge is here and has aspired to be a participant in the growth of the city. Where as the "urbanists" of which I guess I am one, are passionate about seeing the city reach its potential while not repeating the mistakes of the past in erasing the history and density that makes a city more than a location to do your work and then flee from at 5:00. To make the city a great place that will attract other Sandridges to relocate here we need to help guide the intentions of those newcomers to what we are trying to accomplish as a city. This is not an attack (at least I hope) on their plans and never should approach those types of emotive tones, rather should be a formal and gracious discussion where the corporate interests are considered and the vision of the city through the design review committee as well as other vested and interested parties can constructively work towards a solution where defenses are not up but openmindeness is fosterd and gratitude extended for the investment and effort that Sandridge has shown in putting this plan together. Once the issues are raised, and Sandridge sees that we are not interested in attacking them but are looking to work with them to develop a more effective solution then I think both OKC and Sandridge will win and they will have further shown thier determination to be a great corporate citizen.

And I am in no way trying to say that we have all the answers because the solution will require the benefit of both camps working together toward a solution. I am very aware of the real costs that Sandridge has spent to produce these designs and renderings. We by no means want this to be delivered as a slap in the face, rather we want to guide and encourage smart urban growth and development.

...The biggest issue with this is that it obstructs the walkability between districts. Another park in the core doesn’t make sense with Myriad Gardens nearby and “Central Park” coming on board. It is this continued suburbanization of downtown and goes against all of the effort Oklahoma City is putting toward walkability. Less building frontage at zero setback equals a less pedestrian-friendly environment. ...

Obviously I am missing something here but how does putting buildings in the way help walkability any? Seems open spaces would allow greater access between districts. Aren't the buildings the obstacles? It is easy to cut through a park but through a building....

Not taking a position either way on their plans, but don't understand the argument.

Similar to those that are for Urban Canyons yet against the Convention Center and the Super Block it will create. Aren't these essentially the same thing?

Seems open spaces would allow greater access between districts.

It actually just disconnects them. If you want people to walk, you want the districts to flow together and not be divided by nothingness.

A good example is Western Ave. It's should be very walkable between about 42nd and 50th, but there are a lot of broken areas and parking lots, so you don't see as many people do it as one might expect by looking at it. If there were more structures along the way and places to go or walk by as you walked that corridor, I suspect that would be the norm.

Larry, if I'm not mistaken it relates to how people interact with spaces in an urban environment. Density is the key concept here. Though it may seem counter-intuitive at first, those wide open spaces actually discourage people from wanting to be outside and interact with their city. For instance, take this photo, it could be any random area in Houston:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/113/270830696_cf4c6a261d.jpg

Imagine yourself walking in this area. Would you feel safe? Would it feel inviting? The answer, is probably no. There's a reason for that. Psychologically, we actually feel safer and interact in spaces that are more at the human level. And those are ones with narrower streets, and the "urban canyons," which have been discussed in great detail on this thread. For example,

http://www.bestweekends.com/images/scrapbook/5075.jpg

That lovely little district in Charlottesville, VA practically begs people to be outside, walkaround and enjoy the built environment. This next shot is what I think of as an urban canyon:

http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/13/8e/ae/a-rainy-downtown-calgary.jpg


In this shot from downtown Calgary, Notice there are no "missing teeth" (gaps between buildings), and wide open spaces. Things are hemmed in pretty well, and it all feels very warm and inviting. And it's not just empty lots, and buildings that are set too far back from the street - urban plazas are often deadzones too that discourage an urban feel.

The Robinson corridor could one day be like the one pictured above if the right decisions are made from the urban planning standpoint. There's a great book by Jane Jacobs that was a real eye opener for me. You can find it here - it's a great place to start:

Amazon.com: The Death and Life of Great American Cities (Modern Library Series) (9780679600473): Jane Jacobs: Books (http://www.amazon.com/Death-American-Cities-Modern-Library/dp/0679600477/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269469855&sr=8-1)

My interest in urbanism is purely from the layperson point of view, and I think it's something we can all benefit from learning more about. I certainly have.

Larry, if I'm not mistaken it relates to how people interact with spaces in an urban environment. Density is the key concept here. Though it may seem counter-intuitive at first, those wide open spaces actually discourage people from wanting to be outside and interact with their city. For instance, take this photo, it could be any random area in Houston:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/113/270830696_cf4c6a261d.jpg

Imagine yourself walking in this area. Would you feel safe? Would it feel inviting? The answer, is probably no. There's a reason for that. Psychologically, we actually feel safer and interact in spaces that are more at the human level. And those are ones with narrower streets, and the "urban canyons," which have been discussed in great detail on this thread. For example,

http://www.bestweekends.com/images/scrapbook/5075.jpg

That lovely little district in Charlottesville, VA practically begs people to be outside, walkaround and enjoy the built environment. This next shot is what I think of as an urban canyon:

http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/13/8e/ae/a-rainy-downtown-calgary.jpg


In this shot from downtown Calgary, Notice there are no "missing teeth" gaps, and wide open spaces. Things are hemmed in pretty well, and it all feels very warm and inviting. And it's not just empty lots, and buildings that are set too far back from the street - urban plazas are often deadzones as well that discourage an urban feel. This could be the Robinson corridor one day if the right decisions are made from the urban planning standpoint. There's a great book by Jane Jacobs that was a real eye opener for me. You can find it here - it's a great place to start:

Amazon.com: The Death and Life of Great American Cities (Modern Library Series) (9780679600473): Jane Jacobs: Books (http://www.amazon.com/Death-American-Cities-Modern-Library/dp/0679600477/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269469855&sr=8-1)

My interest in urbanism is purely from the layperson point of view, and I think it's something we can all benefit from learning more about. I certainly have.

That is a great suggested read! I learned a great deal from Jane Jacobs when we studied her book in Arch school!

[quote]That lovely little district in Charlottesville, VA practically begs people to be outside, walkaround and enjoy the built environment./[quote]




That lovely little district looks more like a plaza than a sidewalk to me.

That lovely little district looks more like a plaza than a sidewalk to me.

I included it, because I've been there ... it's not a plaza - it's a street that's been closed to traffic that has essentially become one big sidewalk - perhaps not the best shot, but it does speak to my point more generally.

Perhaps if Sandridge would do away with the plaza concept and converted the plaza area into very large sidewalks would any one feel better? Those tables and chairs on the sidewalk look appealing to me.

Well said mheaton, I couldn't have summed it up any better. It's more of the psychological effects on how people actually interact with the street.

Mheaton, Metro, would you mind if I repost your comments at OKC Central?

Hey, Calgary!

Mheaton, Metro, would you mind if I repost your comments at OKC Central?

Steve, yes, you can definitely repost - anytime!

Larry, if I'm not mistaken it relates to how people interact with spaces in an urban environment. Density is the key concept here. Though it may seem counter-intuitive at first, those wide open spaces actually discourage people from wanting to be outside and interact with their city. For instance, take this photo, it could be any random area in Houston:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/113/270830696_cf4c6a261d.jpg

Imagine yourself walking in this area. Would you feel safe? Would it feel inviting? The answer, is probably no. There's a reason for that.

Not sure if this is the best example as what Sandridge has proposed is a park like setting (not a parking lot). As far as safe, it would depend on time of day, lighting etc, but I wouldn't have any problems walking across the parking lot during normal business hours. If given a choice between cutting diagonally across a park or parking lot and having to take the "long way around", down one street, around the corner and the full length of another street, the shortest route is going to get my choice every time.

Again I am not in favor of haphazardly tearing down buildings just for the sake of doing so. As others have pointed out, which makes more sense, having a building that is vacant/empty/boarded up or an open landscaped green park like space? Which is more inviting and gives you a feeling of security? Boarded up buildings sure don't. IMO

If parks are such a bad thing to have in a downtown/urban setting why then are we establishing a chain of parks extending from the CBD, to the River and beyond? What is the difference between what we just voted on as part of MAPS 3 (which in turn is part of Core to Shore) and this? How many buildings are in the path of the MAPS 3 park and Core to Shore areas that are going to be replaced with more open areas? If the Suburbanization of the Urban space is so bad, why are we going full steam ahead with it? And yes, I understand that the idea behind some of the increased park spaces will hopefully lead to more development of surrounding land. But as the ULI folks pointed out, if that happens at all, it is a long range (30 to 50 years).

I often think of malls as an example. The stores could be described as having zero set back etc but which mall do you feel safer at? The mall that has true density with nearly 100% occupancy and is busy with shoppers or a mall that has a couple of anchor at opposite ends with nothing but empty store front space in between? Because of the low occupancy rates, not near as many shoppers etc. Does the fact those empty store fronts create an unbroken wall make you feel safer? What would the effect be if instead of those empty store fronts, there was attractive plants, trees and places to sit etc? Again, I am going to pick the park like setting over the empty store front every time.

Which environment would you feel safer at: Quail Springs and Penn Square Mall or Shepherd and Crossroads Mall?