I really hope that someone builds a nice surface parking lot there.

There is no place to park in this area and we will all need somewhere to "pay n park" when visiting the Core to Shore.

I really hope that someone builds a nice surface parking lot there.

There is no place to park in this area and we will all need somewhere to "pay n park" when visiting the Core to Shore.

They razed paradise and put up a parking lot.

No chance of a parking lot here. There is no canal.

Seriously though, has there been any building torn down in the downtown area on spec (without a real, defined project attached) in the past 25 years, that ended up being anything other than pavement or a patch of grass? I really am asking. My memory is not perfect. Heck, make it 30 years. Bueller? Anyone?

If there was I can't think of it. The closest I can think of was the proposed chamber building but the lot was probably cleared more than 30 years ago and the new building never materialized anyhow.

They are too busy reading Stage Center proposals (another building that has to be cleared without a plan for a replacement structure).

Vacant land would be an improvement over a vacant, decaying structure.

There is a reason I said in the last 25 years.

But again, many of those structures (the ones that WERE replaced) were demolished to clear the way for specific, intended projects. The yawning gap-tooth areas interlaced with and surrounding downtown are a testament to the failed policy of tearing down worthwhile buildings with nothing specifically planned to replace them. It's amazing that we are even HAVING this discussion in 2011.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

I think the biggest chunk of clearing was done late '60's thru the '70's. There hasn't been much destructed in the last 25 years.

Vacant land would be an improvement over a vacant, decaying structure.
The same could have been (and was) said a few years ago about the Skirvin. And most of the buildings in Bricktown, from the seventies through the nineties. That building is a near-twin to several of Bricktown's most substantive structures, a number of which were "vacant and decaying" for years, if not decades.

I could not disagree more with your statement; a vacant building - especially a quality and/or historic one, is almost ALWAYS worth more than an empty lot, especially in an are that is heavily comprised of vacant lots.

Again, show me where anything torn down on spec in the past 30 years has created development.

I think the biggest chunk of clearing was done late '60's thru the '70's. There hasn't been much destructed in the last 25 years.
And it is a fairly well-accepted position that OKC lost more than it gained during the Urban Renewal period of the 60s and 70s. Are you defending those teardowns as good policy?

And again, I maintain that the scattering of buildings that replaced the teardowns -- buildings like Leadership Square, BOK, Corporate Tower, Oklahoma Tower, or even the Myriad -- those buildings were built due to market demand and a desire to be in the CBD, not because there happened to be vacant land sitting there waiting for them. Would they have been built in those specific locations had that land not been pre-scraped? Maybe, maybe not. But they probably still WOULD have been built.

Like I said -- and someone like Steve might need to weigh in here, because I am unsure which of those buildings were torn down for a specific project and which were demolished on spec -- some of those buildings were definitely a higher and better use. I have no issue with demolition of a most buildings (besides obvious historic treasures), provided they are replaced with something of equal or greater value.

But there are so few examples in OKC's history of spec teardowns resulting in a better building in a reasonable amount of time -- even within a generation -- that I feel pretty safe in saying that demolishing that building just for the sake of demolishing would be a bad trade-off for a patch of grass.

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Old%20Oklahoma%20City/Bricktown/bricktown_collection_044.jpg

By the way, there has been considerably more torn down over the past 25 years than you might think. It has just been more insidious than wholesale, an more of it has been at the fringe of downtown than near the core. I can think of a number of places torn down or burned in the past decade to 15 years along Walker north of 6th, for instance. Most of them are now grass, but a couple of them do have nice asphalt parking lots.

Seriously though, has there been any building torn down in the downtown area on spec (without a real, defined project attached) in the past 25 years, that ended up being anything other than pavement or a patch of grass? I really am asking. My memory is not perfect. Heck, make it 30 years. Bueller? Anyone?

India Temple?

According to Steve 2 days ago it is still on the "destroy" list.

I've not heard anything indicating a change in plans on this. But I'll check into it soon. I know the city went to extraordinary measures to insure the original film exchange building wasn't bought and renovated by a construction company to become its new hq.

This probably isn't the right place to post this...and...I apologize if it's been answered already. But...I've noticed that with all of the changes going on downtown that all of the traffic signals are now the left to right ones instead of the up and downs. I heard something about this on the news. Do we know if this is a trend that will spread throughout the city? Or just the downtown area? I'm in favor of changing them all over town. With the wind that we have, the outer layer of the lights always look cracked or blown away...maybe if they were ALL sideways the wind wouldn't impact them as much.

I've not heard anything indicating a change in plans on this. But I'll check into it soon. I know the city went to extraordinary measures to insure the original film exchange building wasn't bought and renovated by a construction company to become its new hq.

what measures?

This probably isn't the right place to post this...and...I apologize if it's been answered already. But...I've noticed that with all of the changes going on downtown that all of the traffic signals are now the left to right ones instead of the up and downs. I heard something about this on the news. Do we know if this is a trend that will spread throughout the city? Or just the downtown area? I'm in favor of changing them all over town. With the wind that we have, the outer layer of the lights always look cracked or blown away...maybe if they were ALL sideways the wind wouldn't impact them as much.

Just downtown are going to horizontal format to help further deliniate the P180 area.

I think the horizontal light are used because they are easier to see while stopped at the light, especially with the introduction of left-turn lights at all intersections.

Perhaps... But remember the committee liking them because they were different. Lol

India Temple?
Patch of grass. At least for now.

That said, if they construct the new building that they have indicated will go there, I wouldn't classify that as a "spec" teardown. That building apparently was in their long-range plans all along. And depending on the quality of the new building, this could be a reasonable example of "higher and better" use.

Again, I am not a knee-jerk preservationist. I do think certain buildings should be off-limits forever (the Skirvin was an example), but for the most part I am OK with demolitions that make way for a sure-thing improvement. If a sure-thing, financed, quality hotel or high-rise housing were announced for that specific location -- and the only impediment was the demolition of that building -- I would go swing a sledgehammer myself to hasten the process.

However, no matter how you slice it, tearing down quality/historic buildings and replacing them with parking lots or patches of grass and then HOPING for new buildings to replace them has been proven time and again to be bad policy.

Again, I am not a knee-jerk preservationist. I do think certain buildings should be off-limits forever (the Skirvin was an example), but for the most part I am OK with demolitions that make way for a sure-thing improvement. If a sure-thing, financed, quality hotel or high-rise housing were announced for that specific location -- and the only impediment was the demolition of that building -- I would go swing a sledgehammer myself to hasten the process.

However, no matter how you slice it, tearing down quality/historic buildings and replacing them with parking lots or patches of grass and then HOPING for new buildings to replace them has been proven time and again to be bad policy.

A good example of the first paragraph is the Aloft Hotel. The Inebriate building (I think?) was knocked down to make the plot of land clear for Aloft. There probably used to be buildings on that main parcel which the urban renewal took with it. But that street has a good example of also a historic renovation, the Clark Building (not on the historic register, but still a redevelopment of an existing building).

A good example of the first paragraph is the Aloft Hotel. The Inebriate building (I think?) was knocked down to make the plot of land clear for Aloft. There probably used to be buildings on that main parcel which the urban renewal took with it. But that street has a good example of also a historic renovation, the Clark Building (not on the historic register, but still a redevelopment of an existing building).
That's a perfect example. Next to the now-demolished Public Inebriate Alternative was the Finley Building (http://www.dougloudenback.com/maps/vintage_finley.htm). That was actually a really nice mid-century building with a great history that certainly could have been rehabbed into something worthwhile. But when the Aloft became a real project, by all means I supported its demolition. That is a very clear higher and better use for that property. A hardcore preservationist might have a problem with it, but I do not. But again, it was not torn down just for the sake of demolition; it was torn down to clear the way for a real project.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/maps/vintage/finley_4_14_2009_02s.jpg

Regardless, it was tore down on spec. Hopes and dreams have fallen through far to often in this city, they could have waited for demo until ready to build.

Finley wasn't torn down on spec; it was demolished for the Aloft Hotel project, currently underway.

I think we're splitting hairs here on the type of demolition situation. The point is that Finley was one of downtown's few successful demolition situations. I would even call it an unqualified success once this beaut gets built (by which I mean no matter what).

Finley wasn't torn down on spec; it was demolished for the Aloft Hotel project, currently underway.

My comment was in regards to India Temple. I think some posts got deleted.

My comment was in regards to India Temple. I think some posts got deleted.

Haha, go figure. Probably a flame war involving, well, any of us.

My comment was in regards to India Temple. I think some posts got deleted.

Even India Temple wasn't torn down on speculation. Sandridge had planned to expand on the site all along, they just chose not to tell anyone for some reason. Kermac on the other hand - no known use for that land other than flower beds.

Maybe I missed it, but has Robinson (in the Core-to-Shore area) always been referred to (officially) as Hubcap Alley?

I just noticed these signs attached to several light poles in the area.....

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/6320/img1137k.jpg

You know, I was just thinking how the east side of the lower park is supposed to go right up to where these buildings are. I hope they stay and aren't demolished; this area has a lot of obvious potential ala Film Row.

While they may not be torn down on spec and some may be worth keeping around. The intent is to draw more dense development to that entire area, something has to go.

While they may not be torn down on spec and some may be worth keeping around. The intent is to draw more dense development to that entire area, something has to go.

That's just it though, these are there and it IS dense development. I'm afraid that sort of streetwall would be forever lost. I really am becoming a mild version of Kerry; the aesthetics of a streetwall are honestly what I love the most about urban environments.

That's just it though, these are there and it IS dense development. I'm afraid that sort of streetwall would be forever lost. I really am becoming a mild version of Kerry; the aesthetics of a streetwall are honestly what I love the most about urban environments.

Dense is relative, I would not want it to be replaced with suburban style developments like how lower bricktown developed but if they got mid rises like in some of the C2S renderings indicate they want then I am fine with them going.

That's just it though, these are there and it IS dense development. I'm afraid that sort of streetwall would be forever lost. I really am becoming a mild version of Kerry; the aesthetics of a streetwall are honestly what I love the most about urban environments.

That is a slippery slope, I was once a mild version of myself as well.

That is a slippery slope, I was once a mild version of myself as well.

LOL, literally.

Has anyone seen the new Core to Shore report they are presenting to all the MAPS 3 committees?

Here you go:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/core2shore12412.pdf

Here you go:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/core2shore12412.pdf

LOL - what a spin. I wonder which company came up with this wording. Translation - we built this park for us. The peasant can have Central Park.


Some expressed that rather than hinder development to the south, the
Convention Center might serve to create a more intimate atmosphere for the
Myriad Gardens while defining the northern edge of the Downtown Park



I can't believe this actually made it into the report.


The current use of the Cox Convention Center is almost two-thirds community oriented
and the design of the new Convention Center should recognize and strengthen that
condition



And where would this be done? The park should drive residential development - not a convention center.


Both residential and hotel development should be considered as options adjacent to the
new Convention Center



I don't see how there is room to even do this, unless the whole thing went verticle.


A part of the new Convention Center block could be carved out for private development



Once again - where would this occur?


Build on the success of Myriad Gardens by promoting further development
around Myriad Gardens

After reviewing the whole document you can tell that the author and most contributers get "urban development" but there are few 'power brokers' that don't. Their input stands out like a sore thumb. The plan is 85% good stuff and 15% WT*. I can easily go through this document and pick out what comments were suggested for inclusion by Devon.

After reviewing the whole document you can tell that the author and most contributers get "urban development" but there are few 'power brokers' that don't. Their input stands out like a sore thumb. The plan is 85% good stuff and 15% WT*. I can easily go through this document and pick out what comments were suggested for inclusion by Devon.

All I could think was "REALLY?" while reading through this especially the "Some expressed that rather than hinder development to the south, the
Convention Center might serve to create a more intimate atmosphere for the
Myriad Gardens while defining the northern edge of the Downtown Park" potion. oh well, I guess I will get use to seeing a huge building from the MBG instead of a beautiful park!

We are still talking about a $250 million convention center that is supposed to have more contiguous floor space than the Cox Center aren't we. There is a huge disconnect between the convention center envisioned to meet the needs of the neighborhood and one that is going to provide enough space to increase out of area conventions by 900%. "Tell them what they want to hear and hope they don't connect the dots" strategy doesn't work in the internet age.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-6koEI7aifs0/Tx8elvsq6hI/AAAAAAAAATI/g2ixvXdljrQ/s727/cc%252520diagram.jpg
So they are going to dramatically reduce the footprint of the cc? Meanwhile the park is surrounded by huge tracts of land that could be used to increase or keep the footprint the same?


• General consensus among interviewed stakeholders is to keep the substation where it is now.
WRONG

Keep in mind, the current footprint includes a large arena that won't be duplicated in the new cc.

I didn't think that using the Ford site for more park has ever been in anyone's plan. The issue is what kind of structure will divide the Myriad Gardens and Central Park. Most on here want a residential/mixed use project with some height anyway. Either way, the view from one to the other WILL be blocked if either sect gets their way.

"Tell them what they want to hear and hope they don't connect the dots" strategy doesn't work in the internet age.

Isn't it the truth. With internet EVERYONE with a keyboard and an opinion is an expert.

I think we're splitting hairs here on the type of demolition situation. The point is that Finley was one of downtown's few successful demolition situations. I would even call it an unqualified success once this beaut gets built (by which I mean no matter what).

Out with the old and in with the new. I think the developers should be congratulated for removing that eye sore. As far as the future success, well I geuss that only time will tell.

I have heard two comments from other committee members as we were not informed of this study.

1. Who requested the study and why?

2. Who were the "stakeholders and interested parties" that were interviewed?

I also think the questions regarding the streetcar- "What is the rider profile? and Who is this transit serving?" sound like they were tacked onto the list of questions about The Edge development. lol

We are still talking about a $250 million convention center that is supposed to have more contiguous floor space than the Cox Center aren't we. There is a huge disconnect between the convention center envisioned to meet the needs of the neighborhood and one that is going to provide enough space to increase out of area conventions by 900%. "Tell them what they want to hear and hope they don't connect the dots" strategy doesn't work in the internet age.

Just curious, how long have you been designing and building convention centers.

Isn't it the truth. With internet EVERYONE with a keyboard and an opinion is an expert.

No, it means we can find out what they tell group A and compare that to what they tell group B and have access to the historical record.

Just curious, how long have you been designing and building convention centers.

How long have you? I first started working as a City Planner in 1998 but have been studying urbanism since about 1991.

How long have you?

I haven't, but I don't pretend to be an expert and know what and won't work.

I haven't, but I don't pretend to be an expert and know what and won't work.

Well then if you don't know what you are talking about maybe you should sit down and be quite, and let the adults discuss the issues.

My guess is you didn't like me questioning your right to discuss the issues of the day. BTW - I have seen your posts on the politics page. How long have you been in Congress?

Well then if you don't know what you are talking about maybe you should sit down and be quite, and let the adults discuss the issues.

My guess is you didn't like me questioning your right to discuss the issues of the day. BTW - I have seen your posts on the politics page. How long have you been in Congress?

The difference being that I state what I believe without claiming to know everything. Nice try though.

Great, here we go... Seems like the New Convention Center thread all over again...

Look, guys, we are all here to discuss our opinions, even argue back and forth about them, but when two parties refuse to yield it always ends up the same: Party A, "Since when have you been an expert in ______?" Party B: "Acctually, since _____, and because of that I know what I'm talking about, and you don't." Cue the personal attacks... page after page after page, and at some point it stops being relevent.

Just chill out, guys.

You're right Fantastic but there seems to be a reoccurring theme on OKCTalk. There are essentially two kinds of people on OKCTalk. The first group looks at the news and events of the day and comments on them – good or bad. The second group comments on the people in group one. It usually consist of "you don't live in OKC" or "you're not an expert". It gets old.

In the spirit of burying the hatchet - I have decided not join group 2 and take back my comment. So where were we?

I have heard two comments from other committee members as we were not informed of this study.

1. Who requested the study and why?

2. Who were the "stakeholders and interested parties" that were interviewed?

I also think the questions regarding the streetcar- "What is the rider profile? and Who is this transit serving?" sound like they were tacked onto the list of questions about The Edge development. lol

I'm going to re-ask these questions again.

In the past it has appeared that Cornett and the Council have had this MO with MAPS: After the referendum has passed, acted like some new information has been discovered by a consulting firm, information that goes against voter mandate. This then allows them to reappropriate the revenue by blaming it on consultants (think P180 projections being off by 100%), thereby insulating themselves from public backlash and keeping the tax revenue spigot at full blast.

A "center for conventions" that connects with pedestrians on the street level. This gives me hope.

I am curious how it could be done better. Genuinely curious. These costs must be incredibly difficult to estimate without engineering having been done first. And engineering costs are going to come out of the funding of the project. So how can OKC get better numbers without accurate engineering done first?

This.

I have heard two comments from other committee members as we were not informed of this study.

1. Who requested the study and why?

2. Who were the "stakeholders and interested parties" that were interviewed?

I also think the questions regarding the streetcar- "What is the rider profile? and Who is this transit serving?" sound like they were tacked onto the list of questions about The Edge development. lol

Your guess is as good as anyone’s. I can tell you the Convention Center Committee and Devon Energy were well represented. At least they stopped with the ‘vibrations’ concern.

The engineering is important but it should be funded separately from the major funding referendums. I remember being about 10 years old and thinking, they think they can build a lengthy canal for $8 million? It came in at $20 m.
But the streetcar issue isn't about engineering. They are asking who is going to use it and "What is is the rider profile?". This has a criminal connotation. The voters who passed the proposal, that's who! I am just saying they are laying the groudwork to reneg on the streetcar.

edit: Btw I'm not morally opposed to this type of political maneuvering, just passionate about the streetcar.

... I am just saying they are laying the groudwork to reneg on the streetcar.

This has been my fear from day one and have been warning against it every chance I get.

It looks like it was done by ADG (I know you know that) and I wonder if it was simply something they put together voluntarily. Not sure how much difference there is from this "study" and collecting existing notes and slides into this document. Just a thought.

Your being too kind. This is a position statement from a select group of individuals. And I don't mean our good mayor and city council. To call it a "study" is a genuine stretch.

It is a survey at best of undefined individuals with no solicited broad public input.

sit down and be quite


I haven’t been in the construction and development game for about 6 years now so ill be quite quiet after these Messages:

If OKC is serious about being a player for corporations and conventions and continuing the dream of being an 'elite' city (and I believe everyone on this board is), OKC NEEDS convention facilities and not just a mediocre one. Granted the population and corporate presence and tourism of cities like Houston, Chicago, Vegas, Orlando and LA warrant 2 or 3 Tier 1&2 CC’s, but it goes to show: You need a Jewel that catches people’s eye.

May as well get used to OKC progressing without your consent JTF.
Surely you aren’t suggesting OKC (metro population 1.25M) lag FURTHER behind cities like Omaha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CenturyLink_Center_Omaha) (population 1.2 mill in metro area/ final cost 291M), Savannah (http://savannahnow.com/exchange/2010...rs-equals-135m) (200k population: final cost 197M) -or- Nashville (http://www.bestpracticesconstructionlaw.com/2010/02/articles/regional-construction/tennessee/cost-overruns-on-the-nashville-convention-center-there-arent-going-to-be-any/) (population 1.5M - proposed REBUILD of CC cost 595M), all of whom already have a running start on OKC.

I think the city has done great in the last 10-15 years even with perceived imperfections in the original plan, and considering the overruns in the past. Hopefully It won’t slow down soon.

With Boeing, the Energy hubs, the Thunder and the River events becoming a real player in the downtown area, OKC will be getting allot of attention quickly and when they see the Cox (arena) convention center, nobody will be thinking "THATS a beautiful place, we want to go out of our way to go there for our convention!" Just keepin it real...OKC needs a really nice CC, other cities have already started to remedy their viability.

An arms race indeed.