According to the DO article, the property in question is not adjacent to the park, it is part of the park property. From the article:

"In 1889, D.W. Chandler — the Hope brothers' maternal grandfather — along with their great uncle and aunt, claimed two lots on the block that now comprises the far northwest corner of the planned municipal park."

Read more: http://newsok.com/some-oklahoma-city-property-owners-resistant-to-downtown-park-plan/article/3692804#ixzz20vb9rdpD
You are correct about that particular property, but the article also mentions the City buying adjacent properties, that is what I have a greater fundamental problem with, Supreme Court decision or no. It is wrong. Wasn't it shortly after that decision that the property of one of the majority justices had their property obtained by eminent domain being sold not for a public project itself (like the Park) but to private developers?

JTF: I understand what you are saying about property owners doing nothing, we have seen the results of that along the Canal. However, I still think it is fundamentally wrong to force someone to sell. It may be legal, but that doesn't make it right.

JTF: I understand what you are saying about property owners doing nothing, we have seen the results of that along the Canal. However, I still think it is fundamentally wrong to force someone to sell. It may be legal, but that doesn't make it right.

The guy owning the land is pretty old - I say we just wait him out and buy it from whomever inherits it.

The guy owning the land is pretty old - I say we just wait him out and buy it from whomever inherits it.

And if whoever inherits decides to build a little bungalow to retire to near a park? I'm fine with that, though I suspect many would not be.

And if whoever inherits decides to build a little bungalow to retire to near a park? I'm fine with that, though I suspect many would not be.

That is exactly what I would do had I been able to purchase some land down there a couple years ago when I looked. My dream would be to develop some park front brownstones / townhouses and live in one of the end units....or mixed use development with flats overlooking the park on the upper 3 or 4 floors; but alas the bank account does not permit that.

An update on the park presented to the advisory board.

http://newsok.com/planners-eye-flexibility-for-oklahoma-citys-maps-3-park/article/3695493

Yeah, what did happen to that $135 million price tag?

Yeah, what did happen to that $135 million price tag?

Maybe that's only including phase 1 which starts in 2014.

Maybe that's only including phase 1 which starts in 2014.

Yeah, could be...but you'd think our newspaper writers would include such info... Awwww, nevermind, it's the Oklahoman...

Definitely only Phase 1. But watch them just scratch Phase 2. ;] Kidding of course, I just wanted to see convention center reactions. Lol.

Just out of curiosity...when they do Phase II, does that mean that everything from imaginary Hudson Avenue to Robinson down to the River will be acquired via eminent domain as well?

Just out of curiosity...when they do Phase II, does that mean that everything from imaginary Hudson Avenue to Robinson down to the River will be acquired via eminent domain as well?

the area that will be the park will .. and most likely some of the park frontage as well

The City has said they don't have near the funds to do it, but they did set it up to do so by declaring all of the Core to Shore area as blighted etc (not just the Park/land adjacent)

the south part of the park is just harvey to robinson

Thanks BS ;-)

So just to clarify, SW 10-15th Streets will dead end at Harvey as from the Skydance Bridge to the Oklahoma River will be Greenspan/park. Any chance we will see future development of the land between I-40, Harvey, River, and Walker? This part of the city is still considered a Latino community.

Assuming private developers can't use eminent domain, how will they go about obtaining those properties from the citizens currently there?

Offer a price the owner is willing to accept

Which is the easiest answer. Just wondering that if they don't, does the developer go through the same process as the city did.

Can there/should there be an interconnect of some kind (besides the river trail) to Wheeler Park? There are four ball fields as well as a large open field where people play soccer. Instead of competing with Wheeler maybe they should complement each other? (sorry if this has been discussed already... probably has)

I think there should be another pedestrian bridge over the river. Im gonna blow some taxpayers pots with this idea but...

The Skydance Bridge is the male? I think a river bridge would make a helluva female... Partners would get people off the interstate to see giant metal mating birds (Im laughing at myself on the inside).

Wonder if ODOT would demand to drive trucks across a PEDESTRIAN bridge over the river too?

Wonder if ODOT would demand to drive trucks across a PEDESTRIAN bridge over the river too?

Yes.

Wonder if ODOT would demand to drive trucks across a PEDESTRIAN bridge over the river too?

The request for maintenance vehicles to be handled was what caused the Skydance bridge to be significantly altered from the original design.

The request for maintenance vehicles to be handled was what caused the Skydance bridge to be significantly altered from the original design.

I thought it was mere funding issues (I thought that the requirement to have vehicles was known before the design change).

The request for maintenance vehicles to be handled was what caused the Skydance bridge to be significantly altered from the original design.

Absolutely not true, it was a matter of cost and nothing else.

Absolutely not true, it was a matter of cost and nothing else.

Although, the requirement to provide room for maintenance vehicles added to the cost.

I think there should be another pedestrian bridge over the river.

There is a bridge at May with barricaded sidewalks. The bridge at Lincoln has sidewalks with 8" high curbs and railing for the steepest part. I'm sure some of the bridges at Western, Walker, and Robinson have sidewalks. The one on Shields doesn't have any sidewalks, yet seems to still get some foot traffic lol. Increasing the signage would be a huge help. The blue signs with bicyclists and pedestrians and arrows to show the crossing points and trails would be huge.

There is a bridge at May with barricaded sidewalks. The bridge at Lincoln has sidewalks with 8" high curbs and railing for the steepest part. I'm sure some of the bridges at Western, Walker, and Robinson have sidewalks. The one on Shields doesn't have any sidewalks, yet seems to still get some foot traffic lol. Increasing the signage would be a huge help. The blue signs with bicyclists and pedestrians and arrows to show the crossing points and trails would be huge.

Both Walker and Robinson have sidewalks on each side of the bridges over the new I-40 and yet, there's a pedestrian bridge smack in the middle of them. Therefore I say it wouldn't hurt to put another one over the river.

Remember the reason for the Pedestrian Bridge is to continue the Harvey Spine and connect the Upper/Lower sections of the Park. For some reason I have stuck in my head that at some point in the future, the Park is also supposed to extend to the other side of the River so another Pedestrian Bridge wouldn't be out of the consideration.

Remember the reason for the Pedestrian Bridge is to continue the Harvey Spine and connect the Upper/Lower sections of the Park. For some reason I have stuck in my head that at some point in the future, the Park is also supposed to extend to the other side of the River so another Pedestrian Bridge wouldn't be out of the consideration.

Exactly. Keep the Harvey Spine going.

Remember the reason for the Pedestrian Bridge is to continue the Harvey Spine and connect the Upper/Lower sections of the Park. For some reason I have stuck in my head that at some point in the future, the Park is also supposed to extend to the other side of the River so another Pedestrian Bridge wouldn't be out of the consideration.

There was a pedestrian bridge over the river in all the variations of the C2S plan I saw

Couldn't find a Hubcap Alley thread. This is pretty close I suppose.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7248/7762317790_e46646411d.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbridgesokc/7762317790/)
Hubcap Alley (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbridgesokc/7762317790/) by Matthew Bridges (http://www.flickr.com/people/mattbridgesokc/), on Flickr
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8430/7762318264_682ac63f2b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbridgesokc/7762318264/)
Hubcap Alley (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbridgesokc/7762318264/) by Matthew Bridges (http://www.flickr.com/people/mattbridgesokc/), on Flickr
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8432/7762318798_07ec921494.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbridgesokc/7762318798/)
Hubcap Alley (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbridgesokc/7762318798/) by Matthew Bridges (http://www.flickr.com/people/mattbridgesokc/), on Flickr
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8304/7762319336_d64a24163d.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbridgesokc/7762319336/)
Hubcap Alley (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbridgesokc/7762319336/) by Matthew Bridges (http://www.flickr.com/people/mattbridgesokc/), on Flickr
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8285/7762320234_bd68be8a5d.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbridgesokc/7762320234/)
Hubcap Alley (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbridgesokc/7762320234/) by Matthew Bridges (http://www.flickr.com/people/mattbridgesokc/), on Flickr
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8430/7762320648_2e8bba5f2c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbridgesokc/7762320648/)
Hubcap Alley (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbridgesokc/7762320648/) by Matthew Bridges (http://www.flickr.com/people/mattbridgesokc/), on Flickr
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7130/7762321088_d313540806.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbridgesokc/7762321088/)
Hubcap Alley Signage (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbridgesokc/7762321088/) by Matthew Bridges (http://www.flickr.com/people/mattbridgesokc/), on Flickr
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7252/7762321530_2907d7a0c9.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbridgesokc/7762321530/)
Hubcap Alley (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbridgesokc/7762321530/) by Matthew Bridges (http://www.flickr.com/people/mattbridgesokc/), on Flickr

That first pic, 1100 S. Robinson is undergoing renovations I noticed lately. Anyone know what's going in there?

Couldn't find a Hubcap Alley thread. This is pretty close I suppose.




http://www.okctalk.com/showwiki.php?title=Hubcap+Alley&do=comments&highlight=hubcap+alley

post #14 in the tread has a link to my Hubcap Alley album... though it wasn't sunny that day, I kinda liked the overcast sky for such an area of town. (p.s... I haven't paid photobucket, so if the pics don't show up it's because the daily bandwith limit has been reached)

Preliminary options for the design of the new park to be announced next week.


Oklahoma City residents will be able to see the first preliminary designs of the MAPS 3 downtown park at a public meeting next week.

Hargreaves Associates consultants and the city will host the second of three public meetings about the park's design Thursday, revealing three potential basic design plans for the park.

First MAPS 3 park design ideas for Oklahoma City to be revealed at public meeting | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/first-maps-3-park-design-ideas-for-oklahoma-city-to-be-revealed-at-public-meeting/article/3720653)

I hope they include a disc golf course

That first pic, 1100 S. Robinson is undergoing renovations I noticed lately. Anyone know what's going in there?

IIRC, that will become a private residence. Think I saw that on another thread here somewhere. Will try to find it.

on edit - see posts 22(ish) and forward a few in the Hubcap Alley thread, located at:
http://www.okctalk.com/showwiki.php?title=Hubcap+Alley

Is this the official thread for the Central Park? Posted this on the MAPS 3 thread. I guess it's relevant to both.

Architects Reveal Newest Plans For Downtown OKC Park - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports | (http://www.news9.com/story/19906622/architects-reveal-newest-plan-for-downtown-okc-park)

After taking an initial look at the census map provided by heyerdahl I was thinking C2S could push 20,000 people per sq mi in density, but now I am wondering if it could be much higher, maybe even 100,000 people per sq mile.

Software to create a hypothetical development in downtown Oklahoma City's Core to Shore area | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/software-to-create-a-hypothetical-development-in-downtown-oklahoma-citys-core-to-shore-area/article/3723635)

SimCity Pro

Not sure about SimCity Pro but SimCity 4-Deluxe doesn't allow form based zoning, no mixed use development, nor streetcars. Even in the sim world everyone has to drive. I guess a game that allowed walkability, sustainable public finances, and little public infrastructure would be boring to play.

Not sure about SimCity Pro but SimCity 4-Deluxe doesn't allow form based zoning, no mixed use development, nor streetcars. Even in the sim world everyone has to drive. I guess a game that allowed walkability, sustainable public finances, and little public infrastructure would be boring to play.

Hard to build a simulation engine to model all that and still be affordable to the average consumer. I think it would be pretty fun if there was though.


On SimCity 4-Deluxe, I always had to use cheat codes to even come close to having good mass transit. lol

Not sure about SimCity Pro but SimCity 4-Deluxe doesn't allow form based zoning, no mixed use development, nor streetcars. Even in the sim world everyone has to drive. I guess a game that allowed walkability, sustainable public finances, and little public infrastructure would be boring to play.

But on the plus side, it would likely star you as the town mayor, wearing a cardigan, and welcoming everyone to your neighborhood.
8^)

Not sure about SimCity Pro but SimCity 4-Deluxe doesn't allow form based zoning, no mixed use development, nor streetcars. Even in the sim world everyone has to drive. I guess a game that allowed walkability, sustainable public finances, and little public infrastructure would be boring to play.SIM CITY 5 COMES OUT IN FEB.!!!!!! (and it will pretty much everything)

Oh, I can't wait. I am so upset they have been teasing us already with gameplay samples. :)I Know right.. haha.. I'm gonna try and build a new computer specially for this game. It's gonna be awesome I know it!!

Actually March...

I'm sorry if this video has already been posted but I thought this was freakin' awesome!!

Oklahoma City's "Core to Shore" - by Skyline Ink on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/1430974)

I'm sorry if this video has already been posted but I thought this was freakin' awesome!!

Oklahoma City's "Core to Shore" - by Skyline Ink on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/1430974)

Let's hope what actually gets built at least somewhat resembles that. This is the one kind of development OKC is really missing that other cities have. If this gets built as shown in the video, it could really thrust OKC onto the radar for in-migrating young professionals because this is the kind of environment many of them prefer.

I could only dream of development like that in OKC. Hopefully if they screw up the boulevard, it doesn't mess up core to shore too bad. :/

I could only dream of development like that in OKC. Hopefully if they screw up the boulevard, it doesn't mess up core to shore too bad. :/

I think it will Panda. That is one of the main reasons I decided to get involved with FBB. Mayor Cornett provided a wonderful vision for what that part of town could be and I sincerely hope it comes to fruition.

I think it will Panda. That is one of the main reasons I decided to get involved with FBB. Mayor Cornett provided a wonderful vision for what that part of town could be and I sincerely hope it comes to fruition.Well, I will start trying to be more active in all of this. This will be just such an amazing opportunity wasted. I feel if the citizens of OKC don't stand up and voice out with strength, we will only have ourselves to blame. I really think someone needs to remind ODOT their place in all of this.

Well, I will start trying to be more active in all of this. This will be just such an amazing opportunity wasted. I feel if the citizens of OKC don't stand up and voice out with strength, we will only have ourselves to blame. I really think someone needs to remind ODOT their place in all of this.


This is what is frustrating about the Blvd project, we have such an opportunity and we are ruining it for no logical reason.

This is what is frustrating about the Blvd project, we have such an opportunity and we are ruining it for no logical reason.What I want know is how in the world does ODOT think that a high speed elevated road(highway) would possibly be good for development??? Correct me if I'm mistaken, but, wasn't core to shore project designed around the removal of the elevated crosstown?

What I want know is how in the world does ODOT think that a high speed elevated road(highway) would possibly be good for development??? Correct me if I'm mistaken, but, wasn't core to shore project designed around the removal of the elevated crosstown?

ODOT is run by traffic engineers, who by very nature do not study or practice urban planning. They concentrate on the free flowing of automobile traffic. They just do not study or specialize in what "pedestrian friendly" means. They aren't out to purposely destroy walkability, they are just doing their jobs. Traffic engineers are hired to move car traffic, planners are hired to move people. Both have different goals and methods. Your traffic engineer will build whatever will move traffic, your planner will aim to move people.

So, ODOT does not "see" what we are seeing. They don't really give pedestrians any weight in this (or understand how pedestrian movement works and how fragile it can be). So they don't understand how a bridge hurts walkability, or how walkable development organizes around walkable streets. They have tried to make concessions to make it walkable, but they still do not understand how to build it walkable (because they are not planners).

As far as I know, the only part they are wanting to elevate is near Penn Ave? Are they really talking about elevating the entire thing?

If the only part that is elevated is that far west, I don't see it having any impact on Core 2 Shore. Am I wrong on this?

As far as I know, the only part they are wanting to elevate is near Penn Ave? Are they really talking about elevating the entire thing?

If the only part that is elevated is that far west, I don't see it having any impact on Core 2 Shore. Am I wrong on this?

The controversy about the boulevard is that they wanted it elevated to Walker... that's alot of elevated highway!

As far as I know, the only part they are wanting to elevate is near Penn Ave? Are they really talking about elevating the entire thing?

If the only part that is elevated is that far west, I don't see it having any impact on Core 2 Shore. Am I wrong on this?

The question is do you want the decimated area of blight as was left by the old Crosstown to remain on the "backporch" of the future Core to Shore developments? If it is once again cut off from the rest of downtown and no redevelopment from the Farmer's Market eastward occurs, do you really think people will want to move from Edmond, Mustang, Yukon, Norman, etc to what would otherwise be a nice area in C2S?

The city leadership does not seem to be looking very far forward on this one......they have tunnel vision on the area immediately adjacent to the Central Park and not much else.

The controversy about the boulevard is that they wanted it elevated to Walker... that's alot of elevated highway!

Yeah that would be a very bad idea. Nothing east of Western should be elevated under any circumstance, and preferably nothing east of Penn. Re-building an elevated highway would defeat the purpose of the entire thing. Does it look like that is the plan that is going forward or will there be enough resistance to change it?

It seems like there is a sizable portion of OKC that wants a more urban, hip, pedestrian friendly downtown, but a majority is suburban/commuter centric and just doesn't understand it. It's really not much different than other cities in the region, such as Little Rock which is still demolishing historic buildings and has loads of NIMBYs fighting any high-density development proposed for downtown. The difference is OKC has all the ingredients to become the next Charlotte or Nashville as long as the city doesn't squander it. Young, talented professionals by and large prefer high density, pedestrian-friendly environments and having such an option will go a long ways in attracting recent grads to OKC over other nearby cities and keeping local grads from moving away.

The question is do you want the decimated area of blight as was left by the old Crosstown to remain on the "backporch" of the future Core to Shore developments? If it is once again cut off from the rest of downtown and no redevelopment from the Farmer's Market eastward occurs, do you really think people will want to move from Edmond, Mustang, Yukon, Norman, etc to what would otherwise be a nice area in C2S?

The city leadership does not seem to be looking very far forward on this one......they have tunnel vision on the area immediately adjacent to the Central Park and not much else.

Yeah this could definitely be a problem. While Core-2-Shore could still happen, the urban decay nearby wouldn't likely be redeveloped and thus would encourage people to continue to choose the suburbs.

Yeah that would be a very bad idea. Nothing east of Western should be elevated under any circumstance, and preferably nothing east of Penn. Re-building an elevated highway would defeat the purpose of the entire thing. Does it look like that is the plan that is going forward or will there be enough resistance to change it?

It seems like there is a sizable portion of OKC that wants a more urban, hip, pedestrian friendly downtown, but a majority is suburban/commuter centric and just doesn't understand it. It's really not much different than other cities in the region, such as Little Rock which is still demolishing historic buildings and has loads of NIMBYs fighting any high-density development proposed for downtown. The difference is OKC has all the ingredients to become the next Charlotte or Nashville as long as the city doesn't squander it. Young, talented professionals by and large prefer high density, pedestrian-friendly environments and having such an option will go a long ways in attracting recent grads to OKC over other nearby cities and keeping local grads from moving away.

It's not the urbanists against the majority. It's large crowds of mobilized urbanists against entrenched engineer bureaucrats who only build a certain type of road and nothing else.

It's not the urbanists against the majority. It's large crowds of mobilized urbanists against entrenched engineer bureaucrats who only build a certain type of road and nothing else.

Yes, it's a true epic battle of good vs. evil:fighting4

At least that is what you would believe if you only read this forum of like-minded people preaching to the choir.