http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/c2s1.jpg

Not sure where to put this, so I thought I would start a new thread. Mods, merge it with an old thread if needed.

City faces a tough task in Core to Shore
By Will Kooi
The Journal Record
Posted: 09:46 PM Wednesday, July 28, 2010

OKLAHOMA CITY – Al Cusack’s meatpacking plant sits among the neglected streets and neighborhoods due south of the downtown business district, an area known for its history but not its aesthetics. The good news: The city plans to build a large public park in his neighborhood.

The bad news: It will be right across the street, overtaking his parking lot.

Cusack Meats has been in the midst of Hubcap Alley since 1951, supplying meat to major corporations, hotels and hospitals – all from the nondescript former Baptist church building on SW 12th Street. Half of his property will become public property and the other half will be moved to make way for urban renewal.

But Cusack said he supports the change, the park and the entire Core to Shore project.

“I don’t think it’s something that I’m ever going to enjoy in my lifetime, but maybe my kid or her kids will be able to enjoy this,” he said.

Because of Core to Shore urban renewal and a public park paid for by the MAPS 3 tax, a wide area between Interstate 40 and the Oklahoma River will be totally revamped.

The city and the Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority are beginning the processes of acquiring large swaths of land for the park or possessing properties for future private development that will meet Core to Shore design standards.
That means the city is preparing for one of its most dangerous games.

“There’s always a handful of people who end up going to court,” said Alex Souder, senior vice president of Oklahoma City-based Pinnacle Consulting Management Group Inc. Pinnacle is working with the Urban Renewal Authority, buying properties and assisting property owners with relocation. Pinnacle sends letters to residents and business owners, letting them know the process and what they can expect to happen.

The owners are then contacted by appraisers, surveyors and environmental inspectors who all do their best to come up with the most recent, fair market price. Pinnacle makes the owners an offer and works with them to find a suitable relocation placement or facility.

“They usually go pretty well,” Souder said. “Our goal is to treat people fairly, to provide fair and just compensation, sound and solid relocation. … But you normally can’t make everyone happy.”

Most of the businesses in the area feel they will be treated fairly.

“(Urban Renewal Authority’s) comment to me has been, ‘We will make you whole again,’” Cusack said.

But some are getting ready to hold out, before the process has even started. Mike Bailey, owner of The Car Doctor auto repair on SW Sixth Street – a block west of the future park – said he has been approached by several local businesses wanting to know if he would join with them in hiring an attorney.

“The answer is no. Absolutely not,” he said, claiming relocation is in the best interests for himself, his business and the city.

Souder said if an owner is simply against a project or doesn’t feel like the market value is fair, there’s the eminent domain channel.

“We explain to them, it’s not a threat, it’s not an arm-twisting tactic – in fact it’s their right under the Fifth Amendment to appeal their price,” he said. “It is a legal process that is here for both sides.”

Once an eminent domain case has been filed, a judge appoints three commissioners: landowners in the district, businessmen, or people with real estate backgrounds – anyone who deals with property and can fairly appraise. The commissioners determine a value for the property through viewings and meetings with the owner.

The value is rendered to the judge, and once the governing authority pays that value, it possesses the property.

“From that point, both sides have the ability to appeal the report, leading to a jury trial,” Souder said. “Those can take years.”

Regardless of a subsequent appeal, once the authority pays the price determined by the commissioners, it possesses the property and can continue with the project. The owner has 30 days to vacate the property.

Souder said between 10 to 30 percent of property acquisition results in eminent domain. However, Pinnacle and the Urban Renewal Authority want to make sure the process is smooth and would rather settle with an owner than waste time and money resorting to the tactic.

“Usually, once they understand the appraised value, see the relocation financial assistance we have available, and see we’re on their side, they’re OK,” Souder said.

“We want to make sure taxpayers’ money is spent reasonably.”

In fact, although the Urban Renewal Authority’s acquisition procedures are modeled on federal procedures, theirs have been tweaked to provide more compensation than normal.

“We don’t want to be branded with people saying, ‘I didn’t get enough money,’” said Urban Renewal Authority Director JoeVan Bullard.

Cusack Meats hosted a Core to Shore meeting for surrounding businesses where Bullard and Director of City Planning Russell Claus answered questions. While some are still not happy and will demand more money, Cusack said he thinks the city will be fair.

“A lot of people have the mind-set that the city is just taking their property away from them and isn’t going to give them anything,” he said. “I don’t see that happening.”

Relocation will actually benefit his business with the possibility of a new and bigger facility, Bailey said.

“If they need my property to do a designed urban program, that’s fine; just move me to a place where I can continue my 10-year plan,” he said.

What happens if the state decides not to fund the boulevard? Despite every assurance from the mayor, the state has repeatedly declined to even add the boulevard to its eight year funding plan. I know, I know, I'm gonna upset someone again...

Everyone on this board needs to contact their legislators and tell them about the situation with the boulevard. Their calls to good old ODOT would have a lot more sway.

I'd be thrilled if the boulevard didn't get funded. Sounds good to me. It would allow more land for development, potentially a site for a streetcar line or even a longitudinal park that intersects wtih the Central Park.

What happens if the state decides not to fund the boulevard? Despite every assurance from the mayor, the state has repeatedly declined to even add the boulevard to its eight year funding plan. I know, I know, I'm gonna upset someone again...

If state funding falls through, the City may already have most of the cost funded from funds in the 2007 General Obligation Bond Issue But first one has to remember how important the Mayor thinks the Boulevard is (although never giving any reasons or support for his repeated statements, he just presents it as fact).

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.”

He has repeatedly intertwined the MAPS 3 Park & the Boulevard.

http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2009/01/15/mayor-mick-cornett-looks-ahead-downtown-core-to-shore/
Mayor Mick Cornett Looks Ahead – Downtown, Core to Shore (1/15/09)

"The large central park in the Core to Shore project is also critical to our city’s future, ... Also central to the project is the at-grade boulevard that will replace the current I-40. ... The park and the boulevard are the lynchpins, and they serve as the catalyst for future retail, housing, and a potential Convention Center..."


That brings us to the cost of the Boulevard

Boulevard planned to replace Crosstown bridge, but its design, funding are uncertain (Gazette, 10/28/09)

This article put the estimated cost of the replacement Boulevard at $75M.


Oklahoma City Planning Director Russell Claus "pointed to $15 million from the 2007 general obligation bond designated for the boulevard that can help planners make the boulevard functional and truly grand."

The only item I could find in the 2007 bond issue for $15M was:

Prop 1 (Streets - Reconstruction)

#57 "Within an area bounded by Sheridan Avenue, Oklahoma River, Western and Lincoln" ... $15M

Unclear if the City's portion ($15M) is part of the $75M or not but then there is the nearly $52M slush fund for "Unlisted"

Prop 1 (Streets - Unlisted)

"The balance of said funds shall be used as follows: Engineering, right-of-way acquisition, utility relocation and construction of urban and rural street improvements, including, but not limited to, construction and reconstruction and/or resurfacing of streets, curbs, drainage, traffic control improvements, related street appurtenances and pavement management system improvements, along with street maintenance and construction equipment and materials; and, expenses of the bond issue." ... $51.998M

Those 2 items add up to $67M. that only leaves $8M to dig up from some other fund or Bond item. As we have seen with the City's purchase of the $42M Sardis Water deal (overpaying what is owed by $15M) when the City is experiencing employee layoffs and service cuts. Not to mention another particular $777M slush fund. The City appears to have available funds tucked away for use when they deem appropriate.

If they aren't planning to put the blvd in why are they building an on-ramp to it along the new I-40? You can see the new on-ramp in Google Earth just south of Bass Pro Shop.

I'd be thrilled if the boulevard didn't get funded. Sounds good to me. It would allow more land for development, potentially a site for a streetcar line or even a longitudinal park that intersects wtih the Central Park.

Or if it did get funded it would allow for land development along the boulevard, which would be pretty cool if done correctly.
I dont think another park is necessary...

I'd say, if funding fell through, they'd take funding from the MAPS tax and squeeze out the senior centers. I'm pretty sure the vague language of the initiative would let them get away with it, and I've always been suspicious of their intentions with the senior centers...

If they aren't planning to put the blvd in why are they building an on-ramp to it along the new I-40? You can see the new on-ramp in Google Earth just south of Bass Pro Shop.

Absolutely and that has been funded. As Steve has pointed out before (am doing this from memory, so if any of the details are in error, please correct), the Boulevard was part of the deal reached when the ODOTs preferred relocation route was chosen several years ago. The State/ODOT committed to paying for the replacement Boulevard. Originally its cost was included in the relocation, but as costs kept escalating, different elements were broken out as separate projects. the teardown and the ramps were eventually funded. The last remaining piece is the funding for the Boulevard itself. Steve also had posts over in his blog that had ODOT stating IF the Boulevard gets built and a spokeswoman saying that they are still working with the City on the design etc (number of lanes and the like) which will have a direct impact on its costs. Implying that it as soon as they know they design, they can come up with the cost and then the funding.... (unlike the various MAPS where we come up with the funding first, then the design etc is worked out)

Like betts, I would be happy if the boulevard was scrapped or scaled back. The ramps could still be used to direct traffic into downtown, but then divert onto Reno perhaps.

Not sure if this has been posted before.
http://www.okcchamber.com/coretoshore/index.html



Much more info under the economical development title too.
http://www.okcchamber.com/gateway.asp?id=1
http://www.greateroklahomacity.com/index.php?src=

I still think the convention center needs to be moved to the east, just south of Lower Bricktown.

They kept the old design for the convention center in that front page picture. The Rose Rock. I love it.. Hope they keep it. *fingers crossed*

Wow this is soo cool! Thanks for sharing.

Cool stuff, but could we at least get some more density between the new I-40 and the River. That area should be OKC version of the Back Bay Area. Three story townhomes built out to the street throughout the entire area is how it should look.

The Chamber dabbles in city planning..and fails. I see them touting EVERY bit of fail that we have criticized C2S for. This site is just for marketing purposes to market the downtown OKC of the future, and it's an awesome idea, but I hope they're ready to change the graphics when the convention center is moved to be a part of Bricktown and the park is surrounded by more scale-appropriate urban infill.

I am intrigued by the idea of "Festival Park." The renderings for that convention center are awesome, and it would be a really cool addition across the street from Lower Bricktown.

I really do get disgusted by the desire to recreate suburbia in the urban core by the very people who have the wealth and ability to make change happen. Are there no urban minded people with more than $100,000 living in OKC?

Cool stuff, but could we at least get some more density between the new I-40 and the River. That area should be OKC version of the Back Bay Area. Three story townhomes built out to the street throughout the entire area is how it should look.

I agree that would be ideal, but if history is any indicator, OKC will likely see nothing but single-family homes between downtown and the river...

I agree that would be ideal, but if history is any indicator, OKC will likely see nothing but single-family homes between downtown and the river...

Wrong, if recent history (post 1960) is any indicator we won't see any residential development period. If we looked at early OKC history this area would become filled with midrises. The early developers of OKC were much more visionary and urban. Go figure.

I really do get disgusted by the desire to recreate suburbia in the urban core by the very people who have the wealth and ability to make change happen. Are there no urban minded people with more than $100,000 living in OKC?

Obviously there aren't many people with $400,000 that want to live downtown. Why is it that $100,000 units at Maywood sell better than $400,000 units?

Obviously there aren't many people with $400,000 that want to live downtown. Why is it that $100,000 units at Maywood sell better than $400,000 units?

I didn't mean the people buying condos, I meant the people building them. The deisre for downtown apartments has been well established but that is missing the point anyhow. I was specifically directing my question at the vision presented in the Core to Shore plan linked to in this thread. The person, or people, that cam up with the vision of what the area should be developed in to suck. The best the can do is bunch of single family homes? Do they have no concept of urban ar all. Are they so devoid of imagination that all they can ever think of are single family homes? Are we really spending all this time and effort to create a giant subdivision downtown? If so, what a waste of time, effort, and resources. The new motto of OKC should be 'Paradise lost'.

I didn't mean the people buying condos, I meant the people building them. The deisre for downtown apartments has been well established but that is missing the point anyhow. I was specifically directing my question at the vision presented in the Core to Shore plan linked to in this thread. The person, or people, that cam up with the vision of what the area should be developed in to suck. The best the can do is bunch of single family homes? Do they have no concept of urban ar all. Are they so devoid of imagination that all they can ever think of are single family homes? Are we really spending all this time and effort to create a giant subdivision downtown? If so, what a waste of time, effort, and resources. The new motto of OKC should be 'Paradise lost'.

I'm not sure I understand you. You want someone to come in and develop a bunch of product that nobody seems to want? It's obvious that most people in OKC like single family homes with a garage and a yard.

As the ULI report indicated, it could take 50 yrs. to develop the C2S. I'd say it's a little early to start moaning about this.

This is what I am saying AbcGum. The material presented is a vision. It is a vision of what the area could/should become. I just find it sad the that the 'dream' is a bunch of single family homes. What kind of dream is that? OKC has tons of single family homes now. We don't need Core to Shore for that. Is Core to Shore all about providing housing for 500 people? It was supposed to be about re-inventing the city and re-producing what was lost. If built as shown in that slide show then it does none of that. There is so much empty space between the buildings it is hard to tell where the park begins and ends.

The only thing worse then setting your goals too high and not achieving them, is setting them too low and exceeding them every time.

I was reading through a guide to urbansim at the book store the other night and there was a good saying on one of the pages and I'll paraphrase if I can. In suburbia, buildings are defined by the open space around them. In urban areas the open space is defined by the building around them. You can't create 'urban' with green space (a lesson Sandridge would do well to learn). You have to create urban with, well..., urban.

BTW - for rent residential space in downtown OKC is in high demand.

Well, it sounds to me that you have your "urban" blinders on. Take a step back and think objectively for a second. Those are conceptual drawings, made to show the boundaries of the different proposed neighborhoods. As far as I know, it will be up to the city to set design guidelines, which has not been done yet. Why shouldn't there be a mix of single family and multiple family housing in C2S? The market has already shown that it is not interested in high priced multiple family housing, why do you assume C2S would be any different.

There will certainly be a need for "for rent multiple family housing," but it needs to be supplemented with purchased housing.

Now you bring up an intersting point. Are there going to be design standards setup by the City or are the local property owners and developers going to be the driving force?

Now you bring up an intersting point. Are there going to be design standards setup by the City or are the local property owners and developers going to be the driving force?

My understanding, and the reccomendation of the ULI study, is that the city "should" set design standards, and have a design review committee in place for the different neighborhoods. This would assure that the design standards would be followed.
Also, the city is going to need to provide incentives for development, as construction cost and financing make it difficult to actually develop the properties in question at an affordable price to the consumer.

Obviously there aren't many people with $400,000 that want to live downtown. Why is it that $100,000 units at Maywood sell better than $400,000 units?

There are no $100,000 units at Maywood. And they aren't selling because they cost so much for so little space. (And interior construction is kind of shoddy).

Cool stuff, but could we at least get some more density between the new I-40 and the River. That area should be OKC version of the Back Bay Area. Three story townhomes built out to the street throughout the entire area is how it should look.
The old picture had that. But, I think they're facing reality, and this picture looks more realistic, at least over the next 10-20 years.

The old picture had that. But, I think they're facing reality, and this picture looks more realistic, at least over the next 10-20 years.

If true, then Core to Shore has failed before it ever really got going.

It's kind of like comparing the pictures Moshe Tal had for Lower Bricktown to those Randy Hogan had. Moshe was a dreamer, but I question if any of that ever would've come to fruition. Look at all of the slick development proposals we've seen for proposed Bricktown developments. I'd rather be realistic than make promises one can't keep.

There are no $100,000 units at Maywood. And they aren't selling because they cost so much for so little space. (And interior construction is kind of shoddy).

Sorry $180,000 at Maywood Park lofts. They are selling much better than the Brownstones.

It will NEVER look like the plan. Evrything is in flux until the concrete gets pooured. I agree with Patrick the plan needs a big dose of reality and not grandisoe dreams. Let plan something that actully has a chance to get built.

Fine - if single family homes are the goal then why spend the money on Core to Shore at all?

Fine - if single family homes are the goal then why spend the money on Core to Shore at all?

Excellent question. Real Estate Speculation by those in the know???

Fine - if single family homes are the goal then why spend the money on Core to Shore at all?

What? So if C2S isn't dense townhomes, multiple family or highrise apartments, it shouldn't be developed? Is that what you are saying?

Excellent question. Real Estate Speculation by those in the know???

Core to Shore is far more than real estate specualtion. The City is spending million and millions of dollars. Wouldn't it just be cheaper to build 500 single family homes out near Piedmont? If single family homes are not the goal, then WHAT IS the goal (let's call that X). What is X?

Wrong track Kerry. I was speaking about certain in the know individuals buying up the Core to Shore land years ago because they had insider info it could be coming and wanted to profit from their position situation. Like what happened in Bricktown years ago.

Core to Shore is far more than real estate specualtion. The City is spending million and millions of dollars. Wouldn't it just be cheaper to build 500 single family homes out near Piedmont? If single family homes are not the goal, then WHAT IS the goal (let's call that X). What is X?

X is having more people living downtown, developing the park, and developing the river.

If a mix of single family homes and multiple family units accomplish this, then great.

You seem to assume that single family housing was never tabled in the first place.

We seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of goals, objectives, and strategies.

To me, things like having more people living downtown is an objective, while developing the park, and developing the river are strategies to get people to live downtown. A goal would be WHY we want people to live downtown. I am interested in learning what people think the ‘goal’ is. Now granted, one person's goal might be another person's objective, but I don't think anyone's goal is to have people live downtown for no other reason than to have people living downtown.

This is not a trivial matter either. A plan has to have a reason to exist. Here in Jax I often hear about well OKC is doing and why Jacksonville can't duplicate it. But let's look at Jacksonville. We have an NFL team, a river front park, a downtown fixed guideway system, The Landing, downtown retail, downtown high-rise residential buildings (5 of them to be exact), a downtown grocery store, a downtown arena, a downtown football stadium, a downtown baseball stadium, etc. They have accomplished far more than OKC has, but it still doesn't all work together. The reason is there was no goal, just a bunch of objectives but they weren't all working towards the same thing. So every objective was met and the people of Jax scratch their heads and say, "Why didn't it work." To which I ask, "Why didn't what work?" What did they think the City was trying to accomplish? What is OKC trying to accomplish?

We seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of goals, objectives, and strategies.



Not really, you just keep trying to steer the conversation until it reaches an outcome that you desire.

C2s is in it's infancy.

Keep saying this over and over, 50 yrs. 50 yrs. 50 yrs.

I think there are many reasons why we want to have people living downtown. Me, I just want neighbors:). Well, and shopping and a grocery store I can walk to, which won't happen without more people living downtown.

I think the goal of Core to Shore is to to take a blighted, underutilized area and make it a place people can live, work and play. The one thing I do like about the boulevard is that is has the potential to create a park-like walkway through downtown that could be very inviting. I really think walkability is a key goal, as it implies so many things that are desirable....good streetscaping, good sidewalks, lots of small businesses and restaurants to walk to, etc.

Not really, you just keep trying to steer the conversation until it reaches an outcome that you desire.

C2s is in it's infancy.

Keep saying this over and over, 50 yrs. 50 yrs. 50 yrs.

I won't care in 50 years. So you think the goal is to have people living downtown and that is it?

I won't care in 50 years. So you think the goal is to have people living downtown and that is it?

Well that's kind of short sighted. I'll probably be dead by then myself, but that doesn't mean I want to see C2S developed quickly just to satisfy my urge to see it done.

I think have a larger residential population downtown is certainly one of the goals or objectives.

Wrong track Kerry. I was speaking about certain in the know individuals buying up the Core to Shore land years ago because they had insider info it could be coming and wanted to profit from their position situation. Like what happened in Bricktown years ago.

You mean like the United States (Post Office), Goodwill and the Salvation Army? I thought we looked and no one of any significance bought land before Core to Shore was first being talked about 8 to 10 years ago.

Well that's kind of short sited. I'll probably be dead by then myself, but that doesn't mean I want to see C2S developed quickly just to satisfy my urge to see it done.

I think have a larger residential population downtown is certainly one of the goals or objectives.

This is just an example

Goal – Produce an urban setting that promotes an environment of Human interaction that provides the greatest benefit to the most people at the lowest cost. (or something to that effect)

Objective 1 – Efficient transportation
Strategy 1A- Street car

Objective 2 – Efficient housing
Strategy 2A – High rise residential
Strategy 2B – Mid ride residential
Strategy 2C – Town Homes

And so on…

6 lanes boulevards and single family homes are not good strategies, to accomplish my objectives, to achieve my goal. My fear is that people making all this happen have no more of an idea of a goal than you do. If you don't know where you are going any road will get you there. I like to know where I am going so I know when I get there.

This is just an example

Goal – Produce an urban setting that promotes an environment of Human interaction that provides the greatest benefit to the most people at the lowest cost. (or something to that effect)

Objective 1 – Efficient transportation
Strategy 1A- Street car

Objective 2 – Efficient housing
Strategy 2A – High rise residential
Strategy 2B – Mid ride residential
Strategy 2C – Town Homes

And so on…

6 lanes boulevards and single family homes are not good strategies, to accomplish my objectives, to achieve my goal. My fear is that people making all this happen have no more of an idea of a goal than you do. If you don't know where you are going any road will get you there. I like to know where I am going so I know when I get there.

The boulevard is being re-designed to be more pedestrian friendly, so you can mark that off your list.
We're obviously not going to see eye to eye on single family, that's fine, but it will be one of many components of the C2S plan, as it should be.
High rise residential just isn't a viable option because it is cost prohibitive to build and you simply can't get the rates necessary to service the debt.

Why do you assume that C2S is going to be strictly single family housing?

Why do you assume that C2S is going to be strictly single family housing?

I don't. I do see that there are other areas where mid-rise and town homes are envisioned. I just question why the City would propose the lowest of all residential density options in an urban environment. At least they didn't show 5 acre urban estates in their proposal.

I don't. I do see that there are other areas where mid-rise and town homes are envisioned. I just question why the City would propose the lowest of all residential density options in an urban environment. At least they didn't show 5 acre urban estates in their proposal.

Because it's the farthest from the core. You're taking that graphical representation too seriously. That's all it is is a graphical representation.

Review the ULI study. Some really smart folks made the recommendation that there be some single family housing the further you get from the core. There is going to be plenty of dense housing.

You mean like the United States (Post Office), Goodwill and the Salvation Army? I thought we looked and no one of any significance bought land before Core to Shore was first being talked about 8 to 10 years ago.

Maybe yes and maybe no. An observant individual would know that the locations you mentioned are a miniscule minority of the land that was in play. Political movers and shakers always act behind the scenes 10-15 years ahead of the general public. Insider info baby.

I'm not really sure where to put this. But here is a map showing parcels of land in the future Central Park boundaries that need to be acquired, have been acquired, are under contract, and etc. The graphic is current as of 11/10/2010.

OKC.GOV - Maps3 Subcommittee (http://okc.gov/AgendaPub/cache/2/1dflzm45e2323xaexghmzb55/106696311172010061133939.PDF)

Because it's the farthest from the core. You're taking that graphical representation too seriously. That's all it is is a graphical representation.

Review the ULI study. Some really smart folks made the recommendation that there be some single family housing the further you get from the core. There is going to be plenty of dense housing.

But there are already single family homes around downtown OKC. They are all over the place.

I'm not really sure where to put this. But here is a map showing parcels of land in the future Central Park boundaries that need to be acquired, have been acquired, are under contract, and etc. The graphic is current as of 11/10/2010.

OKC.GOV - Maps3 Subcommittee (http://okc.gov/AgendaPub/cache/2/5ebwyirc5g30oj454dprwcyv/106589911172010040301442.PDF)

Can you try that link again? It doesn't seem to work.

Fixed.

Maybe some of us instead need to come up with a fancy graphic map showing everything in its rightful place. It would be a shame if people gravitate toward these bad C2S ideas just because they have glitzy renderings behind them.

Fixed.

Thank you.

I hate the fact they used 4 shades of blue to represent the stages of acqusitions. 15 million colors to pick from and they choose 4 that are right next to each other on the color spectrum. Brilliant.

Core to Shore is far more than real estate specualtion. The City is spending million and millions of dollars. Wouldn't it just be cheaper to build 500 single family homes out near Piedmont? If single family homes are not the goal, then WHAT IS the goal (let's call that X). What is X?

the goal is to redevelop a very blighted area close to our core. that will increase tax revenue and the downtown retail and business climate

here is a map showing parcels of land in the future Central Park boundaries that need to be acquired, have been acquired, are under contract, and etc.

Thanks for that... Very interesting.

Also interesting is that the City has acquired adjacent property that is not within the park's boundaries, such as Goodwill.

That link doesn't work for me. But, I'm also fine with whomever owns land in Core to Shore, as long as they develop it. I certainly cannot afford to, and thus I'm not going to throw stones at those who do. I'd rather local people own and develop land in Oklahoma City than national companies who take their earnings out of state.

Come on folks....I think most of us realize that any masterplan is just that...a plan. And we all know how often masterplans work out when the private sector is involved. Anything that's not a public project in C2S, you can just assume won't happen the way it's seen in the designs. We've seen that time and time again in downtown already. Think of how many failed projects didn't come to fruition in Bricktown in the last few years...and they are a much smaller scale.

So basically, we'll get the park and the convention center and everything else will be left for development by the private sector. Even the mayor expects that process to span decades. I believe he said something about it being done when his grandkids are his age. 25 years would be a fast track on the whole process. So we really just have to sit back and wait and see what develops.

The one thing I hope that doesn't happen, is that they just start dozing everything and leave us with a multi-square-mile swath of empty land. How depressing would that be...especially since we won't even know what we want to put in there. By all means build infrastructure for the general layout as much as you can, but at least grass it over if you tear something out.

But there are already single family homes around downtown OKC. They are all over the place.

And?

You'd be missing a large part of the market if there are no single family homes. This isn't LA, NYC, Philly, Denver, or Chicago. People here like their space, they like their yard and their dogs.

Take a look at the "dense" housing market downtown, what a huge success that has proven to be.