SemGroup to donate $5 million to A Gathering Place for Tulsa - Tulsa World: Government (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/semgroup-to-donate-million-to-a-gathering-place-for-tulsa/article_3e5d2881-fd2a-5c5a-9e1c-d669ff5d1431.html)

Another donation to Tulsa's better designed and planned park. Okc's Central Park will be an embarrassment compared to this one!

I guess if the park is not a success, a big chuck of it could be used for a new arena sometime down the road.

Tulsa's park, last I saw, was going to cost a whole lot more than ours.

SemGroup to donate $5 million to A Gathering Place for Tulsa - Tulsa World: Government (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/semgroup-to-donate-million-to-a-gathering-place-for-tulsa/article_3e5d2881-fd2a-5c5a-9e1c-d669ff5d1431.html)

Another donation to Tulsa's better designed and planned park. Okc's Central Park will be an embarrassment compared to this one!

Without a doubt, Tulsa's park is going to blow ours out of the water. I'm also impressed that they're getting the corporate donations we were told our park would. I'm thrilled for Tulsa on this and hope the park lives up to expectations. On a related note, I wish like hell OKC had someone like Kaiser.

Looks like the group building it is spending $250m of their own money and is raising $150m extra in donations. With a smaller area, and 3 times the money, I'm sure theirs will look nicer.

Good for them, but you can't really compare the two.

Looks like the group building it is spending $250m of their own money and is raising $150m extra in donations. With a smaller area, and 3 times the money, I'm sure theirs will look nicer.

Good for them, but you can't really compare the two.

Why can't we compare them? As city parks, they're easily comparable. Why are we building a larger park with less money following a poor plan?

I think OKC's park is for the most part a long-term investment. Like the Ford Center and the Bricktown Canal, it will serve as a catalyst for private development and future upgrades. I imagine in 2020 or so once MAPS3 wraps up, the park will be one of the least popular MAPS3 projects. Myriad Gardens may still be the more popular park despite the existence of the new park. It will take time for the area around it to develop. However, in 2040, most people will be glad the city made the investment it did.

Why can't we compare them? That's definitely part of the problem with our park - less money, larger area, worse plan.I wouldn't compare them
Two different kinds of parks. One is being built away from development on a river and the other is being built smack in the middle of downtown. They are going to serve two different purposes.

I give credit where it is due and Tulsa is going to have an amazing park when it's done.

OKC's biggest park planned, but can it surpass Myriad Gardens? | News OK (http://newsok.com/okcs-biggest-park-planned-but-can-it-surpass-myriad-gardens/article/5340122)

I personally really like what Myriad Gardens has become. It makes me wonder if the new Central Park is really even necessary at all. Thoughts?

You realize the Myriad Gardens are in OKC, right? Not Charlotte..

It's been said before, but not having these parks connected is a huge missed opportunity. The Convention Center and Boulevard will be a huge barrier to the utilization of the park unless there is significant development that takes place in the C2S area.

But yea...that ship has sailed.

I don't think it's sailed at all. There are still thoughtful considerations to be made for the dividing block. Do we build a bridge or a wall?

Two different kinds of parks. One is being built away from development on a river and the other is being built smack in the middle of downtown. They are going to serve two different purposes.

I don't see it this way at all, PluPan. They're both hoping to be gathering places for their respective cities and as both are central parks, I fail to see how they serve such different purposes. Also ours, while centrally located near the center city, is not smack in the middle. We've had repeated discussions about how we're plopping this park down in the middle of nothing and really need a plan for things to surround it. Their park has a great plan that appears to be beautifully executed so far, whilst ours seems to be poorly thought out and executed.

I don't see it this way at all, PluPan. They're both hoping to be gathering places for their respective cities and as both are central parks, I fail to see how they serve such different purposes. Also ours, while centrally located near the center city, is not smack in the middle. We've had repeated discussions about how we're plopping this park down in the middle of nothing and really need a plan for things to surround it. Their park has a great plan that appears to be beautifully executed so far, whilst ours seems to be poorly thought out and executed.

The real difference I see is Tulsa's park is being built to serve an existing need while OKC's is a catalyst for developing the Core2Shore area. While I do believe they are both gathering places and quite frankly, Tulsa looks to be way ahead of OKC here, the purpose of the investment really is different. As I said in my last post, much like the original MAPS arena and the canal, I wouldn't be surprised to see a functional park built initially and then big improvements years down the line once development around it has taken off. That generally has been the MAPS way. I think the real question should be is whether that approach to public investment is the most ideal in a downtown that is now seeing a ton of private investment.

OKC's park is going to provide a framework for future growth. I see it serving a few purposes:

1) it cleans out a lot of trashy buildings from the area

2) it provides basic park amenities like trails and a pond, green space, etc

3) it is simple enough and basic enough that it will be easy to modify later to better fit the buildings that are constructed around it.

Right now we're getting a big generic park. 20 years from now it will be a much different area and we will make a lot of improvements to it.

OKC's park is going to provide a framework for future growth. I see it serving a few purposes:

1) it cleans out a lot of trashy buildings from the area

2) it provides basic park amenities like trails and a pond, green space, etc

3) it is simple enough and basic enough that it will be easy to modify later to better fit the buildings that are constructed around it.

Right now we're getting a big generic park. 20 years from now it will be a much different area and we will make a lot of improvements to it.

Ding Ding Ding

... Right now we're getting a big generic park. 20 years from now it will be a much different area and we will make a lot of improvements to it.

Worked when they built the arena. Is pretty much the current plan for the convention center. No reason it can't work well for the park.

Worked when they built the arena. Is pretty much the current plan for the convention center. No reason it can't work well for the park.

Would you say it worked well though? The arena is a success, even though they've added on in weird ways, but it doesn't seem to be working that well for the convention centers plans and I don't believe it to be the right way to build a park either. However, it appears I'm pretty clearly in the minority on this so I'll let it go.

Would you say it worked well though? The arena is a success, even though they've added on in weird ways, but it doesn't seem to be working that well for the convention centers plans and I don't believe it to be the right way to build a park either. However, it appears I'm pretty clearly in the minority on this so I'll let it go.

It's definitely a great question to ask. I am not so certain that approach is best going forward being that OKC now has a downtown that is alive and growing. When the original MAPS was passed in 1993, OKC's downtown was dead and needed projects that were only functional to jump start growth. OKC didn't need an arena to compete with peer cities; it simply needed an arena to bring people downtown and to bring in events. The canal was a ditch offering boat rides to nowhere, but was the framework for what has become Bricktown. While I personally believe that approach may work for the park since its going into an area that is still dead, I think other projects like the convention center need to be more than simply functional since OKC will now be in competition with regional and national cities for big conventions.

OKC's park is going to provide a framework for future growth. I see it serving a few purposes:

1) it cleans out a lot of trashy buildings from the area

2) it provides basic park amenities like trails and a pond, green space, etc

3) it is simple enough and basic enough that it will be easy to modify later to better fit the buildings that are constructed around it.

Right now we're getting a big generic park. 20 years from now it will be a much different area and we will make a lot of improvements to it.+1

I am not sure that OKC residents are ready to pay the kind of money that would be required to produce a ready-made world class park of the size our Central Park will be. If MAPS 3 was a proposal for a $1.5 billion park, I think it fails by an overwhelming margin.

I am not sure that OKC residents are ready to pay the kind of money that would be required to produce a ready-made world class park of the size our Central Park will be. If MAPS 3 was a proposal for a $1.5 billion park, I think it fails by an overwhelming margin.Correct. I do think overtime this park can be made to be world class by adding and renovating certain parts of it as needed.

Just curious... Are folks aversion to the MAPS 3 design primarily related to the lack of intimacy do to it being larger park? I mean it seems as though yeah, Tulsa's is smaller. So they are spending the same or more money on a smaller area. So I guess they are getting better finish materials and substance from the design because it is more intimate? It also seems as though the folks doing the renderings did a better job on reflecting details in Tulsa's plan. And the well rendered trees seem to make a big difference in the renderings.

I agree regarding the CC and Boulevard being potential barriers. It seems as though there is an effort underway to make sure the CC complex is split though to preserve the "Harvey Spine" and some of us are still working hard on the Boulevard.

Without a doubt, Tulsa's park is going to blow ours out of the water. I'm also impressed that they're getting the corporate donations we were told our park would. I'm thrilled for Tulsa on this and hope the park lives up to expectations. On a related note, I wish like hell OKC had someone like Kaiser.

Tulsa has had its river parks since the late 60s. They had an aggressive plan (Tulsa Vision 2025) that included four phases. Their new park plan will be a nice addition to what already exists.

Oklahoma City Central Park will be in a position to improve; take on its own flavor. It doesn't have to be an extension or tied in with the Myriad Gardens although that plan would have its advantages.

Our sights need to be centered around the creation of our own character. Let's get the Central Park built; then we can add certain amenities to enhance its environment.

We're not in a race with Tulsa.


http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif "Oklahoma City looks oh-so pretty... ...as I get my kicks on Route 66." --Nat King Cole.http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif

We're not in a race with Tulsa.


I understand what you are saying but I think OKC is unwise to simply dismiss Tulsa when they are huge competition for entertainment-oriented amenities as well as national retailers. If they got their act together they could be big economic competition as well. They are just the right distance from OKC that unfortunately the success of one city sometimes comes at the expense of the other. OKC is really starting to pull ahead in a lot of areas and I want to keep it that way. I want OKC to catch up with and pass Tulsa in areas that it is still behind.

We should want both cities to do well. The stronger they are, the better for the state.

^^^^^^^^^
Exactly

I think Tulsa's gathering place is will be awesome and I applause their vision and thoughtful approach to it. As far as Our Central Park, I'm outraged at how little we got out of the design effort, how flawed the connection to the surrounding properties is, how unbelieveably arrogant the design firm is in responding to community concerns and mostly how city staff and city council haven't said a peep about what a lazy effort we're paying the consultant major bucks for. Reminds me of that story about The Emporer's New Clothes.

I hope Tulsa does well. I just wish Tulsa would get over its butthurt about OKC.

I think Tulsa's gathering place is will be awesome and I applause their vision and thoughtful approach to it. As far as Our Central Park, I'm outraged at how little we got out of the design effort, how flawed the connection to the to surrounding properties is, how unbelieveably arrogant the design firm is in responding to community concerns and mostly how city staff and city council haven't said a peep about what a lazy effort we're paying the consultant major bucks for. Reminds me of that story about The Emporer's New Clothes.
agreed.

I think Tulsa's gathering place is will be awesome and I applause their vision and thoughtful approach to it. As far as Our Central Park, I'm outraged at how little we got out of the design effort, how flawed the connection to the to surrounding properties is, how unbelieveably arrogant the design firm is in responding to community concerns and mostly how city staff and city council haven't said a peep about what a lazy effort we're paying the consultant major bucks for. Reminds me of that story about The Emporer's New Clothes.

This is really what I was trying to say but wasn't able to articulate nearly as well. Very well said.

Tulsa received a TIGER Grant today as well that will impact their park.

Riverside Drive/Gathering Place Multimodal Access Project

Applicant: City of Tulsa
District: OK-01
Region: South
State: OK
Grant Amount: $10,000,000
Total Project Cost: $38,558,729
Project Phase: Construction
Project Type: Road
Area: Urban

Description: The Riverside Drive Multi-Modal Access Project will rebuild and rehabilitate Riverside Drive into a complete street with improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities to better connect to the Gathering Place, a 75-acre recreational park and natural area funded by the George Kaiser Family Foundation slated to open in 2017.

As far as Our Central Park, I'm outraged at how little we got out of the design effort, how flawed the connection to the surrounding properties is, how unbelieveably arrogant the design firm is in responding to community concerns and mostly how city staff and city council haven't said a peep about what a lazy effort we're paying the consultant major bucks for.

What would you have done differently?

I would have provided for open, obvious, welcoming entrances to the space at least at every adjacent intersection instead of isolating the space with a tree wall. I would have responded to Steve Lackmeyers inquiry about what is special about this park, and I would have addressed incorporating the Film Exchange building with something more eloquent than "that'll cost ya". I would have never included the unnatural sawtooth shaped water features. The consultants will be paid about 15 million dollars for their efforts. That's a bunch of money to not explain themselves and not be responsive to their ultimate clients. I just don't see 15 million dollars worth of effort here.

I think Tulsa's gathering place is will be awesome and I applause their vision and thoughtful approach to it. As far as Our Central Park, I'm outraged at how little we got out of the design effort, how flawed the connection to the surrounding properties is, how unbelieveably arrogant the design firm is in responding to community concerns and mostly how city staff and city council haven't said a peep about what a lazy effort we're paying the consultant major bucks for. Reminds me of that story about The Emporer's New Clothes.

The surrounding buildings look like crap. They purposefully don't want to use anything from them in the park design. Now I like the Film Exchange buildings and wish we could have kept them, but I can see how someone else wouldn't.

Part of the problem is we don't know what the surrounding area will look like in 10 or 20 years. At all. We don't know if it will be housing (and if it is, whether it will be 4 story apartments like Deep Deuce, or 10-15 story midrises like we don't have yet, or even a 30+ story residential highrise), or if it will be office towers, or hotels, or even if it's still vacant. Without some idea of what is going to surround the park, I don't think you can tailor your design to the area.

What we've got is a pretty basic modern park design. You can see the weirdly shaped pond, the multicolored path, paths that cut odd geometric shapes into the grass. Not exactly my favorite type of park design, but I guess it's what is currently fashionable. I'd prefer an iron fence around it, with gray stone pillars, a stone bridge, a big white gazebo, basically a park that looks like it was designed in the 1930s. That's what I like best, but I don't know if people are building parks like that anymore. And honestly I don't know if most people on this website would like a park designed by me any more than they like this one.

That's why I think the design we're seeing here has merit. We're spending like 132 million dollars for what looks like maybe 20 city blocks worth of park. That's not too bad.

I can't speak for how the planning process for this went, so I'l defer it to other people.

But the beauty of MAPS projects has been fundamentally different than anything Tulsa has done. We have built projects that are of decent quality but basic enough to a) afford to pay cash for it and more importantly b) can serve as a catalyst point for activity and businesses while being easily "improveable" should the demand warrant it.

Think about it. OKC builds a baisc canal through Bricktown and lets the surrounding neighborhood form around it. We dam up a river and make improvements and over time the Boathouse district forms through little city help besides the initial river improvements. We build a basic arena and let events and teams use it more over time until we land a permanent NBA franchise and make the needed upgrades. The canal, arena, and river were nothing special but they were built to be magnents that eventually drew in private businesses and individuals to shape them into what the community really wanted.

This is not to suggest that what Tulsa is doing is better or worse. The park looks fantastic, and they can do that because a millionaire just opened his checkbook and gave them $300 million. I gotta be honest I think Tulsa will get a great park out of this but they may regret the funding mechanisms in the long run. This sets a pretty slippery precedent that should the city continually vote down muncipal projects some rich guy will just step up and foot the bill. Particulary in a town that has a legacy of being vehemently anti-tax.

Like I said I can't speak for the planning process but I am a bit disappointed in how many people have ripped this project when in esssence its development is really no different than any other wildly successful MAPS project. I have to wonder if Tulsa would even be doing AGP if MAPS 3 did not include a central park. I for one am really looking foward to the construction and development of this area.

adaniel is pretty much right on. Honestly, the same could be said of the street car. If in 20 years from now we have not expanded on the street car, than that project will have been a massive failure. Heck, if we don't start construction on a next phase 5 to 10 years after we finish the downtown circulator, it's probably reasonable to label it a bust.

It's probably worth giving any one of these 3 major projects a chance to finish out before we totally rail on it.

As I understand the C2S plan, the vast majority of adjacent buildings will be razed, and we know what those that will remain look like. If the park and city government do their job, the park will set the tone and quality do the entire area. If the park is built correctly, new construction will have to address the park in it's entirety rather than relate to a big row of trees.

We can build this faddish park that appears to me to have been designed for how it looks on paper rather than how it will function and serve the desires of the community for the ages as the park Hoyasooner described as to his liking might. I have absolutely no problem with the overall budget for the park, but for $15 million in design fees, I see nothing special, innovative or particularly place making and suspect that we may have to redo this park three times before it works well. But then, that's what happened with MBG too. I think we're being taken to the cleaners by the designers and the city government is just turning a blind eyes. Only my opinion and everybody is welcome to refute it.

does Tulsa have an equivalent to MGB?

does Tulsa have an equivalent to MGB?

Woodward park comes to mind, though I wouldn't consider MGB as its equal. Each has aspects the other does not.
Woodward Park (Tulsa) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_Park_(Tulsa))

Woodward park comes to mind, though I wouldn't consider MGB as its equal. Each has aspects the other does not.
Woodward Park (Tulsa) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_Park_(Tulsa))

Apples and oranges. Woodward and MG totally different.

We should want both cities to do well. The stronger they are, the better for the state.

That should be one of the goals for the state; unfortunately the 'pork barrel' has diminished as a result of the state income tax possibly being in benchmark stages to be phased out--rural community legislators don't give a 'rats ass' about either city. Tulsa and Oklahoma City's proximity should benefit success for both communities.


I hope Tulsa does well. I just wish Tulsa would get over its butthurt about OKC.

Lately, both cities experience new private development construction.

It would be nice if the OKC-TUL I-44 corridor (example: high speed rapid transit link) could maximize its potential for the benefit of both cities.

Your 'wish' statement is not likely to happen anytime soon. Like OKC, Tulsa became stagnant over a period of time. Oklahoma City's development is more robust & attractive now than it ever has been. She's feeling her oats: dropping handkerchiefs, got heads turning, old men are drooling and OKC's competition is turning green with envy...

Agree, we shouldn't take our eyes off Tulsa. We have the future to develop the central park; Tulsa's park won't be the 'x-factor' that sways business decisions that affects both cities. The I-35, I-40/I-44 corridors interchange plays more to OKC (I-35: Oklahoma City-Dallas-Fort Worth-Austin) than Tulsa's proposed beautiful park.

Note that Tulsa built a viable arena & ballpark after OKC built the Bricktown Ballpark & Chesapeake Energy Arena.


https://sp2.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608046358699509002&pid=15.1&P=0
We (OKC) have some good 'quality of life' momentum factors which make us attractive that we didn't have when United Airlines chose Indianapolis over us in the maintenance center debacle.


http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif "Oklahoma City looks oh-so pretty... ...as I get my kicks on Route 66." --Nat King Cole.http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif

Apples and oranges. Woodward and MG totally different.

I agree. Myriad Gardens is a city gathering place and Woodward Park is a neighborhood park. Woodward is very beautiful though and reminds me a lot of the urban parks back East. I think with some improvements Edgemere Park could be a great candidate for an OKC version of Woodward.

does Tulsa have an equivalent to MGB?

Guthrie Green

I can't speak for how the planning process for this went, so I'l defer it to other people.

But the beauty of MAPS projects has been fundamentally different than anything Tulsa has done. We have built projects that are of decent quality but basic enough to a) afford to pay cash for it and more importantly b) can serve as a catalyst point for activity and businesses while being easily "improveable" should the demand warrant it.

Think about it. OKC builds a baisc canal through Bricktown and lets the surrounding neighborhood form around it. We dam up a river and make improvements and over time the Boathouse district forms through little city help besides the initial river improvements. We build a basic arena and let events and teams use it more over time until we land a permanent NBA franchise and make the needed upgrades. The canal, arena, and river were nothing special but they were built to be magnents that eventually drew in private businesses and individuals to shape them into what the community really wanted.

This is not to suggest that what Tulsa is doing is better or worse. The park looks fantastic, and they can do that because a millionaire just opened his checkbook and gave them $300 million. I gotta be honest I think Tulsa will get a great park out of this but they may regret the funding mechanisms in the long run. This sets a pretty slippery precedent that should the city continually vote down muncipal projects some rich guy will just step up and foot the bill. Particulary in a town that has a legacy of being vehemently anti-tax.

Like I said I can't speak for the planning process but I am a bit disappointed in how many people have ripped this project when in esssence its development is really no different than any other wildly successful MAPS project. I have to wonder if Tulsa would even be doing AGP if MAPS 3 did not include a central park. I for one am really looking foward to the construction and development of this area.

Adaniel... The problem we have is the designers designed a blank slate park that could go anywhere. Nothing about it says Okc or even oklahoma. They are destroying structurally sound historic buildings that should easily be reused in the park. They didn't incorporate anything from the public meetings and basically are doing this for their portfolio. Nobody on the committee said no to any of their ideas. The maps park committee just rubber stamped everything they did.

Ok I am done with talking about it. This park wasted so much of my time for nothing!

Expert says MAPS 3 park contamination 'not that bad' | News OK (http://newsok.com/expert-says-maps-3-park-contamination-not-that-bad/article/5359194/?page=1)

So they don't think the Lake is going to tap into that ground water at all?.. or is the ground water problem on the south side of I40 I couldn't tell.

Adaniel... The problem we have is the designers designed a blank slate park that could go anywhere. Nothing about it says Okc or even oklahoma. They are destroying structurally sound historic buildings that should easily be reused in the park. They didn't incorporate anything from the public meetings and basically are doing this for their portfolio. Nobody on the committee said no to any of their ideas. The maps park committee just rubber stamped everything they did.

Ok I am done with talking about it. This park wasted so much of my time for nothing!


Why would they want it for their portfolio if it is so crappy and everyone will be unhappy with it? Those are the things you keep out of your portfolio.

So they don't think the Lake is going to tap into that ground water at all?.. or is the ground water problem on the south side of I40 I couldn't tell.

The study zone did not go south of i40. If I remember correctly the lakes main source of water is to be rain runoff, part of it's intent was to help recharge the groundwater so it probably sits above the water table.

Apples and oranges. Woodward and MG totally different.

I think Woodward Park, while beautiful, is more comparable to Will Rogers Park. Just in a better neighborhood (Terwilliger Heights > I-44/36th area, while not bad certainly not HI) I promise a lot of you would be surprised at what all there is at Will Rogers Park, particularly the OKC Rose Garden and the OKC Tennis Center.

As BG918 said the Guthrie Green is more the Myriad Gardens equivalent (albeit much lesser), although I'm more partial to the Center of the Universe which is kinda cool.

It's worth noting that the Riverparks are clearly Tulsa's defining public space, and not so much one park.

Why do they have to do the portion south of I40?

Why do they have to do the portion south of I40?

It makes for a bigger park and (sort of) connects downtown to the river.

Here are the pretty much the final plans by Hargreaves.

This first group is big picture and the cafe along Reno:



http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cp0827141.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cp0827142.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cp0827143.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cp0827144.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cp0827145.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cp0827146.jpg

Well, at least they are accurate with their Boulevard renderings...

Couple of questions about the park that someone might be able to answer:

1. Does the city plan on redoing Robinson from the Boulevard to I-40?
2. Is there a plan to drop the speed limit around the park to make it safer?
3. Is Hudson going to dead end at SW 7th so you have to turn west if coming south? If not, I guess it will dead end at I-40?

The Oval:



http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cp0827147.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cp0827148.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cp0827149.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cp08271410.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cp08271411.jpg

I noticed the great lawn has changed a bit..and to be honest I liked it the way it was. More open space encourages bigger crowds to come play football, frisbee, have picnics, and what not. And the more trees there are discourages big crowds in one area. I can just picture showing up with some friends ready to toss the football a bit and saying "oh, no room, oh well". Trust me I love parks that are packed with trees. With the skyline changing in the next ten years it'll be cool to go to a place to get away from it. I would just like to see trees placed in the right areas. It's probably to far along for them to change it again, but that's just my opinion.

Can anyone tell from the drawings if there is some kind of path that was specifically thought about for a running trail?

doesn't appear that way, just using the promenade down to the river and back it appears

I've got tons more images to upload but here is the Promenade; the columns to the left are illuminated at night:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cp08271412.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cp08271413.jpg

This is the area along Robinson. The artwork / sculpture would be on the corner of Robinson and the Boulevard.

That curved area in the forefront of the playground is actually restrooms; note how they slope up to form a ramp that leads to climbing structures.

Now that the details are coming out, I really like what I see. Lots more to the park than was revealed in the more conceptual plans.



http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cp08271416.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cp08271414a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cp08271414.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cp08271415.jpg

More:


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cp08271417.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cp08271418.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cp08271419.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cp08271420.jpg

More:


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cp08271421.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cp08271422.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cp08271423.jpg

Totally impressed. Just hope there is enough money to maintain the park, but I see quite a few ways for this park to make money (Cafe, boat rentals, event rentals in Union Station, concerts)