OKC is building too much park land downtown. It would take 200,000 downtown residents to effectively use all the space. It took 50 years for the land around New York City Central Park to fill-in and the lots along Champs Elysees took nearly 100 years to build out. Who knows how long OKC will have to wait since we already have much smaller downtown parks whose frontage isn't built out yet after 60 years. This Central Park is no different than a giant Walmart parking lot designed to handle parking demands for the day after Thanksgiving and then sitting 90% empty they other 364 days. This park will be used to some high level of capacity for maybe 2 or 3 annual events and will be 99% unsued for the rest of the year - for decades to come. It just doesn't seem like a good use of land, money, or effort but that ship already sailed.

Welcome back JTF

Can the city just trade the surrounding land with Blair Humphrey and build "Wheeler Park" around central park? But to your point, yes I agree to an extent. The city hasn't been too keen on doing something with the homeless in the area, so my faith in an active police force in the park to keep it clean isn't high. The myriad gardens have done pretty good, though it is a much smaller park closer to the core.

I thought that way myself but the reality is that this park is going to exist in a residential vacuum for a long time and will eventually be inhabited by homeless people, vagrants, and other undesirables - which will actually make populating this area even more difficult. The city would be better off building nothing here and just keep the lot cleared and mowed until other parts of downtown are filled in.

That is what everyone said about the Myriad Gardens but look how that has turned around.

OKC is building too much park land downtown. It would take 200,000 downtown residents to effectively use all the space. It took 50 years for the land around New York City Central Park to fill-in and the lots along Champs Elysees took nearly 100 years to build out.

Your thinking reminds me of a Chinese proverb - "The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, the second best time is today."

So many people on here complain about the city planners not having foresight, yet when they do, others complain. Yes, this park will take years to mature and the land around it may take even longer to fill in, but when it does the future residents of OKC will be grateful for our foresight. I'm proud that my generation is making the sacrifice so that my kids and grand kids will have a park that very few cities of any size will have anything comparable to it.

That is what everyone said about the Myriad Gardens but look how that has turned around.

For 40 years it was, and when MBG was rebuilt they moved to Stage Center, and now Stage Center is gone. So where does the homeless population move to now?

If nothing else, I am realist and I know this park is going to be built so really the only question is, how do you keep it clean and safe on all those days when no one will be using the park. The only answer to that is a constant and visible police presence because there won't be any residents to keep "eyes on the street". I seriously doubt the City and OKCPD are up to that task so what happens when they aren't? The answer is that the park becomes an urban campground. We already see this with the Skydance Bridge. There simply aren't people around to keep an eye on it.

As for people coming in from the suburbs to use the park, they don't even use their own local parks in any great number. How much parkland do people with a 1/3 acre backyard need?

JTF you have a lot of catching up to do! (Or maybe you've been lurking). Welcome back.

Your theory with the park is my nightmare theory with the streetcar, great concept for future OKC - but participants in the early stages could possibly be extremely underwhelming.

I still feel like the park needs a unique sculpture or attraction that will make people want to visit the park on a daily basis.

I think the park will develop and will ultimately be a great thing for downtown OKC. What I do not see is it being surrounded by high-rise residential like what is commonly envisioned. I think it is more likely to have development on the scale of the wheeler district around it. There is a lot of demand for family housing in the core and this will be a great catalyst for a true new urbanist community. Think Harbortown/Mud Island in Memphis.

http://www.riverinnmemphis.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/harbor-town-pictures-067-custom.jpg

JTF you have a lot of catching up to do! (Or maybe you've been lurking). Welcome back.

Thanks, I kept up with NEWSOK and checked in now and then. Reading and not posting for so long provided a whole new perspective. I actually think most of us would benefit from doing that.


Your theory with the park is my nightmare theory with the streetcar, great concept for future OKC - but participants in the early stages could possibly be extremely underwhelming.

I'm not worried about the streetcar. It will allow development of property that simply isn't possible without it. Think how much money it cost to provide on-site structured parking. People complain downtown housing is too expensive but half the cost is just so they can house their cars. Take that 'requirement' out of the equation and the cost to live downtown drops like a rock.


I still feel like the park needs a unique sculpture or attraction that will make people want to visit the park on a daily basis.

Simply placing a wrought iron/stone fence around park with decorative portal entrances is all it takes to entice people into a park - assuming there are people around to be enticed in. I was able to show Plutonic Panda around Jacksonville a few months ago and he now knows exactly what I am talking about. People naturally migrate to enclosed positive public space - you don't need festivals or gimmicks to get them there.

Big surprise - Rover still doesn't grasp analogies, similes, or metaphors. Maybe 99 days wasn't long enough.

As long as they make sense and actually relate, I and others do. Trying to discredit things with absurd metaphors isn't trying to make people understand. Analogies, similes and metaphors still need to be believable. Reboot with examples that more relate to what we are facing, in context, in recent time-frame, and with like objectives.

OKC is building too much park land downtown. It would take 200,000 downtown residents to effectively use all the space. It took 50 years for the land around New York City Central Park to fill-in and the lots along Champs Elysees took nearly 100 years to build out. Who knows how long OKC will have to wait since we already have much smaller downtown parks whose frontage isn't built out yet after 60 years. This Central Park is no different than a giant Walmart parking lot designed to handle parking demands for the day after Thanksgiving and then sitting 90% empty they other 364 days. This park will be used to some high level of capacity for maybe 2 or 3 annual events and will be 99% unsued for the rest of the year - for decades to come. It just doesn't seem like a good use of land, money, or effort but that ship already sailed.

Welcome back, Kerry.

OKC is building too much park land downtown. It would take 200,000 downtown residents to effectively use all the space. It took 50 years for the land around New York City Central Park to fill-in and the lots along Champs Elysees took nearly 100 years to build out. Who knows how long OKC will have to wait since we already have much smaller downtown parks whose frontage isn't built out yet after 60 years. This Central Park is no different than a giant Walmart parking lot designed to handle parking demands for the day after Thanksgiving and then sitting 90% empty they other 364 days. This park will be used to some high level of capacity for maybe 2 or 3 annual events and will be 99% unsued for the rest of the year - for decades to come. It just doesn't seem like a good use of land, money, or effort but that ship already sailed.

Good point!

Once you get the park built; now we may or may not have too much land. It is going to be difficult to downsize the Central Park without creating controversy. One great feature about the Core-to-Shore, you could probably squeeze in some development along the shore without impacting a large central park. If the park appears to be underutilized, who will notice?

We'll live with those results.

Who is going to want to live next to a park that isn't safe?

Here is an excerpt from a review of Jane Jacob's book Death and Life of Great American Cities.

ARCHITECTURE + URBANISM: Jane Jacobs: The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961) (http://architectureandurbanism.blogspot.com/2012/03/jane-jacobs-death-and-life-of-great.html)


Jacobs describes parks as ‘volatile spaces’ and like sidewalks need ‘eyes’ and continuous usage but vast open spaces make this much more difficult to resolve. If a neighborhood park fails to attract people, it must become a specialized park, incorporating special attractions to draw people into the space.


We already see in this thread people saying the park needs a signature iconic structure and the developer created specialized sections for each conceivable use - picnics over there, children's playground over here, concerts in that area, etc.... I'll let you all decide if the developer and city already see this as a failed park.

I'm not as concerned as I once was about this. Midtown is unbelievably going to be close to out of raw land by the time the park is completed. While I think much of the development effort will shift west for a while, if OKC continues to build at the same clip it is possible - even likely - that infill will start to occur adjacent to the park sooner rather than later.

I'm not as concerned as I once was about this. Midtown is unbelievably going to be close to out of raw land by the time the park is completed. While I think much of the development effort will shift west for a while, if OKC continues to build at the same clip it is possible - even likely - that infill will start to occur adjacent to the park sooner rather than later.

I am not sure OKC has the population to build out the urban core even at moderate density. Just for fun lets say OKC could achieve a density of 10,000 per sq mile (yes I know that isn't very dense). The entire City population would fit in 61 sq miles. That means everyone in OKC could live within 4 miles of MBG. Think about that for a minute. OKC is going to run out of people long before it runs out of urban in-fill land to put them in (which also give us an idea of how much wasted space we have).

We don't have to fill out all of OKC. We just need to fill out the urban core area. If we're just talking about Auto Alley, Midtown, Film Row, Deep Deuce, Bricktown, and Core 2 Shore, I think that's plenty doable.

Oh, and welcome back, JTF.

I don't see any high or even mid-rise buildings being built adjacent to the park. Like I have said before, I see this being more like Forsythe Park in Savannah than Central Park in NYC. Forsythe is surrounded by a few one story buildings, but mostly two to three story buildings with some retail but mostly housing. It is 30 acres which isn't too much bigger than our at 40 acres.

OKC is building too much park land downtown. It would take 200,000 downtown residents to effectively use all the space. It took 50 years for the land around New York City Central Park to fill-in and the lots along Champs Elysees took nearly 100 years to build out. Who knows how long OKC will have to wait since we already have much smaller downtown parks whose frontage isn't built out yet after 60 years. This Central Park is no different than a giant Walmart parking lot designed to handle parking demands for the day after Thanksgiving and then sitting 90% empty they other 364 days. This park will be used to some high level of capacity for maybe 2 or 3 annual events and will be 99% unsued for the rest of the year - for decades to come. It just doesn't seem like a good use of land, money, or effort but that ship already sailed.

Welcome back JTF.

It is 30 acres which isn't too much bigger than our at 40 acres.

Where did you go to school?:rolleyes:

Whether this park gets surrounded by midrise or highrise housing depends entirely upon how the ClayCo towers go. If they build two residential towers, and the demand is solid and they fill up, then I can see someone trying to build more towers next to the new park.

Where did you go to school?:rolleyes:

HA! I guess I meant in comparison to Central park in NYC which over 800 acres. Also, the layout will be very similar in that it is two blocks wide and five or so blocks long. Not just one big square.

I don't see any high or even mid-rise buildings being built adjacent to the park. Like I have said before, I see this being more like Forsythe Park in Savannah than Central Park in NYC. Forsythe is surrounded by a few one story buildings, but mostly two to three story buildings with some retail but mostly housing. It is 30 acres which isn't too much bigger than our at 40 acres.

If Forsyth Park in Savannah is the ultimate goal then we are spending $100 million too much - but maybe that is what this park should have been billed as in the first place. It would have been a good model to replicate.

If Forsyth Park in Savannah is the ultimate goal then we are spending $100 million too much - but maybe that is what this park should have been billed as in the first place. It would have been a good model to replicate.

I meant the area surrounding the park, not the park itself.

If Central Park was our only downtown park OKC might have the downtown population eventually to keep it busy, but OKC has so many downtown parks (with many more on the way) that it is actually ridiculous.

MBG
The Canal
Bicentennial
Kerr
Devon Yard
Sandridge Commons
City Hall
National Memorial
Lots across from Federal Building
Boathouse District
Wheeler Park
Wiley Post
River Park
Promenade Park
whatever that park is on N. Broadway
and the list can go on and on.

It is like the OKC Parks Department doesn't have a comprehensive park plan. They just build at random and then find a way to sort of maintain them.

Anyhow, I have probably contributed about as much as I can to this topic.

I wish they would just go as far south as I40 for the new park. I don't think we need a mile long park. Have the skydance be a walking connection between a district like wheeler to the central park. Or if anything just improve the trails and spaces that run along the river.

Isn't OCURA trying to acquire properties surrounding the park to control who builds there?

Isn't OCURA trying to acquire properties surrounding the park to control who builds there?

Either them or one of the city's other subsidiaries.

There can never be too many parks. We live in OKC, the middle of the freaking country. Stop trying to cramp us up.

Isn't OCURA trying to acquire properties surrounding the park to control who builds there?

Yes, OCURA is trying to buy lots of property to the west of both the upper and lower parks.

There has been quite a bit of activity to the west of the park in terms of small acquisitions and demolitions. There are a couple of groups who are obviously piecing properties together. May be just speculating but still, it will help move things forward.

There can never be too many parks. We live in OKC, the middle of the freaking country. Stop trying to cramp us up.

This. 95% of people couldn't give 2 craps about "density". Some people *gasp* actually appreciate parks and 1/3 acre property.

There can never be too many parks. We live in OKC, the middle of the freaking country. Stop trying to cramp us up.

What does being in the middle of the country have to do with density?

What does being in the middle of the country have to do with density?

"Plenty of room to swing a rope!"

OKC is blessed with lots of room. Maybe that feature should be embraced and make OKC the city of parks.

This. 95% of people couldn't give 2 craps about "density". Some people *gasp* actually appreciate parks and 1/3 acre property.

Then you do actually care about density. Or the lack of it.

First, a belated welcome back to JTF.

Second, folks, never be dense about density.

Third, OKC will get the park it gets. Said park may or may not resemble any of the renderings to date, in size, features or programming.

Fourth, whatever happens with the park, it won't be as fubar'd up as the AICCM or Project 180/2

Fifth, oh there is no fifth, so have another beer and don't fret it all that much.

What does being in the middle of the country have to do with density?

We country boy, we need some room to stretch our britches out.

Besides, putting a park in the middle of downtown decreases the available lots. By simple supply & demand principles, the less plots available downtown the more valuable they become. The more valuable they become the more economical it becomes to invest more in said available lots with bigger developments. The bigger the developments the more density. Wah-la

We country boy, we need some room to stretch our britches out.
No, you country. I'm urban. I wear pants.


putting a park in the middle of downtown decreases the available lots. By simple supply & demand principles, the less plots available downtown the more valuable they become.
I'm listening. Microecon is your thing, huh? Well, go on...


The more valuable they become the more economical it becomes to invest more in said available lots with bigger developments.
By way of whose voodoo? Why wouldn't they just sit empty for a while? If so, that would suggest that those land values are too high, leading to a lack of development.


The bigger the developments the more density. Wah-la
Q.E. mf'ing D. right?

-_-

Welcome back, JTF!

No, you country. I'm urban. I wear pants.


I'm listening. Microecon is your thing, huh? Well, go on...


By way of whose voodoo? Why wouldn't they just sit empty for a while? If so, that would suggest that those land values are too high, leading to a lack of development.


Q.E. mf'ing D. right?

-_-

woah woah woah. Nobody ever said this was going to happen over night. Best believe this park will help spur development at a way quicker rate than a Goodwill would/did.

Just walk a block north to see how a park can lead to high quality developments. Hell, the 3 best developments of the last quarter century will all happen on 3 sides of the Myriad Gardens. Then JTF wanted to take a shot at the canal, which basically led to all new development east of the railroad tracks.

You guys can trash on this park all you want, but you Eeyors will come crawling back in 20-30 years when most major downtown development will be taking place in this area.

Given how spread out OKC and its suburbs are. I don't really think a 30 acre park is going to make or break you when it comes to density. It could be 30 acres of parking lot or abandon buildings.

... It could be 30 acres of parking lot or abandon buildings.

How's the old song go ... they razed them some blight, and put up a parking lot.
Ahhhh, progress.

You could easily argue that the park is the only way to create density in that area.

Land is already being snatched up all around it and it's not going cheap. Any development will surely be dense to justify the expense and you can bet views of the park will be a priority.

How's the old song go ... they razed them some blight, and put up a parking lot.
Ahhhh, progress.

"They paved paradise, and put up a parking lot"

This case is just the opposite, though.

From the Journal Record:

Clearing the way: OKC moves to raze buildings to make room for Central Park

By: Molly M. Fleming The Journal Record November 20, 2014

OKLAHOMA CITY – The city of Oklahoma City has nearly finished demolishing the buildings on SW Fifth Street and to the south in preparation for the Core to Shore Central Park.

On Thursday, a request to demolish two former Salvation Army Central Oklahoma Area Command headquarters buildings at 311 SW Fifth St. went before the Downtown Design Review Committee. In November, the Salvation Army moved into a new facility, The Salvation Army Chesapeake Energy Center of Hope, 1001 N. Pennsylvania Ave.

The old site has four buildings in total, but the two other buildings will go before DDRC separately because they are listed as a different address, said Scott Copelin, project manager for Metropolitan Area Projects.

No action could be taken on the demolition issue Thursday because the DDRC did not have a quorum. The committee plans to have a special meeting, but no date was set as of press time.

The only other remaining buildings to be demolished for the park are the Film Exchange and adjacent north buildings. Those buildings have previously been considered for demolition, but any progress on razing them was put on hold after residents expressed concern at a MAPS 3 Citizens Oversight Board meeting in July 2013. The buildings would be on the park’s east side.

“If you go by the master plan and everything in it, then (the Film Exchange Building) comes out,” Copelin said. “(The renovated) Union Station (railroad depot) is the jewel of the whole park.”

The 40-acre, $130 million downtown Core to Shore Central Park is a MAPS 3 project and was originally designed with the north phase being done in two sections. Copelin said the north phase, which runs from the Oklahoma River to SW Fifth Street, could be completed in one phase.

He said the park’s completion date is a moving target since the city has moved more quickly on the convention center and hotel portion of the MAPS 3 project.

“The schedules are changing somewhat,” he said.

Copelin must prepare a Central Park preliminary report by Jan. 15. The report will improve upon the existing master plan, he said. Once the preliminary report is complete, then construction documents will be created.

“We’re at 95 percent for all the plans on utility relocation,” he said.

The remaining utility lines will be bid out in January.

“We will hopefully start the project this time next year,” Copelin said.

woah woah woah. Nobody ever said this was going to happen over night. Best believe this park will help spur development at a way quicker rate than a Goodwill would/did.

Just walk a block north to see how a park can lead to high quality developments. Hell, the 3 best developments of the last quarter century will all happen on 3 sides of the Myriad Gardens. Then JTF wanted to take a shot at the canal, which basically led to all new development east of the railroad tracks.

You guys can trash on this park all you want, but you Eeyors will come crawling back in 20-30 years when most major downtown development will be taking place in this area.

The park certainly needs to happen. However when it comes to adding density to the core, things such as our relative lack of geographical limitations, transit, and in this case the park become red herrings. Density will be a response to both market demands and sound municipal policy. That's the only way this area will develop properly.

You could easily argue that the park is the only way to create density in that area.

Land is already being snatched up all around it and it's not going cheap. Any development will surely be dense to justify the expense and you can bet views of the park will be a priority.

I guess we will all know soon enough but downtown OKC has had multiple parks for 60 years and where is all the development that surrounds them. Park Oriented Development hasn't seemed to work. Look at all the new developments in OKC - how many are adjacent to the dozen existing downtown parks and open space? What parks were the catalyst for Deep Deuce, Broadway, Midtown, Bricktown, SOSA, etc....? The only downtown park that has lured any development is MBG - which was rebuilt AFTER Devon selected the OCURA land. On one side is an old convention center and another side is a new convention center. Hell even the Clayco project puts office space fronting the park (which is a huge mistake btw - the park needs 'eyes' watching it at night - not empty office buildings). So much for it being a residential attractor.

I guess we will all know soon enough but downtown OKC has had multiple parks for 60 years and where is all the development that surrounds them. Park Oriented Development hasn't seemed to work. Look at all the new developments in OKC - how many are adjacent to the dozen existing downtown parks and open space? What parks were the catalyst for Deep Deuce, Broadway, Midtown, Bricktown, SOSA, etc....? The only downtown park that has lured any development is MBG - which was rebuilt AFTER Devon selected the OCURA land. On one side is an old convention center and another side is a new convention center. Hell even the Clayco project puts office space fronting the park. So much for it being a residential attractor.

I disagree.

What other parks does downtown OKC currently have that are failing? MBG has been a HUGE success since being upgraded by Devon. Parks and green space are great for placemaking and for being centers of community. I know if given a choice, I would rather live near a well-done park. Parks promote health and activity and definitely have their place in an urban environment.

I disagree.

What other parks does downtown OKC currently have that are failing? MBG has been a HUGE success since being upgraded by Devon. Parks and green space are great for placemaking and for being centers of community. I know if given a choice, I would rather live near a well-done park. Parks promote health and activity and definitely have their place in an urban environment.

Define what you mean by "failing". If it is the ability to attract adjacent development then all of them have failed. Even the great MBG has attracted 0 adjacent residential development. People use parks and there needs to be a certain level of time-diversity to make them successful. They can't just be used M-F from 9-5 (by office workers) and on special occasions (by suburbanites). They have to attract people 7 days week from 5AM to Midnight for no other reason than people want a positive public space to hang out in. Like Howard Kunstler said - if you need to have a festival to attract people you already failed in the basic purpose.

Well, historically there haven't been people living downtown to make use of the parks. For a long time, the only people who lived downtown were homeless people, and they did make use of the parks, so there you go. OKC still doesn't have a very large downtown population, though that is changing. The problem with OKC's lack of residential development over the past few decades was not because we had too many parks.

The purpose of the Central Park was clear -- provide a large park for future development to build around, and tear down a really nasty area that used to be blocked from downtown by the interstate. In those goals I think it will be successful. It may take 20 years before the area around the park is fully developed, but I think you'll get a hotel or two, and maybe an office tower and an apartment complex, pretty quickly. It will take time for deals to come together, but I think the portion of the park that is north of the interstate will be used fairly regularly.

You could easily argue that the park is the only way to create density in that area.

Land is already being snatched up all around it and it's not going cheap. Any development will surely be dense to justify the expense and you can bet views of the park will be a priority.

I was thinking the same. What better way to assure density than to take 80 acres of land that otherwise would've been developed?

I guess we will all know soon enough but downtown OKC has had multiple parks for 60 years and where is all the development that surrounds them. Park Oriented Development hasn't seemed to work. Look at all the new developments in OKC - how many are adjacent to the dozen existing downtown parks and open space?

Not residential, but here is a recent one.

OKCTalk - Oklahoma Contemporary reveals plans for new downtown museum (http://www.okctalk.com/content/65-oklahoma-contemporary-reveals-plans-new-downtown-museum.html)

As for residential, this will be coming on line next to Bicentennial Park.

http://www.okctalk.com/showwiki.php?title=Civic+Center+Flats&highlight=flats

I really don't know why you mention developments next to open space. That is happening all over the downtown area.

No, you country. I'm urban. I wear pants.


I'm listening. Microecon is your thing, huh? Well, go on...


By way of whose voodoo? Why wouldn't they just sit empty for a while? If so, that would suggest that those land values are too high, leading to a lack of development.


Q.E. mf'ing D. right?

-_-

So are you saying that the addition of the park to the area will cause land speculation to stymie the pace of development?

So are you saying that the addition of the park to the area will cause land speculation to stymie the pace of development?

No, I was responding to two things. One was the insinuation that since OKC has few geographical barriers, it should continue to sprawl. The other was that density would be the result of the park. Allow me to take those one by one.

The first one should be easy. Density + Core = Homerun. If not, I'll entertain arguments to the contrary. But be brief, because on this topic my TL;DR tolerance is very low.

It's the second one that I found much more curious. In theory, building the park raises property values to the point that dense development should occur. I agree with that. However, OKC has shown a willingness to allow lesser uses in prime locations. I look at Lower Bricktown and the office building approved next to Wheeler Park as prime examples. I have ZERO confidence that suburban development patterns will not be allowed to proliferate near the park despite our civic investments. Thus the crux of my argument was that it will take more than siting a park in the area to ensure the desired density.

Apparently there was a presentation about the park at the city council meeting yesterday:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-urviFBRQQ

Glad they are making changes. I guess the purchase of the property is done? I had not heard, seems strange it is quiet. I know Ed was not happy with the stalling. Probably could have saved a little $ if purchased 2 years ago.

Glad they are making changes. I guess the purchase of the property is done? I had not heard, seems strange it is quiet. I know Ed was not happy with the stalling. Probably could have saved a little $ if purchased 2 years ago.

Any property that was not bought several months ago (at least on the north side) was probably due to it being in litigation (or at least a phase threating it would be)

Anybody know what the City paid for the southern half of the block of the stage center?

Quite a great deal of additional detail in that presentation.

Still a boring sterile park that says nothing about OKC or Oklahoma. Tired of our city destroying our past for "new" things. Tired of nobody with any balls saying no. Tired of this city! Ready for a change!

Still a boring sterile park that says nothing about OKC or Oklahoma. Tired of our city destroying our past for "new" things. Tired of nobody with any balls saying no. Tired of this city! Ready for a change!

It gets a little frustrating doesn't it. OKC seems to be struggling with the idea of building a city for millennials (who actually prefer historical character) while still marching to the beat of the old guard (aging Baby boomers who want everything new and shinny). Talk about built in obsolescence.

Still a boring sterile park that says nothing about OKC or Oklahoma. Tired of our city destroying our past for "new" things. Tired of nobody with any balls saying no. Tired of this city! Ready for a change!

So change....move. From your screen name, it looks like you really want to be in LA anyway. LOL. it's the world's shining example of sprawl and anti urban.

Bye.