Yes, those parcels are in the park and completely vacant except for the large off-ramp from the old I-40.

I wonder if they are waiting on the demolition of the highway for some reason.

New presentation on requirements for Central Park:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/centralpark12412.PDF

Looking through that presentation it appears they are going to go with the plan to do Central Park in two phases, the first being a basic landscaping and tying in with the new boulevard and the Skydance Bridge to be complete by late 2014, the second to do the more detailed programming and development.

I think this is a great way to approach the park and really take the time to gauge what is needed after I-40 comes down, decisions are made about the convention center and more downtown development is announced.

Credit to the committee for this approach.



http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/centralpark12412a.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/centralpark12412b.jpg

Praise the lord that Walker is not getting chopped up and closed down for the new CC.

Curious to see what is done to dress up the sub-station?

So since they have already cleared some ground, its just a matter of time now until the other land is bought and demolished right?

And wasn't the covention center going where this "sub-station" is?. And the Ford site was going to be mixed use...but i love that location!

And wasn't the covention center going where this "sub-station" is?. And the Ford site was going to be mixed use...but i love that location!

Awhile back, yeah that was the "plan".

Awhile back, yeah that was the "plan".

Does anyone know what happened to that plan? It seems to me that would be a far greater site (without sub-station relcation cost).

And wasn't the covention center going where this "sub-station" is?. And the Ford site was going to be mixed use...but i love that location!

It was the plan until they started floating a 30 million dollar cost around to relocate the sub station.......

It was the plan until they started floating a 30 million dollar cost around to relocate the sub station.......

It will probably take at least that much to purchase the old Ford site.

It will probably take at least that much to purchase the old Ford site.

or maybe double that much

Who owns the land in which the sub-station is currently located on? Private or State?

OG+E, so...whichever category you think that fits under

Looking through that presentation it appears they are going to go with the plan to do Central Park in two phases, the first being a basic landscaping and tying in with the new boulevard and the Skydance Bridge to be complete by late 2014, the second to do the more detailed programming and development.

I think this is a great way to approach the park and really take the time to gauge what is needed after I-40 comes down, decisions are made about the convention center and more downtown development is announced.

Credit to the committee for this approach.



http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/centralpark12412a.jpg


Correct me if I've missed something, but what's new?? Convention center still taking up the same site. Park is still dis-jointed, I don't understand how that's an approach worth crediting any committee for. And now they're even contributing to the momentum to tear down the last remnants of our Main Street.

I don't mean to be so pessimistic, but this is awful. At what point do we even get to talk about a compromise between things that I and many others consider good and bad?

This is very analogous to our "city planning"

qd8hy032uLc

I was crediting the committee for the way they have phased the park; first starting with a basic plan then adding programming later, after the surrounding area has begun to take shape, we see how things play out at the Myriad Gardens, etc.

The park committee can't do anything about where the convention center is located.

It would be so much more better to have the CC where this "sub-station" is because that would leave lots of room for mixed use stuff on the ford site. If there were shopping areas, cafes, and offices with restaurants and stuff, that would be very "pedestrian friendly." Didn't the mayor/the city want the boulevard to be a place that everyone would want to go if they went downtown...It would also connect the myriad gardens to central park. Witch would make central park so much easier to get to from somewhere like the gardens, or the chesapeeke arena, or any other place. Having a Big convention center blocking that flow would leave the boulevard with taxis and buses, rather having tourists and peds.

If the CC went where i think it should be, then it would also bring lots more life closer to the shore...making the existing ground easier do stuff on

^^^opinions have already been hashed on this one in the Convention Center thread. We feel your pain.

But it's also about the park...like i said...the park would be separated in a way from the core of downtown

But it's also about the park...like i said...the park would be separated in a way from the core of downtown

He's saying we've already discussed this and everybody shares your opinion.

He's saying we've already discussed this and everybody shares your opinion.

Thank you Mdot.

But it's also about the park...like i said...the park would be separated in a way from the core of downtown

THe two will be separated...regardless. Either by private development or by the cc.

THe two will be separated...regardless. Either by private development or by the cc.

I think most all of us understand the inevitability of that. It doesn't mean that we all have to concede that it's the ultimate right thing to do.

[CENTER]http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/centralpark12412a.jpg
Just noticed something with that map, the N/S streets along the Park are Hudson & Robinson and City officials gave the rationale in locating the Park where they did as giving visitors driving into downtown something more attractive to look at than industrial buildings and vacant lots (which I agree with). Problem is the exits into downtown are NOT either one of these streets. They are Shields (a full block to the East) and Western (7 blocks to the West?). In other words, they aren't even going to be able to see the Park from either of those exits. granted, they will be able to see it from the Boulevard (eaastbound exit is all the way west between Agnew & Penn) and not sure about the location of the other one. Point being, couldn't the Park be located on at least one of the I-40 exits?

City officials gave the rationale in locating the Park where they did as giving visitors driving into downtown something more attractive to look at than industrial buildings and vacant lots

I believe this was a big part of the thinking behind Core to Shore, of which Central Park is only a part.

Just noticed something with that map, the N/S streets along the Park are Hudson & Robinson and City officials gave the rationale in locating the Park where they did as giving visitors driving into downtown something more attractive to look at than industrial buildings and vacant lots (which I agree with). Problem is the exits into downtown are NOT either one of these streets. They are Shields (a full block to the East) and Western (7 blocks to the West?). In other words, they aren't even going to be able to see the Park from either of those exits. granted, they will be able to see it from the Boulevard (eaastbound exit is all the way west between Agnew & Penn) and not sure about the location of the other one. Point being, couldn't the Park be located on at least one of the I-40 exits?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought at one point there was a plan to have at least partial exits on some streets such as Robinson? I think this whole thing just speaks to the uber pervasiveness of the 2007 Core2Shore mentality. There's this whole, "NO! We already planned out downtown, we can't do it again even if we screwed up!" complex.

There will be a westbound off-ramp onto Robinson, but that's it.

There will be a westbound off-ramp onto Robinson, but that's it.

And there is no exit to Shields from westbound I-40.

The Park Subcommittee did not meet this month. They did not make quorum. Some people were sick and the time had been bumped.

I am going to put this on the park thread too. There is a TON of relevant information in this recording about what is being thought about the park and how C2S, the CC, and the Blvd to it.

http://soundcloud.com/moderntransitproject-okc/01-jan-25-2012-maps-3-transit

Thanks for posting this Jeff!

No problem. It turned out so well that we intend to make it part of our standard practice to record these meetings. If we had a videographer willing to donate their time, we would make use of that as well.

I personally take great pride in the level of transparency that the streetcar/hub aspect of MAPS has had. I think that it contributes to people's support of our project.

Also, this particular meeting seemed as though it would hold a great deal of content that should be documented. We have an archival audio recording of a meeting regarding P180 issues/streetcar that could be put up too if people want it.

No problem. It turned out so well that we intend to make it part of our standard practice to record these meetings. If we had a videographer willing to donate their time, we would make use of that as well.

I personally take great pride in the level of transparency that the streetcar/hub aspect of MAPS has had. I think that it contributes to people's support of our project.

Also, this particular meeting seemed as though it would hold a great deal of content that should be documented. We have an archival audio recording of a meeting regarding P180 issues/streetcar that could be put up too if people want it.

When are the meetings Jeff, if they aren't too long, I could bring my FLIP HD on a tripod, that would be more than sufficient for web playback.

Updated acquisition map. They are making great progress:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/centralpark42012a.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/centralpark42012b.jpg

When will they start demolishing the roads?

Phase I construction is due to commence 2nd Q of 2013 -- so in about a year I would imagine they'd start tearing up all that property.

Updated acquisition map. They are making great progress:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/centralpark42012a.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/centralpark42012b.jpg

just a NOTE the brown section between parcels V3 and V4 is ODOT land. it is the off ramp from the old I40

An update from the MAP3 advisory board and parks subcommittee.

http://newsok.com/downtown-oklahoma-city-park-moves-forward-with-maps-3-board-vote/article/3678358

This is a like.


The city is conducting a survey of buildings in the park's footprint to identify any that could qualify for the National Register of Historic Places. Lowe and others hope to incorporate into the park's design especially important or beautiful buildings, notably the citadel building the Salvation Army currently calls its local home and the city-owned Union Station, to give it immediate historical roots and added atmosphere.

Many of the older and mature trees will likely be kept. Efficient use of resources will be a hallmark of the park, and officials plan to use renewable energy sources for power when possible and to reuse rainwater as part of irrigation efforts.

That is very cool. It is very relieving to hear them taking that perspective - I think they clearly understand that this area is not the blank slate it was thought to be, does have an OKC heritage worth tapping into, and that can be a major resource the park should take advantage of.

I just think it's indicative that we actually have some members of the MAPS3 advisory boards who are interested in doing a good job as opposed to some (can you say convention center?) who are more in tune with special interests.

I just think it's indicative that we actually have some members of the MAPS3 advisory boards who are interested in doing a good job as opposed to some (can you say convention center?) who are more in tune with special interests.

The Salvation Army building is nice, but I think the two Film buildings have more potential for interaction with the park than the Salvation Army building. I think they shoul look at how the historic buildings have potential for re-use in the park. I am all for keeping historic buildings but the placement of the Salvation Army Building and its function does not bode well for a park.

Union Station is definitely a potential destination building that has lots of potential for multiple kinds of gatherings and uses. I don't think the park should have a 3 par golf course. One in a park along the river would be a lot better use.

I like that they are looking to keep as many trees as possible. There are a lot of massive Catalpa trees between the old and new I-40 that are amazing!

I was hoping they would choose a different LA firm due to Hargreave already doing the massively over budget Native American Culture Center. I feel there were better firms that are more cutting edge that could have brought a different perspective to the city that are known for using historic buildings. Hargreave had the upper hand with the pre Maps design. I hope they don't use that design. It was very basic and destroyed a lot of buildings and put a modern restaurant. We have seen in the Myriad Gardens how that has not worked. The Film Row buildings could be reused as restaurants with their prime locations and potential back patios.

I thought they were going to look at possible changing the size, location, or scope of the park due to the Myriad Gardens revamp? I guess the Mayor pushed it through because it is the heart of his poorly planned Core to Shore goals.

Agree

This isn't exactly a windfall but it certainly doesn't hurt the funding issues for the park.

http://newsok.com/epa-grant-frees-up-more-money-for-maps-3-park-in-oklahoma-city/article/3678770

I thought they were going to look at possible changing the size, location, or scope of the park due to the Myriad Gardens revamp? I guess the Mayor pushed it through because it is the heart of his poorly planned Core to Shore goals.

I never heard any talk about changing the size or location of the park, and I've been at a lot of MAPS meetings. There was some talk about changing the scope, because of the programming at the Myriad Gardens and the desire to avoid overlap. That's reasonable, and I hope it's something the Hargreave group will take into consideration.

Regardless of what you think about Core to Shore, I believe the park will be a success. I've been amazed at how utilized the Myriad Gardens are on weekends. It's just a shame there's going to be such an impediment to moving from the Myriad Gardens to the Central Park.

The one change they did make was the decision to get the park to a very basic state of completion early on, then do all the programming and heavy lifting in a second phase seveal years down the road.

That makes perfect sense given all the moving parts and the fact that area is still very rough.

I agree with Pete that this course of action makes the most sense. However, doing it for the benefit of the CC/at the expense of the park, that is wrong-headed. Really the shuffling around of funds should have benefited the later Phase 1b of the modern transit project, which will be producing the most immediate economic development gains.

...I was hoping they would choose a different LA firm due to Hargreave already doing the massively over budget Native American Culture Center. I feel there were better firms that are more cutting edge that could have brought a different perspective to the city that are known for using historic buildings. Hargreave had the upper hand with the pre Maps design. I hope they don't use that design. It was very basic and destroyed a lot of buildings and put a modern restaurant. We have seen in the Myriad Gardens how that has not worked. The Film Row buildings could be reused as restaurants with their prime locations and potential back patios.
A little confused here about parts of your post... but their website doesn't mention LA as an office:
http://www.hargreaves.com/firm/index.php

With offices in San Francisco, California; Cambridge, Massachusetts; New York, New York; and London; the firm serves an international clientele, and its projects address a broad range of scales and types.
Didn't realize that they are doing the AICC, while it is severely over budget, is that because of them? How have their other park designs fared concerning budget issues (like the Houston park they did that was often mentioned as the template for ours)?

Lastly, what about the Myriad Gardens has not worked? It seems to be a huge success. Granted they lost the casual restaurant due to budget issues and they went ahead and built the upscale one and then tried to find an operator to fit what they had built Instead of the other way around but I thought I read recently in the Oklahoman or Gazette that they had found an operator??? But again, is that Hargreave's fault or the MG redesign folks changing things along the way???

FYI: The architecture firm Johnson Fain out of LA did the AICC http://www.johnsonfain.com/architecture/29

Hargraves and Associates is a landscape architecture firm.

Hargreaves was definitely the lead on the Discovery Green. Douglas Hollis designed stuff like the pavilions, hardscapes, etc. SOM did the Millennium Park in Chicago. I would love to see OKC try and get SOM, but Hargreaves isn't bad - they've done solid work, I just question if it will outlast current trends in landscape architecture. Their work is exceedingly trendy IMO.

FYI: The architecture firm Johnson Fain out of LA did the AICC http://www.johnsonfain.com/architecture/29

Hargraves and Associates is a landscape architecture firm.

You are right ("At the forefront of landscape architecture for over 20 years, Hargreaves Associates continues to offer full services in landscape architecture, planning, and urban design...") and as such, Hargreaves has the AICC listed as their project on their site:
http://www.hargreaves.com/projects/Institutional/AmericanIndian/

8U1qRN9MBPM

This is how you do a downtown central park - especially if you already have a great public space to build on, a la Public Square in Cleveland, or Myriad Gardens in OKC. :headscrat

8U1qRN9MBPM

This is how you do a downtown central park - especially if you already have a great public space to build on, a la Public Square in Cleveland, or Myriad Gardens in OKC. :headscrat

Spartan, I'm not really sure about your point. Are you just saying this is how you do because they're asking for public imput? It certainly doesn't appear from that video that they have any definite plans for what they are going to do.

Lol. In fact it shows a 6 lane boulevard running through it on the depictions. And park, not buildings up to the waterfront. As well as city buildings around the open green spaces. All things I thought we were in an uproar against here.

What i took away from it was that they were asking for public input...that these decisions weren't going to be made behind closed doors and they build something that people didn't want...if they want a 6 lane boulevard, fine...if they wanted to ban autos completely...fine..location connections (public gov spaces or private etc)...the point being ... GET INVOLVED ...discuss it, sort things out, weigh pros & cons (like we do here)...be proactive instead of reactive after it is to late and the mistakes have been made.

Spartan, I'm not really sure about your point. Are you just saying this is how you do because they're asking for public imput? It certainly doesn't appear from that video that they have any definite plans for what they are going to do.

They know where they're going to put the park, which was my point.

We haven't even yet gotten to the nuances of park design and amenities.

They know where they're going to put the park, which was my point.

We haven't even yet gotten to the nuances of park design and amenities.

I thought we know where the park is going and have known for some time. What am I missing? Is there a chance that it is NOT going where it has been designated?

Right but you guys were shrouding it with saying they have no plans yet, when they're exactly as far along as we are, except they're taking public input. The takeaway however is that they are taking their existing landmark public space, Public Square, and extending it in two directions with their new park project to make a single grand central park that they're going to call the mall.

We took our existing landmark public space, improved it, then planned a separate competing park to the south, and made sure the two were separated by the convention center. Ours is one of the stupidest capital projects in the nation right now. For the life of me I don't understand why we don't either move the convention center or swap the site of the two projects and just expand the Myriad Gardens to the tune of $120 million.

I have wondered the same thing since when Core to Shore was unveiled... the Park and MG separation (yet connected by the Harvey Spine)? In C2S, it was supposed to be mixed use retail etc and we switched that out for the Convention Center. But the question remains as to why the separation at all? The only reason I can think of is that they want the MG to have its own identity and a more intimate/smaller scale experience. Yet there are other ways of doing that. Instead of having a 70 acre park, it could be billed at the higher acreage...

Right but you guys were shrouding it with saying they have no plans yet, when they're exactly as far along as we are, except they're taking public input. The takeaway however is that they are taking their existing landmark public space, Public Square, and extending it in two directions with their new park project to make a single grand central park that they're going to call the mall.

We took our existing landmark public space, improved it, then planned a separate competing park to the south, and made sure the two were separated by the convention center. Ours is one of the stupidest capital projects in the nation right now. For the life of me I don't understand why we don't either move the convention center or swap the site of the two projects and just expand the Myriad Gardens to the tune of $120 million.

Incorrect. I recommend watching the video linked earlier in the thread.

In fact, Cleveland is taking space that has for over 100 years been known as the Mall (it was designed in 1903 by Daniel Burnham, et. al.) and are re-imagining it (after tearing up a bunch of it and building a convention center below surface). A separate existing space known as Public Square is distinct from the Mall and located diagonally across an intersection from one end of the Mall. They are making design efforts (including I think closing streets) to "connect" it with the Mall. But it will still maintain a distinct identity.

Note also that according to the linked video Cleveland's Mall is barely more than 3 acres. Our proposed 40 acre Central Park will be plenty big, even without having Myriad Gardens directly attached to it.

I am not fond of the convention center between Myriad Gardens and the Central Park, but if properly designed it could work. Just as, with good design, having hotels and retail/office space between the 2 parks could work very well.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having two distinct parks in our downtown. And a lot to be gained. Different uses will draw people along from one area to another and infuse the whole downtown with more activity. Too much of one thing in a particular area will act as a roadblock, even if that one thing is a park.

Imagine someone strolling around downtown along Sheridan. They are likely to be drawn into Myriad Gardens. If, while in the Myriad Gardens, they look to the south and see twenty more blocks of relatively open park space stretched out in front of them, there is an excellent chance they will not venture any further south. If, on the other hand, there are shops, restaurants, etc. across Reno to the south, they may stroll through Myriad Gardens to the shops and restaurants. Then, they may stroll into the northern part of the Central Park as well, and/or to any shops/restaurants/developments that line the sides of the park.