Good points but that presumes that there will be shops/restaurants etc accessible to the pedestrians at the Convention Center and not a dead end...that being said, is New York's Central Park (on 800+ acres) to imposing (compared to our 70+ of the combined MG & MAPS 3 Park?

Good points but that presumes that there will be shops/restaurants etc accessible to the pedestrians at the Convention Center and not a dead end...that being said, is New York's Central Park (on 800+ acres) to imposing (compared to our 70+ of the combined MG & MAPS 3 Park?

My hypothetical scenario was really for the original plan with shops, hotels etc on that intervening parcel, rather than the convention center. But if done right, there could still be shops and restaurants.

I would venture to guess that most people strolling around midtown Manhattan pretty much stop when they get to the park. They may venture into the very end of it, but that's pretty much it. whereas, if there was a small park, then some more buildings, then more park, there would be more continued strolling. OKC needs to work on and improve connectivity every chance it gets. NYC has it pretty well licked (and besides, when Central Park was built, it was practically out in the country, not on the edge of downtown.)

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.

The old mall in Cleveland with its beaux arts landscaping motif was completely scrapped and is absolutely no more. Was there the other week and there is virtually nothing left of it except the southern terminus, reminding me a lot of Bicentennial Park. I can also assure you that they're very interested in OKC's plan with C2S but many of the guys I met with thought we were making a huge mistake and wanted their mall redesign to be a teaching lesson. Right now they're planning a similar N/S green space spine but it won't be perfect because it has to meander around Key Tower at the diagonal intersection you mention. But with that slight alteration, there is nonetheless a N/S spine that starts at Public Square and then goes through downtown Cleveland up to the Lake Erie waterfront, which has the Browns stadium, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, among other things. The point though is that they certainly aren't interrupting their green spine with a convention center.

Your own post is unfortunately a contradiction with regards to the CC. You admit that it isn't preferable, then argue it can be turned into a positive, then suggest that something on the other side will need to draw people in from the northern end. But you say it should be shops and restaurants. What is proposed between our two parks is not shops and restaurants, like originally planned, but will instead be a massive CC wall. In fact our new landmark "boulevard" won't even be a straight corridor anymore because they are bending it southward to free up more space for the CC.

In case it's not clear what project is calling the shots in our downtown, it's the CC, not parks, not private development. Also I did want to bring up the Cleveland Medical Mart as another interesting lesson, but I'll do that in the other thread..

The old mall in Cleveland with its beaux arts landscaping motif was completely scrapped and is absolutely no more. Was there the other week and there is virtually nothing left of it except the southern terminus, reminding me a lot of Bicentennial Park. I can also assure you that they're very interested in OKC's plan with C2S but many of the guys I met with thought we were making a huge mistake and wanted their mall redesign to be a teaching lesson. Right now they're planning a similar N/S green space spine but it won't be perfect because it has to meander around Key Tower at the diagonal intersection you mention. But with that slight alteration, there is nonetheless a N/S spine that starts at Public Square and then goes through downtown Cleveland up to the Lake Erie waterfront, which has the Browns stadium, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, among other things. The point though is that they certainly aren't interrupting their green spine with a convention center.

Your own post is unfortunately a contradiction with regards to the CC. You admit that it isn't preferable, then argue it can be turned into a positive, then suggest that something on the other side will need to draw people in from the northern end. But you say it should be shops and restaurants. What is proposed between our two parks is not shops and restaurants, like originally planned, but will instead be a massive CC wall. In fact our new landmark "boulevard" won't even be a straight corridor anymore because they are bending it southward to free up more space for the CC.

In case it's not clear what project is calling the shots in our downtown, it's the CC, not parks, not private development. Also I did want to bring up the Cleveland Medical Mart as another interesting lesson, but I'll do that in the other thread..

The old mall is "gone" because they are completely re-working it and building a convention center underneath it. You completely misstated reality in your first post. They are merely re-imagining existing green spaces, contrary to your initial post. They are not expanding the public square in two directions. And again, the entirety of their mall is THREE acres. If you add the PUblic Square, you might get as much as 5 acres (but again it is not exactly continuous). Myriad Gardens is 17 acres. The proposed central park is 40 acres. Having a significant continuous green space is NOT a problem for us in OKC.

Read my posts more carefully, please, alomg with follow-up posts that clarify. For that matter, you should read everything more carefully. ;-). I think filling the CC parcel with a massive block convention center is the worst result. There is no reason we could not put our convention center largely underground like Cleveland is doing, and have shops/restaurants/open space on the surface. As I argued in my earlier post, I think the ideal usage for the surface of the CC parcel is shops, restaurants, perhaps hotel.

The old mall is "gone" because they are completely re-working it and building a convention center underneath it. You completely misstated reality in your first post. They are merely re-imagining existing green spaces, contrary to your initial post. They are not expanding the public square in two directions. And again, the entirety of their mall is THREE acres. If you add the PUblic Square, you might get as much as 5 acres (but again it is not exactly continuous). Myriad Gardens is 17 acres. The proposed central park is 40 acres. Having a significant continuous green space is NOT a problem for us in OKC.

Read my posts more carefully, please, alomg with follow-up posts that clarify. For that matter, you should read everything more carefully. ;-). I think filling the CC parcel with a massive block convention center is the worst result. There is no reason we could not put our convention center largely underground like Cleveland is doing, and have shops/restaurants/open space on the surface. As I argued in my earlier post, I think the ideal usage for the surface of the CC parcel is shops, restaurants, perhaps hotel.

A few things first, I'm going to take the high road and not get caught up in defending past records. My explanation of the project was a simplification written for people who weren't just in Cleveland the other week like myself. I don't think the average OKC Talk readers cares about the nuances or the historic importance of the mall. Another issue I have with your post is that you're making a huge deal out of the acreage difference. Public Square is 4 blocks. The mall is several times bigger, stretching all the way to the shore. There is an interesting graphic illustration out there that explains how OKC's block sizes are the largest of almost any major city (trying to find it, couldn't find it on Blair's blog, anyone else remember this?), so the distance between 1 block in downtown OKC is actually several times the distance between 1 block in downtown Cleveland. 40 acres would be almost all of downtown Cleveland, especially if you cut off the haggard eastern side. Cleveland's east side goes up into the east 120 streets, just a mere 4 miles from downtown. So, having actually been to this city and not merely bloviating like you are, your point about 40 acres v. 5 acres falls pretty flat. Cleveland's planned green spine is their equivalent to ours and grasping at straws to make a defense doesn't diminish the lessons we could learn from them.


I think filling the CC parcel with a massive block convention center is the worst result. There is no reason we could not put our convention center largely underground like Cleveland is doing, and have shops/restaurants/open space on the surface. As I argued in my earlier post, I think the ideal usage for the surface of the CC parcel is shops, restaurants, perhaps hotel.

Now that I have the technical issues I have with your post out of the way - I understand that you live in Tulsa so naturally you aren't as aware about the intricacies of OKC projects and stuff, and especially given the amount of time that you dedicate to flaming every single OKC poster on this board, I certainly couldn't expect you to know the fine details of our CC project. That said, I commend you for having at least the insight to recognize that a massive block convention center would be the worst result. Unfortunately the entire facility will not be underground, just the exhibition hall, and there will be a massive block, perhaps even a CC hotel (this thread's topic) squeezed into the block. Shops/restaurants/open space aren't in the picture here. There is 1 out of 3 options that have been in the media which include a small 50-foot wide green opening through the middle so that at least the green spine can be superfluously marketed.

The crazy thing is that Fred Hall came out last year announcing that he wanted to build the largest mixed-use development in OKC history on this site. Something like the Power & Light District in KC or even better. Everyone agreed that this plot of land was by far the most important in downtown. Then the powers that be decided that their convention center project was the single most important thing for downtown to have, and decided that needed to go on this land.

Everything will be fine provided Walker is lined with mixed use south of the Boulevard

No, everything will not be fine if one street is done right and the major street is a monumental screw up.

everything will be fine provided walker is lined with mixed use south of the boulevard

wtf?

OKC Urban Renewal Authority: More funding will be needed for property
By Brianna Bailey
Journal Record
Oklahoma City reporter - Contact 405-278-2847
Posted: 05:19 PM Wednesday, June 20, 2012

OKLAHOMA CITY – The Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority is moving ahead with plans to spend $2.34 million to buy real estate around the future site of a downtown park that is part of MAPS 3, but will need additional funds to purchase more than a few high-profile parcels.

“But it’s a good start,” Cathy O’Connor, president of the Oklahoma City Alliance for Economic Development, told the authority on Wednesday.

The money will come from tax increment financing funds. It will be used to buy as many key pieces of property around the 40-acre park as possible.

The authority will then parlay the acquisitions to private developers who want to invest in the area.

O’Connor said she expects to spend all of the money in a matter of months and will have to obtain more funding to buy more properties.

“We will buy as many parcels as we can, as far as it will go,” she said.

Some property owners in the area have already contacted the authority and expressed their willingness to sell, OCURA Chairman Larry Nichols said.

“There are some landowners who want to get on board and are ready to sell and move on,” Nichols said.

Also at Tuesday’s meeting, the authority said it would begin acquiring land for a site pegged for the new downtown convention center that is also part of MAPS 3. The site is just north of the old Interstate 40 next to the Chesapeake Energy Arena.

I just wonder why the City has to play 'middleman' here. Why can't the developer buy directly from the current owner?

The city is going to get gouged on this.

The city is going to get gouged on this.

How so? Are you referring to the acquisitions around the park or the cc?

Well, I'm not even talking about the CC, there's a chance the city might be able to afford that site for the CC if Fred Hall and Bob Howard find it within their heart to forgo much of the site's value just to get the CC there.

I am referring to OCURA now expanding the buyout area to include as much land as they can get their hands on around the park. There has already been a ton of speculation in the park site, which was some expensive land acquisition.

JTF: I agree. Why is the City getting involved in what should be a private transaction between these potential developers and the private proerty owners? Seems like it will just escalate the cost of the property????

ON EDIT: I guess it is so the City can have even greater control than they already have in what gets developed there

ON EDIT: I guess it is so the City can have even greater control than they already have in what gets developed there

And that should be cause for concern - the City doesn't have a great track record on land development (Lower Bricktown). We have already seen what the City's vision is for C2S - a bunch of single story single family homes and radiant residential building that don't produce critical mass and necessary street-level density. Private developers in Deep Deuce have done a much better job of creating an urban environment.

This video should scare the crap out of everyone if this is what the City has in mind.

http://vimeo.com/1430974

And that should be casue for concern - the City doesn't have a great track record on land development (Lower Bricktown). We have already seen what the City's vision is for C2S - a bunch of single story single family homes and radiant residential building that don't produce critical mass and necessary street-leve density. Private developers in Deep Deuce have done a much better job of creating an urban environment.

This video should scare the crap out of everyone if this is what the City has in mind.

http://vimeo.com/1430974

almost all of Deep deuce was controlled development by the city (OCURA)

almost all of Deep deuce was controlled development by the city (OCURA)

You mean while it sat with empty lots for 40 years right. OCURA has not developed a single square foot of deep deuce. It was all done by private developers. The more OCURA stays out of it the better the project is (Mercy Hositpal Site and Legacy should be proof enough of that).

Name one project the OCURA put out for bid in Deep Deuce.

While there are some single family residences, if not mistaken the area around the Park was intended to be at least brownstone type from what I saw in the Core to Shore report??? And even in that video, it looked like mid to high rise residential along the Park?

You mean while it sat with empty lots for 40 years right. OCURA has not developed a single square foot of deep deuce. It was all done by private developers. The more OCURA stays out of it the better the project is (Mercy Hositpal Site and Legacy should be proof enough of that).

Name one project the OCURA put out for bid in Deep Deuce.

the hill level aloft the entire triangle (2nd ave lofts brownstones the new apts north of brownstones) central ave block 42 and the deep deuce apts

the hill level aloft the entire triangle (2nd ave lofts brownstones the new apts north of brownstones) central ave block 42 and the deep deuce apts

Those lots were owned by OCURA for how many years before they were bought by private developers? I don't remeber OCURA having ANY bid process for those lots and I sure don't remember any OCURA approvals needed for what was built, but maybe there was since the ones you listed are having the hardest time finding tenants (except Deep Deuce Apts which are the lowest density in the district).

I stand partially corrected - OCURA did select the Block 42 developer.

Either way, I hope C2S turns out more like Deep Deuce than Lower Bricktown and I hope it doesn't take 40 years.

The Hill and the Deep Deuce Apartments were both projects that resulted from the OCURA RFP process, though not without controversy.

The Hill was a mess. I still have a bad taste over that selection process, and I also bet McDermid's proposal would have gotten built.

The Hill and the Deep Deuce Apartments were both projects that resulted from the OCURA RFP process, though not without controversy.

Thanks Urbanized and BoulderSooner.

Drove down towards COPTA Union Station tonight during my little tour of downtown progress. I'm thinking that when they tear down the Salvation Army building and all that in anticipation of construction of the park, that they really need to clean up the surrounding properties (with the over grown trees and such). Urban Campers will still consider the surrounding lots as camouflage from the natural elements and that's totally going to detract from the concept of family friendly park.

http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=30513&page=6&p=557742#post557742

I wonder if the MAPS3 park could be a funding source for the Thunder Circle..

Just a crazy wacko random thought. The rendering of the Thunder circle has a large under ground passage from the arena to the park. How about building an above ground 3 story or so parking garage in the park, preferably near the North end. Cover it up with the excavated dirt from the lakes, intensly landscape it. It would be a good ongoing funding source for the park, plus adding close in parking for game night. This would be a good observation hill in the least.
Am I crazy ?

Just a crazy wacko random thought. The rendering of the Thunder circle has a large under ground passage from the arena to the park. How about building an above ground 3 story or so parking garage in the park, preferably near the North end. Cover it up with the excavated dirt from the lakes, intensly landscape it. It would be a good ongoing funding source for the park, plus adding close in parking for game night. This would be a good observation hill in the least.
Am I crazy ?

Yes you are :)

You don't waste park and prime street frontage on parking. Plus, MBG already expiremented with burms and hills, they don't work in an urban park unless the area is naturally hilly.

Yes you are :)

You don't waste park and prime street frontage on parking. Plus, MBG already expiremented with burms and hills, they don't work in an urban park unless the area is naturally hilly.

I got this idea from visiting Monaco, all of their parking garages are underground, even for the tour busses.

Yes you are :)

You don't waste park and prime street frontage on parking. Plus, MBG already expiremented with burms and hills, they don't work in an urban park unless the area is naturally hilly.

I disagree. I think it could be a novel feature.

I disagree. I think it could be a novel feature.

You think a 30 foot high mound of dirt along the boulvard is novel? You should have no problem with the convention center location then.

I got this idea from visiting Monaco, all of their parking garages are underground, even for the tour busses.

Those are built into an exiting hill sides aren't they? Monaco isn't exactly the rolling plains.

Those are built into an exiting hill sides aren't they? Monaco isn't exactly the rolling plains.

Inside the mountain, but this does not need to be next to the boulvard, no one said that, have it down a block to the south and on the east side of the park. Yukon has a 'Boot Hill' in its city park. You can stand on the top and see the entire town over the tree tops. It's probably 3 stories tall. You can see it on google maps. Whenever it snows, there's a thousand people up there sledding.....

Inside the mountain, but this does not need to be next to the boulvard, no one said that, have it down a block to the south and on the east side of the park. Yukon has a 'Boot Hill' in its city park. You can stand on the top and see the entire town over the tree tops. It's probably 3 stories tall. You can see it on google maps. Whenever it snows, there's a thousand people up there sledding.....

Ah. I see where you are going with this. I like that idea.

The entire East side could front the street, with entrance and exit on just one side. If the east end was actually open, that would significantly solve ventilation issues. Only 90 percent would be covered with park like features. But the sledding towards the North, which is the shade side, would be an outstanding draw. Now the Bricktoen ballpark folks may not like it. I still think in the long run it would be a successful revenue stream.

All things considered, it seems doubtful that any politico in the near future would get on board the idea of building a big mound of dirt in or close to downtown OKC. Things dinna turn out so well the last time that was tried.

No matter where you put it some street surrounding the park is going to front a 30 foot parking garage. Now if you want a tall mound of dirt that people can sled down with a view, look south of the river and east of I-35.

No matter where you put it some street surrounding the park is going to front a 30 foot parking garage. Now if you want a tall mound of dirt that people can sled down with a view, look south of the river and east of I-35.

Now that could be a revenue source for that place in the winter...? Except that dirt pile is a little high.

They could make a pretty good toboggan run on it.

b8XtHpCnhF0

"Uh, anyone got a snowmobile to take me back to the top?!"

Didn't one of the plans for the park have an underground parking at one time, I think they only started shying away from the idea when they looked at the costs.

Didn't one of the plans for the park have an underground parking at one time, I think they only started shying away from the idea when they looked at the costs.

Yes - parking underground was too expensive. Convention center underground - no problem.

I am a little confused by this quote in the Oklahoman about the park:

"Hargreaves Associates, the consultancy selected by the city to develop the master plan for the 70-acre, $80 million park, made its first full presentation Wednesday to the MAPS 3 Citizen Advisory Board's park subcommittee.

Wasn't the plan for it to be $130 million? Maybe $80 mil for the north and $50 mil for the south part?

Read more: http://newsok.com/planners-eye-flexibility-for-oklahoma-citys-maps-3-park/article/3695493#ixzz21kOdYGj3

Start looking through the minutes of subcommittee meetings - I bet that money was quietly "donated" to the convention center....... hopefully the $80 million was a misprint???

The south park design will take place at a later time.

Start looking through the minutes of subcommittee meetings - I bet that money was quietly "donated" to the convention center....... hopefully the $80 million was a misprint???

the presentation was only for the north park

This will be a great addition to downtown and only enhance the overall value of Oklahoma City. I'm really excited about the future of OKC and can't wait to see this in action!

I see what you all are saying but isn't the 70 acres for the whole (south & north) park? If the $80 million is just for the North part, it should read the acreage for just that part of it...

I see what you all are saying but isn't the 70 acres for the whole (south & north) park? If the $80 million is just for the North part, it should read the acreage for just that part of it...

I'm with you Larry. If we have learned nothing else over the last 6 months it is that you can't assume anything - anything. Maybe it was a mistake to associate the total acerage with just the funds for the north part, but who knows anymore. If the flag isn't raised every single time you can bet your *** that someone in the future will wiggle out some kind of excuse that the funding cut was 'announced' already.

I'm with you Larry. If we have learned nothing else over the last 6 months it is that you can't assume anything - anything.

This is unfortunately true. When City Hall has lost our trust in as dramatic fashion as they have, questions like this do become much more legitimate.

JTF & Spartan

That is why I have taken to "presuming" rather than "assuming".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfvTwv5o1Qs

MAPS 3 Update: 8/20/2012 Public input sought on MAPS 3 Downtown Park design Everyone is invited to a community meeting to provide information and solicit design and programming ideas for the 70-acre MAPS 3 Downtown Park (http://www.okc.gov/maps3/projects/park.html).

The meeting will be held from 6 – 8:30 p.m. on September 13 in the fourth floor auditorium of the Downtown Library, 300 Park Avenue.

“We want to hear everyone’s ideas on how this iconic park should look and function,” Mayor Mick Cornett said. “Our goal is to design a unique gathering space that will be a frequent destination for residents and set Oklahoma City apart from other cities.”

The $132 million park is made up of a 40-acre upper section and a 30-acre lower section which is connected by Oklahoma City Skydance Bridge. The park is within the boundaries of Hudson to the west, Robinson to the east the Oklahoma City Boulevard to the north and the Oklahoma River on the south.

Land acquisition for the upper park is 95 percent complete and construction is expected to begin in 2013. The meeting will be facilitated by park consultant Hargreaves Associates.

Start with what has already been bought and paid for...Core to Shore and the revamp already done for the MAPS 3 campaign...if there is strong public rejection to some specific element, eliminate it it but overall the voters gave their approval based on what they were told was going to be in it. And as I said, that is the starting point. If something wasn't included and there is strong public support for it, then add it in.

Somehow I keep hearing the Dixie Chicks singing Wide Open Spaces and that line about Room to make her big mistakes.

MAPS 3 Update: 8/20/2012 Public input sought on MAPS 3 Downtown Park design Everyone is invited to a community meeting to provide information and solicit design and programming ideas for the 70-acre MAPS 3 Downtown Park (http://www.okc.gov/maps3/projects/park.html).

The meeting will be held from 6 – 8:30 p.m. on September 13 in the fourth floor auditorium of the Downtown Library, 300 Park Avenue.

“We want to hear everyone’s ideas on how this iconic park should look and function,” Mayor Mick Cornett said. “Our goal is to design a unique gathering space that will be a frequent destination for residents and set Oklahoma City apart from other cities.”

The $132 million park is made up of a 40-acre upper section and a 30-acre lower section which is connected by Oklahoma City Skydance Bridge. The park is within the boundaries of Hudson to the west, Robinson to the east the Oklahoma City Boulevard to the north and the Oklahoma River on the south.

Land acquisition for the upper park is 95 percent complete and construction is expected to begin in 2013. The meeting will be facilitated by park consultant Hargreaves Associates.

Oklahoma City Blvd looks even worse in print than I thought it would....

Oklahoma City Blvd looks even worse in print than I thought it would....

I hate saying it but that name sucks............it should be something like 'Scissortail' or 'Rose Rock' or 'Tornado Alley'.......the over use of a cities name is just not required for someone to remember it. Even 'OKC Boulevard' is better than 'Oklahoma City Boulevard'.

I tend to look at it this way. Just because some OKC folk are over the city's long held inferiority complex doesn't mean their city father's are over it yet.

The next worse thing is for someone to come up with 'Oklahoma City Boulevard Park'.........

Skyline Drive.

Or, Thunder Alley....