I have come to the conclusion you don't know what the problems are.

Segregation of society (which degrades race relations, income envy, poverty, government dependency, etc)
Obesity
Heart disease
Diabetes
Wasted infrastructure
Inefficient land use
Crime
Social isolation of teens - which leads to depression, drug use, suicide, etc
Suspended childhood for pre-teens
Lonely (abandoned) senior citizens
Water shortages
High taxes (at least higher than they should be)
Pollution
etc....

OKC has most of these problems, and many more, in droves.

Exactly. New Urbanism doesn't try to address those problems directly, as BoulderSooner suggests, but works toward a new context in which those problems atrophy. We don't need a soccer complex within walking distance of a dozen teams, but that doesn't mean we don't need New Urbanism. And someday because of New Urbanism we may need (or, more appropriately, desire) a soccer complex.

duplicate post. sorry.

Bingo - addressing the problems directly is what we spent the $16 trillion we don't have on - and it isn't working becasue we are creating the problems faster than we can treat the symptoms - while never even touching the actual root of the problem.

And I didn't even touch on the number of people who are directly killed or injured in auto accidents - who are forced to drive because for 99% of the people there is no alternative. For those of us who do walk or ride bikes - our number 1 cause of death while doing so - being hit by a car.

Bingo - addressing the problems directly is what we spent the $16 trillion we don't have on - and it isn't working becasue we are creating the problems faster than we can treat the symptoms - while never even touching the actual root of the problem.

And I didn't even touch on the number of people who are directly killed or injured in auto accidents - who are forced to drive because for 99% of the people there is no alternative.

For that matter the woman I see multiple times a week on my way home from work rolling down Penn in a wheelchair hugging the curb and praying, I'm sure, that she doesn't get run over as she just tries to get to Aldi and back home on a street with no sidewalks. Every time I see that I'm outraged that we don't provide an environment in our city where a woman can simply get groceries without literally risking her life.

You and me both! I see her daily and worry that she's going to be crushed. All because of no sidewalks. What a damn shame!!

That too CaptDave. How about a $16 trillion debt - nearly all of it accumulated since 1950 trying to solve the problems created by sprawl, or worse, making more sprawl possible.

very little of that debt has anything to do with trying to solve problems created by sprawl ...

very little of that debt has anything to do with trying to solve problems created by sprawl ...

I wouldn't say very little, but certainly not most of it. Probably between 10% and 20% via infrastructure, wars for oil, auto/energy subsidies, etc.

We already have that at South Lakes Park. City of Oklahoma City | South Lakes Park (http://www.okc.gov/parks/southlakes/index.html)

No, we really don't have that, nor does any other city except for Overland Park...This is a world class facility not just flood plains turned into soccer fields.

Why regurgitate the Myriad Gardens on a bigger scale?

Why divert development away from the CBD and Bricktown, which has not seen it's potential?

Why the build it and they will come mentality?

No, we really don't have that, nor does any other city except for Overland Park...This is a world class facility not just flood plains turned into soccer fields.

South Lakes is not like lightning creek or the fields at 89th & Santa Fe. It is a very nice facility that hosted a national tournament 2/3 years ago.

That too CaptDave. How about a $16 trillion debt - nearly all of it accumulated since 1950 trying to solve the problems created by sprawl, or worse, making more sprawl possible.

1950... also the beginning of the military industrial complex. There are many complex reasons. Let's not act like new urbanism fixes everything, but I agree that society it better off with urban living as a prominent lifestyle choice. In OKC, it's just now being considered as one by a very small portion of the population. There is still a long way to go before most people actually consider living in an urban environment.

Yes, the military industrial complex whose primary selling points were to protect the suburban dream and insure the flow of oil at market price.

Yes, the military industrial complex whose primary selling points were to protect the suburban dream and insure the flow of oil at market price.

Someone has lost touch with reality if they believe that suburbs are the reason for the military. Credibility is GONE.

All the economic, development, resource use/security, and military industrial complex issues are related - but none are THE reason for the mess we created. Urban sprawl is a component of the problem primarily due to the energy it requires to maintain and perpetuate.

But how about that new park in downtown OKC??!!

... But how about that new park in downtown OKC??!!

A park, a park, what a great idea for a topic. :)

Someone has lost touch with reality if they believe that suburbs are the reason for the military. Credibility is GONE.

Just the Facts is an ideologue. Everything must fit the narrative... Facts be damned.

I'd disagree with JTF that "the rise of the military-industrial complex" originally had much to do with protecting a suburban lifestyle. First of all, prior to WWII there barely WAS a suburban lifestyle, and what little was in place was accessed largely (and well) by streetcar in most cities.

The end of WWII marked the real BEGINNING of the suburban lifestyle (and yes, the government was and still is complicit in pushing that "choice" over others).

There are quite a few interesting reads that document everything from highway construction to sneaky streetcar system dismantling to government subsidized mortgages for returning vets - but only if they bought suburban single family dwellings - as government-sponsored initiatives to drive more home-building, automobile manufacturing and consumption, all more-or-less innocently designed to drive the post-war economy. The unintended consequences of suburbanization were not felt until decades later.

For a long, long time everything from military spending to the space race was dedicated to stifling the growth of communism, not protecting suburbanization. It wasn't until the 1970s that we really began directing much money and military effort towards protecting a flow of cheap oil, and only then because we saw the first glimmers that it might not be an endless, uninterrupted supply. But JTF is right in that since the Soviets fell, a HUGE amount of our military might, diplomatic and intelligence efforts are engaged basically in protecting our oil supply. It's simply too critical to leave perhaps the most important element of our economy - transportation - to the whims of an extremely instable region. The foreign oil stops, America stops. And it shouldn't be that way.

We've painted ourselves into this corner in large part because of poor city planning for the past six decades, but we can change it. Fortunately there is also a technological boom that it appears would allow us to extract most if not all of our needed energy here - thanks to folks who include our own neighbors and friends in OKC - but we need to also keep working on improving the ways we move ourselves and our goods around. So while JTF seems to have a one-track mind at times, he's dead-on about much of it, and I appreciate hearing someone regularly championing the subject.

I'd disagree with JTF that "the rise of the military-industrial complex" originally had much to do with protecting a suburban lifestyle. First of all, prior to WWII there barely WAS a suburban lifestyle, and what little was in place was accessed largely (and well) by streetcar in most cities.

The end of WWII marked the real BEGINNING of the suburban lifestyle (and yes, the government was and still is complicit in pushing that "choice" over others).

There are quite a few interesting reads that document everything from highway construction to sneaky streetcar system dismantling to government subsidized mortgages for returning vets - but only if they bought suburban single family dwellings - as government-sponsored initiatives to drive more home-building, automobile manufacturing and consumption, all more-or-less innocently designed to drive the post-war economy. The unintended consequences of suburbanization were not felt until decades later.

For a long, long time everything from military spending to the space race was dedicated to stifling the growth of communism, not protecting suburbanization. It wasn't until the 1970s that we really began directing much money and military effort towards protecting a flow of cheap oil, and only then because we saw the first glimmers that it might not be an endless, uninterrupted supply. But JTF is right in that since the Soviets fell, a HUGE amount of our military might, diplomatic and intelligence efforts are engaged basically in protecting our oil supply. It's simply too critical to leave perhaps the most important element of our economy - transportation - to the whims of an extremely instable region. The foreign oil stops, America stops. And it shouldn't be that way.

We've painted ourselves into this corner in large part because of poor city planning for the past six decades, but we can change it. Fortunately there is also a technological boom that it appears would allow us to extract most if not all of our needed energy here - thanks to folks who include our own neighbors and friends in OKC - but we need to also keep working on improving the ways we move ourselves and our goods around. So while JTF seems to have a one-track mind at times, he's dead-on about much of it, and I appreciate hearing someone regularly championing the subject.

Urbanized, since I can't seem to "like" posts in this forum, I thought I'd let you know that I really liked this post.

since we have Wheeler so close, I think that adding additional sports options there might make more sense. Then eventually adding a small amount of sports facilities to the north of the CBD as that area increases density.

I'm with you on this big time. As you know I've long felt Wheeler's existing sports facilities should be leveraged and complemented by the central park, not competed against.

In the Core to Shore plan Wheeler Park goes away and becomes a residential area. Prominade Park becomes the new Wheeler Park.

I'd disagree with JTF that "the rise of the military-industrial complex" originally had much to do with protecting a suburban lifestyle. First of all, prior to WWII there barely WAS a suburban lifestyle, and what little was in place was accessed largely (and well) by streetcar in most cities.

The end of WWII marked the real BEGINNING of the suburban lifestyle (and yes, the government was and still is complicit in pushing that "choice" over others).

There are quite a few interesting reads that document everything from highway construction to sneaky streetcar system dismantling to government subsidized mortgages for returning vets - but only if they bought suburban single family dwellings - as government-sponsored initiatives to drive more home-building, automobile manufacturing and consumption, all more-or-less innocently designed to drive the post-war economy. The unintended consequences of suburbanization were not felt until decades later.

For a long, long time everything from military spending to the space race was dedicated to stifling the growth of communism, not protecting suburbanization. It wasn't until the 1970s that we really began directing much money and military effort towards protecting a flow of cheap oil, and only then because we saw the first glimmers that it might not be an endless, uninterrupted supply. But JTF is right in that since the Soviets fell, a HUGE amount of our military might, diplomatic and intelligence efforts are engaged basically in protecting our oil supply. It's simply too critical to leave perhaps the most important element of our economy - transportation - to the whims of an extremely instable region. The foreign oil stops, America stops. And it shouldn't be that way.

We've painted ourselves into this corner in large part because of poor city planning for the past six decades, but we can change it. Fortunately there is also a technological boom that it appears would allow us to extract most if not all of our needed energy here - thanks to folks who include our own neighbors and friends in OKC - but we need to also keep working on improving the ways we move ourselves and our goods around. So while JTF seems to have a one-track mind at times, he's dead-on about much of it, and I appreciate hearing someone regularly championing the subject.

Very well done.

In the Core to Shore plan Wheeler Park goes away and becomes a residential area. Prominade Park becomes the new Wheeler Park.

It doesn't go completely away, but it does look like a lot of land area is proposed to be repurposed for residential, but how much of the useable space is that (soccer fields etc)?
click on thumbnail for larger image, for full sized, go to the City's site and download the PDF (http://www.okc.gov/planning/coretoshore/index.html)
27222723

Even if it is going away, we are probably talking decade(s) before it does.

In the last year I've spent a lot of time in Wheeler Park for softball and kickball and I don't see how a "suburban-style neighborhood" (which is what that looks like) could go in there like that given the inaccessibility of the place from the roadway (Western) post-new I-40. There is one way out (not including the neighborhood route which I'm not sure will always be there) and it's a very steep grade. Plus the Western Bridge would get in the way of any other attempted access points. I'm probably very wrong as I don't know enough about this stuff, but it seems to me that maybe reality will prove very different from that idealized master plan (e.g. it was probably drawn before it was learned I-40 couldn't go as deep as intended so the area isn't as flat as expected).

Also, given Wheeler Park's history (as our first zoo), there should be some amount of preservation of the place, to include some new public art to indicate its place in OKC's history. Don't get me wrong, I think riverfront housing is a good idea. I just don't think this is the place for it (my opinion is that the south shore with skyline views would be best), and definitely not in the suburban style that appears in that drawing.

It appears from the diagrams that the major access to this area would be from Walker rather than from Western. It also depicts what may amount to row houses instead of anything resembling surburban type development.

If that's the case (row homes), I'd be better with that, though I still think we should keep Wheeler.

Architects Reveal Newest Plans For Downtown OKC Park - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports | (http://www.news9.com/story/19906622/architects-reveal-newest-plan-for-downtown-okc-park)

The search feature has always seemed to be pretty useless. I swear I looked for this thread.

I like the fact that none of them look very programmed at this point in time.

Ah... if only we would get such a beautiful structure as Eaglevale Arch in our new park...

http://bridgehunter.com/photos/11/73/117386-M.jpg (http://bridgehunter.com/photos/11/73/117386-L.jpg)

Of these three, I prefer the 3rd alternative (the one without the water).

However, this design illustrates part of my concern with using a landscape architect firm and not a planning firm as the primary. (let me know if I am just wrong on this).

This park doesn't appear (at least in these renderings) to have a strong tie to the neighborhood. The pathways have no orientation with any of the roads. Access into the park shouldn't just be accommodation but should be massively obvious and comfortable.

http://runstreet.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/central-park-90th-street-entrance1-1024x768.jpg

http://96.0.181.226/STREET%20SCENES/arches/eaglevale.JPG

I love the paths and the cozy areas, but they need to connect to the grid in friendly ways. You don't want to have to approach the park and walk through trees, grass, or go a long way before you can go into the park and use it.

This park looks like it intends the user to come from the north or the south and go through the park pretty strictly in a N/S direction. To me, that doesn't leverage the 6 or 7 E/W roads that terminate at the park.

The best parks use a mini, meandering "grid" that allow pedestrians to easily 'come in' but are not too ridged so that the bulk of the park can still be very flexibly laid out.

I'm optimistic that this concern will be voiced by planning.

Couldn't agree with you more, Sid!

Damn. So much for preserving anything.

Damn. So much for preserving anything.

Preserving every building worth keeping down there should be a top priority. I feel another wasted opportunity coming on. If this entire area of downtown has nothing historic to tie it together with the rest of the city, it's going to feel like lower bricktown part II. Leave some of the buildings on the periphery of the park, and it will weave right in.

Other than Union Station, what buildings within the park boundaries would be worth a save?

I think the city should just document the existing architecture, taking a lot of pictures. Then try to incorporate some of those styles into the park. Historic preservation is extremely expensive and it would be hard to incorporate those buildings into the park itself. If you are talking about the larger c2s, some buildings might be saveable.

As strange as it sounds, I prefer the original conceptual renderings of the central park. I liked the angles and straight lines of the lake. Nothing irritates me more than humans trying to make something that imitates nature. I'm sure whichever deign they pick will be satisfactory, but I'm a little disappointed.

Why don't they just place the cafes and things that they want in the park (the orange spaces in their designs) in the historic buildings that are already there? They could include visitor centers, cafes, restrooms, drink stands, anything they want really in these beautiful existing buildings. This could also probably help with Sid's mention of keeping the park tied in with intersecting streets at the periphery of the park depending on which buildings they save and use. I cannot believe there's not a stronger urge by those in charge to preserve what's already there... Perhaps it makes too much damn sense?

Don't you guys know that the purpose of MAPS projects is to erase history? History is for the books. Go to the library, blow the dust off and appreciate the aesthetic value of a building you never used once in your life.

Of the three designs... i think the one without the lake is the best... still far from great, but the best of those three

I think the city should just document the existing architecture, taking a lot of pictures. Then try to incorporate some of those styles into the park. Historic preservation is extremely expensive and it would be hard to incorporate those buildings into the park itself. If you are talking about the larger c2s, some buildings might be saveable.
So...sort of like the way the architectural details of the Belle Isle Wal-Mart and surrounding big boxes were designed to "echo" the architecture of the demolished Belle Isle power plant they replaced?

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/oge/oge_1980_belleislem.jpg http://pics3.city-data.com/businesses/p/1/4/3/1/7661431.JPG

So...sort of like the way the architectural details of the Belle Isle Wal-Mart and surrounding big boxes were designed to "echo" the architecture of the demolished Belle Isle power plant they replaced?



Touche

Historic preservation is extremely expensive and it would be hard to incorporate those buildings into the park itself.

No it's not. This mentality belongs nowhere near our park design.

With historic preservation, there also tax credits. There may not be as many as there used to be, but they are still out there.

So...sort of like the way the architectural details of the Belle Isle Wal-Mart and surrounding big boxes were designed to "echo" the architecture of the demolished Belle Isle power plant they replaced?

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/oge/oge_1980_belleislem.jpg http://pics3.city-data.com/businesses/p/1/4/3/1/7661431.JPG

Kind of like the transformer yard in the far background pay homage to the power station......Sigh - this is extremely unfortunate to see what was lost.

As strange as it sounds, I prefer the original conceptual renderings of the central park. I liked the angles and straight lines of the lake. Nothing irritates me more than humans trying to make something that imitates nature. I'm sure whichever deign they pick will be satisfactory, but I'm a little disappointed.


Ah... if only we would get such a beautiful structure as Eaglevale Arch in our new park...

http://bridgehunter.com/photos/11/73/117386-M.jpg (http://bridgehunter.com/photos/11/73/117386-L.jpg)


I agree with both of these sentiments. But there was a few very vocal people who spoke out at the last public meeting against Heargraves "cuestas" and the three lakes. I thought the idea was pretty cool and gave the park grand form. But oh well... lol And perhaps they were a bad idea in that I suspect there are several old buildings in the area potentially saveable in the area they were proposed. Also in the former "grand lawn."

Regarding the NY bridge in the pictures above, I wish we would spend the money to build something like that. But I doubt the architects would go for it. Everything has to be new, modern, and representative of something from the past. And while interpretation of things form the past, an overture have you, is normally a result of small budgets, it has now become the architectural norm rather than a last resort. But the grandeur of that bridge for example, is that it has warmth. Probably because of the scale, but I would argue also because of the more organic materials/stone it was constructed with.

We could easily build a modern day element such as that with natural Oklahoma stone that looks old.

Then there is the opposite result... the fake, bewildering, stone fountain at the NE corner of the new Myriad Gardens. Looking completely out of place. So designers can go wrong either direction. lol

... Something can always be added later. Right now, I want to see the fabric of the park -- or the threads of said fabric more appropriately defined -- correctly designed.
Parks are not dissimilar to conventional land in that higher best uses can emerge and new feature and functions can still be introduced later. The key is not to design the park that one day acts as a natural obstacle to such improvements. This is why a "grid" in the park acts as a useful plat. This essentially is one really, really massive super-block.

Sid, I assume you've read JTF's remarks in the Wheeler Park thread discussing OKC's park requirements / threshholds:


In retrospect the Central Park was not a good idea. In addition to losing valuable boulevard frontage it steals visitors from MBG. Here is a quick run down of how the parks should be done in my opinion.

1) Keep MBG as it is today
2) Devon shouldn't have been allowed a large setback and park in front of their building. If their employees want to sit in a park they should have gone to MBG to do it
3) Bicenntenial Park should have been a concrete plaza with planters. That would keep bums from sleeping in it.
4) Sandridge Forest should have never been approved and Couch Drive returned to 2-way traffic.
5) Central Park shouldn't be built. Once again it will steal visitors from MBG and would have allowed infill between the boulevard and I-40.
6) Promenade Park should be built, but not as big as planned.
7) The riverfront should have been urbanized, not turned to park space
8) Wheeler Park should be converted to residential with an urbanized waterfront
9) Wiley Post Park should be reduced by 66% and then use that land to build a mixed-use development (maybe include aquarium) that would be on future streetcar route to Capitol Hill.
10) The Federal Building park should be developed and 7th St reopened
11) Lower Bricktown (south of the old I-40) should be developed
12) Lower Bricktown (north of the old I-40) should be bulldozed and done again making it much more dense

I'm certainly not trying to incite anything, but I think you're saying something like JTF said.
Question: Do you think the Central Park idea is a good plan at face value? Does it take away from or add to the CBD? Say you're emperor for a period of time -- what would you do with the Central Park idea?

So...sort of like the way the architectural details of the Belle Isle Wal-Mart and surrounding big boxes were designed to "echo" the architecture of the demolished Belle Isle power plant they replaced?

I wasn't aware anyone wanted Bell Isle Station to echo the power station. Maybe I missed that whole saga but otherwise its kind of apples to oranges. 80 acres is not that much for a central park. It could very easily seem forced if some buildings within the boundaries are preserved.

I have no problems whatsoever with our new central park. One of the things that makes living downtown easy is not having a yard, or not having a large yard. However, I think most humans crave a little green. Parks serve as a backyard for all of us who don't have one. Does anyone question the concept that real estate around Central Park in NYC is as pricey as it is because you get a park along with your condo? A park is a wonderful counterpoint to concrete and steel. I like both of them. And, for me, the Myriad Gardens is not restful at all. It's too heavily programmed, too cut up for my taste. I want a wide swath of green and trees where I can stroll. I could care less if there's anything other than grass and trees and a few paths in the Central Park, but it and the streetcar were the reason I voted for MAPS 3. I don't think I'm the only one.

I often agree with JTF, but not on this one. I am looking forward to this Central Park and remain hopeful it will spur development in the C2S area sooner rather than later. I hope there will be programmed nodes with lots of natural space. The Great Lawn and plaza area in the northeast quadrant will be a great gathering space for concerts and festivals that are too large for Myriad. I think the Central Park should be more relaxing when compared to the frenetic (?) nature of the Myriad programming. I liked elements of two of the three concepts presented tonight, but the final product will be refined as the designers meet with focus groups and other interested parties.

None of these designs pay any attention to the old train station. It is hidden behind a grove of trees. It is a handsome building and deserves to be seen and used. It makes a nice anchor to the end of the park. If the train station is to be re-purposed for the public, the new tenants will want to be visible and accessible, too. It seems the designers are missing an opportunity to take advantage of the only building in the park. Am i wrong?

None of these designs pay any attention to the old train station. It is hidden behind a grove of trees. It is a handsome building and deserves to be seen and used. It makes a nice anchor to the end of the park. If the train station is to be re-purposed for the public, the new tenants will want to be visible and accessible, too. It seems the designers are missing an opportunity to take advantage of the only building in the park. Am i wrong?

Maybe I'm not seeing what you're seeing. I saw nothing indicating that the train station is going to be hidden in the least. They are certainly showing some trees around it but appears to be very visible and accesible.

So...sort of like the way the architectural details of the Belle Isle Wal-Mart and surrounding big boxes were designed to "echo" the architecture of the demolished Belle Isle power plant they replaced?

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/oge/oge_1980_belleislem.jpg http://pics3.city-data.com/businesses/p/1/4/3/1/7661431.JPG

Honest to God, I could punch someone over this disaster.

Honest to God, I could punch someone over this disaster.

Wow. If that feeling doesn't go away I think I know someone that would be more than happy to let you try. I think I might even be able to get him to confess that he was responsible for your disaster for the purpose of enhancing your anger to make sure you were really motivated.

Wow. If that feeling doesn't go away I think I know someone that would be more than happy to let you try. I think I might even be able to get him to confess that he was responsible for your disaster for the purpose of enhancing your anger to make sure you were really motivated.

I have no idea what in the world you're talking about... I was probably too heated over seeing that photo, but it brought back a lot of frustration of fighting for preservation of that building and area only to see it go to a Walmart and Old Navy. Really, really disappointing. Especially considering what Baltimore was able to do with one of their old power plants.

I was probably too heated over seeing that photo, but it brought back a lot of frustration of fighting for preservation of that building and area only to see it go to a Walmart and Old Navy. Really, really disappointing. Especially considering what Baltimore was able to do with one of their old power plants.

Agree. Considering how banal the replacement for the Belle Isle plant is (and I think banal is kind), it is a huge loss for our city. I hated to see it torn down.

The more I think about Central Park and Promenade Park the more I don't like them. The benefits of moving I-40 are greatly diminished if 40% of the land made available for development is used for park land. The 60% left available now is cut-off by a boulevard, 10 lane interstate, and a river and now will be divided down the middle by two parks. I just don't see this becoming a livable area. It will look good on a map and from an airplane, but I think it is going to be miserable at street level. Now that this plan is actually happening my hope for C2S is diminishing quickly.

The more I think about Central Park and Promenade Park the more I don't like them. The benefits of moving I-40 are greatly diminished if 40% of the land made available for development is used for park land. The 60% left available now is cut-off by a boulevard, 10 lane interstate, and a river and now will be divided down the middle by two parks. I just don't see this becoming a livable area. It will look good on a map and from an airplane, but I think it is going to be miserable at street level. Now that this plan is actually happening my hope for C2S is diminishing quickly.

I agree that its going to be really difficult to pull all this off. The Oklahoma River looks like the LA River from the air. The park blocks off a lot of westbound and eastbound traffic, which is probably higher volume than northbound and southbound traffic. The park should have been longer east to west than north to south. And also bigger. Not enough thought went into the master plan, but no individual project is a failure by itself.

I just don't see this becoming a livable area.

I agree with the exact opposite of this. The park is the only thing that's ever going to make that area livable again. It also helps to concentrate and focus the on each side of it into denser more pedestrian friendly areas with, hopefully, different personalities. I'd live next to it as long as they don't just build a bunch of LEVELs and Edges.

I agree with the exact opposite of this. The park is the only thing that's ever going to make that area livable again. It also helps to concentrate and focus the on each side of it into denser more pedestrian friendly areas with, hopefully, different personalities. I'd live next to it as long as they don't just build a bunch of LEVELs and Edges.

Agree completely. And I hope we aren't foolish enough to waste prime real estate on LEVEL and Edge equivalents. If not, I would totally live there.

I agree with the exact opposite of this. The park is the only thing that's ever going to make that area livable again. It also helps to concentrate and focus the on each side of it into denser more pedestrian friendly areas with, hopefully, different personalities. I'd live next to it as long as they don't just build a bunch of LEVELs and Edges.

This is where I differ with JTF as well. I think rowhouses and small lot bungalows would do very well in this area. Require at least 10-15% for lower price points, mix single family and multi family. I think the city should require rear service alleys and absolutely prohibit massive front facing garages. Reserve space on the corners for a corner store or cafe - every other or every third block? In between have at least one small pocket park on a corner then build a residence on the other one. The park as a front yard will be the primary facilitator of redevelopment of C2S.I think this could become a great place to live and remain hopeful it will turn out well.

If the surrounding area is all 2/3 story townhomes how many housing units do you think they could build? What would be the build-out population?

If the surrounding area is all 2/3 story townhomes how many housing units do you think they could build? What would be the build-out population?

That is exactly why I think there should be a mix of townhouses and single family......the basic concept of C2S is pretty solid.