... ... It was made clear the MAPS3 money cannot be spent west of Harvey on the lower section, which would mean MAP3 cannot address that park, but can design the lower park to open up into that park for future connectivity.
...

Possibly because I'm rather sleepy, but I am not following. I thought the actual language was so open ended they could do almost anything they want to with MAPs3 funds so long as it is considered a civic improvement inside the OKC borders

That's what she said. (In a non-sexual joke way)

Possibly because I'm rather sleepy, but I am not following. I thought the actual language was so open ended they could do almost anything they want to with MAPs3 funds so long as it is considered a civic improvement inside the OKC borders

Maybe if told to by the city council, however it likely they will already be balancing what can pay for in the area they already are committed to.

She didn't state that the location was "horrible" but less than Ideal(paraphrase). They're wanting the traffic from north to supply business to a cafe following the completion of the first part(2014 on). The building-if renovated- would be abandoned until the completion of the upper park. She also stated that the building was too big. The renovation costs would be very expensive and getting tenants would be more difficult. It sounded like they tried to justify using the older buildings as much as possible, however it just didn't add up economically.

I'm all for keeping historic buildings, however the history and architecture of the building have to be able to justify the increased costs. Unfortuantely, the Film Exchange buildings history and architecture doesn't justify its' existence.

I took it as, its in the way of my design. I had to compromise by using Union Station in my design. You are lucky to get that! Its a huge building and its going to be tough "programming for it". That is what I got from her. Even though there are tons of companies and restaurants that would love to lease space in Film Exchange building in the park. I shouldn't have led her by saying using it as a cafe, when it can be used for offices along with a restaurant. I just wanted to emphasize how the older buildings in the city being fixed up is trendy while the modern buildings like the cafe in the Myriad Gardens in the hottest spot in the city lies empty. The Film Exchange building's location is perfect in my opinion hugging the street bringing the urban fabric into the park, but its in the way of their walkway to the Scissortail Bridge.

That's what she said. (In a non-sexual joke way)

Since there isn't a "like" button in this section... Like. :)

So, on one hand access is good, and on the other it is bad. On one hand you said that people would have to pass through the underbrush, and on the other it is no good because there is no hedge or other barrier. On one hand the street and ring are great but we have a street and perimeter walkway, but that is no good. And, we need an entrance at each side street and a grid across the park.

I've spent a fair amount of time in Regent's Park, Boston Commons, Central Park, Hyde Park, etc. and feel like if any of those were actually proposed here they would be highly criticized as I can point out many features which don't seem to fit the rigid requirements. LOL.

I like the curving pathways, a series of gardens, an great open area and lots of smaller, more intimate areas. I like the water features as one of my favorite things in NY Central Park is to go watch the remote control sail boats and all the kids dangling their feet in the water on a summer's day. I like patches of people under trees on their blankets reading their books. I like the joggers running the paths and cross country. I think this could have a really nice feel as the vegetation matures.

This may be unknown detail, but are the paths solid stone, poured concrete, pebble stones, or other?

I agree with your commentary. I was at one of the presentations during the day yesterday and we were told that the bicycle/pedestrian paths, at this point in time, are planned to be done from cast stone with very tight spaces between the stones. In addition, the presenter said that while there would be trees creating a sense of a barrier up higher, the distances between the trees and the lowness of the vegetation underneath them would create a sense of openness - that you can walk among the trees. So, I don't think there will be barriers, or any sense if barriers. Which is fine with me. I think that it's really difficult to visualize from a plan and so the criticism may not be based on a 3 dimensional understanding of what it will be like to be in the park. There were some interesting vantage point drawings at the presentation, which gave a much better sense of how the park will feel. While looking down on it I don't find the design extremely exciting, the vantage point drawings showed a very attractive series of areas.

I like the design overall. I couldn't make it to the meeting, but from what I heard on the live stream, they took the public input received seriously and have the basics right on. I think the slight adjustment made in catch22's drawing is worth considering too. It doesn't alter the design or character of the park and does connect the park with what will hopefully be surrounding future neighborhoods.

Yeah that sounds like it would be true as well.

..she seemed neutral on the subject, but stated (and this is paraphrase) they didn't really want to include the grid 100%, as there needs to be some winding to the trails.
.

She is joking right? No one is suggesting that the paths need to be straight once they are in the park, only that the entrances to the park line up with the streets around the park. Unless she knows a way people are going to walk through buildings to get the park then they are all going to walk there on a sidewalk adjacent to a street. It only makes sense that a person on a sidewalk, adjacent to a street, can enter the park.

How did a simple park for which there are literally thousands of good examples of become so complicated?

She is joking right? No one is suggesting that the paths need to be straight once they are in the park, only that the entrances to the park line up with the streets around the park. Unless she knows a way people are going to walk through buildings to get the park then they are all going to walk there on a sidewalk adjacent to a street. It only makes sense that a person on a sidewalk, adjacent to a street, can enter the park.

How did a simple park for which there are literally thousands of good examples of become so complicated?

Because most everyone still drives and so few walk, perhaps the mindset was doomed from the get-go to no park entrances near streets lest folks drive right in

Speaking of parking...

The parking along Robinson will be parallel. The parking along Hudson will be perpendicular.

She is joking right? No one is suggesting that the paths need to be straight once they are in the park, only that the entrances to the park line up with the streets around the park. Unless she knows a way people are going to walk through buildings to get the park then they are all going to walk there on a sidewalk adjacent to a street. It only makes sense that a person on a sidewalk, adjacent to a street, can enter the park.

How did a simple park for which there are literally thousands of good examples of become so complicated?

I didn't get the impression they were going to wall the park. I would guess you can enter anywhere you want. While I agree with the formal entrances lining up with streets around the park, looking at the model it looks as if you can enter anywhere you want if you don't mind walking on grass or other low-growing plants.

I kinda hope that in the final draft, there's not as much pink as there is now...haha

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/773700_10151196717586636_2090251870_o.jpg

Early pre-vote renderings showed Union Station at the edge of the lake (along with an event center that got scrapped). So now they are going to hide Union Station behind a bunch of trees? Needs to be open and visible from just about anyplace in the Park...a destination

Also, I really like the slight alterations that someone made to get the entry points to align with the existing grid. But as we know with the Boulevard, trying to get anything to tie in with the existing grid is an uphill battle with the City.

I think it is important to integrate the sidewalks into the grid because when I visit other cities, you are never really looking for the park. You are walking down the street, and you end up in the park. There's no deadend, and then search for the pathway. There might be on some streets, but the major pedestrian corridors lead you right into the park without realizing it.

Edit: Which they have done on several of the streets in this image, I am concerned about the position of the lake being a barrier for east/west pedestrian traffic. A simple move to the SE and rotation of just a few degrees allows easier pedestrian flow from the street grid across the park without being diverted out of the mind's walking distance.

Doh, old article, sorry.

Doh, old article, sorry.

I caught that when it popped up at the bottom of the Convention Center article on NewsOK...clicked on it and saw the date, lol. I thought to myself, I hope UnFrSaKn doesn't go posting that ;)

New draft of the Central Park plan to be considered next week by the MAPS 3 subcommittee:



http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/centralpark71813a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/centralpark71813b.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/centralpark71813c.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/centralpark71813d.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/centralpark71813e.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/centralpark71813f.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/centralpark71813g.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/centralpark71813h.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/centralpark71813i.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/centralpark71813j.jpg

I'm sure there are pros and cons (queue those who want more direct East to West flow across the park) but, overall, I like it. It appears from the depiction that the great lawn in front of the stage can also be used for athletic fields.

I'm sure there are pros and cons....but, overall, I like it.

I completely agree. Obviously, pleasing everyone will never happen, but I love how this looks.

For whatever reason, I thought the south park area was way more devoted to playing field area. Looks nice, just different than what I got into my head somewhere back along the way.

For whatever reason, I thought the south park area was way more devoted to playing field area. Looks nice, just different than what I got into my head somewhere back along the way.

I think it did early on, but it also seems like that may have been at a point when Wheeler park was being considered to be redeveloped into another use. Since they have recently renovated the facilities there, they probably will not be going away so will not have as much need in the central park for them.

It doesn't look any different than the last time I saw plans for it but we're never gonna be able to pass judgement on it until 2021. So don't call it crap until then ;-)

One of the more interesting things to note is that Phase I of the upper park won't be complete until summer/fall 2015.

Considering the Salvation Army got a late start on their new building at NW 10th & Penn, they can't do much of anything with the park until they move.

And if you haven't noticed, all the parking and sidewalks around Union Station have been demolished as part of a plan to completely replace them. Seems like odd timing to spend $650,000 (!!) even if Phase II of the upper park won't be complete until 2018/19.



http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/centralpark52213.jpg

Very exciting! I can't wait to see what it will look like in 10 years.

Very exciting! I can't wait to see what it will look like in 10 years.

I want to like the park but I don't....

There is very little context and connection to the neighborhood. That park could be plopped down in any city and no one would have a clue it was supposed to be in okc.

Subcommittee meeting is Wednesday at 1:30 420 w main st.

I want to like the park but I don't....

There is very little context and connection to the neighborhood. That park could be plopped down in any city and no one would have a clue it was supposed to be in okc.

If you'd seen the neighborhood you wouldn't want any connection with it either. :D

Don't worry, the City plans just to bulldoze everything within a couple of blocks, including some very cool historical building.

So, we'll have yet another sea of empty lots within walking distance of downtown.

For this reason and others I could mention, I don't think we have "arrived" despite all the momentum. If we continue bulldozing the past and forgetting our history, how do we maintain an identity and know where we are headed? The foundation that was built to last generations ago is long gone and who those people were is forgotten. You would never know we had such a rich history unless you really looked hard and studied. The city appears to be much younger than it really is.

Unless someone is going to buy those surrounding properties and revitalize them to help stitch future development together, then there's no reason not to bulldoze them. Leaving decrepit buildings around and trees that look like a jungle is just gonna give "urban dwellers" another reason to bum around in the area. I can't wait till this thing goes from a conceptual idea to something we all can physically use.

Don't worry, the City plans just to bulldoze everything within a couple of blocks, including some very cool historical building.

So, we'll have yet another sea of empty lots within walking distance of downtown.

I'm with lasomeday. This park is egregious because we don't need a downtown park, as we already have that now. This project has never quite found a good purpose to fulfill. I just don't understand any of what we're doing here because we basically just have this money in search of projects, no legitimate guidance or planning involved, and now we've turned to these consultants who have designed a very nice McPark.

But it has no local connection. It could literally be in ANY city. And typical of consultants searching for a local connection, they think they're going to throw in some local flora and fauna and voila, a park that is unique to OKC. I'm sorry but that wreaks or arrogance and this park sucks.

They should be exploring options like moving parts of the old Stage Center here, and retaining the old Film Exchange and other historic buildings (perhaps adaptively reusing some as park pavilions), and then filling in the gaps with nice indigenous shrubs and the "Oklahoma Forest." The expertise and creative capital on the MAPS3 park subcommittee is absolutely being wasted if this is what they've come up with. I'm disappointed.

I'm going to start to devoting a lot of my time to pointing this out. I know contracts have already been executed with consultants, but the best way to resolve this whole mess would be to appoint a local "architect of record" and put them in position as master consultant.

It doesn't look any different than the last time I saw plans for it but we're never gonna be able to pass judgement on it until 2021. So don't call it crap until then ;-)

Difference between this and the outdoor concert venue? This isn't set in the back of some private property and affects the streets and urban environment around it. It's also a MAPS 3 voter approved project. OH, and it isn't temporary. You have every right to pass judgment on it. ;P

On edit, I was kinda under the assumption the southern portion was to have more athletic fields as well. I think some tennis courts around here would be nice... Something that Wheeler nor Wiley Post offer.

Coming from a new resident of OKC (less than 5 years) I don't know what this history is that Spartan talks about. Is it worth the effort to hang on to what little is left or just start over and move forward and create a new "history" for OKC? Moving parts of Stage Center to the park? Come on. This park is going to be a fantastic space for current residents and future new residents who may move here as part of our city's rebirth. Do you think they'll care that it lacks a connection to the city's past? Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the whole point of improvements to Union Station and incorporating it into the park?

Well I've lived here for almost 32 years and I DO care about what little history is left.

So I'm guessing the Harvey spine that was apparently quite important in the core to shore study is dead?

Well I've lived here for almost 32 years and I DO care about what little history is left.

What history are we talking about in the area that this park is going? That's an honest question because I obviously don't know it, but someone like yourself does. I do know that the Pei Plan probably left a lot of folks very leery of any type of development that disregards the past for brand new construction.

I'm not trying to come at anyone, just asking for opinions.

Wasn't this and the south bank a shanty town and work camp, and a dangerous flood area? Isn't that the real history? There may be a few buildings worthy of a discussion for saving, but I don't think there was an important history to preserve. Maybe on the far north end there was activity of note. Am I missing something? I don't recall any significant historic events, activities or developments that occupied most of that area.

Wasn't this and the south bank a shanty town and work camp, and a dangerous flood area? Isn't that the real history? There may be a few buildings worthy of a discussion for saving, but I don't think there was an important history to preserve. Maybe on the far north end there was activity of note. Am I missing something? I don't recall any significant historic events, activities or developments that occupied most of that area.

A lot of the historic buildings were torn down, which probably was related to flooding as that was the area that it's repeated major flooding lead to channelizing the North Canadian river

http://www.okctalk.com/other-urban-development/34396-vacant-abandoned-buildings-2.html

Doug's blog has a list if you scroll down.

Consider most of what is called Bricktown was seen with the same attitude of only looking at the current dilapidated state and not what it could be. The city once wanted to bulldoze them all and "start new" but it was one man with a vision that saved it from destruction. Read up on Bricktown some time. If the few significant buildings standing on the park blocks look bad today, almost all the revitalized buildings in Bricktown were the same or worse before someone decided to do something with them. I doubt anyone would propose it would have been better to lose the old warehouse district and have nothing but Lower Bricktown stuff.

I do understand that Bricktown was revitalized in that manner, and it was done quite well. Unfortunately though, how do you revitalize that area with just making another Bricktown?

I get confused a lot on how anyone is ever happy with anything. A park like this is proposed, with green space, dog parks, entertainment venues, access to the river, athletic fields...in general stuff that promotes a healthy active lifestyle and community. Then there is opposition because it disrupts some buildings. At least we're not putting pollution creating factories or something on that land :)

Wasn't this and the south bank a shanty town and work camp, and a dangerous flood area? Isn't that the real history? There may be a few buildings worthy of a discussion for saving, but I don't think there was an important history to preserve. Maybe on the far north end there was activity of note. Am I missing something? I don't recall any significant historic events, activities or developments that occupied most of that area.

This is such a northsider perspective.

OKC used to have a fabulous riverside neighborhood. Wheeler Park and especially Delmar Gardens were far closer to Central Park than this MAPS3 "Central Park" will ever be. It was lush, beautiful, and very active. Yes it used to flood a lot so the Army Corps of Engineers clear cut the whole area and damned up the river so we could instead mow it for the next 60 years. They solved the problem of a wild and untamed river flooding occasionally into a beautiful urban area by eliminating the beautiful urban area.

One of the buildings the city is going to wipe away is the original Film Exchange before all that activity migrated to the western edge of downtown. What's funny about the northsider perspective on downtown is that they've remained consistently moderately involved with downtown. In the OKC of old, the Capitol Hill community and greater southside was more connected to downtown and what's changed over the decades is that the southside has been completely cut off from downtown and hence today's descendants of Capitol Hill, Southeast, and U.S. Grant people all live south of I-240. Another thing that made me laugh the other day was when Steve Lackmeyer boasted on his chat that soon "downtown" will stretch from the river, to NW 13th, to Western, to Lincoln. As if it doesn't already?? In the 1960s city leaders were boasting that soon downtown was going to stretch west to Penn. That was visionary, perhaps too much so.

Along Robinson are a lot of great old buildings that could easily be renovated into a remarkable district wi PLENTY of room for newer infill. You guys should really drive around Robinson, S Broadway, and Shields. There's old bones there, at least much historic fabric as exists in Midtown, and you don't see anyone saying Midtown is a desolate wasteland shantytown that should be wiped clean. The problem here is that the northside still has no respect for the southside.

This is such a northsider perspective.

How about answer his question instead of being rude?

This is such a northsider perspective.

No, it is isn't. I doubt southsiders automatically recognize this as their area of historical significance....perhaps Capital Hill and south, but not here. And, I asked for insight as to what the historical activity or significance was, and wasn't asking to be back door insulted. If there is other cultural and historical significance to the area, please enlighten us ignorant northsiders. I understand there were buildings there, but am unaware of significance other than the station and Little Flower church. Is hubcap alley and the scrap yard area historically significant for adding to our history and culture?

I'm only talking about 2-3 buildings that have been there before any of us were born and deserve to be repurposed and incorporated into "the new" rather than knocked to the ground. The Film Exchange Building is the original film exchange building before the one on Film Row. I know the present is what everyone cares about but most know what happens if clearing whole city blocks for that sole purpose has done to the city in the past. Have you been to the Braniff Building and eaten at Kitchen No. 324? How ugly was that building before it was given new life and adds to the character of that block and dining atmosphere.

Have you been to the Braniff Building and eaten at Kitchen No. 324? How ugly was that building before it was given new life and adds to the character of that block and dining atmosphere.

No not yet, but I go to Joey's on Film Row quite a bit and love it, does that count? :)

This is such a northsider perspective.

OKC used to have a fabulous riverside neighborhood. Wheeler Park and especially Delmar Gardens were far closer to Central Park than this MAPS3 "Central Park" will ever be. It was lush, beautiful, and very active. Yes it used to flood a lot so the Army Corps of Engineers clear cut the whole area and damned up the river so we could instead mow it for the next 60 years. They solved the problem of a wild and untamed river flooding occasionally into a beautiful urban area by eliminating the beautiful urban area.

One of the buildings the city is going to wipe away is the original Film Exchange before all that activity migrated to the western edge of downtown. What's funny about the northsider perspective on downtown is that they've remained consistently moderately involved with downtown. In the OKC of old, the Capitol Hill community and greater southside was more connected to downtown and what's changed over the decades is that the southside has been completely cut off from downtown and hence today's descendants of Capitol Hill, Southeast, and U.S. Grant people all live south of I-240. Another thing that made me laugh the other day was when Steve Lackmeyer boasted on his chat that soon "downtown" will stretch from the river, to NW 13th, to Western, to Lincoln. As if it doesn't already?? In the 1960s city leaders were boasting that soon downtown was going to stretch west to Penn. That was visionary, perhaps too much so.

Along Robinson are a lot of great old buildings that could easily be renovated into a remarkable district wi PLENTY of room for newer infill. You guys should really drive around Robinson, S Broadway, and Shields. There's old bones there, at least much historic fabric as exists in Midtown, and you don't see anyone saying Midtown is a desolate wasteland shantytown that should be wiped clean. The problem here is that the northside still has no respect for the southside.

Excellent post with great historical perspective and context. We have to be thinking of reintegrating the real inner city of OKC, from, say, NW 23rd on the north side to SW 29th on the south.

This is such a northsider perspective.

OKC used to have a fabulous riverside neighborhood. Wheeler Park and especially Delmar Gardens were far closer to Central Park than this MAPS3 "Central Park" will ever be. It was lush, beautiful, and very active. Yes it used to flood a lot so the Army Corps of Engineers clear cut the whole area and damned up the river so we could instead mow it for the next 60 years. They solved the problem of a wild and untamed river flooding occasionally into a beautiful urban area by eliminating the beautiful urban area.

One of the buildings the city is going to wipe away is the original Film Exchange before all that activity migrated to the western edge of downtown. What's funny about the northsider perspective on downtown is that they've remained consistently moderately involved with downtown. In the OKC of old, the Capitol Hill community and greater southside was more connected to downtown and what's changed over the decades is that the southside has been completely cut off from downtown and hence today's descendants of Capitol Hill, Southeast, and U.S. Grant people all live south of I-240. Another thing that made me laugh the other day was when Steve Lackmeyer boasted on his chat that soon "downtown" will stretch from the river, to NW 13th, to Western, to Lincoln. As if it doesn't already?? In the 1960s city leaders were boasting that soon downtown was going to stretch west to Penn. That was visionary, perhaps too much so.

Along Robinson are a lot of great old buildings that could easily be renovated into a remarkable district wi PLENTY of room for newer infill. You guys should really drive around Robinson, S Broadway, and Shields. There's old bones there, at least much historic fabric as exists in Midtown, and you don't see anyone saying Midtown is a desolate wasteland shantytown that should be wiped clean. The problem here is that the northside still has no respect for the southside.

I could easily say that south siders have a chip on their shoulders. I don't understand this divisiveness. I had relatives with businesses in Capital Hill. I did business there myself for quite awhile. I have lived north and south of 1-40. I hardly ever hear north siders comment north or south in derisive tones, but hear it quite a lot from Southsiders. It will be great when we are OKCitians and not north OR south siders.

BTW, I wasn't calling the permanent structures shanty town. Pre ww2 there was an ACTUAL shanty town in the area and there was a work camp too. That is ALSO a part of the history of the area. Destructive flooding was part of the history, as well. I don't know about the lushness of wheeler Park so I will take your word for it that the new park disrespects it.

I actually see a functioning central park there as being a good thing, bringing citizens from near south and near north to use it together instead of continuing an apparent north south schism.

As to the retaining of current buildings there, I understand the passion about a few...but the shacks and dilapidated cinder block buildings not so much.

Also, the day that Capital Hill starts becoming something better, then maybe I will understand comparing the park area to midtown, but I don't think it is anywhere near the same opportunity now, nor will be without the considerable investment the city is preparing to make there.

I could easily say that south siders have a chip on their shoulders. I don't understand this divisiveness. I had relatives with businesses in Capital Hill. I did business there myself for quite awhile. I have lived north and south of 1-40. I hardly ever hear north siders comment north or south in derisive tones, but hear it quite a lot from Southsiders. It will be great when we are OKCitians and not north OR south siders.

BTW, I wasn't calling the permanent structures shanty town. Pre ww2 there was an ACTUAL shanty town in the area and there was a work camp too. That is ALSO a part of the history of the area. Destructive flooding was part of the history, as well. I don't know about the lushness of wheeler Park so I will take your word for it that the new park disrespects it.

I actually see a functioning central park there as being a good thing, bringing citizens from near south and near north to use it together instead of continuing an apparent north south schism.

As to the retaining of current buildings there, I understand the passion about a few...but the shacks and dilapidated cinder block buildings not so much.

Also, the day that Capital Hill starts becoming something better, then maybe I will understand comparing the park area to midtown, but I don't think it is anywhere near the same opportunity now, nor will be without the considerable investment the city is preparing to make there.

You say the south side of downtown is just a shanty town and then turn around and say southsiders have a chip on their shoulder when you get called out. Then in your myopic defense you incorporate the phrase "the day that Capital (it's Capitol, which is another historically significant difference) Hill starts becoming something better, then maybe I will understand..."

I'm starting #totalrovermove or #TRM

If you think we want to see wooden shacks and cinderblock buildings preserved you don't get it. There is WAY more than that in this area that is being clear cut by people who have no basis of understanding and thus, the exact same perspective that your doling out on this forum. That's extremely dangerous.

I could easily say that south siders have a chip on their shoulders. I don't understand this divisiveness. I had relatives with businesses in Capital Hill. I did business there myself for quite awhile. I have lived north and south of 1-40. I hardly ever hear north siders comment north or south in derisive tones, but hear it quite a lot from Southsiders. It will be great when we are OKCitians and not north OR south siders.

BTW, I wasn't calling the permanent structures shanty town. Pre ww2 there was an ACTUAL shanty town in the area and there was a work camp too. That is ALSO a part of the history of the area. Destructive flooding was part of the history, as well. I don't know about the lushness of wheeler Park so I will take your word for it that the new park disrespects it.

I actually see a functioning central park there as being a good thing, bringing citizens from near south and near north to use it together instead of continuing an apparent north south schism.

As to the retaining of current buildings there, I understand the passion about a few...but the shacks and dilapidated cinder block buildings not so much.

Also, the day that Capital Hill starts becoming something better, then maybe I will understand comparing the park area to midtown, but I don't think it is anywhere near the same opportunity now, nor will be without the considerable investment the city is preparing to make there.

I'm not saying I don't want a park on the selected site. But let's do it right. Let's not do 7 extremely random projects because we have money that demands we find out how to spend it. There are ways to spend it wisely. The streetcar and river projects are just about the only MAPS3 initiatives that make any sense at all.

[QUOTE=Rover;667498]I could easily say that south siders have a chip on their shoulders. I don't understand this divisiveness.[QUOTE]

Actually, there is historic precedence for the South vs North views and it can go either way. Back during the 20's-30's Oklahoma City had rat problems. These pesky little varmints were picked up and often dumped in bunches south of the river. Youngsters and folks living north would often "plink" at said varmints along the south river back with .22 rifles. During the 20's and through the depression years, shanty towns were also constructed along the riverfront south. In 1923 many of these poor locals were destroyed by flooding, making the matter more complicated and heartbreaking. The depression years really created the stigma though that anything south, which was mostly rural and farmland past the river 'district', was occupied by nothing more than poor white trash. Hence the divide. Southsiders have always defended their side and the north, albeit unintentionally have often condemned or degraded southsiders. Like the whole bedlam thing. Today, it isn't so bad as demographics and living conditions, especially further south, have changed so much since the 50's, when new neighborhoods and so much more really developed south.

I'm not saying I don't want a park on the selected site. But let's do it right. Let's not do 7 extremely random projects because we have money that demands we find out how to spend it. There are ways to spend it wisely. The streetcar and river projects are just about the only MAPS3 initiatives that make any sense at all.

Drop the streetcar from what you said and you will be right on. Until you have a decent bus system working a streetcar makes no sense when there are so many poor and aged citizens needing a good bus system. The streetcar does not address their needs at all.

The good news in this park disaster is that it will be easy to undo these mistakes. Why is it such a forign concept to connect park sidewalks to the sidewalks of the adjacent streets. Everyone person who visits this park is going to have to get in it on foot. I am thinking the designers of this park have never designed a T6/T5 park.

The good news in this park disaster is that it will be easy to undo these mistakes. Why is it such a forign concept to connect park sidewalks to the sidewalks of the adjacent streets. Everyone person who visits this park is going to have to get in it on foot. I am thinking the designers of this park have never designed a T6/T5 park.

Wrong. We will be stuck with a convention center separating two parks for the next 40-50 years until we tear that down, too. We will never rebuild what's left of the historic building stock. We will never again have the unique opportunities we have now. We are asking consultants from SF to ask us here in flyover country what to do with this moment in time in this city, and we are failing. We will be writing literature on what a failure this is turning out to be, and I say that as one of MAPS3's biggest campaign cheerleaders.

Well, I meant the failures of the park itself. You're right that we can never fix what the park replaced.

On a 'bigger picture' thought, the MAPS model seems to have a fatal flaw in that plans are made years before they are excuted. That wasn't such a problem with MAPS I because OKC wasn't changing that fast back then (if at all). Modern day OKC is changing every month so making plans 5 to 7 years out doesn't make sense anymore because all the planning assumptions change by the time we get to implementing them.

MAPS had at least some changes too, it seemed like the library jumped locations like a dozen time and the trolleys were clearly not the original plan either. Not sure about what changes went on with the Ballpark or Arena but things like renovating the Cox center, Civic Center and placing dams in the river have less ways they would change from the original plan.

In a couple projects I liked the original pitches more than way they have morphed as planing has moved along

Well, I meant the failures of the park itself. You're right that we can never fix what the park replaced.

On a 'bigger picture' thought, the MAPS model seems to have a fatal flaw in that plans are made years before they are excuted. That wasn't such a problem with MAPS I because OKC wasn't changing that fast back then (if at all). Modern day OKC is changing every month so making plans 5 to 7 years out doesn't make sense anymore because all the planning assumptions change by the time we get to implementing them.

That is a factor, but overall there is not nearly enough planning that is happening with these projects. We have replaced planning with consulting. The entire process has been handed over to high-dollar out of town consultants. The planning department is almost barred from touching any of these projects, when they should be in the driver's seat.

I'm absolutely shocked that there isn't something of an "end cap" promenade where this park should meets the Oklahoma River. Its as if their scope of work stopped a block short. The newly dammed river is (or should be) the jewel "discovery" at the southern end of the linear length of all the parks along the "Harvey Spine". I say put Humphrey's ferris wheel there like Santa Monica.

People b**ch and moan about the streetcar process, but I see very little public input incorporated here. Most notably the carousel that was aggressively lobbied for by citizens.

And note, the Park Subcommitte desperately wants the streetcar to have a stop directly on the park itself to help ensure it's success. And that ongoing effort to have that stop there is being aggressively lobbied for regardless of the ineffeciencies and illegibility that it may cause to overall system design.

Just say'in.

Additionally, we're not getting Hargreaves best work. I don't know if they're over-extended after designing London's Olympic Park, but this is the night shift. The day shift has done some great things.

In Little Rock, their work on the Clinton Library grounds was phenomenal, where they reclaimed blackfield downstream from downtown. They overlaid the street grids of both Little Rock and North Little Rock, redesigned the grounds into a series of Indian mounds (at least that's what I immediately recognize), and the library structure itself is designed to be a "bridge to the future" while the site also incorporates a rustic old railroad bridge across the Arkansas River as the "bridge to the past." This project got an absolute A+ for incorporating REALLY COOL locally unique features.
http://farm1.staticflickr.com/104/301403709_793712a3ff_z.jpg?zz=1

In Nashville they designed the Cumberland Park with locally unique features like a rock climbing wall made of Tennessee sandstone. The park design mimics Tennessee's landscape of rolling hills, valleys, and ridges. The sightlines highlight an iconic truss bridge across the river and the park also features a restored gentry crane and catwalk that provide cool views of passing boats. These are all things we would have clearcut out of the way for "progress."
http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/1335143603-mainimage-cumberland-park-photo-15-528x350.jpg

In Houston I think they did a fairly boilerplate park on a difficult site surrounded by superblocks, but they pulled it off. That park design was dominated by bright, vibrant colors that remind me of Houston's hispanic heritage and the flora is dominated by the exact same big, beautiful live oak trees that are iconic of my favorite parts of Houston, like the Rice area, River Oaks, and Heights.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3630/3605860024_4445d05282.jpg

What's frustrating here is that there are some design elements, including one already built (SkyDance Bridge), that were truly hit out of the ballpark. Hans Butzer's SkyDance Bridge design is the kind of ingenuity that this Central Park is utterly lacking. And typical of MAPS3 projects, where there's a logical and obvious way to hit a home run and build on something great about OKC, we are instead going the route blazed by the consultant we hired to run off with all of our planning funds.
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQE8xVZoRT4fHVIDMM92kC5d9asGXF-xlYSZvqS0e8WZaM96pWTHA

Incorporating a local connection into this caliber of design is what elevates something that's nice to be truly special. That's what we're NOT doing.