We have some cranes; Thunder Blue tower cranes. :)

Looks great!

Obviously a totally different beast, but it isn't pretty crazy to think that Toronto has roughly 150 cranes in the sky right now. Amazing.

Looks great!

Obviously a totally different beast, but it isn't pretty crazy to think that Toronto has roughly 150 cranes in the sky right now. Amazing.

I just did a google search for that - holy cow! That puts things in perspective.

I was in Toronto in June. That city is incredible as far as construction goes. What also stood out to me was that despite all the construction, it was such a clean city.

I was in Toronto in June. That city is incredible as far as construction goes. What also stood out to me was that despite all the construction, it was such a clean city.

I've made it pretty clear in the past based on how much I've gushed over Canadian citys, but man I just love that country. They are doing A LOT of things right up there.

I've made it pretty clear in the past based on how much I've gushed over Canadian citys, but man I just love that country. They are doing A LOT of things right up there.

I agree. Canadian cities, even smaller ones, seem to do a much better job with urbanism than cities in the United States do. Downtowns are much larger and more dense than American cities of the same size. Just look at Calgary. Even their suburbs are a lot more compact and make more sense in their design. I am not sure what caused their cities to develop so differently than cities in the U.S. One common theme I see in most Canadian cities is their sprawl seems so much more contained.

Canada is a lot like Australia in that they were both founded and developed about the same time as the U.S. (newer, huge countries formerly part of the Commonwealth) but the difference in the U.S. is that we were dominated so long by auto manufacturers and oil companies and that drove the ridiculous highway building and sprawl and the simultaneous crushing of the existing public transportation infrastructure.

Both those countries have far fewer people in bigger geography, but their cities are dense have have amazing mass transit that almost everybody uses.

In the U.S., we completely sold our soul to a few massive corporations to drive a short-term economic engine and now we are paying a huge huge price and will be for many generations to come.

The USA is bigger in land area than Canada and Australia.

90% of Canada pop lives within 300 miles of the U.S. Border. Because of the frozen tundra that is the entire north of Canada

Australia has a giant desert covering most of the country. The population is all within less then 10% of the country.

Vancouver for instance almost everyone has a car and lots drive 30 plus min to work a day

19% of people in Vancouver take public transit to work........................................... Commuting to work (http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-012-x/99-012-x2011003_1-eng.cfm)

The USA is bigger in land area than Canada and Australia.

90% of Canada pop lives within 300 miles of the U.S. Border. Because of the frozen tundra that is the entire north of Canada

Australia has a giant desert covering most of the country. The population is all within less then 10% of the [country's habitable geographic area].

Vancouver for instance almost everyone has a car and lots drive 30 plus min to work a day

This... So much... This...

The USA is bigger in land area than Canada and Australia.

90% of Canada pop lives within 300 miles of the U.S. Border. Because of the frozen tundra that is the entire north of Canada

Australia has a giant desert covering most of the country. The population is all within less then 10% of the country.

Vancouver for instance almost everyone has a car and lots drive 30 plus min to work a day

Europe and Russia are even more inhabitable than the U.S. Theory debunked.

Sorry to bring up the Canada Urbanism and please feel free to move/merge to another thread but I 'have' to comment here.

Actually, Canada has more land mass than the USA, even including Alaska. And as someone who has been to Vancouver many times since I live so close, I can definitely say that VISIBLE use of transit is far more than most any US city irregardless of the 19% figure. That likely mean half a million people a day use transit, find me an american city not NYC, Chicago, Boston, DC, with those numbers.

Vancouver has the #1 busiest bus route (for example) in North America, with over 50,000 pax per day per direction (98 B line) in the busiest transit corridor - Broadway (over 100,000 pax per day). Each of their 3 metro (SkyTrain) lines gets 100,000 pax per day. Travel to Vancouver and you see this (and cars too). Not too shabby for little ole Canada's 3rd largest city with only 19% transit use.

^Thank you. Go Canada.

Hooray for Canada. Problem is, we all live in the crappy old USA. So, we suck.

Quick comparison Vancouver v OKC:

You would need around 4,072.16$ in Vancouver to maintain the same standard of life that you can have with 3,400.00$ in Oklahoma City, OK (assuming you rent in both cities). This calculation uses Consumer Prices Including Rent Index. This comparison assumes net earnings (after income tax).

Indices Difference Info
Consumer Prices in Vancouver are 4.08% higher than in Oklahoma City, OK
Consumer Prices Including Rent in Vancouver are 19.77% higher than in Oklahoma City, OK
Rent Prices in Vancouver are 63.89% higher than in Oklahoma City, OK
Restaurant Prices in Vancouver are 7.59% higher than in Oklahoma City, OK
Groceries Prices in Vancouver are 2.13% lower than in Oklahoma City, OK
Local Purchasing Power in Vancouver is 10.75% lower than in Oklahoma City, OK

Note, these are after tax comparisons. The tax rates in Canada are usually higher than in the United States. In Canada, tax revenue makes up 38.4 percent of the GDP, while in the United States, the tax revenue makes up 28.2 percent.

Also note that the average time to get to and from work/school in Vancouver is nearly twice the time (40 min vs. 20).

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Vancouver and spend time there. But if we did the same things here, this board would blow up with bitching about costs, etc. Many of the same people who extol the virtues of these great places can in no way afford to live there.

Many of the same people who extol the virtues of these great places can in no way afford to live there.

There are tons of people who live in Vancouver (and New York, SF, Boston, Seattle and other great North American urban cities) who are not rich.

Lots and lots of people are willing to trade owning a home or renting a big apartment for living in a city with great public transport, tons to do within walking distance, great recreation, etc.

Anyone can "afford" to live anywhere. There are just tradeoffs.

There are tons of people who live in Vancouver (and New York, SF, Boston, Seattle and other great North American urban cities) who are not rich.

Lots and lots of people are willing to trade owning a home or renting a big apartment for living in a city with great public transport, tons to do within walking distance, great recreation, etc.

Anyone can "afford" to live anywhere. There are just tradeoffs.

This past September we spent a couple of weeks in Hawaii on vacation. I could not believe the number of people 'camped out' on three different islands we visited. We saw an old lady sleeping in the back seat of her beater of a car, with an oxygen line running from the front of the car (outside) to a compressor and bottle plugged into an electrical outlet... in a park. The city of Honolulu was making sweeps removing tent villages from highway medians. There are a lot of people existing in Hawaii who can't afford to be there. My wife got back from Seattle a few weeks ago and said she saw lots of park benches full, people living out of trash cans for food down by the public market. We were there a year ago and she said it was worse this time around. I'm sure the West coast weather being somewhat mild attracts a lot of people who otherwise would not be there.

^

There are tons of people living on the streets in OKC too.


I used to run a nonprofit that had an outreach program for the homeless in Los Angeles (another very expensive place to live) and virtually none of those people were homeless due to the cost of living.

Canada is a lot like Australia in that they were both founded and developed about the same time as the U.S. (newer, huge countries formerly part of the Commonwealth) but the difference in the U.S. is that we were dominated so long by auto manufacturers and oil companies and that drove the ridiculous highway building and sprawl and the simultaneous crushing of the existing public transportation infrastructure.

Both those countries have far fewer people in bigger geography, but their cities are dense have have amazing mass transit that almost everybody uses.

In the U.S., we completely sold our soul to a few massive corporations to drive a short-term economic engine and now we are paying a huge huge price and will be for many generations to come.

Wasn't the creation of the massive highway system driven by national defense concerns and logistical needs? We just became more dependent on it over time for personal use.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Vancouver and spend time there. But if we did the same things here, this board would blow up with bitching about costs, etc. Many of the same people who extol the virtues of these great places can in no way afford to live there.

I have some old college buddies that work in the movie biz up that way, so I hear all time about how expensive Van is. Lots of wealthy Chinese gobbling up RE there, as with the Bay Area and the San Gabriel Valley near LA. At the same time Vancouver has been at the forefront of allowing unconventional housing types as a more affordable option. Think micro-apartments, "tiny houses", and laneway homes (homes built on existing residential lots that front the back alleys).

Most US cities are zoned and deed restricted within an inch of their lives, and even the most progressive cities would have the NIBMY doom squad threatening to burn down their city halls if half of this was allowed. How embarrassing that "socialist" Canada is more in tune to the housing needs of their citizens and are more willing to let the free market work that good ol' capitalist USA.

Something else to consider when comparing US and Canadian cities. They never had to experience the nearly complete and total departure of their white middle class the way a lot of US cities did. This is not to suggest that Canada is a utopia of tolerance and understanding (FAR from it), but the white flight a lot of US cities suffered between WWII and the early 1990s was a pretty unprecedented movement of people in the modern history of the developed world. Car companies and developers had a lot to do with it, but all they had to do was tap into a lot of existing angst over crime and race. It is a minor miracle a lot of cities have not ended up like Detroit, i.e. completely bankrupt with large tracts of city completely abandoned.

What is the best book detailing the rise and fall of Detroit?

A great read on Vancouver's planning process from ULI: How Vancouver Invented Itself - Urban Land Magazine (http://urbanland.uli.org/development-business/how-vancouver-invented-itself/)

What is the best book detailing the rise and fall of Detroit?

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/robocop/images/3/3d/ANovel.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20101117190453

Interesting article. Did not know where to put this:

As Trends Shift, Urban Home Values Outpace Those in the Suburbs - Jan 29, 2016 (http://zillow.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=28775&item=137210)

FYI, OKC urban home values are about 2K higher than what can be found in the suburbs.

Are there any prospects for the vacant land along N Broadway between 13th and 16th?

I would love to see more of these types of houses built throughout the core. All of the ones pictured were built in 2010, located in Chicago.

https://s21.postimg.org/4s8vx3tiv/urban_houses.png

^ditto

^ditto

Word.

I'm curious as to what everyone thinks about a development this size, for such a crucial site. Are people expecting more taller, denser buildings? Or is this a stretch? Please comment, I'd love to hear what people believe will be built here. I basically downsized the clayco dev. for the sake of posting this.

13040

^

Very nice!

And actually, the Core 2 Shore renderings showed something similar; just conceptual but generally the same idea, with retail along both Reno and the blvd.

What ever happened with the Core to Shore plan? I know 2008 put a halt on a lot of stuff, but is there any plans for that general area beyond the park and the CoOp?

Denser buildings, yes...Taller buildings not necessarily. I can't post enough just how much I think the Sony Center in Berlin should be sort of the framework for how both the Cox site and the Ford site are developed.

http://doncrossland.com/90days/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/11-04-29.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/bd/41/81/bd418114447ce66cd190a6daa43163a2.jpg
http://www.event-destinations.com/system/images/791/gallery/Sony_Center_am_Potsdamer_Platz-Berlin-Eventlocation-Innenansicht-Blick_auf_CineStar-Event-Destinations.jpg
http://www.cbmotion.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Sony-Center-Berlin.jpg

Without focusing on things like the roof, the facades, the gimmicks, pay attention to how this building simultaneously creates its own environment yet still interacts with the surrounding environment. An open space that brings people in yet maintains visibility between MBG and Central Park/Santa Fe station. Yet it also maintains interaction at street level (at least on the sides where it's most important).

But it's also big. It's plenty big to house significant office space, a number of housing units, plenty of retail/restaurant options (which on the Ford lot will be critical for the Convention Center to be the best C.C. that it can be). I think that on each pad there could be a 20+ story building, but I would rather 80% of the block be built at 12-15 stories high than 10% built at 20+ and 90% built at 4-6 stories high.

The connectivity opportunity between 3 of the most important sites downtown (MBG, Central Park, SF station) is massive, and I'd love to think that it's a given that these two developments will push for that, but it costs a lot of money to leave a hole in the middle of a project so that there's direct-line access to MBG from the other two sites. It's the #1 most important aspect of these sites, followed directly by density and mixed-use.

They might just be the 2 most important pieces of real estate in the entire state of Oklahoma. So the projects should be ambitious.

Yes, for the cox site I 100 percent agree. A 'central hub' for downtown OKC would be crucial, just like you said, allowing people to connect from the gardens, SF station, the CBD and from Thunder games. This site I believe is the most valuable site in downtown...with the Ford site coming in 2nd and Prod. Coop coming in 3rd.

This is what I have for a fill on the Cox site, but would much rather see something with 'a bit of everything' ...I had to make the building on the south-east corner a parking garage knowing OKC's history...

13041

I don't mind that design on the Cox site if you rotated it 90°where the tall building is by CHK. The goal is to not have to walk from the Santa Fe Station over one block to Reno or Sheridan and then enter the park at the corner. I think we should aim to be able to walk out the door from Santa Fe Station straight ahead and true without running into any building until we've reached the other side of Robinson (or whatever it's called right there).

Same thing on the other site. You should be able to walk a straight-line on the Harvey spine from park to park without running into a building. If you do the spaces right, they will constantly be full of people, because they will be places unto themselves, and create a synergy in the area that will make the area truly feel like it's a place for all people at all times.

Going south on 235 past Bricktown... the view is incredible. Amazing how much it has transformed. With East Bricktown Hotel Complex, Staybridge, Bodyworks Development, and The Hill is will even better. Now if the Coca Cola Even Center lot can get developed that will be great!

I have said it before and I will say it again, I think the best set up for this site would be to split it into four quadrants. The NW quadrant (SE corner of Robinson and Sheridan) would be a high-rise apartment/condo building, the SW quadrant (NE corner of Robinson and Reno) would be a high rise office building, the SE quadrant (NW corner of Gaylord and Reno) would be a high rise hotel and the NE quadrant (SW corner of Gaylord and Sheridan) would be the parking garage for all. The parking garage and hotel area would have space on the ground floor and maybe two floors up for the multi-modal hub expansion. The Harvey and California street grid would be put back, but would be 100% pedestrian and retail would be on the ground floor, facing into the middle. That, I think, would be the best use of the property, with changes as we expand mass transit as needed.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.4391231,-97.491746,3a,48.2y,319.05h,89.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_mdy8ZpQshNbWKBW0Ek5hQ!2e0!7i1 3312!8i6656?hl=en

Other than the nearby warehouses, this would be a great spot for residential development. The view of downtown is awesome!

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.4391231,-97.491746,3a,48.2y,319.05h,89.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_mdy8ZpQshNbWKBW0Ek5hQ!2e0!7i1 3312!8i6656?hl=en

Other than the nearby warehouses, this would be a great spot for residential development. The view of downtown is awesome!

Isn't Mount Trash more just to the south?

^ About 3 miles to the south.