Here's a YouTube slide show I've put together from the PDF file containing the proposal:

v/zHKQarPsgLY?version=3

I've also extracted all pages in the 45 page PDF file and will have them posted in my blog this evening. Here are 4 that might be significant in this discussion:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/skirvin/2011proposal/skirvinproposal_02.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/skirvin/2011proposal/skirvinproposal_11.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/skirvin/2011proposal/skirvinproposal_12.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/skirvin/2011proposal/skirvinproposal_13.jpg

The idea of opening up Park Avenue underneath the BNSF is a novel idea, but expect years of negotiation with BNSF. Plus, when penetrating to the east side, I think you might be in direct alignment with the proposed declining articulated ramp for the trains. Documentation is being generated for this stuff by several transit entities.

Here's the full PDF file:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.newsok.com/documents/a9skirvin.pdf

Regarding the parking, there is a large surface lot immediately east of the proposed CC site that could easily be made into a multi-level garage.

Really, the last thing we should be worried about is parking. There are still acres of surface lots and undeveloped properties in and surrounding this area. Heaven forbid that real density actually drives even more!

This convention center needs to utilize all of the space on the south side of the abandoned rail yard. They can't just eliminate another rail yard that was an option for the high speed link to Tulsa. Also, I don't believe they should be demolishing all of these nice and RENOVATED buildings on both Main St and 2nd Street, across from the lofts. There is enough space BETWEEN the tracks and the buildings fronting Main Street, and they could certainly use certain parts of Main Street for convention center street frontage, but certainly not all of it. They need to preserve the buildings right across from the Sherman Iron Works (the new Standley Systems bldg, or whatever company that is, for example) and they need to let 2nd Street be.

At least the Ford site would not be bastardizing our most important historic district. As pessimistic as I am about Bricktown these days, that shouldn't change the fact that IF it was a perfect world within the confines of Bricktown, it would still have the potential to be the best urban district in the state. I am not for bastardizing Bricktown by replacing its historic buildings with a convention center.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/skirvin/2011proposal/skirvinproposal_13.jpg

This site plan suggestion from the Skirvin is preposterous. Move the loading bay to the west of the facility and give it egress and ingress off of Main. Put the truck freight and all the loading stuff up against the tracks. Why is there an expansion area unused, when they've had to take out the railyard to have enough room for phase one? Expand somewhere else, perhaps across Walnut.

As for the Main Street frontage, the only way I would be okay with the convention center taking up the entire side of the block is if it utilizes the existing buildings and at least preserves the facades. I've had enough demolition, no more.

By the way, I seriously doubt that Deep Deuce residents want the freight loading right in front of their house, esp where they used to have a nice renovated building, a plaza, and then a proposed Aloft Hotel.

It seems strange for downtown OKC to have a "we are running out of places to put things" problem.

Convention Center or Transit Hub - either way the buildings on the north side of Main would be coming down.

If I was in front of a computer instead of a phone, I would post the giant arcing rail line that severs the site in two. You can not presume that the rail as it stands today is what we need right there.

Even if you don't believe that High Speed Rail is going to happen, it is exactly the same alignment and right-of-way that we need for the Adventure Line and Midwest/City Tinker line to connect to the hub.

That, in all probability, will happen. Their site plan completely ignores our concerns even though they were directly educated on the alignment.

If I was in front of a computer instead of a phone, I would post the giant arcing rail line that severs the site in two. You can not presume that the rail as it stands today is what we need right there.

Even if you don't believe that High Speed Rail is going to happen, it is exactly the same alignment and right-of-way that we need for the Adventure Line and Midwest/City Tinker line to connect to the hub.

That, in all probability, will happen. Their site plan completely ignores our concerns even though they were directly educated on the alignment.

Rail arc mentioned by UP.

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/Rail_Arc-1.jpg

I guess the question that would have to be asked is; is a heavy rail line the best way to get to the Zoo or MWC or should they be included as part of an expanded streetcar system?

Yes, that is the existing trestle. But your missing the arc that is needed to be constructed heading south. That arc is concieved as being a broader ramp with a wider turning radius to handle both commuter rail and potential future high speed trains.

Yes, that is the existing trestle. But your missing the arc that is needed to be constructed heading south. That arc is concieved as being a broader ramp with a wider turning radius to handle both commuter rail and potential future high speed trains.

Fixed.

Yep. That's pretty much it. This is so far along that even property acqusition maps and plot details have been completed.

My apologies to Mr. Weeman, but you don't have a meeting with people who tell you your going to have to build a building around a rail line there (conform to the coming constraint), then turn around and propose a big box.

This has nothing to do with my or any transit supporters opposition for greater urbansim, density, or infill. We are the biggest proponents for such initiatives. It has to do with protecting what we need to build an efficient regional transit system that people will actually use. In a big picture, that connector is absolutely vital.

So, how much potential real estate are we planning on wasting for a rail line which will be many years down the line? Large arcs take up a lot of room out of a square. Areas for the convention center that are attractive are limited because of the amount of space required. I'm sure we could come up with funding to re-route the rail line into downtown but still utilize the main line. We need to think outside of the box, could we run part of the rail south of downtown and connect there. What is so special about these parking lots that make it necessary for the rail to utilize that area?

The convention center site is down to 4 locations. The east bricktown parking lots (I'm somewhat in favor, would need to see some site plans though), the Skirvin proposal (highly in favor), the Cox site (neutral, would prefer a different site), and then the Ford site (highly disfavor).

There's a very good chance we will see the convention center placed on the Ford site or even the Cox site, and limiting the North bricktown site/Skirvin proposal based on a future rail line will only heighten the chances of the Ford site or the Cox site being picked.

We should pick the Skirvin proposal, unless a better proposal is made for the East Bricktown site, and find an alternate way to get that rail line into downtown to the hub.

We should pick the Skirvin proposal, unless a better proposal is made for the East Bricktown site, and find an alternate way to get that rail line into downtown to the hub.

No offense, but you can't just wave a wand and "find" right of way for serious rail transit. It doesn't happen that easy. It's much easier to acquire land for a large box than it is continuous right of way. There is no land being "wasted" because of this either.

Square parcels are much easier to sell than 2 or 3 parcels that have been cut up with a rail line. The inner "triangle" between all 3 rail lines will be pretty hard to develop and is a fairly good chunk of land.

"I'm sure we could come up with funding to re-route the rail line into downtown but still utilize the main line. We need to think outside of the box, could we run part of the rail south of downtown and connect there. What is so special about these parking lots that make it necessary for the rail to utilize that area?". Skywest

First of all, we don't have the money. With that logic, let's spend the money on a cool building around the line that still allows it to operate.

Second of all, it has to do with how the trains operate. The most efficient design is a "pull through". Based on where the proposed hub is, pulling through works more efficiently.

Third, grade elevation post the 2005 FGS have made the consultants shy away from the southside. It is also a corridor owned by Union Pacific who has made it explicitly clear to us they do not want passengers on or near their freight corridor.

Square parcels are much easier to sell than 2 or 3 parcels that have been cut up with a rail line. The inner "triangle" between all 3 rail lines will be pretty hard to develop and is a fairly good chunk of land.

Leave it as parking and develop the rest of downtown that needs just as much infill. That area was traditionally a rail coridoor so having it remain as one is ok in my book.

Since when did trains and transit become completely expendable items at the whims of developers and highways? For once, let's build a real transit system and make the room for it as being the highest priority enabling the densification of the rest of downtown.

I'm all for transit, but I want to know if there is an alternate way of doing this. Is this rail the only possible realistic way to connect the adventure line and possibly in the future Midwest City into downtown. If there are no other possible ways, after looking at every feasible option, then of course we don't need to demolish the rail line. If there are other possible methods, I would say we should try them and/or see if they are feasible on a reasonable budget level.

I'm all for that Skywest. And I appreciate your support throughout the years for transit.

If I honestly thought there was a practical and reasonable cost to do it somewhere else, I would have no problem with the "big box". But between the difficulties with getting Union Pacific to use their right-of-way, turning radiuses required, and ODoT's ongoing HSR applications, there really isn't a readily available alternative to connect all this stuff back to the hub efficiently and cost effectively.

I am sure it would be expensive but a combo Convention Center/Transit Center would solve all the problems.

Berlin Central Station opened in 2006. It doesn't have to be this big or grand, but you get the idea what combining the two could look like.

http://www.tkshare.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/144154cc0.jpg

http://www.simplygerman.com/resources/hauptbahnhof+berlin.jpg

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/Berlin%20Central%20Station.jpg

The Skirvin partnership obviously is directly ignoring our input, even after a 2 hour meeting with them. They want to believe what they want to believe. We never told them a building "can't" go there. We told them it would have to be designed "around" the proposed rail alignment. However, the cost of doing so is the question.

They decided not to even go there and simply propose a "big box" and unify the urbanists behind their proposal. I have the greatest respect for the people involved in the Skirvin. But their success doesn't entitle them to subvert our transit system. This is a giant PR stunt to try to make the site look more attractive to decision makers. Public support obviously will help it's scoring. But it will sever future direct connectivity as it's currently proposed in the future.

This is one of those times in which OKC has a chance to actually plan for its future prudently. We have continually created obstacles for ourselves with a lack of planning, or a public cave-in to developers and other interests, in the past. Please OKC, don't let these people bully us into making a horrible decision that will undermine our future.

It would be the height of absurdity and foolishness to destroy a rail corridor that would enable us to expand our connectivity options for a convention center for which there are multiple other alternative locations (albeit none of them perfect).

The Skirvin Hotel was subsidized by the taxpayers of this city. Its ownership has no right to dictate the citizens name them the "headquarters hotel." For one thing, the hotel is not large enough to serve as a convention hotel. The people at Marcus Resorts seem like total aholes. Don't forget, they don't live in OKC nor do they care about OKC. They care about profit, period. This is not a locally owned hotel (despite the fact the citizens of OKC helped pay for its renovation).

This is one of those times in which OKC has a chance to actually plan for its future prudently. We have continually created obstacles for ourselves with a lack of planning, or a public cave-in to developers and other interests, in the past. Please OKC, don't let these people bully us into making a horrible decision that will undermine our future.

It would be the height of absurdity and foolishness to destroy a rail corridor that would enable us to expand our connectivity options for a convention center for which there are multiple other alternative locations (albeit none of them perfect).

The Skirvin Hotel was subsidized by the taxpayers of this city. Its ownership has no right to dictate the citizens name them the "headquarters hotel." For one thing, the hotel is not large enough to serve as a convention hotel. The people at Marcus Resorts seem like total aholes. Don't forget, they don't live in OKC nor do they care about OKC. They care about profit, period. This is not a locally owned hotel (despite the fact the citizens of OKC helped pay for its renovation).

Have you read any of the posts in this thread? Your first two paragraphs where fine and understandable, I agree with you on those points. But don't resort to mudslinging to get your point across. sheeeesh.

Have you read any of the posts in this thread? Your first two paragraphs where fine and understandable, I agree with you on those points. But don't resort to mudslinging to get your point across. sheeeesh.

How is it mudslinging? They're trying to bully the citizens of this city into naming them the "headquarters hotel." That's not reasonable. Furthermore, it's true that this is a company that has no local ties and exists to make a profit. Personally, I love the Skirvin and have spent many thousands of dollars there. But I think of the Skirvin as what it is, a dearly important building to the citizens of this city, and one which the citizens helped pay to renovate. I will be furious if this group is successful bullying local officials into forcing a convention center into this location for their own self interest, and against the future interests of the citizens of this city.

I wonder, do the discussions folks have on here have any real impact on what decisions actually get made, or is everyone merely spectators hoping for the best?

:congrats: Sooner and Urban

I certainly do not see Skirvin trying to bully anyone. They made a proposal and the fate of that proposal will be determined by the process. What I am concerned about is the viability of the rail transportation effort is to go forward. In following the budget debates going on in Washinton right now the liklihood of future rail funding is very much in doubt. Perhaps Urban could bring us up to date on the future of rail funding when the country is technically bankrupt.

Thank you okcboy. Protesting this is going to come at some kind of cost I'm sure. ;) if anything, we'll get blamed for it going somewhere where people don't like it. Lol

I certainly do not see Skirvin trying to bully anyone. They made a proposal and the fate of that proposal will be determined by the process. What I am concerned about is the viability of the rail transportation effort is to go forward. In following the budget debates going on in Washinton right now the liklihood of future rail funding is very much in doubt. Perhaps Urban could bring us up to date on the future of rail funding when the country is technically bankrupt.

It's good very few cities have matching funds. There is money being sent back that will be redistributed for the taking. We are scrambling.

Also, higher gas prices mean more public support for a regional system.

This past Friday 47 billion dollars was removed from this years budget. Do you have knowledge that rail was not affected?

The monies were going after are still there right now. But Popsy, our committee is challenged with think 30 years ahead. There will be a different time, with a different administration, with a new budget.

We are trying to look out for the public's interest way into the future. Available right-of-way is the biggest cost and challege to most transportation project. Particularly in the densest part of cities.

Spartan, sooner, etc.: do you see a way to adjust this plan to alleviate your concerns? As with any project I assume this can be a first draft. I think it's encouraging that a private company is taking this kind of initiative. It bodes well for the future profitability of downtown projects.

Well basically what Kerry portrayed, an integrated building.

Convention Center or Transit Hub - either way the buildings on the north side of Main would be coming down.

What are you talking about? This is the only thing that has put all of those buildings in jeopardy.


Spartan, sooner, etc.: do you see a way to adjust this plan to alleviate your concerns? As with any project I assume this can be a first draft. I think it's encouraging that a private company is taking this kind of initiative. It bodes well for the future profitability of downtown projects.

Well it's very late for me right now, so this will be a quick response, but this is a good question. I do not share soonerguru's opinion of Skirvin "bullying" (well, not publicly at least, lol) and I do respect and appreciate Marcus Hotels for their involvement in OKC. Well, with that out of the way, I am concerned that this is not entirely "taking initiative" and proposing a cool idea out there. This does seem abnormally motive-driven to me, and it does seem inappropriate to be trying to influence the convention center committee at this stage in a way that would inevitably be a huge business boon to them, at potentially great cost to the rest of the city. I don't like that.

I think an interesting alternative proposal to this would be to demolish the entire two-blocks of parking garages up against EKG, as well as use that un-needed ROW. I think that would be more than enough room for a very long convention center that could be easily expandable, as well. That would also integrate very well with a potential transit hub, and I do think there is a need or desire for that. But if not there, then the Cox could easily later be integrated into a transit hub if the convention center is sited far away from the hub.

In all honesty I really, really wish that the Lumberyard site was back on the table. Ultimately the rail thing makes this site fatally flawed. I was wanting to know more about the transit implications when I first heard about this, and now we know the transit implications. It is impossible to support now. Without the rail implications, I would still want to see historic preservation of the Clark Bldg and the Main Street frontage. I would rather see them put it on the Ford site than take out an entire street in Bricktown.

Not to be pessimistic, but I am very saddened to see how the Skirvin partners really feel about historic preservation. That's a shame because of how much taxpayer money they received in the name of historic preservation...

What are you talking about? This is the only thing that has put all of those buildings in jeopardy.

Based on the size of transit centers I have seen, if the north Bricktown lots are selected those building on north main will be cleared. But like I said, I am not a preservationsit. I don't see why someone who beat us in birth by 100 years gets to have more importance placed on their building than the needs of people living today. My primary desire is increasing density. If existing structure can be saved or reused great, but if not, oh well.

Well fortunately for humanity, there are others who understand the value of historic buildings...

By the way, "the size of transit centers I have seen" what does this mean? Not to be rude, but this sounds like bloviating. I assure you there could be historically sensitive ways of putting a transit hub in there. And I also assure you that OKC's will not be in the same universe as the Berlin Hauptbanhoff (sp?)..

And I also assure you that OKC's will not be in the same universe as the Berlin Hauptbanhoff (sp?)..

No kidding, the Berlin Central Train station would bearly fit in Bricktown if they tore down every building. It is over 3000' feet long and 600' wide. In the last 6 months I have probably looked at over 100 central train stations. They are big. Many of them require more track space than is even available at the north Bricktown site. The tracks in Sydney's central train station are over 700' wide. If you look at cities the same size or smaller than OKC the central stations are still very large. The station in Birmingham, England is twice as big as the land available at north Bricktown.

Yep. That's pretty much it. This is so far along that even property acqusition maps and plot details have been completed.

My apologies to Mr. Weeman, but you don't have a meeting with people who tell you your going to have to build a building around a rail line there (conform to the coming constraint), then turn around and propose a big box.

This has nothing to do with my or any transit supporters opposition for greater urbansim, density, or infill. We are the biggest proponents for such initiatives. It has to do with protecting what we need to build an efficient regional transit system that people will actually use. In a big picture, that connector is absolutely vital.
I see several parts of this proposal that are good and exciting. However, based upon Jeff's above comments and others in the same vein that he has made, as far as I'm concerned, he's playing a trump card and I'll have to come down as being against this proposal as it is presently configured.

Leaving cost implications aside for the moment, would it not be possible to have the connector line(s) built underground, meaning under the new CC? I realize that the existing lines are elevated, but a compromise would be to have that leg of the rail line a 'terminus' at the hub, with connections between the lines for commuters being via escalator/elevator. I realize that this means there could not be a direct line between, say, Midwest City and Norman via downtown, but the inconvenience of a stopover for commuters might mitigate the current design problems. Actually, that is the real purpose of a 'hub'; Stopovers, changes of transportation modes, etc., so let's not be afraid of entertaining various concepts.

I think that the Skirvin CC proposal is well, frankly, genius as it addresses SO many of the issues that disconnect different parts of downtown. So what if they will stand to profit from it. Fantastic! Think of all the other parties that will ALSO profit! I only wish some of the previous downtown parties would have had as much vision when it comes to working with what is available (no names mentioned).

This plan for the integration of a new convention center fills in a gap that has divided the city in two for decades, namely the Santa Fe line. Every consideration should be given to how Skirvin's plans can be realized WITH the transportation needs of the city and not pitting one plan against the other.

I don't know about going underground David. This area is still in the Oklahoma River floodplain so the water table is probably pretty high. You would also have to transition from being 20 feet underground to 20 feet above ground and it would take a lot of horizontal track to cover a 40 foot elevation change. There is nothing that says the E/W tracks and the N/S tracks even have to meet. In a lot of station they are on different levels and you take escalators between the two levels. The big problem with that is the current railroad viaduct. There just aren't any places E/W trains can cross it that are near downtown.

Leaving cost implications aside for the moment, would it not be possible to have the connector line(s) built underground, meaning under the new CC? I realize that the existing lines are elevated, but a compromise would be to have that leg of the rail line a 'terminus' at the hub, with connections between the lines for commuters being via escalator/elevator. I realize that this means there could not be a direct line between, say, Midwest City and Norman via downtown, but the inconvenience of a stopover for commuters might mitigate the current design problems. Actually, that is the real purpose of a 'hub'; Stopovers, changes of transportation modes, etc., so let's not be afraid of entertaining various concepts.

I think that the Skirvin CC proposal is well, frankly, genius as it addresses SO many of the issues that disconnect different parts of downtown. So what if they will stand to profit from it. Fantastic! Think of all the other parties that will ALSO profit! I only wish some of the previous downtown parties would have had as much vision when it comes to working with what is available (no names mentioned).

This plan for the integration of a new convention center fills in a gap that has divided the city in two for decades, namely the Santa Fe line. Every consideration should be given to how Skirvin's plans can be realized WITH the transportation needs of the city and not pitting one plan against the other.

great post .. i agree ... i will also say that mass spending on HSR in the USA is dead on arrivail for the forseeable future .. it is simply on going to happen. so the ? is do we not put the convention center in a great spot because there is a chance for HSR in OKC in 2050 or 2075 or 2100??

Yes, great post David. Boulder, HSR is only one consideration and I agree with you about the politics of it, particullarly here.

But there is an ongoing effort between OKC officials and Del City/Midwest City/Tinker to activate that leg of rail for commuters and ongoing interest in the "Adventure Line" to Remmington/Zoo which also continues on to Tulsa.

Regarding David's comment about connectors, anything is possible although it is our intent to make transfers as efficient as possible. Ideally, literally getting off one train, walking accross a platform, boarding another train.

Regarding working together, I guess that is the most frustrating part of this. We are trying to work with them. But it seems to be a one way conversation. Swaying the public's view in support by withholding acknowledgement of the challenges and real costs serves no one in making a responsible decision.

While this hasn't been directly studied, a combination hub/CC might be a possibility if more monies were available. It is hard to say at this point. We certainly don't have the budget for it in our transit funds as it stands now.

I'm all for this. Great plan.

Not to drag the politics forum into this but I wouldn't count on any federal funding for anything beyond the next 15 years. We might be better served looking at this as if Oklahoma (and maybe Texas) is on our own at some point in the near future. If a new government system emerges it might be more along the lines of an EU style system than a United States. The ground work for connecting Tulsa, OKC, and Lawton is already in place with proposed streetcars in all there cities. In this situation Oklahoma would be more like European nations that have one or two large dominant cities with rail system connecting local tier 2 and tier 3 cities.

In this scenario Lawton, OKC, and Tulsa would be connected by a HSR rail trunk line with local rail serving other parts of the state.

Lawton: connections to Wichita Falls, Altus, Duncan, Ft Sill
OKC: connections to Norman, Edmond, Shawnee, Yukon, Midwest City, Tinker, WRWA, Enid
Tulsa: Broken Arrow, Bartlesville, Stillwater, Muskogee

Did Kerry just suggest that we secede from the union??

You're nuts. Just stop. Time out, Kerry... Lol

I'm going to weigh in my thoughts about the Skirvin proposal.

I look at this as round one of many more to come.

This is where the Skirvin is getting the ball rolling and it started at a fairly good place too. Now we see what others have to offer and let Okc MAPS3 board members do their job of negotiating out the best decision for convention center and a hotel.

Remember Okc does not have funding for a cc hotel, only for the cc itself. It is very important for Okc to negotiate a deal with a hotel and in this instance the Skirvin came to the forefront first.

Not saying I am a fan of this proposal, only I am excited to see what else will be coming out soon from other developers and hotels. Another good sign is that the Skirvin and other hotels are coming to Okc and Okc is not having to go to them. In years past, Okc would have been begging for the developers and hope they could get someone to submit an offer.

I really look forward to the other proposals that will be coming out now that the Skirvin has kick started the game with a BOOM!

Funny!

Actually, I live in the EU and I think I get what he means. The feeder systems for public transportation here are quite common. In Germany they are called S-Bahnen. Kind of like commuter rail that connects cities with the burbs, while metros (subways) stick mainly to the really built up areas. Here in the Netherlands, the country is so small, that basically the national railway system functions like the S-Bahn system in Germany.

For Oklahoma I would be happy with 'a train' at this point over and above the Heartland Flyer, so all systems seem good to me.

Back to the topic though, I think if the COPTA and the Skirvin guys could sit together (again and maybe even publicly to avoid any mis-communication) and talk some serious scenario planning about how the two plans could be integrated, then a constructive step in the right direction might be made. Of-course this means BOTH sides have to be willing to compromise, but then that is all in the name of the game. Also the way it works here in Holland. It is called the 'Polder Model' of decision making.

I wish that the proposal would address the rail concerns head on. The reality is that the N Bricktown parking lots provide a key current and future rail corridor for the Midwest City/Tinker, Adventure Line, Tulsa connection and repeatedly being promoted to the Feds as our HSR alignment.

I have seen buildings built above and around rail lines, and doing so is possible. The real question is what would it cost to make the parking lots work considering another barrier is involved? Will $250 - $280 million do it?

The developers started to promote the idea that the rail connections can be made further south at the Cotton Seed Mill. Because of grade issues and other barriers, connections there are extremely complicated.

Plus it would make the proposed intermodal hub not work.

Kudo's to the people who desperately want more core infill and barriers to be removed. However, be aware that the combined proposal can have greater effects on other issues that haven't been "flushed out" yet and what the real costs actually are.

This is the problem as I see it. There is not enough coordination here. We have grand ideas: a new convention center, a downtown streetcar that merges with a future commuter rail line that services much of the metro area, a transportation hub that links together rail, streetcar, and buses, new hotels, all while preserving historic neighborhoods and pushing greater urban density. Good stuff.

The issue is that something has to be put in first, not everything can go in at once. We don't have the money to do it all now. And right now, nothing is set in stone. We don't know where the streetcar will go. We don't know where the convention center will be. We don't know if funding is even going to be available for commuter rail or a transit hub. Some people want to plan this out like it's SimCity, and all the pieces fit together perfectly and it's organized and clean and there's no wasted space, and old buildings are renovated, and everything is great. And that's okay, I like the plan. On the other hand, you have people like Kerry, who isn't concerned with getting everything perfect, and just wants to see the city make progress, and if things don't fit some perfect plan, then so be it.

The issue I have is that I haven't seen this "perfect" plan. There are a lot of good ideas, but the Skirven plan is the first one I saw that I said "this is a legitimate plan by a legitimate group, and it could work". Now, it doesn't get into commuter rail, it doesn't touch on the streetcar, it isn't some grand master plan. It just deals with the convention center and hotel, and it's still the most developed plan I've seen so far.

We are down to crunch time. If there's a plan out there, we need to see it, right now. It needs to address our current needs, our current level of funding, it needs to be organized and clear, and if there's one particular thing that can only go in one particular place (like a rail line to Midwest City or the Zoo), then it needs to be made crystal clear that that portion is immutable. We cannot wait any longer because people are ready to start picking construction sites. As much as people are bitching about the Skirvin trying to influence the choice of convention center site, this is exactly what you should be doing right now. The best site for any individual portion of the overall MAPS3+ scheme may not be the best site once you consider every other thing we want to include. X location may be the best for a convention center, but then you can't build a transit hub later. Or Y route might be great for a streetcar, but then it can't tie into commuter rail in 20 years.

If we build things piecemeal, we will get a lot of good stuff that this city has needed for a long time. But it's not going to be your SimCity that fits perfectly. I guarantee you there will be things 20 years from now where we say "I wish we'd put this in a different location." If you want it to fit together perfectly, you need a plan with a Powerpoint presentation and a big glossy color map to show normal people where everything goes, and an explanation as far as why everything needs to go there. You need economic data. You need photos. You need info on right of ways and existing rail lines and federal funding, and it all needs to be so clear that any moron on the street can see it and understand where you're going. Otherwise, settle for piecemeal. Remember, the people who make the final decisions will not spend nearly as long looking at the issues involved as you do.

Whew. End rant.

And personally, I think the Santa Fe parking garage would be a decent spot for a transit hub. Tear out EK Gaylord, or build the transit hub over it. It's a large, pre-existing building, the streetcar can run right up to the Skirvin and connect with passenger rail. You don't have to built it right now, and you're not really "saving" space for anything because there's already a building there. You don't have to worry about destroying historic buildings because it's an ugly son of a bitch that we'd all rather be gone anyway. And you can build a parking garage anywhere.

As indiacted by BNSF, any transit station is going to have to be physically removed from the freight rail lines. Maybe we are looking in the wrong place for a transit center by trying to focus on an existing rail cooridor that we can't use anyhow. If we have to go underground how far under do we have to go? MARTA's Peachtree Station is 120 feet below the street. Would we need to go that far down or could we use cut and cover along Broadway and make the station under AA.

I have tried to address several of the comments above and post the drawings promised.

I hope that the new thread makes clear that there was a thorough attempt made to inform and coordinate.

http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=25429

This is the problem as I see it. There is not enough coordination here. We have grand ideas: a new convention center, a downtown streetcar that merges with a future commuter rail line that services much of the metro area, a transportation hub that links together rail, streetcar, and buses, new hotels, all while preserving historic neighborhoods and pushing greater urban density. Good stuff.

The issue is that something has to be put in first, not everything can go in at once. We don't have the money to do it all now. And right now, nothing is set in stone. We don't know where the streetcar will go. We don't know where the convention center will be. We don't know if funding is even going to be available for commuter rail or a transit hub. Some people want to plan this out like it's SimCity, and all the pieces fit together perfectly and it's organized and clean and there's no wasted space, and old buildings are renovated, and everything is great. And that's okay, I like the plan. On the other hand, you have people like Kerry, who isn't concerned with getting everything perfect, and just wants to see the city make progress, and if things don't fit some perfect plan, then so be it.

The issue I have is that I haven't seen this "perfect" plan. There are a lot of good ideas, but the Skirven plan is the first one I saw that I said "this is a legitimate plan by a legitimate group, and it could work". Now, it doesn't get into commuter rail, it doesn't touch on the streetcar, it isn't some grand master plan. It just deals with the convention center and hotel, and it's still the most developed plan I've seen so far.

We are down to crunch time. If there's a plan out there, we need to see it, right now. It needs to address our current needs, our current level of funding, it needs to be organized and clear, and if there's one particular thing that can only go in one particular place (like a rail line to Midwest City or the Zoo), then it needs to be made crystal clear that that portion is immutable. We cannot wait any longer because people are ready to start picking construction sites. As much as people are bitching about the Skirvin trying to influence the choice of convention center site, this is exactly what you should be doing right now. The best site for any individual portion of the overall MAPS3+ scheme may not be the best site once you consider every other thing we want to include. X location may be the best for a convention center, but then you can't build a transit hub later. Or Y route might be great for a streetcar, but then it can't tie into commuter rail in 20 years.

If we build things piecemeal, we will get a lot of good stuff that this city has needed for a long time. But it's not going to be your SimCity that fits perfectly. I guarantee you there will be things 20 years from now where we say "I wish we'd put this in a different location." If you want it to fit together perfectly, you need a plan with a Powerpoint presentation and a big glossy color map to show normal people where everything goes, and an explanation as far as why everything needs to go there. You need economic data. You need photos. You need info on right of ways and existing rail lines and federal funding, and it all needs to be so clear that any moron on the street can see it and understand where you're going. Otherwise, settle for piecemeal. Remember, the people who make the final decisions will not spend nearly as long looking at the issues involved as you do.

Whew. End rant.

And personally, I think the Santa Fe parking garage would be a decent spot for a transit hub. Tear out EK Gaylord, or build the transit hub over it. It's a large, pre-existing building, the streetcar can run right up to the Skirvin and connect with passenger rail. You don't have to built it right now, and you're not really "saving" space for anything because there's already a building there. You don't have to worry about destroying historic buildings because it's an ugly son of a bitch that we'd all rather be gone anyway. And you can build a parking garage anywhere.

I just don't think we need to reward the Skirvin just for presenting a plan. Yes, it's a plan, and yes it's the first one we've seen. Now after what many including myself have been saying in this thread (and you may have already known), we should all know that there are other plans, they just don't have articles by Steve. Maybe that's what he's offering up on Sunday, a huge compilation of all the plans out there. Unlikely, but one can dream.

A huge problem right now in OKC is nobody shares information and plans, and nobody talks to each other. There is such a vast amount of plans but very little of it is being coordinated until there is public pressure once a conflict is realized BY THE PUBLIC. This should not require the public to put pressure on a situation to prevent a last-minute conflict. But that's where we've been lately, it is insane. In Helsinki they had a city planning exhibition center outside their main metro station, and it had every large-scale development plan along with other city improvements, all on one map, and city staff on hand to answer questions from citizens. It was awesome. That's what OKC needs. But above all, there needs to be one document where the effects have been considered of P180, streetcar, convention center, Devon, Core2Shore, regional transit, riverfront improvements, and countless other things, and there should be a plan on how all of this will co-integrate with eachother. That does not exist.

As for the Skirvin plan, this is just one of those situations where it has to be DOA. You can't put together a convention center proposal just for the benefit of one hotel that has already been renovated, that could possibly cut OKC off from expanding HSR. That's not worth it. That's an enormous opportunity cost. We want rail options to Tulsa and beyond. We want to be connected with the rest of the world. We close our options for something else by choosing this proposal. So why would we voluntarily do something that could likely prevent HSR from ever being a viable solution here in OKC... JUST BECAUSE WE WERE WOOED BY A PRETTY RENDERING?? That's so amateurish. Or at least certainly not for the downtown area...

I see that the site configuration as presented includes the demolition of the entire south side of 2nd in Deep Deuce. I am in huge disfavor of that. And it upsets me knowing that the proposal team was fully aware of the rail alignment and it's importance yet still managed to leave it out of the plan.

On a side, while that future and "vital" connector may need the space, and hopefully it gets it, I'm really bothered knowing that void will probably never be anything but a train ramp and a parking lot. I've always hated the gap in the development, I don't care if it was a train yard or whatever, it's a huge barrier visually and mentally. I just want the best of both worlds and that's a rare turnout.

Let's bring on the other proposals! I love when there's so much development and buzz about Downtown like this.

this plan wouldn't kill HSR...it is already dead at the federal level for the for seeable future and even if it wasn't .. high speed rail woun't have any at grade crossings .. and this line has tons ..

I just don't think we need to reward the Skirvin just for presenting a plan. Yes, it's a plan, and yes it's the first one we've seen. Now after what many including myself have been saying in this thread (and you may have already known), we should all know that there are other plans, they just don't have articles by Steve. Maybe that's what he's offering up on Sunday, a huge compilation of all the plans out there. Unlikely, but one can dream.

A huge problem right now in OKC is nobody shares information and plans, and nobody talks to each other. There is such a vast amount of plans but very little of it is being coordinated until there is public pressure once a conflict is realized BY THE PUBLIC. This should not require the public to put pressure on a situation to prevent a last-minute conflict. But that's where we've been lately, it is insane. In Helsinki they had a city planning exhibition center outside their main metro station, and it had every large-scale development plan along with other city improvements, all on one map, and city staff on hand to answer questions from citizens. It was awesome. That's what OKC needs. But above all, there needs to be one document where the effects have been considered of P180, streetcar, convention center, Devon, Core2Shore, regional transit, riverfront improvements, and countless other things, and there should be a plan on how all of this will co-integrate with eachother. That does not exist.

This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. I like to think I'm fairly well informed for a member of the general public. My job has zero to do with anything we discuss on this forum. I'm not an artchitect, or a city planner, or a student preparing to enter such a field, I'm not a retiree with too much time on his hands (love the website, though, Doug ;)) or a journalist. I'm just a guy who grew up in OKC and would like to be proud of my hometown. And yet, there is so little information available on most of these projects that most of the time I don't know what's going on. How soon are the looking at putting in the streetcar? I don't know. Is there a favored route? I don't know. Too many unknowns.

I liked the Skirvin plan when I first saw it. Like you said, it's a pretty rendering. It's also the first I've seen. Everyone else needs to get off their butts and start making pretty renderings as well. I love the idea of a big board with everything laid out. As I said in my first two sentences, there is not enough coordination here.


As for the Skirvin plan, this is just one of those situations where it has to be DOA. You can't put together a convention center proposal just for the benefit of one hotel that has already been renovated, that could possibly cut OKC off from expanding HSR. That's not worth it. That's an enormous opportunity cost. We want rail options to Tulsa and beyond. We want to be connected with the rest of the world. We close our options for something else by choosing this proposal. So why would we voluntarily do something that could likely prevent HSR from ever being a viable solution here in OKC... JUST BECAUSE WE WERE WOOED BY A PRETTY RENDERING?? That's so amateurish. Or at least certainly not for the downtown area...

If it's got to be DOA, that needs to be made clear. I certainly don't blame the Skirvin people, they are doing what they are supposed to be doing and are representing their shareholders. We shouldn't be angry at them just because they proposed a plan and maybe we don't want to go in that direction.

this plan wouldn't kill HSR...it is already dead at the federal level for the for seeable future and even if it wasn't .. high speed rail woun't have any at grade crossings .. and this line has tons ..

Thank you - I was just writting the same thing when I decided to hit refersh. There is never going to be a national HSR system. The best we can hope for is a state funded system connecting Lawton, OKC, and Tulsa with local feeder lines to tier 2 and tier 3 communities. With any luck their would be connections to other cities outside of Oklahoma, but the federal government won't be paying for it.

* * *I'm not an artchitect, or a city planner, or a student preparing to enter such a field, I'm not a retiree with too much time on his hands (love the website, though, Doug ;)) or a journalist. I'm just a guy who grew up in OKC and would like to be proud of my hometown. And yet, there [are] * * * [t]oo many unknowns.

I liked the Skirvin plan when I first saw it. Like you said, it's a pretty rendering. It's also the first I've seen. Everyone else needs to get off their butts and start making pretty renderings as well. I love the idea of a big board with everything laid out. As I said in my first two sentences, there is not enough coordination here.
Actually, I find that I don't have enough time on my hands! The clock moves much too quickly to suit me! :ohno:

With that slight qualification, it's hard to disagree with anything that you said, and I don't.

so the devon tower is chaning the skyline, the new hotel will possibly be large enough to change it again, is there anything else in talks about another tall building in downtown.. this is getting exciting

Well, Steve mentioned if all goes as planned, that we will love what is set to appear in the business section of the Oklahoman this Sunday, so it must be a big announcement of some sort, not sure if its pertaining to CC though, might be something totally different.

^^he wrote that before yesterdays paper so the info should already be out.

^^he wrote that before yesterdays paper so the info should already be out.He mentioned the Skirvin update in that post, so I think he has something planned for next Sunday.