I am in New York City at our apartment this week and I did a little daydreaming. Our apartment is in Chelsea and is over by the High Line, which got me to thinking. For those that don't know about the High Line Park, it is a mile and a half long park built on top of an abandoned elevated train track running along a dense portion of from the Meat Packing District (uber cool area now - think huge Bricktown with both cool boutiques and very high end shops at the same time) to Chelsea. It is a series of parks, paths, art features, etc.

Follow me with this.. we are preparing to spend multi-millions of dollars to tear down the elevated I-40. Instead, what if we take the money and convert the elevated part that runs through downtown and Bricktown and reclaim it for something else? What if we make it into a bigger version of the HighLine? The area on the elevated surface can be turned into walking trails, bike trails, parks, art paths, etc. As well, perhaps part of it could be built with commercial space ala Ponte Vecchio (Florence). Parking can all be underneath. It would be something absolutely unique with OKC and ultra cool. Come to NYC and see what I mean.

We all believe another boulevard is not needed. This however could be iconic in and of itself.

Okay...tell me how nuts this is.

Someone mentioned this idea before. Good luck getting the idea to catch around this town.

Yea, I lightly touched on it months ago, but after spending a week here and walking by it everyday and seeing all the people use it, I thought I would pose the question and add the idea of adding shops on top of it.

I am in New York City at our apartment this week and I did a little daydreaming. Our apartment is in Chelsea and is over by the High Line, which got me to thinking. For those that don't know about the High Line Park, it is a mile and a half long park built on top of an abandoned elevated train track running along a dense portion of from the Meat Packing District (uber cool area now - think huge Bricktown with both cool boutiques and very high end shops at the same time) to Chelsea. It is a series of parks, paths, art features, etc.

Follow me with this.. we are preparing to spend multi-millions of dollars to tear down the elevated I-40. Instead, what if we take the money and convert the elevated part that runs through downtown and Bricktown and reclaim it for something else? What if we make it into a bigger version of the HighLine? The area on the elevated surface can be turned into walking trails, bike trails, parks, art paths, etc. As well, perhaps part of it could be built with commercial space ala Ponte Vecchio (Florence). Parking can all be underneath. It would be something absolutely unique with OKC and ultra cool. Come to NYC and see what I mean.

We all believe another boulevard is not needed. This however could be iconic in and of itself.

Okay...tell me how nuts this is.

Would never get the powers that be to go along with this idea, and the cost for such tranformation would be much higher then the demolation cost.

Would never get the powers that be to go along with this idea, and the cost for such tranformation would be much higher then the demolation cost.

Not so sure about the cost. Remember there is also the cost of building and maintaining the new boulevard. If we sell off parts of it for commercial development it would help defray some of the costs.

I really like the idea, but don't really know how one would jumpstart it. It's such a unique and interesting concept that you would think it would be appealing to our city leaders. Does the one in NYC have metal underpinnings? That would be my biggest concern: That the metal under the road would deteriorate, especially if you watered the park.

Don't think it would have the same effect here as new yorks. For starters, the old I40 is ugly to look at.

Don't think it would have the same effect here as new yorks. For starters, the old I40 is ugly to look at.

Agreed. The cost to make something like that work here and look attractive would be outrageous.

I am neither pro or con about it (it is an interesting idea). I personally like elevated things and I think it gives people a view of the city and a possible reason to stop as they are passing though (as opposed to the below grade/partially below grade new I-40 where they will be able to see very little).

One of the arguments for relocating I-40 was the psychological barrier that elevated anything presents to people (they say that is why the core never really developed on the other side). I seem some validity to it as I rarely go much beyond other elevated/barriers around town (north of the Memorial area turnpike, south of I-240 etc). Someone mentioned in another thread that a monorail wouldn't work because people didn't feel safe being above the masses (don't see how this would be any different). If you keep the elevated, that would eliminate the Boulevard and the Mayor has stated the Downtown grinds to a halt (or something like that) if the Boulevard is not built. I don't understand why that would be true as he has never answered the "why?", just put it out there as fact and no one has questioned him on it that I know of.

Two things:

1)Now you are talking like Spartan
2)for this to happen you would upset the demolition companies

I think OKC would need another million people to make something like that work. When C2S parks are finished, downtown OKC will have more sq feet of park space than it will sq feet of office space.

I have never seen this park in person but based on all the photos I just look at on Google Earth, to call this a park is playing loose and fast with the word 'park'. It is more of an elevated walkway with weeds.


http://www.sincerelysustainable.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/highline1.jpg

It is a really neat idea, but remember the old I-40 has to come down in order for a grade-level bouldevard to be built. The whole point of the boulevard idea is to pull down the elevated portion so all the intersections along the way can be re-vamped.

I'd agree about the barrier. If we keep it, then the barrier is still there. It's too bad there won't be a section near the park that could serve as a sort of "monument" to the old road.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W2Yq1zzxAc

I've been to the High Line a few times when I was in NYC. Its really pretty cool, but completely unrealistic for OKC and the existing I-40 crosstown elevated highway.

Kerry, that is a before picture

Kerry, that is a before picture

LOL - thanks.

I saw some other pictures where the walkways have been completed but it doesn't resemble a park - just an elevated sidewalk. I didn't see anyone making passive use of the 'park' - just people walking from point A to point B. There is no point A or point B at either end of the current elevated crosstown that anyone would want to walk to. Instead of trying to put people in conncourses underground or elevated sidewalks, I would like to see more people on the existing sidewalks at ground level.

http://www.thehighline.org/galleries/images/high-line-park-photos?page=1

A hundred years ago Atlanta tried elevating the sidewalks and they got this.

http://www.underground-atlanta.com/

http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/c6/ed/8b/underground-atlanta-on.jpg

A good compromise would be to make the proposed boulevard with plenty of landscaping, walking paths and bike lanes.

A good compromise would be to make the proposed boulevard with plenty of landscaping, walking paths and bike lanes.

That is what I would like to see as well.

Yes, a well landscaped boulevard with paths is far better than a standard boulevard for cars. However, re-use of the elevated portion would set OKC apart, as well as being utilitarian. Plus, building a small row of shops on top of it would be truly unique. I am not suggesting that the HighLine be duplicated, but improved on. And, developers would help pay for the conversion. It also becomes a revenue generator.

It is a really neat idea, but remember the old I-40 has to come down in order for a grade-level bouldevard to be built. The whole point of the boulevard idea is to pull down the elevated portion so all the intersections along the way can be re-vamped.

I'd agree about the barrier. If we keep it, then the barrier is still there. It's too bad there won't be a section near the park that could serve as a sort of "monument" to the old road.

bomber, I don't see anything about that stretch of road that I care to remember. Maybe you can talk them into giving you one of the columns to put in your backyard for your own personal monument. LOL

I sort of meant that as a joke. I won't be sorry to see it go. But I could sort of envision one section left over to do some landscaping with or something cool. Throw in some water features and rock-scaping and whatnot.

I am in New York City at our apartment this week and I did a little daydreaming. Our apartment is in Chelsea and is over by the High Line, which got me to thinking. For those that don't know about the High Line Park, it is a mile and a half long park built on top of an abandoned elevated train track running along a dense portion of from the Meat Packing District (uber cool area now - think huge Bricktown with both cool boutiques and very high end shops at the same time) to Chelsea. It is a series of parks, paths, art features, etc.

Follow me with this.. we are preparing to spend multi-millions of dollars to tear down the elevated I-40. Instead, what if we take the money and convert the elevated part that runs through downtown and Bricktown and reclaim it for something else? What if we make it into a bigger version of the HighLine? The area on the elevated surface can be turned into walking trails, bike trails, parks, art paths, etc. As well, perhaps part of it could be built with commercial space ala Ponte Vecchio (Florence). Parking can all be underneath. It would be something absolutely unique with OKC and ultra cool. Come to NYC and see what I mean.

We all believe another boulevard is not needed. This however could be iconic in and of itself.

Okay...tell me how nuts this is.

Dream on, and I'm right there with you. That highway is coming down and being replaced by two new ones that will be MUCH more of a pedestrian barrier than a land bridge was. Why? Because it's a done deal.

At least there will be something on the south side that is worth ATTEMPTING to walk to though now.

And are we sure that it is going to be six lanes? Even so, if it is landscaped properly and speeds are set to 25 m.p.h. or less, the psychological barrier of width is somewhat mitigated. (I know that is probably dreaming to hope for that low of speed)

This is strictly from memory but 6 lans is the last I heard & I think 6 lanes is an ODoT requirement???

This is strictly from memory but 6 lans is the last I heard & I think 6 lanes is an ODoT requirement???

There are 2 lane state roads everywhere. There is even a 2 lane turnpike.

i understand that, but it was mentioned in a Council meeting during a presentation a while back now that it was an ODoT requirement. Have no idea if it is factually accurate or not. But just as ODoT has affected the SkyDancer bridge, I wuldn't be at all surprised if this was the case too.

I really like the High Line Park and see why Rover brought it up. I-40 is much larger than the NYC park (wider) so it would be hard to make it look cozy. One of the attractions, to my way of thinking, of the HL Park is that it is a narrow pathway through the skyscrapers - very interesting and with fun views of the Harbor and old architecture (and the iconic NYC taxis). It is certainly no more beautiful than what you'd get in OKC. On the contrary. But assuming they could get the funding (and much of the Highline Park was from private donations) it would be pretty windy and so large that it would expensive to maintain and next to impossible to "fill up" the way the one in NYC is. Still, if money and pre-existing city planning were no object, I think it would be great.

Follow me with this.. we are preparing to spend multi-millions of dollars to tear down the elevated I-40. Instead, what if we take the money and convert the elevated part that runs through downtown and Bricktown and reclaim it for something else? What if we make it into a bigger version of the HighLine? The area on the elevated surface can be turned into walking trails, bike trails, parks, art paths, etc. As well, perhaps part of it could be built with commercial space ala Ponte Vecchio (Florence). Parking can all be underneath. It would be something absolutely unique with OKC and ultra cool. Come to NYC and see what I mean.

We all believe another boulevard is not needed. This however could be iconic in and of itself.

Okay...tell me how nuts this is.

The main problems are they did not make enough interchanges off i40 to make that really serviceable, and the time to get this in motion was years ago not now. Somewhere between 1/2 and 2/3rds of the boulevard build out are not being done by the city but are part of the relocation. The only part the city is handling that ever might have been salvageable would be the bend if they make the approach from the east become a city street somewhere around 3rd, then west approach become reno, even this causes more hastes to get to parts of the city than the current plan.

Several of the plans people have for urbanization sound great but it has to have a way to facilitate a transition from suburban to urban, cutting off access to where the people are today is a non starter. Maybe if we already had the C2S area built up and the OKC schools in a situation that people would choose them instead of flocking to the suburbs we could do a project like this.

This is the thing that drives me crazy, is the sheer material waste that is caused by all of OKC's "renaissances" every 30 years. The fact that NOTHING is built for permanence, because we replace everything every 30 years, isn't just annoying, but it's infuriating because we're constantly being limited by resources available to do cool things, yet when it comes to demolishing everything in our way, we don't realize there's a resource cost to that. We don't realize that there is an opportunity cost to doing that, to constantly replacing everything.

Yeah I get it, the Crosstown Bridge kinda sucks--as a highway. Yeah I also get it, that the Cox Center kinda sucks--in its current form as our main convention facility, although it is nicely renovated. Yes, those old abandoned buildings on N. Robinson kinda sucked, as well--as abandoned buildings.

Stalin once said: "Death solves all problems. No person, no problem." That is the OKC approach to the built environment, that the wrecking ball solves all problems. There is no ability to look beyond that destructive, nihilist point of view. They can't think of ANY other solution. Truthfully, OKC doesn't even have to come up with innovative solutions to these things. I've already explained the annoying aspect of this, and the infuriating aspect of this, but the maddening aspect of this is that OKC could just copy other cities and not even have to think outside the box. There are other examples of repurposed land bridges. There are other examples of old convention centers repurposed. There are other examples of EVERYTHING imaginable repurposed.

Just curious ... who'd be responsible for repairs and the gathering of falling chunks of crete if it were a park and not a roadway?

Spartan, I hear what you're saying. I think the main problem is that we don't maintain things around here. They fall into disrepair. Then, they cost too much to refurbish. And we just demolish them. It won't happen, but I'd still like to see the Cox Center refurbished instead of demolished. I mean, we already spent millions of dollars adding onto it and fixing up certain parts of it. Why turn right around and demolish it? It's a complete waste of resources. And, I agree with the consultants original opinions that it's in a perfect location....close to all of the existing hotels, close to the Myriad Gardens, and close to Bricktown. Why demolish it? Why not just refurbish and expand it? Sure, taking out the arena would be cost prohibitive. But, why not just close the streets around it, create a more walkable environment, and use the street space for expansion? Add more exhibit space to the west....you could double your exhibit space with an expansion to the west. Add another ballroom and meeting room addition on the south side to match that on the north side. If you need more space, just go vertical with the expansions. Build the convention hotel on EK Gaylord on the east side. I still don't see why this can't happen.

Spartan, I hear what you're saying. I think the main problem is that we don't maintain things around here. They fall into disrepair. Then, they cost too much to refurbish. And we just demolish them. It won't happen, but I'd still like to see the Cox Center refurbished instead of demolished. I mean, we already spent millions of dollars adding onto it and fixing up certain parts of it. Why turn right around and demolish it? It's a complete waste of resources. And, I agree with the consultants original opinions that it's in a perfect location....close to all of the existing hotels, close to the Myriad Gardens, and close to Bricktown. Why demolish it? Why not just refurbish and expand it? Sure, taking out the arena would be cost prohibitive. But, why not just close the streets around it, create a more walkable environment, and use the street space for expansion? Add more exhibit space to the west....you could double your exhibit space with an expansion to the west. Add another ballroom and meeting room addition on the south side to match that on the north side. If you need more space, just go vertical with the expansions. Build the convention hotel on EK Gaylord on the east side. I still don't see why this can't happen.

Well, as for the Cox, that's not exactly the opportunity I'm referring to, because I'm thinking further than just the general context of the Cox being a convention center. Perhaps a convention center doesn't always have to be a convention center, especially if it is true that it's a dying industry. There may be some merit to all of that debate, actually. here's what I mean:
http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=25611&p=425474#post425474

As for this bridge, kevinpate, I don't imagine that you would keep the entire roadway if you pursued this idea. I think you would probably just keep one or two lanes of the bridge, removing the rest, because you certainly don't need a 6-lane High-Line. That would be a barrier. Then the boulevard could just kind of have a nice median around it that facilitates pedestrian crossings down into C2S. Or at the very least, keep a few of the columns, which could be incorporated into the median in kind of an edgy way, and wouldn't present nearly the risk for falling debris.

By the way, Park Ave in NYC is a 6 lane boulevard and is in no way a barrier or a pedestrian problem on one of the most urban streets in the world. Number of lanes isnt the issue. Good design and re-use is.

Using portions of the current elevated structure would potentially be unique and responsible at the same time. Bold visions and imagination along with organic development are needed.

The problem is a matter of capacity. Park Avenue is not an over-capacity piece of infrastructure. It looks like this C2S boulevard thing definitely will be.

The problem is a matter of capacity. Park Avenue is not an over-capacity piece of infrastructure. It looks like this C2S boulevard thing definitely will be.

How do you know that, Spartan? You could be right but I still haven't seen any final plans.

And I don't quite follow your logic, anyway. Rover's point was that a heavily used 6 lane boulevard in NYC is very urban and not a pedestrian barrier. Now you're saying ours would be because it will have less traffic? And in case you're wondering, I'm not in favor of 6 lanes here. I want four lanes with a small median and bicycle lanes going both ways.

Don't know how things work in NYC, but here, 6 lane boulevard type projects end up being along the lines of Northwest Expressway (which I don't think anyone would describe as being pedestrian friendly)...has anyone try to get across it on foot?

Don't know how things work in NYC, but here, 6 lane boulevard type projects end up being along the lines of Northwest Expressway (which I don't think anyone would describe as being pedestrian friendly)...has anyone try to get across it on foot?

Larry, again you're making assumptions like Spartan. Both of you may be totally correct but I'm going to wait until I see final plans before I start criticizing. Who knows? You might be surprised and have to eat your words. LOL

Larry, again you're making assumptions like Spartan. Both of you may be totally correct but I'm going to wait until I see final plans before I start criticizing. Who knows? You might be surprised and have to eat your words. LOL

Eternal optimism.

This boulevard issue just didn't come out of nowhere, by the way. It has been a long process, most of the controversies have been detailed and have gotten flack, but the city has never once backed down. Here's a detailed list of everything we know about this..

1 It will be named Oklahoma City Boulevard if the mayor gets his way, and he already has for now
2 It will be 6-lanes wide with parking as well
3 It will be paid for mostly by the state, perhaps an inappropriate funding source
4 It will have the highway designation of I-40 Business Corridor
5 Its speed limit can be no lower than 35 mph
6 It will go through mostly nothing but superblocks between the BNSF tracks and Hudson Ave (think EKG)
7 It will have "pedestrian boxes" bypassing the street-level because the council already funded it when they thought that would be the convention site
8 It will not be fronted by any significant retail, housing, or other private development uses

Does that sound like a recipe for success to you? I don't mean to blast you ljbab, but you seem to have your head in the sand when in light of all of these things that have been going on for the last 2 years regarding this issue, you still say, "Well maybe it will turn out urban in the end, you don't know that yet."

You are waiting for final plans, and you're not going to see anything until this project is broken ground. This is the new way of operating in this city. Drawing up "final plans" is expensive, so this city always sets things in stone first and then hires an engineering firm. It has been the same process for every big-ticket item that is going downtown. The streetcar. The convention center. Project 180. This boulevard. And on and on. Although, I do suspect that the new park may be one project that has an architect of record who will be more flexible in the planning process, just because they were hired early-on and not later-on in the process.

Regarding denying everything that's already been set in stone for this boulevard despite no final drafts available publicly yet, what do you think is going to happen when OU is up by 54 points against Tulsa, mid-way through the 4th quarter? Of course, the scoreboard isn't final until it hits 0:00.

Larry, again you're making assumptions like Spartan. Both of you may be totally correct but I'm going to wait until I see final plans before I start criticizing. Who knows? You might be surprised and have to eat your words. LOL

Where is the assumption (that history will repeat itself)? If it suddenly changes I will be happy to admit they changed it. But the last I heard about it, it was going to be 6 lanes (ODOT requirement). Maybe that is true, maybe it isn't. If it does indeed end up being 6 lanes, can you point to any other 6 lane project in the City that you would describe as "pedestrian friendly" and not a "barrier"?

If they end up making a 6 lane boulevard what some think it is going to end up being I will be pleasantly surprised.

I too will be shocked if it is merely just 6 actual lanes. But in all likelihood there will be parking lanes as well. And also, because this will be an ODOT project, the lane widths will be ridiculously wide. Oh darn, I forgot to include that in my list of anti-urban things we know about this boulevard. That's a big one..

I too will be shocked if it is merely just 6 actual lanes. But in all likelihood there will be parking lanes as well. And also, because this will be an ODOT project, the lane widths will be ridiculously wide. Oh darn, I forgot to include that in my list of anti-urban things we know about this boulevard. That's a big one..

Some of what you and Larry believe is absolutely correct and some is conjecture. I'm not burying my head in the sand in the least. I just tend to not criticize something before I know for sure what to criticize. You and Larry like to be in the front of the line with criticism. LOL
I've told you before I don't support a street the way you're representing it and I won't support it if that is what it turns out to be.

Which parts do you think are conjecture? By conjecture do you mean the conclusions we may have reached after knowing what we know? When presented with the same set of facts, different people can come to different conclusions so that is a fair comment. Heck it happens daily in courtrooms across the country on a daily basis.

I sincerely hope that they have looked at the criticism of it and are carefully rethinking it and we will end up with a better result than what has happened in the past. As far as I know, Northwest Expressway was never intended to be pedestrian friendly so its design may not be a fair comparison. My question is, when you have 6 lanes of divided roadway (like NW Expressway) what changes can be made so it is pedestrian friendly and not a barrier? What have they done in NYC to make it work there? What can we learn from it?

I am a little confused though. If everyone waits until the end when you know exactly what you are criticizing, it is probably too late for anything to be done about it. Isn't it better to get it out at the beginning of the process, rather than the end?

Sort of like at Council, if you haven't signed up in advance to speak on an agenda item (before they vote), you can do so at the end of the meeting. But what is the point of that? Too late for a last minute info to hopefully sway the Council since they already voted on it.

A good compromise would be to make the proposed boulevard with plenty of landscaping, walking paths and bike lanes.

Yes, but I think Rover's idea was to do something unique and different, to make OKC and C2S special. But we already know that C2S won't be special, but the ideas are still good to demonstrate that we are a community capable of coming up with better ideas than the paid outside consultant ideas that our leaders would rather listen to.

Yes, but I think Rover's idea was to do something unique and different, to make OKC and C2S special. But we already know that C2S won't be special, but the ideas are still good to demonstrate that we are a community capable of coming up with better ideas than the paid outside consultant ideas that our leaders would rather listen to.

So, Mr. Negative already knows that C2S won't be anything special when the final designs/plans have yet been produced. Did you pull this out of thin air or break out the Magic 8 Ball.

So, Mr. Negative already knows that C2S won't be anything special when the final designs/plans have yet been produced. Did you pull this out of thin air or break out the Magic 8 Ball.

No, try door #3. Simple critical analysis. It's funny though, you're always extremely negative about being optimistic, while I tend to think I'm fairly positive about being pessimist. How's that for irony? lol

Do you have a different mode, by the way?

No, try door #3. Simple critical analysis. It's funny though, you're always extremely negative about being optimistic, while I tend to think I'm fairly positive about being pessimist. How's that for irony? lol

Do you have a different mode, by the way?

One mode, positive and upbeat, unlike some, I don't expect and look for the negative side in everything.

You don't think anything in OKC these days is begging for critical analysis?

You don't think anything in OKC these days is begging for critical analysis?

There's a hugh difference between analyzing and being consistently negative.

I'm not consistently negative. If critical analysis comes off as being consistently negative, then maybe there's a much larger problem than the messenger. Keep in mind though, that some critical analysis is just wording things bluntly and not using the euphemistic terms we have for many things these days--in many of these cases that I call something what it is, I am actually quite accepting of it. For instance, I'm quite accepting of the plutocratic and oligarchic interests that are in control of this city, obviously they have done a litany of impressive things for this city that nobody else could have or would have done. Doesn't make it any less plutocratic or oligarchic.

I will also say that you have demonstrated, time after time, quite predictably, almost a refusal bordering on inability to critically assess things for yourself, or EVEN to accept that others can critically assess things for themselves. In fact that is the majority of your posts it seems, objecting to others asking the critical questions and posing some interesting ideas. Of course, in stating the simple facts, I'll also add that you're not one of those posters on here who actually bother me. So here is another case in which I have critically analyzed something, and although it may sound negative when I call it a spade, I am actually quite accepting of it personally. Does that make sense?

I don't know if you idolize someone in leadership, possibly our mayor who does a good job of being a figurehead, but you do come across frequently as a classic case of someone who is clinging to an idolized view of city leadership. You almost jump to judge things based on whether they are in-line with the official version or not, and you can't accept anything that's not in-line with that official version that you cling to.

For instance, I'm quite accepting of the plutocratic and oligarchic interests that are in control of this city, obviously they have done a litany of impressive things for this city that nobody else could have or would have done. Doesn't make it any less plutocratic or oligarchic.

Come on, Spartan. Just use plain English. Not everyone wants to run to the dictionary to understand your posts. LOL
We know you've been to school so you don't have to prove it to us.

I am a little confused though. If everyone waits until the end when you know exactly what you are criticizing, it is probably too late for anything to be done about it. Isn't it better to get it out at the beginning of the process, rather than the end?

Larry, I just doubt that anonymous advance criticism here can have any great effect. Does anyone know if there are any plans for public meetings for input into this construction project such as there were for the I40 relocation?

I agree and if it was just criticism on a message board, you are probably correct (but I also write to the powers that be on occasion). Glad we are in agreement that 6 lanes is to wide though. Haven't heard of any such plans. Maybe some as we get closer to the demo of the Crosstown.

Think Shadid is inspiring him. LOL. At least he can spell the words. I try to use them from time to time, get that red underlined spell checker "helper", try different variations and usually give up, using a word I can spell. Used to be a time I would dig out the dictionary but just getting lazy now.

Well I've always just called them "the powers that be," but I also like Shadid's reference to the plutocratic interests, and I do think that will be a reference that sticks. The oligarchy would be the European expression of the same thing, essentially (i.e., Russia is universally considered an oligarchy as a form of government, which is weird).

I too will be shocked if it is merely just 6 actual lanes. But in all likelihood there will be parking lanes as well. And also, because this will be an ODOT project, the lane widths will be ridiculously wide. Oh darn, I forgot to include that in my list of anti-urban things we know about this boulevard. That's a big one..

Not sure how close the convention center people are working with the boulevard people but this was their artistic representation for if the convention center was south of the boulevard.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/bg918/BOARD2copy.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/bg918/blvd2_colorcopy.jpg

from the subcommittee?