Yes, but you have to look at he opportunity costs too to evaluate value for the dollar. The cox center is a waste of space and a huge obstruction in downtown's flow. This will be mostly duplicated in another super block when the new convention center is built. If having such a facility built that way is a necessity for the city (and that already seems decided), then, IMO, redeveloping the four square blocks on which the cox center sits could be much more valuable than anything the cox center arena can attract. If we needed anything other than what is sitting at the state fair, then I think it should be done there because there is no opportunity cost as you can't really do much else with the land.

i think we are on the same page... i have only talked about the possibility of putting a new arena at the fair grounds... i agree... it's time for cox center to go. i have only been trying to make the argument that a second arena is something this city uses and needs to continue to use. and i think it is time to look at what is at the fair grounds and determine if it is enough, and if not, then look at the possibility of replacing it (at the fair grounds)

Am I the only one that thinks moving the Barons to the fairgrounds, even if feasible arena wise, would effectively kill the franchise from an attendance perspective (I feel like there would be a drop)?

Am I the only one that thinks moving the Barons to the fairgrounds, even if feasible arena wise, would effectively kill the franchise from an attendance perspective (I feel like there would be a drop)?

I don't even understand the logic of such a move? Where would you rather attend a game - a major league arena like CHK near a vibrant entertainment diatrict or a renovated minor league arena at the state fairgrounds?!? Just put curtains around the upper deck and use CHK for a second team like tons of other cities do anyway...

I don't even understand the logic of such a move? Where would you rather attend a game - a major league arena like CHK near a vibrant entertainment diatrict or a renovated minor league arena at the state fairgrounds?!? Just put curtains around the upper deck and use CHK for a second team like tons of other cities do anyway...

I don't think anyone isn't disagreeing that the Peake would be a better option, but what if it is too expensive and they need another option? The state fairgrounds arena could be that option with a little bit of an upgrade. Also, people wouldn't complain as much about parking as they do for downtown.

I don't think anyone isn't disagreeing that the Peake would be a better option, but what if it is too expensive and they need another option? The state fairgrounds arena could be that option with a little bit of an upgrade. Also, people wouldn't complain as much about parking as they do for downtown.

The Blazers played at the fairgrounds arena for years back in the '60's.

...and we saw what the 60's did to OKC. I serioulsly doubt the ownership of the team would want to play at the fairgrounds anyhow. As for cost, the Arena is owned by the city so they can set whatever price they want - including free. The Thunder court is already removed many times during the season as it is now.

Go look at the Arena schedule - there are way too many holes in it. It is used maybe 70 days a year. It needs to be used 320 days a year. We have a long ways to go.

Some of Ed Shadids comments on the matter.

There are several obstacles to the successful development of our convention center; the development of the convention center hotel is the most pressing.
In a study (which has yet to be released to the public despite calls for its release) prior to the MAPS 3 vote it was made clear that to realize the economic benefits promised to voters, the new $250 million convention center, would have to be accompanied by a 600 room convention center hotel and that no city had been able to develop such a hotel without massive taxpayer subsidies in the previous decade.

The need for such a hotel and the additional massive future taxpayer obligation that the MAPS 3 vote would create was not discussed during the MAPS 3 campaign. In fact, that information was suppressed.

In the three years since the MAPS 3 vote the situation for taxpayers has worsened in cities trying to develop such hotels. The soon to opened 800 room Nashville Omni convention center hotel required a taxpayer subsidy of $128 million plus property tax abatements for 20 years. Nashville councilmembers recently shared with me that they had fear until the end that their subsidy amount would not be enough to get the deal done. Convention center hotels in regional cities like St. Louis and Austin are losing significant amounts of money for taxpayers after their completion.

The City of OKC has not performed any market analysis to indicate what such a convention center hotel would likely cost in the form of taxpayer subsidies.
The City of OKC has NO PLAN for how we would pay for what may be well over $100 million for the development of a hotel along with parking. MAPS3 funds cannot be used to buy the land for a convention center hotel.

"MAPS3 funds cannot be used to buy the land for a convention center hotel."

That's not correct. Classic example of Ed Shadid trying to frame this conversation a certain way.

"MAPS3 funds cannot be used to buy the land for a convention center hotel."

That's not correct. Classic example of Ed Shadid trying to frame this conversation a certain way.

Don't worry about it. Just remember this quote when the subject comes up for using MAPS III money for buses.

Nichols has been a big proponent of the CC from the very beginning. He and several other key leaders believe it's a key piece of the puzzle in moving the city forward.

He also clearly has a great love for the Myriad Gardens, since that was set as the first priority for the Devon-tax driven Project 180, and I bet he sees it as a centerpiece around which important new elements should be arranged: the Devon Complex, the nearby Preftakes block, the CC and you can bet he's been involved with whatever is going to happen on the Stage Center site.

The whole P180 thing came from him wanting to totally transform downtown OKC and make it a place for world-class company HQ's and amenities. The CC is clearly a big part of his vision.

This is absolutely correct. I have been to several of the CC meetings and went to the one on Tuesday. There is no discussion of an alternative site with the exception of the hotel. They are committed to this particular, specific site. The consultants know this and are going to great lengths to show how it could perform.

There was some apprehension about the hotel being off site. That it be close enough to be walkable and the two structures architecturally responsive to one another.

Don't be surprised if the SE Robinson/Boulevard site gains greater play in these discussions.

Don't worry about it. Just remember this quote when the subject comes up for using MAPS III money for buses.

I don't disagree, the technicality exists for Council to spend anything on anything when it comes to capital projects. But the Bus versus Rail discussion is a lot further away from Convention Center, plus CC support hotel. At least politically and from a MAPS branding aspect. IMHO

Some of Ed Shadids comments on the matter.

There are several obstacles to the successful development of our convention center; the development of the convention center hotel is the most pressing.
In a study (which has yet to be released to the public despite calls for its release) prior to the MAPS 3 vote it was made clear that to realize the economic benefits promised to voters, the new $250 million convention center, would have to be accompanied by a 600 room convention center hotel and that no city had been able to develop such a hotel without massive taxpayer subsidies in the previous decade.

The need for such a hotel and the additional massive future taxpayer obligation that the MAPS 3 vote would create was not discussed during the MAPS 3 campaign. In fact, that information was suppressed.

In the three years since the MAPS 3 vote the situation for taxpayers has worsened in cities trying to develop such hotels. The soon to opened 800 room Nashville Omni convention center hotel required a taxpayer subsidy of $128 million plus property tax abatements for 20 years. Nashville councilmembers recently shared with me that they had fear until the end that their subsidy amount would not be enough to get the deal done. Convention center hotels in regional cities like St. Louis and Austin are losing significant amounts of money for taxpayers after their completion.

The City of OKC has not performed any market analysis to indicate what such a convention center hotel would likely cost in the form of taxpayer subsidies.
The City of OKC has NO PLAN for how we would pay for what may be well over $100 million for the development of a hotel along with parking. MAPS3 funds cannot be used to buy the land for a convention center hotel.

If you're going to take from Steve's blog, don't you think you should at least give him credit for the continuing discussion on the convention center (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2013/03/27/and-yet-more-discussion-on-the-convention-center/)?

If you're going to take from Steve's blog, don't you think you should at least give him credit for the continuing

Shadid posted this on Facebook and elsewhere.

i think we are on the same page... i have only talked about the possibility of putting a new arena at the fair grounds... i agree... it's time for cox center to go. i have only been trying to make the argument that a second arena is something this city uses and needs to continue to use. and i think it is time to look at what is at the fair grounds and determine if it is enough, and if not, then look at the possibility of replacing it (at the fair grounds)

Gotcha. I must have gotten the conversation crisscrossed. 11k seems like enough capacity at the fairgrounds, but I honestly have not been to the facility in awhile, so I don't know its current state. I thought the city did some improvements awhile back, but they may have been more infrastructure things that maybe the end user doesn't see. In any event, it certainly is not a bad thing to have a couple of feasible venue options, both in terms of cost and capacity.

MAPS3 funds cannot be used to buy the land for a convention center hotel.

Didn't we just fix this problem: give them the land beneath the Cox Center.

We're awesome. :wink:

But he does have a point that, as far as I know, there has been no feasibility study or funding proposals. Kind of hard to work the designs around something that may or may not ever exist. It's probably why they should resign to placing the hotel offsite and finish the CC design as a separate project.

...and we saw what the 60's did to OKC. I serioulsly doubt the ownership of the team would want to play at the fairgrounds anyhow. As for cost, the Arena is owned by the city so they can set whatever price they want - including free. The Thunder court is already removed many times during the season as it is now.

Go look at the Arena schedule - there are way too many holes in it. It is used maybe 70 days a year. It needs to be used 320 days a year. We have a long ways to go.

You always hear the concert argument being made. If you ask me this is the kind of excuse a needy desparate guy would make. "If I go out with friends, I will never get a date with that hot girl again." lol

Not very big league city like

The Peake is used far, far less than many comparable arenas.

Good grief, Staples Center here in L.A. has the Lakers, Clippers AND Kings, plus they have tons of concerts and other events.

Keeping the Cox Center just for the arena doesn't make any sense when we already have a nicer facility directly across the street with plenty of capacity. And exactly how many events have required both the Cox & Peake at the same time? Maybe two or three since the new arena opened 11 years ago??

And exactly what awesome city-changing future events are we hoping to land that would require adjacent arenas? I'm not aware of any we are actually bidding on.


So, we are going to hold onto quite possibly the most valuable real estate in all of OKC for perhaps a 20 days of events out the 4,000+ that both arenas have been in simultaneous operation???

Shadid posted this on Facebook and elsewhere.

Thanks for the thought OnlyOne. Pete's right on this - Ed has posted this comment in several places - I just highlighted it. Pete's been pretty good about respecting use/links to my content. And I appreciate how most folks on the site have understood that full NewsOK content needs to stay at NewsOK and not be copied and pasted.

It's amazing, because proponents of either keeping the co, or rebuilding a new arena on this lot are simply not thinking about how much opening those lots to other developments would be. It may be the most guaranteed spots for high-rise residential as the location is literally perfect being as close to the CBD without being in the mass of the CBD as we can get. It's also close to both parks, the arena, and Santa Fe station. New development on these blocks would almost surely bring new restaurant and retail (possibly even a CVS) so it would be very localized while still being close to Bricktown and the Arts district.

It would reshape our downtown more than any single project that has come up.

New development on these blocks would almost surely bring new restaurant and retail (possibly even a CVS) so it would be very localized while still being close to Bricktown and the Arts district.

It would reshape our downtown more than any single project that has come up.

Keep this in mind, this 4 sq block area would have more linear feet of retail street frontage than the corridors at Penn Sq Mall and the opportunity to go vertical 600' or more. Then build an intersection at California and Broadway like the original Piccadilly Circus and watch the tourist and their dollars pour in.

Do you think restoring the streetgrid where the CCC is now will help with the idea of taking out EK Gaylord between NE 4th and Robert S Kerr Ave like Jeff Speck recommended back in 2008?

Do you think restoring the streetgrid where the CCC is now will help with the idea of taking out EK Gaylord between NE 4th and Robert S Kerr Ave like Jeff Speck recommended back in 2008?

no

Do you think restoring the streetgrid where the CCC is now will help with the idea of taking out EK Gaylord between NE 4th and Robert S Kerr Ave like Jeff Speck recommended back in 2008?

You know what is ironic, I was opposed to that idea back then because I thought it was more important to move cars through downtown faster. But now I look at it differently. Currently cars on EKG only have one way to get to Broadway. If California was put back in and EKG ended at 4th there would be 7 ways to get from EKG to Broadway. Think which situation would be better for traffic - 1 way or 7 ways.

Downtown Boulevard supporters are you paying attention?

The Convention Center/Hotel proposals as a pdf:

http://www.okc.gov/maps3/M3ConCtrConcepts.pdf


This is from this site here:

MAPS 3 convention center concepts presented (http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=c067e0500e2a024737cbed896&id=8ba789c5e7)

Which, in turn, was found at the facebook page for MAPS 3 (https://www.facebook.com/MAPS3OKC)

I had this discussion with PW. Honestly, it's a good idea as are so many others but for some reason I can't seem to get any kind of "vision" that would drive these types of projects.
...
Which brings us back to the age-old problem. We need more creative thinking.

Sid, you were spot on the other day when you said that the focus should be on getting City Staff sitting just under the City Council to either align with the vision stated by the City Council or get them out of the way. Any idea how to do this?

I vastly prefer Scheme 03 myself.

http://dl.dropbox.com/s/ea6ubeethjhkpgi/Scheme03_view.jpg

I think that having the hotel separate and located near the CBD is much better and prevents the blocking view.
But hey, that's just my opinion.

I vastly prefer Scheme 03 myself.

http://dl.dropbox.com/s/ea6ubeethjhkpgi/Scheme03_view.jpg

I think that having the hotel separate and located near the CBD is much better and prevents the blocking view.
But hey, that's just my opinion.

the Chamber folks and the CVB folks want the hotel directly attached to the new CC

I suspect the cost issue has finally hit home and they realize the need to save as much money as possible just to buy the land, and at the same time reduce how much land they need to buy. These rendering only show them using half of what they original planned. The land at Cox is free and it is hard to argue with 'free'. With recent stories about Chesepeake and Sandridge spending corporate money on non-corporate things I would also suspect Devon is less than thrilled with ponying up money to cover any funding gaps. That's not to say the LN couldn't/wouldn't do it out of his own pocket though.

I vastly prefer Scheme 03 myself.

I think that having the hotel separate and located near the CBD is much better and prevents the blocking view.
But hey, that's just my opinion.

I agree. Kind of strange they didn't float a concept with the hotel on site that didn't block the views, like the one at the top of this page.

I agree. Kind of strange they didn't float a concept with the hotel on site that didn't block the views, like the one at the top of this page.

It seems the consultants feel strongly about having the CC front Robinson rather than the hotel.

The presentation references the "importance of Robinson".


I really like Scheme 3 as well but I'm afraid the powers that be want the hotel directly connected to the CC and therefore of the two others, I would go with the option to have the hotel face the Myriad Gardens rather than Central Park.

Also of note, in all schemes they are allowing for commercial development along the proposed boulevard on the west end of the tract.

I suspect the cost issue has finally hit home and they realize the need to save as much money as possible just to buy the land, and at the same time reduce how much land they need to buy. These rendering only show them using half of what they original planned. The land at Cox is free and it is hard to argue with 'free'. With recent stories about Chesepeake and Sandridge spending corporate money on non-corporate things I would also suspect Devon is less than thrilled with ponying up money to cover any funding gaps. That's not to say the LN couldn't/wouldn't do it out of his own pocket though.

the park just got the last piece of land on the north east corner of the park .. and the total came to just over 2 mil for 2 acres .. good comp for the city for the ford land ...

however the ford dealer land is bigger (as a single plot) fronts the park and the peake arena .. it will be interesting to see what the 2 appraisals come up with

It seems the consultants feel strongly about having the CC front Robinson rather than the hotel.

The presentation references the "importance of Robinson".


I really like Scheme 3 as well but I'm afraid the powers that be want the hotel directly connected to the CC and therefore of the two others, I would go with the option to have the hotel face the Myriad Gardens rather than Central Park.

Also of note, in all schemes they are allowing for commercial development along the proposed boulevard on the west end of the tract.

I wish the hotel was narrower and taller if their going to go with one of those two options, but I guess there are issues that prevent this.

Now that I see the proposals, the design doesn't look too bad. The underground exhibit halls are a great help to minimizing the appearance of a super-block. Although my guess would be that the parkland on the west side of the convention center would be a necessity because you couldn't build anything tall on it with the exhibit space directly underneath. I like pieces of each proposal, but the positioning of the hotel in the third one seems best. It opens the Cox Center up to development and doesn't block the view of downtown from the new park.

I wish the hotel was narrower and taller if their going to go with one of those two options, but I guess there are issues that prevent this.

hotel is not designed .. the model is just a place holder ..

It is true that all this is just conceptual, but I imagine the hotel footprint and height are based on their ample experience with these types of projects.

In other words, the footprint in particular is no doubt based on what convention hotel developers would most likely prefer, namely some larger meeting rooms that require a decent-sized base.

Regardless, I wish the "rectangle" was going north to south instead of west to east like in scheme 3(Cox site plan).

It seems the consultants feel strongly about having the CC front Robinson rather than the hotel.

The presentation references the "importance of Robinson".


Yeah. I thought that was interesting. I guess they could also wrap the hotel around the northeast corner and have a corner entrance, which could still leave room for the CC to have its front door on Robinson.

Yeah. I thought that was interesting. I guess they could also wrap the hotel around the northeast corner and have a corner entrance, which could still leave room for the CC to have its front door on Robinson.

with the continuing focus on the park and to the south .. a hotel entrance on the southeast corner makes a lot of sense

I suspect that regardless of which option is chosen, we're not going to see a big rectangle a la the Sheraton. It makes sense for a multitude of reasons to have a shape that has some aesthetic appeal.

Like BDP said, a curved hotel would do fine in terms of not impeding views of downtown too much and not making the parks feel walled off. I actually like the idea of the SE corner more than the NE, because then the entrance to the hotel fronts the Boulevard, is across from the Peake's new main entrance, and necessitates only one stop for the Streetcar to cover both the Peake and the Convention Hotel.

In terms of a view, it's also good to remember that the skyline will be expanding to the west soon enough, so the view will get better.

Those are the silver linings to me, anyway. Still would prefer the Robinson/Boulevard site first, and otherwise would prefer the Hotel on the Cox site. If either of those things happen I'll be ecstatic.

And actually, if it meant the breaking apart of the Cox superblock right now, I think I'd actually prefer the CC on the Ford Site rather than the east side of Robinson.

Maybe I don't get the whole "block views of downtown" concern. This hotel will be part of downtown and will add to the urban fabric as the geographic area of downtown grows. Downtown IS NOT just Devon Tower.

Maybe I don't get the whole "block views of downtown" concern. This hotel will be part of downtown and will add to the urban fabric as the geographic area of downtown grows. Downtown IS NOT just Devon Tower.

100% agree with this

Maybe I don't get the whole "block views of downtown" concern. This hotel will be part of downtown and will add to the urban fabric as the geographic area of downtown grows. Downtown IS NOT just Devon Tower.

The suburban mindset is difficult to override huh?

One thing that makes dense downtowns awesome is, turning a corner and finding new buildings to look at that you didn't previously see. Walk in downtown Chicago, every corner you turn you see something new which encourages you to keep exploring.

Is the green space to the west of all the renderings the area for expansion or since the largest of the space is underground, they realized they don't need as much? I am still worried about the water table with this and the Central Park.

And I don't mind the hotel building butting up next to the MBG... Urban parks are cool when you are surrounded by buildings. Remember the Stage Center and possible Preftakes developments....and the CC hotel if placed on the MBG border. Will definitely be an awesome park to take a stroll in. (Already is)

And I don't mind the hotel building butting up next to the MBG... Urban parks are cool when you are surrounded by buildings. Remember the Stage Center and possible Preftakes developments....and the CC hotel if placed on the MBG border. Will definitely be an awesome park to take a stroll in. (Already is)

You've got the Devon tower to the north, a larger building to the NW on the Preftakes block, most likely a larger tower to the west on the Stage Center site, the CC Hotel to the south and a rebuilt CCC site to the east. Maybe a residential tower on that site? Add to that the new office space for the Oklahoman to the NE. That would be pretty cool...

Catch22 - If I ever win the lottry for a few million I'm taking you on a field trip :). Heck, scratch that - field trips for everyone.


One thing that makes dense downtowns awesome is, turning a corner and finding new buildings to look at that you didn't previously see. Walk in downtown Chicago, every corner you turn you see something new which encourages you to keep exploring.

Many moons ago my wife and I went to Zion National Park and took a walk through 'The Narrows". The Narrows is a section of the Virigin River where the canyon walls are nearly 1000' straight up, but the river winds so much that you can only see a few hundred feet in front of you at a time. It is really like walking in a giant maze. Everytime to you get to a corner you want to to walk to the next one just to see what is around it, and since the next corner is only a few hundred more feet you just keep going. Despite the fact that the only way to see The Narrows is to wade in the river up to chest deep you just keep going. We ended up walking 4 hours up that river because human nature just yearns to learn what is around the next corner.


And I don't mind the hotel building butting up next to the MBG... Urban parks are cool when you are surrounded by buildings.

I know I have posted this before but Rittenhouse Sq in Philadelphia needs to be seen before you die (not that I wish death upon you :)).

And I don't mind the hotel building butting up next to the MBG... Urban parks are cool when you are surrounded by buildings. Remember the Stage Center and possible Preftakes developments....and the CC hotel if placed on the MBG border. Will definitely be an awesome park to take a stroll in. (Already is)

If the hotel has to be a wall like structure fronting the south or north border, then I'd prefer it front Reno.

Convention center reflects challenges of Oklahoma City's MAPS 3 | News OK (http://newsok.com/convention-center-reflects-challenges-of-oklahoma-citys-maps-3/article/3778859?custom_click=rss)

depends upon cost of a contract to play there... if the cheasapeake arena is willing to work with them on a price... then yes, it will be there. the houston rockets and the AHL Houston Aeros share a stadium, the Spurs and the AHL Rampage share... so we could as well, as long as the contract works. I still think there is a need for a cheaper arena in this city as well, and i think it should be at the fairgrounds. the arena there now is really in bad shape when you get to looking at it, and so i'm not sure if renovation is the right move, or as i have said before, perhaps this is something for MAPS IV is a demo and rebuilding of the fairgrounds arena. it's about the right size, just an awkward configuration, and needs some massive renovations and amenities.

Hi jedicurt, I am new on here. I think the Fairgrounds Arena is the perfect size for the Barons and the layout of the arena seems perfectly suited for hockey , and with maybe a new facade, new seating, and a freshening of the concourses, it could be useable for the Barons. Some parts from the Cox Arena could even be used, such as the jumbotron, seats, etc. The problem lies in the cost of such a renovation. Would it be cheaper to simply tear down the arena and build a small to medium size arena similar to the Allen Events Center in Texas? If so, maybe that would be a better option. Build a multipurpose arena for the Barons that could still host the numerous horse and livestock events currently held at State Fair Arena...

http://www.okc.gov/maps3/M3ConCtrConcepts.pdf

Scheme three offers great views from the park and boulevard as you enter the center core. Hopefully they can integrate some private development from the second scheme and in turn gain a main anchor to the core redevelopment.

I like that they were able to create the underground ramp access via what is essentially a side road that will be hidden behind future in-fill but I'll be honest, I don't know how they can build any of this for $250 million even if the land was free.

Those various views from the new park looking towards the CC pretty much sell the concept of putting the hotel on the Cox site.

The hotel just frames the Myriad Gardens quite well and creates a nice street wall along Robinson.

Go ahead and add infill buildings where the rest of the Cox site is, and our Mystery Tower to the west of the Myriads with more infil on that lot. And you have a glorious park area surrounded by new, modern builds.


Having the Hotel on the Cox site also make it easier accessibility for the train hub.

There's got to be some kind of master plan for this area for Larry Nichols to support it so heavily. There has to be. I'll bet he has seen the plans for the Mystery Tower, has a pretty good idea what Continental Resources is going to do, knows what is going to happen to the Cox Center, etc.

There's got to be some kind of master plan for this area for Larry Nichols to support it so heavily. There has to be. I'll bet he has seen the plans for the Mystery Tower, has a pretty good idea what Continental Resources is going to do, knows what is going to happen to the Cox Center, etc.

You can bet on all that.

He's on all the major committees and is more or less the self-appointed recruiter of companies to downtown.

He was heavily involved with getting Continental to move to OKC and set up the Project 180 TIF specifically to make downtown more attractive for other HQ's.


I'm glad he's doing all of this, especially since he was responsible for putting lots of money where his mouth is in terms of the Devon complex, Bicentennial Park and several other projects. And it's very clear that the convention center and hotel are a big part of his vision and plan.

You can bet on all that.

He's on all the major committees and is more or less the self-appointed recruiter of companies to downtown.

He was heavily involved with getting Continental to move to OKC and set up the Project 180 TIF specifically to make downtown more attractive for other HQ's.


I'm glad he's doing all of this, especially since he was responsible for putting lots of money where his mouth is in terms of the Devon complex, Bicentennial Park and several other projects. And it's very clear that the convention center and hotel are a big part of his vision and plan.

Shame we can't just hear his vision / plan. With his money backing it, it's probably inevitable. Then we could proceed on to the also-inevitable fight between his acolytes, detractors, the new urbanists that like it (or hate it) and the traditionalists that hate it (or like it).

Shame we can't just hear his vision / plan. With his money backing it, it's probably inevitable. Then we could proceed on to the also-inevitable fight between his acolytes, detractors, the new urbanists that like it (or hate it) and the traditionalists that hate it (or like it).

Just curious, what is the difference between ‘new urbanist’ and ‘traditionalist’?

Anyhow, if there is a grand plan it would be nice to see it, but I suspect if it does exist, it is centered around one entity and not necessarily for the benefit of downtown at-large.

Just curious, what is the difference between ‘new urbanist’ and ‘traditionalist’?



Ditto.

Just curious, what is the difference between ‘new urbanist’ and ‘traditionalist’?

Anyhow, if there is a grand plan it would be nice to see it, but I suspect if it does exist, it is centered around one entity and not necessarily for the benefit of downtown at-large.

Concur with your statement.
FWIW, I just picked those two "titles" out of the air to highlight that regardless of what the "plan" was, there was going to be robust "discussion." I suppose you would say that the "new urbanist" and the "traditionalist" are the same, but it depends on what tradition you celebrate, eh? If you grew up in the 'burbs, then your "traditionalist" would be opposed to a "new urbanist." Just titles, JTF, even if I believe in the power of using the correct words.

Thanks Dubya61. cafeboeuf can correct me if I am wrong but I think someone who supports the widely accepted practice of Euclidean zoning (aka urban sprawl) would be call a 'conventionalist'.