I've just been taking this in silently for the last couple of days, but while reading these last few posts something occurred to me. Will the boulevard north of the C2S East site be low enough (or could be built low enough) that it could be capped for more pedestrian friendly access to the north?

I dunno about low enough for a cap but the opportunity to do a bridge over or tunnel under to help move people quicker "might" be able to help it not be so daunting to cross or wait at the new boulevard. I think it was in Andrew Stewart's design for the boulevard he had something of the sorts for that intersection. Its clear the main problem with the C2S south site is the few extra mins it adds to the hotels and entertainment but like Urbanized said, there has to be some creative thinking to make this work for whatever site that is chosen.

That OG&E site on the south side of the boulevard had been identified as a potential parking location even when the convention center was slated for the original site (#7 below):

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc032114f.jpg

Perhaps my memory is faulty. Wasn't one of the issues a while back on moving the substation that it would cost far more to relocate than the 30 million set aside would address, like 2 or 2.5 times as much? If that is correct, is the land including the substation still affordable?

^

I think the cost was always an estimate, just like everything else with this project.

That's a good point. There are a lot of assumptions being made here that the C2S location is affordable, and that the years-old estimate to move the substation holds true (which, BTW, still effectively results in $45+ million in site acquisition if all monies are utilized). I think the entire endeavor requires a hard reset and a very detailed look at all possible options - including the potential bookability and economic impact of each - based upon the latest information we have rather than what we thought years ago.

Right now, the only firmly-entrenched, inarguable variable is distance.

The path to a "failed" facility consists of a walk of over 10 minutes. We will automatically fall out of consideration for many if not most events.

Anybody able to come up with a reasonably objective national ranking of ~200-250,000 SF facilities and their walking distance to key restaurant and hotel amenities? I'm particularly interested in exactly which other Tier 2 facilities in the country lie in the 9 minute to 11 minute walking range that we would apparently lose business to by going with the C2S East location.

Why wouldnt we do the event center parking then do a bridge over reno and turn south and take all the parking lots to I-40. We would have to enclose part of the canal, which would be awesome, and provide a resting spot on the canal for those hot days. Heck you could add some restaurants and stores in there to help support the cost of the convention center. Pete/Chad, please tell me why this is a horrible idea.

It would also put the boathouse district in play.

Anybody able to come up with a reasonably objective national ranking of ~200-250,000 SF facilities and their walking distance to key restaurant and hotel amenities? I'm particularly interested in exactly which other Tier 2 facilities in the country lie in the 9 minute to 11 minute walking range that we would apparently lose business to by going with the C2S East location.

Remember, the convention center would not be open for business until 2019 and that was on the old schedule; I'm sure it will now be pushed back and maybe by a year or more.

Now that the old cc site is once again slated for private development, you have to consider that that land is likely to contain hotels and restaurants and other amenities.

And Central Park itself will have a cafe on the Boulevard and probably another one at Union Station.

Here's a photo of the George R. Brown Convention Center in Houston under construction in 1986...

10302

Here's a photo of the same area in 2012 on the 25th anniversary of the facility...

10299

Here's a Google Earth image of the area today...

10300

Here's a current image of Discovery Greens, which is bordered by the GRB...

10301

When the GRB was built in 1986, the southeast edge of downtown Houston was Austin Street, which was several blocks away. Part of the purpose in the site selection for the GRB was to encourage growth and mixed-use redevelopment of that area of downtown, including Discovery Greens park and high-density residential development.

It seems there are similarities between the GRB site and Houston's existing development in 1986 and consideration of the C2S site for OKC's convention center.

^

Very interesting!

Thanks for that perspective.

We have to keep in mind what C2S will look like 5, 10 and 20 years from now.

Teo, these aren't exaggeratations. They are industry standards and best practices, and the walk time numbers I am using are obtainable by you or anybody use, derived from the walk time distance measuring tool in Google Maps, which assumes a standard 3MPH pace (a brisk walk speed, I might add). You're welcome to put in the work yourself; just please make sure that you factor hotel footprint, loading dock locations, likely entrances, etc. it's not rocket surgery.

Be fair and impartial, as I have been. And yes, I have been these things; I have little against the C2S site other than the distance/walkability issue, which will cause a large number of conventions to refuse to even consider OKC.

I'm not saying you're exaggerating the industry's standards. I'm saying that you seem to exaggerate walk times. The other day walks you said would 15-17 or 10-12 minutes turned out to be 11/12 or 7/8 in Google Maps, and That's with Google Maps taking less efficient routes (because apparently you can't walk on Shields).

I'm also trying to figure out why at no point in this thread you've ever acknowledged the point that future development, some of which would likely be done before the convention center opens up, will likely be in place, and much more planned. We may miss out on a few conventions the first 3 to 5 years, but from years 5 to 10, I think it's very reasonable to assume that the business will grow as the areas grow. Yes, unfortunately Bricktown is no longer the *center* of the equation, but they would by no means be left out. I don't think Convention Planners expect ALL amenities to be within 10 minute walking distance to the exclusion of everything outside. I think they expect an acceptable number of amenities within walking distance (and I truly believe that that acceptable number will be developed within the next 10-15 years) and that what lies just to the outside can be a big selling point.

My first choice would have been BT because of many hotels and restaurants available in the area. However with height restrictions they impose, it would eliminate the CC Hotel and that is a deal breaker. I loved the idea of the Lumbar Yard and the city going in with some investors to develop this area. It would be amazing with the CC and CC Hotel and perhaps a couple of mid or high rise residential buildings. It would also force the eyesore that is the Cotton Mill to go away.

I am very much liking Pete's new proposed area that is basically just a block or so away from the original site. I think this needs to be the area chosen as the city leaders can redeem themselves from how they dropped the ball for over 2 years and put us in this situation in the first place. Perhaps the land can be acquired in a prompt manner so that things can get back on schedule and they can deliver what they promised- with the taxpayers money. They need to be held accountable for misusing our money and trust, as they don't need to be getting a free pass on this. Money has been spent already on the other site and 2 years later they give us this news. I am sorry but they need to be held accountable and the ball needs to be in their court to make good on their word or they should end up in court themselves.

With that said, I rule out BT. I would love to see the Lumbar Yard be chosen if an investor or two join forces and want to develop that into a spectacular area that rids us of that eye and nose sore we know as the Cotton Mill. If that doesn't happen, I am all for Pete's choice of the C2S and putting up an amazing 30 plus story hotel facing the north which would provide great views of the skyline, BT, and MBG to the north and the new park to the south and west. I would limit any view that looks to the east and that awful looking Cotton Mill. If I had the money I would buy that place and develop it and make it beautiful for the city to be proud of but I don't at this time so I am hoping that someday soon it will be done.

One thing to me, as much as walkability, is visibility. When planning a convention, if folks can't SEE places to walk to, for meals and such, that kills it. 10 minutes, 5 minutes, etc, doesn't matter if it's not clearly apparent where restaurants and such are from the convention site. I've fixed it in the past by arranging food trucks and such to be at the venue during meal times, but it's a consideration I've addressed when making decisions.

One thing to me, as much as walkability, is visibility. When planning a convention, if folks can't SEE places to walk to, for meals and such, that kills it. 10 minutes, 5 minutes, etc, doesn't matter if it's not clearly apparent where restaurants and such are from the convention site. I've fixed it in the past by arranging food trucks and such to be at the venue during meal times, but it's a consideration I've addressed when making decisions.

That's a fair point but could be addressed by quality way-finding signs and such.

Also, if you stepped out of the Cox Center today, nearby eateries are not very obvious.

In fact, about a year ago I was in OKC on business and one of the men I was dealing with was staying downtown. He had been there a couple of days and asked me about places to eat and did not even realize that all of Bricktown was on the other side of the underpass to the east.

Also, if we could cap the last quarter segment between Robinson and Shields, that would be a GREAT place for a Food Truck park. That would be a 15 foot drop over about 750 feet, which I think is perfectly doable.

I think we've also not really talked about the ability to incorporate park elements into conventions.

The Great Lawn will be right there and that would certainly be an alluring possible use for conventions…it's like a built in outdoor facility.

That's a fair point but could be addressed by quality way-finding signs and such.

Also, if you stepped out of the Cox Center today, nearby eateries are not very obvious.

In fact, about a year ago I was in OKC on business and one of the men I was dealing with was staying downtown. He had been there a couple of days and asked me about places to eat and did not even realize that all of Bricktown was on the other side of the underpass to the east.

Downtown was actually one of my issues. I ran events there, and we had to bring in food trucks, because the only thing folks seemed to be able to find were the hotel restaurants, and subway. Bricktown was too far for them to realize. Which seemed nuts to me but was a reality of the venue. We even printed maps and signage to the local places for our attendees. I've been doing events in MWC the past couple of years and have worked with the VCB, and they provide signage and fliers as well, but if folks can't see if from the door, they tend to ignore them. It's frustrating.

Height restrictions in Bricktown don't eliminate the possibility of a convention hotel. Right now there is a new 11 story hotel in place, and the City and BUDC have previously indicated a willingness to make exceptions for the right project. It would especially be likely on the fringe of the district. Please stop spreading the false idea that a Bricktown location would harm the chances for a hotel; it's patently false.

Teo, I stand by the numbers I've quoted. I used much care in researching them. By the way, the rationale and figures I'm using are the same ones used by former Mayor Kirk Humphreys when he argued against the C2S location early in the original debate.

Regarding new hotels and amenities to support the site in the future, that's all a guess. First of all, why does it make sense to ignore an absolute wealth of existing hotels and amenities...the single thing that currently makes us semi-competitive even with a bad building? And who says that hotels and entertainment are the best use of C2S land, when it's possible that the best use is housing and/or office or even retail? You're now FORCING C2S to be one thing, even if that is not in the city's best interest.

And finally, placing the CC there is no guarantee that they will appear. Dallas recently had to lure/subsidize restaurants to the complex around its convention facility - despite the recent addition of a massive, taxpayer-funded convention hotel - because the private sector hadn't built dining/entertainment options within the walkable bubble, and convention-goers were complaining that there were few food options, the walk was too far, and getting to other areas by train took too long.

Choosing the wrong location can easily lead to required future subsidy. Which completely negates the perceived affordability of a wrong site.

Let's hope our hotel is much taller than 11 stories. Something north of 40 is preferable.

The parking garage on the boulevard could easily contain retail on that side.

But as previously noted, the boulevard will be below grade at that point anyway.

And please, tone down the rhetoric.

Just a note. While the blvd will be at a lower elevation that what it is currently. It doesn't really need to be "below grade". As in relates to this site. You could absolute build to the level of the new road. As that is how the sidewalks will be.

Clear the peake can't do that. But new construction would not have an issue with it

I just wanted to say this has been generally a very interesting and excellent discussion.

As always, I'm not saying my points are 100% correct, I'm just trying to find possible solutions and evaluate them from a pro/con side.

I also happen to know that people involved in making the final decisions have been reading.

Just a note. While the blvd will be at a lower elevation that what it is currently. It doesn't really need to be "below grade". As in relates to this site. You could absolute build to the level of the new road. As that is how the sidewalks will be.

Clear the peake can't do that. But new construction would not have an issue with it

Exactly.

One thing I am curious about is using google maps I get a 10-14 minute walk to the Canal and most of the attractions in Bricktown from where the convention center was supposed to be. So while I understand the importance of the 10 minute rule it seems they were already stretching it thin to begin with. Almost every location adds about 2 mins of walking time compared with the original location.

Just a note. While the blvd will be at a lower elevation that what it is currently. It doesn't really need to be "below grade". As in relates to this site. You could absolute build to the level of the new road. As that is how the sidewalks will be.

Clear the peake can't do that. But new construction would not have an issue with it

Good to know. Thanks.

I just wanted to say this has been generally a very interesting and excellent discussion.

As always, I'm not saying my points are 100% correct, I'm just trying to find possible solutions and evaluate them from a pro/con side.

I also happen to know that people involved in making the final decisions have been reading.

I have loved the conversation in this thread the past two days. lots of great ideas and pros and Cons. I have learned a lot by following this site after stumbling upon it many years ago looking for information on a development. I am not in the business as many of the posters are and am just a curious and enthusiastic citizen of OKC who loves to follow our progress. So for all I ahve learned and continue to learn I thank each and every one of the people who give great contributions.

I think its important to note that the C2S convention center site being discussed IS part of the official Core to Shore Plan adopted in 2006 by the City of OKC.

Here's the Master Redevelopment Plan...

10305

Here's the link to the City's Core to Shore web page with more information...

Core to Shore Plan (http://www.okc.gov/Planning/coretoshore/index.html)

Let's hope our hotel is much taller than 11 stories. Something north of 40 is preferable.

I am with you on that. So Urbanized, I was just quoting what most have been saying about the BT height requirements. I thought that to be the case and was saying why I thought it should be ruled out. So, are you saying that if this site was chosen, that you are confident that a 30 plus story hotel could be built there? Keep in mind, we have already had a huge curve ball thrown at us with this latest fiasco. How awful would it be if the BT site was chosen and late in the process the CC Hotel was shot down because BT wouldn't allow a 32 story hotel to be built? Like I said, I would love to see it go in BT for many reasons and we are on the same page there. I also like the Lumbar Yard area if some investors joined in and helped develop that area as well. The C2S would have been my 3rd choice but I am seeing the positives in this site more than the negatives that I once had.

One thing I am curious about is using google maps I get a 10-14 minute walk to the Canal and most of the attractions in Bricktown from where the convention center was supposed to be. So while I understand the importance of the 10 minute rule it seems they were already stretching it thin to begin with. Almost every location adds about 2 mins of walking time compared with the original location.
I (and others) had similar concerns with that site too, but they were significantly offset by <10 minute walkable proximity to existing full-service hotels and at least SOME dining (though much of Bricktown was outside the bubble, as you point out). That same advantage disappears with the C2S location. Some have made the (wrong) suggestion that I'm trying to protect Bricktown, but I'm going to reiterate that for the purposes of this discussion I am only talking about protecting the viability of the CC itself, and the protection of the convention industry associated with it. These concerns are posted as a citizen and a taxpayer as much as anything.

Once the decision was made though, it's my job as an industry partner to salute and carry on, and we will all do our best to make a new location as successful as possible. It would be the same if C2S is selected. But until a selection is made, I'm rooting for the decision-makers to carefully consider ALL factors and ALL locations, and I have confidence that they will do so.

I think its important to note that the C2S convention center site being discussed IS part of the official Core to Shore Plan adopted in 2006 by the City of OKC.

Yes. AND that site was reaffirmed in subsequent studies.

In fact, a big part of the legal conflict between the City and REHCO (owners of the Core to Shore North site) was that the City would not allow them to annex the streets and alleys between their properties and thus did not want to pay them for that land.

The City filed a document that stated the only way those streets and alleys would be closed would be for the convention center (they are shown as closed in all the plans proposed for that site).

But REHCO countered with several studies (including the one Hutch is referencing) that all showed the cc on the east side of the park, AND the streets closed for private development on the subject site.

It was a very compelling argument and it seems the City recognized it as such, because the whole reason for the Cathy O'Connor and other depositions was to hammer on this issue, and once the City knew Cathy would be forced to testify (would have been today, in fact) they dropped the case like it was hot.

Height restrictions in Bricktown don't eliminate the possibility of a convention hotel. Right now there is a new 11 story hotel in place, and the City and BUDC have previously indicated a willingness to make exceptions for the right project. It would especially be likely on the fringe of the district. Please stop spreading the false idea that a Bricktown location would harm the chances for a hotel; it's patently false.

Teo, I stand by the numbers I've quoted. I used much care in researching them. By the way, the rationale and figures I'm using are the same ones used by former Mayor Kirk Humphreys when he argued against the C2S location early in the original debate.

Regarding new hotels and amenities to support the site in the future, that's all a guess. First of all, why does it make sense to ignore an absolute wealth of existing hotels and amenities...the single thing that currently makes us semi-competitive even with a bad building? And who says that hotels and entertainment are the best use of C2S land, when it's possible that the best use is housing and/or office or even retail? You're now FORCING C2S to be one thing, even if that is not in the city's best interest.

And finally, placing the CC there is no guarantee that they will appear. Dallas recently had to lure/subsidize restaurants to the complex around its convention facility - despite the recent addition of a massive, taxpayer-funded convention hotel - because the private sector hadn't built dining/entertainment options within the walkable bubble, and convention-goers were complaining that there were few food options, the walk was too far, and getting to other areas by train took too long.

Choosing the wrong location can easily lead to required future subsidy. Which completely negates the perceived affordability of a wrong site.

Overall, if those making the decisions come to the decision that Bricktown is a better choice than C2S East, I won't mind it going in Bricktown. I think Bricktown is a super great idea for a convention center, but it has to make economic sense, and that's where I start to worry. Maybe it ends up being a smaller venue but does so well because of its location that we don't have to worry. I feel like the fact that C2S East has the most room for expansion is a big selling point, and I also think that it could be very nice to have some hotels on the East side of the park that could be used by people coming in to visit families in the community on the Westside of the Park.

What I am adamantly opposed to is giving up the Cox site for a convention center. I'd rather not have a convention center at all, because in my eyes, nothing is more important than a home run development on that site, which a convention center most certainly is not. I'd prefer us not even discuss the Cox site so that city people can understand that we expect world class development on that site.

At some point, if either the Bricktown or C2S East site end up being prohibitively expensive in acquisition, we have to really give consideration to either 1. Finding an alternative use for the money (expanded Streetcar WOO HOO!!!) or 2. voting for an extension of MAPS3 billed as such to complete the convention center.

Because backups are always good, I would kind of like to explore Bricktown North in more detail.

Why is the two-lane road such an issue? I realize for traffic flow, but our city packs tons of cars downtown for events/games, and I feel like there is hardly even any bumper to bumper traffic in Bricktown.

Would it be possible to build the loading docks under the train tracks?

I am guessing that traffic would increase in DD. Would this be a good thing or bad thing?

What other big issues can we think of?

North Bricktown didn't even make the semi-finals for consideration, however it seems to be the only option now in Bricktown.

I took some time this AM and took a hard look at sites in East Bricktown and I can't figure out a way it's even remotely possible.

If I was charged with finding a new site, I'd be spending a lot of time trying to verify the cost of relocating the substation and the land acquisition costs for the land east of the park.

Then, I'd be looking at something like North BT as a Plan B.


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/option2.jpg

Would it be possible to build the loading docks under the train tracks?


Highly doubt it, getting anything from the railroad takes an act of congress.

Well, we're kind of stuck in a bad position here. The city is going to have to make some difficult decisions on this.

"Outside the box" options that I see:

1) Steal a bunch of land from the Oklahoma School of Science and Mathematics. Maybe build it at the land on 10th and Walnut. You're right next to the school, and right across the street from the new GE Research building. Target conventions that are energy-based. Incorporate the new "innovation district" stuff into the plan and move forward on it at the same time. Improve the bridge over the interstate on 10th so that it is much more pedestrian friendly. People have a very short walk to Automobile Alley and the restaurants there.

Pros: Land we already own. Good street access. In an area we are seeking to redevelop. Helps connect two important parts of the downtown area. Close to food and shopping.
Cons: Not close at all to any hotels. Not very walkable right now.


More options later. Gotta go to lunch.

^^^^^^^
I actually would be pretty enthusiastic about that Main Street site if the City could pull off a creative approach to the admittedly challenging site. The benefits, as I see them:


Tremendously great walkable proximity to existing full-service hotels
Site mostly already owned by the City
Would not create a new super-block, and due to existing rail and topography would be less dispruptive to surrounding neighborhood than many sites
Walkably convenient not only to Bricktown hotels/dining/entertainment, but also to Deep Deuce and even Automobile Alley

I do hope it gets a good look.

Oh, one more thought before I forget.

We're in a situation now where it looks like we don't have the money to do a full fledged convention center the way it needs to be done. What about not using this as a replacement for the Cox? Kick that can down the road a bit. What about building a more specialized energy convention center or medical mart convention center, or whatever the term is. Save the truly massive "OKC Convention Center" for MAPS 4, supplement it with some other funding sources, and build a smaller convention center for the time being. Use it to supplement the conventions the Cox has right now.

When you've got a buyer lined up for the land the Cox sits on, you use some of the money from the sale of that land to begin construction of the new big convention center somewhere else. Start getting that land purchased now and aim for an opening in 2030 or so.

Pete, I think a possible Main Street (Bricktown/DD) location consideration should also involve the land east of the Walnut/Finley Bridge. For instance, the CC hotel could be on the east side of the bridge. Future growth and/or parking structure could be located there. The clearance of that bridge is so high that you could actually build underneath. I think it should also from the outset look to preserve the rail spur in some way, or it would receive fierce opposition from rail advocates.

I've already thought maybe we could just give the remaining CC funds to the streetcar and then pass a bond or perhaps special tax for a new convention center. Although, as it has been said here, it would be a hard campaign to lobby for.

Is that a good idea or no?

The convention center was the least popular of all the MAPS 3 projects according to a poll published by the Gazette.

This is their one shot and they know it.

So are they just building the bare minimum of what they can and expand it after it's built? I really can't stand the lack of lack of knowledge among voters here. Tons of other cities seem to be having no issue building 600+ million dollar convetion center yet our 250 million dollar one is getting crap.

If I had my druthers I'd go with the North Bricktown site and hope someone can cleverly figure how to make the site layout work. Look at that hotel stock image, and then think about all the additional hotels that have been built since and that are in the works inside even the inner circle let alone the outer.

Remember, the Skirvin made a proposal to greatly expand to the north and open up the awful Santa Fe Garage to the North Bricktown site, all to serve the cc.

Starting to look like a lost opportunity now.

Here is that Skirvin proposal:

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

This guy knows a thing or two about being legit

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JonAo5RDkm8/maxresdefault.jpg

I think its important to note that the C2S convention center site being discussed IS part of the official Core to Shore Plan adopted in 2006 by the City of OKC...


Is it? With all due respect, Hutch, the first plans for the original MAPS showed the ballpark south of the old I-40, on land now occupied by the SOUTH Bass Pro/Bricktown Landing parking lot, and showed the canal running down the middle of Reno. The canal was also originally supposed to be made up of three separate segments. New information came to light, and the early, conceptual ideas were improved upon.

Most planners and developers these days will tell you that a strong resemblance between what was committed to paper in 2006 and what will ultimately be built in C2S is unlikely, and that the differences will probably end up being for the best.

I'm not sure how relevant a lot of well-intentioned wishful thinking from nearly a decade ago is to the CC issue at hand in 2015.

What is the elevation/water table difference at the North Bricktown site compared to the now defunct location? Could we go below ground a level or two in order to leave room for the Tulsa rail connection and double up a bit more on the available acreage? I'm thinking of the Moscone Center in SF at the moment, ignoring the expansion building it has lots of underground space compared to some of the convention centers I have been to.

I doubt it, given how close it is to the BNSF tracks. It might require years to placate them, if it ever happened. Also, think about how ugly the North Bricktown vistas would be. You're looking at the backside of everything. And imagine traffic back there. To me it's the least attractive option.

Yeah, there were pretty good reasons they eliminated North BT pretty early on.

Still, besides the C2S South site, we need another option; at least as a Plan B.

I still think the UHaul site is a doable option.

The hotel fronting EKG would keep the area from being parking garage dominant, then you can do a garage against the boulevard that will not even be at grade with the street, so you don't sacrifice boulevard frontage with a garage. I am not sure if the access street was going to still be there from the Boulevard to 'Compress St.', but if not you could eliminate that altogether.

Basically like this:

http://i.imgur.com/ECM98Rz.png

Betts, I am not sure what you mean by the North Bricktown vistas only seeing the backside of everything.

Like I said earlier and Pete just mentioned, we need a Plan B. In my opinion, this is one of two viable options. Even if it's least attractive, that still makes it number two. (Barring any new location.)

Here is that Skirvin proposal:

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

So there is no way that this could be revisited?

Wow. So now we are going to tear down that building on the uHual site? That looks like a nice building underneath that metal.

yeah really, because that looks like a great plan

When people are looking at various site possibilities, keep in mind that the main exhibit hall has to be at 330,000 square feet all together and all on one level.

That is a huge footprint and it has to be rectangular. AND you have to allow for docks, pre-function rooms on the same level.

When I overlay that size through Google Earth, I can't make any sites work but C2S South; that is unless we want to spend $100 million or more to acquire existing properties and we already know that is not going to happen.

I like the person who did the comparisons to Houston's GRB to this. That area of downtown Houston was pretty desolate when the GRB was built. Granted, there have been some things built around there that certainly helped development that we won't have here in OKC (Minute Maid Park, Toyota Center, BBVA Compass Stadium), but it's a testament to what absolutely could happen in OKC. There was another thread recently where a poster was talking about properties along Hubcap Alley, that could benefit from this (would benefit anyway with the park). With all due respect to Urbanized's background and knowledge, I think I can get behind the C2S South (east, whatever we are calling it) plan.

Also, maybe someone more privy to the street car developments can help me here, but the C2S South site would be an open door to easy linkage to Capitol Hill right? Not sure how far down the road that is, just a thought.

Also, maybe someone more privy to the street car developments can help me here, but the C2S South site would be an open door to easy linkage to Capitol Hill right? Not sure how far down the road that is, just a thought.

Definitely.

Right now, they show the next phase running down Walker but if the cc goes to the site by Central Park, then it would probably make sense for the route to go straight down Robinson all the way to Capitol Hill.

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

Depending on the new CC location, there will likely need to be an adjustment or two to the route, but nothing major. At least we weren't under construction when this news came out. I am speaking off the top of my head, however, recognizing the consultants and engineers are the ultimate authority. But you are right- Capitol Hill is a straight shot down Shields.

Here is that Skirvin proposal:

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


The biggest problem for the North Bricktown site is that the Intermodal Hub Study and Master Plan for Santa Fe Station requires a right-of-way envelope and elevated ramp across the site in order to provide effective connectivity into and out of Santa Fe Station for future Commuter Rail, Intercity Rail and/or High-Speed Rail services to the Adventure District, Midwest City, Tulsa and other destinations to the east. The earlier convention center proposal for this site would have eliminated that connection. Currently, the City is trying to find a way to develop a parking garage on the site that would also preserve the necessary rail connectivity. So far, they have not come up with a workable solution. Siting the convention center there would necessitate the same design considerations. It's likely a fatal flaw, unless you're willing to disregard the connectivity requirements for Santa Fe Station.

Here's the initial operating design for Santa Fe (two platforms utilizing the existing terminal area):

10307

Here's the future expansion design for Santa Fe (three platforms and an expanded terminal area):

10308

If the Uhaul site is considered then they might as well stop construction on the east portion of the boulevard now because it will connect to nothing. Oklahoma Ave was to be the only connecting street into Bricktown from the boulevard. Lose that intersection and the next is all the way to Robinson, which already has an exit from I-40.