It looks like Broadway Ave realignment is no longer happening? They plan on shutting down that road completely?

I agree about the roundabout. I would like to think it’s a space issue but that’s obviously not the case. They need to build it as a two lane roundabout. They aren’t that hard to use.

The Broadway realignment is still happening, just south of SW 4th, which has always been the plan.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/ccgararge031519d.jpg

Ah. Thank you for the information.

Just going off the preliminary plans above there seems to be a missed opportunity to actually make the west side bike lane protected like the image below. Now it's just a recipe for car doors hitting cyclists, for cars having to cross the bike lane to park, and no buffer between moving traffic and cyclists.

I understand the need for potential food trucks being able to park next to the park and that there's probably not going to immediately be enough cyclists to justify it but this street feels like the natural corridor following the upper and lower parks for bike commuters from the southside and also downtown/midtowners connecting to the river trails. Could eventually see high volume cycle traffic. Seems very shortsighted.

https://i.imgur.com/kiKvlWb.jpg

^

Bike lanes on OKC streets continue to be an afterthought if they are even considered at all.

yeah they even advocate for riding on the sidewalks on the 10 ft wide "multimodal" path. I bet as a defense, the city will say, no we have TWO bike options. The bike lane and the multi-modal path, what more do you want? But really both options are subpar. What if there are food trucks blocking the "bike lanes" and then there are long lines across the "multimodal path" blocking that?

It's actually infuriating to think that we have spent literally billions on new streets and infrastructure in the core -- with the unusual opportunity to design things from scratch -- and we still can't implement the most fundamental bike system that most cities have had for decades and did so without the luxury of completely rebuilding everything around it.

So now we'll be stuck with nearly new infrastructure that won't be touched again for decades. Talk about a massive missed opportunity.

This stuff isn't hard. Everyone else has already done the work to figure out best practices long before we went out and obligated billions. We just chose not to do what everyone already knows should be done.

It's actually infuriating to think that we have spent literally billions on new streets and infrastructure in the core -- with the unusual opportunity to design things from scratch -- and we still can't implement the most fundamental bike system that most cities have had for decades and did so without the luxury of completely rebuilding everything around it.

So now we'll be stuck with nearly new infrastructure that won't be touched again for decades. Talk about a massive missed opportunity.

This stuff isn't hard. Everyone else has already done the work to figure out best practices long before we went out and obligated billions. We just chose not to do what everyone already knows should be done.

Thanks JIm Couch.

To be fair though, it's pretty easy and cheap to re-stripe a street and add vertical dilineators. Might not be as permanent looking as a concrete barrier but works just as well.

To be fair though, it's pretty easy and cheap to re-stripe a street and add vertical dilineators. Might not be as permanent looking as a concrete barrier but works just as well.

Which also is aggravating to think about because of how cheap and easy it really is compared to other types of infrastructure improvements, yet our bike lane infrastructure is minimal and we widen roads all the time.

Basically repeating what you're saying Pete and beating this dead horse but even I, having spent my entire life in Oklahoma and not even riding a bike that often, know that the two below images are vastly different in actually getting people to bike and being safe doing so. Like you said, these things have already been established in road/bike planning as the go-to design especially when you're creating an entire street and park from scratch.

https://i.imgur.com/1UxlrTe.jpg https://i.imgur.com/FqRIbFt.jpg

To be fair though, it's pretty easy and cheap to re-stripe a street and add vertical dilineators. Might not be as permanent looking as a concrete barrier but works just as well.

Exactly! Even just painting some cheap stripes like below would be palatable. Doesn't even have to take up as much room as this example

https://i.imgur.com/B3NpJzK.jpg

^

Those examples aren't just a matter of painting lines. They require wide streets that can accommodate the required width.

There are some places where that isn't difficult but what is particularly inexcusable is not merely working to make the park a few feet narrower or pushing back the curbs a bit on the new OKC Boulevard... Or most of what they did in Project 180. That cost almost nothing.

Anyway, here we are in the current time where almost every city in the world has already figured it out and everyone with access on how to do this, and we simply ignore all that and saddle the city with really bad decisions, just like the dumb mistakes we made decades ago we are still trying to undo... And at fantastic cost with compromised results.

Glad the bike lanes are being incorporated inside the core especially in the example above with the wide lanes. Plenty of space for pedestrians, bikes & traffic.

Great vision for OKC.

Pete I would vote for you if you ran for City Council. Like you mentioned, we have a brand new, blank slate area and we still are not doing the best possible thing. It is pathetic.

Are we surprised by urban planning? I mean, the new boulevard is being constructed right now with a terrible design. Yeah, it's well past time for OKC to return to designing the urban core using urban design principles.

^

Bike lanes on OKC streets continue to be an afterthought if they are even considered at all.

Sorry, not sure of a more appropriate thread, and had been reading this one so it was fresh in my mind. Was on Lackmeyer's chat this morning and they were talking about bike lanes on Venice Blvd. For those that don't know, it's a 2 lane completely residential median-separated street from 36th to 23rd and has pretty low traffic counts. I live on 35th/Venice and see absolutely no need for bike lanes there when there are other streets that desperately need them. I suspect the ones on Venice will just be sharrows (tier 2 facilities, according to OKC's plan), and according to OKC's plan, they're part of a set that goes from 63rd down to 23rd (goes down Villa from 36th to 35th, then jumps over to Venice, then at 23rd (I believe) it jumps back over to Villa (I believe). Anyway, question is "Why put bike lanes in on residential streets like these?" I'm all for them if they're done in the right place and the right way, but this part on residential streets just kind of seems like a waste of paint and time, they could spend the money better on putting them in on existing major streets (if at all possible given the physical limitations).

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/convention032819c.jpg

Great picture! Just doesn't do it justice, it looks absolutely massive coming from the south on this street!

Sorry, not sure of a more appropriate thread, and had been reading this one so it was fresh in my mind. Was on Lackmeyer's chat this morning and they were talking about bike lanes on Venice Blvd. For those that don't know, it's a 2 lane completely residential median-separated street from 36th to 23rd and has pretty low traffic counts. I live on 35th/Venice and see absolutely no need for bike lanes there when there are other streets that desperately need them. I suspect the ones on Venice will just be sharrows (tier 2 facilities, according to OKC's plan), and according to OKC's plan, they're part of a set that goes from 63rd down to 23rd (goes down Villa from 36th to 35th, then jumps over to Venice, then at 23rd (I believe) it jumps back over to Villa (I believe). Anyway, question is "Why put bike lanes in on residential streets like these?" I'm all for them if they're done in the right place and the right way, but this part on residential streets just kind of seems like a waste of paint and time, they could spend the money better on putting them in on existing major streets (if at all possible given the physical limitations).

I would venture to guess because people travel slower down neighborhood streets than they do major thoroughfares. The issue is design: look at the Boulevard east bound from BT, the speed limit is legit, 25mph. I was going 40 and almost got rear-ended twice from people wanting to go 60. If it were more narrow lanes and more stops in between, people can't get up to such a high rate of speed. Yes, there is a need for people who want to go 40-65 and that is fine, but we need to have the ability for other forms of transportation, such as bikes. And sharrows don't work, in general. The design you shared (where the streets go from north to south) does sound terrible, but would better than people on bikes getting shoved off the road traveling down May Avenue.

My best nomination for a north/south neighborhood for a bike lane would be Drexel.

I would venture to guess because people travel slower down neighborhood streets than they do major thoroughfares. The issue is design: look at the Boulevard east bound from BT, the speed limit is legit, 25mph. I was going 40 and almost got rear-ended twice from people wanting to go 60. If it were more narrow lanes and more stops in between, people can't get up to such a high rate of speed. Yes, there is a need for people who want to go 40-65 and that is fine, but we need to have the ability for other forms of transportation, such as bikes. And sharrows don't work, in general. The design you shared (where the streets go from north to south) does sound terrible, but would better than people on bikes getting shoved off the road traveling down May Avenue.

My best nomination for a north/south neighborhood for a bike lane would be Drexel.

I pretty much agree with all you said. May Ave (or Western, or any of our major arteries) is not a place for bikes, despite riders that try to do so (yeah, you *can* ride a bike wherever you want, mostly, but why anybody *would* ride on May Ave just baffles me), it would have to be widened and have actual, real bike lanes put in (but that ain't gonna happen).

Riding bikes through and having a bike "path" through residential streets is great, but I just don't see the need to spend one dime on paint or signs for that when there are so many other major streets that desperately need lanes done that should be the priority. Drexel would be great for one, agreed, but to do it just to do it rather than doing the right thing just isn't smart (but then again, OKC's traffic/street division is not the best and brightest, as we have ample evidence of).

I would venture to guess because people travel slower down neighborhood streets than they do major thoroughfares. The issue is design: look at the Boulevard east bound from BT, the speed limit is legit, 25mph. I was going 40 and almost got rear-ended twice from people wanting to go 60. If it were more narrow lanes and more stops in between, people can't get up to such a high rate of speed. Yes, there is a need for people who want to go 40-65 and that is fine, but we need to have the ability for other forms of transportation, such as bikes. And sharrows don't work, in general. The design you shared (where the streets go from north to south) does sound terrible, but would better than people on bikes getting shoved off the road traveling down May Avenue.

My best nomination for a north/south neighborhood for a bike lane would be Drexel.

east of Oklhaoma the BLVD speed limit is 45

east of Oklhaoma the BLVD speed limit is 45

I drove it two days ago and the only speed limit sign I saw was for 25 mph.

And this is a perfect example of people going the speed the road was designed for instead of an artificial speed limit. :(

You can see the grand ballroom space (the main room) is starting to take shape to the rear of the complex.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/convention033119a.jpg

and this is a perfect example of people going the speed the road was designed for instead of an artificial speed limit. :(

ding, ding, ding!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

east of Oklhaoma the BLVD speed limit is 45

I drive this fairly often and it's actually a gradual stepdown, depending on where you're coming from. When exiting from southbound I-235 to Oklahoma Blvd, the speed initially drops to 55 shortly after exiting. Just before the ramps converge onto the Blvd heading west, the speed drops to 45mph; then drops to 35 on the bridge over the canal. Finally, a little bit before Oklahoma, the speed drops to 25 - right in front of the Harkins theater. The limit remains 25 through the construction zone to the current end at Walker. If you're coming from the eastern terminus at Lincoln, it's 35 from Lincoln to the 35mph sign above the canal. I have not taken the northbound I-235 to Oklahoma Blvd exit though, so I'm unsure of how that ramp is signed - but I assume it's similar to the southbound ramp.

Sorry, my posting doesn’t have anything to do with speed limits and traffic stuff....

Drove by the site earlier today and also on the west side of the park. The center is now appearing so large it is sort of shrinking the park. But, from the west side near the Union station it is really stretching the view of downtown. It is going to look great and be impressive.

Everything down there is just so impressive in person, far more so than any photos or video.

It's going to be really fun to watch the Omni start to add floors.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/convention040619a.jpg

LOVE the reflection, in the above picture, of First National in the new BOK building.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/convention040619b.jpg

LED public art to shine at new convention center (https://www.okctalk.com/content.php?r=610-LED-public-art-to-shine-at-new-convention-center)

Two large glass atriums of the new convention center will feature huge LED light installations that will offer shifting displays based on a live feed from city data portals.


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/conventionart1.jpg


The $1.3 million art installation will be visible from the street and adjacent Scissortail Park and is designed to present fluid and ever-changing movement.

The artwork, dubbed Virtual Sky, was selected from 90 responses after the city issued a call to artists.

Artists Susan Narduli and Tina Aghassian took inspiration from the Oklahoma sky and dynamic forces of nature, new technologies, and Oklahoma City aviation and aerospace.

The lighting seeks to express shifts in the changing sky through technology and will be highly visible to convention goers inside the facility as well as those in the park.

Funded by MAPS 3, the new Oklahoma City convention center is well underway just south of Chesapeake arena and will be complete in 2020.


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/conventionart10.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/conventionart4.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/conventionart5.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/conventionart3.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/conventionart9.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/conventionart7.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/conventionart8.jpg

Is the LED installation the 1% of the project dedicated to public art or is this separate?

Is the LED installation the 1% of the project dedicated to public art or is this separate?

It's part of the 1% of project budget that is required by ordinance to be spent on public art for any city development.

I've been to a music festival that had a very similar display.

I'd almost guarantee the people who were selected for this installation drew inspiration from the design at this festival, they are way too similar not to have.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awqK2GuwfVQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI89_opJR2o

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/convention042619a.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/convention051019a.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/convention042619a.jpg

The Omni Convention Center Hotel 400 S Robinson Avenue at 17 stories should rise 19 feet (two floors) taller than the Renaissance Hotel, pictured middle right in above pic:


Renaissance Hotel (15 floors)
Omni Hotel (17 floors)
Continental Resources Tower (19 floors)

Visually in between the height of the Renaissance & Continental Resources Tower (19 stories) 262 feet high.

The Omni will impact the skyline. The plans indicate quite a few rooms (its difficult to figure out the count) on the 16th and 17th floors are being designed to accommodate NBA players. This will be a small walk from the Omni to the Chesapeake Energy Arena.

I saw the Clippers boarding a bus at the Renaissance Hotel to go one long block to the arena.
That's life in the NBA.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/convention051919b.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/convention053019a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/convention053019b.jpg

153271532815329

Looks intense over here from the street car.

It’s amazing to see the renderings come to life

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/convention060819a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/convention060819b.jpg

Looking at the finished renderings for the garage and housing surrounding it, the convention hotel and the convention center, am I the only one who feels like the Fairfield Inn and Suites is going to be pretty out of place there?

^

It already looks out of scale.

Far smaller than anything else going in around there.

Looking at the finished renderings for the garage and housing surrounding it, the convention hotel and the convention center, am I the only one who feels like the Fairfield Inn and Suites is going to be pretty out of place there?

Yes, but they were pretty smart to make that early investment. Wouldn't surprise me if someone buys them out and turns it into something nicer. Such a young building may not be long for this world or remodeled into condos or something like that.

^

It already looks out of scale.

Far smaller than anything else going in around there.

I wonder if that will improve if and when they build the other half of the property into another hotel.

I wonder if that will improve if and when they build the other half of the property into another hotel.

The city owns all the land in that entire area, apart from the Fairfield.

I doubt they'll sell to another hotel developer. However, I do expect a large hotel or two on the west side of the park in the Strawberry Fields area.

They could double the size of it; make it an oval shaped with 260 plus rooms.

Really feel that Oklahoma City should have gone with no less than 735 rooms with its Omni. Our convention center & conference hotel will be ready for expansion, potential 1,000 rooms three years beyond their initial opening.

The city owns all the land in that entire area, apart from the Fairfield.

Even the rest of the block that the Fairfield is on?

Even the rest of the block that the Fairfield is on?

Yes, apart from a small parking area to the south.

South of 5th is owned by the city.

As part of the first amendment to the purchase agreement between the buyer and OCURA, the surface parking lot was given a variance for the surface lot to allow parking while the CC Garage is being built. Once the garage is constructed, spaces will be available at or below market rate. The buyer has until December 31, 2023 to begin construction of a "commercial or mixed use development" on the parking property in accordance with the Urban Renewal Plan.

It's OCURA though, so we'll see if that has teeth.

Ahh, I bet that is why I was thinking 'additional hotel'.

All this group does is hotels so if they do build something there, you can bet on another one that is very similar.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/convention060819a.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/convention060819b.jpg

These pictures show how truly massive the convention center is!

Totally agree that they underbuilt the Fairfield (should have been at least 8 floors) as this will be highlighted even moreso with the garage and apartment wrap (itself will be 8 floors).

would be nice if they built a tower type expansion of the Fairfield on the southern expanse, facing Shields.

Something along the lines of 12+ floors would be nice and fill in the block without overshadowing the existing 5 floor hotel. They could do a "multi-brand" on the block, Fairfield + Marriott (in the new tower). That'd be nice and could be the 'expansion' cc hotel.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/convention062019a.jpg

Agreed, it looks like some hotel you'd find off a suburban Interstate exit.