Here is a Jpeg of the handout given to council today.

1016

I would strongly recommend watching the video presentation by AJ Kirkpatrick and Russell Claus. The video of that segment of council ought to be retrieved and imbedded if someone knows how to do it. Lot's of dialogue and content.

Interesting dialogue with Greenwell and Russell Claus with regard to the Bricktown Urban Design Commission and recent issue with the parking design. Lots of discussion between Shadid and AJ regarding the new streetcar system and Intermodal hub planned for Bricktown as well.

For what it's worth, I was completely bewildered by Russell Claus' claim that the Chris Johnson story wasn't reported right by "local media." There are only two of us covering it - myself and Brianna Bailey - and we've both delved into the very issues Claus claimed wasn't represented in local coverage. Have Bailey or I left any doubt that the committee does not agree with the idea of creating parking lots along the canal?

Steve, I thought it was weird too. It sounded more like politics as usual. "Blame somebody else when things get gritty."

Anyways, glad you are covering the Strategic Plan and grand developments that will help Bricktown maintain its relevance in downtown renaissance. And Chad, it is great to see a book store emerge in the marketplace and Guestroom find another outlet!

OKC CENTRAL BLOGGING

http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2011/10/18/staring-down-the-800-pound-elephant-in-the-room-part-one/

http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2011/10/18/staring-down-the-800-pound-elephant-in-the-room-part-two/

NEWSOK ARTICLE

Study suggests more emphasis on retail, housing for Bricktown to prosper
The slow emergence of retail along the Bricktown Canal in Oklahoma City is seen as one of the key steps toward the area not being reduced to a restaurant and bar district, according to a study released Tuesday.

BY STEVE LACKMEYER slackmeyer@opubco.com Comment on this article 1
Published: October 19, 2011

The latest retail offerings popping up in Bricktown likely will not be seen as a threat to Penn Square Mall or other popular shopping areas around town.

After all, the addition of an outlet of Edmond's Signature Books in the Bricktown Marketplace along the Bricktown Canal only occupies a few hundred square feet. And when Guestroom Records opens

Read more: http://newsok.com/study-suggests-more-emphasis-on-retail-housing-for-bricktown-to-prosper/article/3614826#ixzz1bCGSwPlj


Read the Bricktown Report

Summary Recommendations for Bricktown by NEWSOK

The Bricktown Strategic Plan lists several actions that can be taken by property owners and merchants, including moving the Bricktown Association into a more visible location, collective marketing and working together on a master plan. The plan also suggests several actions that can be pursued by the city:

Add curbside parking, especially along Reno Avenue between the Bricktown “core” and Lower Bricktown.

Create a pedestrian pathway from Deep Deuce to Bricktown through the Main Street surface parking lots.

Reconnect Oklahoma Avenue from NE 2 in Deep Deuce to Main Street.

Add sidewalks and lighting along Russell M. Perry Avenue between Deep Deuce and Bricktown.

Encourage mixed-use development with parking.

Consider eliminating automatic alcohol and beverage zoning in east Bricktown.

Strengthen parking lot design standards, require existing lots to upgrade to any new standards.

Examine existing rules prohibiting dog walking along the canal, limitations on street vendors.

There's a prohibition on dog walking along the canal? I didn't know about that. We regularly walk our dogs along the canal. We're very careful to clean up after them, if needbe, so perhaps a prohibition on not picking up after your dog would be more pedestrian friendly.

I'm all for encouraging mixed use development, but how do we encourage that? We've all been saying we'd like it and I don't see that having any effect. Is there some sort of stimulus the city could create for Bricktown to encourage development?

I'm not sure I'm that excited about reconnecting Oklahoma. With the creation of LEVEL and the Aloft hotel, street parking for people who want to park in Deep Deuce and walk into Bricktown will be severely limited. It would remove the nicer of our two pocket parks and increase through traffic. I'm pretty happy with the Walnut Bridge and Broadway being the access options. But, I would like a set of steps going down what we call the "cliff route" into Bricktown, which is behind the pocket park where Oklahoma would connect. Most of us who live in my part of Deep Deuce use that to get into Bricktown, and when it rains or there's not much vegetation on the hill, it can be a little tricky to descend.

There's a prohibition on dog walking along the canal? I didn't know about that. We regularly walk our dogs along the canal. We're very careful to clean up after them, if needbe, so perhaps a prohibition on not picking up after your dog would be more pedestrian friendly.

I'm all for encouraging mixed use development, but how do we encourage that? We've all been saying we'd like it and I don't see that having any effect. Is there some sort of stimulus the city could create for Bricktown to encourage development?

I'm not sure I'm that excited about reconnecting Oklahoma. With the creation of LEVEL and the Aloft hotel, street parking for people who want to park in Deep Deuce and walk into Bricktown will be severely limited. It would remove the nicer of our two pocket parks and increase through traffic. I'm pretty happy with the Walnut Bridge and Broadway being the access options. But, I would like a set of steps going down what we call the "cliff route" into Bricktown, which is behind the pocket park where Oklahoma would connect. Most of us who live in my part of Deep Deuce use that to get into Bricktown, and when it rains or there's not much vegetation on the hill, it can be a little tricky to descend.

It would be nice if they had the residents of the two there at the meeting.

Also, zoning would be a way to require mixed use.

Here is the AJ Kirkpatrick video clip from yesterday's council meeting. YouTube arbitrarily selected David Greenwell's image as the starting image, but that should change since I've selected manually AJ's image instead ... that small matter should be rectified later today.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5ekY6P8vcE

Actually, there were some other interesting matters at yesterday's council meeting, as well, and these items will be covered in a separate omnibus thread covering the 10/18/2011 council meeting as soon as all videos have been uploaded to YouTube.

ON EDIT: See the other videos from the 10/18/2011 council meeting at http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=27555.

Also, zoning would be a way to require mixed use.

Zoning doesn't generate mixed-use. A lack of zoning controls generates mixed-use. Land use is over-regulated. The first thing they should do is eliminate all parking requirements associated with new development. Reconnecting Oklahoma back up would also be a big step in the right direction because it will eventually connect back to the new boulevard when I-40 is relocated. Reno and Sheridan should be reduced to two lanes and diagonal parking installed. Reno should also have a grass median installed.

You basically reiterated the same steps the Strategic Plan outlined.

Zoning doesn't generate mixed-use. A lack of zoning controls generates mixed-use. Land use is over-regulated. The first thing they should do is eliminate all parking requirements associated with new development. Reconnecting Oklahoma back up would also be a big step in the right direction because it will eventually connect back to the new boulevard when I-40 is relocated. Reno and Sheridan should be reduced to two lanes and diagonal parking installed. Reno should also have a grass median installed.

Zoning can generate mixed use. I am not sure if zoning is the solution for Bricktown, but a change in zoning needed for all of OKC. The zoning in OKC kills mixed use and promotes automobiles.

Zoning promotes automobiles? You are kidding right? Houston has had very little zoning and it is one of the most spread out and automobile congested cities in America. LA, the same. This is pretty simplistic overview.

I think he's trying to say the specific style of zoning used in most of Oklahoma City promotes automobile use because it stands in the way of high density commercial/residential mixed development.

In what parts of town does the zoning prohibit high density and or mixed use? And when has it been denied? There are a few instances I can specifically recall...one at 36th and Bdway when the neighborhood objected so strongly that it wasn't approved, and secondly, the Bob Funk proposal in btown. I can't recall zoning prohibiting any and I believe that zoning changes can be applied for anyway.

When people WANT to give up their autos they will. When people WANT to quit living in the suburbs they will. To claim the use of autos is caused by zoning is wrong.

Rover - there are tons of zoning regulations that not only promote automobile use - but requires it. OKC requires X parking spaces for each residential unit, per 1000 sq feet of office space, per 1000 sq feet of retail space, per movie screen, etc... Zoning laws prevent bars and schools for being located near each other so you can't have a neighborhood school and a neighborhood bar. Landscaping plans practically prevent walking between adjacent developments without having to jump rows of bushes, walk through flower beds, or have the path totally blocked by a retention pond. I didn't even realize how bad it was until I started riding a bike, I suggest you give it a try. It will probably change your mind.

When walking or riding a bike the phrase “You can’t get there from here” takes on a whole new meaning.

Segregated zoning absolutely has required the use of a car. Residential pod development (aka subdivision) funnels all traffic into usually 1 collector road that makes trying to cross it a death wish. And while Houston might not a have a formal zoning code, it has instead a land-use code. They regulate minimum lots size, minimum impervious area ratios, etc...


OKC has non-buildable lots. Why?

Reconnecting Oklahoma back up would also be a big step in the right direction because it will eventually connect back to the new boulevard when I-40 is relocated.

We assume that is still the case. It would definitely make sense to have Oklahoma as the first at-grade intersection on the boulevard from the east. Connecting Bricktown to Deep Deuce all the way to NE 10 is important IMO as that is the main spine of new development on the east side of downtown.

Rover - there are tons of zoning regulations that not only promote automobile use - but requires it. OKC requires X parking spaces for each residential unit, per 1000 sq feet of office space, per 1000 sq feet of retail space, per movie screen, etc... Zoning laws prevent bars and schools for being located near each other so you can't have a neighborhood school and a neighborhood bar. Landscaping plans practically prevent walking between adjacent developments without having to jump rows of bushes, walk through flower beds, or have the path totally blocked by a retention pond. I didn't even realize how bad it was until I started riding a bike, I suggest you give it a try. It will probably change your mind.

When walking or riding a bike the phrase “You can’t get there from here” takes on a whole new meaning.

Segregated zoning absolutely has required the use of a car. Residential pod development (aka subdivision) funnels all traffic into usually 1 collector road that makes trying to cross it a death wish. And while Houston might not a have a formal zoning code, it has instead a land-use code. They regulate minimum lots size, minimum impervious area ratios, etc...


OKC has non-buildable lots. Why?

Having a parking lot doesn't REQUIRE people to have a car. You confuse cause and effect. What you are implying is the opposite. People naturally want to drive so FORCE them to leave their cars at home if they want to partake of the activity in that building. LOL.

Not serving alcohol in the same area as a school is not a zoning issue, it is a state alcohol law. Don't see how that makes people drive cars.

Landscaping doesn't prohibit walking, but not having sidewalks or bike lanes is the issue. Not having mass trans is the issue.

You have to learn to correctly associate cause and effect. You continuously confuse the two. Associating two things, even if they have the same trends, doesn't mean one causes the other.

It is called a facilitator.

For what it's worth, I was completely bewildered by Russell Claus' claim that the Chris Johnson story wasn't reported right by "local media." There are only two of us covering it - myself and Brianna Bailey - and we've both delved into the very issues Claus claimed wasn't represented in local coverage. Have Bailey or I left any doubt that the committee does not agree with the idea of creating parking lots along the canal?

Well, I think we have been pretty adamant in reinforcing a bad rap if BUD approved this thing. We've been pretty hostile almost, even. However I don't think that's in play just because we all know that application is going to be denied more than likely. However, in case it is approved, our angst is there, and obviously we are standing ready to...write lots of mean things on the Internet.

Maybe from his perspective he just sees the chain of events as BUD meets > Lackmeyer story > mean things on Internet about BUD.

However in our defense, BUD still doesn't have a great reputation and hasn't established a strong precedent EITHER way. So it's very much in limbo at the moment, and someone could probably make either argument.

As an outsider, it has always seemed to me that while the city has promoted a grand vision for btown the private sector has been totally fragmented and everyone out for themselves. They give the appearance that they are only interested in their own deals and have not understood that a more coordinated plan that also works with the public plan would, in the end, benefit everyone better. If they can agree on a strategic plan that leverages what the public has spent and they can coordinate their efforts then they can more likely insure long term success. While I appreciate small local entrepreneurs, none of them apparently has had the resources to do anything remotely close to ground breaking. We have pitiful development on lower btown canal and a future magnet site in the old cotton mill. We have the old steel buildings on the east end that could be razed and provided a site for a great mixed used development done at one time that would have a dynamic effect on btown. That takes a developer of substance and vision to pull those things off. It won't happen a motel at a time or a few apartments at a time. It will take decades at that rate. We need to entice a world class developer to come in and help us fulfill a vision.

To claim the use of autos is caused by zoning is wrong.

Maybe, but we wouldn't know. What our zoning does do is force you to accommodate automobiles at the expense of pedestrians. If you wanted to build a pedestrian friendly development, in many cases in OKC you could not, because the zoning MAKES you accommodate the automobile. So, really we don't know if people want to give up their automobiles and move out of the suburbs here, because we are not allowed to build for any other market except that one.

I understand you're trying to invoke a free market argument, but there is no free market in this case. The regulations dictate that the automobile be accommodated and this is at the cost of pedestrian minded development. So, even if part of the market demanded developments that favored pedestrians, the government regulations do not allow it. So, as it is now, what people, i.e. the market wants is irrelevant, the government has decided what they want. In the face of our zoning, you can not conclude off hand that people do not want more pedestrian developments or that some do not want to give up their cars. There is no choice.

You mean to tell me that zoning prohibits developers from building sidewalks? Or prohibits parking in the rear? Or prohibits high-rise buildings? Or prohibits mixed use developments? Or that zoning changes can't be applied for and if they could be, they aren't allowed? That the only reason people want the ability to travel point to point in their own way and time is because the government wants them to drive cars? And all this time I thought I was just enjoying the freedom to choose my own way.

This is all way off the thread topic anyway. You all can argue the evil and stupid intentions of the government on another thread.

Here is the AJ Kirkpatrick video clip from yesterday's council meeting. YouTube arbitrarily selected David Greenwell's image as the starting image, but that should change since I've selected manually AJ's image instead ... that small matter should be rectified later today.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5ekY6P8vcE

Actually, there were some other interesting matters at yesterday's council meeting, as well, and these items will be covered in a separate omnibus thread covering the 10/18/2011 council meeting as soon as all videos have been uploaded to YouTube.

ON EDIT: See the other videos from the 10/18/2011 council meeting at http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=27555.

Thanks for posting Doug. An interesting meeting with more to come.

I would like to get all these same people in the same room again but this time forbid using the words "automobile" and "parking" and see what kind of plan they can come up with. It is like GM, Goodyear, and Standard Oil are financing the whole deal behind the scenes.

We suggested that the city make parking free. That put downward pressure on the property owners that own surface lots, but refuse to develop their property. That downward pressure would force them to find other avenues of income besides parking. This would also lure real retail.

But, that didn't make it into the report.

Oh well.

Jonathan, there's nothing stopping me from putting it into my report. If you guys want to visit w/ me about this, or email me your thoughts, we'll get it out there!

Jonathan, there's nothing stopping me from putting it into my report. If you guys want to visit w/ me about this, or email me your thoughts, we'll get it out there!

What's your time frame? I'm sure we'd like to participate.

I'll just PM you.

Just curious Steve, as the downtown business writer do you work out of the suburban Oklahoman building or do you have a small office downtown?

Read the Bricktown Report

Summary Recommendations for Bricktown by NEWSOK

The Bricktown Strategic Plan lists several actions that can be taken by property owners and merchants, including:

Create a pedestrian pathway from Deep Deuce to Bricktown through the Main Street surface parking lots.

Reconnect Oklahoma Avenue from NE 2 in Deep Deuce to Main Street.

Add sidewalks and lighting along Russell M. Perry Avenue between Deep Deuce and Bricktown.



When the strategic plan mentions reconnecting Oklahoma Avenue, are they talking about doing so for pedestrians or cars? As I was walking my dog today, I was thinking about what we want for Deep Deuce. We have three through streets into Bricktown: Broadway, Walnut and Russell M. Perry. Why would we want a fourth? If we're trying to make the area more pedestrian friendly, why would we make it more automobile friendly? Why would we spend the money to create a big bridge over the railroad when there's one at Walnut? Oklahoma is a quiet street, which makes it great for walkers. It's now got dedicated bike lanes as well. Do we really want people using it as a shortcut to Bricktown, when there is already plenty of access? So, I'm hoping I'm misreading this.

The more through streets the less congestion it makes on exsiting streets. I could understand your pedistrian concerns if the were making Oklahoma Ave a new collector or arterial road, but it won't be. It will be two lanes with on-street parking and a 25mph speed limit. I also don't think you are going to see a bridge at Oklahoma Ave. Pretty sure it will be an at-grade crossing (if a train track is put back in at all).

There's no significant congestion on existing streets. Even after a Thunder basketball game, or at rush hour, traffic flows very smoothly. Again, haven't we been discussing the fact that we need to get away from catering to automobiles? Why should we be concerned with future congestion when we hope to make the automobile less necessary downtown? Also, I believe the Union Pacific is about to take possession of the line, and it lies immediately adjacent to a six to eight foot hill and any street would bisect the small parking lot at the west end of the Aloft hotel and the property to the west. That would create a rather unattractive canyon with potential drainage issues and remove a very nice pocket park enjoyed by residents. I see no need to make Oklahoma a through street, when we have 3 through streets in a five block area.

Thanks for posting Doug. An interesting meeting with more to come.
You're very welcome.

There's no significant congestion on existing streets. Even after a Thunder basketball game, or at rush hour, traffic flows very smoothly. Again, haven't we been discussing the fact that we need to get away from catering to automobiles? Why should we be concerned with future congestion when we hope to make the automobile less necessary downtown? Also, I believe the Union Pacific is about to take possession of the line, and it lies immediately adjacent to a six to eight foot hill and any street would bisect the small parking lot at the west end of the Aloft hotel and the property to the west. That would create a rather unattractive canyon with potential drainage issues and remove a very nice pocket park enjoyed by residents. I see no need to make Oklahoma a through street, when we have 3 through streets in a five block area.

Making thru streets isn't catering to automobiles and the lack of congestion is because of the existing thru streets. The reason for multiple thru streets is to prevent traffic from building up on a single street which creates a barrier to pedestrians and bicyclist. While traffic might not be an issue right now, a new hotel and two major apartment complexes will be coming on-line soon, with even more coming behind that. If traffic on Walnut gets to heavy it will effectivly cut-off east Deep Duece from West Deep Deuce. Walnut is already four lanes, it doesn't need to be a congested four lanes.

As for the park, there are plenty of places for that.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. As a resident of Deep Deuce, I'm strongly against this. Walnut has a light that is triggered by the pedestrian, so traffic on Walnut is not an issue for pedestrians. If Walnut is adequate on nights when there are Thunder games, I don't anticipate worse congestion from a few hundred residents and visitors. And the alternate locations for the park are where?

OMG. There are new hotels being built in Btown and DD. Doesn't everyone know, hotels attract cars. We don't want cars downtown. Maybe we should ban hotels in btown and dd.

It would be excellent if Oklahoma hooked up.

We suggested that the city make parking free. That put downward pressure on the property owners that own surface lots, but refuse to develop their property. That downward pressure would force them to find other avenues of income besides parking. This would also lure real retail.

But, that didn't make it into the report.

Oh well.


Mr. Pitman,

I agree, however I think there would have to be a much greater amount of free parking than what is already there for there to be any real impact.

Mr. Pitman,

I agree, however I think there would have to be a much greater amount of free parking than what is already there for there to be any real impact.

As we know, for a lot of people perception is reality. If a small amount of free parking was in a highly visible location it would cause people to search out other free parking that might not be so visible.

OMG. There are new hotels being built in Btown and DD. Doesn't everyone know, hotels attract cars. We don't want cars downtown. Maybe we should ban hotels in btown and dd.

Being ridiculous doesn't really make your point, you know. So, if you have a logical reason for your argument, that might be a better approach. My point was, we don't have congestion when we've got thousands of extra cars downtown on Thunder game nights. The hotel and LEVEL apartments will add a few hundred extra cars daily, which will not overwhelm the area if thousands don't. In addition, most of the people going to the hotels and LEVEL will not be driving to their apartment or hotel from Bricktown. If they're coming to the hotel from the airport, they're on I-40, which doesn't have a Bricktown exit. If they're driving to LEVEL, chances are they're coming from the Broadway extension or I-40, and the logical way to get to LEVEL or the Aloft from either is via Walnut. Regardless, how many people in cars are actually arriving at the hotel at any given point in time? One or two, right. How does that change the access requirements? Once you're at LEVEL or the Aloft, if you want to go into Bricktown, you're going to walk. There's no reason to drive a car, as you'll have to walk as far from your parking lot as it is into Bricktown from either. The railroad line is NOT going away, regardless of who owns it, as that's the adventure line route, or it belongs to the Union Pacific, depending on what happens.

As far as cars downtown, I believe I've said cars aren't going away. I do not think we should ban cars. But, I believe the people posting here actually believe in walkability. Why spend taxpayer money to create an unnecessary piece of road just so the 10 people a day who might want to drive straight down Oklahoma into Bricktown can do so when they could go one block either way to get to Broadway or Walnut, neither of which is significantly congested any time of the day or week?

I do think it would be nice to have a pedestrian walkway, or at least stairs down the cliff. But, I don't believe the Union Pacific is going to allow much more, short of a fancy bridge, over their rail line.

But where are those other free spots they would find? Downtown? Deep Duce?

But where are those other free spots they would find? Downtown? Deep Duce?

There are a ton of free parking spaces south of Reno. Bass Pro alone has like 500 free parking spaces. If existing City lots were converted to free there would be thousands of spaces.

Ok. I see. I like this plan.

Ok. I see. I like this plan.

Of course, this could only apply to Bricktown parking becasue OKC is selling off it's downtown garages to companies and they plan to build new garages, Typically those garages have been built using revenue bonds that were supposed to be paid back using revenue generated from the parking. If they make parking free all over downtown there won't be any revenue so where would the money come from? I am sure whatever City owner parking there is in Bricktown has already been paid for several times over. I don't really like the idea of the City driving parking lot owners out of business by under-cutting them but something has to be done or the place will die.

There's no significant congestion on existing streets. Even after a Thunder basketball game, or at rush hour, traffic flows very smoothly. Again, haven't we been discussing the fact that we need to get away from catering to automobiles? Why should we be concerned with future congestion when we hope to make the automobile less necessary downtown? Also, I believe the Union Pacific is about to take possession of the line, and it lies immediately adjacent to a six to eight foot hill and any street would bisect the small parking lot at the west end of the Aloft hotel and the property to the west. That would create a rather unattractive canyon with potential drainage issues and remove a very nice pocket park enjoyed by residents. I see no need to make Oklahoma a through street, when we have 3 through streets in a five block area.

i 100% agree with you that oklahoma should go be connected ... maybe paved steps and a path for pedestrians .. but that is all ..

If it was up to me Oklahoma would be made a thru street and Walnut would be reduced to two lanes and on-street parking added.

Why? Walnut connects directly to the 6th St. exit off the Broadway Extension. It also connects directly to the 8th St. bridge across the Broadway extension that goes into the Research Park and over to the Health Sciences Center. Cutting it down to two lanes would increase congestion on the street there. Plus, it's already connected to Bricktown via a bridge for which people fought vigorously. Oklahoma is only a two lane street and it's going to stay two lane because of existing buildings. Oklahoma only connects to 10th St. and is illogical to use coming off the 6th St. exit. As I said, making it cross the tracks at grade would create a very awkward canyon with potential drainage issues. Thank goodness it's not up to you.

Thank goodness it's not up to you.

Someone had to say it

We suggested that the city make parking free. That put downward pressure on the property owners that own surface lots, but refuse to develop their property. That downward pressure would force them to find other avenues of income besides parking. This would also lure real retail.

But, that didn't make it into the report.

Oh well.

Hey J. Pitman,

Have you seen the plan to re-do the parallel parking along North Broadway with new angled parking that will add about 500 new parking spots to A-Alley? How would you feel about redesigning all of the on-street parking, which could easily add hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of new spots while still being sensitive to the streetscapes... It seems like adding such a glut of free on-street parking spaces would really drive down the incentive to pave lots over. *ahem* particularly along Mickey Mantle where the on-street parking is mysteriously missing for a very long stretch, where the limos and taxis all line up during after hours.

I've always wondered if the relative disappearance of on-street parking was in some way, at any point in time, the city's part in helping out the Bricktown parking lot operators. Reno too needs to be redone, narrowed, and parking needs to be incorporated there especially. Changing it away from parallel parking to the angled parking would make an amazing difference too.

Simply put, Bricktown is not dense enough nor crowded enough, even on Friday nights, for the parking demands to be so far ahead of the street capacity that we're paving the entire district over for new parking. Especially considering that all the hotels have made parking arrangements one way or another.

Why? Walnut connects directly to the 6th St. exit off the Broadway Extension. It also connects directly to the 8th St. bridge across the Broadway extension that goes into the Research Park and over to the Health Sciences Center. Cutting it down to two lanes would increase congestion on the street there. Plus, it's already connected to Bricktown via a bridge for which people fought vigorously. Oklahoma is only a two lane street and it's going to stay two lane because of existing buildings. Oklahoma only connects to 10th St. and is illogical to use coming off the 6th St. exit. As I said, making it cross the tracks at grade would create a very awkward canyon with potential drainage issues. Thank goodness it's not up to you.

Betts is right about Walnut. People don't realize it, but between 5 and 5:30, Walnut handles an immense amount of traffic. It is always very congested right at the onset of rush hour.

However I am with all the others echoing the concerns about Oklahoma. I don't think Oklahoma needs to become a major artery N/S, even though the new part they just finished adjacent to A-Alley (yet across the tracks) has enormous development potential IMO, I just think Walnut is already firmly established as a major road. Soon it will be a major urban road. Soon, I think we will regard Walnut's improvement as our REAL urban "boulevard" (or perhaps Sheridan or Broadway?) as Deep Deuce continues to densify and as the C2S boulevard proves it's a huge, expensive flop to bring in suburbanized elements.

The important thing about Oklahoma however is that connecting it into the Maywood Park developments not only improves circulation and access to a relatively quiet corner of Bricktown, but it also opens up excellent development opportunities. There is some room for significant development back there, which could front a new extended Oklahoma Avenue. While we need to be careful to keep that area compatible with future transit uses, the Skirvin-CC proposal did highlight the potential development opportunities that exist which could create linkages between Bricktown and Deep Deuce.

I understand that our resident DDers on this board such as betts have argued that there is already access because they can simply walk across the Rock Island ROW, however that is not a real linkage, and I do think those are two neighborhoods that combined really deserve dedicated, official, well-developed linkages. The Walnut bridge is excellent for auto traffic and pedestrians who want a truly breathtaking skyline view, yet it is kind of a long uninterrupted pathway which makes for an uninteresting walk aside from that breathtaking skyline view, and furthermore, you can only use it to get from Point A (Sheridan) to Point B (NE 2nd Street).

If you're trying to get to the Wedge on NE 1st, you back track and walk two extra blocks. If you're wanting to go into that quiet corner of Bricktown I mentioned earlier, somewhere along Main Street (that area has so much potential and always has), then again backtracking and walking an extra two blocks. Should the Merc/Meineke bldg ever get converted to apartments and its residents want some pizza at the Wedge? Well that's a lot of backtracking, for a total of walking an extra 4 blocks altogether in addition to the distance from your apartment to the pizzeria.

Furthermore, Walnut Street being the only legit linkage between the neighborhood IS contributing heavily to that stretch of Main Street being such a quiet little corner of Bricktown.

There is a sneaky way to the Wedge, however. If you walk down Walnut towards the bridge you can walk behind the Deep Deuce apartments there, go down the hill and you're right there. It isn't handicapped friendly though.

Being ridiculous doesn't really make your point, you know. So, if you have a logical reason for your argument, that might be a better approach. My point was, we don't have congestion when we've got thousands of extra cars downtown on Thunder game nights. The hotel and LEVEL apartments will add a few hundred extra cars daily, which will not overwhelm the area if thousands don't. In addition, most of the people going to the hotels and LEVEL will not be driving to their apartment or hotel from Bricktown. If they're coming to the hotel from the airport, they're on I-40, which doesn't have a Bricktown exit. If they're driving to LEVEL, chances are they're coming from the Broadway extension or I-40, and the logical way to get to LEVEL or the Aloft from either is via Walnut. Regardless, how many people in cars are actually arriving at the hotel at any given point in time? One or two, right. How does that change the access requirements? Once you're at LEVEL or the Aloft, if you want to go into Bricktown, you're going to walk. There's no reason to drive a car, as you'll have to walk as far from your parking lot as it is into Bricktown from either. The railroad line is NOT going away, regardless of who owns it, as that's the adventure line route, or it belongs to the Union Pacific, depending on what happens.

As far as cars downtown, I believe I've said cars aren't going away. I do not think we should ban cars. But, I believe the people posting here actually believe in walkability. Why spend taxpayer money to create an unnecessary piece of road just so the 10 people a day who might want to drive straight down Oklahoma into Bricktown can do so when they could go one block either way to get to Broadway or Walnut, neither of which is significantly congested any time of the day or week?

I do think it would be nice to have a pedestrian walkway, or at least stairs down the cliff. But, I don't believe the Union Pacific is going to allow much more, short of a fancy bridge, over their rail line.

Sorry Betts...wasn't commenting on anything you said.

I do think however that a more coordinated and thought out plan is in order for btown. I think that future form will be better served by being proactive on deciding what kind of businesses are needed and wanted and then a coordinated recruiting effort made. Though my sarcasm was extremely tongue in cheek, the idea that there will be more and more hotels and more and more eating establishments and more bars and clubs means there will be much more auto traffic as well. Therefore traffic planning and parking will continue to take a high priority. I think that at some time btown has to decide to be almost exclusively an entertainment area or a business area serving a neighborhood. If it is just entertainment then traffic and parking will always be a problem. Keeping as many arteries open will be the priority. If it is there to serve as a neighborhood, then you are right in saying we have enough streets and access now.

I also think the merchants in btown could do more to provide trams to shuttle people around. I see this in other cities and it works well. They are not city owned but paid for by the local businesses who want people to walk around and not go get back in their cars. These trams replace multiple cars which would otherwise be on the streets.

Anyway, I think the master plan renewal is a good first step to get everyone moving in the same direction and hopefully coordinated with the city.

A couple of Bricktown history notes relevant to the last few posts:

There's no mystery as to why there aren't parking spaces (other than 15 minute in front of the ballpark, one disabled spot in front of Mickey's) along Mickey Mantle south of the trolley stop. When MM was lightly streetscaped and resurfaced with brick around the time the ballpark opened and canal was built, the OKC traffic folks were concerned that allowing parallel parking on the street would somehow interrupt the postcard view between canal and the ballpark. Someone decided there should be no visual clutter.

I have always thought that was a mistake. This leaves the street artificially wide and turns it into a raceway, among other things. People go down this stretch at 40-50 mph daily. It's deadly.

Parallel parking there would be fine, but the street could actually support angled parking very easily due to its width. It should be metered, however, to keep employees from day parking.

Also, regarding parking shuttles: it has been tried repeatedly (with significant effort, marketing, PR and expense from various parties), and has failed miserably every time. No ridership. There is no demand even on nights when the district is PACKED, which only bolsters the argument that the parking "issue" is mostly a red herring.

Urbanized is absolutely correct on the shuttles. Now, when it comes to Reno Avenue... that design is a remnant of Paul Brum thinking....

Now, when it comes to Reno Avenue... that design is a remnant of Paul Brum thinking....

It is hard to criticize Project 180. Particularly when it is not completed. However, I do hope, that the city is wise enough to develop a "kit of parts" that enable future projects to duplicate and extend the P180 design and precedents set there forth, to wipe out Paul Brum's dinosauric engineering relics.

However, I get the sense that city staff is on a mission to complete Project 180 and get it over with. Hopefully, someone will stick around long enough afterward to put a binder together of exactly what makes up a P180 street for future use and dissemination.

I grabbed a manufacturers label and a scrap chip of charcoal brick from a street construction site today in hopes of doing my own P180 sidewalk outside the slated area of renovation as I could find no information readily available in hopes to duplicate some of this.

Everyone loves new urbanism until it comes to their street, then suburban NIMBYism kicks in. As Spartan pointed out, traffic along Walnut is only going to get heavier and faster unless traffic calming techniques are implemented now. Do you really Walnut to be a major urban boulevard through a residential area? Oklahoma Ave would connect OKC Boulevard, Lower Bricktown, Upper Bricktown, Deep Deuce, Flatiron District and 10th Ave Corridoor all with out cars having to make left turns. Since the entire street would be two lanes with on-street parking, traffic will remain slow and the area will remain pedestrian and bicycle friendly. It will also encourage in-fill through the current parking lot and north of 4th.

I also wish there was a way to put Central back through.

I also wish there was a way to put Central back through.

In think there is a historic building in the way. Lol. Not sure it ever went through after the Rock Island RR line was installed.

Plus, a new at grade crossing on Oklaohoma would involve adding clanging signals and blaring train horns in the future. Not sure loft, apt, hotel occupants will like that.

In think there is a historic building in the way. Lol. Not sure it ever went through after the Rock Island RR line was installed.

Plus, a new at grade crossing on Oklaohoma would involve adding clanging signals and blaring train horns in the future. Not sure loft, apt, hotel occupants will like that.

I forgot about train horns. Yeah, that would be popular with the hotel residents especially. The rest of us would have time to get used to the noise, but hotel visitors don't. I'm all about living downtown and "new urbanism" but having at least one street where I can walk without having to wait for traffic lights at every corner is nice. Walnut is going to be a busy street regardless, because, as I said, it is the direct line to Bricktown off the 6th St. exit, as well as the street you take to enter the Broadway Extension. It's also a great route to 8th St. and the Health Sciences Center. People are going to preferentially drive it because they don't have to turn to get on or off the Broadway Extension. That won't change. I don't even want a boulevard so, of course, I'm not excited about having a connection to it either.

In think there is a historic building in the way. Lol. Not sure it ever went through after the Rock Island RR line was installed.

Plus, a new at grade crossing on Oklaohoma would involve adding clanging signals and blaring train horns in the future. Not sure loft, apt, hotel occupants will like that.

It is going to be at-grade?

As Spartan pointed out, traffic along Walnut is only going to get heavier and faster unless traffic calming techniques are implemented now. Do you really Walnut to be a major urban boulevard through a residential area?

I don't believe that Walnut is particularly special when it comes to traffic speeds. The congestion I was describing at rush hour is just a lot of cars not moving, trying to get onto 235. As for Walnut's frontage, this will be a busy street. This will be a busy area. There's a flashy hotel, tons of street-level retail, and some historic structures across the street. Of course the city doesn't have a grand plan for what Walnut will become, but I think without us realizing it, it will become something impressive. That's what I meant. I believe you were arguing that we need to widen Oklahoma so that we can have -A- important N/S street, and I was explaining that I believe that will become Walnut.


Oklahoma Ave would connect OKC Boulevard, Lower Bricktown, Upper Bricktown, Deep Deuce, Flatiron District and 10th Ave Corridoor all with out cars having to make left turns. Since the entire street would be two lanes with on-street parking, traffic will remain slow and the area will remain pedestrian and bicycle friendly. It will also encourage in-fill through the current parking lot and north of 4th.

Just what we need, to have our main N/S artery be "Oklahoma Avenue" while our new main E/W artery is "Oklahoma City Boulevard." Shoot me now...

No, Oklahoma Ave doesn't need to be widened, just connected. If Walnut becomes a main road, which it is on its way to becoming, it will cut Deep Deuce in half; so they will end up with Deep Deuce and Deeper Deuce. Arterial roads should run adjacent to neighborhoods, not cut them in half. As for a bridge or at-grade crossing at Oklahoma, either one is possible but if you remember, Walnut was supposed to be an at-grade crossing until the Civil Rights issue came up.

Walnut has 5,310 cars a day thru Deep Deuce and Oklahoma only has 342. Spreading that traffic out across two roads and the addition of on-street parking along Walnut would do wonders for retail in the area - otherwise, Deep Deuce just becomes some place people drive thru to get somewhere else; and usually as fast as they can.

No, Oklahoma Ave doesn't need to be widened, just connected. If Walnut becomes a main road, which it is on its way to becoming, it will cut Deep Deuce in half; so they will end up with Deep Deuce and Deeper Deuce. Arterial roads should run adjacent to neighborhoods, not cut them in half. As for a bridge or at-grade crossing at Oklahoma, either one is possible but if you remember, Walnut was supposed to be an at-grade crossing until the Civil Rights issue came up.

Walnut has 5,310 cars a day thru Deep Deuce and Oklahoma only has 342. Spreading that traffic out across two roads and the addition of on-street parking along Walnut would do wonders for retail in the area - otherwise, Deep Deuce just becomes some place people drive thru to get somewhere else; and usually as fast as they can.

This is a very good post of yours, Kerry. Not that you need our approval, but you've been fetching and scrambling for a few, and here's a solid post. I think you threw people off when you were talking about widening Oklahoma. If it's just a matter of connecting Oklahoma, I think almost all of us can agree with this point. It just makes sense.

I doubt that an at-grade crossing is really at play, although when you think that through, then you realize it may take a long time to get around to connecting Oklahoma. I'd just say don't hold your breath, even though it would be really nice to get that HSR connection sooner rather than later. You're right about Walnut though, now that I think about it. However it doesn't mean that would have been a good idea. Betts and UP are right, an at-grade crossing there would be a nightmare--literally.

I'm surprised that Walnut's traffic numbers are as low as 5,000, yet that street really only has an hour a day where it's very busy, and only on weekdays. Besides when it's jammed at rush hour, right now there's not a whole lot going on just because the area is pending. I wouldn't be surprised if traffic soars to at least 15,000 within 4-5 years, once Walnut-to-BNSF is totally filled in with new rooftops and businesses. As for dividing Deep Deuce, I think this is already the case. The Deep Deuce apartment area and the Maywood Park area are already splitting off it seems. The best way to prevent that? Walnut could bind the area together if it emerges as a truly great avenue.