Actually, I came up with the traffic circle. He just used his architectural skills and program to make it look better ;-)This post back in March?

http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=28935&p=516916#post516916 (http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=28935&p=516916#post516916)

This post back in March?

http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=28935&p=516916#post516916 (http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=28935&p=516916#post516916)

Yes sir...thanks. Now if you had the same idea before that, I musta missed those pages ;-)

Well I'm all for doling out credit, good idea buddy. We'll need some folks to speak to council, an original brainchild wouldn't be a bad thing to have. Better anyone who can patiently tolerate council, than me.. lol

Yes sir...thanks. Now if you had the same idea before that, I musta missed those pages ;-)

http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=23022&p=364194#post364194

If we are smart enough to zone the New Boulevard corridor to exclude fast food joints & gas stations from being built along the boulevard, we could create a classy boulevard like the Ramblas in Barcelona (clicking on the images will enlarge them).
1815
Click here for more images of the Ramblas in Barcelona (https://www.google.com/search?q=the+Ramblas&hl=en&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS390US390&qscrl=1&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=TZLZT6TIB4my2QXAzuSjBg&ved=0CHsQsAQ&biw=1440&bih=785)

or Boston's Commonwealth Avenue (rendering).
1814
Click here for more images of Boston's Commonwealth Avenue (https://www.google.com/search?q=the+Ramblas&hl=en&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS390US390&qscrl=1&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=TZLZT6TIB4my2QXAzuSjBg&ved=0CHsQsAQ&biw=1440&bih=785#hl=en&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS390US390&qscrl=1&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=commonwealth+avenue+boston&oq=commonwealth+avenue+boston&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=img.12...0.0.2.46440.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0 .0.pOyDfpDCfU8&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=f7ae0b86310af9b4&biw=1440&bih=785)

I sent the following concerns about the Boulevard to City Leaders. Here it is and a reply for what it is worth...

Mr. Eric Wenger:

At a recent Council meeting it was brought up that the western end of the Boulevard is going to be elevated and with overpasses, no longer being the "at grade" Boulevard that it has been described for several years now. This is a very expensive project and if it isn't gong to be done right, it needs to be scrapped completely.

Something I noticed years ago (that apparently ODOT just now realized, maybe by looking at a map?), that by following the old crosstown footprint, that it creates several challenges because it doesn't travel in a straight line, and will be literally within a few feet of existing streets (sometimes at odd angles).

A traffic circle was also mentioned as a possible solution but that is a horrible idea and needs to be avoided at all costs. OKC used to have traffic circles and they were removed years ago for safety reasons. Now they are being returned? The reason for the return as "due to advancements in technology, they are safer". Technology?? What technology…it is a traffic circle!

The best solution, instead of trying to go over or under those other streets, is to straighten out the Boulevard and follow the street grid already established. This could be a revenue producing for the City in a couple of ways.

1) By returning the old crosstown back to the existing grid, much of the land could be returned (sold) to private ownership which means property taxes and development.

2) Use the money for the Boulevard and enhance the existing street grid. Perhaps making up the funding shortfall of Project 180.

The Mayor stated that Downtown "grinds to a halt" without the Boulevard (yet it hasn't done so in the nearly 125 years that OKC has been around, so why would it start now?) I have yet to hear any sort of explanation as to WHY we even NEED this replacement Boulevard as Downtown seems like we plenty of streets already.

Either build the road right or don't build it at all.




Wednesday, June 06, 2012

Thank you for your email and comments regarding the design of the new Boulevard project in Oklahoma City. You make several good suggestions, and the City is continuing to work with the State of Oklahoma on the final design which is still underway. Although returning the Boulevard is not possible at this point, there are a number of opportunities that will be made available to enhance the downtown experience as the old I-40 is demolished and the new Boulevard is constructed.

As you may already know, the design and ultimate construction is being provided by the State as a part of the mitigation plan for the relocation of Interstate-40. Many of the design parameters are governed by Federal requirements, some which the City has some influence in making comments and changes and others which can not. One opportunity that you mention is the availability of land for new developments which will be possible as a part of the completed Boulevard project. What is currently right-of-way for the old I-40 and also SW 3rd Street is more than enough room for the new Boulevard. Once constructed the available space on each side of the new Boulevard will be available for future development to occur.

Other project challenges such as traffic crossings are being considered, and there are several solutions. The City has found success in several new traffic circles that have been constructed, but I also question whether or not a traffic circle will work on the new Boulevard. There are several solutions being considered, no decisions have yet been made, and traffic studies and engineering judgment will be utilized to ensure the final product is one that is successful.

Again, I very much appreciate your interest in the project and thank you for your insight and comments.

Eric J. Wenger, P.E.
Director Public Works/
City Engineer
(405) 297-3486
eric.wenger@okc.gov

In order to mitigate moving I-40 we must build another I-40.

http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=23022&p=364194#post364194

Great minds think alike. That was my first click ever into that thread...cause if I had seen that, I know I would have commented! ;-)

Time to send Mr. Wenger an email validating my love for the traffic circle idea so I can nix LarryOKC's message :-)

Time to send Mr. Wenger an email validating my love for the traffic circle idea so I can nix LarryOKC's message :-)

love this!!!

Great minds think alike. That was my first click ever into that thread...cause if I had seen that, I know I would have commented! ;-)


Indeed they do, sir. Let's make this happen.

There are several 'Ramblas' streets in Barcelona. I was there last month and I wish we could have something like them. The one that we frequented was a pedestrian only down the center, was tree lined, but had bicycle/ motorcycle lanes on either side. The resturants used the center of the pedestian walk as their seating area. Had dinner at midnight 2 nights in a row. This went for several blocks down to the ocean.....maybe the river could be our destination point ? I was surprised at all of the one way streets in Barcelona though.

There is a pretty wide consensus the convention center and especially this boulevard will be a failure. There is however also a pretty wide consensus that the streetcar project has done good planning.

I agree, it looked like we were headed in the right direction with the planing etc (certainly more than some of the other projects) and I commend Urban, Betts, Hutch and everyone else for their hard work but something happened and I am trying to figure out what...however I will refrain from asking more questions until I can take Tier2City up on the offer. And for those that love traffic circles, by all means contact Mr. Wenger (and although he likes them, he didn't seem to think it would work there either).

I am kind of surprised that he wrote such a long response to you, and I am intrigued enough to possibly write him a pleasantly-worded email.

I just sent this to Eric:

Hi Eric, my name is (OKCisOK4Me) and I am a frequent poster on www.okctalk.com. There's been considerable back and forth talks on there about building a roundabout/traffic circle on the west end of the new boulevard project.

I sincerely hope you have considered adding it to the project as it would ease congestion of traffic in the Western/Classen/Reno/Exchange area while also giving future development a realistic chance as opposed to having a second elevated boulevard going through this part of town.

I have provided a visual of the proposed traffic circle by one of our regular posters (who used a computer program to make it look professional (whereas, I used my Samsung Note)).

Also, if you have Facebook, be sure to check out Friends for a Better Boulevard, which has lots of new ideas from the general public that you're not going to see at an every day council meeting.

Thank you for your time & I do hope to hear back from you.

Sincerely,
(OKCisOK4Me)

I just sent this to Eric:

Hi Eric, my name is (OKCisOK4Me) and I am a frequent poster on www.okctalk.com. There's been considerable back and forth talks on there about building a roundabout/traffic circle on the west end of the new boulevard project.

I sincerely hope you have considered adding it to the project as it would ease congestion of traffic in the Western/Classen/Reno/Exchange area while also giving future development a realistic chance as opposed to having a second elevated boulevard going through this part of town.

I have provided a visual of the proposed traffic circle by one of our regular posters (who used a computer program to make it look professional (whereas, I used my Samsung Note)).

Also, if you have Facebook, be sure to check out Friends for a Better Boulevard, which has lots of new ideas from the general public that you're not going to see at an every day council meeting.

Thank you for your time & I do hope to hear back from you.

Sincerely,
(OKCisOK4Me)

OK, now I'll send him my vote against the traffic circle to counter you.

I guess I am questioning the need for yet another place to "spur development"...we already have plenty of that and are needing infill development etc to get to the Urban Utopia that I hear some ardent posters suggesting. How does the Boulevard help in that regard? I have asked this question of the Mayor, City Manager, various Council people what is the NEED for the Boulevard, yet another DT street? I have yet to hear of any reasoning for it. it is just a given in their minds. The Mayor stated (not a direct quote), that if the Park & Boulevard doesn't happen, downtown grinds to a halt. Why? We were without both for 100+ years and hasn't seemed to stop it in its tracks yet. And while on the subject of development (sorry if this upsets Urban or others), but isn't that precisely what the Streetcars are supposed to foster? The 8 to 1 return on investment? Several people have asked "why would we go down the Park to Union Station?". To spur the development that the City is wanting with the Park and the blighted area that is commonly known as Core to Shore. While the Park itself is supposed to help in that regard, the Streetcar is complimentary to it (as it would be with all of the MAPS projects). Those same folks convinced me that the Streetcar is what would do that and now the route chosen is along already developed properties. Seems to me somewhere along the way, they lost track (no pun intended) of what the purpose was. Granted that may have been at the direction of the Council. And if it was, that is the political/bureaucratic reality they are having to deal with. Unfortunately, it is what we are all going to have to live with for decades to come. I want the Streetcar to be a success, but the proposed route seems destined for failure. And a very expensive one at that. We have to get it right the 1st time. only time will tell.

Larry, I don't think we can create too many opportunities for economic development. That 8 to 1 ROI in terms of TOD isn't just true, it's the most conservative figure out there, and we're already seeing the streetcar spur large amounts of infill in the Mid-town area.

So that will be a good thing for us. But the streetcar reflects the current geographic footprint of downtown, and the route doesn't reflect growth opportunities for downtown because we determined within the existing footprint we had enough TOD opportunities. But is enough really enough? It's hard to ascertain just how much development we really need to create the city, but we need more than we're getting, and we've quantified that the demand keeps increasing at a rate that we are simply not keeping up with. For this, I refer to the latest downtown housing study AND the original one.

The strong suit of the proposed traffic circle area is that this area is more important for downtown than Core2Shore is. Western between I-40 and downtown is now the true front door of downtown - if you drive down Western during the day (especially 3-6) you'll notice bumper-to-bumper traffic all the way from Main to the new I-40 as that has become the main highway exit into the CBD. You'll also notice that Western and Classen are both extremely blighted. That is a development opportunity, not just to correct the blight, but also to take advantage of the enormous traffic counts. I believe that natural development patterns need to follow traffic counts, rather than create traffic counts - the traffic counts needed for massive mixed-use developments EXIST along Western which has just now become the pinch point for traffic distribution - a traffic circle with at least 5 points of egress and ingress can effectively improve traffic distribution, and do it safely.

By the way, you question what technological changes have occurred - technology is a bad term, but there have been important structural improvements made. For instance, the circles that we removed across the U.S. were modeled after European ones in which traffic entering the roundabout had the right of way, whereas today it's standardized for traffic already IN said roundabout to have right of way, which does dramatically reduce accidents compared to normal intersections and especially compared to European or old-fashioned roundabouts. There are a few things we do better in the U.S., and I believe that the future is so much brighter than we realize for American urbanism with all the innovations it is producing.

OK, now I'll send him my vote against the traffic circle to counter you.

Its okay...he's heard from practically everyone...

I guess I can muster a respectful email myself as if it matters.

Spartan: I think I see what you are saying, but given the high cost of the Streetcars, it would seem better to get that 8 to 1 ROI with a clean blank slate (like the Park/Core to Shore) rather than "wasting" it on infill projects right now. I agree about the front door part, since ODOT managed to take away the DT access. That was one of the reasons they gave for putting the Park where they did, so when folks exited off the new crosstown, they would have something attractive to look at instead of all of the blighted area. Problem is, no one (myself included) noticed that there arent any access points along the Park. Also, by moving all of the crosstown traffic to fewer streets that probably aren't designed to handle the traffic flow, that just adds to the City's problem of how to get all of that traffic moving efficiently.

Which leads us to agreement on the congestion part (I work in the area, just a bit west around Penn & 4th), things have gotten much worse with the relocated I-40. Some of that may be due to poorly times traffic signals where it gets backed up significantly, or lights change but no one can move because the next light is still red etc.

I think JTF and yourself might argue that we already have "too many opportunities for economic development" given our 600+ square miles??? But maybe we are talking about different things...

Hello Mr. Eric Wenger,

My name is (catch22), I am a citizen of the City of Oklahoma City and I would like to express my concerns for the proposed Boulevard to replace the old I-40. I believe it is a major planning mistake to create a new elevated structure in downtown. There has been no development along the old I-40 because it was elevated and created a physical unattractive barrier, and there will be no development along the new Boulevard where it is elevated for the exact same reasons. All we are doing is replacing the old I-40 structure with a new I-40 structure. The fundamental flaw still remains, it will just be "new and shiny".

Several good ideas have been posted on the internet, especially at okctalk.com. I believe a traffic circle/roundabout at Western Ave. and the new (hopefully at grade) Boulevard would be a tremendous opportunity to drive development on the western side of downtown and ease traffic flows into downtown. I believe it is absolutely imperative that the Boulevard is pedestrian friendly/oriented along it's entire path, or at least from Western to where it joins I-40 again by Bass Pro. That includes making the street narrow to create an inviting environment for pedestrians. We can not create another barrier downtown with this Boulevard. As a citizen and taxpayer I ask you to weigh all of the options (including involving walkability and streetcar transit) and work to make the Boulevard as pedestrian-friendly as possible.

Thanks,
(Catch22)

Done.

You guys are writing the wrong people. Go to the source of the funding - the Federal government. Send letters to memebers of Congress and ask them to spend these funds somewhere else. Tell them we don't want another freeway to replace the one we just removed. If you can get a couple of greedy congressmen (these are not in short supply either) on your side this funding will be gone in seconds - and poof - no new freeway.

Dear Mr. Wenger and Mr. Couch,

I am writing you to bring to your attention a citizen-generated plan that many think holds the key to generating significant economic development and creating the great public spaces we aspire to have in our city. So many in our city right now fervently believe that ODOT's proposed schematics for the Boulevard are a catastrophe of urban planning, and we would hate to see I-240 recreated where instead there should be major economic opportunity with the convergence of Western, Classen, Reno, Exchange, and The Boulevard. Western already has some of downtown's highest traffic counts as it serves as the primary conduit to I-40; our proposed traffic circle would be a primary collector and disperse point. Traffic circles are most effectively where each street entering it has relatively equal importance and traffic counts, and with the balance that all of these important streets provide, this is a particularly viable location for a grand traffic circle - essentially replicating the success of the Walker Circle, but on a much larger scale.

I know this city is a fan of traffic circles, as some of have been programmed into the pending Western Avenue streetscape, and they have been successful along 10th. I think we should consider using one as emphasis along the boulevard - it will create the sense of place we're looking for, more than anything ODOT can come up with. Many of us also feel that at some point the realities surrounding the convention center site, and not just the folly of separating the parks and breaking up the "green spine," will come to the forefront and we will be looking at a new CC site. I would really urge reconsideration of 10th, which could anchor the city's Medical Business District" and have easy rail access to any downtown hotels. The site has space, freeway access, streetcar connections to hotels, and anchors important corridors. Along with the MBD, I think North Broadway is our best opportunity for concentrating retail in an area that creates the critical mass needed for retail to create destination (retailers are esp desperate on critical mass to attract casual shoppers).

The CC being located on Broadway can help inject potential shoppers along Automobile Alley, along with an incentive program to target just a FEW local and national retailers (keeping local in the mix) to kickstart things. The retail attachment indicates how a retail incentive program, structured similarly to the outlet mall, could identify locations and strengths for new retailers along Broadway - the map identifies existing retailers (more than we realize) and where some new ones could go. This also moves the City Arts Center project to where the CC is currently proposed (swapping the locations of those projects), which puts them in our Arts District rather than competing against it, and also allows them to anchor the intersection with the "green spine" and the Boulevard. Most all would see the City Arts Center as a more appropriate anchor for the Boulevard, so I see this as a matter just as important as the traffic circle to the ultimate success of the Boulevard as we are envisioning it - a great public space.

Thanks for your time and consideration.

Regards,
Name Removed (as if it matters? lol)

I think JTF and yourself might argue that we already have "too many opportunities for economic development" given our 600+ square miles??? But maybe we are talking about different things...

Well it's a different ball game in terms of creating huge swaths of northern Oklahoma County ripe for new sprawl, which the 2007 GO Bond certainly did, and creating bountiful opportunities for major urban development - which MAPS3 should be aiming to do, instead of eliminating them.

Great letters. That's an important part of the public process, and whether you believe it or not, they do have an impact. Don't forget though that City Council is the elected and empowered decisionmaker. Jim Couch and Eric Wenger are hired by and work for City Council, even though it doesn't always appear that way. So, make sure that any letters you send directly to Jim Couch and Eric Wenger get copied to everyone on City Council, including the Mayor. Or in the alternative, address and deliver letters to City Council and copy Jim Couch and Eric Wenger.

Great letters. That's an important part of the public process, and whether you believe it or not, they do have an impact. Don't forget though that City Council is the elected and empowered decisionmaker. Jim Couch and Eric Wenger are hired by and work for City Council, even though it doesn't always appear that way. So, make sure that any letters you send directly to Jim Couch and Eric Wenger get copied to everyone on City Council, including the Mayor. Or in the alternative, address and deliver letters to City Council and copy Jim Couch and Eric Wenger.

Just sent:


Attached is a copy of an email dated June 15, 2012 from myself to Mr Eric Wenger, City Engineer. This issue is of high importance and I, as a citizen of the City of Oklahoma City, desire that the Council take my letter into serious consideration. This issue will have a life-long (and longer) impact on the City and the City needs to hold ODOT and all involved parties to this highest standard to ensure the city is not left with a corridor that will subtract from all of the positive improvements the City has made with MAPS and Private development downtown. The as-proposed boulevard will choke development and prevent the expansion of downtown to the west and into Core 2 Shore.

Thank you,

(catch22)

Great letters. That's an important part of the public process, and whether you believe it or not, they do have an impact. Don't forget though that City Council is the elected and empowered decisionmaker. Jim Couch and Eric Wenger are hired by and work for City Council, even though it doesn't always appear that way. So, make sure that any letters you send directly to Jim Couch and Eric Wenger get copied to everyone on City Council, including the Mayor. Or in the alternative, address and deliver letters to City Council and copy Jim Couch and Eric Wenger.

I get the impression that there's a spam filter that guards them from mass emails.

I get the impression that there's a spam filter that guards them from mass emails.

I'm sure the City's server has a strong spam filter...I doubt its set up to purposefully filter out citizens emails to Councilmembers from legitimate email addresses.

Right, I'm just saying sending to all the council might activate a filter. I'd pick a few council members NOT named Ed Shadid or Pete White.

Unfortunately, I'm guessing most of you guys are in Ed's district. Hopefully some of you are in Meg's district, because I imagine she's just not too familiar with this idea yet. I'm in Greenwell's district and he'd probably right me a nice friendly reply in disagreement or something lol.

Greenwell thinks for himself, and he's not afraid of standing alone on an issue. I think if he understands the issue and he happens to agree, he'll be right there with Shadid.

We'll see. I much prefer interacting with Greenwell over his Ward 5 predecessor, but thinking for himself is a good way of putting it. Not a bad councilman at all though.

You guys are writing the wrong people. Go to the source of the funding - the Federal government. Send letters to memebers of Congress and ask them to spend these funds somewhere else. Tell them we don't want another freeway to replace the one we just removed. If you can get a couple of greedy congressmen (these are not in short supply either) on your side this funding will be gone in seconds - and poof - no new freeway.

Except, isn't it already funded???

Great letters folks (even if we don't agree on the traffic circle thing). I have been pleasantly surprised with the relative speed that they are deconstructing the old crosstown. But form what others are posting, it is making me think that they are getting rid of the old one as fast as they can so they can get the Boulevard built "as is"...before any of us muck up the works (from their perspective).

Except, isn't it already funded???

...and the federal government has never re-directed funds already appropriated? You guys can write all the letters you want but there is only one thing ODOT fears - a reduction in federal funding. ODOT doesn't give a rat's *** what the OKC City Council thinks and there is nothing the City Council can even do about it except offer their opinion and make their wishes known. ODOT doesn't answer to the City.

Except, isn't it already funded???

Great letters folks (even if we don't agree on the traffic circle thing). I have been pleasantly surprised with the relative speed that they are deconstructing the old crosstown. But form what others are posting, it is making me think that they are getting rid of the old one as fast as they can so they can get the Boulevard built "as is"...before any of us muck up the works (from their perspective).

There is probably a lot of truth in this.

...and the federal government has never re-directed funds already appropriated? You guys can write all the letters you want but there is only one thing ODOT fears - a reduction in federal funding. ODOT doesn't give a rat's *** what the OKC City Council thinks and there is nothing the City Council can even do about it except offer their opinion and make their wishes known. ODOT doesn't answer to the City.

I think this is one example where you're a little out of touch with reality on the ground.

To maintain the federal funding I believe they will need to re-initiate the EIS public planning process, which is extremely outmoded anyway.

Good to see Steve getting back into the thick of it:

http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2012/06/17/okc-how-did-we-get-here/

They should move the CC site to the public supply site to jumpstart the west end of downtown developement. the property around the area is cheap ideal for developers to come in and bring up the property values and fight the poverty in the area sooner and add to property tax collections. Public supply is a dying horse anyway Clay Bennet's brother Bob drove that company into the ground just like he did the company he ran in Texas.

The best way I would think to do the boulavard witout creating a downtown interstate would be for it to run the course reno(widened with a center median and traffic circle for intersections) to Robinson make it jog south around the park and along the south side then continue east as planned Reno between Robinson and Gaylord would be pernamently closed. Reno would have access to I 44 east through a service road adjacent to the state fair park and just south on portland you could get onto 40 west already and take 44 west from there. By doing this we can alieviate alot of congestion downtown due to the 2 lane overpasses on the interstates that can be bypassed via the routes. Many westbound travelers will then be encouragesd to continue down reno and enter the interstate at Meridian/MacArther. The Bethany/Warr Acres area may opt to stay off the interstates altogather and take this route to downtown giving OKC businesses more exposure to their tax dollars. The set up would also allow a decent detour for when DOT finally decides to widen the interchange bridges. We could use the median for future streetcar projects to connect to the meridian hotel area and one day(30-40 years) commuter rail all the way to the airport.

Extending the streetcar anywhere near Meridian seems like making one of the same mistake we did with the bus system as far as over-reaching leading to poor service everywhere. There is already a rail corridor that runs 90% of the way to the airport.

I think a rail connection to the airport makes sense, however emphasizing the areas in between downtown and the airport does not seem like a good priority, so for purposes of short-term common sense connections beyond downtown, I just don't see it as imperative. We want to make sure that we can reach at least a few areas that could be potential gold mines for TOD and ridership, like Paseo, Plaza/OCU, or Capitol Hill even.

I also like the idea of a connection to the Airport….
But since it’s so close it might be nice if they could somehow include the FAA center also.

I think this is one example where you're a little out of touch with reality on the ground.

To maintain the federal funding I believe they will need to re-initiate the EIS public planning process, which is extremely outmoded anyway.

says the guy that is telling the city to move the CC to north Broadway ... something that has no chance of even being discussed and most likely caused your email/letter to be 100% discounted

says the guy that is telling the city to move the CC to north Broadway ... something that has no chance of even being discussed and most likely caused your email/letter to be 100% discounted

OK...something I've been meaning to ask for a while:

Who are you?? I don't doubt that you are an insider, I just want to know who you are once and for all. And why are you so committed to having the CC where it is planned?

And why is it that having the only decent idea relating to the CC, that the god damn thing be moved, discounts a bunch of other good ideas? What does that say about this "planning" process being ran by city engineers..

I don't even know what a single one of bouldersooner's posts have to do with topics at hand anymore, so getting back to topic (unless he/she wants to tell us who they are)..

I hope they do build the damn earthen ramp and make it as ugly as possible, and build the damn convention center in the middle of the park, just so this city can get what it probably deserves. Why even bother anymore? I'm giving up and washing my hands of this crap, I can't even explain why I cared to begin with...something about wanting to see my hometown grow up or some nonsense.

Spartan - all you can do is try and educate people. You can lead horses to water but you can't make them drink. Part of being an activist is dealing with people who don't agree with you and you can't convince everyone all the time about everything. Even when discussing issues with like-minded people you still find differences (I still don’t agree with using couplets but there is nothing I can do about it). You have to just keep plugging away.

Coming soon...

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s225/CuatrodeMayo/6_SAMPLE.jpg

i hope they do build the damn earthen ramp and make it as ugly as possible, and build the damn convention center in the middle of the park, just so this city can get what it probably deserves. Why even bother anymore? I'm giving up and washing my hands of this crap, I can't even explain why I cared to begin with...something about wanting to see my hometown grow up or some nonsense.

C,mon Spartan. This is the "adult" equivalent of taking your toys and going home. If we all quit when it got hard, most of us wouldn't be where we are in our lives. I can just about guarantee you that intransigence and resistance to change are the hallmarks of city government everywhere. You enjoy the victories when they occur and try to mitigate the negative effects of bad decisions. You fight until its clear you can't win, and at that point you take a deep breath and move on to your next battle. Or you move to Portland and find another hobby.

OK...something I've been meaning to ask for a while:

Who are you?? I don't doubt that you are an insider, I just want to know who you are once and for all. And why are you so committed to having the CC where it is planned?

And why is it that having the only decent idea relating to the CC, that the god damn thing be moved, discounts a bunch of other good ideas? What does that say about this "planning" process being ran by city engineers..

so your CC on north Broadway is "having the only decent idea relating to the CC" ... wow ..

Or you move to Portland and find another hobby.

This isn't bad advice. I'll admit there are times when it seems easier to just move to a place that is already established instead of having to swim against the current all the time.

Coming soon...

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s225/CuatrodeMayo/6_SAMPLE.jpg
Exciting! Conceptual renderings very much needed for such visions. Great to have architects on the forum!

I love the traffic circle and iconic architectural feature, but you can lose the people in the rendering. No one is going to be hanging out or walking through a traffic circle that connects 8 roads (unless you can go to the top of something and enjoy the view - which might not be a bad idea). Anyone know where we could get a Ferris Wheel?

so your CC on north Broadway is "having the only decent idea relating to the CC" ... wow ..

It's just the way Nick works. Look at me! Look at me! I'm the only one who is right and everyone else is wrong.

His insistence of infallibility undermines those ideas of his that have some amount of traction.

It's just the way Nick works. Look at me! Look at me! I'm the only one who is right and everyone else is wrong.

His insistence of infallibility undermines those ideas of his that have some amount of traction.

Yeah, but if you know that, isn't it easy to listen to him? I find that he's got a lot of good ideas that he embraces with gusto and an enthusiasm that I find refreshing. I also find that I don't agree with all of 'em and still enjoy the heart he backs 'em up with. Spartan: keep it up. The fat lady hasn't sung on this one, yet.

Nick means well, I've read on other boards where he's defended OKC very well. He just wants the same improvement that the rest of us want. He probably needs to control himself to a degree, but he has a passion for what he believes and I respect that. Nick, don't get discouraged, just focus on the small steps, and before you know it you've made a difference.

OK...something I've been meaning to ask for a while:

Who are you?? I don't doubt that you are an insider, I just want to know who you are once and for all. And why are you so committed to having the CC where it is planned?

And why is it that having the only decent idea relating to the CC, that the god damn thing be moved, discounts a bunch of other good ideas? What does that say about this "planning" process being ran by city engineers..


just a fyi i don't like the location for the new CC .. i think it is a very poor choice (although we badly need a new CC our current one is an embarrassment for a city our size) the mayors location is IMHO the best compromise site the best thing about both locations is having the CC hotel directly across from the Peake. and having that (most likely) very nice hotel on our new BLVD. now is the site east of the park "perfect" ... no but it is much better than having a 500+ room hotel on north Broadway.

It's just the way Nick works. Look at me! Look at me! I'm the only one who is right and everyone else is wrong.

His insistence of infallibility undermines those ideas of his that have some amount of traction.

Can you please not use my first name? It creeps me out, I don't know you.

Fair enough. Does this mean I can't sit at the cool kids table?

Sure, have a seat. I don't mean to ignore other posts, it was just a barrage of attention which contrary to the erroneous belief you were pushing, I'm not at all trying to get personal attention. I'm trying to push ideas that gain traction.. the few on here who do actually know me know that the last thing I want out of this is personal attention.

The problem with OKC is that you can't just throw an idea out. This is a good ole boy town. When you go up to speak, you better have a name and explain who you are and why you matter, or else your idea is thrown out. It's not right, but in order to be taken seriously around here, you have to jockey around and pretend you're important.

I think yesterday I was in a bad mood from trying to navigate screwed up P180 construction sites just to get to lunch and then seeing demolition staging around Hale. Bad moods happen to people..mea culpa.

I don't suppose this means Cornett, Wenger, Couch, most of the Council, and Ridley are no longer criminals.

I like your ideas, but at times the volume is way too loud.

I don't suppose this means Cornett, Wenger, Couch, most of the Council, and Ridley are no longer criminals.

I like your ideas, but at times the volume is way too loud.

That's funny (considering there's no volume control on this site). I think it's all about how you envision him voicing his posts. You could read them imagining he's furious and about to explode but you could also read them as if he's reading a bedtime story to kindergartners.

I don't suppose this means Cornett, Wenger, Couch, most of the Council, and Ridley are no longer criminals.

I like your ideas, but at times the volume is way too loud.

I don't need to comment on the professional integrity of these guys, this should be an issue-based discussion. I think there is a very serious problem with engineers being in control. Even Steve Lackmeyer has reiterated that the cooperation that got us where we are today has broken down as engineers have manipulated leadership and now they are calling every single shot.

So there is a leadership problem that a lot of this speaks to, and that's not just me calling certain individuals' actions criminal, but that's a sentiment that has been reiterated by much more knowledgeable and official sources than me.