Steve's vision about what will take place in the next 20 years.

Downtown Oklahoma City, 2033 | News OK (http://newsok.com/downtown-oklahoma-city-2033/article/3804060?custom_click=pod_headline_financial-news)

On reflection, this topic might be better in another area if the moderators want to move it.

Zoinks! It's raining articles over at Steve's site. Not just the one you posted, but also:

Outlook 2013: Downtown Oklahoma City is expected to continue roaring growth | News OK (http://newsok.com/outlook-2013-downtown-oklahoma-city-is-expected-to-continue-roaring-growth/article/3791764)

Outlook 2013: Revitalization of MidTown creates energy, momentum | News OK (http://newsok.com/outlook-2013-revitalization-of-midtown-creates-energy-momentum/article/3791786)

Outlook 2013: Oklahoma City mayor foresees a changing downtown | News OK (http://newsok.com/outlook-2013-oklahoma-city-mayor-foresees-a-changing-downtown/article/3791763)

Outlook 2013: 3 questions with Lee Allan Smith | News OK (http://newsok.com/outlook-2013-3-questions-with-lee-allan-smith/article/3801661)

3 questions with Anthony McDermid | News OK (http://newsok.com/3-questions-with-anthony-mcdermid/article/3801430)

Too much there for me to comment on in complete. However, just a few standouts:

In looking ahead, McDermid sees corporate towers all around the Myriad Gardens and the Core to Shore area becoming a big, upscale residential spot.


And Lee Allan Smith sees:

* more skyscrapers
* increased downtown beautifcation, gardens, statues, etc.
* downtown amphitheater
* high speed trains to/from regional cities
* fast trains connecting the airport/downtown/Edmond/Norman/El Reno
* dramatically developed riverfront with boardwalk, carousels, ferris wheel (modern day Delmar Gardens)

Speculative stuff, but a great (and optimistic) read.

From the interview with McDermid:


Corporate towers will surround the latest renovation of Myriad Gardens, and Oklahoma Park (the MAPS 3 Core to Shore park) will become the premiere address for upscale living

So, what we have been calling Central Park is now going to be named Oklahoma Park??

As in Oklahoma Park, on Oklahoma City Boulevard which borders the Oklahoma River in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma????

I'm okay with calling the Central Park....

I'm okay with calling the Central Park....

I hate Central Park for the name. That is already highly associated with something else far more famous.

But I hate Oklahoma Park even more, as it's so generic and blah.

I'll take Central Park if that's the only other option. But dang, can't we come up with a good and *distinctive* name?

Many cities have a "Central Park"

Many cities have a "Central Park"

So what.

I reiterate -- can't we come up with a good and distinctive name?

No I don't believe so, there doesn't seem to be an ounce of creativity where the decisions are made in this city.

No I don't believe so, there doesn't seem to be an ounce of creativity where the decisions are made in this city.

Could be. :(

Still, they don't have to be all that creative themselves. Just recognize and accept a good name that someone else thinks up.

Maybe we could start a lets-name-our-new-downtown-park thread here.

What about Union Park, after the Union Station? I dunno, anything has to be better than "Oklahoma Park".

What about Union Park, after the Union Station? I dunno, anything has to be better than "Oklahoma Park".

What the... wow! I was going to make the EXACT same suggestion.

Great minds think alike, I guess. :wink:

The more I think about it, the more I like the name Union Park.

It's easy to say and easy to spell. It kinda just rolls off the tongue. Has a nice sound to it.

Furthermore, it not only ties into the Union Station, but it makes sense in the general meaning.
Since it ties together all of the elements of downtown: the business district, bricktown, core-to-shore, riverfront, etc.
and will be a central meeting place for people and events amongst all that, it very much will act like a union for the city.

As in Oklahoma Park, on Oklahoma City Boulevard which borders the Oklahoma River in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma????

Absolutely agree, this is ridiculous. You go to basically any other city and there are parks/districts/areas with wacky, distinctive names. These are the things that make cities unique. It may not be as big of a deal to those of us who have lived here our whole lives, but when visitors come from out of town they like to see diversity; not the same word plastered everywhere.

We won't need I-40, 35, or 235 in 2033. Skyways built for flying cars will replace the interstate highway system. That will open up the existing expressways for development. Downtown will be built up very dense and the suburbs will be considered the "ghetto." People of affluence will live downtown. Maybe OKC will have a spaceport to transplant people to the Mars colony and beyond!

The more I think about it, the more I like the name Union Park.

It's easy to say and easy to spell. It kinda just rolls off the tongue. Has a nice sound to it.

Furthermore, it not only ties into the Union Station, but it makes sense in the general meaning.
Since it ties together all of the elements of downtown: the business district, bricktown, core-to-shore, riverfront, etc.
and will be a central meeting place for people and events amongst all that, it very much will act like a union for the city.

I love it! But some of the GOPers will hate it because they sure as hell hate unions!

I love Union Park. Or even Station Park. Maybe Union/Station Commons. Or the Union Green? Union Station Green? If in 20-30 years we began eying a baseball/soccer/football stadium, it could be [Corporate] Station Stadium. I always loved how Enron Field in Houston's design was evolved out of Houston's Union Station, in fact, before Enron was found as a sponsor it was "The Ballpark at Union Station."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Union_Station_Lobby_at_Minute_Maid_Park.jpg/800px-Union_Station_Lobby_at_Minute_Maid_Park.jpg
The old Union Station Lobby is now the grand entrance into Minute Maid Park!! My family was always huge Astros fans, esp back in the 90s/early 2000s when they were good, and I always thought the ballpark experience was among the best in the nation, easily the best new-ish ballpark. When the Astros were good, Houstonian life revolved around the 'Stros, and it was a great, innovative way to build the present on Houston's architectural history.

I always liked the name Commons in lieu of Park. I'd try and get away from a name that says, "This is a Park, and it's in the Center of Oklahoma." Additionally, I've always hated how this park and every other MAPS3 project we assign away to out of state planners and architects inevitably comes back to us as this drab, soul-less, boilerplate new thing devoid of any Okie-ness. If we went back to the drawing boards with the goal of truly building this park around Union Station and OKC's history, we will come back with something infinitely better and no more expensive.

Shouldn't that be the goal of MAPS3? and every MAPS?

I love Union Park. Or even Station Park. Maybe Union/Station Commons. Or the Union Green? Union Station Green? If in 20-30 years we began eying a baseball/soccer/football stadium, it could be [Corporate] Station Stadium. I always loved how Enron Field in Houston's design was evolved out of Houston's Union Station, in fact, before Enron was found as a sponsor it was "The Ballpark at Union Station."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Union_Station_Lobby_at_Minute_Maid_Park.jpg/800px-Union_Station_Lobby_at_Minute_Maid_Park.jpg
The old Union Station Lobby is now the grand entrance into Minute Maid Park!! My family was always huge Astros fans, esp back in the 90s/early 2000s when they were good, and I always thought the ballpark experience was among the best in the nation, easily the best new-ish ballpark. When the Astros were good, Houstonian life revolved around the 'Stros, and it was a great, innovative way to build the present on Houston's architectural history.

I always liked the name Commons in lieu of Park. I'd try and get away from a name that says, "This is a Park, and it's in the Center of Oklahoma." Additionally, I've always hated how this park and every other MAPS3 project we assign away to out of state planners and architects inevitably comes back to us as this drab, soul-less, boilerplate new thing devoid of any Okie-ness. If we went back to the drawing boards with the goal of truly building this park around Union Station and OKC's history, we will come back with something infinitely better and no more expensive.

Shouldn't that be the goal of MAPS3? and every MAPS?

Very well said. Thank you.

I like the Union Commons or Union Park idea. I actually love it.

I enjoyed reading all the articles - the one thing I absolutely HATED was Renzi Stone's prediction of a golf course and McMansions on acre lots in the C2S area. Please God no!

I always liked the name Commons in lieu of Park. I'd try and get away from a name that says, "This is a Park, and it's in the Center of Oklahoma." Additionally, I've always hated how this park and every other MAPS3 project we assign away to out of state planners and architects inevitably comes back to us as this drab, soul-less, boilerplate new thing devoid of any Okie-ness. If we went back to the drawing boards with the goal of truly building this park around Union Station and OKC's history, we will come back with something infinitely better and no more expensive.



I like the City Commons. Or even the admittedly redundant City Commons Park. "It's over in the City Commons." It rolls off the tongue. Pete got it right with all the Oklahoma here there and everywhere, it's just ridiculous.

What the... wow! I was going to make the EXACT same suggestion.

Great minds think alike, I guess. :wink:

Yup. Ours too. :)

I see our city developing so that Union Park (I'm gonna pull a Berry Tramel and just call it my own nickname from here on out) ends up bordered by a lot of high-end residential. It would be our own version of Central Park West. I could see a lot of very expensive mid-rise development, say 10-15 story buildings with a lot of ornate details. If it becomes trendy, you'd see NBA players and corporate executives buying large apartments in those buildings instead of in Gallardia or Nichols Hills. Can't you just see some snooty trophy wife of a wealthy surgeon telling all her friends "Yes, we just moved into the Sequoyah Building, on the 12th floor. Yes, we're right across from Union Park."

In 20 years, Deep Deuce and Bricktown will be totally full, and will have merged together with Automobile Alley and Midtown into one nice, continuous walkable area. It will also stretch down to Film Row and up to Heritage Hills/Mesta Park. There shouldn't be any empty lots in this area by that point. We'll see the Myriad replaced by new towers and developments. The county jail will have long since been torn down and replaced by something better. The business and economic growth that will come with this growth will leave OKC ready to take on its largest project to date.

In 20 years, we'll be ready to tear down the Cotton Seed Mill and put in an NFL stadium.

I think that all of us in this thread should commit from here on out to pull a Berry Tramel and call this project Union Park prematurely.

Or Union Commons or Union Green, of course :wink:

I think that all of us in this thread should commit from here on out to pull a Berry Tramel and call this project Union Park prematurely.

Or Union Commons or Union Green, of course :wink:

I'm down with Union _______. Classy & catchy.

Ditto on the Union _________.

The people have spoken when it comes to the Brick. Why not with the park?

I like the City Commons. Or even the admittedly redundant City Commons Park. "It's over in the City Commons." It rolls off the tongue. Pete got it right with all the Oklahoma here there and everywhere, it's just ridiculous.

They probably name everything "Oklahoma" because they think its likely to cause the least controversy. Take the boulevard for instance and all the people who were in uproar about the potential of it being named "The Big Friendly" or "Ackerman." Naming something "Oklahoma" is the path of least resistance. However, I do strongly agree that this park needs a unique name that rolls off the tongue so to say. I like Union Park or City Commons Park.

I like Union Park. Commons makes me think of a windswept plaza in Chicago devoid of people.

Leave the word "station" out of it. It elevates the building and will be confusing to people who should be looking for Santa Fe Station who wander down there thinking Union Station is still operable.

You're right, there are some strange correlations with the word commons.

Commons makes me think of something you would find at Hogwarts.

Awesome! It didn't take too long for ths group of folks to find a creative solution! I like "Union Commons" but would be happy with "Union Park" as well. Great work!

un·ion


1. The action or fact of joining together or being joined together, esp. in a political context.
2. A state of harmony or agreement: "they live in perfect union".


com·mons


Land or resources belonging to or affecting the whole of a community.

Features should be named after 3 things: The founder, its location, or its use. The name should reflect the location, history, or purpose to help build a sense of community and chronographic continuity (connecting today with the past). I love the Union Park name - Union Commons is even better (see above) - and I'll put my GOP/Tea Party credentials up against anyone's :).

I wouldn't mind getting away from the word 'Park' though. Perhaps use Mall, Green, Yard, Commons as the use identifier and combine it with the historical/location identifier such as Union, Land Run, Plains, City, etc...

So we end up with options like this.

Union Mall
Union Green
Union Yard
Union Commons
Land Run Mall
Land Run Green
Land Run Yard
Land Run Commons
City Mall
City Green
City Yard
City Commons

etc...

Wow, I have never seen such universal agreement on anything on this board. lol.

If we can all agree on it, I can't imagine that there'd be much resistance from the general public.

I too like the name "Union." Not only for the reasons already mentioned, but due to the central localtion, it could also be a unifier of our city, bridging the long time, century-old rift between the north and south sides of the city.

And a gentle note: The correct term is "Common," without the "s."

I too like the name "Union." Not only for the reasons already mentioned, but due to the central localtion, it could also be a unifier of our city, bridging the long time, century-old rift between the north and south sides of the city.

And a gentle note: The correct term is "Common," without the "s."

Only amongst commoners... The more learned, landed, gentry will refer to it as the "commons" with the 's.' :)

In 20 years, we'll be ready to tear down the Cotton Seed Mill and put in an NFL stadium.

I agree with this. OKC should look at trying to recruit the NFL when it reaches the 1.5-1.7 million MSA mark in my opinion. This city will be a perfect fit and if a stadium is part of MAPS 4 it could become a reality, especially if the team took the name "Oklahoma" rather than "Oklahoma City" as to not alienate potential Tulsa fans.

.... I see our city developing so that Union Park (I'm gonna pull a Berry Tramel and just call it my own nickname from here on out) ends up bordered by a lot of high-end residential. It would be our own version of Central Park West. I could see a lot of very expensive mid-rise development, say 10-15 story buildings with a lot of ornate details.

Maybe, something like this?

http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Chicago-Lake-View/i-4h82r6G/0/XL/P1570354-XL.jpg

(high rise condos in Chicago's Lakeview district)

Source: Urban Neighborhoods: Chicago's Lakeview | Metro Jacksonville (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2012-jul-urban-neighborhoods-chicagos-lakeview)

Maybe, something like this?

I wish. The biggest problem to that actually happening though is modern architecture - which is going in the opposite direction when compared to the modern television; unlike historic vernacular buildings whose pixels consisted of the individual brick, modern architecture's smallest pixel is a 4' X 6' pane of glass. That is why modern buildings don't show any sign of ornateness at the sidewalk and are best viewed from 10 miles away compared with historical buildings that don't even rise out of the surrounding urban fabric when viewed from Lake Hefner, but are crowd favorites at the sidewalk level.

I wish. The biggest problem to that actually happening though is modern architecture - which is going in the opposite direction when compared to the modern television; unlike historic vernacular buildings whose pixels consisted of the individual brick, modern architecture's smallest pixel is a 4' X 6' pane of glass. That is why modern buildings don't show any sign of ornateness at the sidewalk and are best viewed from 10 miles away compared with historical buildings that don't even rise out of the surrounding urban fabric when viewed from Lake Hefner, but are crowd favorites at the sidewalk level.

Architects will design what you ask them to (though the more famous will try to push the envelope - "why else did you hire me?"). If you want interesting street level design that ties in to the Union Commons, demand it. I hope if it ever develops, there is a limit to building height immediately adjacent to the open space, say 10 - 12 stories (like in the Chicago photo), or at least some variation.

The building community could use more people like this:

hope for architecture (http://hopeforarchitecture.com/)

jCyqstclxL0

We really can build them like we used to. Imagine, an arch that really is an arch and a column that actually holds something up.

I wish. The biggest problem to that actually happening though is modern architecture - which is going in the opposite direction when compared to the modern television; unlike historic vernacular buildings whose pixels consisted of the individual brick, modern architecture's smallest pixel is a 4' X 6' pane of glass. That is why modern buildings don't show any sign of ornateness at the sidewalk and are best viewed from 10 miles away compared with historical buildings that don't even rise out of the surrounding urban fabric when viewed from Lake Hefner, but are crowd favorites at the sidewalk level.Can you please explain exactly what you like about that photo. That fronts a street that is 6 lanes and 40MPH speed limit, I thought you were against that. Not trying to hate or anything, and I actually like the photo and the environment. It's interesting though with very nice buildings.

BTW, I still have yet to watch the New Urbanism vids you've posted in the thread and I will get it, just been really busy. I just wanted to know though, what you liked about it as it would seem this street would fall into a bad category for urbanism. Maybe I'm wrong though.

The building community could use more people like this:

hope for architecture (http://hopeforarchitecture.com/)

jCyqstclxL0

We really can build them like we used to. Imagine, an arch that really is an arch and a column that actually holds something up.

Is the documentary available or when it will be complete?

Maybe, something like this?

(high rise condos in Chicago's Lakeview district)


That's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Put a minimum height requirement along the edges of Union Commons, say 8 stories. Require very small setbacks from the street and the highest construction standards. You'd be setting it up to be very expensive from the beginning, which might offend some people with the appearance of elitism, but this sort of development is something that doesn't exist anywhere in the state. My brain visualizes a lot of art deco and gothic style buildings, with maybe something weird thrown in by Rand Elliott every now and then.

This sort of area would make a fantastic entrance to downtown. Imagine getting off the interstate on Robinson and seeing the First National Building directly ahead of you, and on your right you pass building after building like this:

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_265/1209732587kRNKu4.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8019/7645796010_59e318fe37_z.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-daNat3jfs8s/TiDAgCNvMeI/AAAAAAAAA4M/Cpa00RnQ63A/s1600/paris_buildings_clouds_02.jpg

There are enough wealthy people in this city who would pay through the nose to live in buildings like that.

Is the documentary available or when it will be complete?

I talked with the guy making the documentary last week and he wasn't sure when it would be done. He said he was about half done now. Last week we had an event here called One Spark which is where I found this. I am not sure if was just a local thing or part of a larger effort but OKC needs to look into doing something similar.

One Spark (http://www.beonespark.com/)

Can you please explain exactly what you like about that photo. That fronts a street that is 6 lanes and 40MPH speed limit, I thought you were against that. Not trying to hate or anything, and I actually like the photo and the environment. It's interesting though with very nice buildings.

I liked 3 things in the picture.

1) The architecture
2) The streetwall
3) The bike street

On second look I can now see the 40 mph sign and if it is on a 6 lane road then that would be 2 strikes.

I like Union Park. Commons makes me think of a windswept plaza in Chicago devoid of people.

Leave the word "station" out of it. It elevates the building and will be confusing to people who should be looking for Santa Fe Station who wander down there thinking Union Station is still operable.

I'd think most would conjure an image of the Boston Commons..

And a gentle note: The correct term is "Common," without the "s."
Actually, "commons" is correct in our application of the word. The Boston Common uses your usage of the word only because it's older than our country and language has evolved somewhat in almost 300 years. In fact Boston is the only usage of "common" in our context that I can even think of.

Hoyasooner, I loved those pictures. I like that style too, but "union" combined with buildings that look like Havana might be too much for the plutocracy. (Just kidding, LOVE it)

How about selling the naming rights to a corporate sponsor like they do with other city properties. The Devon Commons has a ring to it.

How about selling the naming rights to a corporate sponsor like they do with other city properties. The Devon Commons has a ring to it.

We already have a Devon Green - won't that just confuse people? :)

Downtown is already significantly Disneyfied (bricktown especially) and well on it's way to be more so. No need to import facades of olde architecture and attempt to make it more of what it isn't.


Coined by Hermenaut‘s hard-working Critical Affairs Department, fake authenticity is that which is false, in the sense of counterfeited. Need an adjective to describe bars and restaurants with ethnic, historical, or outdoorsy themes; or new items of clothing or furniture that have been distressed, weathered, stone-washed, and otherwise pre-aged for the purpose of looking like it’s been used or worn, for years, by someone who works on a farm/with his or her hands; or urban hipsters who adopt or otherwise admire what they imagine to be the non-white (or ethnic white), urban/rural (i.e. non-suburban), working class, and “outsider”-in-general style of life; or anything and everything re-enacted, “authentically reproduced,” and Disneyfied in general? Try: fake-authentic.

It’s important, however, to distinguish between the fake (which can mean “insufficiently authentic,” but which usually just means fake) and the fake-authentic. Returning to the language of our Camp/Kitsch issue [#11/12], whereas the fake is simply kitsch, which can be transformed by the lovingly ironic person into camp, the fake-authentic is cheese. Let’s use, as an example, one of those restaurants which try too hard to seem Italian — by hanging overly sentimental postcards of Rome all over the place, or something. This may not be your idea of authentic — shouldn’t the theme to The Godfather be playing in here? — but so what? As writer Al (Thrift SCORE!) Hoff asks: Is the food good, or not? The insufficiently Italian restaurant is harmless kitsch, and it likely offers beautifully weird rewards to anyone with eyes to see them [see my "Interview with Daniel Clowes," this issue]. There is nothing you or I can do about the bad taste of people who can’t distinguish between fake and authentic, people who wear imitation leather jackets and “Kiss Me I’m Irish” T-shirts like they mean it… but again, so what? Which is really worse: honestly enjoying the whitebread stylings of Pat Boone, or just pretending to enjoy cheesy Cocktail Nation send-ups of whitebread? [Note that not all Cocktail Nation-era musical acts are cheesy; Combustible Edison isn't.] Irony, the engaged kind of irony which does not preclude real emotion, nor even seriousness, is still possible in a world of fakeness; but in a world where fake authenticity has triumphed, nothing remains but sincerity on the one hand, and a glib, mocking version of irony — cheese — on the other.

Sentimentality is one of the problems, sure, but only if we can’t replace it with real emotion. The Olive Garden, for instance, which is one of these places where you’re “treated like family” and the portions are too enormous to be believed, is not the answer to Italian-restaurant kitsch. It’s worse: It replaces the (cheap, degraded) emotion of the ersatz facsimile with the cold calculation of the simulacrum, the replica which has replaced that which it was only supposed to replicate. The fake, as Baudrillard has said for years, is charming; the simulacrum is not.

This is why cities like Los Angeles and Las Vegas no longer seem as awful to us, today, as they did to progressive types forty years ago. A culture of fakeness has inoculated these places against fake authenticity (though not for much longer, surely). But here in Boston, fake authenticity has long since won the day. Through a process which America’s favorite columnist Slotcar Hatebath (misappropriating the term from the museum world) calls authentication, everything here in the Hub of the Universe which was actually old has been made Olde instead; historical façades and interiors have been restored not to how they used to look, but to how (city planners imagine) tourists want them to look; every incident of (family-friendly) historical importance which has ever transpired within city limits is now re-enacted in an entirely Disneyfied manner.

The Samuel Adams Brewery complex, in 2010

Even the 19th century brewery building (now owned by the company which invented Samuel Adams beer, itself an excellent example of fake authenticity) in which this publication is headquartered trembles on the verge of authentication. No doubt we will soon be forced out, to make way for fake-authenticity-seeking suburbanites who want “artist condos” in an historical building where someone else’s ancestors once roasted hops. (Luckily, we have a money-making scheme in the works. All I can say right now is: Pre-Off-Roaded SUVs. Beaten with chains and tumbled around in a gigantic clothes dryer. Beep me, babe, I’ll fedex you the prospectus.) Boston is not a “museum,” as hipness-deprived college students, transplanted New Yorkers, and ex-suburbanites complain — because museums are supposed to preserve the past. Instead, this city has become a simulacrum of itself, a gift shop(pe) writ large.



http://hilobrow.com/2010/06/01/fake-authenticity/

Wow. I'm not sure if I could sound more pretentious and full of myself if I tried.

I'm curious mkjeeves, what style of house do you live in? Surely it is a modern shipping container, or do you prefer the retro old fashioned brick?

Vernacular Architecture - Definition (http://www.vernaculararchitecture.com/)

I think current architecture that is inspired by and borrows elements of classic architecture of old is fine and great but when it is just trying to be a movie set it is like Las Vegas. OKC's history and culture isn't exactly Parisian, or even Bostonian. Using modern materials and styles while integrating lessons from our past is great. Hopefully OKC's great developments of the future reflect who WE are and what our heritage is, not some trumped up wanna be style. When we learn to be great on our own we will be GREAT. As pointed out in another thread (Lincoln Park golf course), OKC does not have a "style". We need to evolve one, not copy one. We don't need to be LIKE anyone to be great ourselves.

This is one of the issues I have with dogmatic new urbanistas... cities don't need to be made cookie cutter and predictable whether it is the current suburban or the new urbanist enclaves. Cities evolve and reflect a lot of history. They are messy. They are organic. They can be quirky. Every street doesn't need to be a perfect uniform grid, two lanes + one bike lane + parking with buildings up to the street and totally mixed use with all the same types of shops, restaurants, etc., all made of limestone and granite with ornate elements to look like faux Paris. Cities need to be different and interesting and reflective of the people who live there...warts and all. And, cities need to age...like wine...and become better and better.

I think current architecture that is inspired by and borrows elements of classic architecture of old is fine and great but when it is just trying to be a movie set it is like Las Vegas. OKC's history and culture isn't exactly Parisian, or even Bostonian. Using modern materials and styles while integrating lessons from our past is great. Hopefully OKC's great developments of the future reflect who WE are and what our heritage is, not some trumped up wanna be style. When we learn to be great on our own we will be GREAT. As pointed out in another thread (Lincoln Park golf course), OKC does not have a "style". We need to evolve one, not copy one. We don't need to be LIKE anyone to be great ourselves.

This is one of the issues I have with dogmatic new urbanistas... cities don't need to be made cookie cutter and predictable whether it is the current suburban or the new urbanist enclaves. Cities evolve and reflect a lot of history. They are messy. They are organic. They can be quirky. Every street doesn't need to be a perfect uniform grid, two lanes + one bike lane + parking with buildings up to the street and totally mixed use with all the same types of shops, restaurants, etc., all made of limestone and granite with ornate elements to look like faux Paris. Cities need to be different and interesting and reflective of the people who live there...warts and all. And, cities need to age...like wine...and become better and better.

Good post. I happen to believe that architecture and design are two factors that had much more to do with some of these cities becoming the epicenters they are, but you make some great points. I see nothing wrong with OKC trying to emulate Paris, or Vegas, or whatever city, but not at the expense of lessons other cities could teach us; lessons we tend to miss when we're too focused on becoming the next Dallas, Austin, KC, Paris, etc. There's obviously a very happy medium somewhere in all of this that we can continue to work toward by learning from a variety of cities. But many of us would do well to keep what you shared in mind.

Right on, Rover.

I think current architecture that is inspired by and borrows elements of classic architecture of old is fine and great but when it is just trying to be a movie set it is like Las Vegas. OKC's history and culture isn't exactly Parisian, or even Bostonian. Using modern materials and styles while integrating lessons from our past is great. Hopefully OKC's great developments of the future reflect who WE are and what our heritage is, not some trumped up wanna be style. When we learn to be great on our own we will be GREAT. As pointed out in another thread (Lincoln Park golf course), OKC does not have a "style". We need to evolve one, not copy one. We don't need to be LIKE anyone to be great ourselves.

This is one of the issues I have with dogmatic new urbanistas... cities don't need to be made cookie cutter and predictable whether it is the current suburban or the new urbanist enclaves. Cities evolve and reflect a lot of history. They are messy. They are organic. They can be quirky. Every street doesn't need to be a perfect uniform grid, two lanes + one bike lane + parking with buildings up to the street and totally mixed use with all the same types of shops, restaurants, etc., all made of limestone and granite with ornate elements to look like faux Paris. Cities need to be different and interesting and reflective of the people who live there...warts and all. And, cities need to age...like wine...and become better and better.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

But that's the thing, Rover. Cities do age. They do develop their own style. It happens automatically. I'm not saying that we need to be Vegas, and build a copy of New York and have a guy in a gorilla suit climb a 1/6th scale Empire State Building every night at 7. I am not asking for a brick-by-brick recreation of Paris here in downhome OKC.

But since we're talking about it, let's look at it for a moment.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_93yxiAXcKgg/RpQ2yOGTIfI/AAAAAAAAAGU/EfAsoAlyRlM/s320/Art+Nouveau+architecture.jpg

http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/71916/99487184/stock-photo-art-nouveau-architecture-in-riga-latvia-99487184.jpg

This is Art Nouveau. Google says this is in Latvia. It looks like fancy stuff to me. We don't have anything like this in OKC because people built it back before there was an OKC. Now, we could build something in this style and it would still be OKC. Take that building and give it a Native American theme. Make the big faces Indians with headdresses. Call it the Cherokee Building. It'll be very Oklahoman. You can construct buildings like they have in other cities without it being a complete copy of another city. Little bits and pieces from here and there will combine to make a separate whole. You will use local materials in some places that change the overall appearance, the combination of buildings and how those buildings interact with the street and the park will result in an entirely unique experience.

That's how a city develops its own style.

--

I always saw the First National Building as our own little Empire State Building. Obviously it's much smaller and the specific details are very different. It's a limestone Art Deco tower with a spire on top. People don't criticize First National for being an ESB ripoff. Instead it's a cherished part of our city. There's no reason to think that trying to build high-end midrises in an older architectural style will label us copycats.

Little bits and pieces from here and there will combine to make a separate whole.


Postmodern architecture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_architecture)

I am not exactly sure where Rover's post contradicts New Urbanism. Vernacular architecture IS new urbanism. I wonder how many people 'like'ing Rover's post also like Devon Tower - when it could be plopped down anywhere in the world (and in fact - very similar buildings by the same architect and developer are). And then of course, OKC had the Baum building - designed after the Doge Palace in Venice 500 years earlier but a fan favorite in OKC (so much so they saved parts of it and put them on display)

My disagreement with Rover applies only inasmuch as he is in agreement with mkjeeves. The idea that if we build something today designed to look old, or mirroring an older architectural style, that we're building Disneyland. I've had to run to court a few times today and so my responses have been broken up, so perhaps I didn't fully clarify what I meant.

There are a lot of gorgeous architectural gems in very expensive neighborhoods in Paris, New York, Chicago, London. While we can't recreate these buildings (I wouldn't want to see the Mystery Tower turn out to be a brick-for-brick duplication of the Chrystler Building, for instance), it doesn't mean that we can't use similar architectural styles to create our own high-end residential area. We can certainly be inspired by places like the Upper East Side and try to duplicate the same type of development. I think a big expensive 15 story building that looks like it belongs in a more glamorous city would sell very well here.

The thing is - OKC does have a local historical architectural style (look at 430 W. Main if you want to see it). Granted we tore a lot of it down, but it is there. Our problem is our local builders and business people don't embrace it. They are too busy with EIFS and 24 sq. foot panes of glass.