Yes, but this area also has way more room than most urban construction sites. It would be super easy to create a clear pathway. They just need to move those construction fences back 2 feet. It's completely unnecessary to have them over the sidewalk.

Exactly this. There is plenty of space to accommodate - it just isn't considered. Lots of people walk from those apartments/condos on the other side of the tracks to AA/Midtown/etc. I can promise you that the cars coming fresh off of the freeway down Harrison Ave that don't have a stop sign and can't see around the corner of the rail viaduct are an issue. There probably won't be a problem, but..

Are we sure that the sidewalk removal was permanent? Maybe the sidewalks would have obstructed construction in some way or would have crumbled under the weight of heavy construction equipment?

I find it hard to believe that there will not be sidewalks here upon completion of the building.

Are we sure that the sidewalk removal was permanent? Maybe the sidewalks would have obstructed construction in some way or would have crumbled under the weight of heavy construction equipment?

I find it hard to believe that there will not be sidewalks here upon completion of the building.

it will certainly be a part of the finished design but I think the concern is around the sidewalk being closed until then. Having portions of sidewalks closed for a few days is no biggie but for a year or more?

In other places they use the streetspace and plastic jersey barriers to make a temporary walkway.

Are we sure that the sidewalk removal was permanent? Maybe the sidewalks would have obstructed construction in some way or would have crumbled under the weight of heavy construction equipment?

I find it hard to believe that there will not be sidewalks here upon completion of the building.

The plans show large sidewalks. It is very obvious they do not want people walking near the construction zone. I have walked in the area before and the only reason to be on that side of the street would have been for that green space and parking lot. Now those things are gone and under construction. People need to chill out and stop making this a bigger problem than it is.

Again, this is small town thinking that people can’t be near construction zones. It’s done in major cities all over the world. This is amateur hour planning for a city that wants to be taken seriously.

Again, this is small town thinking that people can’t be near construction zones. It’s done in major cities all over the world. This is amateur hour planning for a city that wants to be taken seriously.

Eh, the 46 people a day who walk that stretch will get over it.

Quit comparing urban, dense, heavily trafficked cities with OKC. No one walks this stretch (south of 4th), so the added cost of either closing a lane or adding a temporary sidewalk just isn't, from a purely fiscal sense, worth it.

When they built the Citizen, they did create a walkway for pedestrians. You know why? People walk that area.

the plans show large sidewalks. It is very obvious they do not want people walking near the construction zone. I have walked in the area before and the only reason to be on that side of the street would have been for that green space and parking lot. Now those things are gone and under construction. People need to chill out and stop making this a bigger problem than it is.Totally agree.

I walk that area almost every day. If we want more people to start walking then the mindset has to shift. If walkways are never considered then nobody considers walking. Maybe wishful thinking, though.

People who don't already walk will not shift into walkers if this stretch of sidewalk was open. You know who will probably be walking a lot and utilizing this side walk? People who move into this development. Especially the people looking for affordable housing.

Again, this is small town thinking that people can’t be near construction zones. It’s done in major cities all over the world. This is amateur hour planning for a city that wants to be taken seriously.

I do not trust normal Oklahoma City people near construction zones. Lawsuit waiting to happen!

I walk that area almost every day. If we want more people to start walking then the mindset has to shift. If walkways are never considered then nobody considers walking. Maybe wishful thinking, though.

the north side of this development with have a wide sidewalk .

The plans show large sidewalks. It is very obvious they do not want people walking near the construction zone. I have walked in the area before and the only reason to be on that side of the street would have been for that green space and parking lot. Now those things are gone and under construction. People need to chill out and stop making this a bigger problem than it is.

I’m not sure in the foot traffic for this particular lot, but it is a major problem in downtown OKC. I’ve walked all over the downtown area on a nearly daily basis during the week for the last 5+ years and the disregard for pedestrians from construction groups is astonishing.

I’ll add that the majority of drivers are almost completely unaware of pedestrians right of way in crosswalks. Anybody turning rarely looks before they start out.

I’m not sure in the foot traffic for this particular lot, but it is a major problem in downtown OKC. I’ve walked all over the downtown area on a nearly daily basis during the week for the last 5+ years and the disregard for pedestrians from construction groups is astonishing.

I’ll add that the majority of drivers are almost completely unaware of pedestrians right of way in crosswalks. Anybody turning rarely looks before they start out.

I have walked this area a lot in the past and have almost been hit several times. The map shows all the spots where drivers are either not aware of walkers or do not seem to care if someone is trying to cross the street. This is a city mindset that gives cars more space than people.

19345

Isn’t this road six lanes? Unless anything has changed I rarely see much congestion here. What would be the big issue of just temporarily removing a lane and adding barriers so pedestrians can use it to walk around the construction project?

Isn’t this road six lanes? Unless anything has changed I rarely see much congestion here. What would be the big issue of just temporarily removing a lane and adding barriers so pedestrians can use it to walk around the construction project?

Because the coat-benefit analysis very likely showed it isn't worth it. Pedestrians don't walk there. I, in my years, haven't seen many people really walking down there, at all (south of 4th, that is). Not enough for the city to insist on shutting down a lane of traffic.

I have walked this area a lot in the past and have almost been hit several times. The map shows all the spots where drivers are either not aware of walkers or do not seem to care if someone is trying to cross the street. This is a city mindset that gives cars more space than people.

19345

Sure, but how does your personal experience contrast with the other posters insisting that you as a pedestrian walking in that exact area did not exist?

Sure, but how does your personal experience contrast with the other posters insisting that you as a pedestrian walking in that exact area did not exist?

Walkers use this area moderately. On their way to work or home. Walking their dogs. They exist, just not at levels other posters seem to inflate.

Here are images of the sidewalks that will be added. It is very early in construction, I wouldn't be surprised if they work on the sidewalks and make them safely walkable while finishing the development.

19346 19347 19348

Here are images of the sidewalks that will be added. It is very early in construction, I wouldn't be surprised if they work on the sidewalks and make them safely walkable while finishing the development.

19346 19347 19348

When has any building construction in OKC ever done that? I don't think I've ever seen that happen, but would be nice to be proven wrong.

Isn’t this road six lanes? Unless anything has changed I rarely see much congestion here. What would be the big issue of just temporarily removing a lane and adding barriers so pedestrians can use it to walk around the construction project?

no it is not 6 lanes .. it is 2

Walkers use this area moderately. On their way to work or home. Walking their dogs. They exist, just not at levels other posters seem to inflate.
Also walking to the Y from the CBD. People would likely be shocked by the pedestrian count at that intersection; probably in the hundreds per day on average. Far more than most suburban intersections, even the busier ones.

When has any building construction in OKC ever done that? I don't think I've ever seen that happen, but would be nice to be proven wrong.

I mean if the five people walking these two sidewalks yell loud enough at city council meetings I am sure the Mayor will do something. I was honestly being sarcastic, but you know, everyone needs to be upset about something on this forum!

Also walking to the Y from the CBD. People would likely be shocked by the pedestrian count at that intersection; probably in the hundreds per day on average. Far more than most suburban intersections, even the busier ones.

I am talking more about the two sections of the sidewalk that have been removed. I use to work in the Tap Architecture building and people walked that sidewalk all day long. The traffic of walkers usually do not use the two sections that have been removed though.

no it is not 6 lanes .. it is 2

Theyre talking about Gaylord. Which should be 3 lanes max. Traffic counts are less than 15,000 over the last ten years.

I mean if the five people walking these two sidewalks yell loud enough at city council meetings I am sure the Mayor will do something. I was honestly being sarcastic, but you know, everyone needs to be upset about something on this forum!

Your post could've been completely non-sarcastic and real, you need to work more on your snarkiness (or put a /s somewhere). :)

Your post could've been completely non-sarcastic and real, you need to work more on your snarkiness (or put a /s somewhere). :)

Agreed! :p

Eh, the 46 people a day who walk that stretch will get over it.

Quit comparing urban, dense, heavily trafficked cities with OKC. No one walks this stretch (south of 4th), so the added cost of either closing a lane or adding a temporary sidewalk just isn't, from a purely fiscal sense, worth it.

What massive costs are you anticipating from moving the construction fence back two feet on this massive construction site? This kind of excuse making screams complacency and mediocrity. Good cities and projects attend to details. They don't tell a group of citizens to "get over it" for no good reason.

I think it is common in high density areas. I just don't think this area has much foot traffic. Yet.

I was walking there the other day and had to walk in the street. Sure, I could have crossed, but the other side also does not have a way to cross the street safely to continue waking down EK Gaylord, so I chose street instead of adding three extra blocks to my trip.

TBH, why does it matter how many pedestrians use it? It should be common/best practice that when you close a sidewalk in any way, shape, or form at all, you provide a safe alternative. This city barely does that, pretty much due to the massively car-centric culture that treats pedestrians as afterthoughts. It's done that for decades and will most likely continue doing so until absolutely forced to change, maybe by multiple people getting killed while trying to walk around a construction zone, sadly.

TBH, why does it matter how many pedestrians use it? It should be common/best practice that when you close a sidewalk in any way, shape, or form at all, you provide a safe alternative. This city barely does that, pretty much due to the massively car-centric culture that treats pedestrians as afterthoughts. It's done that for decades and will most likely continue doing so until absolutely forced to change, maybe by multiple people getting killed while trying to walk around a construction zone, sadly.

Honestly, this, 100%. I like to walk when and where I can, but stuff like this adds significant friction to the experience since pedestrians and their safety are still treated like an afterthought here. If we want OKC (especially the greater downtown area) to be a walkable community, ensuring safe pedestrian access in urban construction areas like this should always be the standard - not the exception.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5UZ9cNGQRg

TBH, why does it matter how many pedestrians use it? It should be common/best practice that when you close a sidewalk in any way, shape, or form at all, you provide a safe alternative. This city barely does that, pretty much due to the massively car-centric culture that treats pedestrians as afterthoughts. It's done that for decades and will most likely continue doing so until absolutely forced to change, maybe by multiple people getting killed while trying to walk around a construction zone, sadly.

Totally agree. This reminds me of all the times the city put in stop lights at dangerous intersections when there was a bad wreck and someone died. Rarely do I see this when someone is hit while biking or walking.

Rarely do I see this when someone is hit while biking or walking.

That's because every time that happens it's obviously the biker or pedestrian's fault so no possible way to prevent it from happening again

/s

Because the coat-benefit analysis very likely showed it isn't worth it. Pedestrians don't walk there. I, in my years, haven't seen many people really walking down there, at all (south of 4th, that is). Not enough for the city to insist on shutting down a lane of traffic.

Pedestrians generally avoid walking in areas that aren’t walkable. Anyone looking at an area disproportionately built around cars, noting a lack of pedestrian presence, then concluding “this is proof that improving the pedestrian infrastructure is unwarranted” is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, not doing cost-benefit analysis.

What massive costs are you anticipating from moving the construction fence back two feet on this massive construction site? This kind of excuse making screams complacency and mediocrity. Good cities and projects attend to details. They don't tell a group of citizens to "get over it" for no good reason.

Right, and looking to urban, dense cities is how Oklahoma City will emulate an urban, dense city in the future. It’s short sighted to throw our hands up and say “well, this is the city we have, we shouldn’t bother trying to improve it.” That’s what stagnant, dying cities do and Oklahoma City is anything but a stagnant, dying city, regardless of the inferiority complex so many at the popular level have about it.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/alleysend010125a.jpg

That will fill a pretty sizable dent in that view of the skyline. Now they just need to work on redoing that road.

I find myself very excited about this project. That triangle of land has been "dead space" my whole life and seeing it activated will add so much to the completeness of Downtown. Done right it will really bridge the CBD, Bricktown, Deep Deuce and Auto Alley. A truly prime opportunity.

I find myself very excited about this project. That triangle of land has been "dead space" my whole life and seeing it activated will add so much to the completeness of Downtown. Done right it will really bridge the CBD, Bricktown, Deep Deuce and Auto Alley. A truly prime opportunity.

Agreed!! I can’t wait. I really want to see a high rise development fill up that terrible lot just NW of this.