Regardless of who is "right" in the urban vs suburban argument, Oklahoma City is about 99.5% suburban at the moment. We need a much better balance than we have right now. It will be much better for the city economically, it will attract more people (a lot of people want an urban lifestyle), it will improve our schools, and it will give us a lot more amenities that the city doesn't currently have. There is literally zero downside.

My dream of OKC in 25 years is that we have a built up urban area, Deep Deuce level density, from 13th down to Capitol Hill, and from maybe Penn over to the OUHSC. Connect all of that with the streetcar. Throw in a dozen more highrises. Then connect Edmond, Norman, Moore, Del City, MWC, Tinker, and Will Rogers with a light rail system. Each of the suburbs has a block or four of transit-oriented development at the rail stops. Think if there was something like Campus Corner in each of these suburbs, except with some housing added in.

Will that happen exactly? Probably not as I'm envisioning. But we could make it happen, and the city would be significantly better for it. Of the maybe 1000 square miles of the metro area, you'd be taking up like 30 or 40 with real urban development. The rest can continue to be big houses with big yards and big freeways. Everybody is happy.

Regardless of who is "right" in the urban vs suburban argument, Oklahoma City is about 99.5% suburban at the moment. We need a much better balance than we have right now. It will be much better for the city economically, it will attract more people (a lot of people want an urban lifestyle), it will improve our schools, and it will give us a lot more amenities that the city doesn't currently have. There is literally zero downside.

My dream of OKC in 25 years is that we have a built up urban area, Deep Deuce level density, from 13th down to Capitol Hill, and from maybe Penn over to the OUHSC. Connect all of that with the streetcar. Throw in a dozen more highrises. Then connect Edmond, Norman, Moore, Del City, MWC, Tinker, and Will Rogers with a light rail system. Each of the suburbs has a block or four of transit-oriented development at the rail stops. Think if there was something like Campus Corner in each of these suburbs, except with some housing added in.

Will that happen exactly? Probably not as I'm envisioning. But we could make it happen, and the city would be significantly better for it. Of the maybe 1000 square miles of the metro area, you'd be taking up like 30 or 40 with real urban development. The rest can continue to be big houses with big yards and big freeways. Everybody is happy.

This x1000.

Wow... I've just had the "pleasure" of reading over the last two pages of this thread. Maybe someone should change the name from "Crosstown Blvd Updates", to "Bitching About Suburban vs. Urban". Is there any ACTUAL news about the boulevard to report?it always ends up like this. Every damn time.

2/11/2015

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7422/16505751275_a0a88e85e5_c.jpg

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8683/15885597893_8a961773b4_c.jpg

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7456/16479755756_6454d5369a_c.jpg

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8578/15885597533_7e49284253_c.jpg

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7447/16318017958_864e2f26a1_c.jpg

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8608/16318017918_9f564004f2_c.jpg

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8683/16505750505_b1aa6b67b3_c.jpg

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8564/16505750085_9b15729877_c.jpg

Urbanists are trying to block good infrastructure? What in the world does that mean?

Maybe you haven't noticed but there has definitely been a great focus on trying to improve inner city schools. I have no idea what you are saying in trying to relate those two concepts. Do you think that urbanists can only think about one thing to the exclusion of everything else?

First, I am not against urban development at all I am very pro urban development and especially improving inner city schools. But there are some in this thread and others that are against new highway development/expansion because it will encourage suburban development. So my comment was meant to be, instead of trying to block infrastructure that helps the suburbs, focus on fixing one of the biggest reasons people move to the suburbs.

I don't know a whole lot about OKC inner city schools, except their overall rankings, which are poor in a poor performing state. And I have two teacher friends that took (small) pay cuts to get out of OKC school district.

Really it isn't even just an inner city school thing, look at northern OKC where there are huge holes in the development, then you hit Edmond School District and the development starts again.

I'm going to make a side note and it's something the urbanists on this board either miss or dismiss, I'm not entirely sure which.

Your economic arguments that sprawl isn't sustainable because they cost more to build and maintain then the government takes in are ridiculous. Governments have one thing that nothing else in the world has. The power to tax. They can raise taxes and instantly raise revenues. If it was truly unsustainable, the government would simply raise taxes and boom just like magic the money is there.

Sprawl may not be sustainable at current tax rates, but rates can always change. It's not like a family budget because the earners in the family can't demand more pay, a government can.

It's why the country is $15 trillion in debt and we haven't collapsed, because worst comes to worst spending can be cut and revenue increased.

Also there isn't a right or wrong here. It's more a matter of preference. Once both the urban/sprawl cheerleaders accept that, you'll quit arguing or trying to win.

Just my $.02

Seriously....Can we start a thread for all this called. "You hate suburbs!". "No, YOU hate suburbs!"?

I'm going to make a side note and it's something the urbanists on this board either miss or dismiss, I'm not entirely sure which.

Your economic arguments that sprawl isn't sustainable because they cost more to build and maintain then the government takes in are ridiculous. Governments have one thing that nothing else in the world has. The power to tax. They can raise taxes and instantly raise revenues. If it was truly unsustainable, the government would simply raise taxes and boom just like magic the money is there.

Sprawl may not be sustainable at current tax rates, but rates can always change. It's not like a family budget because the earners in the family can't demand more pay, a government can.

It's why the country is $15 trillion in debt and we haven't collapsed, because worst comes to worst spending can be cut and revenue increased.

Also there isn't a right or wrong here. It's more a matter of preference. Once both the urban/sprawl cheerleaders accept that, you'll quit arguing or trying to win.

Just my $.02

Technically we are $18 Trillion in debt because the standard operating procedure for decades has been to budget to spend more than they collect, then often spend more than they budgeted, also there is plenty of unfunded obligations not in that 18 trillion. Also expecting politicians to act in the long term interest of the country over their parties favored policies and risk loosing votes in the next election is a bit much to expect.

The only reason this thread veered into that territory is because some here understand that if the boulevard design completely sells out to the suburban interests driving it - and becomes an expressway providing mainly/only rapid ingress/egress - it could seriously hamper efforts to make the core a great, walkable place for those who choose to remain there beyond the 9-5.

In fact, much of the recent "urban vs. suburban" heartburn was initiated by a poster demanding "a balanced approach" to development, which according to his words seems to be a fast lane from his house to massive parking structures fronting the street. There are other approaches that accommodate suburban arrivals without decimating the core and leaving it lifeless.

Also, remember that we are talking about a few blocks of boulevard and 1-2 square miles of hoped-for quality urbanism in the middle of 600+ (incorporated) miles of unchecked sprawl. The urbanism movement in OKC would have to become many hundreds of times larger - for decades - to make even a dent in the urban vs. suburban balance, and nobody here is pushing for that in any way, shape or form. We just ask that the couple of square miles that make up downtown (0.3% of our city) be as good - meaning liveable/walkable - as they can be.

The screeching demands for "A BALANCED APPROACH!!!" are particularly ironic when coming from anti-urbanists, who have had their way exclusively in this city for 60 years, and who will continue to hold most of the cards and enjoy vastly more available living options for the foreseeable future.

^Exactly. Thank you

I've posted a more detailed analysis on this before (with numbers and everything), a few years ago, but the reason Oklahoma has bad roads is because of sprawl. Oklahoma has a lot more miles of paved 4 lane road, per person, than most states. We even have more when you compare to large area, low population states like Nebraska and Kansas. But our spending on road maintenance isn't proportionately higher than average.

The more you sprawl out, the more you have to spend on roads, or the worse your roads will be. If you don't want higher taxes, then you can't cater entirely to suburbs and exurbs, or you accept bad roads.

The only reason this thread veered into that territory is because some here understand that if the boulevard design completely sells out to the suburban interests driving it - and becomes an expressway providing mainly/only rapid ingress/egress - it could seriously hamper efforts to make the core a great, walkable place for those who choose to remain there beyond the 9-5.

In fact, much of the recent "urban vs. suburban" heartburn was initiated by a poster demanding "a balanced approach" to development, which according to his words seems to be a fast lane from his house to massive parking structures fronting the street. There are other approaches that accommodate suburban arrivals without decimating the core and leaving it lifeless.

Also, remember that we are talking about a few blocks of boulevard and 1-2 square miles of hoped-for quality urbanism in the middle of 600+ (incorporated) miles of unchecked sprawl. The urbanism movement in OKC would have to become many hundreds of times larger - for decades - to make even a dent in the urban vs. suburban balance, and nobody here is pushing for that in any way, shape or form. We just ask that the couple of square miles that make up downtown (0.3% of our city) be as good - meaning liveable/walkable - as they can be.

The screeching demands for "A BALANCED APPROACH!!!" are particularly ironic when coming from anti-urbanists, who have had their way exclusively in this city for 60 years, and who will continue to hold most of the cards and enjoy vastly more available living options for the foreseeable future.Isn't that why we have Friends for a Better BLVD. thread to discuss those things? I know I participated, but I created this thread primarily for new photos and updates to the BLVD. and the other thread can discuss the impact of walkability this will have on the area.

BTW, I'm not directing this at you, just point this out.

It's a good point. Sorry to have participated in the madness.

As far as public health, that is a joke because Japan has incredibly dense urban cities, yet extremely poor health in a lot of areas and high suicide rates. Yes, I am aware they have longer lifespans than the US.

In the suburbs of Dallas, health is great! People are walking around, always active, and as with a lot of the US, are eating healthier now.



Wait a minute - so which areas in Japan have poor health? So in one breath you admit that the Japanese live far longer than we do (a good decade last I looked - may be off) - but then they commit suicide and are unhealthy because they've built extremely walkable cities with impeccable public transit? Huh? And suicide rates? Really? You know that suicide is still considered honorable by many in Japan, so that may, just may, have something to do with it? Or are you suggesting that the shinkansen's efficiency, safety, and reliability lead people to kill themselves?

Just curious have you spent any time in Japan? And where? I spent a month in Kyoto, several days at a pediatric "obesity" clinic. I remember one of the faculty telling me on my first day, "you're not going to think these kids are fat since you live in America!" - and started laughing. What struck me about Japan is that EVERYONE - 80 year olds, are out and about, walking everywhere. My first night there, I had dinner with some of the faculty. We got done around 10 PM, and they were like okay, see you tomorrow! And left me to walk myself home. Which was unbelievable to me, until I realized that here in Kyoto, everyone does this. Everyone walks everywhere. At 10 PM on a school night, school-aged kids were out everywhere. That's when, after living in OKC for so long, it finally struck me that wow, there are places in the world where you can walk home and not worry about getting mugged, or ran over by an idiot driver who hasn't seen a pedestrian in his life. Everyone should visit Kyoto at least once in their lives, preferably in April.

And where are these walkable, mixed-use suburbs in Dallas? I'm just curious, I really am, because I'd love to see them next time we go (which I'm not sure when that'll be, since we have no reason to go anymore).

nm.

I think we should rename this thread ODOT's Folly. They have totally ruined what hope there was for East Bricktown, made the entrance to the river ugly and confusing and given us back the homeless shelters we got rid of when we took I-40 down. Looking at what they've done so far, how can one hope any of the "boulevard" will be pedestrian or bike friendly? Every update I see makes it look worse and worse. And they've wasted millions in taxpayer dollars doing it. Time to get out of the 20th century in state planning and engineering.

I was told they don't have the monies to widen or even entertain the idea of pedestrian traffic. Besides, ODOT is not in the walking or biking business, what could we expect?

I was told they don't have the monies to widen or even entertain the idea of pedestrian traffic. Besides, ODOT is not in the walking or biking business, what could we expect?

The department of transportation is not in the business of how people transport themselves? That's your argument?

I'm not disagreeing with what people want or desire. Just stating the obvious.

Looking at what they've done so far, how can one hope any of the "boulevard" will be pedestrian or bike friendly? Every update I see makes it look worse and worse.

Worst part: It won't even meet their stated purpose of being better vehicular access.

I entered downtown from the west on Crosstown Boulevard yesterday, and noticed: If the "grid" option had been chosen, that route would have deposited you right onto California, the heart of downtown and easy access up to Midtown via Western, Classen, Shartel, and Walker. The one they actually went with will swoop several blocks further south, before letting people exit, duplicating the I-40 access that already exists.

We are getting a road that would have solved all of OKC's navigation needs... In the 90s when Midtown, Film Row, west downtown were ghost towns no one needed to access.

So I'm guessing this is going to be future of this thread? People like no1club who are are in a fantasy world moaning and complaining until me or someone else gets a picture and then we have a slew of people afterwards repeat what they have already said even though it's bs?

Seriously, there is another thread on this that is extremely long. Take your complaints over there. That is why I deleted my response above. There is no need to discuss this here.

So I'm guessing this is going to be future of this thread? People like no1club who are are in a fantasy world moaning and complaining until me or someone else gets a picture and then we have a slew of people afterwards repeat what they have already said even though it's bs?

Seriously, there is another thread on this that is extremely long. Take your complaints over there. That is why I deleted my response above. There is no need to discuss this here.

Oh come on, you've never shied away before - so why now? I'd love to hear your ideas on how the quality of life in Kyoto could be improved by building unnecessary elevated freeways through the heart of the city.

At least tell us where you spent your time in Japan? Seems like you had a much different experience than I did, so I'm just curious.

PluPan's point is that there is a thread already devoted to discussing design ideas/shortcomings related to the boulevard, and that this thread was intended to be for construction updates. He's right.

PluPan's point is that there is a thread already devoted to discussing design ideas/shortcomings related to the boulevard, and that this thread was intended to be for construction updates. He's right.

Fair enough, but this thread has already taken on a life of it's own (of which pulpan was definitely a part of), so it's pretty rich to take that approach now. Ah well so it goes!

I was told they don't have the monies to widen or even entertain the idea of pedestrian traffic. Besides, ODOT is not in the walking or biking business, what could we expect?

Then they should not be trying to control the design of downtown city streets, also it would have been a lot cheaper to keep the grid between Walker and Western, they are spending on what they want.

The department of transportation is not in the business of how people transport themselves? That's your argument?

To be fair, that is correct. ODOT couldn't give a damn about how people transport themselves. They're in the business (racket) of transporting cars, not people.

2/11/2015

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7422/16505751275_a0a88e85e5_c.jpg]

For whatever reason, it escapes me right now, but I first saw these pics and thought they were 4-5 years old.

From ODOT


Press Releases
Monday, March 30, 2015

Downtown progress ramps up as first in a series of three major OKC Boulevard projects commences

Work to reconnect I-40 to Downtown Oklahoma City takes a major step forward Monday as work begins on the first project on the downtown portion of the Oklahoma City Boulevard. The $40 million project will include major railroad bridge work near the east end of the Oklahoma City Boulevard as well as construction of the Oklahoma City Boulevard intersection with Shields Blvd./Gaylord Blvd. The project will also further develop of the I-235 and I-40 connections to the Oklahoma City Boulevard on the east end of the corridor.

The project was awarded to Allen Contracting and Shell Construction as part of a joint venture and is anticipated to take approximately two years to complete. Because a majority of the construction will be in the footprint of the old I-40 Crosstown bridge, only minimal traffic impacts are anticipated during construction. As part of the work, starting in the first weeks of the project Compress Ave. east of Shields/Gaylord Blvd. will be closed as well as a few parking areas south of Bricktown.

This project marks the first in a series of three major remaining projects to complete the middle portion of the Oklahoma City Boulevard and its reconnection to the new I-40 alignment, I-235 and I-35. The final design on the remaining two Oklahoma City Boulevard projects, which run from Klein Ave. to E.K. Gaylord/ Shields Blvd., are currently being finalized with both projects anticipated to be up for bids in early 2016.

The overall construction of the Boulevard includes a now completed $9 million project that constructed the west end connection of the Boulevard to I-40 and the current project on the east end of the Boulevard, which has Gaylord Blvd. closed to allow OGE and city of Oklahoma City crews to relocate utilities in the area. This ongoing Boulevard project is anticipated to be complete in late 2015.

Serving as the final phase of the I-40 Crosstown relocation project, the purpose of the Oklahoma City Boulevard is to improve access to the downtown Oklahoma City Central Business District from the new I-40. The anticipated overall cost of the Oklahoma City Boulevard is approximately $80 million, which includes about $50 million for connections to the new I-40 alignment at the east and west ends and another $30 million for the central part of the new Boulevard. The completed Oklahoma City Boulevard will serve as a low-speed city street running through the planned convention center and central park area, connecting on the east end to I-235 and I-40 near Bricktown and on the west end to I-40 near Pennsylvania Ave. and Western Ave. Plans for the new four-lane Boulevard include on-street parking as well as inclusion of features to make it pedestrian and bicycle friendly.

Through extensive coordination with the city of Oklahoma City and other partners, a comprehensive public involvement process began in 1995 with the initial planning of the I-40 Crosstown relocation. Public engagement continued through the years culminating with ODOT and FHWA re-examining the alternatives for the Oklahoma City Boulevard due to new developments in the area over the last 12 years.

- Oklahoma Department of Transportation (http://www.ok.gov/triton/modules/newsroom/newsroom_article.php?id=277&article_id=15637)

How is I-40 not connected to downtown OKC? There are plenty of exits off I-40 that lead directly to downtown. So incredibly stupid.

Downtown San Francisco isn't directly serviced by ANY interstate. Last I checked, SF was doing just fine.

Dallas is served by an interstate and last time I checked, Dallas is doing just fine; it is also growing faster than San Fran.

Dallas is served by an interstate and last time I checked, Dallas is doing just fine; it is also growing faster than San Fran.

Nevermind.

How is I-40 not connected to downtown OKC? There are plenty of exits off I-40 that lead directly to downtown. So incredibly stupid.

Downtown San Francisco isn't directly serviced by ANY interstate. Last I checked, SF was doing just fine.

San Francisco is actually served by two major interstates/highways: 280 and 101.

Non sequitur (logic) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic))are you directing that at me? What I said is true.

Elon Musk had a great idea of how to solve traffic congestion. Tunnels. 99% of all roadway travel is ground level or slightly above grade, but if we had tunnels under all of our highways that would be great. I think if they tunneled the BLVD underground instead of street level it'd be a win win for everyone.

This is also super bad ass! I really wish they would do this.

Russia Proposes Superhighway Linking New York And London (http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1097518_russia-proposes-superhighway-linking-new-york-and-london?fbfanpage)

San Francisco is actually served by two major interstates/highways: 280 and 101.

Yeah - technically my post was factually incorrect. I was hoping to find a statistic supporting me but I can't!

What I meant was that SF lacks the arterial thoroughfares ODOT is and pulplan are so in love with - and seems to be doing just fine.

Maybe at the end of I-235's life cycle it'll go the way of the embarcadero freeway - how awesome would that be?

This is also super bad ass! I really wish they would do this.

Russia Proposes Superhighway Linking New York And London (http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1097518_russia-proposes-superhighway-linking-new-york-and-london?fbfanpage)

It's hard to do, but that would be an even bigger waste of tax dollars than ODOT's folly.

San Fran is doing just fine. No one is arguing that. So are cities that have large roads and highways going through their cores. I don't see the correlation.

It's hard to do, but that would be an even bigger waste of tax dollars than ODOT's folly.


I disagree.

San Fran is doing just fine. No one is arguing that. So are cities that have large roads and highways going through their cores. I don't see the correlation.

Of course you don't. What you'll never realize is that those large roads and highways going through our cities is exactly what led to the demise of our cities, resulting in our reliance on cars, gas, and suburbia. It wasn't sustainable then, and it's not sustainable now. But you'll believe what you want to believe - so it doesn't matter.

I guess I just believe their can be both great cities that embrace walkability and then cities that embrace cars as the method of transportation.

This is also super bad ass! I really wish they would do this.

Russia Proposes Superhighway Linking New York And London (http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1097518_russia-proposes-superhighway-linking-new-york-and-london?fbfanpage)

I was hoping it was going to be a tunnel under the Atlantic.

Thought someone had something new on the crosstown ?

Thought someone had something new on the crosstown ?

Has anyone noticed the exit (148B) onto the crosstown boulevard as you travel I-40 east beyond the I-44 (between May & Agnew) toward downtown; it now says, exit (Large green/white sign) Oklahoma City Boulevard

Has anyone noticed the exit (148B) onto the crosstown boulevard as you travel I-40 east beyond the I-44 (between May & Agnew) toward downtown; it now says, exit (Large green/white sign) Oklahoma City Boulevard

I actually meant to post this yesterday. I saw them changing the sign last weekend (or earlier this week maybe). I guess this is the official name now?

I really wish they would have come up with something more creative than "Oklahoma City" boulevard. Oklahoma City is already on the Oklahoma river in Oklahoma county. I have heard the official name for the Core 2 Shore Park will be Oklahoma City Park as well. Why isn't there more creativity when it comes to naming things around here?

I wonder if they are leaving it generic to make it easier to rename for the city leaders at a later date? I'm sure the mayor wants his name on something fairly prominent after he leaves. Either that or the leaders are so bland they can't come up with any name other than looking down at their feet to see where they are standing.

I really wish they would have come up with something more creative than "Oklahoma City" boulevard. Oklahoma City is already on the Oklahoma river in Oklahoma county. I have heard the official name for the Core 2 Shore Park will be Oklahoma City Park as well. Why isn't there more creativity when it comes to naming things around here?

Totally Agree. That name is generic with no creativity or splash worthy of the gateway to downtown. Were are the all the forward thinkers in Oklahoma City government. I think this warrants citizen action

Totally Agree. That name is generic with no creativity or splash worthy of the gateway to downtown. Were are the all the forward thinkers in Oklahoma City government. I think this warrants citizen action

Quite appropriate IMO - the thing is going to be (already is) a waste of money and an eyesore. Why give it a nice name?

Quite appropriate IMO - the thing is going to be (already is) a waste of money and an eyesore. Why give it a nice name?

This. The eye-roll name fits exactly what the Boulevard will be.

If history repeats itself; the name game can generate revenue for the city. The Ford Center was called Oklahoma City Arena before the rights were sold to Chesapeake. Bricktown Ballpark was named Southwestern Bell; then AT&T and now Chickasaw Bricktown Ballpark. Someone will want that crosstown boulevard name in their or someone's honor.

There are so many names that could be used, but alas, the lack of creative thought that went into the name reflects the lack of creative thought that went into the road.

If it was to be a real street, and not a traffic sewer, I like Avenue of The West.

I don't undersand why city leaders think that everything needs to be named Oklahoma City this or Oklahoma that. We get it. It's Oklahoma City. Don't beat us over the head with it.

They are over branding as far as I'm concerned. It easily could have been something better...

They are over branding as far as I'm concerned. It easily could have been something better...

What's most sad is that someone actually thinks they are being clever,

What like Mick Cornett Blvd?

What like Mick Cornett Blvd?

That is another thing that ticks me off. I am sick and tired of all these streets and buildings named after politicians. This isn't some 3rd world despotic country. You know, it is a sad commentary on how messed up this country is that we name existing streets after people. Have we totally forgotten how to build monuments?

I call it ODOT's Folly. And it gets more and more ridiculous looking everytime I'm in East Bricktown. What a mess they've created there.

That Bricktown segment is total failure multiplied by infinity and is going to have to be torn down eventually. I have the hardest time believing that got approved.

https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/73btU2xdD5l.7RPz4pG9mg--/YXBwaWQ9c3JjaGRkO2g9MzQ4O3E9OTU7dz01MDA-/http://images.elephantjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/the-sky-is-falling.jpg

Oklahoma City is too big to micromanage. ...time to more on.

https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/73btU2xdD5l.7RPz4pG9mg--/YXBwaWQ9c3JjaGRkO2g9MzQ4O3E9OTU7dz01MDA-/http://images.elephantjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/the-sky-is-falling.jpg

Oklahoma City is too big to micromanage. ...time to more on.

Or maybe it's just too small for enough people to give a crap? Both of the major markets I've lived in micromanage to death. Granted, when the heavy weights are involved, they can railroad just as good as our big hats.