I believe the timing of the barricades going up was just a coincidence and once that got around and then the judge said he would be going to the site as a part of the trial, the attorneys basically strongly suggested they be removed pronto.

At least the barricade crews got two solid days of work!

2 things.

1) Devon Tower itself has parking under it.
2) LN wants to put the convention center underground. I guess that isn't a cost concern since it is taxpayer money.

FYI, Devon doesn't have parking beneath the tower.

There is an incredibly secure loading dock that I used when I hosted an event at Vast and it was a huge ordeal to get access in and out of there.

However, their parking structure and the City Center East garage are both attached and a car bomb could still do a lot of damage from there or at the north curb.

I hate even talking about this but their attorneys are the ones that raised this point about parking below the building and it's just silly.

At least the barricade crews got two solid days of work!

THREE!!! They'll have to put the barricades up one more time.

2) LN wants to put the convention center underground. I guess that isn't a cost concern since it is taxpayer money.

Yeah, I think about that every time I hear about how difficult it is to go underground downtown. Now, I haven't personally done a geological survey, but it seems to me the original CC site is fairly level with the 499 site. I have a hard time believing that its water table is that much different. If they build it underground and can't keep water out of the floor space, then that'd be a much bigger problem that having a leaky parking garage,

Yeah, I think about that every time I hear about how difficult it is to go underground downtown. Now, I haven't personally done a geological survey, but it seems to me the original CC site is fairly level with the 499 site. I have a hard time believing that its water table is that much different. If they build it underground and can't keep water out of the floor space, then that'd be a much bigger problem that having a leaky parking garage,

I see what you're saying, but let's be real. The CC will be just a level below ground, while this 499 address would be multiple levels below ground - with a large building on top of it. I think the water is more of a concern for the latter.

Either way, as many posters have pointed out, it's always been about money. It just looks better when you thinly veil with stories about terrorists and bombs and spin it in a way that you are "protecting".

Recently completed office tower in Tulsa with internal parking garage. (325,000 sf; Floor 1: retail; Floors 2-6: parking; Floors 7-17: office). It is ugly but it takes up a fraction of the block compared to this development, but with half the land area consumed, no street level parking, and 10 fewer floors.

One Place Tower | Bourn Companies (http://www.bourncompanies.com/projects/one-place-tower/)

They wouldn't even have to go underground. They could build the parking deck above ground but underneath the tower. That would also satisfy those hoping for a tower that would have a bit more impact on the skyline.

Too bad that One Place tower didn't get built according to its rendering. I would agree that it's pretty ugly....and incomplete. I just wish that if you put the garage under the tower like that, that they would dress the outside wall better. I really don't understand the "slap on" thing next door.

Say what you will about Shadid, but he was the strong voice for urbanism and preservation today. I doubt there can be any major city whose leaders care less about its history than those in Oklahoma City. There are almost no historic buildings left in its CBD: https://twitter.com/shanehamp/status/613822158280626178 Utterly depressing and the same mistakes that have always been made are being made again... for a parking garage.

Say what you will about Shadid, but he was the strong voice for urbanism and preservation today. I doubt there can be any major city whose leaders care less about its history than those in Oklahoma City. There are almost no historic buildings left in its CBD: https://twitter.com/shanehamp/status/613822158280626178 Utterly depressing and the same mistakes that have always been made are being made again... for a parking garage.

I completely agree. I am not sure there is a single other city where this kind of stuff is still going on in 2015. 499 Sheridan is a development straight out of the 1970s.

I completely agree. I am not sure there is a single other city where this kind of stuff is still going on in 2015. 499 Sheridan is a development straight out of the 1970s.

Lever Tower was built in 1952.

Very interesting that Shadid testified today that he had learned that Clayco had independently arrived at the same conclusion as the architect he hired from Dallas to create an alternative proposal and offered to Devon to build residential units around a refurbished bus station in order to activate the street corner across the street from their high rise residential development. Would Clayco offer to build such a development if they didn't believe it was economically viable?

Very interesting that Shadid testified today that he had learned that Clayco had independently arrived at the same conclusion as the architect he hired from Dallas to create an alternative proposal and offered to Devon to build residential units around a refurbished bus station in order to activate the street corner across the street from their high rise residential development. Would Clayco offer to build such a development if they didn't believe it was economically viable?

I knew about this but didn't say anything because I couldn't independently verify.

It also goes to show how important Clayco thinks that corner is to their development. Their plan is to put a big residential tower directly across the street and I'm sure they are worried about being able to get the rental rates they need with nothing other than a monolithic parking garage to look out on.

This is 100 North Tampa (Tampa, FL). You can see the ramps for the internal parking garage.

http://wfla.images.worldnow.com/images/1952713_G.jpg

This the SunTrust Building (Tampa, FL). That big square at the bottom has a bank, dry cleaners, post office, and restaurant on the ground floor. The second floor is the leasing office and a gym. The 3rd thru 10th floors are the parking garage.

http://www.brookdalegroup.com/images/Suntrust-tampa-exterior26.jpg

It also goes to show how important Clayco thinks that corner is to their development. Their plan is to put a big residential tower directly across the street and I'm sure they are worried about being able to get the rental rates they need with nothing other than a monolithic parking garage to look out on.

The answer to that is for Clayco to build the residential tower fronting the park, but that's for another thread.

Is residential units surrounding the bus station still a viable possibility?

Hearing starts over demolition of downtown Union Bus Station | News OK (http://newsok.com/hearing-starts-over-demolition-of-downtown-union-bus-station/article/5429765)

As I was reading I kept wondering why the city attorneys keep arguing about parking underground. If Hines wants them above ground then fine, but build the tower on top of the parking. As has been shown most every major city does this and I seriously doubt it would add much cost especially compared to going underground.

I think it is time for OKC to grow up and stop accepting mediocre projects and demand urban standards for the CBD especially. This is beyond ridiculous; all of us want the tower and want Devon to be happy but why do they need to destroy another block in order to get another office building? IMO, should have built Devon tower and connected buildings taller in the first place and 499 should be built between Hotel Black and the bus station OR along Main street on top of Parking. ...

Kudos to Shadid for standing up against the OKC boys. Let's not take those two steps back when we've moved forward so much! Certainly seems like a rushed deal with the DDRC and Adjustment since they didn't even consider the impact to Clayco's development across the street.

Can there be a compromise here where the city, Devon/BOK, and freakin' common sense wins?

Yeah, I don't understand why it has to be 100% Devon's way. With any other project in the core the city & district committees have recommended changes so they fit the specific urban environment. With this project there was absolutely no backlash even though there are so many obvious things wrong with it.

I hate to complain like this constantly, but I normally just stick to specific topics I complain about. (Stage Center being torn down for a pit, project 180 taking a few light years to complete). This project is so irritating, because it could be SOOOO much better & everybody could be happy.

When I see the proposed & current Devon complex it reminds me of a shield. A shield that will protect the city from good urban design going forward.

JTF - and that's the kind of garage dressing that doesn't look like crap :)

Yeah, I don't understand why it has to be 100% Devon's way. With any other project in the core the city & district committees have recommended changes so they fit the specific urban environment. With this project there was absolutely no backlash even though there are so many obvious things wrong with it.

I hate to complain like this constantly, but I normally just stick to specific topics I complain about. (Stage Center being torn down for a pit, project 180 taking a few light years to complete). This project is so irritating, because it could be SOOOO much better & everybody could be happy.

When I see the proposed & current Devon complex it reminds me of a shield. A shield that will protect the city from good urban design going forward.


This project went through review. It was altered. It is ground level retail I. The garages (I thought ground level was what mattered). This is not about any of that.

Yeah, I don't understand why it has to be 100% Devon's way. With any other project in the core the city & district committees have recommended changes so they fit the specific urban environment. With this project there was absolutely no backlash even though there are so many obvious things wrong with it.

I hate to complain like this constantly, but I normally just stick to specific topics I complain about. (Stage Center being torn down for a pit, project 180 taking a few light years to complete). This project is so irritating, because it could be SOOOO much better & everybody could be happy.

When I see the proposed & current Devon complex it reminds me of a shield. A shield that will protect the city from good urban design going forward.

As I've stated a ways back in this thread, I believe it's simply because Nichols wants to be able to look at his little glass kingdom: Devon, Myriad (which was the focal point for Devon), and now this tower.

It's just a shame. As many posters are saying, don't put the parking underground, keep it above ground but under the tower still. This tower isn't that large, I'm sure in some form it could be done.

The one thing I will agree to was a point that someone made about out of towners visiting: they notice OKC has a plethora of parking garages.
And over the coming years, as more people are living near or in downtown, this much parking may not be necessary. Where parking is needed is debatable, but I think we'll see a point where people become fatigued by the number of them, even though stats show they are being used and at capacity... That *may* change in the near future, again, as more people begin using rail, or live near the CBD and use alternative methods.

And everyone has kept in mind that this site is getting TWO garages, right? Not just one.

I swear, Boulder works for Devon or something. Adding 3 measly retail spots that are hardly 8500 sqft, with half of that space being an already planned restaurant is simply sad for an entire block in the CBD. It doesn't matter how you spin the approval process, this block will be crickets for years. What about that is difficult to understand? We are using prime real estate for concrete boxes that hold cars for 9 hours each day, then sit idle for 15. The fact that we are bulldozing interesting buildings from the past, only adds to the facepalm.

This project went through review. It was altered. It is ground level retail I. The garages (I thought ground level was what mattered). This is not about any of that.

Puh-Lease.

Devon has spaces for "retail" in their current garage. I guess its nice if you like seeing artwork portraying their commitment to community. You don't think that is exactly what their plan is for these garages?

In the current building there is not retail space. Only window boxes with parking directly behind. Devon added those at the request of ddrc at that time. They never put in leaseable space

That one little box could on the southwest corner of the parking garage could very easily turn into a big display box when the tower is completed. A Subway would have a hard time fitting in there.

As I've stated a ways back in this thread, I believe it's simply because Nichols wants to be able to look at his little glass kingdom: Devon, Myriad (which was the focal point for Devon), and now this tower...

The cartoonish vilification of Larry Nichols on this board is beyond silly sometimes. Am I personally in love with this design? No. But the motives that are assigned to him by people who don't know him and have probably never even met him are outrageous.

Also, I can tell you that Boulder doesn't work for Devon, or even in the energy sector. For the record.

The cartoonish vilification of Larry Nichols on this board is beyond silly sometimes. Am I personally in love with this design? No. But the motives that are assigned to him by people who don't know him and have probably never even met him are outrageous.

Also, I can tell you that Boulder doesn't work for Devon, or even in the energy sector. For the record.

I don't believe I've vilified Mr. Nichols to the extent of others, he certainly has contributed much to the city and we should all be thankful for that.
Saying he wants a glass kingdom probably isn't too far off base considering what has been done. Despite this being a Hines project, Nichols's fingerprints are all over it.
And if you see the layout of downtown once this is complete, Devon will have it's own little area of the CBD looking South, and that's why I refer to it as a "kingdom" because it will be the demarcation of new vs. old.
BOK may be the main tenant of this new tower, but, Devon is really holding the reins.

Lastly, I know someone very close to me who believes in the mantra of "if you've never met him; never smoked it; never tried this or that, you have absolutely no opinion on the subject."

I find that silly, and while it may hold merit for a variety of things, and I could certainly agree to some, the fact that I simply may have not met Mr. Nichols personally, thus rendering my ability to make any mention of him, or hold any opinion, is silly and counter intuitive to discussion.

Thank goodness for Devon and Larry Nichols! Stop the bashing!!!

I never said you (or anyone else) didn't have a right to have an opinion on him or on his output, but the posts routinely made here pretending to know what is in someone else's head are ridiculous.

I never said you (or anyone else) didn't have a right to have an opinion on him or on his output, but the posts routinely made here pretending to know what is in someone else's head are ridiculous.

Indeed they are, but, it's an Internet forum, what do you expect? :p

Before this derails any further and Pete deletes everything, back on track:

So trying to recall, are we anticipating the judge's decision today?

2 things.

1) Devon Tower itself has parking under it.
2) LN wants to put the convention center underground. I guess that isn't a cost concern since it is taxpayer money.

Oh look your facts are wrong again.

I see what you're saying, but let's be real. The CC will be just a level below ground, while this 499 address would be multiple levels below ground - with a large building on top of it. I think the water is more of a concern for the latter.

That's true and I hope that the difference in depth makes it okay, but I've owned two houses with basements in Oklahoma and I can tell you that there will have to be some significant resources put towards water management no matter where they put it, because when it rains like it did last month, you can't even keep a residential basement dry. Water always seems to find a way.

As I was reading I kept wondering why the city attorneys keep arguing about parking underground. If Hines wants them above ground then fine, but build the tower on top of the parking. As has been shown most every major city does this and I seriously doubt it would add much cost especially compared to going underground.

The interesting thing too is that, while it may increase the cost to build the parking under the building, I'm sure that increase could be offset by the return they'd make on developing the rest of the block. Personally, I'd rather see them just move it to a lot that already has the space for this, but, really, you could put three of these on this block if you put parking underneath the building. As it is now they are basically keeping 60% of the land they invested in from ever being fully developed.

Ask the people in 420 W Main if they have any water problems due to heavy rains and the water table their. I can assure you they do

:banghead:

You know, maybe if they just bought what they needed for 499 and only 499, they'd be able to "afford" to put the parking under it and leave the rest of the stuff alone.

If he paid 6.2 million per acre, that's what, like 9 million dollars for the land to build the parking garages? I don't know if anyone knows how much it would cost to put the garages under the building, but that seems like a decent opportunity cost to not get more out of that land.

That's why I sometimes question whether this really is about money, because someone is losing out on some serious opportunity here, especially if this really is one of the most valuable blocks in all of downtown Oklahoma City.

So trying to recall, are we anticipating the judge's decision today?

No.

He said up to 10 days for him to give a decision.

I believe they'll take a field trip to the bus station today or tomorrow.

They've already had their closing arguments today, so the courtroom part of the trial has concluded.

The interesting thing too is that, while it may increase the cost to build the parking under the building, I'm sure that increase could be offset by the return they'd make on developing the rest of the block. Personally, I'd rather see them just move it to a lot that already has the space for this, but, really, you could put three of these on this block if you put parking underneath the building. As it is now they are basically keeping 60% of the land they invested in from ever being fully developed.

Ive been thinking the same. Spend a little more on having the garage at the base of 499 and you have a large desirable piece of ground to develop as well.

Ive been thinking the same. Spend a little more on having the garage at the base of 499 and you have a large desirable piece of ground to develop as well.

How much longer would it take to build the garage under the building vs. a stand alone structure? It seems like the driving factor behind this is Devon's need for space (and parking) which may be (one of) the reasons they are avoiding the underground parking and TIF route.

I was mistaken about taking a trip to tour the bus station... The judge and attorneys actually did that this morning.

How much longer would it take to build the garage under the building vs. a stand alone structure? It seems like the driving factor behind this is Devon's need for space (and parking) which may be (one of) the reasons they are avoiding the underground parking and TIF route.

I'm not sure on the timeline, but do keep in mind that putting parking under the building does not immediately equate to underground parking - the parking is instead integrated into the base of the structure above-ground. In Post 1214 (http://www.okctalk.com/showwiki.php?title=499+Sheridan&p=895858#post895858), Kerry posted pictures of buildings that have parking configured this way. This would likely be the only way to make parking under the building work well within OKC's CBD, thanks to the high water table.

Yeah, the underground parking is a bit of a red herring (possibly started by my mention of Maywood Phase II yesterday), Ed's proposed alternative simply has the parking above-ground with the tower stacked on top of that.

I'm not sure on the timeline, but do keep in mind that putting parking under the building does not immediately equate to underground parking - the parking is instead integrated into the base of the structure above-ground. In Post 1214 (http://www.okctalk.com/showwiki.php?title=499+Sheridan&p=895858#post895858), Kerry posted pictures of buildings that have parking configured this way. This would likely be the only way to make parking under the building work well within OKC's CBD, thanks to the high water table.

Good point. It seems like it would be beneficial to both parties if the parking was built underneath 499 and the property was developed for another project. The property value vs. the additional expense for the parking seems like it would offset

Good point. It seems like it would be beneficial to both parties if the parking was built underneath 499 and the property was developed for another project. The property value vs. the additional expense for the parking seems like it would offset

... and maybe even make the developers more money.

... and have more ground if Devon or BOK want another one (though there may be some stuff left for them to tear down somewhere else that they have their eye on. ;) )

How much longer would it take to build the garage under the building vs. a stand alone structure? It seems like the driving factor behind this is Devon's need for space (and parking) which may be (one of) the reasons they are avoiding the underground parking and TIF route.

You dont have to go underground. You can make floors 2-7 the parking garage and offices on top.

It seems like the driving factor behind this is Devon's need for space (and parking) which may be (one of) the reasons they are avoiding the underground parking and TIF route.

It has to be, right? There really is no other reason to do it this way. The only thing being considered is operational needs. Not the return on investment in the land or the development. I think Preftakes must just feel happy about being a part of it and will take what he can get, so he's willing to do whatever the tenants want, even if that means forgoing a lot of potential revenue on the 60% of his land he's turning into parking. The tenants don't seem to care what happens to the block and Preftakes gets a big payday in a proxy role that he is lucky to have been given.

The City itself should want more density on the block for no other reason than it expands the tax base without having to expand the infrastructure.

2 things.

1) Devon Tower itself has parking under it.
2) LN wants to put the convention center underground. I guess that isn't a cost concern since it is taxpayer money.

Aside from Pete's fact check, but the overarching reality is that oil and gas is hurting. Devon can't be doing another first-rate project right now.

You dont have to go underground. You can make floors 2-7 the parking garage and offices on top.

Hines just recently broke ground on this here in Denver. Floors 2-13 are parking, 14-40 office. I think they did a nice job with the facade, but obviously at least some underground parking would've been preferred.

11003

11004

I now know what Pete was talking about when he criticized the knee-jerk boosterism of OKC deciders. If you're not a "team player," you're labeled as "hostile to development." Um, no. This city has improved enough -- and Devon and others have helped in this regard -- that we shouldn't settle for "cheap and crappy." It's OK to be opposed to this. Anyone with even a modicum of understanding recognizes that stuffing another parking garage across from another on a key, prime, high profile block is an indefensible joke. Pointing that out is good.

People who think this discussion is out of bounds have never lived in a real city, where they argue over the placement of trees and light posts. People argue over such seemingly trivial things because those places are valued, have value, and are worth fighting for. I believe OKC may someday be a place in which developers strive to make our city a better, more thriving place, and a place in which discussions about the impact of developments are welcomed because developers want to do the best they can to improve our city, not just appease the whims of powerful individuals.

I love what Devon has done for OKC, but this is a bad development. It is bad for OKC, and the citizens are not stupid enough to be snowed by the weak arguments made to support this development. Observing the situation, it appears that people are intimidated to voice their obvious displeasure with this unfolding catastrophe. Why?

I now know what Pete was talking about when he criticized the knee-jerk boosterism of OKC deciders. If you're not a "team player," you're labeled as "hostile to development." Um, no. This city has improved enough -- and Devon and others have helped in this regard -- that we shouldn't settle for "cheap and crappy." It's OK to be opposed to this. Anyone with even a modicum of understanding recognizes that stuffing another parking garage across from another on a key, prime, high profile block is an indefensible joke. Pointing that out is good.

People who think this discussion is out of bounds have never lived in a real city, where they argue over the placement of trees and light posts. People argue over such seemingly trivial things because those places are valued, have value, and are worth fighting for. I believe OKC may someday be a place in which developers strive to make our city a better, more thriving place, and a place in which discussions about the impact of developments are welcomed because developers want to do the best they can to improve our city, not just appease the whims of powerful individuals.

I love what Devon has done for OKC, but this is a bad development. It is bad for OKC, and the citizens are not stupid enough to be snowed by the weak arguments made to support this development. Observing the situation, it appears that people are intimidated to voice their obvious displeasure with this unfolding catastrophe. Why?

We do this all the time. Every single year a project comes along that people are afraid to oppose. The regularity of these quagmires is becoming unique to OKC. And I say quagmire bc other cities have bad projecs too, but critical thought isn't as frequently verboten.

OKC is just a Midwestern mild manners kinda place. Questioning the herd mentality just isn't looked at too kindly.

In OKC and many places we spend more time and money trying to change the results of bad ordinances, laws,rules, etc. than we do trying to change the ordinances, laws, rules that allowed them in the first place. Change needs to happen where it will actually effect change. That is harder work than just hiring attorneys ar griping on an internet board. When we become proactive vs. reactive then we can change. Until then, we just whine. The courts aren't there to change things, just to rule on and enforce what has already been lawfully declared. Pontificating online changes nothing. We can choose to be activists or just complain about being victims.

The demolition ordinance is actively being re-worked and has been through many committees and public meetings.

And lots of people on this site are active on the various committees.

Pete,
I'm pretty sure you'll have a construction cam ? Oklahoma Tower maybe ?

The demolition ordinance is actively being re-worked and has been through many committees and public meetings.

And lots of people on this site are active on the various committees.
And, I am talking about finding responsible ELECTABLE smart people to run.

Judge mulls decision | News OK (http://newsok.com/judge-mulls-decision/article/5430031)

Sure, we'll have a skyline which looks impressive for a city of 1.4 million residents once these projects are completed which will make the skyline appear more filled & balanced. We sacrificed quality for height and quantity. 499 Sheridan (27 stories--height 433) will be another white glow that you see in cities like Dallas & Tulsa.


http://global.ctbuh.org/img/skylines/1554-Dallas.jpghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/Dallas_One_Main_Place.jpg/300px-Dallas_One_Main_Place.jpg
One Main Place, Dallas--33 stories--height 445
http://www.douglashenderson.com/images/tulsa-skyline1.jpghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/110_W_7th_Tulsa_Image1_no_glare.png/360px-110_W_7th_Tulsa_Image1_no_glare.png
110 West 7th Building, Tulsa 28 stories--height 388 ft.


Let's hope that by the time someone like Harold Hamn decides to put up his tower, OKC will have something that complements the Devon Tower.

In OKC and many places we spend more time and money trying to change the results of bad ordinances, laws,rules, etc. than we do trying to change the ordinances, laws, rules that allowed them in the first place. Change needs to happen where it will actually effect change. That is harder work than just hiring attorneys ar griping on an internet board. When we become proactive vs. reactive then we can change. Until then, we just whine. The courts aren't there to change things, just to rule on and enforce what has already been lawfully declared. Pontificating online changes nothing. We can choose to be activists or just complain about being victims.

This is a discussion board. People discuss things, good and bad, as you have yourself when pointing out inferior construction. What am I missing here?

And, I am talking about finding responsible ELECTABLE smart people to run.

Some wards legitimately don't want that. James Greiner for instance. Greenwell is a huge improvement for Ward 5. Also, if/when Pete White retires, that ward is going to be a problem. I can see it now. You somehow have a liberal democrat w a conscience who represents SE OKC, need I say more?

Now really might be the best time to make these changes stick.

It drives me crazy when people keep throwin some shade on Shadid. It's immature and counter productive. I can handle when someone I like disagrees with me on one issue (the streetcar). Urban Pioneer is the only poster on here who has any good reason to dislike Ed. The rest of us, time to move on and make amends.


but I would be willing to bet that despite the dislike UP likely applauds and supports Shadid's efforts here. That's class and like others have said I AM glad Shadid is on the council and do weigh his contributions based on merit not prejudice.

Well I do appreciate urbanism in most of it's forms. The pictures of the Savannah restaurant initially put out on twitter by Allison Barta Bailey, copied here, and referenced in the court proceedings lend an idea that the building and thus the corner could be activated in an inspired way that includes preservation. It is a worthwhile discussion at least. I also respect the private property rights arguments and the fact that no public money has been asked for. Still... it's another freaking parking garage!

Regarding Ed... I appreciate many of the arguments that he makes on many important issues. It's a shame that our conflict on the streetcar system became so unnecessarily personal. And if you talk to people who have conflicts with him and some of his core his supporters, on no matter what the issue, they apparently often become unnecessairly personal once things heat up. He and his core supporters often question people's personal motives and the result is that it then becomes hard to judge his sincerity on the issue at hand. Now mind you, I am not without my own flaws. I gave cause for some of this conflict and have debated him when possible with relish. That is my nature.

But all of this has led up to serious irony. Ed was first a streetcar supporter. Then he wasn't. He has created an unnecessary conflict between public transit proponents about "bus versus streetcar". This continues today even though our goal has always been to elevate all of public transit. Then, with great irony, the streetcar system was trumpeted by him and his attorney as an alternative solution to the parking and access problem on this 499 project.

I have been arguing for years that the streetcar system can address our fundamental downtown pedestrian access problems, activate sidewalk activity, allow for remoting the locations of parking garages, and ultimately be the mechanism by which a commuter rail and bus system distributes and picks up downtown workers each day.

After seeing building after building torn down for parking, I am convinced the only way the mindset will start to change is only after the streetcar system is built and up and running. And unfortunately, the 499 parking garage design may be an solid indicator that the city will be willing to accept the destruction of the absolute most core part of our city for the First National Center project.

Regarding Ed... It is hard to say what the motivations are behind taking up this cause. Urbanist philanthropist? Political ambitions? Personal vendettas with Larry Nichols? All of the above?

Regardless of his motivations an whether or not they are sincere or not sincere, I agree with Pete. The only way to properly way to create an opinion on each of the causes that he takes up is to consider them individually.

I am willing to let go of the past and work together with Ed and the other City Council members to build a comprehensive public transit system. Streetcar supporters won. The streetcar system is going to get built. It is going to set the standard by which all other public transit in this city should be weighed. Our bus system merits the same levels of investments. Policies regarding how we build and fund bus shelters should be reevaluated. The Regional Transit Authority should be formally created and a funding mechanism should be approved.

These broader debates regarding preservation, urbanity, parking garages, density, walkability, are only going to resolved though a comprehensive alternative to using automobiles to get everywhere. And we need $1.2 billion and a few people to retire or die off to do it.