Is it just me or should the city be actively trying to move a lot of this industrial crap away from downtown.

I see more "Metal Fabricator" factories in downtown than I can handle. This industrial sludge just makes downtown look dirty.

I'd say it's too early to plant trees. It doesn't do any good to plant now and then have to take them out because the plan changed.

Don't forget the C2S plan is still, computer animation notwithstanding, still preliminary. A lot could change between now and the time it's finished.

I seem to recall that the original design of the Myriad Gardens included a planetarium and television studio.

on the lots that are already clear that we know were gonna use we should start planting trees


We do need to get a head start on tree planting.

Let's remember that once you plant a tree - which is a living, breathing thing -someone (i.e. the City) has to take care of it, and that means $$$; operations money, to be exact, which is reliant upon sales tax revenues.

When revenues dip, even a little, so do the operating budgets that are used to care for these living, breathing things. (Some budgets may actually dip even if there is an increase in revenues because of priorities in other areas). And as much as we would like our trees be a priority, most citizens would rather see those operating dollars go towards "essential" services such as sewer, trash pick-up, police and fire. Trees kind of get the short shrift.

We cannot always rely upon mother nature to do the work for us.

Bornhere brought up a great point, as well. Right now, C2S is still a "concept." As the plans evolve - and they will - then landscaping, including trees, can become part of this plan. Most likely this will not happen until after the plans are more concrete and they choose what to do with the boulevard, park and surrounding private development.

Adding a variety of trees - both quick-growers (tend to be weaker), and slow-growers (tend to be much stronger) - would be ideal. Believe it or not, a great deal of planning must be put into our urban forests. It shouldn't be just a "hey, let's plant this and see how it works in this location" type of proposition.

In large land areas such as this will be, planting in "clusters" is usually the better approach since operationally, it costs less money (fewer trips to water, prune, etc.). Planting trees one by one by one by one at random locations just to have one here or there requires more labor, gas, and oh yeah, money. :smile:

Well I never said let's get out there and do it tomorrow. It shouldn't be long before the area that is the park should be cleared, and the river is already a park with few trees. Of course it's way too soon to do any landscaping of the areas that will see private development.

Everyone talks about the eyesore that metal factories and all those junkyards close to downtown are. Like you I believe it should not be in or even close to the C2S design, but where do we move it . Coming from someone who works on cars I frequent the junkyards often.

http://www.okctalk.com/okc-metro-area-talk/12319-walking-tour-c2s-area.html

You can see a small part of all the junk down there from these pictures I took last month! There is a lot of it around the C2S area. I guess the property owners are responsible for clearing the land or is the City going to take care of it?

I think I-240 should be our "Industrial Park" area, leave I-40 to the entertainment, business, and recreation.

I think I-240 should be our "Industrial Park" area, leave I-40 to the entertainment, business, and recreation.Why not make the Kilpatrick TP our Industial Park?

Let me make a correction, I-240 between Air Depot and I-35.

Because it's the link to Tulsa from OKC. I'd actually like to see some growth happen between these two cities.

Plus, 240 already has a lot of Warehouses and Industrial areas, why not keep them all in one place?

Everyone talks about the eyesore that metal factories and all those junkyards close to downtown are. Like you I believe it should not be in or even close to the C2S design, but where do we move it . Coming from someone who works on cars I frequent the junkyards often.

Anywhere on the south side would work.

Let me make a correction, I-240 between Air Depot and I-35.

Because it's the link to Tulsa from OKC. I'd actually like to see some growth happen between these two cities.

Plus, 240 already has a lot of Warehouses and Industrial areas, why not keep them all in one place?Are you saying that I-240, not the Kilpatrick, is the better link to Tulsa?

Anywhere on the south side would work.I agree anywhere on the southside of Edmond works great.

I was referencing the Kilpatrick Turnpike as the tie between OKC and Tulsa.

I-240 for all the industrial stuff...

I was referencing the Kilpatrick Turnpike as the tie between OKC and Tulsa.

I-240 for all the industrial stuff...If we don't make the link, or the tie-in to Tulsa, with business and industry, are you saying that we do it with houses?

Please don't take what I said out of context.

I was referring to the current downtown industrial "sludge" to quote. It needs to be placed on I-240 as I referenced and not take away from the vitality of the downtown area.

Quote me on that.

Btw.. i wouldn't get Business and INDUSTRY mixed with industRIAL.

Please don't take what I said out of context.

I was referring to the current downtown industrial "sludge" to quote. It needs to be placed on I-240 as I referenced and not take away from the vitality of the downtown area.

Quote me on that.I haven't taken anything you've said out of context. Nor have I previously quoted you, on any of your statements.

This all started with a comment that, Industrial sludge makes Downtown look dirty. Followed by the question, but where do we move it? To which your response was, and I now quote you, "I think I-240 (non-specific boundries) should be our "Industrial Park" area, and leave I-40 to the entertainment, business, and recreation."

So, lets recap. Downtown looks dirty due to "Industrial Sludge". My what should we do with it. I know, lets put out on I-240, not I-40 because, gosh we wouldn't want a bunch of dirty old sludge out there. It will fit in much better out on I-240.

This is where I came in. And I did so by asking you a simple question. I ask, using your term, not quoting you,"Why not make the Kilpatrick Turnpike our "Industrial Park?" Now it's pretty obvious that I live out South. So yes there was a purpose for my question. Remember we've got sludge, it needs to be moved, because it's dirty. So why won't the Kilpatrick work just as well as I-240?

You then responed back to me with a correction. Frankly, I took your stated response to be more of a clairification than a correction. Nevertheless, we now know where, at least in your opinion, that all the dirty old sludge needs to be re-located to, and that is, I-240 and specificly between I-35 and S Air Depot. You then go on to say why. And I quote, "Because it's the link to Tulsa from OKC". You went on to talk about how you would like to see growth between the two City's (OKC/Tulsa) and that I-240 already had lots of warehouses and industrial areas, you know that dirty stuff, so lets keep it all in one area. We can come back to those two issues later.

When you said, and I quote, "I-240 between Air Depot and I-35. Because it's the link to Tulsa from OKC". Now I've lived in OKC for a long time, and this is an ironic twist. I work at I-240 and S. Air Depot. So you might imagine that, in the context of travel between the two City's, why I had to question your notion that I-240 was a more viable link to Tulsa from OKC than the Kilpatrick Turnpike would be. So again I simply ask, "Are you saying that I-240, not the Kilpatrick, is the better link to Tulsa?" It seem to be a fair question. I thought.

Your next response was, and I quote, "I was referencing the Kilpatrick Turnpike as the tie between OKC and Tulsa. I-240 for all the industrial stuff..." OK back to the other two issues. We know that you want to see some growth between the two Citys, OKC and Tulsa. We also know that you don't want that growth to include any Industrial "Parks, Areas, or stuff" located on the Kilpatrick. I-240 between I-35 and Air Depot is better suited to handle the dirty sludge. Fine.

My last question for you was based upon your comments. You want the dirty sludge, along with all the other industrial stuff moved from Downtown out to the I-240 area, not the Kilpatrick area. Furthermore you want to see OKC tied and/or linked to Tulsa through growth. So the basis of my question is how do you expect the two Citys to grow together? BTW who with, or where exactly should INDUSTRIAL be thrown into the mix? Your thoughts, suggesstions?

JLCinOKC said "You can see a small part of all the junk down there from these pictures I took last month! There is a lot of it around the C2S area. I guess the property owners are responsible for clearing the land or is the City going to take care of it?"

In which I replied, "I think I-240 should be our "Industrial Park" area, leave I-40 to the entertainment, business, and recreation." To better understand that statement, I was talking about junk and trash that are eyesores you see when entering the city from any direction, ie. All of the junk and scrap yards on Reno towards MLK, the area south on Robinson, sections of 235, etc.. are distracting from all the vibrancy of OKC, especially being around the I-40 area where much of this is located and is the most highly traveled interstate of people coming and going from the state by car. It makes OKC look trash and tacky.

You then asked me, "Why not make the Kilpatrick TP our Industrial Park?"

I then went into further detail, "Let me make a correction, I-240 between Air Depot and I-35" I was referring back to my earlier statement of which part of I-240. The I hit "Enter" twice to move onto my next thought in replying to your question, well why not.. "Because it's the link to Tulsa from OKC. I'd actually like to see some growth happen between these two cities." [Now read this very carefully and pay attention] I'm referencing "Industrial" as the dirty tacky eyesores of the city. So when you asked me why not put all that on the turnpike, I believed that to be the stupidest thing I had ever heard. Then I hit "Enter" twice and continued my thought, "Plus, 240 already has a lot of Warehouses and Industrial areas, why not keep them all in one place?" I say this, because 240 is rarely traveled by out of towners who come to visit OKC, in that particular area. Now, i'm NOT saying that there aren't people who do travel 240 from out of state, i'm simply saying there are FEWER people who travel 240. Not a lot to "Site see" there and there is plenty of land.

With this, you replied, "Are you saying that I-240, not the Kilpatrick, is the better link to Tulsa?
Have you ever seen a map? Does 240 lead to Tulsa? No. But you thought I was referencing the good stuff, "business and industry." Why not have "business and industry" tieing the two cities together, who wouldn't want that? I of course am referencing the eyesores of our city.

I made the correction, "I was referencing the Kilpatrick Turnpike as the tie between OKC and Tulsa. I-240 for all the industrial stuff..." Again, my reference to "industrial stuff" being eyesores on the city.

You replied, "If we don't make the link, or the tie-in to Tulsa, with business and industry, are you saying that we do it with houses?"

Again, you are misunderstanding what I was saying, you still assumed that I was talking about "the good stuff", "business and industry".

I believe you were taking stuff out of context that I had posted, so I replied, "Please don't take what I said out of context." Then I even explained what I meant, "I was referring to the current downtown industrial "sludge" [The eyesores of our city] to quote. [I was quoting JLCinOKC who called it "sludge"] [The sludge]It needs to be placed on I-240 as I referenced and not take away from the vitality of the downtown area." I then told you to "Quote me on that."

But I didn't stop there, I wanted to add "Btw.. i wouldn't get "Business and INDUSTRY [the good stuff] mixed with industRIAL. [In reference to the "sludge" to quote JLCinOKC, that I believe to be eyesores.]

You of course go into your spill of saying you didn't take any of my words out of context or quoted me. By reading your 2nd paragraph, I see you do understand that I was referencing sludge to be placed on 240.

"So, lets recap. Downtown looks dirty due to "Industrial Sludge". My what should we do with it. I know, lets put out on I-240, not I-40 because, gosh we wouldn't want a bunch of dirty old sludge out there. It will fit in much better out on I-240." That complete paragraph is exactly what I was talking about.

In your 4th paragraph, you ran my two separate statements together in response to your, "I-240 between Air Depot and I-35. Because it's the link to Tulsa from OKC" Of course leave out the "Let me make a correction" part of which I was correcting what I had said about it being I-40 with a clarification of the location on 240, simply because by the way you posed your question, I believe you had a misunderstanding of what I was referencing. Then starting a new paragraph, I said, "Because it's the link to Tulsa from OKC." To put this simply, you asked, from my perspective, "Why not place all that dirty sludge of industrial crap, yes crap, on the KTP, of which I thought, why would we want to place all that Crap on the kilpatrick turnpike, and I replied, "[We wouldn't]Because it's the link to Tulsa from OKC." The returning, again, to my previous statement, 240 already has a lot of industrial stuff, why not keep it all in one place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Beyond all of this pointless crap, there are some issues to discuss. Connecting the two cites apparently has to happen by growth. Our definitions of growth appear to be different. You believe, as I understand, that we need to tie the two together through industry. But, I believe that places like big factories, even the Coop south of the Crosstown, are distracting and eyesores to the downtown area of which I believe to be for "entertainment and attraction" not distraction [To clarify, I'm referencing the downtown area to be the attraction, and industrial buildings to be distraction]. I simply recommend that places like that need to be out of the way of the "tourist/visitor" and families. That's how I feel about that. Now, my suggestion to tie the two cities together, [Remember, you thought that without industrial "stuff", what would we do it with? Homes?] my answer, I don't know. There is obviously "something" that would have to tie them together. I understand this, you understand this. I'm simply saying, I don't know.

Now, we can look at other cities who are, what I would consider to be large cities in a state, as examples to see how they have grown together. What about the Dallas/Ft. Worth area?

Why not make the Kilpatrick TP our Industial Park?mmonroe, let me make a correction.The kilpatrick Turnpike, West of I-44. Nobody, well maybe somebody, but rarely anybody traveling in from out of town to visit OKC will come in that way. And there is plenty of land out there.

It's clear now that I may have taken some of what you said out of context. Sorry. But at the time little did I know that you "hit enter twice" causing your words and thoughts to get all mixed up. I guess my stupid question about putting a dirty sludge filled "Industrial Park" on the Turnpike really threw you for a loop hey.

I know how you feel because, now pay close attention, I understood from the very beginning what you were saying. In fact, as you acknowledged, I sumed it up in my "Lets re-cap" paragraph. But then your I-240 plan doesn't seem that all that smart to me.

Lastly, you understand, that I believe we should tie the two Citys together using Industry. BTW, thanks for clearing up for me that Industry is good, as opposed to Industrial which is bad. Anyway, if there are some opportunities to engage in some form of Intra-City commerce between the two City's thats great.

Now I don't again want to take anything you've said out of context. Nor put any words in your mouth. You have talked about OKC/Tulsa growing together. And you mentioned Dallas/Ft. Worth and how they have grown together. What are they about 20-30 miles apart? Thats about the same as lets see OKC/ Edmond, or OKC/Moore. But OKC/Tulsa, 110 miles. Seems kind of silly. Regarding the re-location of Downtown eyesores. NIMBY. But yours is OK

I'm curious as to whether any of the Core to Shore area is or will be classified as 'brownfields,' or whether any of it will require hazardous waste remediation.

OKC/Tulsa will never become connected ans yes Andy157, it is silly to think that. Places like Dallas/Ft. worth, Minneapolis/St. Paul are next door to each other, OKC and Tulsa will always be two great cities competing against each other untill Jesus comes again and that is just a fact. Besides, i thought this thread was about the C2S project?

Anywhere on the south side would work.

I was thinking we could gut out crossroads mall, and make it a industrial open mall. since this place is already a dump it would not be a hard transition . If we need more space we could work it toward valley brook.

May I suggest the DumpDome. A $1.2 billion retractable roof dome junk yard. Just kidding.

I am not sure where a new junk yard district would be located but I would not want it visiable from an interstate. I would prefer some very large tract of rural land with landscapping that would prevent it from being seen. A junkyard is a destination business so location is not everything. People going to a junkyard will find it no matter where it is.

I don't think we really have a right to tell them where to relocate after pushing them out w/ eminent domain.

May I suggest the DumpDome. A $1.2 billion retractable roof dome junk yard. Just kidding.

I am not sure where a new junk yard district would be located but I would not want it visiable from an interstate. I would prefer some very large tract of rural land with landscapping that would prevent it from being seen. A junkyard is a destination business so location is not everything. People going to a junkyard will find it no matter where it is.

What? You mean you don't want it visible from an interstate like the great Oklahoma City garbage dump just East of Crossroads Mall on I-240!?

Don't get me wrong, I love mountains but that thing is getting ridiculous!

OKC and Tulsa.. I can dream, it's what I'd like to see.. so nuh.

240 to me is more for locals than travelers. Thats why I recommended it be taken down there, the "junk" that is.

What? You mean you don't want it visible from an interstate like the great Oklahoma City garbage dump just East of Crossroads Mall on I-240!?

Don't get me wrong, I love mountains but that thing is getting ridiculous!

Just wondering, what could you build on that thing anyway? Or around it for that matter.

Something like the Hollywood hills, and Put a big O K L A H O M A C I T Y sign...

In Virginia Beach, they turned their big mountain of a dump into a park called "Mount Trashmore". No lie... It is a big green mountain that people go to to walk and fly kites and the such.

Mount Trashmore Park: Virginia Is For Lovers (http://www.virginia.org/site/description.asp?attrID=24654)

No Lie.

Do not forget about the one south of I-40 just east of Council. I have always thought the city could do something with that one. It is very visible and on a major highway thru the city. It might be kind of silly, but i thought maybe a major water park or maybe another Mt. Trashmore Park. That part of town is really comming alive with talk of a outlet mall there and all.

The problem with that is that is a working city dump. We might want to wait until the dump is closed to actually start recreating on it. But that's just me.

Just wondering, what could you build on that thing anyway? Or around it for that matter.With a couple of snow making machines it could become a ski resort

An artificial volcano would be cool. Take that, Hawaii.

Why not make it look like the top of a slushy, put in a big straw, and place SONIC on the side...