Quote Originally Posted by Urbanized View Post
You make it sound so easy..."heck"...like it's the very LEAST that could/should be done. I honestly think people throw out ideas like this without considering scale, at all. Remaking OKC like that - touching EVERY neighborhood - would of course be great. But it would also cost billions and take decades. It's not something that could be accomplished with a MAPS-sized project.

Spreading the MAPS approach throughout the city sounds great in theory and may even work in practice, but people would need to understand that they can't get the same bang for their buck that they've had in previous iterations, which were designed to build game-changers that ostensibly benefit the ENTIRE community. A city-wide implementation would have to consist of mostly small, incremental changes and improvements, not dramatic ones. The city is just too big, geographically.

That's why I think if a new MAPS reaches beyond the inner city it should concentrate on key corridors, with the hope that adjoining neighborhoods and commercial properties build upon that momentum with private investment.
Maps 1 and 3 alone cost a billion, has taken two decades and it's not done yet. Yes, it will take money and time to affect the rest of the city. That's not a reason to not do it and let it fall apart over the same period.

It would benefit the entire community. 99+ percent of the people in the entire community work, live, shop, play, visit friends, have family and/or rely on resources outside of downtown.

Yes, incremental change makes the most sense. We can't fix everything at once and certainly not with a token amount of money.

Old proverb: The best time to plant a tree was 30 years ago. The next best time is now.