Stadium District (formerly Producers Coop)

[jn1780]

That's a good question. The whole point of the boulevard was to be a mitigation measure, but it was unnecessary mitigation. I don't think the city will forever be forced to keep the footprint, the city is the one having to maintain it. Unless the city and the federal government wants to provide funds for annual upkeep.

That said, the city currently has bigger fish to fry.

[mugofbeer]

I bet 10 years from now most of you won't give the OKC Boulevard (please, rename it and NOT with Scissortail!) a second thought. It doesn't separate anything anymore than Classen does. Once that west downtown section fills in, it will become just another street.

Now, the earlier notion of repurposing it and Reno with the east/west rail line is interesting to consider.

[dankrutka]

I bet 10 years from now most of you won't give the OKC Boulevard (please, rename it and NOT with Scissortail!) a second thought. It doesn't separate anything anymore than Classen does. Once that west downtown section fills in, it will become just another street.

Now, the earlier notion of repurposing it and Reno with the east/west rail line is interesting to consider.

I think you're underestimating how much I think about multimodal street design.

Seriously though, I find it hard to believe that this street won't still be significant barrier to creating an interactive and dynamic area in 10 years. It would require—at least—really great design from a lot of architects. Classen at least has always been there since I've known OKC. The boulevard was added only recently so I can't forget how much better it could have been. In other words, I don't think I'm going to forget in 10 years.

[Pete]

Remember the 'Better Boulevard' movement that started on this site and was organized well before the final design?

All of these points were made very strenuously at the time, they were completely ignored, and the state and City basically just kicked the legs out from under the old I-40, let it land on the ground, and said 'we're good'.

[Plutonic Panda]

Do you not remember that odot went back and made revisions? They should've either have just made this road a full on freeway, or made it a completely pedestrian oriented road. If anything, friends for a better boulevard made this road worse, because they half assed it. With all the other infrastructure needs in the city, I don't see oklahoma city going back and doing anything to this brand new road for a long time. Perhaps they'll do some improvements between scissortail And that vacant property directly to the north.

[Pete]

^
ODOT made some revision but as you can see from the end result, it's still a freeway.

Probably the most common sense idea was just to restore the original street grid as Reno is only a block away.

[bombermwc]

But one thing it does do better than Reno, is get you inserted into the CBD faster with fewer lights, which was its whole purpose. It would take twice as long to take the same stretch on Reno with the 10 lights along the way. So from this perspective, it's absolutely serving its purpose. Ever since 40 moved, it takes longer to get from 40 to the CBD because of all of the lights, no matter which path you take to 40. And unless the city buys up land on western, well that's never going to improve either.

[LakeEffect]

Probably the most common sense idea was just to restore the original street grid as Reno is only a block away.

[warreng88]

It's interesting, I remember ODOT said there was going to be something like 25,000 cars per day on this thing and I have never driven it where it was busy. So, out of curiosity, I went to the ACOG website where you can pull up traffic counts all over OKC and there are none for the boulevard. There is one that I thought seemed odd at 125,000 per day and then I realized it was the old I-40 that was still showing up on the system.

There are parts of EK Gaylord that have between 15,000-20,000 cars per day, mainly south and north of the boulevard. Reno in Bricktown shows between 10,000-12,000 cars per day. It would be interesting to see how many actually travel on the boulevard every day and if it is actually serving it's intended purpose.

[LakeEffect]

It's interesting, I remember ODOT said there was going to be something like 25,000 cars per day on this thing and I have never driven it where it was busy. So, out of curiosity, I went to the ACOG website where you can pull up traffic counts all over OKC and there are none for the boulevard. There is one that I thought seemed odd at 125,000 per day and then I realized it was the old I-40 that was still showing up on the system.

There are parts of EK Gaylord that have between 15,000-20,000 cars per day, mainly south and north of the boulevard. Reno in Bricktown shows between 10,000-12,000 cars per day. It would be interesting to see how many actually travel on the boulevard every day and if it is actually serving it's intended purpose.

Might be that OKC hasn't sent their traffic counts to ACOG lately... try submitting an Open Records Request for the data and see what OKC has? https://oklahomacityok.justfoia.com/...e-8d86c5a87deb

[jn1780]

It's interesting, I remember ODOT said there was going to be something like 25,000 cars per day on this thing and I have never driven it where it was busy. So, out of curiosity, I went to the ACOG website where you can pull up traffic counts all over OKC and there are none for the boulevard. There is one that I thought seemed odd at 125,000 per day and then I realized it was the old I-40 that was still showing up on the system.

There are parts of EK Gaylord that have between 15,000-20,000 cars per day, mainly south and north of the boulevard. Reno in Bricktown shows between 10,000-12,000 cars per day. It would be interesting to see how many actually travel on the boulevard every day and if it is actually serving it's intended purpose.

I suspect it only approaches that number when there are events happening downtown.

[CaptDave]

Probably the most common sense idea was just to restore the original street grid as Reno is only a block away.

If only you knew how many times that was suggested. But Eric Wenger and ODOT weren't even slightly interested in doing anything that made more sense for OKC. I recall lots of responses like "the overpasses on the west end will have beautiful openings for sunlight"........

[Plutonic Panda]

I don’t see the problem with having this boulevard and it seems smart to have extra road capacity for the future when OKC really starts to see major growth. Arterials like Reno can only handle so much.

[Dob Hooligan]

I don’t see the problem with having this boulevard and it seems smart to have extra road capacity for the future when OKC really starts to see major growth. Arterials like Reno can only handle so much.

Agree. I have 2 specific uses for the Boulevard, and it is a great way to save time. Years from now it will be built out and incorporated where only old geezers will complain out it.

[Jake]

If only you knew how many times that was suggested. But Eric Wenger and ODOT weren't even slightly interested in doing anything that made more sense for OKC. I recall lots of responses like "the overpasses on the west end will have beautiful openings for sunlight"........

The Classen/Western overpass being by far the most beautiful. What with the light gracefully streaming through and illuminating the soot from the fire barrels and all.

[The]

If only you knew how many times that was suggested. But Eric Wenger and ODOT weren't even slightly interested in doing anything that made more sense for OKC. I recall lots of responses like "the overpasses on the west end will have beautiful openings for sunlight"........

I wrote Wenger repeatedly and he was a complete prick throughout.

[Plutonic Panda]

One thing they oughta do in this new Boulevard would help provide relief is find a way to remove some of those loop ramps in the deep deuce neighborhood area. They could do a braided type system or remove them completely and put a park cap over it. It might cause a few extra minutes of drive time, but it really could spur some cool development in the area. I don’t think that’s needed right now for something to 10-20 years down the line would be something worth looking into.

The boulevard really does provide a good connection to getting in and out of downtown pretty seamlessly with direct connections to I 40 without having to use on an offramp at a diamond interchange. I like the boulevard itself and the concept it was just the execution.

[bombermwc]

The Classen/Western overpass being by far the most beautiful. What with the light gracefully streaming through and illuminating the soot from the fire barrels and all.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

But no really....it's the dumbest alignment along the whole thing. What even is that!?

[jn1780]

In retrospect, the pressure should have been put on ODOT and the city to use a grid or Reno option before the west and east ramps were constructed. Could have just built the ramps to Reno, updated 3rd street and called it good. Once they built out that west ramp to the old I-40 segment, they were determined to make it a bypass type of road.

I get it, ODOT said we 'haven't designed the central portion yet', but it seemed pretty obvious this was the direction they were going.

[BoulderSooner]

In retrospect, the pressure should have been put on ODOT and the city to use a grid or Reno option before the west and east ramps were constructed. Could have just built the ramps to Reno, updated 3rd street and called it good. Once they built out that west ramp to the old I-40 segment, they were determined to make it a bypass type of road.

I get it, ODOT said we 'haven't designed the central portion yet', but it seemed pretty obvious this was the direction they were going.

city leaders drove the BLVD every bit as much (if not more) then Odot

[warreng88]

I don’t see the problem with having this boulevard and it seems smart to have extra road capacity for the future when OKC really starts to see major growth. Arterials like Reno can only handle so much.

My frustration with it is how it was sold to us. Pedestrian friendly, going to spur development along the boulevard, lower speed limits, etc. It was supposed to be a grand entrance into Downtown OKC and it just looks like a half a$$ highway to me...

The only part of the boulevard that I think is ok is north of the park and even then they should have worked the streetcar into the traffic pattern versus having its own space.

[Rover]

My frustration with it is how it was sold to us. Pedestrian friendly, going to spur development along the boulevard, lower speed limits, etc. It was supposed to be a grand entrance into Downtown OKC and it just looks like a half a$$ highway to me...

The only part of the boulevard that I think is ok is north of the park and even then they should have worked the streetcar into the traffic pattern versus having its own space.

Problem right now is there isn't any development actually ON the boulevard. There are sidewalks, trees, etc. on the boulevard and no pedestrians as there is virtually no one living west of the park and near the boulevard. WHO are the pedestrians who are going to use it right now. No one is going to go strolling past vacant buildings and overgrown lots. Rather than blaming the boulevard, why not blame the fact that so far no developer sees enough value in the land to develop near it. What a difference it might be if Strawberry Fields actually had development and people living there who wanted to walk/bike to downtown and/or the park. Right now, Its utility is for moving traffic in and out.

[Pete]

Problem right now is there isn't any development actually ON the boulevard. There are sidewalks, trees, etc. on the boulevard and no pedestrians as there is virtually no one living west of the park and near the boulevard. WHO are the pedestrians who are going to use it right now. No one is going to go strolling past vacant buildings and overgrown lots. Rather than blaming the boulevard, why not blame the fact that so far no developer sees enough value in the land to develop near it. What a difference it might be if Strawberry Fields actually had development and people living there who wanted to walk/bike to downtown and/or the park. Right now, Its utility is for moving traffic in and out.

That's because the City or the state own all that frontage and the setbacks are huge.

The only exception is the Omni, and that's because it was a completely City-driven development.

[David]

Problem right now is there isn't any development actually ON the boulevard. There are sidewalks, trees, etc. on the boulevard and no pedestrians as there is virtually no one living west of the park and near the boulevard. WHO are the pedestrians who are going to use it right now. No one is going to go strolling past vacant buildings and overgrown lots. Rather than blaming the boulevard, why not blame the fact that so far no developer sees enough value in the land to develop near it. What a difference it might be if Strawberry Fields actually had development and people living there who wanted to walk/bike to downtown and/or the park. Right now, Its utility is for moving traffic in and out.

My personal answer for this is people (aka me) going to the park on Saturday morning but who ended up parking on the street a few blocks away to the north west. Happens maybe once a month or so.

[jn1780]

That's because the City or the state own all that frontage and the setbacks are huge.

The only exception is the Omni, and that's because it was a completely City-driven development.

And the section from Penn to Western is controlled access. No one is going to be building around that. The section from Walnut to the east basically is too. Hopefully, this new stadium district addresses this somewhat.