Core to Shore sucks

[metro]

This is great news. Does this mean the City will finally complete the String of Pearls river project which they started work on some 30 years ago? I hope they rebuild the horse stable pearl.

No clue considering the two projects aren't even remotely related.

[lasomeday]

Oil Capital

IM Pei was an architect, not a planner, that is why his design was flawed.

I haven't talked to any of the planners that agree that the design is good. They all say that Core to Shore was conceptual and not something that was going to be implemented. It was just a concept they worked on to show the city a rough outline of what could happen with development to the river from downtown. They all agree the highway should be further south and the convention center should be moved to where the mill is located.

My Landscape Architecture people agree that there should be one large central park that will be the place for social gathering and an ecological respite from the city. A large park will actual help cool the city by making a larger area that is not concrete or asphalt.

[Oil Capital]

Oil Capital

IM Pei was an architect, not a planner, that is why his design was flawed.

I haven't talked to any of the planners that agree that the design is good. They all say that Core to Shore was conceptual and not something that was going to be implemented. It was just a concept they worked on to show the city a rough outline of what could happen with development to the river from downtown. They all agree the highway should be further south and the convention center should be moved to where the mill is located.

My Landscape Architecture people agree that there should be one large central park that will be the place for social gathering and an ecological respite from the city. A large park will actual help cool the city by making a larger area that is not concrete or asphalt.

IM Pei did not create that plan by himself. Carter & Burgess, a planning/architecture/engineering firm was in on it too.

And of course you conveniently ignored the rest of the record of the urban planning degreed folks, you know, all of those pedestrian malls that "all" urban planners agreed were the thing to do...

Apparently, the planners you have been talking to were not paying very close attention if they thought they were just doing something purely conceptual that would never be built. Clearly, that was not the intent of the Core-to-Shore planning exercise.

[andy157]

No clue considering the two projects aren't even remotely related.

Sure they are. Think about it.

[metro]

Well there has been no discussion for the "String of Pearl's" project recently, let alone to be a serious MAPS 3 proposal. Call me crazy, but it won't be on MAPS 3.

[andy157]

Well there has been no discussion for the "String of Pearl's" project recently, let alone to be a serious MAPS 3 proposal. Call me crazy, but it won't be on MAPS 3.

I wouldn't expect there to be any recent discussion regarding the S of P river project. Furthermore, there is no way I would expect it to be considered as a project for the upcoming MAPS 3. The S of P river project is nothing more than a failed and forgotten pipe-dream of yesteryear. C2S of 2009 is the String of Pearls of the 70's. I really hope our City leaders get it right this time.

[Spartan]

No, it is not available to the public.

I'm raising the baloney flag.

IM Pei did not create that plan by himself. Carter & Burgess, a planning/architecture/engineering firm was in on it too.

And of course you conveniently ignored the rest of the record of the urban planning degreed folks, you know, all of those pedestrian malls that "all" urban planners agreed were the thing to do...

Apparently, the planners you have been talking to were not paying very close attention if they thought they were just doing something purely conceptual that would never be built. Clearly, that was not the intent of the Core-to-Shore planning exercise.

Oil Capital, the difference is minor, but it's what makes all the difference, that between dated fad urban planning and timeless urban planning. We're trying to put together a plan that won't be a flop 30 years from now because it was too sentimental of urban design fads from 2009, just as I.M. Pei's projects (the few that got built) today are too sentimental of the 1960s/70s, the "Urban Renewal" period. Today there is a significant move to rethink some of the fads that have come up in urban planning and try and bring it back to a more timeless, common-sense approach. That is the two sides that you currently see clashing over C2S, rather than pro-downtown or anti-downtown.

[Oil Capital]

I'm raising the baloney flag.



Oil Capital, the difference is minor, but it's what makes all the difference, that between dated fad urban planning and timeless urban planning. We're trying to put together a plan that won't be a flop 30 years from now because it was too sentimental of urban design fads from 2009, just as I.M. Pei's projects (the few that got built) today are too sentimental of the 1960s/70s, the "Urban Renewal" period. Today there is a significant move to rethink some of the fads that have come up in urban planning and try and bring it back to a more timeless, common-sense approach. That is the two sides that you currently see clashing over C2S, rather than pro-downtown or anti-downtown.

I'm raising the baloney flag ;-)

I'm interested into delving further into this. Can you share with me your criticisms (in detail, not "c2s sucks") of the plan?

[metro]

Spartan: I'm raising the baloney flag.

I think I proved yesterday before you posted this, in the thread with the C2S models that I've seen them behind the scenes. Show me where they are widely and easily viewable to the public please. How can we take you seriously when you've been known to be schizophrenic on this website with multiple alias' and personalities over the last few years? What "proof" do you have that C2S sucks? What is you're rational behind it? Were you in on the steering committee's? What have you done to notify City leader's your thoughts on why C2S sucks? Bash all you want, but at least I've done my diligence with City leaders and also provided pics.

[lasomeday]

The core to shore design sucks! I agree with Spartan.

It has hotels blocking off parks, it has a huge conventions center bordering the park? It has small parks here and there. If there was one huge park that stretched to the river, that would be a true Core to Shore. If you ask someone not on the message boards what Core to Shore is, and they will tell you that it is a park that stretches from Downtown to the river. That is what they think it will be. The don't think it will be a patch work of parks and development with no flow.

The convention center should not be next to the park. That is a waste of prime commercial real estate! The convention center should be where the mill is. Having it there will get the eye sore of a mill to move quicker and develop land that if not developed will be a parking lot for years.

Just imagine all of the residential sites next to Central Park in NYC or Millenium Park in Chicago. Those are continuous parks with developments around the edge.

Metro and Oil Capital

Show me a city with the spotty parks with a convention center next to a park and the random mixed developments proposed in Core to Shore and lets see how well they have developed.

[Oil Capital]

The core to shore design sucks! I agree with Spartan.

It has hotels blocking off parks, it has a huge conventions center bordering the park? It has small parks here and there. If there was one huge park that stretched to the river, that would be a true Core to Shore. If you ask someone not on the message boards what Core to Shore is, and they will tell you that it is a park that stretches from Downtown to the river. That is what they think it will be. The don't think it will be a patch work of parks and development with no flow.

The convention center should not be next to the park. That is a waste of prime commercial real estate! The convention center should be where the mill is. Having it there will get the eye sore of a mill to move quicker and develop land that if not developed will be a parking lot for years.

Just imagine all of the residential sites next to Central Park in NYC or Millenium Park in Chicago. Those are continuous parks with developments around the edge.

Metro and Oil Capital

Show me a city with the spotty parks with a convention center next to a park and the random mixed developments proposed in Core to Shore and lets see how well they have developed.

Just a few quick thought. Learn a little about the plan. The vision for the convention center includes the front (you know the part facing the park) being lined with townhouses and possible a little retail space. Thus capturing that "prime commercial real estate" and more importantly creating some activity so that the convention center is not a dead zone on non-convention days.

There is certainly a flow through the plan from "core" to "shore". One can have flow without it being all parkland. If anyone not on this board thinks it's nothing but park, then they haven't paid ANY attention. And so what? The plan flows from park to and through the proposed hotel sites (two hotels separated by green space), then into more park space and then into and through additional commercial spaces. What's so bad about that?

Millenium Park is good example, for exactly the opposite reasons you think. It is chopped off (to use your lingo) from adjoining areas by major streets. One side of it is blocked off by the Art Institute. It is surrounded by mostly office buildings. AND it's only about 20 acres. One could go further in Chicago and note how "choppy" their park system is, separated by museums, highways, and office and residential development instead of a continuous flow of park land all along the water front. I guess you're right, that's no way to develop a successful inner city. ;-)

You continue to show us you know very little about either this plan or other cities. Central Park is not NYC's only park, nor is it in or near downtown NYC, nor does it flow into other parks. Manhattan has many other parks, in a "spotty pattern" around the island. Same for Chicago.

[lasomeday]

Oil Capital.

Really, who wants to live in a Townhouse next to a convention center? That is not going to happen. That is going to end up being another parking lot.

Millenium park is part of Grant Park, which extends to the lake. The art museum is in the middle, which would be our Union Station. So, Milenium Park is a small part of a larger park that if you have been to Chicago lately you would know that it is the heart of most of the new developments (at least for high rises).

The area around Grant Park to the west is a mix of retail/office/hotel/residential just like Central Park.

Central Park is in Manhattan and it is the heart of the city. It is not "downtown", but it is in the heart of the residential area of Manhattan. That area is prime real estate because it is next to the park.

As an ecosystem and what people of OKC think that Core to Shore and the "central park" they think is proposed, a large park extending to the river is what they think is what they are getting, not the hodge podge of developments with hotels in the middle and residential in the middle of the park. The park should be one large park with the residential/retail wrapped around it.

Do you know anything about designing parks? Do you have any planning or landscape architecture experience? Obviously not. Your support of the plan is very narrow minded and focused on what is trendy today. Central Park has shown to be a timeless park that will be around for hundreds of years. IF we take notes from it and Grant Park, we will have a park that will make it through the ups and downs of the economy.

I think that core to shore is being rushed too soon on the city by Mayor Cornett. I appreciate his overall vision, but I do think that we should see more development in our existing neighborhoods and areas before we try to stretch the goals of the city and limit the progress of what we have.

So Oil Capital, what do you think of having the Convention Center where the Mill is currently located? What do you have against that spot? If we develop that piece of land, that will not be developed for probably 20 to 30 years otherwise, it will open up the other pieces of land for development. The hotels can go where the convention center is at now.

[soonerguru]

Without getting in to all of the minutia, I agree that residential townhomes near the convention center is a guaranteed failure. How anyone could propose that with a straight face is beyond me.

[Urban Pioneer]

I have carefully looked at where the're headed and the concept is actually quite solid for the North part of the highway (being park, convention center, and housing/redevelopable). My guess from studying planning for so many years is that it is the southern redevopable areas that will remain blighted for many years and are the properties that would threaten density in other areas if they were "dumped" on the market. However, the chasam that is the highway almost ensures that it is almost it's own "island" for many years unless there are major "anchors" causing the public to go over there.

[khook]

this is a double post.... that I feel is relevant to both discussions.

The past city leaders and planners of Oklahoma City have used the planned parks for expansion of the highway system... It still going on today with the demise of
Topping park and the bird sanctuary along the broadway extension. Look at what has happen to all four of the original grand parks of Oklahoma City. Parks have historically in Oklahoma City been looked at as a storage location for future developments. Till there is a mind set of the community that parks are an integral part of urban living development of parks and the continued maintenance and improvements will all be just a fantasy.

[Oil Capital]

Without getting in to all of the minutia, I agree that residential townhomes near the convention center is a guaranteed failure. How anyone could propose that with a straight face is beyond me.

Why? What is wrong with that concept?

[Oil Capital]

Metro and Oil Capital

Show me a city with the spotty parks with a convention center next to a park and the random mixed developments proposed in Core to Shore and lets see how well they have developed.

San Antonio seems to fit your description pretty well.

[Oil Capital]

Oil Capital.

Really, who wants to live in a Townhouse next to a convention center? That is not going to happen. That is going to end up being another parking lot.

Millenium park is part of Grant Park, which extends to the lake. The art museum is in the middle, which would be our Union Station. So, Milenium Park is a small part of a larger park that if you have been to Chicago lately you would know that it is the heart of most of the new developments (at least for high rises).

The area around Grant Park to the west is a mix of retail/office/hotel/residential just like Central Park.

Central Park is in Manhattan and it is the heart of the city. It is not "downtown", but it is in the heart of the residential area of Manhattan. That area is prime real estate because it is next to the park.

As an ecosystem and what people of OKC think that Core to Shore and the "central park" they think is proposed, a large park extending to the river is what they think is what they are getting, not the hodge podge of developments with hotels in the middle and residential in the middle of the park. The park should be one large park with the residential/retail wrapped around it.

Do you know anything about designing parks? Do you have any planning or landscape architecture experience? Obviously not. Your support of the plan is very narrow minded and focused on what is trendy today. Central Park has shown to be a timeless park that will be around for hundreds of years. IF we take notes from it and Grant Park, we will have a park that will make it through the ups and downs of the economy.

I think that core to shore is being rushed too soon on the city by Mayor Cornett. I appreciate his overall vision, but I do think that we should see more development in our existing neighborhoods and areas before we try to stretch the goals of the city and limit the progress of what we have.

So Oil Capital, what do you think of having the Convention Center where the Mill is currently located? What do you have against that spot? If we develop that piece of land, that will not be developed for probably 20 to 30 years otherwise, it will open up the other pieces of land for development. The hotels can go where the convention center is at now.

Millennium Park is connected to Grant Park by a single pedestrian bridge that goes over the 6-8 lane highway that separates them. The Art Institute (which is 2 blocks long) blocks the other direction. For that matter, Grant Park itself is rather chopped up by major roadways crossing through it. To the west of Grant Park is downtown Chicago, almost entirely office space, hotels and some accompanying retail, VERY little residential. To the extent that Millennium Park is the heart of new development in Chicago, it rather proves my point that a relatively small park can have seriously positive effects on on an area's development. (oh, and by the way, Chicago's convention center? On the lake front. Think that might not be some valuable commercial property? Oh, and it's also at the far end of their spotty series of parks, interrupted by museums, a stadium...

For some reason you seem to think we can't have any flow unless we have a continuous block of uninterrupted park space. Millennium Park proves otherwise. There is plenty of flow and positive result even though Millennium Park is separated from Grant Park (and other parks in the vicinity, by art institutes, major roadways, apartment buildings, officer towers, etc (and again, Grant Park itself is rather chopped up by roadways.

I think having the convention center on the mill site is a very poor choice, compared to the proposed site, especially combined with putting the hotels on the current convention center site, for multiple reasons:

(1) It's further from most of the existing hotels
(2) It's further from the proposed new hotels (and convention planners want hotels ADJACENT to and VERY NEAR the convention facilities.
(3) I don't think they plan to tear down the existing convention center
(4) It would place the new convention center farther from the Ford Center and the current convention center, making them MUCH less usable as a package.
(5) It cuts the convention center off from the park and downtown. We're going to want to be marketing this convention package. Having the center immediately adjacent to the park with its activities and the easy pedestrian flow it will offer to the new hotels and retail spaces and to the riverfront, with the Ford Center immediately across the new Boulevard to the north, will be a much more attractive package than a center stranded at the intersection of south Shields and the interstate highway (and that's the FRONT door).

[soonerguru]

Why? What is wrong with that concept?

Oh you can't be serious. Really. Can you imagine people in this town choosing to live in housing adjacent to the Cox Center? Now try to imagine one that is even bigger than the Cox Center.

There's nothing remotely appealing about that from a residential standpoint.

[lasomeday]

Oil Capital

The Art Institute is a part of the Millenium/Grant Park. It adds to the park/cultural experience. The entire park even though it has roads going through it is one continuous ecostystem. I don't think you have realized that a park is more than just for people.

The proposed hotels are in a horrible spot. That area should be park as well, uniting the "central park" with the Myriad Gardens. The parks should be united.

Do you honestly think that the Mill is that far away? Honestly. It may be another 50 to 60 feet west. It is closer to lower bricktown and the Marriott there.

Is there anything with the Core to Shore that you find wrong? Really? It is not that good of a plan that you are head of heals in love with it. It is a bad design.

I hope that they have everything separate on the MAPS 3 ballot, because the only thing that is worth voting on is the Street Cars/ Mass Transit. The rest is poorly planned!

[metro]

Metro and Oil Capital

Show me a city with the spotty parks with a convention center next to a park and the random mixed developments proposed in Core to Shore and lets see how well they have developed.

Not sure why you're lumping me with Oil Capital. I don't have the same mindset or stance. I'm with you, I think the C2S park needs a redesign and overhaul. We only have one chance to get it right. I've seen the models and presentation already, and I think it needs more thought personally.

[Oil Capital]

Oh you can't be serious. Really. Can you imagine people in this town choosing to live in housing adjacent to the Cox Center? Now try to imagine one that is even bigger than the Cox Center.

There's nothing remotely appealing about that from a residential standpoint.

Ummm, the park across the street, maybe? The easy access to all of the other amenities planned in the core-to-shore area perhaps?

[Oil Capital]

Oil Capital

The Art Institute is a part of the Millenium/Grant Park. It adds to the park/cultural experience. The entire park even though it has roads going through it is one continuous ecostystem. I don't think you have realized that a park is more than just for people.

The proposed hotels are in a horrible spot. That area should be park as well, uniting the "central park" with the Myriad Gardens. The parks should be united.

Do you honestly think that the Mill is that far away? Honestly. It may be another 50 to 60 feet west. It is closer to lower bricktown and the Marriott there.

Is there anything with the Core to Shore that you find wrong? Really? It is not that good of a plan that you are head of heals in love with it. It is a bad design.

I hope that they have everything separate on the MAPS 3 ballot, because the only thing that is worth voting on is the Street Cars/ Mass Transit. The rest is poorly planned!

Okay, you've gone right over into lunacy.

Apparently, all we have to do to satisfy your "flow" and "eco-sytem" concerns is to declare the convention center and the new hotels to be part of the park and to declare that henceforth Myriad Gardens is part of the new Central Park. Voila! Instant flow. Instant eco-system.

As to the mill site. First of all, it is to the east, not the west. and 50 or 60 feet??? You are pretending to be some sort of urban planner/park planner or something and you have that little grasp on measurements? Just getting across S. Shields will be easily 100 feet. And surely you understand that it's more than JUST distance. It's the psychological boundary provided by S. Shields. The convention center needs to be VERY Close to the convention hotels. Period. The proposed canal extension will do the job of connecting the convention center to Bricktown. That would NOT be adequate to connect to the main convention hotels.

You keep telling us your conclusion that it's a bad design, but so far the only reasoning for your conclusion is your looney idea that the convention center would be better on the mill site and your even-more looney concept of "flow" and "eco-system" deficiencies in the parks. Using Chicago as your example completely disproves your concept.

Your last paragraph is totally precious. When all else fails, pull out the straw men. ;-)

[Oil Capital]

Not sure why you're lumping me with Oil Capital. I don't have the same mindset or stance. I'm with you, I think the C2S park needs a redesign and overhaul. We only have one chance to get it right. I've seen the models and presentation already, and I think it needs more thought personally.

Metro, what are your specific criticisms of the plan?

[lasomeday]

Oil Capital

You obviously don't see outside the box. The Convention Center Hotels should not be built where they Core to Shore wants them. That is a bad design. They should/could be where the convention center is proposed or between the mill and the boat houses.

Have you been to big cities like Vegas, people can walk. They need to walk!

Study park designs and get back with me with some logical ideas on what real parks should look like.