Core to Shore sucks

[Oil Capital]

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.

LOL Millennium Park is great. And it and its environs are a rather perfect example of why this design is pretty darned good. You obviously have learned just enough academic design jargon to make yourself completely useless. ;-)

Discovery Green in downtown Houston is another very good example in a similar situation (convention center, hotels, etc.)

Why is it bad design to build hotels in a park as opposed to building an art museum in a park? (You're going to have to think outside your jargon-filled box here and imagine that Myriad Gardens and the new park are one park with the hotels in the park, just as you have imagined that Millennium Park and the various choppy sections of Grant Park are one park with the art institute also part of the park). What else, if anything, is "bad design" about the placement of the hotels in the C2S design?

Oh, by the way, the "bad design" of placing the hotels in the c2s proposed spot is superior to either of your choices because it keeps them closer to the core of downtown, as well as close to the convention center. Your proposal pulls them further from the core, making them more reliant solely on convention center business, and, dare I say it, makes for a much more spotty plan, which would more likely fail to achieve critical mass.

Somehow, you seem to have gotten the idea that core to shore is or should be all about the park and nothing else should be allowed to intrude on your imagined acre upon acre of green grass between Myriad Gardens and the river. That's not what Core to Shore is about. It's all about an overall development of the core to shore area, including some well-designed park space.

[soonerguru]

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

That's a big if. There have been lots of other "planned" amenities that have never come to fruition in our existing housing developments.

If you want a chuckle, reread the stuff that was originally proposed for the Deep Deuce area. It's a laugh riot.

Or, for fun, reread the stuff about the river in MAPS 1. They actually referred to the flimsy tree planting as "reforestation" of the Oklahoma River.

I suppose it's remotely feasible that there could be a residential feel next to a large convention center. It's more likely that it wouldn't work.

I guess on this we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Oil Capital]

That's a big if. There have been lots of other "planned" amenities that have never come to fruition in our existing housing developments.

If you want a chuckle, reread the stuff that was originally proposed for the Deep Deuce area. It's a laugh riot.

Or, for fun, reread the stuff about the river in MAPS 1. They actually referred to the flimsy tree planting as "reforestation" of the Oklahoma River.

I suppose it's remotely feasible that there could be a residential feel next to a large convention center. It's more likely that it wouldn't work.

I guess on this we'll have to agree to disagree.

As to your earlier suggestion of townhouses attached to the Cox Center, I'm thinking if they faced Myriad Gardens, they could certainly appeal to an urban-oriented household. And that would be even more so in the case of the planned new park.

As to it being a big "if", well, yes, this entire thread is based on nothing but giant "ifs". We are talking conceptually here. Conceptually, I don't see anything particularly unattractive about townhouses across from an urban park and very near to many other amenities, just because their rear happens to be attached to a convention center.

Reliving the history of the old proposals does sound like fun, though. Can you provide any links to make it easier?

[soonerguru]

As to your earlier suggestion of townhouses attached to the Cox Center, I'm thinking if they faced Myriad Gardens, they could certainly appeal to an urban-oriented household. And that would be even more so in the case of the planned new park.

As to it being a big "if", well, yes, this entire thread is based on nothing but giant "ifs". We are talking conceptually here. Conceptually, I don't see anything particularly unattractive about townhouses across from an urban park and very near to many other amenities, just because their rear happens to be attached to a convention center.

Reliving the history of the old proposals does sound like fun, though. Can you provide any links to make it easier?

I'm sorry I don't have any ready links, but I did move to Deep Deuce when it opened and followed news stories on it for two years prior to that. There was going to be a history museum and the neighborhood was going to be "reborn" as a jazz district.

The stuff on the "reforestation" of the then North Canadian River shouldn't be too hard to find on Google.

I guess my overall point is that, while it is remotely possible there could be widespread appeal for housing abutting a large multiuse convention center, there are other, more optimal locations for housing. Since we don't want to see a massive faceplant yet again, perhaps we should steer the developments in the most likely successful directions.

[Oil Capital]

I'm sorry I don't have any ready links, but I did move to Deep Deuce when it opened and followed news stories on it for two years prior to that. There was going to be a history museum and the neighborhood was going to be "reborn" as a jazz district.

The stuff on the "reforestation" of the then North Canadian River shouldn't be too hard to find on Google.

I guess my overall point is that, while it is remotely possible there could be widespread appeal for housing abutting a large multiuse convention center, there are other, more optimal locations for housing. Since we don't want to see a massive faceplant yet again, perhaps we should steer the developments in the most likely successful directions.

"A massive faceplant yet again"??? Wow. You have quite the dim view of OKC's recent history, contrary to most observers.

I guess there will be no reaching for the stars or thinking outside the box for you, eh. Yeah, let's just play it safe... ;-)

And, FWIW, one does not really need "widespread" demand for a dozen or so townhouses. (I'm totally guessing at the number; but it surely will not be much larger than that.

[soonerguru]

You have quite the dim view of OKC's recent history, contrary to most observers.

And you have quite the rosy one. Let's review:

1. Urban Renewal
2. Classen Circle, Gone
3. Numerous landmarks, gone
4. Epic urban sprawl
5. The "string of pearls"

etc. etc.

This city has done much to improve itself in the last few years, but it doesn't erase decades of bad or nonexistent urban planning.

I'm not a pessimist. I care passionately for this city.

I'm not willing to just shut up and trust people like Mick Cornett to make decisions.

You seem overjoyed by Core to Shore. Congratulations. That makes you one of only a couple of folks on this message board. Please don't make this personal.

[soonerguru]

"A massive faceplant yet again"??? Wow. You have quite the dim view of OKC's recent history, contrary to most observers.

I guess there will be no reaching for the stars or thinking outside the box for you, eh. Yeah, let's just play it safe... ;-)

And, FWIW, one does not really need "widespread" demand for a dozen or so townhouses. (I'm totally guessing at the number; but it surely will not be much larger than that.

Perhaps you should study our city's recent history a little more closely. We have dozens and dozens of condos currently languishing on the market without attracting a sniff.

Don't act like putting more condos on the market -- in a less than optimal location -- isn't a risky move.

I fully expect you'll be the first in line to buy a condo with a view of a loading ramp at a convention center.

[Urban Pioneer]

I'm a little confused by this thread. The suggested housing would be on the western edge of the park- with a glorious view of the park looking eastward. Yes, you would be looking at the convention center straddling the eastern edge, but you are separated by a two block wide green space. I can't imagine anyone wanting a better view of urban green from their balcony. The western view from the convention center exemplifies the pride we have in our city from within and our new found pride in our investment in parks for all our citizens.

There are flaws. Notably the immense expense in an underground parking garage that could instead go towards an even better park. In my years studying planning, I would say the greatest flaw is an I-40 that is a conventional highway rather than the origionally proposed/sold fully depressed highway. The ramping to get over it takes up tremendous space and requires giant "band aids" such as Sky Dance bridge to try to get people over to the other side.

The things you guys are arguing about are somewhat icing compared to the cake that has been half baked due to ODoT and our fears of inadequate parking.

[okclee]

The small size of this park is the real problem. The Core to Shore park should be at least four times in size of the proposed drawings I have seen.

I would like to see the park include a golf course.

[Oil Capital]

And you have quite the rosy one. Let's review:

1. Urban Renewal
2. Classen Circle, Gone
3. Numerous landmarks, gone
4. Epic urban sprawl
5. The "string of pearls"

etc. etc.

This city has done much to improve itself in the last few years, but it doesn't erase decades of bad or nonexistent urban planning.

I'm not a pessimist. I care passionately for this city.

I'm not willing to just shut up and trust people like Mick Cornett to make decisions.

You seem overjoyed by Core to Shore. Congratulations. That makes you one of only a couple of folks on this message board. Please don't make this personal.

You'll notice I referenced "recent" history. None of your list count as recent history.

Just trying to get the discussion beyond the sophomoric "c2s sucks" and understand what the issues are from those who claim it "sucks". So far, they are incomprehensible and illogical, so I guess just saying it "sucks" is their best way to state it. ;-) I apologize if I sometimes respond in kind to the "suckers". I'll try to do better at taking the high road.

If I may ask, what are your specific problems with the c2s plan?

[Oil Capital]

Perhaps you should study our city's recent history a little more closely. We have dozens and dozens of condos currently languishing on the market without attracting a sniff.

Don't act like putting more condos on the market -- in a less than optimal location -- isn't a risky move.

I fully expect you'll be the first in line to buy a condo with a view of a loading ramp at a convention center.

Goodness, surely you've noticed a little something called a nationwide recession centered on housing. I guess because "dozens and dozens of condos currently languishing" nobody would be ever be interested in something completely unique and in a potentially amazing location . . . I don't pretend to know for sure how much market there would be for these, or for that matter for all of the other housing proposed in this plan. But I'm pretty sure there are a lot of people out there who do think outside the box and just might be interested in a completely unique residential choice.

And please stop playing your silly strawman games. You surely know very well that these townhouses will have no view of and will in fact be very far away from any loading docks.

[Oil Capital]

The small size of this park is the real problem. The Core to Shore park should be at least four times in size of the proposed drawings I have seen.

I would like to see the park include a golf course.

With respect, I think you completely misunderstand the goals and functions of this park and, indeed the whole plan. This is to be an extension of downtown. It is to be urban, filled and surrounded with activities, and have complete pedestrian connectivity.

If you place a giant park with a golf course in the middle, you will have created a huge barrier to pedestrian connection. Millennium Park in downtown Chicago and Discovery Green in downtown Houston are two great examples of the kind of thing I'm sure they are aiming for (and OKC's is a good deal larger than either of those).

[Oil Capital]

I'm a little confused by this thread. The suggested housing would be on the western edge of the park- with a glorious view of the park looking eastward. Yes, you would be looking at the convention center straddling the eastern edge, but you are separated by a two block wide green space. I can't imagine anyone wanting a better view of urban green from their balcony. The western view from the convention center exemplifies the pride we have in our city from within and our new found pride in our investment in parks for all our citizens.

There are flaws. Notably the immense expense in an underground parking garage that could instead go towards an even better park. In my years studying planning, I would say the greatest flaw is an I-40 that is a conventional highway rather than the origionally proposed/sold fully depressed highway. The ramping to get over it takes up tremendous space and requires giant "band aids" such as Sky Dance bridge to try to get people over to the other side.

The things you guys are arguing about are somewhat icing compared to the cake that has been half baked due to ODoT and our fears of inadequate parking.

Are you sure the underground parking garage will truly be an "expense"? Often parking garages are financed with revenue bonds backed by the anticipated revenue stream from the parking garage. If done this way, they take no money away from any other project.

You are quite right about the housing on the western side of the park. In addition, the concept is for them not to be looking at the front of the convention center, per se (although if designed well, that too could be a good urban view), they will be looking the townhouses and retail that line the front of the convention center.

I guess I haven't been following the I-40 project. What has changed about the design? Is it not being depressed through that area any more?

[Urban Pioneer]

Are you sure the underground parking garage will truly be an "expense"? Often parking garages are financed with revenue bonds backed by the anticipated revenue stream from the parking garage. If done this way, they take no money away from any other project.

You are quite right about the housing on the western side of the park. In addition, the concept is for them not to be looking at the front of the convention center, per se (although if designed well, that too could be a good urban view), they will be looking the townhouses and retail that line the front of the convention center.

I guess I haven't been following the I-40 project. What has changed about the design? Is it not being depressed through that area any more?

It is "semi-depressed" now. It was originally sold as a fully depressed highway such as 75 in Dallas. Much less detrimental to the grid, site lines, and a more efficient use of space.

Regarding the parking garage, not against it but fill the cost savings from a conventional elevated structure that is hidden behind the housing on the Western edge is a better approach. Other cities commonly build these "hidden" garages such as the "uptown" core at Mockingbird Station. Looks great, surrounded with activity, and you wouldn't know it's there.

The underground design is billed at $40,000 per car space and I have heard of no other financing mechanism other than MAPS.

[soonerguru]

If the housing is on the opposite side of the park, then my concerns are unwarranted. A "view" of the convention center would be appealing. Having the convention center abut your residential building would not be so appealing.

[Platemaker]

I would like to see the park include a golf course.

Please no!!! I'd love to explore the most of Lincoln Park... but it's a golf course and I'm not a golfer. A golf course only serves a small minority.

[Urban Pioneer]

If golf is warranted how about a driving range in another part of the core to shore plan? That would probably appeal to a great many businessmen.

[okclee]

I was actually thinking more of a driving range. A late night driving range with the city skyline in the background would be great.

[metro]

I was actually thinking more of a driving range. A late night driving range with the city skyline in the background would be great.

agreed.

[lasomeday]

Oil Capital

The hotels between the Myriad and "Central Park" are a bad design for citizens of the city. I know you care more about the tourists. Why, I don't know.

I feel that if we are voting on a park for the city, it should be a park for the city not the tourists. The Convention center should be where the Mill is, not next to the park. The hotels should be where the convention center is which would be next to the Ford Center and across the tracks from the Convention Center. Having the hotels on the edge of the park will give visitors a view of the park.

I personally don't think we should build a convention center. I know you don't like that, but Maps should be for the citizens of OKC, not for the tourists. I know it will be bring people and money to the city, but I just don't see that being a longterm benefit to the citizens of the city.

That is why I feel the park should be bigger. I think it would be nice to have the hotels on the side of the park, but not intersecting it. The park should be large so that it is a destination for people in the city, whether it be for an outdoor concert, ice skating in the winter, or for wedding pictures in a natural setting. The park should be for the city and not for the tourists. Development will grow around a large destination park.

The interstate cutting through the park can't be changed, so that will be a barrier, but we shouldn't be making more, by chopping it up with other developments and having small parks here and there.

I know you don't agree with anything I say Oil Capital, because you care about the tourists and how many steps they have to take to get from the Colcord to the Convention Center. That is why there will be the street cars. If we have the street cars going through downtown, then they can hop on the street cars and go to the convention center. Problem solved! Or for those with legs they can walk.

[metro]

MAPS 4: "Fixing the problems we screwed up with MAPS 3.......and some other projects"

[CuatrodeMayo]

I was actually thinking more of a driving range. A late night driving range with the city skyline in the background would be great.

Include exploding ceramic statues, and I'm in.

[lasomeday]

I just want the park big enough where if you want to go for a jog around it you don't have to do 4 laps to get one mile.

[metro]

While I agree it should be much bigger, 40 acres is not small. To put in perspective, that is more than twice the size of Myriad Gardens (17 acres).

[CCOKC]

Take a drive down 36th street in Bethany and look at Eldon Lyon Park. According to the Bethany website the park is 60 acres. Granted, that is a nice park that is well-used and is a great asset to this part of town but it is not quite what I think the citizens of OKC have in mind as a world class central park.
Eldon Lyon Park | City of Bethany.org