Core to Shore sucks

[Spartan]

I couldn't make that meeting, I couldn't take off from my employer. That's the main downside to our city council meetings as they are smack dab in the middle of the workday unlike many of our suburban cities who have them at night. Just curious but what aspect of rail did you speak on?What is your background in rail transportation or mass transit?

I talked to Urban Pioneer from MTP yesterday and he didn't make the meeting either. Are you going to launch a rail proposal? If so how are you proposing it be funded?

I was in a meeting yesterday and was pretty much assured MAPS 3 is going to stick to the "basic 3" of Convention Center (being the most funded item), Central Park (about $150 mil) and a Downtown Streetcar. Mayor Cornett has been pretty clear that there will not be rail in MAPS 3. It's obvious we won't have the funding to start a light rail with MAPS 3. The consensus with the "city leaders" are that MAPS 3 has become a grab bag and everyone is coming to the table wanting their piece of the pie. I think cooler heads have prevailed as they are now sticking to the basics. I am also told that a councilperson (I believe it was Sam Bowman if I remember correctly), is pushing for some Senior Centers in MAPS 3 and may actually get it, although they will be at a MUCH smaller cost than the other main projects. Hopefully one of us can catch yesterdays meeting replayed on Ch. 20.

Sam Bowman said nothing about wanting senior centers in Maps 3. We already have senior centers, though.

[Urban Pioneer]

[QUOTE=Spartan;243744]I was at the city council meeting this morning. And spoke on rail transit.[/QUOTE


Thank you for speaking in support of the streetcar. You verbalized the need to attract an retain the creative class and it is an argument that needed to be vocalized. If more people in their 20's took the time to attend council meetings perhaps the council would see and appreciate that the pedestrian life style is important to young professionals.

[dmoor82]

Spartan,for someone you age,you are wise beyond your years!looks like you might have a bright future ahead of you!

[Spartan]

It really is. The difficulty is that nobody arguing for a radical investment in downtown wants to use the argument because it's too intangible. The City Council is ran by old geriatrics who'd scoff at anything that doesn't sound practical and prudent to them. The idea that we need a streetcar system in order to be cool and hip doesn't even sound practical to me, even though it's absolutely what is needed.

[mugofbeer]

I'm not sure that in today's world, representing 50-80,000 people in your district IS a job you can do along with your 8-5 job. Unless they are going to expand the number of council districts there are simply too many things to undertake to make it a "hobby." This may be "too bad" but it is a fact of the 21st century.

[Oil Capital]

Oil Capital

I looked at the website a few times. Some of the parks look funcitonal and some of them don't.

The problem I have with the park they are proposing is the size. IF we are going to build a park to attract people to our city core, then it should be a big enough park to do more than sit and look at cars. It should be big enough to have many different uses. Small parks typically don't have development boom around them. And with the city developments being spread thin, I don't see a small 40 acre park attracting any development around it.

VOTE NO ON CORE TO SHORE CENTRAL PARK! It is a disaster waiting to happen.

You obviously need to spend more time looking at hargreaves' site, the Project for Public Spaces website, and others. Parks even much smaller than 40 acres can have a lot of different uses in them AND can attract development around them.

Look at Millennium Park. Look at Bryant Park in NYC. Look at Discovery Green in Houston.

Discovery Green, for example, is just over 12 acres. It's been open for about 1 1/2 years. Currently under construction on adjacent land: a 30 story office building, a 35 story apartment tower, and a 22 story hotel.

And, yes, there were many people on Houston development forums who confidently predicted abject failure for Discovery Green, just as you are doing with the (not even designed) OKC park. They said nobody would use it. They said it was too small. They said it would not attract any development around it.

[mugofbeer]

I would like to repeat for my 2 cents worth that I wish the planners would look at Washington Park in Denver as a model. IT is about 150 acres and has a very simply design. It has 2 lakes, paddle boats and walking/running and biking trails. It has a botanical garden but otherwise it is a lot of large matured trees, large open grassy areas and it well watered. The main thing is that it is safe so on nice days there are literally thousands of people using the park. There are NO commercial developments, no amphitheaters, no large capital projects except the WPA era boathouse. Its simple and beautiful.

[Oil Capital]

I would like to repeat for my 2 cents worth that I wish the planners would look at Washington Park in Denver as a model. IT is about 150 acres and has a very simply design. It has 2 lakes, paddle boats and walking/running and biking trails. It has a botanical garden but otherwise it is a lot of large matured trees, large open grassy areas and it well watered. The main thing is that it is safe so on nice days there are literally thousands of people using the park. There are NO commercial developments, no amphitheaters, no large capital projects except the WPA era boathouse. Its simple and beautiful.

Never mind that we're discussing a park for downtown and Washington Park is not in downtown Denver, to put it mildly (approximately 8-9 miles distant).

[mugofbeer]

Never mind that we're discussing a park for downtown and Washington Park is not in downtown Denver, to put it mildly (approximately 8-9 miles distant).

Oil Capital - please check your geography before you make such a comment. Washington Park sits one half mile east of Broadway and one and one-half miles south of Colfax which is the corner of the Central Business district of Denver. In between is the state capitol and state offices and then an area of older homes called Capital Hill.

Washington Park is quite relevant to what they wish to do with the Central Park proposal because of it's size and how utterly and completely successful it is, attracting thousands on a nice weekend. It is simple and if the OKC folks used it as a guideline, they would find they can have a world class park without having to spend tens of millions (or a hundred million +) on capital expenditures. The city also shouldn't make the mistake of promoting a lot of commercial development around the park but make it the focal point for mid to high-rise residential development.

Wash Park in Denver is one of the most highly desireable and most expensive areas to live in as long as you can live with a lot of traffic. A successful Central Park would use some of these characteristics that Wash Park has.

[Spartan]

You obviously need to spend more time looking at hargreaves' site, the Project for Public Spaces website, and others. Parks even much smaller than 40 acres can have a lot of different uses in them AND can attract development around them.

Look at Millennium Park. Look at Bryant Park in NYC. Look at Discovery Green in Houston.

Discovery Green, for example, is just over 12 acres. It's been open for about 1 1/2 years. Currently under construction on adjacent land: a 30 story office building, a 35 story apartment tower, and a 22 story hotel.

And, yes, there were many people on Houston development forums who confidently predicted abject failure for Discovery Green, just as you are doing with the (not even designed) OKC park. They said nobody would use it. They said it was too small. They said it would not attract any development around it.

People in Htown just tend to be more negative in general toward everything. That's actually a pretty optimistic thing for some of those people to have said about the Discovery Green.

[Oil Capital]

Oil Capital - please check your geography before you make such a comment. Washington Park sits one half mile east of Broadway and one and one-half miles south of Colfax which is the corner of the Central Business district of Denver. In between is the state capitol and state offices and then an area of older homes called Capital Hill.

Ummmm... I did and you need to. You are trying to make it sound like Washington Park sits on the border of downtown when it is nowhere near. It is 3+ miles from the state capitol to Washington Park. More to the CBD (I confess my 9 miles was exaggerated; I just took the longish route that bing maps gave me; but the point is the same. It is not in or particularly near downtown Denver.)

And is your argument that because this large-ish park 3+ miles from downtown is successful, therefore a small-ish park immediately adjacent to/in downtown cannot be successful? Very odd argument.

See my previous examples of small-ish downtown parks that are VERY successful.

[Oil Capital]

People in Htown just tend to be more negative in general toward everything. That's actually a pretty optimistic thing for some of those people to have said about the Discovery Green.

:-) And yet, here we have people in OKC (including you) saying the very same things about park plans for downtown OKC.

[lasomeday]

Oil Capital

You live in a bubble. Think outside the bubble to see that you are the only one defending the small size of the park.

Yeah small parks are great in neighborhoods or as an infill for an developed area, but if you are wanting to do all that the city has mentioned they want to do in the park it will need to be bigger. The problem I have is the other little parks here and there they have on the Core to Shore map. If they combine the parks it will have more functional use and be less fragmented. Pull up the core to shore design again and see what I am talking about. The ecological benefits of having one large park is greater than having the smaller ones.

The larger park will take up more space and will help in spurring development along the edge and will be good to have one streetcar line going along the edge. It will focus the development. Also, why put a convention center next to a park? You can put the convention center where the mill is and kill two birds with one stone. That will develop land that won't be developed for 40 years otherwise, and it will take up the entire space, plus you could put parking to the south where the pull a part lot is currently. Killing three birds with one stone. Also they could build a hotel next to the convention center, which would be walking distance to the boat houses (bridge or tunnel under the new interstate needed).

Just think outside the bubble. BIGGER IS BETTER! I know you won't agree because you are stuck on the design, but look at how fragmented it is.

Why have hotels between the Myriad gardens and the central park? Why have a massive 6 lane Boulevard? How is this making the city more walkable. Just think if you lived in the Park Harvey building and wanted to walk to the central park. You could walk to the Myriad gardens and then to the park crossing a 4 lane road instead of a 6 land boulevard and then by some hotels which will have parking lots somewhere.

[metro]

Sam Bowman said nothing about wanting senior centers in Maps 3. We already have senior centers, though.

Didn't say he said it at Tuesday's council meeting, and didn't say it was him 100% sure, I said I think it was him, but there is one of the gentlemen on the council that is pushing for senior centers in MAPS 3. Yes, I know we have Senior Centers, that fact has nothing to do with them pushing for more or more money to improve them. With that logic, one could say, we have parks, why do we need another park in MAPS 3?

[Spartan]

Metro, this Tuesday nobody talked about Senior Centers as far as I can remember..of course the very idea puts me to sleep, so I could be wrong..but I doubt it. The only mention of Maps 3 was a discussion on at what point they would consider bringing down the potential price tag if the economy does not improve. Mayor said, "I think immediately."

Oil Capitol, I'm not challenging that the downtown park would draw development..on the western side. I am however challenging that the park should not be broken up, but one continuous long park, and that the park should not be bordered by the convention center, or else it will turn into a front lawn for the convention center. That is not acceptable, but other than that, I actually do strongly believe in the park concept.

I'm starting to believe that the City just doesn't want to buy up the land from the downtown car dealerships..

[Spartan]

P.S. (shameless plug time) anyone can follow the saga of this week's City Council meeting on my blog at A Downtown ontheRange , including video of my speech, email correspondence with Councilman Walters, a rundown of the other issues that were debated, and more. I'm also fixing to do a piece on Hargreaves, the firm that we just awarded half a million dollars to for the design of a park (at the Tuesday meeting) that has not yet been funded by the people.

[Pete]

Nice shorts, Nick.

Seriously, I admire the fact you take the time to become involved in civic matters, especially at your age.

Lots of good points in your speech and I hope they heard you.

[betts]

The larger park will take up more space and will help in spurring development along the edge and will be good to have one streetcar line going along the edge. It will focus the development. Also, why put a convention center next to a park? You can put the convention center where the mill is and kill two birds with one stone. That will develop land that won't be developed for 40 years otherwise, and it will take up the entire space, plus you could put parking to the south where the pull a part lot is currently. Killing three birds with one stone. Also they could build a hotel next to the convention center, which would be walking distance to the boat houses (bridge or tunnel under the new interstate needed).

Just think outside the bubble. BIGGER IS BETTER! I know you won't agree because you are stuck on the design, but look at how fragmented it is.

Why have hotels between the Myriad gardens and the central park? Why have a massive 6 lane Boulevard? How is this making the city more walkable. Just think if you lived in the Park Harvey building and wanted to walk to the central park. You could walk to the Myriad gardens and then to the park crossing a 4 lane road instead of a 6 land boulevard and then by some hotels which will have parking lots somewhere.

That's my question. What is the reason for the block between the Myriad Gardens and the park being something other than parkland? I've never understood that. And, I'm not a fan of the boulevard either. I don't mind the concept of a boulevard, but why does it have to be anything other than a four lane road? Couldn't agree with you more about making this a walkable area, which multi-lane roads seem to negate. It's bad enough we have to have I-40 in the midst of this redevelopment. Why add another big road?

[soonerguru]

I'm beginning to think Oil Capital has a financial stake in Core to Shore.

[lasomeday]

Soonerguru!

I totally agree with you!

I wish I had time to go to the City Council Meetings to voice my opinions.

[Spartan]

Nice shorts, Nick.

I had a date with the driving range afterward..what can I say, and I didn't want to be too stuffy.

[Oil Capital]

Sorry; duplicate post

[Oil Capital]

Oil Capital

You live in a bubble. Think outside the bubble to see that you are the only one defending the small size of the park.

Yeah small parks are great in neighborhoods or as an infill for an developed area, but if you are wanting to do all that the city has mentioned they want to do in the park it will need to be bigger. The problem I have is the other little parks here and there they have on the Core to Shore map. If they combine the parks it will have more functional use and be less fragmented. Pull up the core to shore design again and see what I am talking about. The ecological benefits of having one large park is greater than having the smaller ones.

The larger park will take up more space and will help in spurring development along the edge and will be good to have one streetcar line going along the edge. It will focus the development. Also, why put a convention center next to a park? You can put the convention center where the mill is and kill two birds with one stone. That will develop land that won't be developed for 40 years otherwise, and it will take up the entire space, plus you could put parking to the south where the pull a part lot is currently. Killing three birds with one stone. Also they could build a hotel next to the convention center, which would be walking distance to the boat houses (bridge or tunnel under the new interstate needed).

Just think outside the bubble. BIGGER IS BETTER! I know you won't agree because you are stuck on the design, but look at how fragmented it is.

Why have hotels between the Myriad gardens and the central park? Why have a massive 6 lane Boulevard? How is this making the city more walkable. Just think if you lived in the Park Harvey building and wanted to walk to the central park. You could walk to the Myriad gardens and then to the park crossing a 4 lane road instead of a 6 land boulevard and then by some hotels which will have parking lots somewhere.

I'm in a bubble? You are completely clueless about the power of smallish, highly programmed parks to spur development, and refuse to inquire to become educated about it, and I'm in a bubble? You are too funny.

As to the supposed "fragmentation" that seems to be a concern. That's kind of what an urban landscape is all about. Fragments of different uses all jumbled together to create a critical mass. Plopping a 150 acre park in the middle of core to shore would KILL pedestrian connectivity. A stroll through Myriad Gardens followed by a stroll through one block of hotel/commercial space, followed by a stroll along the edges or through a small park, followed, in short order by a stroll through some more commercial activity will far more pedestrian connectivity from the core to the shore than just a giant park.

Not sure about the boulevard; the six lanes might be a bit of overkill. BUT, as designed it is definitely not a connectivity killer at all. As designed it will be heavily landscaped and you'll cross one lane, then a landscaped island, then two lanes, the landscaped boulevard, two more lanes, another landscaped island, then another land. I've seen it done elsewhere and it can be quite lovely and pedestrian friendly. Get outside your bubble, man

And imagining things that are not in the plan (such as parking lots for the hotels) does not add to your credibility.

I've already discussed the reasons the mill location is vastly inferior as a convention center location. Get outside your bubble already.

Spartan, you're very good at stating conclusions. Not so great at reasoning. WHY is having the park be the front lawn of the convention center unacceptable? (And of course, that is not quite a completely correct analysis; Surely you know that the concept is to line the front of the convention center with townhouses and/or retail space) Is having the park as the front lawn for townhouses and retail space also unacceptable?

[Oil Capital]

I'm beginning to think Oil Capital has a financial stake in Core to Shore.

Good one Sooner. If you don't have an argument or reasoning, attack the motives. Excellent work.

[soonerguru]

Good one Sooner. If you don't have an argument or reasoning, attack the motives. Excellent work.

Oh, trust me, I have plenty of arguments. Just getting tired of making them to a wall.