Streetcar

[Kerry]

I forgot about Robinson but Walker is on the the other side of downtown. Neither one cross the river on a road that in any way compares to the capacity of Shilds Blvd. The reality is EK Gaylord will never be closed. I can see where it could narrowed from 6 to 4 lanes but it will never go away. Alas, we will know the fate of the Cox Center soon enough. If the plans for the new convention center include an arena in the 8,000 to 12,000 seat range you can count the Cox good bye. We need two arenas downtown, but not 3.

[Spartan]

There is no way that MAPS 3 CC will include an arena. That would be almost all of the 500,000 sf right there. The Cox will likely never be demo'd, and why? It has bones that can still be used for important things. The goal of the $280 million convention center isn't to be the official CC -- just to supplement what the Cox already has. If we were building a new CC and tearing down the Cox then we'd be talking about a $500 million CC that's at least 1.5 million sf if not bigger.

As for streets, I don't see the difference between the capacity of Robinson/Walker bridges and the Shields bridge..and I don't know if you realize, but we already have way too many bridges across the river. Nobody drives on the Shields bridge, or the Byers bridge, or the Robinson bridge, or the 15th bridge, or the Exchange bridge. Nobody can use Western, Penn, or May. Occasionally people use the Walker bridge but that's it. Walker is also pretty much the only bridge that's used for emergencies because EMSA's HQ is right off Walker, between the river and Capitol Hill.

Read this
A Downtown ontheRange: River gateways

IF anything we need to close down more of these river crossings we don't need..and why not start with Shields and getting EKG out of downtown?

[Platemaker]

Spartan.... where in the world are you getting the 500,000 square foot information for the new convention center?? I haven't read that anywhere.

And what is this 'nobody uses X bridge' business??

Closing bridges??? Ridiculous.

[Spartan]

Do you seriously think that we use all of those bridges? We have like 10 bridges in a 3-mile span. That just downplays any psychological impact of the riverfront, maintaining those is a lot of wasted resources, and now we're saying we have to keep EKG the way it is to preserve the bridges we don't need/don't ever use?? Come on just think about these for a second. I swear so many of our downtown's afflictions are truly a result of just not even being grounded in reality.

You asked about the convention center:

The proposed amenities
The proposed convention center would be 550,000 square feet, which is less than half the size of the Cox Convention Center.

"Well over half the Cox Convention Center has nothing to do with conventions,” Williams said. It’s the arena and support space for the arena.”

The Cox Convention Center has 84,000 square feet of exhibition space, well short of the 200,000 square feet the study indicated the city needs. The new convention center would meet that need and would include enough adjacent open space to allow for a 100,000 square foot expansion decades later when it might be needed. It would not have an arena.

Read more: NewsOK

[Platemaker]

Spartan... I just don't think the brdge situation causes as much trouble as you think. You used Cincinnati as an example.

Within 3 miles east and 3 miles west of central London there are 11 bridges (more if you include pedestrian and railroad bridges. Dallas and Oklahoma City have the same number.

Within 3 miles east and 3 miles west of central San Antonio there are 32 bridges not including pedestrian bridges or railroad bridges.

[Spartan]

San Antonio River = Bricktown Canal

[Platemaker]

Theirs is a river-fed canal... i didn't count the canal ... only the river.

[jbrown84]

I would be for renovating the Cox again in the future and completely reconfiguring it. Fixing the bare sides, integrating a new transit hub on the east side, creating a pedestrian corridor through the Cox where Broadway ends, and making various other improvements to it.

I acutally like this idea. I think you could pretty much gut everything around the arena bowl and start over with pedestrian friendly outward facing development. There's room for a hotel, a residential tower, and the transit hub to be attached along with maintaining the meeting space on the north side. Then we'd still have our secondary arena.

San Antonio River = Bricktown Canal

No it's an actual river. The canal extends off it in a loop.



I can see your argument for closing some of the bridges, but not as many as you suggest and definitely not Shields. That was the highway into central OKC before the interstate and it's still a major southside artery. It would be like cutting off Classen at 16th.

[Spartan]

Shields isn't a "major southside artery." My family lives on the southside and I never use Shields to get anywhere. Western is the main artery of South OKC. Even though Walker ends at 104th, that is the most convenient and traffic-free artery on the south side.

Shields is just going out of your way to take a tour of the ghetto parts of the south side and see 8 miles of nothing but trailer parks and hit every light along the way, which sucks, because you're practically the only car waiting for 5 minutes for each of these lights in a really bad part of town where you think gunfire is going to start coming at you from nowhere. It's basically the Meth Expressway.

The only way Shields is convenient is if you actually live in the trailer parks and need to get downtown, which considering you live in a trailer park, is unlikely. If you're south of 240 like us, you're going to just take I-35 anyway. From around 119th and Penn you can take either 44 or 35 and both are faster than Shields. If you live north of 240 you're just going to take whatever main street your neighborhood is off of.

[soonerguru]

Shields isn't a "major southside artery." My family lives on the southside and I never use Shields to get anywhere. Western is the main artery of South OKC. Even though Walker ends at 104th, that is the most convenient and traffic-free artery on the south side.

Shields is just going out of your way to take a tour of the ghetto parts of the south side and see 8 miles of nothing but trailer parks and hit every light along the way, which sucks, because you're practically the only car waiting for 5 minutes for each of these lights in a really bad part of town where you think gunfire is going to start coming at you from nowhere. It's basically the Meth Expressway.

The only way Shields is convenient is if you actually live in the trailer parks and need to get downtown, which considering you live in a trailer park, is unlikely. If you're south of 240 like us, you're going to just take I-35 anyway. From around 119th and Penn you can take either 44 or 35 and both are faster than Shields. If you live north of 240 you're just going to take whatever main street your neighborhood is off of.

I use Shields all the time when I want to get to the south side in a hurry.

[fuzzytoad]

The only way Shields is convenient is if you actually live in the trailer parks and need to get downtown, which considering you live in a trailer park, is unlikely.

Wow.

[Platemaker]

Spartan... now officially not worth my time.

[fokochang]

I use Shields all the time when I want to get to the south side in a hurry.

good anecdote is still anecdote.

[Spartan]

Spartan... now officially not worth my time.

Sorry to offend thee and anyone else in thy Shields Boulevard afflication fan club. Where would we be without the opulence of grandeur of this truly magnificent street. In the grand scheme, there are only such boulevards that are the envy of the world! When the people in Paris talk about their city they could only wish that the Champs-Élysées was half as world-class as Shields Boulevarde!


Downtown Shields Blvd


Rush hour on Shields Blvd

(Maybe if people didn't drive on Shields they would see parts of the south side that actually are nice.)

[David Pollard]

These comments are not very kind to the people that live there, and furthermore have little to do with the actual topic of this thread. How about thinking constructively on how downtown transportation modifications could actually help integrate the upper South Side (i.e. Capitol Hill).

Specifically, I think the new streetcar should have a Southside terminus stop in Capitol Hill to encourage growth there. Shields however, at least as I remember it, was a bit of a white elephant. I too feel that it does not necessarily need to be a major artery anymore, which means that EK Gaylord could also be rerouted by the Santa Fe station.

After reading the flow of the blog, I too see that doing away with the Cox Convention Center is a waste of resources, however the idea of redoing it to include a transportation center and other, more useful facilities such as a large hotel, retail, etc., while still maintaining the arena and some convention space is a good one. Actually, imo, it is a much more mature plan than simply ripping things down to build anew.

I would like to see more ideas on this blog about how the Cox could be put to another use. Hopefully the City will take these ideas seriously in considering its options.

[Larry OKC]

The goal of the $280 million convention center isn't to be the official CC -- just to supplement what the Cox already has. If we were building a new CC and tearing down the Cox then we'd be talking about a $500 million CC that's at least 1.5 million sf if not bigger.

The $500M figure is close to the cost of the COMPLETE convention center. $400M in 2009 $$$, which in 10 years the expansion cost could easily have risen by another $100M (see Ford improvement cost for comparison). But where are you getting the 1.5M sf number from? The only way I can see coming up with that is if it has an arena which I think everyone is in agreement it won't have. The CURRENT requirements for a tier II facility is the 200K meeting space which Phase 1 (MAPS 3) will have. This is more than double what the Cox currently has (even though the overall facility is half the size because of the arena). Also curious where you got the idea that the new convention center is just to "supplement" what the Cox has? That isn't what I got from all of the MAPS 3 info on it. If anything, the Cox will supplement the new convention center since it will be twice the meeting size.

[Larry OKC]

While Spartan has some interesting ideas on reconfiguring the Cox, from what the Mayor has said it is cost prohibitive to do so (thus the new convention center in MAPS 3).

[Spartan]

It is cost prohibitive to add exhibition space to the Cox. To get more exhibition space in downtown we don't have any options besides building a new convention center. But it's not cost prohibitive to try and fix the Cox so that it can be effective in its role as a backup facility. It's just about getting the most for our community out of this asset, and I don't think it's the end of the road for the Cox..

These comments are not very kind to the people that live there, and furthermore have little to do with the actual topic of this thread. How about thinking constructively on how downtown transportation modifications could actually help integrate the upper South Side (i.e. Capitol Hill).

Specifically, I think the new streetcar should have a Southside terminus stop in Capitol Hill to encourage growth there. Shields however, at least as I remember it, was a bit of a white elephant. I too feel that it does not necessarily need to be a major artery anymore, which means that EK Gaylord could also be rerouted by the Santa Fe station.

After reading the flow of the blog, I too see that doing away with the Cox Convention Center is a waste of resources, however the idea of redoing it to include a transportation center and other, more useful facilities such as a large hotel, retail, etc., while still maintaining the arena and some convention space is a good one. Actually, imo, it is a much more mature plan than simply ripping things down to build anew.

I would like to see more ideas on this blog about how the Cox could be put to another use. Hopefully the City will take these ideas seriously in considering its options.

My comments on Shields aren't a dig against lower income people, just a dig against Shields. I'm a southsider believe it or not and one of my favorite areas of the city is the old Capitol Hill Main Street, and even though it's a long drive in from our area, one of my favorite local restaurants is the Grill on the Hill. Capitol Hill is obviously a lower income area too, but there's a pretty good community around there full of good people (some of them may not be here legally lol, but who cares honestly) and I'm excited to see entrepreneurs taking a chance on Capitol Hill. Wish there was more going on.

Shields is the antithesis of that. Here you have a street that exists because people who AREN'T from this side of town didn't see the value in the inner south and thought we should tear down a large chunk for an expressway lined with pawn shops and trailer parks. And I am sorry to people who live in trailer parks, but I am an urban planning aficionado, and surely disliking trailer parks can't be held against me. That's a tough argument to even want to go near however because I realize how easy it is to point a socioeconomic blame finger anytime you say "well this street is horrible" even if you're talking strictly from an urban planning perspective. I realize a lot of times the things I say might be kinda crazy, but I say a lot of things off the cuff, and I've had an extreme dislike for Shields for a long time.

I appreciate your comments and reading the stuff we've said on here and on my blog, I agree! The south side is the half of the city that's not being included in urban revitalization, isn't being invited to the table, and isn't seeing the benefits of urban revitalization--but at the same is being very obstructionist to these ends itself. I hate to say it, but the rift has gotten worse. The north has gotten richer and cooler and the south has gotten poorer and angrier. I doubt it has anything to do with the Oklahoma River improvements specifically, but at the same time as we put water in that river for the first time in a long time, it became a real border almost.

I see a lot of urban possibilities on the south side. I think that overtime OKC will become more of a destination for recent college grads and we'll see a continued cultural reawakening on the north side, but it will be slow to trickle down to the south. The north will have to become too expensive, too busy, or too corporate in order for educated people to start looking at the inner south side as an option. When that happens, if it happens in 10-15 years or 50 years, the south side will eventually evolve on its own. But that's kind of like saying, well in 1993 we should have just waited it out and something would have eventually happened with our city. The alternative to that is called taking the bull by the horns and making things happen.

You can say that the south side doesn't have book stores, a decent level of locally owned dining, art galleries, mainstream nightlife, coffee shops, and whatever else because the people on the southside just aren't interested in the worldly things that upscale northsiders love to do. How can you judge someone by the number of $4 dollar drinks they consume in a year? But that's like someone in 1993 saying, well the reason we don't have downtown housing, downtown retail, or downtown nightlife is just because the people in this city don't want that. How can you blame someone for wanting to live in the suburbs where they only have to worry about their church and their neighbors and their family? Well it turned out that thinking was very wrong. The downtown lifestyle WAS something that Oklahomans wanted, and something that Oklahomans were mature enough to handle contrary to the pedantic, "Well how could you judge someone by the number of $4 dollar drinks they consume in a year?" line of thinking. I would venture a guess that the south side would be VERY capable of supporting local culture. Maybe not the same stuff as the north side but I would argue that the south side should at least have some culture that is its own. No, thousands of greasy spoon Mexican joints, Chili's on every corner, and Wal-Mart Supercenters do not count as local culture.

[Spartan]

The $500M figure is close to the cost of the COMPLETE convention center. $400M in 2009 $$$, which in 10 years the expansion cost could easily have risen by another $100M (see Ford improvement cost for comparison). But where are you getting the 1.5M sf number from? The only way I can see coming up with that is if it has an arena which I think everyone is in agreement it won't have. The CURRENT requirements for a tier II facility is the 200K meeting space which Phase 1 (MAPS 3) will have. This is more than double what the Cox currently has (even though the overall facility is half the size because of the arena). Also curious where you got the idea that the new convention center is just to "supplement" what the Cox has? That isn't what I got from all of the MAPS 3 info on it. If anything, the Cox will supplement the new convention center since it will be twice the meeting size.

Larry you're right, it was just in the context of the discussion. I was comparing a scenario where we keep the Cox and the two centers build off of each other, whereas a situation where we get rid of the Cox and have a much bigger facility need to fulfill.

If we demolish the Cox then we're talking about building a $500 million 1.5-2 million sf center, and to hell with the report, that's just from what it's costing other cities right now. ONLY if we keep the Cox are we still talking about a convention center that MAPS 3 is going to be able to pay for. Kerry, JBrown, and others are talking about demo'ing the Cox outright.

We still need its 100,000 sf exhibition space, it's 15 or so meeting rooms, as well as its arena. And we still need to keep them nice, which they are. That's the reality.

[rcjunkie]

Shields isn't a "major southside artery." My family lives on the southside and I never use Shields to get anywhere. Western is the main artery of South OKC. Even though Walker ends at 104th, that is the most convenient and traffic-free artery on the south side.

Shields is just going out of your way to take a tour of the ghetto parts of the south side and see 8 miles of nothing but trailer parks and hit every light along the way, which sucks, because you're practically the only car waiting for 5 minutes for each of these lights in a really bad part of town where you think gunfire is going to start coming at you from nowhere. It's basically the Meth Expressway.

The only way Shields is convenient is if you actually live in the trailer parks and need to get downtown, which considering you live in a trailer park, is unlikely. If you're south of 240 like us, you're going to just take I-35 anyway. From around 119th and Penn you can take either 44 or 35 and both are faster than Shields. If you live north of 240 you're just going to take whatever main street your neighborhood is off of.

Are you seriously that shallow, thought's/comments like that show a person's true colors.

[David Pollard]

This is kind of a transportation / convention center comment rolled into one, but have a look at the attached for an idea of how both could work together. Just having some fun on a rainy Christmas day here in Amsterdam, but while doing it, I was thinking... yes, this could work.

The transformations could also be done in stages starting with the expansion of the Santa Fe station with a wing to the North in the same historic style. A phased approach to all of this might be more palatable both financially and capacity-wise for the transportation system. I.E. Once the new bus terminal is complete, the old Greyhound station could be closed and renovated (to a cool Interurban-style restaurant). Once the new streetcar terminal is done the lines could start functioning. Once the glass cupola is finished, the commuter trains to the burbs could start to run, etc, etc. This also holds true for the new convention center which, if built directly south of this, would be a fantastic complement to the whole plan.

The overall effect is to create a real "center" in OKC, not unlike we have here in Amsterdam where I took much of my inspiration from, and which is, incidentally is probably about the same amount of space as the new "OKC Central Station".

Maybe all pipe dreams, but fun to think about. If they use that name (above) I claim royalties!

[Platemaker]

Are you seriously that shallow, thought's/comments like that show a person's true colors.

He is.

[Architect2010]

Shields isn't a "major southside artery." My family lives on the southside and I never use Shields to get anywhere. Western is the main artery of South OKC. Even though Walker ends at 104th, that is the most convenient and traffic-free artery on the south side.

Shields is just going out of your way to take a tour of the ghetto parts of the south side and see 8 miles of nothing but trailer parks and hit every light along the way, which sucks, because you're practically the only car waiting for 5 minutes for each of these lights in a really bad part of town where you think gunfire is going to start coming at you from nowhere. It's basically the Meth Expressway.

True. Everyone here uses Western. Walker is usually traffic free like he said. Shields is almost never holding as much traffic as Western or even Penn. Oh, and regarding the gunshots. That was overly-dramatic. Come on.

I live north of 240 and west of Shields. But I still use I-35 to get Downtown. Shields just never comes to mind. Even if it goes directly downtown.

[Spartan]

This is kind of a transportation / convention center comment rolled into one, but have a look at the attached for an idea of how both could work together. Just having some fun on a rainy Christmas day here in Amsterdam, but while doing it, I was thinking... yes, this could work.

The transformations could also be done in stages starting with the expansion of the Santa Fe station with a wing to the North in the same historic style. A phased approach to all of this might be more palatable both financially and capacity-wise for the transportation system. I.E. Once the new bus terminal is complete, the old Greyhound station could be closed and renovated (to a cool Interurban-style restaurant). Once the new streetcar terminal is done the lines could start functioning. Once the glass cupola is finished, the commuter trains to the burbs could start to run, etc, etc. This also holds true for the new convention center which, if built directly south of this, would be a fantastic complement to the whole plan.

The overall effect is to create a real "center" in OKC, not unlike we have here in Amsterdam where I took much of my inspiration from, and which is, incidentally is probably about the same amount of space as the new "OKC Central Station".

Maybe all pipe dreams, but fun to think about. If they use that name (above) I claim royalties!

I like, but you eliminate a lot ov exhibition space. Are you suggesting less of that?

[David Pollard]

I like, but you eliminate a lot ov exhibition space. Are you suggesting less of that?

On the contrary, by going vertical, it could actually add space. The space used for all of the additions to the Cox would be compensated for on higher levels. With ingenuity, such as atria and clear linking escalators/stairs, this space could have a good flow of people, just like a large, single story space.

I guess my point it that if there is a good master plan, each of these elements could be added when appropriate, thereby minimizing the impact on the existing center. If, for example, a hotel is added on one of the corners, the disruption would be minimal to the rest of the center. We see this type of work going on in airports around the world all the time.