This boulevard is on a diet

[urbanity]

http://www.okgazette.com/article/09-...on_a_diet.aspx

[CuatrodeMayo]

I must have missed this video...

http://www.okgazette.com/files/boule...aug%202009.wmv

That's depressing.

[rondvu]

Well I can say it that it started out strong and just petered out. I know if you are going to wish, I would like to see Rand Elliot's turbine building somewhere along the blvd. and and a fountain or two.

[LordGerald]

http://www.okgazette.com/article/09-...on_a_diet.aspx

This story fails to mention that you can't start building a boulevard when there's an elevated highway already in the way. Dismantling the current crosstown is going to take time. That is going to have to happen before any new road build-out.

[BoulderSooner]

This story fails to mention that you can't start building a boulevard when there's an elevated highway already in the way. Dismantling the current crosstown is going to take time. That is going to have to happen before any new road build-out.

that was already funded and scheduled in the 18-24 month timeline

[okclee]

The dismantling is already taking place, with each and every car and truck that drives on I-40.

[betts]

This was a bit of a surprise to me. I didn't know the mayor opposed the boulevard as planned. That makes me more hopeful that narrowing it is a real possibility. If we have to go back to the federal government for approval of a narrower road, that's fine with me. I would assume being able to recycle all the steel in the current crosstown would help ameliorate some of the cost of dismantling.

"But one issue is emerging as a major factor that could alter the blueprint: The design paves the boulevard with six lanes. City officials and studies say that’s a problem.

“I have maintained from the very beginning, it needs to be a very narrow, pedestrian-friendly road,” said Mayor Mick Cornett."

[Spartan]

I must have missed this video...

http://www.okgazette.com/files/boule...aug%202009.wmv

That's depressing.

That is shockingly bad.

[Decious]

http://www.okgazette.com/article/09-...on_a_diet.aspx

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

That's terrible.

[Larry OKC]

If that is even remotely what the "world class" Boulevard is going to look like, thanks but no thanks!

May just be the angle, but looks like the Parking for Harkins, Toby Keiths etc is gone. No access to Bricktown, barriers and what the heck is the monstrosity to the left of the Ford? Is that supposed to be the Convention Center?

[ljbab728]

If that is even remotely what the "world class" Boulevard is going to look like, thanks but no thanks!

May just be the angle, but looks like the Parking for Harkins, Toby Keiths etc is gone. No access to Bricktown, barriers and what the heck is the monstrosity to the left of the Ford? Is that supposed to be the Convention Center?

Larry, no one seriously thinks that depiction is accurate past the exit off of I40. Who knows what the person who prepared that was thinking about but everyone who works for the city will be fired if that comes to pass. LOL

[Larry OKC]

This was a bit of a surprise to me. I didn't know the mayor opposed the boulevard as planned. That makes me more hopeful that narrowing it is a real possibility. If we have to go back to the federal government for approval of a narrower road, that's fine with me. I would assume being able to recycle all the steel in the current crosstown would help ameliorate some of the cost of dismantling.

"But one issue is emerging as a major factor that could alter the blueprint: The design paves the boulevard with six lanes. City officials and studies say that’s a problem.

“I have maintained from the very beginning, it needs to be a very narrow, pedestrian-friendly road,” said Mayor Mick Cornett."

I agree, everything I recall reading up to this point was that the wider, less pedestrian friendly version in the Core to Shore Report was Cornett's idea/endorsement. Now, he says he thinks it should be narrow? May go dig up the stuff contradicting the Mayor but feel lazy tonight. Regardless, if he has come around on it and want s the narrower plan, more power to him I guess.

[ljbab728]

I agree, everything I recall reading up to this point was that the wider, less pedestrian friendly version in the Core to Shore Report was Cornett's idea/endorsement. Now, he says he thinks it should be narrow? May go dig up the stuff contradicting the Mayor but feel lazy tonight. Regardless, if he has come around on it and want s the narrower plan, more power to him I guess.

Larry, it almost sounds like you think the mayor should never change his mind. A good mayor should be flexible in planning as new ideas evolve instead of holding fast to old ideas.

[Thunder]

LOL

The video is really funny. I don't think it will actually be like that. Who was the idiot that created this video?

[Larry OKC]

Larry, it almost sounds like you think the mayor should never change his mind. A good mayor should be flexible in planning as new ideas evolve instead of holding fast to old ideas.

Not at all, if there is a valid reason for the change. However, when someone switches and then claims that was their position all along...

Now if I am wrong about this, please feel free to post links/etc where the Mayor said he was against the broader Core to Shore design all along...

[rcjunkie]

Larry, it almost sounds like you think the mayor should never change his mind. A good mayor should be flexible in planning as new ideas evolve instead of holding fast to old ideas.

It's not that Larry thinks the Mayor shouldn't change his mind, Larry is (he'll bent) on turning any and everything involving Maps3 or Core to Shore into something negative or illegal.

[TAlan CB]

When the boulevard was first suggested it made sense, place traffic back where they can see and access down-town as they go through OKC. But the more you think about it the less sense it makes. Most people passing through wont stop, the elevated high-way gives them a "gee-wiz" view - and that is going away. There already is a significant east-west road that parallels I-40 - Reno. The Core-to Shore already has to contend with this traffic and pedestrian wall, why build another wall going exactly the same way 1 block south? Wouldn't the money be better spent on improving Reno - resurfacing, lighting, pedestrian accesses across. Make the old 1-40 route a pedestrian route - bikes, paths, etc. that would go with the parks.

[Kerry]

When the boulevard was first suggested it made sense, place traffic back where they can see and access down-town as they go through OKC. But the more you think about it the less sense it makes. Most people passing through wont stop, the elevated high-way gives them a "gee-wiz" view - and that is going away. There already is a significant east-west road that parallels I-40 - Reno. The Core-to Shore already has to contend with this traffic and pedestrian wall, why build another wall going exactly the same way 1 block south? Wouldn't the money be better spent on improving Reno - resurfacing, lighting, pedestrian accesses across. Make the old 1-40 route a pedestrian route - bikes, paths, etc. that would go with the parks.

Or just return the area to the original grid pattern.

[Larry OKC]

Exactly Kerry, I suggested this to the powers that be (a couple of years ago now?) Do a reverse eminent domain type thing where you return that land to private ownership (sell it) and get it back on the property tax rolls so it can be developed etc.

Instead of it costing money it could be a revenue source

[Larry OKC]

It's not that Larry thinks the Mayor shouldn't change his mind, Larry is (he'll bent) on turning any and everything involving Maps3 or Core to Shore into something negative or illegal.

As is often the case, you've got it backwards. I only point out the words/actions of those involved when they suddenly change what they had said before, or when things are clearly illegal. I don't make it my mission to search for these "gotchya" moments. Don't have to as the powers that be are quite capable of slipping up on their own. I just point it out when they do and I notice it. It is when someone says/does something and I remember, "Hey, that isn't what you said last week".

If you think it is my mission to do as you claim, then by all means, make it your mission to promote everything as positive and legal (even when it isn't). Am sure they could find a spot for you over at the Chamber.

[OKC@heart]

When the boulevard was first suggested it made sense, place traffic back where they can see and access down-town as they go through OKC. But the more you think about it the less sense it makes. Most people passing through wont stop, the elevated high-way gives them a "gee-wiz" view - and that is going away. There already is a significant east-west road that parallels I-40 - Reno. The Core-to Shore already has to contend with this traffic and pedestrian wall, why build another wall going exactly the same way 1 block south? Wouldn't the money be better spent on improving Reno - resurfacing, lighting, pedestrian accesses across. Make the old 1-40 route a pedestrian route - bikes, paths, etc. that would go with the parks.

I can see your point and it is true that Reno is under utilized and has a great deal of potential, and is desperately needing some design attention. However, I think that the ULI folks were not blind to that fact either.

It you take a look at the list of priority projects there is a direct reason that they reccomended building the Boulevard and doing it in a singularly unique and placemaking kind of way. They go into extensive detail as to its importance in supporting the development of those areas and support of the connectivity of the downtown area on to core to shore.

Secondly if you review the reccommendations as to how to implement the Blvd. they mention using the Blvd. as a model for other streets in the area. Remember that the ULI is looking with a somewhat unique vision, not hindered by what we do not see today but what they can see based on thier experience could take place if certain key strategies were applied and in place. Reno may well grow to become very important as an artery for future development, and should in my opinion. I just can see what the ULI was trying to say by using the new Blvd to become a major unifying feature that is so unique and memorable that it will create its own draw for development.

Their reccomendations are basically a play by play with explanations as to why each component is important. It is dangerous and foolhardy to disregard any of them without the thourough analysis of all of the reasons and the possiblities that may be forgone if ignored.

Man I sure hope those that are critically involved in these decisions have or are really trying to internalize the report that the ULI provided!!! My worst fear would be that our key leaders, instead thinking that it was a feather in their hat to have them do a report and that they must somehow be on the right track without seriously reviewing and understanding their recommendations.

We are on the cusp of some amazing things taking place and I really think that execution of the recommendations will do wonders for our cities development and address so many of the deficiencies that many have complained about for ever on this site.

[Spartan]

Larry, it almost sounds like you think the mayor should never change his mind. A good mayor should be flexible in planning as new ideas evolve instead of holding fast to old ideas.

I think you're reading too much into the skeptical comments about Mick Cornett. The mayor is trying to say he's ALWAYS favored the narrower blvd. We know this isn't true. I agree, I just think it's interesting that perhaps Mayor Mick is trying to delicately come around in a way that does not bring more credit to those of us who are challenging downtown design or the lack thereof.

We've been in a LOT of fights over the summer. The convention center, the boulevard, SandRidge, and many more. We lost SandRidge but it appears as though we have won the boulevard which was all-but decided to be a super wide Champs Elysses rip-off and it looks like the convention center is going to come around. We know that the convention center was definitively decided and that issue has now swung open as a result of our getting involved and taking the fight to them (I know I've spoken to the city council TWICE about the convention center). It looks like Mayor Mick is trying to make sure that the OG+E substation is removed some other way than replacing it with a convention center, and that's fine by me although I am also happy to suggest ways of keeping the substation, as I have.

[ljbab728]

I think you're reading too much into the skeptical comments about Mick Cornett. The mayor is trying to say he's ALWAYS favored the narrower blvd. We know this isn't true. I agree, I just think it's interesting that perhaps Mayor Mick is trying to delicately come around in a way that does not bring more credit to those of us who are challenging downtown design or the lack thereof.

We've been in a LOT of fights over the summer. The convention center, the boulevard, SandRidge, and many more. We lost SandRidge but it appears as though we have won the boulevard which was all-but decided to be a super wide Champs Elysses rip-off and it looks like the convention center is going to come around. We know that the convention center was definitively decided and that issue has now swung open as a result of our getting involved and taking the fight to them (I know I've spoken to the city council TWICE about the convention center). It looks like Mayor Mick is trying to make sure that the OG+E substation is removed some other way than replacing it with a convention center, and that's fine by me although I am also happy to suggest ways of keeping the substation, as I have.

Spartan, if he comes around to your way of thinking, what does it matter unless you're just trying to hold his feet to the fire?

[Spartan]

Well, could you please restate what you're trying to say/assume/imply without using a murky euphemism?

[betts]

Although it's not on topic for this thread, I agree with the mayor that the substation needs to go. Yes, it could be disguised, but shouldn't be in the location it will find itself. We need hotels/retail/restaurants and hopefully medium to high density housing adjacent to the park, not a big covered box, As I've said before, if we put a bank of apartments on the west side of the convention center as shown in one of the city's renderings, I'm even fine with the convention center there.

I know the park is terribly important to the mayor, as is it's success. Perhaps he's figured out that we HAVE to make it user friendly and attractive to developers to have it succeed. In light of the fact that we can't change the crosstown location, the single best thing we can do to encourage use and development is to have an attractive, pedestrian friendly boulevard on the north side. I still maintain the we could have the streetcar running along the boulevard as well, which would definitely funnel people towards the park. It could be attractive too. The St. Charles streetcar in New Orleans does not detract at all from the boulevard there. If that happens, I don't really care whether the mayor claims he believed it needed to happen all along. In this case, the end is what is important, not the process, IMO.

It looks as if it won't be too difficult to accomplish either:

"The state's top highway official this week promised that a boulevard intended to replace Interstate 40 south of downtown can be narrowed from its current plan of six lanes if that is the wish of Oklahoma City leaders."

http://www.newsok.com/funding-in-pla...ad_story_title