Downtown OKC needs to focus more on civic amenities!

[semisimple]

Downtown Phoenix is not visually more appealing than OKC's. Actually the worst area of downtown OKC (maybe Shartel around the jail or Hudson around the bus stop) would still be considered attractive areas of downtown Phoenix. Talk about somewhere with a huge issue of parking lots, vacant lots, and cracked-out abandoned strip malls. I guess they've cleaned up the one street but that doesn't make an entire center city. And instead of areas similar to Paseo or Plaza, in Phoenix instead you've got miles of pawn shops and abandoned strip malls with scragly dying palm trees and cactus trying to grow out of the cracks in the parking lots.

Talk about a gross misrepresentation of downtown Phoenix. You must've visited with a blindfold on.

Granted, their downtown is a joke given the metro area population, and I do think the city is ugly. But their downtown does not consist of "miles of abandoned strip malls" by any extent of the imagination.

Also, in Phoenix, there are some great neighborhoods near downtown. There are also plenty of run-down areas. You seem to suggest that OKC's downtown, in comparison, is surrounded by great neighborhoods--which is very far from the truth. In reality both cities have more than their fair share of blight surrounding the CBD.

I think downtown OKC functions much more like the heart of the city relative to Phoenix's downtown. Phoenix seems very decentralized in comparison, which is another thing I don't like about it.

[Kerry]

To tie all these threads together - downtown Phoenix tried the couplet style with their lightrail systen to try a revitalize their downtown and so far it is a big failure.

[Spartan]

To tie all these threads together - downtown Phoenix tried the couplet style with their lightrail systen to try a revitalize their downtown and so far it is a big failure.

This just came way out of left field. Kerry, going to let you round this thought out a little bit more before I decide what I think of it. It seems like you can add onto this. But keep in mind that 1) regardless of any ultimatum you've said about single or double track, all options are on the table for OKC, and 2) using Phoenix as an example of streetcar failing might seem disingenuous for a lot of reasons the least of which is that Phoenix built LRT not streetcar and then the obvious one, Phoenix sucks. OKC is arguably infinitely denser than Phoenix because OKC was originally built around streetcars, which should make the transition an initial success here.

on edit: While Phoenix was obviously not a streetcar city to the extent OKC was, I did have a sneaking suspicion there were some historic trolleys at one point in time, and I was right, though I don't think it was ever very extensive. For the Phoenix defenders on here, check this site out:
http://phoenixtrolley.com/

[Kerry]

It wasn't out of left field - this thread is about Civic Amenities and you brought up Phoenix and how their downtown sucks (for a city their size). All I did was say how Phoenix tried to revitalize their downtown with a couplet system and transit mall and how it didn't work. Granted they have light rail but in their downtown area but it operates like a modern streetcar. It runs in the street with traffic and has frequent stops.

[Spartan]

It wasn't out of left field - this thread is about Civic Amenities and you brought up Phoenix and how their downtown sucks (for a city their size). All I did was say how Phoenix tried to revitalize their downtown with a couplet system and transit mall and how it didn't work. Granted they have light rail but in their downtown area but it operates like a modern streetcar. It runs in the street with traffic and has frequent stops.

Qualify failure.. and I'll say again, downtown Phoenix is just a huge failure all over. Downtown OKC is in an entirely different echelon.

[rcjunkie]

Funny, all I've heard for the past few years is complaining about how high taxes are, how government is to big, etc:. Now I read on this thread, people wanting the government to do (spend) more.

[Kerry]

Funny, all I've heard for the past few years is complaining about how high taxes are, how government is to big, etc:. Now I read on this thread, people wanting the government to do (spend) more.

Once you understand the fundamental differences between Federal, State and Local governments it will make more sense to you.

[rcjunkie]

Once you understand the fundamental differences between Federal, State and Local governments it will make more sense to you.

I do know the difference, and everyone wants less government, unless it something they like or want more of, then cost is not important.

[shane453]

Just recently spent some time in Phoenix and I would say the main reason I think OKC is better is not because of civic amenities. Phoenix does have great streets and highways, and certain corridors are really nicely maintained. The way OKC outshines Phoenix is in character... There are no really interesting commercial neighborhoods where you could stand there and recognize that you're in Phoenix. Mill Avenue in Tempe, the lifestyle center in Scottsdale, and Central Avenue in Midtown Phoenix seemed to be the coolest areas, but Central Ave was mostly just a corporate strip with some condos. It would be like if the most interesting parts of OKC were Campus Corner, Quail Springs Mall, and the Northwest Expressway. Luckily we have a lot of interesting urban neighborhoods that are coming to life.

[Spartan]

Glendale has a nice downtown, actually, and Scottsdale is a nicer version of central Edmond. I hated my life on that trip, and the two Fiesta Bowls I went to probably have affected my piling on of Phoenix's suckiness, but I think Phoenix's suckiness struck me before the sour mood did. As for Central Avenue, look I understand it's gotten some new development, but the way I see it, it sucked when I saw it. It was just a busy road with a lot of lanes lined with several SandRidge Commons'. Downtown Phoenix is the land of the corporate plaza to the max. On the bright side everything in the downtown core is new and shiny because they have no history. Go 3 blocks over and it's pretty depressing and dilapidated. At least in OKC you have to go 5-10 blocks over for that to start to take effect.

There are cities out there that are pretty suburban but still decently urban at the same time. It's kind of hard to describe exactly what I mean, but OKC, Tulsa, Little Rock, Ft Worth, Austin, Albuquerque are perfect examples of towns that are extremely sprawling but have a decent inner city at least. It's because virtually all of these towns were developed as streetcar cities around the turn of the century and still have their old corridors somewhat intact and that's important. Phoenix has paved everything over and never really had anything notable to begin with. They may have the nicest roads and freeways some people have ever seen but roads and freeways don't make a good city, they just make a sucky auto-centric one. And if you thought OKC was bad..wait till you see Phoenix.

[Kerry]

Qualify failure.. and I'll say again, downtown Phoenix is just a huge failure all over. Downtown OKC is in an entirely different echelon.

Downtown sucks -> install rail to make it better -> downtown still sucks = failure

[G.Walker]

What about Salt Lake City? Their light rail system (TRAX), is working great for their city...OKC should invest in light rail rather than street car.

[mcca7596]

The way OKC outshines Phoenix is in character... There are no really interesting commercial neighborhoods where you could stand there and recognize that you're in Phoenix.

I understand what you are saying and agree with you. However, Phoenix is unique in its concentration of modern architecture.

Not EVERYWHERE has to have history to it, sometimes being around buildings beautiful in design is a fun experience to itself. One can shop without guilt, while recognizing a building as a place of modern consumption and nothing else.

[Kerry]

What about Salt Lake City? Their light rail system (TRAX), is working great for their city...OKC should invest in light rail rather than street car.

Salt Lake City got lightrail for one reason - the 2002 Winter Olympics. Now having said that, it has worked well for SLC which is a testament to how much better rail is than buses. However, lightrail is not cheap. The two lightrail lines in SLC have 19.6 miles of track and cost $517 million in 2002 (adjusting for inflation - that is $613 million in 2009 dollars). Lightrail cost $10 million more per mile.

[betts]

I'm not really sure what the advantage to light rail would be. We need commuter rail and some method of moving people around once they arrive at the hub. The streetcar suits that purpose very nicely and for less money.

[Kerry]

In reality - the University line and the downtown zone in SLC is a streetcar. While many areas of suburban SLC have been begging for light-rail access, future expansion is going to be streetcars.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...Lake-City.html

[Spartan]

Downtown sucks -> install rail to make it better -> downtown still sucks = failure

Do you think they installed LRT in Phoenix to make their downtown better? To me I view their motives as more pertaining to real estate investment, and I had read several articles last year where it has attracted them almost a billion dollars in private investment. Now just like with LRT, I still doubt that a billion dollars in private investment is going to make Phoenix more urban, but it's a start.

The problem with Phoenix, that makes OKC so much superior, is that I don't think they talk about things like walkability, quality of life, livability, street walls, urbanism, well-planned downtowns, human scale, etc. In OKC that's what we talk about. That's what they talk about in places that are much more urban than OKC. We have shifted the paradigm to the urban and our development is beginning to match it as people come out of the woodwork with resources such as Richard McKowns, Grant Humphreys, Jeff Struble, Steve Mason, and so on...people who are committed to urban planning principles and making OKC successful.

And G. Walker, as for Salt Lake's LRT..and that we should try it..good luck with that. If somebody can find $1B for LRT in Central Oklahoma then I'm all ears. I don't think it can be done though, especially without precedent. Furthermore, what's wrong with streetcar? It is absolutely ideal for operating in a dense, downtown area, such as we have. We will have the enormous streetcar system we once had back when OKC's had the largest streetcar network in the nation. When that happens, LRT will be the obvious solution to bridge the gap between opposite ends of the network and to connect far away suburbs in other counties like Yukon, Moore, Norman, et al. The only fallback of streetcar is that it isn't very feasible to take it all the way from SW 44th/Western up to Nichols Hills. But a shorter 4-5 mile trip into downtown or somewhere on the way, why not?

[OSUFan]

Hick town? You seem like a smart guy Spartan who shouldn't have to resort to small jabs and slams to make your point. You might not like Stillwater and that is fine. It is not for everyone. However, there a lot of people who love Stillwater and think hicktown might not be the best way to describe it.

[Spartan]

Let's be real, OSUfan. OSU is a great school that's been held back by its location. It should have been put in Tulsa.

I only even go there because someone suggested that the state needs to direct resources toward a college just for the sake of downtown OKC having one. The state doesn't really have resources for higher education in general, but we need a new downtown college, anyway. OU and OSU have been held back by a state government that doesn't really care about the educational value of its two flagship universities and would rather pander to the small town interests that control this state and must support all of these crappy branch campuses that we're inundated with.

Back in 1895 they should have put OU in the middle of downtown OKC, and OSU in the middle of downtown Tulsa. You'd have your state's comprehensive research institution in a Madison-like setting and your state's land grand institution in an Austin-like setting. But instead we have Norman and Stillwater for education, which aren't bad, but realistically they're small college towns of less consequence than Boulder or Lawrence. And I say that as someone who attended OU until transferring, and I had a great time and still consider myself an OU guy, I'm just occasionally critical of its planning, and don't even get me started on how great OSU's campus could be if they just pulled their heads out of T. Boone's arse.

They should have done that back in the 1800s, and now it's too late. OSU is too entrenched in Stillwater and OU is too entrenched in Norman. So they should just continue to build onto what their main campuses already are. Who knows, maybe someday Norman can be like Durham (although a nicer version) is to Raleigh and Stillwater can be like Lawrence is to Kansas.

[bluedogok]

Being in the middle of city is not always the best thing for a large university, near the city seems better. UT-Austin has had space constraints for a long time and has just has to pay a premium to get land near them or else locate many things far away from the "40 Acres" (main campus). They should have moved UT out to the Brackenridge Tract (1,000 acres, 500 acres donated by George Washington Brackenridge in 1909 plus another possible 500 acres from the Pease family) when they tried to but the business leaders in Austin at the time didn't want it moved "way out of town" so they convinced legislators to block the move. That "way out of town" piece of land sits on Lake Austin Blvd. just south of Tom Miller Dam, a little over a mile from where Whole Foods is located now.