Scissortail Park

[ljbab728]

Maybe we could get the ferris wheel donated too? It is in mothballs isn't it? What a great view it could provide of the river and downtown. That, a carousel, push cart vendors, a few street entertainers, a place for local artists to paint and show/sell their paintings, etc. and we would have a GREAT weekend activity area.

Sounds like a nice idea, but I doubt that Humphreys is going to donate something that he paid $132,000 for to the city for the park.

[Dubya61]

Sounds like a nice idea, but I doubt that Humphreys is going to donate something that he paid $132,000 for to the city for the park.

Someone's gotta operate it ...
He could be making money off it vice paying for the storage.

[Urbanized]

He's in the storage business. Also, I would guess that wheel is intended for the development in Eufaula.

[cagoklahoma]

He purchased the Ferris Wheel in 2008 and said he plans to utilize it in OKC.

Oklahoma Developer Buys Famed Santa Monica Pier's Ferris Wheel in eBay Auction | Fox News

The park would/could be a very cool place for it!

[metro]

He's in the storage business. Also, I would guess that wheel is intended for the development in Eufaula.

No, it's intended for his DT OKC air park development.

[Spartan]

Yay Nay?

What is different in your design from the Hargreaves design?

[catch22]

What is different in your design from the Hargreaves design?

Mine focuses on bringing people into the park. Interact with the fountain, the lake, etc. Or if they choose have the option to wander through the open spaces. While also providing access across the park if you are not interested in visiting the park, you can still get across it on somewhat of a grid.

From my first impression the Hargreaves design is intended to bypass the park and flow people to the SkyDance Bridge. The walkways push people to the east side and leads them parallel to the park.

That would be my comparison.

Edit: See Post #390 for what I would consider the better version. But I am open to criticism...

[Just the facts]

The ability to traverse the park from multiple entry points is huge. The streets that dead-end into the park will also have pleasant terminal views of the park entrances. Catch22's design allows for a greater range of users which will keep the park more active for more hours in the day, and night.

[Spartan]

Mine focuses on bringing people into the park. Interact with the fountain, the lake, etc. Or if they choose have the option to wander through the open spaces. While also providing access across the park if you are not interested in visiting the park, you can still get across it on somewhat of a grid.

From my first impression the Hargreaves design is intended to bypass the park and flow people to the SkyDance Bridge. The walkways push people to the east side and leads them parallel to the park.

That would be my comparison.

Edit: See Post #390 for what I would consider the better version. But I am open to criticism...

I think edge interaction is more important.

[Spartan]

I would like to see the buildings facing Robinson restored and repurposed as gift shops, cafes, boat rental stands, etc.., with the east facing facades knocked out (just keep the building shells and as much of the old brick, windows, etc as possible that faces Robinson) and opened up with a massive geodesic dome or soundscape system over a grand lawn (a la Millennium Park, but not as grand). Here's something that was done in a Cleveland suburb for under $5 million:


This perfectly illustrates a building opening up into a large outdoor domed-tent structure that makes a very unique outdoors space

Then the widest and most impressive walkway needs to be a diagonal that leads to the NE corner of the park, with the intersection of Robinson and the Boulevard. It would probably be difficult to find a way to get that in with a geodesic domed-tent great lawn that is connected to a preserved Robinson streetwall.

Then the SW quadrant of the park should be a massive pond as Hargreaves has already drawn up. Not only is this a good transition in terms of activity programming, but it also provides incredible sight lines triangulating between the Union Station and SkyDance Bridge, the skyline, and the domed lawn.

[Urbanized]

No, it's intended for his DT OKC air park development.

That was the tepid impression dragged out of him years ago when the air park development was actively being pursued, though I'm not certain he ever specifically said it in so many words. But times (and his development focus) have changed. Again, it's a guess on my part.

[catch22]

Keeping some of the buildings along Robinson will hide the park from certain street level views. You need to make it clear "this is a park". Mine still does allow for future interaction to be programmed. But I think it is imperative, that as a Central Park. You need a focal point in the center of the park. Not a lake or pavilion, but a fountain, a large piece of public art or something like that. And you need to encourage movement towards that. Which will lead them by other areas, or in line of sight to other areas to encourage them to visit those places.

The fountain will get people on the north part of the park to move towards the center, from there they will find the Skydance bridge, Union Station, the lake, and other programming that could be included. You need to keep the programming towards the southern end of the park and the open areas on the north end. MBG is heavily programmed, so you need the open areas closer to it. Effectively creating a sandwich with the open space accessible to both programmed areas.

[Just the facts]

If you keep the buildings along Robinson that are on park property where will the backs of the buildings be - facing the street or facing the park?

[CaptDave]

If you keep the buildings along Robinson that are on park property where will the backs of the buildings be - facing the street or facing the park?

I really do not think it is practical to keep those buildings on the perimeter for that reason and the ones stated by catch22. Normally I would prefer to repurpose buildings like them but I do not think it is appropriate in this case.

[hoya]

There are really only two buildings worth a damn in that entire park area, on Robinson between 4th and 5th. I'm not sure how easy it is to incorporate those into the structure of the park without making them a major component and spending a lot of money to rehabilitate them.

[JayhawkTransplant]

Those buildings have an interesting history, and I have been racking my brain for months to try to figure out how they could be re-purposed...to no avail.

Would someone please help me move the quonset hut somewhere else? I've always wanted to turn a quonset hut into a house.

Also, not on topic, but keep in mind that final steps of the Voluntary Cleanup Program were completed for the Downtown Airpark property very recently. I know it seems as though it has been sitting for awhile with no action, but the regulatory wheels have been spinning.

[Spartan]

Keeping some of the buildings along Robinson will hide the park from certain street level views. You need to make it clear "this is a park". Mine still does allow for future interaction to be programmed. But I think it is imperative, that as a Central Park. You need a focal point in the center of the park. Not a lake or pavilion, but a fountain, a large piece of public art or something like that. And you need to encourage movement towards that. Which will lead them by other areas, or in line of sight to other areas to encourage them to visit those places.

The fountain will get people on the north part of the park to move towards the center, from there they will find the Skydance bridge, Union Station, the lake, and other programming that could be included. You need to keep the programming towards the southern end of the park and the open areas on the north end. MBG is heavily programmed, so you need the open areas closer to it. Effectively creating a sandwich with the open space accessible to both programmed areas.

That's why you knock out much of the buildings, or maybe even just use one. I clearly said that you wouldn't be keeping much more than the north and south-facing facades - or just enough to utilize the existing landscape to add a strong sense of "Oklahoma City." Otherwise I get the sense that you guys are just wanting a park that could be located ANYWHERE with no unique local identifiers whatsoever.

The way your local retreats from Union Station also hides it behind trees, whereas I think it should be right on the lake, maybe even have a patio deck overlooking the lake.

[catch22]

I never said my plan was perfect or has the answers. Mine was simply what I would like to see in our park. I suggest you draw up a plan as well. We need more public input as I think all 3 Hargreaves designs were very underwhelming.

[OKCisOK4me]

He doesn't draw plans..he just critiques.

[Spartan]

I draw plans for a living. Doh

[catch22]

Well lets see your idea on "paper". I can do it you can do it too.

[Spartan]

This is juvenile, I'm not competing with you, stop acting as if I am. But okay I can just make some minor changes to the graphic you posted

[catch22]

No I'm not being juvenile. I'm more than happy to modify my graphic (and you can see where I have numerous times). The reason I am not offering to with you would be because the way you are approaching it. If you want people to work with you, you have to be a little less condescending.

[OKCisOK4me]

I draw plans for a living. Doh

DOH! apparently not for the city where you came from.

[metro]

I draw plans for a living. Doh

Can you point us to some examples of your paid work?