MAPS III Redux

[Patrick]

Here are all 5 proposed images:

Plan 1:










Plan 2:






Plan 3:






Alternative A:






Alternative B:

[Patrick]

Patrick, that rendering and all the others found on the okc.gov site are merely broad concepts and not all of them contain all the components you listed, such as the stadium.

However, they do show a lot of sentiment towards razing the co-op and generally gutting everything (except Union Station) south of Reno to the river.


One common element is a huge, continuous park from the Myriad Gardens to the river. In terms of cost, this itself may require a good chunk of Maps 3 funds just do to acquisition of the land.


I have to say, I'm really impressed with the foresight being show by the city leaders and various concerned citizens. You can't do it if you don't dream it first, and I love the idea we have some grandiose, ambitious concepts being discussed.

[TStheThird]

I really like the revised plan with the three marinas. I like the canal extension, the marinas, the location of the convention center, the ampitheatre. I think it is spectacular.

[Kerry]

Patrick,

I think the transit center is more inline with a rail station/bus staion/parking garage combo. I think its proximity to the railroad is a dead give-away. Since we know the city is already looking at a fixed guidway plan, it would only make sense to connect them all at a central hub. It would also be nice if the downtown transit center also featured a remote airline check in terminal. Even if it was only a self check-in kyosk with baggage check-in service.

Also, everyplan has the transit center. It seems OKC might actually get a rail system.

[floater]

The Core to Shore website reads like Alternatives A and B are drawn from the three initial ideas. So IMO it's between those two. I also prefer A to B. It's more ambitious with the mixed use canal area, amphitheater, and marinas.

But there's one thing that concerns me: the North Shore area and large marina seem to me to represent too much private land in what should be a public space. I would add a school (elementary, performing arts, or design) to the North Shore neighborhood, along with an urban playground featuring bocce ball, basketball, and tennis courts. Maybe even some kids' playgrounds, horseshoe pits, and a giant chessboard and tables for chess. I would also clear the residential buildings going east-west around the big marina (leaving the north-south buildings) and have pedestrian plazas in their place. Other than that, this is a bang-up plan.

[floater]

Here are the aspects I really like about Alternative A:

- Mercado district and plaza (though B has it too)
- Mixed use district running down Robinson in Hub Cap Alley; the buildings on Robinson ought to leave lots of space on the sidewalks for street furniture and alfresco dining, because the view to First National Center from there would be fantastic
- Distribution of retail throughout different neighborhoods
- Convention center facing the big park
- Big park's corner hotels on the boulevard
- Great alignment of Myriad Gardens and retail plaza down to the North Shore mall and beacon
- Pocket park alignment with big park circle and convention center
- Canal running through mixed use district

[TStheThird]

I think that a design school would be great.... The Oklahoma City School of Design.

[TStheThird]

In plan A, it appears there are two hotels in the retail district along Reno. At least that is what the the pink color indicates in the plan B legend.

[CuatrodeMayo]

I think that a design school would be great.... The Oklahoma City School of Design.

[SpectralMourning]

Patrick,

I think the transit center is more inline with a rail station/bus staion/parking garage combo. I think its proximity to the railroad is a dead give-away. Since we know the city is already looking at a fixed guidway plan, it would only make sense to connect them all at a central hub. It would also be nice if the downtown transit center also featured a remote airline check in terminal. Even if it was only a self check-in kyosk with baggage check-in service.

Also, everyplan has the transit center. It seems OKC might actually get a rail system.

Nice observations, Kerry. Note that the latest plans call for a new corporate headquarters on Reno. MG anyone?

I still really hope the intermodal station is built in honor of the Cincinnati Union Terminal. That's just a fantastic building.

[jbrown84]

I prefer the design with the park taking up the entire strip between Walker and Robinson south of the boulevard. That is what I envisioned.

I like the location of the Convention Center on the west side of the tracks opposite the transit center. It would be cool if the two buildings had matching architecture, kind of like the Civic Center and City Hall. Some kind of Art Deco would be a really good choice.

One cool thing about the park going all the way from Walker to Reno is that that places Union Station centered at the end of the section north of I-40. Great placement for a museum of some sort.

[Patrick]

I also like the Covention Center west of the tracks, in line with the existing convention center, and south of the Ford Center. I think we should leave the area east of the tracks for expansion of the Bricktown Canal, and the Bricktown area. That's why I like Alternative A.

I drove around downtown this afternoon, to try to visualize exactly where this would be, and exactly what was in those locations. For the most part, the convention center space west of the track is open. Most of the buildings on that track of land are dilapidated and could easily be condemned.

BUT, there are two areas I think are really in question here.
1. The Main Downtown OKC Postal Sorting Facility, which is currently located where this park is being proposed, between Robinson and Walker. The Postal Service has millions and millions of dollars invested in that facility, and I wonder if they'd move. I have overheard rumors that they're wanting to build a larger facility though, so maybe they could move, but where?

2. Also, getting the Co-Op to move would be a huge task. The Co-Op covers a lot of ground, and there's easily millions invested in the structures there. I really wonder if this is an option.

[Patrick]

Patrick,

I think the transit center is more inline with a rail station/bus staion/parking garage combo. I think its proximity to the railroad is a dead give-away. Since we know the city is already looking at a fixed guidway plan, it would only make sense to connect them all at a central hub. It would also be nice if the downtown transit center also featured a remote airline check in terminal. Even if it was only a self check-in kyosk with baggage check-in service.

Also, everyplan has the transit center. It seems OKC might actually get a rail system.

I really really hope you're right Kerry! That sounds awesome!

[Patrick]

Also, I like the way, both Alternatives A and B show extensions of the south canal under the new I-40 bridges, to meet up with Zone G of the canal from the river. Of course, due to elevational differences, they can't link, but we need those two segments as close as possible to create a better link between Bricktown and the river.

[wheeler]

Yes, please, if we are going to have trolleys, then have trolleys. A bus is a bus by any other name....... And what is wrong with a cowboy theme anyway? Isn't that one of Oklahoma's big claims to fame? Art Deco is not a bad idea, I just don't want to abolish all the cowboy stuff. I moved here from Michigan telling everyone "I'm gonna be a cowgirl!" They were envious. Other places relate cowboys to Oklahoma.

[Patrick]

Yes, please, if we are going to have trolleys, then have trolleys. A bus is a bus by any other name....... And what is wrong with a cowboy theme anyway? Isn't that one of Oklahoma's big claims to fame? Art Deco is not a bad idea, I just don't want to abolish all the cowboy stuff. I moved here from Michigan telling everyone "I'm gonna be a cowgirl!" They were envious. Other places relate cowboys to Oklahoma.

When most people think cowboy or Indian, they naturally think Hick, low educated, poor, people living in teepees, with no running water, run-down trailor parks, etc. If you have no idea what I mean, go spend a day in New York City, Chicago, or Los Angeles, and tell the people there that you're a "cowgirl" from Oklahoma. Seriously, there are some people on the coasts that actually think we still live on reservations in teepees, and they think lowly of us.

Maybe mranderson should go into more detail on the issue. He's been good at explaining it in the past! mranderson?

[Kerry]

I like the idea of the football stadium being near the river but I think it makes more sense near downtown. With the existing parking garages near downtown it would reduce the need to build additional structures and would add another day of rvenue to the existing infrastructure. Since some of the lots are owned by the city the city would receives additional revenue.

[Watson410]

I like the idea of Plan A. How awesome would it be to be driving down I-40 entering the crosstown and see a HUGE world class NFL stadium?!?! I do agree about it being more convenant for parking being in downtown... but i honestly can't think of a place big enough for one to be built. Plus, we for sure need to get rid of the Cotton Gin, it's an eye sore. What better than an NFL stadium? IMO.

[BG918]

I prefer Alternative A, with the new convention center located just south of the Ford Center and new downtown blvd. overlooking the park. I like that it expands Bricktown to the south along with an expanded Bricktown canal system. And all the new urban neighborhoods look great. That area just south of Myriad Gardens has tons of potential along the new blvd., I could see a highrise hotel (or two) and our long-awaited downtown Nordstrom going in that location. That area could be the retail hub for downtown with secondary areas in Bricktown (mostly south of the new blvd.) and along Broadway, Walker, and Robinson.

[BDP]

But there's one thing that concerns me: the North Shore area and large marina seem to me to represent too much private land in what should be a public space.

I think this is a valid concern, both philosophically and pragmatically.

First, is it right for the city to spend so much public money enhancing areas that will ultimately be developed by private interests? Is that the intended role of government? Personally, I think the government should enhance the city in terms of beautification and infrastructure as these are things we can all enjoy directly. I have no problem with the government using land to create public parks for everyone in the city to access. I think it becomes an issue when the government begins investing in these private ventures directly, especially when their end use is narrow in scope and/or restricted to private use. There is a degree of involvement that I think crosses the line. It would be a shame for the city to spend so much money on this area and then the public only has limited access to the developments.

Second, can we always trust the government to make the right decisions in terms of development. Will the city panic, as it has in the past, and finance suburban oriented retail like Bass Pro? Do we want the shore to simply be a shopping center dominated by black top parking and deep set backs? We can look at all the plans we want, but can we trust the government to actually execute the plans on which our support was formed? Can we trust the government to use publicly enhanced and assisted developments to foster unique development that Oklahoma City would not of otherwise seen in order to broaden Oklahoma City's living options and, ultimately, is investment appeal? If we can't, can the public assistance really be justified?

I think MPS was a success in the areas in which it concretely laid out XYZ what would be done. However, it also may not have produced the secondary results that were suggested. They can promise residential developments, but they can’t actually build them and we don’t really know what they’ll be when actually built by some third part private investor. I think that could be the only area where MAPS could be criticized. It seduced us with the promise of some types of private investment and suggested what it would be like. In some ways it was better and in others it fell short. So, when we develop MAPS III and, ultimately, vote on it, I think we need to be conscious of and differentiate between what we’re really voting on, what will actually happen as a result of that vote, and what is merely ideas or goals that we hope the measure will accomplish, but which isn’t guaranteed. We should realize that if MAPS III says it will build a park or enhance our public transit, those things will be built by its passage. If it says that it will create retail and residential investment of some sort in some location, I think we know now that there is no way that we can actually be sure exactly what that will be when we vote on it or if it will happen at all.

I think these questions must be considered in order to ensure that a balance is struck where every facet of our community can enjoy the benefits of their investment and that it results in the type of private investment that can, at this point, only be generated by such projects...

[floater]

^ Yeah...precisely. Those points are spot-on.

[SOONER8693]

I vote Alternative A. However, I notice the Vertical Landmark in the original 3 proposals has been replaced with a Beacon. This may just be a matter of semantics. I would be seriously dissapointed if the Vertical Landmark was eliminated. Maybe the Beacon and Landmark are actually one in the same.

[SpectralMourning]

Steering Presentations of Core to Shore:

Dec 13th Presentation

Jan 10th Presentation


The Jan 10th presentation presents the ideas of the committee toward what everyone seems to be aiming for. In that, they present examples of these ideas from around the world. The beacon is represented as a tower through examples such as the Eiffel Tower and Seattle Space Needle. Using examples such as world landmarks and famed city sites really shows you the direction they're aiming for. The whole project seems to be addressed as one massive landmark altogether.

While I'm not too sure how much of the area is exclusive to private use (which is why I propose that we keep only one marina in the expansion, at least on this side of the river) It is a valid concern. A consistent park extending to the river from the Myriad Gardens would be much more attractive than cramming a private neighborhood and marina there. I really can't see that concept lasting too long.

It should also be noted that Alternative A plans on almost doubling the size of Bricktown to the Coop site. In fact, it sounds as if the coop site has seen it's last years in our city. To me, that's the most impressive development idea yet.

As I've said earlier, each of the new plans calls for a corporate headquarters on Reno. Weather that's a development coinciding with MG's decision to locate their headquarters in OKC is for time to tell.

All in all, I can't wait to see next month's developments. Each month, the ideas collected become more impressive and yet more reasonable as they go on.

[jbrown84]

I'm not seeing this corporate headquarters you speak of...

[SpectralMourning]

They call for a corporate headquarters on Reno in the Jan. 10th presentation.