Re-urbanizing Downtown

[Just the facts]

Since the same theme seems to run across several downtown projects I thought it would be more efficient to keep the discussion in its own thread. Over the last several years it seemed that OKC was making great strides in creating mixed-use neighborhoods. Neighborhoods like Deep Deuce and Midtown have started to fill-in and districts like Bricktown have started to add significant residential components as it transitions to an actual neighborhood. However, downtown seems to be regressing into a true business district where everything is geared to office workers from 9-5 M-F. Considering the massive public investment in downtown it seems to be a large waste of money.

Even with a residential component and elementary school (that now appears to be woefully misplaced just 1 year after opening) there is not any reason for residents to frequent MBG. The core of downtown is becoming an off-hours no-mans land in the heart of everything and it is really disappointing. While the City attempts to re-vitalize Park with retail, downtowns major employers are ensuring that their employees never set foot on a downtown sidewalk. They arrive on an elevated roadway, park in an on-site garage, and get to their office using a skywalk. This robs downtown retailers of their primary customer base - hence why downtown already has 30,000 employees and virtually zero retail.

The people who do end up moving into the Clayco residential towers will mostly go to Film Row for entertainment, dining, and eventually retail because there is simply no space for that being created around MBG. In another thread I asked people to envision if they want MBG to become more like Rittenhouse Sq or Love Park. I think without a doubt people would prefer Rittenhouse Sq, but OKC is ensuring we end up with Love Park. Trust me, a 'Love Park' in the heart of downtown is NOT going to attract new companies and people to the area.

[Teo9969]

If the base of the Clayco development is accessible and inviting to an average pedestrian, then all will be okay.

Basically here's how I see it, the box from Sheridan North to 5th, and from Walker East to EK Gaylord is simply lost for at least the next 20 years…we may as well forget about that area being a 24 hour hub.

If however, the Clayco proposal includes park-front restaurant/retail, and maintains pedestrian interest along Reno and Sheridan, and if we don't totally *@#%-up the cox site and put an arena there, we have a chance to have the Sheridan+Reno spine from the Bricktown past the Intermodal Hub all the way to Classen via Film Row. If we get all of that correct, who really cares about the CBD? Let it remain a 9-5, M-F abyss.

If we want good urbanism to win out, we need to not try and win every battle at the loss of the war. We need to find a way right now to make sure the Cox site is perfect. We need to put pressure on city leaders to grant the TIF proposal only at the behest of Park front Retail/Restaurant at the Clayco site, and push for plans on the Convention center to also include park-front points of interest.

[Rover]

I think that we are losing sight of the smallness of downtown. We act like these are greatly detached areas. Midtown to downtown is VERY easily walkable in distance and time. Midtown to BT/DD. DD to Film Row. Bricktown to the Arts District. In aggregate, it is becoming very mixed use and much more urban. However, if you want to draw definitive lines around a couple of blocks, it is easy to re-categorize. EVERY block doesn't have to be mixed use for the area to be mixed use. The heart of downtown has a number of residential developments already, with the hope of First National Building to become another. And many more are planned for the Arts District. Clayco offers the opportunity for many more residences. Just because they might go a block or two west instead of east isn't a failure. There is already retail...maybe not completely lining the streets, but it exists with hopes and studies going on as to how to attract more as there are more living in the area. There is hope for bringing visitors to the convention center who must eat and may shop in the areas around MG.

I think we sometimes focus SO much on the immediate 100 feet that we are not seeing the progress if you look at the 200 square blocks of the entire area. With each addition of density we make the land more valuable. When the land becomes more valuable, and people exist with the economic wherewithal, then it can mature into a much more urban-like area throughout.

[bchris02]

^^^ Right now it still feels like these areas are detached because there are still dilapidated, sketchy areas dividing them where I wouldn't walk by myself at night (SoSA comes to mind). It won't take much revitalization to bridge the gap and create one contiguous urban core.

As for JTF's question, Oklahoma City is not Portland or Vancouver and never will be. Corporate interests will likely always come first here. That isn't a bad thing and OKC isn't the only city where that is the case. Certain areas will eventually have that walkable, urban feel many desire but the CBD will probably always feel like a corporate campus and the OU Health Sciences center will probably always feel somewhat suburban. With the political climate in OKC there is little chance of passing the kind of ordinances that would be necessary for JTF's vision to become reality. Even if it could be done, it would be a ultimately be a development killer in this town.

[Just the facts]

I had high hopes for the Cox site but I am already going to chalk that up to a loss. Just look at the surrounding development already - 4 office building, a convention center, and convention hotel. There will be zero night and weekend activity surrounding MBG - zero. One of the most important concepts for public space is time-diversity. The more hours in a day that people are present the more efficient the area becomes, and efficiency is what drive sustainability. In fact, the whole idea of urban density is to deliver the people and businesses to create time-diversity. OKC central business district, which really is just going to a district, won't have any time-diversity, and with it, the number of hours public infrastructure is used will go down. Couple that with re-directed property taxes and what will surely be an increase in police presence in MBG and that is a recipe for disaster - downtown Philadelphia style.

[Rover]

The more high paying, high value jobs that come downtown the more people will want to live and work downtown. Corporate and community should go together. The more that want to live downtown the more realistic it is for developers to build the kinds of structures and amenities that make the area more urban. They are all mutually advantageous. Corporations want the areas around their work places to be desirable.

[boitoirich]

I wonder why downtown has been slow to see any mixed-use developments beyond the retail podium + office or residential combination. The residential population of downtown is minuscule, so it would be nice to see some mixed office/residential developments.

Another deficiency is the prevalence of superblocks. Devon's campus, Century Center, the MBG, Cox Convention Center, Chesapeake Energy Arena, and the Maps 3 convention center block clustered together are impediments to a rich, human scale environment. It will be nice to see the Cox block broken up and redeveloped.

There is no attention to how downtown flows into its surrounding neighborhoods. The transitions only make sense from the inside of an automobile, but as a pedestrian the movement from Automobile Alley, Midtown, Deep Deuce, and Bricktown is jarring. Smarter infill and an improved pedestrian environment would go a long way to improving this.

That's all I've got so far.

[Rover]

There is no attention to how downtown flows into its surrounding neighborhoods. The transitions only make sense from the inside of an automobile, but as a pedestrian the movement from Automobile Alley, Midtown, Deep Deuce, and Bricktown is jarring. Smarter infill and an improved pedestrian environment would go a long way to improving this.

That's all I've got so far.

I can easily walk/bike between the areas. If someone doesn't walk from DD or BT to Film Row or Midtown, it is because they don't really want to walk or bike. A car is NOT needed.

[bchris02]

I can easily walk/bike between the areas. If someone doesn't walk from DD or BT to Film Row or Midtown, it is because they don't really want to walk or bike. A car is NOT needed.

True, but you have to admit, some of the areas aren't lighted very well, have sidewalks in pretty bad shape, and feel uninviting especially to someone unfamiliar with the area. I don't think this will be a problem in 5-10 years as long as the bottom doesn't completely fall out of the local economy.

[AP]

True, but you have to admit, some of the areas aren't lighted very well, have sidewalks in pretty bad shape, and feel uninviting especially to someone unfamiliar with the area. I don't think this will be a problem in 5-10 years as long as the bottom doesn't completely fall out of the local economy.

Rover doesn't have to admit anything. If he can do it, by God, everyone else can. We're all just a bunch of wusses who don't want to walk.

[boitoirich]

I park once and walk everywhere. That would include going from the Boathouse District for play to Midtown for a sip. Walking can be done, but it is not always pleasant or enriching to do so. This is especially true of the areas immediately adjacent to the CBD. Who enjoys crossing EKG to get to a Thunder game? How fun is it to walk from Level to Red Prime? Want to shop in AA then go to the Skirvin for brunch? That walk should knock your socks off. It doesn't come close. We're big league now -- and growing up fast -- so we can begin to think of ways to improve the presentation of our city.

[Urbanized]

I can easily walk/bike between the areas. If someone doesn't walk from DD or BT to Film Row or Midtown, it is because they don't really want to walk or bike. A car is NOT needed.

This is one of the reasons I think the word "walkable" is misleading. You CAN walk here, but why would you want to? "Walkability" is not the same thing as ACCESSIBILITY. For a place to be truly walkable you have to WANT to walk there. The environment should ENCOURAGE walking, not merely enable it. It should be interesting, engaging. It should lead you from place to place. The problem is that when we plop down a bland/blank block or two - of parking, windowless walls, berms or whatever - in between truly vibrant and engaging areas we limit the possibilities of those disparate areas/districts working together to create a sum greater than the parts. We create barriers that might not be physical but are real nonetheless.

[Rover]

Rover doesn't have to admit anything. If he can do it, by God, everyone else can. We're all just a bunch of wusses who don't want to walk.

I have spent many, many years in many of the most urban cities in the world. They don't all have pristine sidewalks and postcard image streets. Yet people walk. I hear a lot of excuses on this site. So yes, if at my age I can and do navigate in lots of urban areas and go much farther in them, then I think that the young urbanites inhabiting our downtown can easily navigate without cars. When I was in NYC for the fall, I averaged about 8 miles a day. Think about how far and how many times you could traverse downtown areas every day if you are willing to walk 8 miles a day. DD to Automobile Alley is a snap. DD to Dust Bowl is a snap. There is no reason not to aggregate these areas when talking about mixed use.

[Urbanized]

In "Walkable City," Jeff Speck defines his "General Theory of Walkability" thusly:

The General Theory of Walkability explains how, to be favored, a walk has to satisfy four main conditions: it must be useful, safe, comfortable, and interesting. Each of these qualities is essential and none alone is sufficient. Useful means that most aspects of daily life are located close at hand and organized in a way that walking serves them well. Safe means that the street has been designed to give pedestrians a fighting chance against being hit by automobiles; they must not only be safe but feel safe, which is even tougher to satisfy. Comfortable means that buildings and landscape shape urban streets into ‘outdoor living rooms,’ in contrast to wide-open spaces, which usually fail to attract pedestrians. Interesting means that sidewalks are lined by unique buildings with friendly faces and that signs of humanity abound.

[Teo9969]

I had high hopes for the Cox site but I am already going to chalk that up to a loss. Just look at the surrounding development already - 4 office building, a convention center, and convention hotel. There will be zero night and weekend activity surrounding MBG - zero. One of the most important concepts for public space is time-diversity. The more hours in a day that people are present the more efficient the area becomes, and efficiency is what drive sustainability. In fact, the whole idea of urban density is to deliver the people and businesses to create time-diversity. OKC central business district, which really is just going to a district, won't have any time-diversity, and with it, the number of hours public infrastructure is used will go down. Couple that with re-directed property taxes and what will surely be an increase in police presence in MBG and that is a recipe for disaster - downtown Philadelphia style.

We have, I would assume, at least 5 years before this really becomes a project in question…and you're already giving up?

Here's what we need: We need something like what Andrew (CuatrodeMayo) drew up for the Boulevard Roundabout that never had a chance, and we need to get it out there NOW for the Cox Site, so that people can be informed…so that people can see what a great opportunity is in front of us, and what kind of gem the city can have.

*WE* own that property right now…We didn't own Stage Center, nor Preftakes, nor do we own a lot of places downtown. We need to quit being reactionary to the problems on sites that we really never had/have power over rather than getting out in front of the one's we can change.

I am not qualified by any means to put together a solid plan for the Cox site. I'd absolutely be willing to be involved in discussion, and help generate ideas and plans to present to the community of how to best use the Cox site. I'd be willing to donate money to someone like Andrew who can help put those plans into a comprehensive packet to present to city council, OCURA, NewsOK, OKC Talk, The Chamber of Commerce, etc.

In reality, there are already groups working toward that. What we need to be discussing in this thread is not how to fix the issues, but how to support the most trustworthy organizations to get out in front of the most important places downtown. It gets no more important than the Cox site… If you want OKC to turn the corner, that's the site to do it with...

[boitoirich]

I have spent many, many years in many of the most urban cities in the world. They don't all have pristine sidewalks and postcard image streets. Yet people walk. I hear a lot of excuses on this site. So yes, if at my age I can and do navigate in lots of urban areas and go much farther in them, then I think that the young urbanites inhabiting our downtown can easily navigate without cars. When I was in NYC for the fall, I averaged about 8 miles a day. Think about how far and how many times you could traverse downtown areas every day if you are willing to walk 8 miles a day. DD to Automobile Alley is a snap. DD to Dust Bowl is a snap. There is no reason not to aggregate these areas when talking about mixed use.

So since we're about to be drawn into an unproductive "can vs. want to" aside, I'm from now on ignoring this tangent and hoping the rest of us get back to discussing the topic at hand. How can we re-urbanize downtown for the wusses?

[Teo9969]

And for goodness sake, we need to start an earnest discussion on getting laws changed that protect and better serve the city.

We've only ever complained about tying demolition to building permits but not a single person on this site has brought forth a comprehensive plan or started an earnest discussion toward building such a plan to actually see the law changed.

[Rover]

The relevancy is whether you look at about 4-6 square blocks downtown as a singular subject and consider that it must become a mixed use development to be part of the urban experience. I would argue that we are becoming much more mixed and urbanized if you consider a broader area and not be so focused. To accept that premise of a larger area then one has to accept that the "neighborhood" is bigger than a couple of blocks from your residence and you must be able to transport yourself to other streets to take advantage of normal activities. That is why what WE consider urban is skewed by our lack of desire to mobilize ourselves on foot the same as real urban area residents do.

[Urbanized]

And for goodness sake, we need to start an earnest discussion on getting laws changed that protect and better serve the city.

We've only ever complained about tying demolition to building permits but not a single person on this site has brought forth a comprehensive plan or started an earnest discussion toward building such a plan to actually see the law changed.

I mentioned several weeks ago on this forum that I had been involved in a discussion with actual developers - people who have downtown/urban projects currently underway in OKC - on this topic, and they all seemed to agree that perhaps the most powerful way to accomplish this would be to require some type of performance bond be tied to the plans submitted when applying for demolition. I mentioned the idea, and it wasn't even acknowledged in the thread when I did it. So, I think you're right. In general, this forum tends to be more about the wailing and the gnashing of teeth than it is about action.

[Urbanized]

...That is why what WE consider urban is skewed by our lack of desire to mobilize ourselves on foot the same as real urban area residents do.

I disagree with this, Rover. We all like to believe that we are first and foremost thinking creatures, but much of what we do on a daily basis is instinctive. For instance, we feel exposed and vulnerable when walking past windswept surface parking, and we feel safer walking on wide sidewalks, under a tree canopy, near other people. We like to people watch. We like to look into windows and see activity. THESE are the drivers of pedestrian activity; not JUST the desire to get from one place to the next place. We respond to our built environment, which gives us visual cues about how to act. We might not be conscious of this, but it is an actual, real thing.

So, you can make the case that we are simply a lazier culture here than in other cities - that we lack a true desire to put our money where our mouths are and walk like they do in other cities - but the reality is that we are products of our built environment. If we change the way our environment tells us to behave, we will behave differently. It really IS that simple.

[Teo9969]

I mentioned several weeks ago on this forum that I had been involved in a discussion with actual developers - people who have downtown/urban projects currently underway in OKC - on this topic, and they all seemed to agree that perhaps the most powerful way to accomplish this would be to require some type of performance bond be tied to the plans submitted when applying for demolition. I mentioned the idea, and it wasn't even acknowledged in the thread when I did it. So, I think you're right. In general, this forum tends to be more about the wailing and the gnashing of teeth than it is about action.

So let's find a way to get away from just being about wailing and gnashing of teeth.

How can we help move that theme forward, both here on the forum, and more importantly, in the real world?

[Urbanized]

So let's find a way to get away from just being about wailing and gnashing of teeth.

How can we help move that theme forward, both here on the forum, and more importantly, in the real world?

Seems like the most appropriate place to start would be with City Councilors, who are dependent upon votes from their constituents.

[Just the facts]

If only Rover used the same logic on skybridges and the underground.

MBG was to be the center piece of downtown OKC. It was the place where people were going to gather and enjoy all the benefits of civic life. It was going to have restaurants open after 2PM, and it was where children were going to play. If that was the goal then at some point OKC leaders have to realize that doesn't just happen by accident. You can't surround it with parking garages, convention centers, and office towers, and then expect people to come to it. No where in the world is that happening. Rover's idea that you can lump all of downtown OKC and adjacent neighborhoods into the same bucket and call it mixed-use just doesn't work. If that logic is used lets just lump all of metro-OKC together and call it all mixed-use. The urban core of OKC is made up of multiple districts, neighborhoods, and corridors and each one needs to be as diverse as possible.

The pedestrian-shed is typically 1/4 mile in radius. If there are not people living in this radius people will not walk to the center on a regular basis and if the core of downtown can't compete with the adjacent neighborhood cores then we can write downtown off as being a 24/7 hub no matter how cool the Oklahomans video board is. The Clayco residential buildings will fall within the Film Row pedestrian shed which already offers more the downtown OKC does from a pedestrian perspective.

[Teo9969]

Seems like the most appropriate place to start would be with City Councilors, who are dependent upon votes from their constituents.

But what does that conversation look like? What's the verbiage we should use? What major points do we need to make? What powers do they have that we can encourage them to exert in order to start the ball rolling?

What other organizations have like-minded goals that we could write to, work with, get educated by that would help us get to where we want to go?

[PhiAlpha]

If only Rover used the same logic on skybridges and the underground.

MBG was to be the center piece of downtown OKC. It was the place where people were going to gather and enjoy all the benefits of civic life. It was going to have restaurants open after 2PM, and it was where children were going to play. If that was the goal then at some point OKC leaders have to realize that doesn't just happen by accident. You can't surround it with parking garages, convention centers, and office towers, and then expect people to come to it.

Have you been to the Myriad Gardens since it was redone? It is heavily used daily, has two restaurants within it's boundaries that are open until 7 PM and 10 PM (that are often crowded); has Flint on it's NE corner that has a patio and is open until 12AM some nights along with the Colcord Hotel which houses people 24/7, has Devon across the street and it's employees that frequent the park during lunch hours and after work, has two play areas that are frequented by children both from the elementary school (that is all of a block away) and elsewhere; hosts concerts and events that are extremely well attended during the warmer months; right now is filled with popup shops, an ice skating rink, and a carousel that are frequently used; and is across the street from the ford center that draws people there 41+ days per year for thunder games and many more nights for other events.

Also, it is hardly going to be "surrounded" by parking garages. Who cares if a parking garage fronts Sheridan if the street level includes retail and restaurants? The corner of Sheridan and Walker will be an office building that apparently is supposed to have retail on the first level...facing the park. Similarly, who cares if office towers front the west side of the park if there is retail on the first level, as proposed, and two large residential towers directly behind them? The convention center will front part of the south side, but so will a large hotel that could potentially have retail on the first level. The Cox site presents an opportunity to tie MGB into everything else, and contrary to your opinion, it is ridiculous to believe it is already a lost cause.

I generally appreciate and agree with a lot of your comments on urbanism (though I think some are far too extreme), but your assertion that MBG is not being used as intended or living up to it's potential is way off. I don't know if it's the fact that you don't live here or aren't paying attention but you seem really disconnect from what is actually happening at MBG. There ARE many people using MBG at all hours of the day NOW and that is with much less retail and residential then what will "surround" the park in the next few years.