Re-urbanizing Downtown

[Pete]

It's another one of those things OKC does and I don't see it elsewhere. Which always makes me wonder, why would someone do that on purpose?

It's pretty much the same in most places in Southern California.

One of the reasons is because if someone doesn't push the button, the light is shorter. In other words, pushing the walk button and getting the little white man means extending the time the corresponding traffic signal stays green to allow pedestrians plenty of time to make the crossing.

And, if the traffic signal is already green when you push the button, they make you wait for the next green cycle so you get that extra time.

I think this is all pretty common when you are dealing with wide streets to cross. I've seen it a bunch of places, but not so much in dense, urban cities.

[Jersey Boss]

I remember seeing an article similar to this one a year or two ago.

Many Crosswalk Signal Buttons Don't Do Anything Anymore


Today I found out many crosswalk signal buttons actually don’t do anything when you press them. They are only there to give you something to press, called “placebo buttons”.
In New York City, for instance, an estimated 90% of these pedestrian crossing buttons do nothing. You’ll find the same trend in most major cities, particularly in the United States. The reason why is that allowing people to manually override set traffic timers can severely disrupt traffic. Instead, modern computerized systems are used to help maximize throughput in intersections, including factoring in pedestrian crossings automatically.

As the director of engineering at the Boston Transportation Department, John DeBenedictis states, “It’s a numbers game. We know that there are going to be pedestrians at virtually every single cycle during the day (at certain intersections).” So the buttons are disabled to let the system dictate the most efficient way to time things in the intersection.

In some cases, certain buttons actually do something specific times of the day, while other times they are ignored by the traffic system, generally during peak traffic times.

[Snowman]

even if the traffic light is green, it won't change to walk. So frustrating

From what I have heard, the push buttons do not actually effect when you get the walk signal, what they do is make the next time the walk could start in the cycle it holds the traffic that will cross that walk longer, to give the pedestrian plenty of time to cross.

Which always makes me wonder, why would someone do that on purpose?

It seems like one of those things imported from the suburbs, possibly out of uniformity in the type of signals they have to maintain. It is something that makes sense more for the intersection at say 63rd and Meridian, where you rarely have some one cross and when you do they have to traverse across at five lanes of traffic. Several of our downtown streets are nearly that wide but have people crossing much of the day.

[Just the facts]

I'm not entirely pleased with how everything went, but it's much better than it not happening at all.

I guess this is the crux of the matter. I'm not saying don't do anything' I'm saying do it better. On a scale from crappy to awesome we still have far too many people whose level of acceptance is way down on the crappy side. If crappy urbanism makes people happy then they shouldn't be surprised when they get crappy urbanism. I'm not going to apologize because my standards are higher than Bouldersooner or Rovers (in fact, I take a little pride in that).

As for the preservation of the Hotel Black, bus station, and AutoHotel - I am not a historic preservationist, I am a good urbanism preservationist and both the Clayco and Preftakes projects are bad urbanism. There are some very easy ways to make both of these projects good urbanism.

Clayco: Place all 5 buildings on the Stage Center site. The two residential towers and hotel should front Hudson, one office tower should front Sheridan and the second should front a reconnected California Ave (giving both of them prestigious addresses). Most of the ground floors on Sheridan, California, and Hudson should be retail/restaurant. The parking garage can either go underground or sandwiched in between the buildings like it is now but just build it higher. If they don't want to drive around all day in the garage make two entrances, one that goes to the first 5 levels of parking and second ramp that connects directly to the 6th floor (airports all over the world already do this).

Preftakes: Move the tower to the Carpenter Sq site and use the foot-print of the existing surface lots to build the parking garage. As suggested already, make one entrance for the first 5 floors of parking and a ramp that goes directly to the 6th floor. Redo the AutoHotel and use it for Executive and VIP parking. Lose the skywalks (which should be outright banned).

It is a freaking crying shame that an internet loudmouth can come up with these easy solution but billion dollar companies with paid professionals can't. The only conclusion is that they aren't even trying.

[hfry]

^^^ Now that is great practical solution. The more I look at these designs I feel like they are designing the towers for out in the suburbs where you don't want to be to close to your neighbors and land is plentiful which in downtown is unacceptable. With Pete's early info that it was going to be located on the Carpenter Sq site, I think that would have been a happy medium for demolishing some historical buildings but why they decided they needed to develop the whole block just makes zero sense.

[no1cub17]

Does anyone know - is there someone sitting on an OKC committee somewhere who can bring up JTF's concerns? Just like DD residents were successful in blocking the horrific SpringHill Suites, why can't us denizens do something to keep our downtown urban and not Edmond a la lower bricktown?

[Teo9969]

Does anyone know - is there someone sitting on an OKC committee somewhere who can bring up JTF's concerns? Just like DD residents were successful in blocking the horrific SpringHill Suites, why can't us denizens do something to keep our downtown urban and not Edmond a la lower bricktown?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Just the facts]

If it is dollars my solution is cheaper. It doesn't require demolitions of substantial buildings and makes more efficient use of the land. If Hotel Black was tuned in to upscale residential those corner units over-looking MBG would go for a serious premium.

[bchris02]

Does anyone know - is there someone sitting on an OKC committee somewhere who can bring up JTF's concerns? Just like DD residents were successful in blocking the horrific SpringHill Suites, why can't us denizens do something to keep our downtown urban and not Edmond a la lower bricktown?

I would hardly consider the Preftakes tower or the Clayco development anything like Lower Bricktown.

[Just the facts]

Does anyone know if there is a Black Plan (Figure-Ground Plan) available for the area around downtown OKC? If one was available I think the poor land-use planning would become very apparent.

[Jim Kyle]

OKC has to lose the mindset of 'everything vehicles' before we get true urbanism. It is just how it is. Babysteps.

Back in 1962, I moved back to OKC after slightly more than two years in Southern California, to take a job editing three trade journals here. One of the other editors at my new job was Tom Kneitel, a long-time resident of NYC who also had just moved to OKC (the publishing company had relocated to OKC at the urging of International Crystal, their major advertiser, which operated from 18-1/2 N Lee).

Our offices were in a basement in the unit block of NW 5 as I recall. Times-Journal was just across the street; they had not yet moved to their later location at NW 6 and Robinson. Tommy and I were both in our early 30s. I was quite happy with driving to work; Tommy, however, had never owned an automobile and had never learned to drive! Living his entire life up to that point in NYC, he hadn't had any need to do so. The subways took him wherever he wanted to go. So when he moved here, he found a small house to rent on Classen Blvd, between NW 48 and 49, just off the old Classen Circle. He picked that because it had a bus stop within half a block, allowing him to ride the bus to work and back. Nothing suitable for him and his wife could be had closer to the CBD, even then.

A childhood bout with polio in the days before Salk's discovery had left Tommy needing to use leg braces to walk. Despite that, he had no problem going anywhere he wanted to, on foot. Several years later, after the publishing company had dispensed with both of us, I visited him back in NYC, and even spent a night in his apartment. He showed me much of lower Manhattan and we sampled the night life of Greenwich Village. I tired out long before he did.

That was, as I said, more than 40 years ago. We're not even up to babysteps yet. Crawling, perhaps, but I wonder if we're even that far along -- and whether we ever will become as urban as the denizens of Manhattan. I suspect we'll be more like Los Angelenos, who live in the birthplace of true sprawl. Out there, I routinely drove 30 miles each way to go home for lunch, and a friend commuted more than 60 miles from the Simi Valley to JPL in Pasadena, every morning...

[Just the facts]

It is stories like that Jim that have me wondering if I am just wasting my time here. Someday I would like to move back to OKC, my whole family lives there, but as I get older (now 45) I am pretty sure I don't want to wait another 20 years just to be able live a lifestyle I can already live in countless cities in the US and even around the world. There are just too many other options available to spend a lot more of time swimming upstream.

[Jim Kyle]

It is stories like that Jim that have me wondering if I am just wasting my time here. Someday I would like to move back to OKC, my whole family lives there, but as I get older (now 45) I am pretty sure I don't want to wait another 20 years just to be able live a lifestyle I can already live in countless cities in the US and even around the world. There are just too many other options available to spend a lot more of time swimming upstream.

It's a matter of what is most important to you, Kerry. For some of us, being close to family and familiar memories outranks questions of city planning. For others, the deciding factor is the general culture of being friendly and outgoing as opposed to the too-frequent image of urban areas as cold and uncaring. Each of us has his (or her) own template for choosing the best place to spend our days.

I've noticed, over the years, that the general culture with regard to what's now called "sprawl" seems to change by 180 degrees when one crosses the Mississippi River (or, in some respects, the Hudson). During my brief stay in the NY area, some of my co-workers crossed three states on their daily commute. Manhattan is an island with very limited surface area. And communication difficulties in the 18th and early 19th centuries forced development of what we now call "urban" living. They had little or no choice.

But we who traveled west found wide open spaces, and were able to expand. Our neighbors, now, were a mile or two away rather than just a few feet distant. The western culture is one of much wider views. "Big Sky" country, not tightly compressed urbanism, seems to be its hallmark.

As I said, each person must make their own decisions about such matters. I, for one, don't consider either viewpoint to be "better" than the other. Both have their advantages, and their disadvantages. I do believe that TPTB in OKC have consistently, over the years, failed to appreciate possible consequences of their decisions, and as a result have destroyed many things that we now regret losing -- and I have no doubt at all that they will continue to do so. While I mourn our losses, I plan to stay right here for the rest of my days, for one simple reason. It's my home.

You're not wasting your time, but your expectations are probably too high. Murphy teaches us that if anything can go wrong, it will. And in politics, any and every decision can easily go wrong... Q.E.D.

[Just the facts]

I guess for me it goes way beyond simple 'urban planning' issues. Sprawl is only made possible by massive government debt and the free flow of oil at below market prices (which involves massive military debt to make possible). For me good urbanism is as much about good fiscal and economic policy as much as it is about good land-use practice. When the nations economy was built on 'savings' people couldn't build poor quality construction and spend large amounts of money overcoming distances. Now things are only built to last as long the loan to build them lasts and everything is built on debt with the assumption that we will all have more money later. That is not how I want to live.

There are places that exist already that can afford me the lifestyle I am looking for and I don't have to do anything to assist it along other than just show up and fill out a change of address card. And it's not just me either. There are millions and millions of much younger people than me looking for the same thing. I was under the illusion that OKC wanted to attract these people but increasingly I am finding that it was either lips service or OKC Civic leaders really do not know how to do it. I'll let them in on a little secret - surrounding downtown's premier park with office buildings is not how you do it.

OKC is also in an interesting position that it is full of right-wing tea party types (of which I count myself a member), but have no idea that their sprawling lifestyle is the reason we need the all-powerful federal government we have. One can't complain about taxes and then continue to drive on roads that cost more than we raise in gasoline taxes. One can't complain about the EPA and then drive cars that pollute and require oil drilling to even make run. One can't complain about government debt and then buy houses using an FHA backed loan and the mortgage interest deduction. Well, one can, but it makes them a first-class hypocrite.

[bchris02]

A person needs to live where they can flourish, be it relationally, geographically, culturally, or professionally. When choosing where to live a person needs to decide what is important to them and what compromises they are willing to make. If somebody is looking for a vibrant urban utopia, OKC probably isn't the city for them. In JTF's case, if urban development is a make or break deal for him, unless he wants to come back to OKC and get his hands dirty in city politics to help make a difference, my advice would be that his life would be better spent living somewhere that offered the lifestyle he desires rather than waiting around here for things to change. Life is too short to live somewhere that makes you miserable.

Of course, if he is willing to compromise on urban vibrancy and wants to move back simply to be closer to family or for a career opportunity, by all means he should consider moving back. Once again, it's all about priorities and what compromises you are willing to make.

[BoulderSooner]

I guess for me it goes way beyond simple 'urban planning' issues. Sprawl is only made possible by massive government debt and the free flow of oil at below market prices (which involves massive military debt to make possible). For me good urbanism is as much about good fiscal and economic policy as much as it is about good land-use practice. When the nations economy was built on 'savings' people couldn't build poor quality construction and spend large amounts of money overcoming distances. Now things are only built to last as long the loan to build them lasts and everything is built on debt with the assumption that we will all have more money later. That is not how I want to live.

There are places that exist already that can afford me the lifestyle I am looking for and I don't have to do anything to assist it along other than just show up and fill out a change of address card. And it's not just me either. There are millions and millions of much younger people than me looking for the same thing. I was under the illusion that OKC wanted to attract these people but increasingly I am finding that it was either lips service or OKC Civic leaders really do not know how to do it. I'll let them in on a little secret - surrounding downtown's premier park with office buildings is not how you do it.

OKC is also in an interesting position that it is full of right-wing tea party types (of which I count myself a member), but have no idea that their sprawling lifestyle is the reason we need the all-powerful federal government we have. One can't complain about taxes and then continue to drive on roads that cost more than we raise in gasoline taxes. One can't complain about the EPA and then drive cars that pollute and require oil drilling to even make run. One can't complain about government debt and then buy houses using an FHA backed loan and the mortgage interest deduction. Well, one can, but it makes them a first-class hypocrite.

Lots of this is tinfoil hat stuff

[Jim Kyle]

A person needs to live where they can flourish, be it relationally, geographically, culturally, or professionally. When choosing where to live a person needs to decide what is important to them and what compromises they are willing to make.

I couldn't agree more!

My move to California in late 1959 was prompted entirely by economics. While at the time I was pretty much on the fast track for advancement at OPubCo (among other things I had been given total responsibility for putting out the earliest edition of the Sunday paper, working overnight on Friday night to do so) they were paying me only $95/week and even 55 years ago, that didn't go far toward maintaining five people and three cats. I had to be moonlighting, writing magazine articles about ham radio, to make up the difference.

When RCA Service Company offered me $125/week plus unlimited overtime at time and a half, to join their Atlas Service Project in the San Fernando Valley, it was a no-brainer.

But when I got there, I discovered that the cost of living was so much higher than in OKC that when the promised overtime dried up with loss of the ASP contract, I had to moonlight even more intensely to keep us fed! And when that moonlighting resulted in an offer to move me back to OKC, all expenses paid, with a one-year contract at a much better rate of pay, I jumped at it.

I've been here ever since. As I said, it's my home. I stuck out two years of freelancing after the editorial job went away (it turned out to be almost a Ponzi scheme), then spent 24 years and 7 months with G-E/Homeywell/ControlData/Banctec. I did have to spend several months in New York's Westchester County at the end of the freelancing, where I developed a permanent distaste for the crowded atmosphere, but I don't mind it for those who prefer it. I chose my current location because it was way out in the boondocks; I'm more than a mile from the nearest supermarket, and couldn't survive without a vehicle, but that's just my personal preference. I do wish we had better mass transit, although I'll probably never have occasion to use it myself...

[boitoirich]

JTF, if anyone ever says that you aim too high, simply say "Thank you" and keep going.

.02

[Just the facts]

If somebody is looking for a vibrant urban utopia, OKC probably isn't the city for them.

That is an interesting phrase that gets repeated a lot. There is no such thing as utopia, at least not on Earth. Utopia means a place with near-perfect qualities. Even in an ideal urban setting there are still problems, but they aren't the same problems we are dealing with now.

[Just the facts]

I guess for me it goes way beyond simple 'urban planning' issues. Sprawl is only made possible by massive government debt and the free flow of oil at below market prices (which involves massive military debt to make possible). For me good urbanism is as much about good fiscal and economic policy as much as it is about good land-use practice. When the nations economy was built on 'savings' people couldn't build poor quality construction and spend large amounts of money overcoming distances. Now things are only built to last as long the loan to build them lasts and everything is built on debt with the assumption that we will all have more money later. That is not how I want to live.

There are places that exist already that can afford me the lifestyle I am looking for and I don't have to do anything to assist it along other than just show up and fill out a change of address card. And it's not just me either. There are millions and millions of much younger people than me looking for the same thing. I was under the illusion that OKC wanted to attract these people but increasingly I am finding that it was either lips service or OKC Civic leaders really do not know how to do it. I'll let them in on a little secret - surrounding downtown's premier park with office buildings is not how you do it.

OKC is also in an interesting position that it is full of right-wing tea party types (of which I count myself a member), but have no idea that their sprawling lifestyle is the reason we need the all-powerful federal government we have. One can't complain about taxes and then continue to drive on roads that cost more than we raise in gasoline taxes. One can't complain about the EPA and then drive cars that pollute and require oil drilling to even make run. One can't complain about government debt and then buy houses using an FHA backed loan and the mortgage interest deduction. Well, one can, but it makes them a first-class hypocrite.

Lots of this is tinfoil hat stuff

Which part?

[hoya]

It's quite simple. OKC is the nerdy girl who used to be unpopular and now she's kinda hot. She isn't used to any attention from guys, and so she has a hard time saying "no". Our civic movers and shakers cannot say "no" to someone who wants to drop a few hundred million dollars in this city.



"You want to put your tower where? Umm, okay." It's okay to let Devon do that, because he loves us.


Hopefully, by the end of the film, we'll realize that we can still say no sometimes and we'll be treated with more respect. But we're not quite there yet. The ClayCo developments and how we treat their TIF request will give us an idea of how much our self-confidence has grown over the last few years.

[Just the facts]

Anyone else think it is kind of fitting that City building on Main St. will be completely surrounded by one residential building and 4 parking garages. That pretty much sums it up right there.

[bchris02]

It's quite simple. OKC is the nerdy girl who used to be unpopular and now she's kinda hot. She isn't used to any attention from guys, and so she has a hard time saying "no". Our civic movers and shakers cannot say "no" to someone who wants to drop a few hundred million dollars in this city.



"You want to put your tower where? Umm, okay." It's okay to let Devon do that, because he loves us.


Hopefully, by the end of the film, we'll realize that we can still say no sometimes and we'll be treated with more respect. But we're not quite there yet. The ClayCo developments and how we treat their TIF request will give us an idea of how much our self-confidence has grown over the last few years.

There is also a danger of civic boosters being too confident, comparing OKC only to its past or Tulsa and not its peer cities. I question whether or not this city should say no yet, specifically when it comes to the question of the TIF funds for ClayCo. The development has an intangible benefit of bringing hundreds of high-income people to live downtown. Those people will spend money downtown and want services downtown and it will be a win win for everyone, with the exception with those who demand perfect urbanism and nothing less.

[Just the facts]

Those people will spend money downtown and want services downtown and it will be a win win for everyone, with the exception with those who demand perfect urbanism and nothing less.

The only thing worse than setting the bar too high is setting it too low and clearing it every time.

[boitoirich]

There is also a danger of civic boosters being too confident, comparing OKC only to its past or Tulsa and not its peer cities. I question whether or not this city should say no yet, specifically when it comes to the question of the TIF funds for ClayCo. The development has an intangible benefit of bringing hundreds of high-income people to live downtown. Those people will spend money downtown and want services downtown and it will be a win win for everyone, with the exception with those who demand perfect urbanism and nothing less.

Read Steve's article. It describes how decisions made during the 1930s redounded to downtown's disadvantage. Choices made in the built environment have multi-decade consequences, and therefore should not be made lightly. This is especially true when asking for significant public assistance. Why should we subsidize lower, less efficient, less attractive land use to that degree? Regardless of what level of esteem anyone has of Oklahoma City, a project demanding this level of TIF funding should be scrutinized and improved.