BOK Park Plaza

[dankrutka]

I understand your frustration with the process but the other poster is correct. They got one block in the CBD wrong, but many more things are going right in the urban districts outside the CBD. To say that this decision is a reason to move away or not move back, when taking into consideration all the good developments that have come over the last few years, is way extreme. To each his own, but I wouldn't make my decision to move based on one city decision.

The problem that is bigger than one city block is HOW this city allows decisions to be made. OKC leaders like Mick Cornett have been spouting that OKC is a city where young people can change the city. Well, where was he during this entire process? Has he done anything recently to indicate this is really how OKC works? If I moved to OKC I'd be active in trying to fight for a more walkable, sustainable, and democratic city, but the way this whole thing played out showed that OKC is only interested in grassroots decision-making for PR purposes. The real city leaders seem to see the "creative class" as a demographic necessity on paper OKC, but they're clearly a demographic that's not taken seriously. I'm not interested in participating in a city with rigged processes because we've seen over and over again that the real decision-makers are behind the curtain. And this isn't the only example (see how the most popular Boulevard option was ignored among other examples).

[bchris02]

Because the ramification is much larger than this one decision. There was a hope among many that OKC had decided to embrace the future of the American city, but it turns out they decided to embrace 1986 instead. This might surprise some, but a lot of people are not interested in living in a 2015 version of 1986.

I agree with what you are saying. It's disappointing the powers that be here are still stuck in the 1980s. However, if living in a vibrant, dense, urban city filled with revitalized historic building stock is a priority, then OKC was probably never your city to begin with. This decision doesn't really change much at all so I don't see why it would make or break somebody's decision to live here.

[OkieNate]

Not sure if that was supposed to be joke - but the answer to that question is Yes. There is now zero doubt that civic leaders think Houston is what OKC should look like when it grows up.

Hey Just anything but facts. I see Houston on here, where is Jacksonville, Florida?

The Future's Most Walkable Cities: Prepare to Be Surprised - 1

[Urban Pioneer]

Ya know.... I wonder if we ever were to move Greyhound to Santa Fe Station, if they would give us that sign. It seems absolutely ludicrous that they would hang onto it and incorporate it into a modern, International Style building as some sort of tombstone. I mean, why would anyone do that? Simply adding insult to injury for some people.

[CaptDave]

Ya know.... I wonder if we ever where to move Greyhound to Santa Fe Station if they would give us that sign. It seem absolutely ludicrous that they would hang onto it and incorporate it into a modern, International Style building as some sort of tombstone. I mean, why would anyone do that? Simply adding insult to injury for some people.

That's exactly what I was thinking. And gleefully done.

[bchris02]

Downtown Houston in 2015 is very nice and I would be proud to live there. They have done a complete 180 from the massive parking craters that defined it in the 1980s. If that's OKC's future then it is an exciting future.

[PhiAlpha]

Because the majority of young people in the city aren't interested or invested in having their voice heard on projects like this.

I would argue that more young people are interested in having their voice heard than older people on projects like this. The MAJORITY of the city probably isn't interested in much of what goes on downtown.

[jerrywall]

I would argue that more young people are interested in having their voice heard than older people on projects like this. The MAJORITY of the city probably isn't interested in much of what goes on downtown.

At least we agree on the latter part of your statement.

[ChrisHayes]

I'm originally from the rust belt city of Canton Ohio. There hasn't been a new mid or high rise built there since the 50s or 60s. It's dominated by slum neighborhoods and has been losing population since it peaked at the 1950 census and is half the size that it once was. The only thing good about it is the football hall of fame

[turnpup]

Ya know.... I wonder if we ever where to move Greyhound to Santa Fe Station if they would give us that sign. It seem absolutely ludicrous that they would hang onto it and incorporate it into a modern, International Style building as some sort of tombstone. I mean, why would anyone do that? Simply adding insult to injury for some people.

This. And what does it mean that the sign will create a "conversation with John Rex"? Something like Teacher, what is that thing on that building over there? Oh, it was on another building that they tore down to build that building. Oh. OK.

[Bellaboo]

Hey Just anything but facts. I see Houston on here, where is Jacksonville, Florida?

The Future's Most Walkable Cities: Prepare to Be Surprised - 1

San Francisco as # 4 ? I've been to that hilly sob and not so sure I agree with the list.

[Motley]

Should take a look at what Miami is doing since it is projected to move from 13th to 4th most walkable.

[Pete]

For some reason, the idea of using the bus station sign on a building that caused it's demolition reminded me of this:

[AP]

Stuff like this makes me glad I left.

Me too. So sad. But OKC doesn't want us back, apparently.

Hey, that's not true about all of OKC.

[gurantula35]

I am 26 and couldn't be happier about all this being approved. Would have liked for them to keep the buildings, but what is going up will be a major upgrade from what we previously had.

Reading all the negativity from posters here about the buildings coming down, I was curious as to if I in the minority in reference to wanting the buildings to come down for this development. Over the past two weeks, I asked 23 people that I knew, ages ranging from 23 to 56 years old, if they were in favor of demolishing the current buildings for the new development. Every single person, ALL 23 OF THEM, were in favor of the demo's if this developments was to be built. I realize its just a small sample size, but what it told me is what i suspected before. Most people are excited about the development, only a small portion of the community is opposed to it. It just so happens, that the people who are against it, are more likely to voice their opinion.

Sad to see them go, but looking forward to the development and what its going to bring to downtown.

[bchris02]

Trying to be positive here, one thing to think about is that there are plenty of cities with much of their history intact that aren't good places to live. A lot of rust belt cities fall into that category. Preservation in and of itself doesn't make a great city. I personally am looking forward to this tower going up along with the new OG&E tower across the street. It should really enhance the atmosphere at MBG to now be surrounded by towers on the west side as well. While the historic structures certainly had great potential, these new towers will add vibrancy to downtown and the skyline in their own way. One thing people need to accept though is that OKC will never be Austin. It will never be Portland or Seattle. It will never be the kind of city people from across the country flock to for a hip, postcard urban experience. Those who want that kind of city will probably always be frustrated in OKC no matter how much progress is made. The cultural difference is just too great. What OKC should shoot for is to be a city that offers great economic opportunity along with a great quality of life. As long as OKC is a land of economic opportunity that offers enough urban amenities that young professionals will not turn down a job here just because its OKC, the city should continue to grow and the rest should fall into place.

[OkieNate]

I am 26 and couldn't be happier about all this being approved. Would have liked for them to keep the buildings, but what is going up will be a major upgrade from what we previously had.

Reading all the negativity from posters here about the buildings coming down, I was curious as to if I in the minority in reference to wanting the buildings to come down for this development. Over the past two weeks, I asked 23 people that I knew, ages ranging from 23 to 56 years old, if they were in favor of demolishing the current buildings for the new development. Every single person, ALL 23 OF THEM, were in favor of the demo's if this developments was to be built. I realize its just a small sample size, but what it told me is what i suspected before. Most people are excited about the development, only a small portion of the community is opposed to it. It just so happens, that the people who are against it, are more likely to voice their opinion.

Sad to see them go, but looking forward to the development and what its going to bring to downtown.

Best post I've seen all day. We can be happy this was approved and sad the buildings are going, not everything is black and white.

[okclee]

Trying to be positive here, one thing to think about is that there are plenty of cities with much of their history intact that aren't good places to live. A lot of rust belt cities fall into that category. Preservation in and of itself doesn't make a great city. I personally am looking forward to this tower going up along with the new OG&E tower across the street. It should really enhance the atmosphere at MBG to now be surrounded by towers on the west side as well. While the historic structures certainly had great potential, these new towers will add vibrancy to downtown and the skyline in their own way. One thing people need to accept though is that OKC will never be Austin. It will never be Portland or Seattle. It will never be the kind of city people from across the country flock to for a hip, postcard urban experience. Those who want that kind of city will probably always be frustrated in OKC no matter how much progress is made. The cultural difference is just too great. What OKC should shoot for is to be a city that offers great economic opportunity along with a great quality of life. As long as OKC is a land of economic opportunity that offers enough urban amenities that young professionals will not turn down a job here just because its OKC, the city should continue to grow and the rest should fall into place.

bchris is the one being positive in all of this and I agree with him.

[Pete]

Will took this one today:

[Just the facts]

Hey Just anything but facts. I see Houston on here, where is Jacksonville, Florida?

The Future's Most Walkable Cities: Prepare to Be Surprised - 1

Good point, my time would be much better spent closer to home.

[Anonymous.]

Everyone harping on the people who are dissappointed are only focusing on the "save the buildings" argument.

This isn't just about demolishing old structures for no reason.
It is also about the decision process.
It is also about the developing parking garage graveyard.
It is also about lack of mixed-use.
It is also about the streetlife and walkability (see skybridges).
It is also about widening of Walker to 4 lanes now (and now removing bike lanes).

All of these things people are upset about, are basic essentials to create successful new urbanism. All of these things are being completely ignored by the very people who are in place to promote new urbanism in OKC. This very project's approval is the epitome of what is wrong with DDRC and OKC leaders. The preach of these people is about all of the things I listed above, but the practice is about none.

[Pete]

^

Everything is presented as completely binary: Either approve exactly what we propose or all progress is halted and you are an obstructionist!

If there was a real, meaningful public process and a commission with any backbone/teeth, there would be compromise. Not the constant ultimatum of, "Either accept this as is or we'll take our money / company / ball and go to Houston!"

[TheTravellers]

Everyone harping on the people who are dissappointed are only focusing on the "save the buildings" argument.

This isn't just about demolishing old structures for no reason.
It is also about the decision process.
It is also about the developing parking garage graveyard.
It is also about lack of mixed-use.
It is also about the streetlife and walkability (see skybridges).
It is also about widening of Walker to 4 lanes now (and now removing bike lanes).

All of these things people are upset about, are basic essentials to create successful new urbanism. All of these things are being completely ignored by the very people who are in place to promote new urbanism in OKC. This very project's approval is the epitome of what is wrong with DDRC and OKC leaders. The preach of these people is about all of the things I listed above, but the practice is about none.

Yes, this! When we left in 1995, we were sick of the good old boy network being so massive here (just one of the reasons we left). When we moved back in 2009, we were told (on here, I believe, by some folks) that the good old boy network wasn't really in place any longer and things were different. Bullsh*t, still alive and well and the old rich white guys are still running things. Disgusting, insulting, and just plain wrong.

[Plutonic Panda]

Steve's OKC Central ‏@stevelackmeyer 2m2 minutes ago
David Box: Traffic engineer says Walker needs to be converted from 2 to 4 lanes (remove bike lanes). W/ expansion, level of svc poor

I don't mind this. I have yet to see more than 3 people use that bike lane since it's been there and I am around there all the time. It is hardly used and doesn't need to be there. Bicycles are an outdated form of transportation other than joy riding and it's best to do shared lanes or you can be like me and ride the trails for the most part.

[jccouger]

Everyone harping on the people who are dissappointed are only focusing on the "save the buildings" argument.

This isn't just about demolishing old structures for no reason.
It is also about the decision process.
It is also about the developing parking garage graveyard.
It is also about lack of mixed-use.
It is also about the streetlife and walkability (see skybridges).
It is also about widening of Walker to 4 lanes now (and now removing bike lanes).

All of these things people are upset about, are basic essentials to create successful new urbanism. All of these things are being completely ignored by the very people who are in place to promote new urbanism in OKC. This very project's approval is the epitome of what is wrong with DDRC and OKC leaders. The preach of these people is about all of the things I listed above, but the practice is about none.

A suburbanites dream. They can speed in & out of downtown like they were never even there. If only those friends for a better boulevard brats would've left their mini highway alone....