Convention Center

[Just the facts]

I for one wouldn't shed a tear if they current Central Park location got dropped and the money switched to the Promenade Park location.

Remind me where "Promenade Park" is.

it is basically the same strip of land but south of I-40.

[Spartan]

I for one wouldn't shed a tear if they current Central Park location got dropped and the money switched to the Promenade Park location.

I have always appreciated your understanding of the benefits of density. That said, you often miss the forest for the trees. City planning is about how you arrange the elements of the built environment to symbiotically play off of each other. Planning doesn't create value, but rather should seek to add value to what you already have. The biggest reason that suburban sprawl fails isn't for lack of density, but because the different elements or "building blocks" are all vacuum-locked and separated. Euclidian zoning at its finest. Civilization exists where people converge, and there is no convergence in the 'burbs. Similarly, as you can't control the different elements of the built environment you get (but only how they are arranged), a park is one building block that needs to be incorporated into downtown. A convention center is another such element, and I would argue that both a destination park and a convention center are huge bonuses for a destination downtown. However, like it or not, those two building blocks are happening, and gotta go somewhere.

All that said, how would you rather the convention center take the place of the park, and the park go elsewhere? You need to find the best place for these building blocks. The city has come together behind a vision for a green spine that connects Core 2 Shore. That is why the voters wanted MAPS to become a reality; that strong vision was so persuasive that you literally got the most conservative major U.S. city to tax itself for urban revitalization. Think about that. You always do this thing where it's like "Bah I don't care about that because I want OKC to do A, B, and C.." but your ABC options aren't what Jim Couch thinks the ABC options are. I don't think you realize that Larry Nichols thinks of the park as a nice moat for the convention center, and that the park having already acquired the land means that land acquisition is done.

Perhaps that specific vision of urban revitalization, and in this case a green spine connecting Core 2 Shore, is worth shedding a tear for if not preserving.

[PhiAlpha]

Mere discussion of shorting the park is an outrage and an affront to voters. I don't care what Steve Lackmeyer and Ed Shadid say: the voters were informed that they would get a specific slate of projects. I know, because I walked door to door trying to convince people to support MAPS 3. Regardless of the technical language used, the park was a major part of the package of options voters went to the polls to support.

I seriously doubt the park will be shorted. For starters, would we lose the lake that is proposed? How much would we have to pay as a city to completely redesign the park? And how would "convention center takes park land" play with voters? It would be a disaster.

I'm just disappointed at the arrogance of some city leaders to even suggest this. It undermines the integrity of MAPS with voters. And, to take this a step further, if a proposal is moved to advance taking land for the convention center that has been set aside for the park, I will raise holy hell and organize others to do so.

I would be right behind you. I'm all for building the convention center, but not at the expense of the park.

[zookeeper]

Mere discussion of shorting the park is an outrage and an affront to voters. I don't care what Steve Lackmeyer and Ed Shadid say: the voters were informed that they would get a specific slate of projects. I know, because I walked door to door trying to convince people to support MAPS 3. Regardless of the technical language used, the park was a major part of the package of options voters went to the polls to support.

I seriously doubt the park will be shorted. For starters, would we lose the lake that is proposed? How much would we have to pay as a city to completely redesign the park? And how would "convention center takes park land" play with voters? It would be a disaster.

I'm just disappointed at the arrogance of some city leaders to even suggest this. It undermines the integrity of MAPS with voters. And, to take this a step further, if a proposal is moved to advance taking land for the convention center that has been set aside for the park, I will raise holy hell and organize others to do so.

Love the passion. Like PhiAlpha, I would be right there with you. Just the realization that they would even think about it is outrageous.

[Just the facts]

The Central Park would still be built, just south of the current location and would still be in Core to Shore.

[Pete]

The Central Park would still be built, just south of the current location and would still be in Core to Shore.

Or we could cut the convention center down and extend the streetcar line or enhance the park. Both those would be more popular choices.

Gee, I wonder why that hasn't been proposed?

[betts]

Or we could cut the convention center down and extend the streetcar line or enhance the park. Both those would be more popular choices.

Gee, I wonder why that hasn't been proposed?

Because people in those committees want citizens to get what they voted for?

[Teo9969]

Since this is a city council decision, we could ostensibly present a plan wherein we advocate for a smaller convention center project and move the money to the other projects, yes?

[Just the facts]

Or we could cut the convention center down and extend the streetcar line or enhance the park. Both those would be more popular choices.

Gee, I wonder why that hasn't been proposed?

Trying to think back, but Central Park is the only MAPS project I can think of that had its location selected BEFORE any vote and never went through any kind of public location analysis post vote. People complain about the cost of land acquisition in the CC fiasco but no one every questioned if we were over-paying for park land, or if the park was even be planned in the right location in the first place.

[Spartan]

Because people in those committees want citizens to get what they voted for?

I have said all along that in terms of the subcommittee politics, if we want the balance of MAPS 3 to look like what was promised, you all will need to match fire with fire.

[betts]

Trust me. If they try to pull that, I will fight with all the fire I have. It's Our MAPS. I too campaigned very hard for MAPS, giving many, many hours of my time. I put my heart into that vote BECAUSE of the park and streetcar. I would be fine with the park moving one block to the east because of the SkyDance bridge location, but if we're buying land to the east for the park, couldn't we just use it for the CC? Doesn't putting the CC in the middle of our park give lie to the argument that the SE location can't be used because it's too far from Bricktown?

[LakeEffect]

Trying to think back, but Central Park is the only MAPS project I can think of that had its location selected BEFORE any vote and never went through any kind of public location analysis post vote. People complain about the cost of land acquisition in the CC fiasco but no one every questioned if we were over-paying for park land, or if the park was even be planned in the right location in the first place.

It was part of the Core 2 Shore analysis, so I think the assumption was that the MAPS fund would be to implement a previously planned project...

[Spartan]

Trying to think back, but Central Park is the only MAPS project I can think of that had its location selected BEFORE any vote and never went through any kind of public location analysis post vote. People complain about the cost of land acquisition in the CC fiasco but no one every questioned if we were over-paying for park land, or if the park was even be planned in the right location in the first place.

The park and the streetcar are the only projects that have gone through a planning process that considered what is best for the surrounding city as a whole. For instance, the park planning process (Core 2 Shore) is more of a vision for that entire half of downtown, and not a plan for a park. Similarly, the streetcar serves the city as a whole, and its route is the route that is best for the city, not the route that is best for the streetcar.

There is no tail wagging the dog like there is with the convention center, where we seem to be building a downtown that should be so lucky to aspire to supporting this grandiose convention center.

Continuing down the path that you have opened up, have you noticed that the Oklahoma River improvements also didn't go through a comprehensive location vetting? Without doing studies, how do we know that's the right place for rowing sports? It is pretty far from Bricktown, after all.

[Urban Pioneer]

I suspect that some of the folks who have floated this idea might not quite realize that there are folks who like the park because it is not an organized constituency. Plus, I think they might be thinking of this Convention Center problem strictly from a feduciary perspective, not a political one.

One sterling moment in a post-MAPS election was the presentation by the park's planners. The room was filled to capacity with fairly excited citizens. It was a very positive moment in public participation in this process.

One other thing... historically, there has been no bigger fan of the MAPS 3 park than our state's most popular politician, Mayor Cornett.

[David]

If the convention center committee successfully steals land from the park, I hope the city is prepared for never passing a MAPs vote again. That's all I can see happening if the least popular project pulls resources away from one of the most.

[Just the facts]

I am sure if the CC takes any land from the Park that budgets will be adjusted accordingly. I don't think anyone is suggesting the CC gets free land and park has to go buy more land. Also, Steve's comments about Core to Shore being outdated makes a lot more sense now.

[Just the facts]

Ii

The park and the streetcar are the only projects that have gone through a planning process that considered what is best for the surrounding city as a whole. For instance, the park planning process (Core 2 Shore) is more of a vision for that entire half of downtown, and not a plan for a park. Similarly, the streetcar serves the city as a whole, and its route is the route that is best for the city, not the route that is best for the streetcar.

There is no tail wagging the dog like there is with the convention center, where we seem to be building a downtown that should be so lucky to aspire to supporting this grandiose convention center.

Continuing down the path that you have opened up, have you noticed that the Oklahoma River improvements also didn't go through a comprehensive location vetting? Without doing studies, how do we know that's the right place for rowing sports? It is pretty far from Bricktown, after all.

That is the whole thing right there though. Is this much parkland downtown good for the City? I don't think it is. Clearly the whole concept of Central Park was conceived before MBG existed in its current form, and who saw Sandridge Commons coming 12 years ago, or even a refurbished Bicentennial Park? As for river improvements, they kind if have to go in, or adjacent to, the river.

[betts]

JTF, the new park will be vastly different from any other park in Oklahoma City of which I am aware, besides Will Rogers Park. The Myriad Gardens in no way resembles Central Park or Millenium Park, which are wonderful, compelling, memorable spaces. Large open spaces, un programmed or lightly programmed are a good thing, in my opinion. They act as the yard for those of us without one, as a gathering place for citizens, as an iconic space for visitors. There is nothing restful or relaxing about the Myriad Gardens, Sandridge Commons or Bicentennial Park. You can't stroll effectively or ride your bike. I think they are both good spaces and important, but no parkland downtown will have the impact that the MAPS park can. And we voted for it.

[Pete]

^

Also, Central Park will be the recreation bridge between the CBD and the River.

That is really needed, as the River has tons of offerings and potential but people need to be drawn there from the middle of downtown.


I've always liked the plans for the park and if I lived downtown, I could see using it a lot. In a completely different way than the MBG.

[PhiAlpha]

Yes the park is extremely necessary from am overcrowding perspective alone. The one open area in MBG is often completely overrun with people during lunch and after work, and that is without any residential or additional office space around it.

[David]

I am sure if the CC takes any land from the Park that budgets will be adjusted accordingly. I don't think anyone is suggesting the CC gets free land and park has to go buy more land. Also, Steve's comments about Core to Shore being outdated makes a lot more sense now.

My expectation is that if some or all of the CC is built on park land, we'll probably get a smaller park. This may be an inaccurate, overly pessimistic assessment, but if land acquisition is so difficult for the convention center, why would it be any easier for the park? It's not like the land in the area is going to get cheaper or even stay stagnant with all the other development in the area.

The park committee has had it's ducks in a row for a long time, they should not be forced back into land acquisition and redesign because the CC committee screwed up so badly.

[Zorba]

Right, it's the airport connection which is really the biggest obstacle for OKC. That is the biggest pro that a lot of cities have. The biggest pro the RNC cited about Cleveland was the Red Line light rail connecting the airport and Tower City. When you get to CLE you can walk right off the train and into baggage drop-off at the top of the escalator. The DNC passed on Columbus because it lacks a rail connection with the airport, and so that route has suddenly (and annoyingly) leapfrogged in consideration.

I completely agree rail between the airport and downtown/CC would be great. But tons of huge convention towns do not have this. Orlando and Las Vegas neither have rail to their airport. DFW just got it. Chicago has rail to their airports but not to McCormick. LGA also doesn't have direct rail service and JFK's requires use of two different systems. SAN, SAT, IAH, MIA and FLL all lack rail service as well. In cities that are more likely to compete with us KC, Cincinnati, STL, Tulsa, Little Rock, etc all lack rail service to their airports.

[Spartan]

And it holds all of those cities back.

[Spartan]

Ii

That is the whole thing right there though. Is this much parkland downtown good for the City? I don't think it is. Clearly the whole concept of Central Park was conceived before MBG existed in its current form, and who saw Sandridge Commons coming 12 years ago, or even a refurbished Bicentennial Park? As for river improvements, they kind if have to go in, or adjacent to, the river.

I don't think it resembles some dangerous level of park space. If we embrace REAL economic development around the park, and not superblock venues, having the large park could be a phenomenal urban asset. Downtown OKC could have an urban emerald necklace.

You have to think more about the bigger picture and developing a well-articulated city with landmark placemaking features, and not get caught up in sheer density levels. In order to create a landmark you have to think big.

[hfry]

The only way taking park land would be okay was if using their own budget they built it 100%underground and the park was on top of it. It would push the park timeline way back because they would have to wait for that part to be complete(say they use the Blumethal site or east park or even original location and went under the boulevard) but taking away park land would cause such an uproar from every side I don't think they are dumb enough to even attempt it.