When it comes to pedestrian connections, the boulevard is a dead end.

[MustangGT]

Spartan we can contact ODOT and voice opinions, write letters to the editor, maybe get some TV media play. However IMHO ODOT will be a much less inclined than OKC powers that be, to listen or change course. Changing the minds of local politicians is vastly different than changing the minds of a statewide agency with a multitude of constituencies both known and unknown.

[bdhumphreys]

The worst we can do is create a boulevard with too much capacity that will never be needed. That's not urban. The reason those 8-lane boulevards with enormous plazas are "world-class" in Europe and Buenos Aires is because they are full of traffic and people. Such would NOT be even close to the case in OKC.

Good point. Too much capacity would be killer. Most "world class" avenues that are heavily trafficked connect the center to the edge and are well suited to balance commuting traffic needs in a rich urban context. Champs Elysee, Las Ramblas and Commonwealth Ave are all such examples.

In contrast boulevards - a term that originated from bolwerk, a Dutch word for walls - were originally meant to provide pedestrian promenades and green belts on land that had previously been occupied by fortifications. (Vienna's Ringstrasse is a terrific example). These paths necessarily encircled the town and thus did not enhance connections between center and edge, but between edge and edge. Either way, it was only later that many boulevards' grandiose park qualities were ignored in favor of more traffic capacity. The Boulevard Périphérique in Paris - one of Europe's busiest highways - is a prime example.

What to do now?

As for what to do. Perhaps we should start by asking everyone - city reps, ODOT officials, okctalkers, and neighors - some thought-provoking questions.

1. Is the OKC boulevard a solution in search of a question? What problem is it that the boulevard is attempting to solve?
2. If we are rebuilding a ten-lane highway to replace a six-lane highway, how is it that another six-lanes of traffic capacity is needed?
3. If the primary objective of Core to Shore was to connect downtown to the river, why are we creating another major thoroughfare that runs perpendicular to this path and introduces a barrier to this connection?
4. Do you think you would choose to regularly walk the distance from downtown to the new central park, when the newly renovated Myriad Gardens already offers so much in terms of programming?

By the way, if you are late to the discussion, this OK Gazette piece was the jumping-off point.

[Rover]

Good point. Too much capacity would be killer. Most "world class" avenues that are heavily trafficked connect the center to the edge and are well suited to balance commuting traffic needs in a rich urban context. Champs Elysee, Las Ramblas and Commonwealth Ave are all such examples. .

Champs Elysees doesn't connect center to edge. It connects Place de la Concorde (a huge open plaza at the end of a gardens), with the Arc de Triumph and a huge traffic circle. It is only 2 km long and travels through park area at one end and some of the world's most expensive residential and commercial which is lining it. It is beautiful and iconic. Today, its design wouldn't be approved by any on here, I don't think, based on comments I read.. And Las Ramblas is primarily a pedestrian plaza with restricted single lanes for restricted access and not really for driving through. These two are completely apples and oranges.

Commonwealth is a different story, and maybe more applicable. The center area is heavily treed and has a walking path and benches along its length, if I recall correctly. It goes from Boston Commons past some pretty pricy residential. If we widened the median area for landscaping and built a winding walking path the length of it, it might actually ENHANCE the walkability. Add a bicycle lane separate from the walking path and either of the streets. Put stoplights at each block to make crossing easy. Create a walking/jogging/bicycling lane to the park/OKC Arena, etc. Make lemonade from lemons.

[bluedogok]

If you want something different, get active, the sooner the better. The neighborhood groups along Lake Hefner Parkway significantly altered the preliminary plans and pressured ODOT into making the changes.

[krisb]

Instead of bringing the boulevard to dead ends, why not create a traffic circle with a fountain or statue in the center? Which is sort of what the ULI recommended. That would create a vista point, but maintain vehicular connectivity.

[Larry OKC]

I asked a long time ago why the Myriad Gardens and the MAPS 3 Park were not truly connected, interrupted by the dealership property w/mixed use development. But maybe it was because of the Boulevard (which I still say we don't need, but they seem hell bent on building it anyway).

[Kerry]

Larry - I am kind of with you. I am thinking I would rather just see the area return to the original grid system. Just put California, 3rd St, and all the cross streets back in and be done with it.

[bdhumphreys]

Champs Elysees doesn't connect center to edge. It connects Place de la Concorde (a huge open plaza at the end of a gardens), with the Arc de Triumph and a huge traffic circle. It is only 2 km long and travels through park area at one end and some of the world's most expensive residential and commercial which is lining it. It is beautiful and iconic.

Rover - I am impressed with your familiarity with all of the streets mentioned and you bring up a number of very good points. Before responding further, I have to defend my myself on the center-to-edge description of the Avenue des Champs-Élysées. While the street does terminate, in name, at the Arc de Triomphe, it continues outward, in a straight-line, as the Avenue de la Grand Armee until it reaches the aforementioned Boulevard Peripherique. Thus, while I understand your initial objection, to say the Avenue des Champs-Élysées connects center-to-edge is wholly correct.

I think your point on Commonwealth Ave and the potential suitability of a landscaped central median is worth considering. However, it would seem that would be better applied in a situation where we are attempting to provide for primarily east/west pedestrian traffic, rather than north/south traffic implied by the "Harvey Spine" concept.

Given the stated priority for north/south bike and pedestrian movement in Core to Shore, it still begs the question: why would we allow a east/west vehicular route to be given precedence?

Appreciate the thoughtful discussion.

[bdhumphreys]

I asked a long time ago why the Myriad Gardens and the MAPS 3 Park were not truly connected, interrupted by the dealership property w/mixed use development. But maybe it was because of the Boulevard (which I still say we don't need, but they seem hell bent on building it anyway).

Indeed. It was because of the boulevard the parks were not connected. I agree with you; I think reconnecting the grid will provide a far better outcome over time.

[wsucougz]

The boulevard is a bad idea. Scrap it.

[BAW]

[/IMG]

[BAW]

With regards to the above post^^^

Let's think about this problem from another urban design perspective. Do we really want to have mixed use buildings in this location given the fact that these structures will cast long shadows upon the Myridad Botanical Gardens? The above study shows what conditons would have been like today at lunch time. Would anyone really want to use the gardens when they are in full shadow during peak operatonal times?

[Larry OKC]

The boulevard is a bad idea. Scrap it.

A distinct possibility when it was still unfunded, but funding finally came through and they seem to be proceeding full steam ahead with it.

[lasomeday]

I think the boulevard should be a regular two lane road and should be added to the grid like the other streets. It can go through the central park similar to the roads in NYC's Central Park, where they move with the contours of the park and topography and not dictated the pedestrian traffic. The two lanes won't be much of a barrier, but will provide a connection across the park.

[ljbab728]

With regards to the above post^^^

Let's think about this problem from another urban design perspective. Do we really want to have mixed use buildings in this location given the fact that these structures will cast long shadows upon the Myridad Botanical Gardens? The above study shows what conditons would have been like today at lunch time. Would anyone really want to use the gardens when they are in full shadow during peak operatonal times?

I don't see that as a problem. It doesn't seem to hamper the use of Central Park in New York which is surrounded by much taller buildings. And the shadows you are depicting would only happen for a short time in the winter when the sun is the furthest south. For most of the the year it wouldn't happen.

[Spartan]

With regards to the above post^^^

Let's think about this problem from another urban design perspective. Do we really want to have mixed use buildings in this location given the fact that these structures will cast long shadows upon the Myridad Botanical Gardens? The above study shows what conditons would have been like today at lunch time. Would anyone really want to use the gardens when they are in full shadow during peak operatonal times?

So what are you suggesting goes along the east side of the park instead?

Don't get me wrong, I'm against the convention center going there, I just don't think that the shadow argument is that persuasive of a point. The ULI did however.

[Larry OKC]

Although the ULI did mention the shadow when it came to the c.c., think the above shadow comment was the one caused by the proposed mix used development on the Ford dealership site (shadow on MG)??

[BAW]

Any comparisons between the Myriad Botanical Gardens and Central Park are invalid. In terms of overall size and geopgrahical orientation there is no comparison. Central Park does receive shadows from neighborhing buildings. However, if you find yourself in a shadowed area of Central Park you have another eight hundred plus acres to find sun. Even though my graphic shows the Gardens half in shadow during the lowest azimuth we can expect, we still have the potential for shading in the summer. If you project the buildings up to three hundred feet without setbacks or increase the building height up to four hundred feet you start to get similar shadow conditions at all times of the year.

Moreover, my study is meant to show the affects of the smallest probable building size we can expect to see on that sight and how this would change sun conditions in the Crystal Bridge and specialized botanical plantings. My point being that a large building or complex of buildings wil serve not only to provide a physical barrier between the core and shore, but would also alter the growing environment for the Gardens.

As Blair has pointed out, a logical solution to the problem of pedestrian inaccessibility, increased motorized traffic and physical barriers between the core and shore is to look at all possible outcomes of our potential actions.

[kevinpate]

Shading from late spring to beyond labor day sounds a lot like a park perk, not a problem.

[MikeOKC]

Didn't the ULI basically say this whole idea, predicated on a supposition of retail, housing, etc. along the boulevard, was way too optimistic? That it would take years, maybe decades, for it to even begin to take off? To me, that seems obvious. The ideas floated are all so pie-in-the-sky. The question of the boulevard without all of those things makes it seem moot as far as even building the thing.

Blair, you're a good thinker. Something we have too few of involved in civic affairs. Thinkers and dreamers are two different things.

[Spartan]

Any comparisons between the Myriad Botanical Gardens and Central Park are invalid. In terms of overall size and geopgrahical orientation there is no comparison. Central Park does receive shadows from neighborhing buildings. However, if you find yourself in a shadowed area of Central Park you have another eight hundred plus acres to find sun. Even though my graphic shows the Gardens half in shadow during the lowest azimuth we can expect, we still have the potential for shading in the summer. If you project the buildings up to three hundred feet without setbacks or increase the building height up to four hundred feet you start to get similar shadow conditions at all times of the year.

Moreover, my study is meant to show the affects of the smallest probable building size we can expect to see on that sight and how this would change sun conditions in the Crystal Bridge and specialized botanical plantings. My point being that a large building or complex of buildings wil serve not only to provide a physical barrier between the core and shore, but would also alter the growing environment for the Gardens.

As Blair has pointed out, a logical solution to the problem of pedestrian inaccessibility, increased motorized traffic and physical barriers between the core and shore is to look at all possible outcomes of our potential actions.

But what's your point? Where do you think the convention center should go? What should end up being on the east side of the park? All these questions you leave unanswered? Simplicity and concise is good?

[ljbab728]

Any comparisons between the Myriad Botanical Gardens and Central Park are invalid. In terms of overall size and geopgrahical orientation there is no comparison. Central Park does receive shadows from neighborhing buildings. However, if you find yourself in a shadowed area of Central Park you have another eight hundred plus acres to find sun. Even though my graphic shows the Gardens half in shadow during the lowest azimuth we can expect, we still have the potential for shading in the summer. If you project the buildings up to three hundred feet without setbacks or increase the building height up to four hundred feet you start to get similar shadow conditions at all times of the year.

There is nothing invalid about the argument at all. Maybe you haven't noticed where the sun is during the majority of the year. For a large part of the year no building south of the Myriad Gardens would cast a shadow there except possibly very early in the morning or very late in the afternoon. It's just not a concern worth worrying about. My back yard probably gets more shade from my house and I use it year round. LOL
I don't understand the notion that you would only use or enjoy a park if you're standing in full sunlight. Maybe they should take out all of the trees.
As for the idea that it could affect the growth of plants in the Crystal Bridge, that is laughable.
I'm not saying that a continous park area might not be preferrred, just that your reasons don't compute.

[bdhumphreys]

BAW - Thanks for posting the shade study. That is one variable of this issue that I had not adequately considered. Last semester we did some work on thermal comfort levels for outdoor public space in Oklahoma City. I was surprised to find out that in OKC's climate, it is "too cold" outside far more often than it is "too hot." Thus, I think worrying about shading is certainly valid.

A 200' tall building - or 12-20 stories depending on floor height - is certainly a possibility there. It would be interesting to do further shade studies that include different times throughout the day - like 9am, 12pm, 3pm, 6pm - and then different days throughout the seasons.

Since you already have it modeled, I will cross my fingers that you will do it. But if not, I will try to get to it at some point in the next couple of weeks.

Fill free to contact me if you would like to collaborate further: http://www.blairhumphreys.com/about

[ljbab728]

As I said, this is not an issue. New York City has a colder climate than OKC and gets more southern showdows in the fall and winter season. Look at these photos showing the buildings along Central Park South and tell me that OKC would have an issue with what might happen here. Of course Central Park is much larger but the concept is the same. It won't hamper the Myriad Gardens in the least.

[Kerry]

Just great - Sandridge creates more open space where plenty already existed and now it appears our existing open space isn't open enough. If people are afraid the downtown park will be too cold in the shade then hell's bells - go to one of the other parks (unless of course they have trees there in which case - bring an ax).

BTW - see all those trees in Central Park - THEY CAST SHADOWS!!!!