Core to Shore

[J. Pitman]

Now you bring up an intersting point. Are there going to be design standards setup by the City or are the local property owners and developers going to be the driving force?

My understanding, and the reccomendation of the ULI study, is that the city "should" set design standards, and have a design review committee in place for the different neighborhoods. This would assure that the design standards would be followed.
Also, the city is going to need to provide incentives for development, as construction cost and financing make it difficult to actually develop the properties in question at an affordable price to the consumer.

[king183]

Obviously there aren't many people with $400,000 that want to live downtown. Why is it that $100,000 units at Maywood sell better than $400,000 units?

There are no $100,000 units at Maywood. And they aren't selling because they cost so much for so little space. (And interior construction is kind of shoddy).

[Patrick]

Cool stuff, but could we at least get some more density between the new I-40 and the River. That area should be OKC version of the Back Bay Area. Three story townhomes built out to the street throughout the entire area is how it should look.

The old picture had that. But, I think they're facing reality, and this picture looks more realistic, at least over the next 10-20 years.

[Kerry]

The old picture had that. But, I think they're facing reality, and this picture looks more realistic, at least over the next 10-20 years.

If true, then Core to Shore has failed before it ever really got going.

[Patrick]

It's kind of like comparing the pictures Moshe Tal had for Lower Bricktown to those Randy Hogan had. Moshe was a dreamer, but I question if any of that ever would've come to fruition. Look at all of the slick development proposals we've seen for proposed Bricktown developments. I'd rather be realistic than make promises one can't keep.

[J. Pitman]

There are no $100,000 units at Maywood. And they aren't selling because they cost so much for so little space. (And interior construction is kind of shoddy).

Sorry $180,000 at Maywood Park lofts. They are selling much better than the Brownstones.

[MustangGT]

It will NEVER look like the plan. Evrything is in flux until the concrete gets pooured. I agree with Patrick the plan needs a big dose of reality and not grandisoe dreams. Let plan something that actully has a chance to get built.

[Kerry]

Fine - if single family homes are the goal then why spend the money on Core to Shore at all?

[MustangGT]

Fine - if single family homes are the goal then why spend the money on Core to Shore at all?

Excellent question. Real Estate Speculation by those in the know???

[J. Pitman]

Fine - if single family homes are the goal then why spend the money on Core to Shore at all?

What? So if C2S isn't dense townhomes, multiple family or highrise apartments, it shouldn't be developed? Is that what you are saying?

[Kerry]

Excellent question. Real Estate Speculation by those in the know???

Core to Shore is far more than real estate specualtion. The City is spending million and millions of dollars. Wouldn't it just be cheaper to build 500 single family homes out near Piedmont? If single family homes are not the goal, then WHAT IS the goal (let's call that X). What is X?

[MustangGT]

Wrong track Kerry. I was speaking about certain in the know individuals buying up the Core to Shore land years ago because they had insider info it could be coming and wanted to profit from their position situation. Like what happened in Bricktown years ago.

[J. Pitman]

Core to Shore is far more than real estate specualtion. The City is spending million and millions of dollars. Wouldn't it just be cheaper to build 500 single family homes out near Piedmont? If single family homes are not the goal, then WHAT IS the goal (let's call that X). What is X?

X is having more people living downtown, developing the park, and developing the river.

If a mix of single family homes and multiple family units accomplish this, then great.

You seem to assume that single family housing was never tabled in the first place.

[Kerry]

We seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of goals, objectives, and strategies.

To me, things like having more people living downtown is an objective, while developing the park, and developing the river are strategies to get people to live downtown. A goal would be WHY we want people to live downtown. I am interested in learning what people think the ‘goal’ is. Now granted, one person's goal might be another person's objective, but I don't think anyone's goal is to have people live downtown for no other reason than to have people living downtown.

This is not a trivial matter either. A plan has to have a reason to exist. Here in Jax I often hear about well OKC is doing and why Jacksonville can't duplicate it. But let's look at Jacksonville. We have an NFL team, a river front park, a downtown fixed guideway system, The Landing, downtown retail, downtown high-rise residential buildings (5 of them to be exact), a downtown grocery store, a downtown arena, a downtown football stadium, a downtown baseball stadium, etc. They have accomplished far more than OKC has, but it still doesn't all work together. The reason is there was no goal, just a bunch of objectives but they weren't all working towards the same thing. So every objective was met and the people of Jax scratch their heads and say, "Why didn't it work." To which I ask, "Why didn't what work?" What did they think the City was trying to accomplish? What is OKC trying to accomplish?

[J. Pitman]

We seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of goals, objectives, and strategies.

Not really, you just keep trying to steer the conversation until it reaches an outcome that you desire.

C2s is in it's infancy.

Keep saying this over and over, 50 yrs. 50 yrs. 50 yrs.

[betts]

I think there are many reasons why we want to have people living downtown. Me, I just want neighbors. Well, and shopping and a grocery store I can walk to, which won't happen without more people living downtown.

I think the goal of Core to Shore is to to take a blighted, underutilized area and make it a place people can live, work and play. The one thing I do like about the boulevard is that is has the potential to create a park-like walkway through downtown that could be very inviting. I really think walkability is a key goal, as it implies so many things that are desirable....good streetscaping, good sidewalks, lots of small businesses and restaurants to walk to, etc.

[Kerry]

Not really, you just keep trying to steer the conversation until it reaches an outcome that you desire.

C2s is in it's infancy.

Keep saying this over and over, 50 yrs. 50 yrs. 50 yrs.

I won't care in 50 years. So you think the goal is to have people living downtown and that is it?

[J. Pitman]

I won't care in 50 years. So you think the goal is to have people living downtown and that is it?

Well that's kind of short sighted. I'll probably be dead by then myself, but that doesn't mean I want to see C2S developed quickly just to satisfy my urge to see it done.

I think have a larger residential population downtown is certainly one of the goals or objectives.

[betts]

Wrong track Kerry. I was speaking about certain in the know individuals buying up the Core to Shore land years ago because they had insider info it could be coming and wanted to profit from their position situation. Like what happened in Bricktown years ago.

You mean like the United States (Post Office), Goodwill and the Salvation Army? I thought we looked and no one of any significance bought land before Core to Shore was first being talked about 8 to 10 years ago.

[Kerry]

Well that's kind of short sited. I'll probably be dead by then myself, but that doesn't mean I want to see C2S developed quickly just to satisfy my urge to see it done.

I think have a larger residential population downtown is certainly one of the goals or objectives.

This is just an example

Goal – Produce an urban setting that promotes an environment of Human interaction that provides the greatest benefit to the most people at the lowest cost. (or something to that effect)

Objective 1 – Efficient transportation
Strategy 1A- Street car

Objective 2 – Efficient housing
Strategy 2A – High rise residential
Strategy 2B – Mid ride residential
Strategy 2C – Town Homes

And so on…

6 lanes boulevards and single family homes are not good strategies, to accomplish my objectives, to achieve my goal. My fear is that people making all this happen have no more of an idea of a goal than you do. If you don't know where you are going any road will get you there. I like to know where I am going so I know when I get there.

[J. Pitman]

This is just an example

Goal – Produce an urban setting that promotes an environment of Human interaction that provides the greatest benefit to the most people at the lowest cost. (or something to that effect)

Objective 1 – Efficient transportation
Strategy 1A- Street car

Objective 2 – Efficient housing
Strategy 2A – High rise residential
Strategy 2B – Mid ride residential
Strategy 2C – Town Homes

And so on…

6 lanes boulevards and single family homes are not good strategies, to accomplish my objectives, to achieve my goal. My fear is that people making all this happen have no more of an idea of a goal than you do. If you don't know where you are going any road will get you there. I like to know where I am going so I know when I get there.

The boulevard is being re-designed to be more pedestrian friendly, so you can mark that off your list.
We're obviously not going to see eye to eye on single family, that's fine, but it will be one of many components of the C2S plan, as it should be.
High rise residential just isn't a viable option because it is cost prohibitive to build and you simply can't get the rates necessary to service the debt.

Why do you assume that C2S is going to be strictly single family housing?

[Kerry]

Why do you assume that C2S is going to be strictly single family housing?

I don't. I do see that there are other areas where mid-rise and town homes are envisioned. I just question why the City would propose the lowest of all residential density options in an urban environment. At least they didn't show 5 acre urban estates in their proposal.

[J. Pitman]

I don't. I do see that there are other areas where mid-rise and town homes are envisioned. I just question why the City would propose the lowest of all residential density options in an urban environment. At least they didn't show 5 acre urban estates in their proposal.

Because it's the farthest from the core. You're taking that graphical representation too seriously. That's all it is is a graphical representation.

Review the ULI study. Some really smart folks made the recommendation that there be some single family housing the further you get from the core. There is going to be plenty of dense housing.

[MustangGT]

You mean like the United States (Post Office), Goodwill and the Salvation Army? I thought we looked and no one of any significance bought land before Core to Shore was first being talked about 8 to 10 years ago.

Maybe yes and maybe no. An observant individual would know that the locations you mentioned are a miniscule minority of the land that was in play. Political movers and shakers always act behind the scenes 10-15 years ahead of the general public. Insider info baby.

[Architect2010]

I'm not really sure where to put this. But here is a map showing parcels of land in the future Central Park boundaries that need to be acquired, have been acquired, are under contract, and etc. The graphic is current as of 11/10/2010.

OKC.GOV - Maps3 Subcommittee