Core to Shore

[CaptDave]

As far as I know, the only part they are wanting to elevate is near Penn Ave? Are they really talking about elevating the entire thing?

If the only part that is elevated is that far west, I don't see it having any impact on Core 2 Shore. Am I wrong on this?

The question is do you want the decimated area of blight as was left by the old Crosstown to remain on the "backporch" of the future Core to Shore developments? If it is once again cut off from the rest of downtown and no redevelopment from the Farmer's Market eastward occurs, do you really think people will want to move from Edmond, Mustang, Yukon, Norman, etc to what would otherwise be a nice area in C2S?

The city leadership does not seem to be looking very far forward on this one......they have tunnel vision on the area immediately adjacent to the Central Park and not much else.

[bchris02]

The controversy about the boulevard is that they wanted it elevated to Walker... that's alot of elevated highway!

Yeah that would be a very bad idea. Nothing east of Western should be elevated under any circumstance, and preferably nothing east of Penn. Re-building an elevated highway would defeat the purpose of the entire thing. Does it look like that is the plan that is going forward or will there be enough resistance to change it?

It seems like there is a sizable portion of OKC that wants a more urban, hip, pedestrian friendly downtown, but a majority is suburban/commuter centric and just doesn't understand it. It's really not much different than other cities in the region, such as Little Rock which is still demolishing historic buildings and has loads of NIMBYs fighting any high-density development proposed for downtown. The difference is OKC has all the ingredients to become the next Charlotte or Nashville as long as the city doesn't squander it. Young, talented professionals by and large prefer high density, pedestrian-friendly environments and having such an option will go a long ways in attracting recent grads to OKC over other nearby cities and keeping local grads from moving away.

[bchris02]

The question is do you want the decimated area of blight as was left by the old Crosstown to remain on the "backporch" of the future Core to Shore developments? If it is once again cut off from the rest of downtown and no redevelopment from the Farmer's Market eastward occurs, do you really think people will want to move from Edmond, Mustang, Yukon, Norman, etc to what would otherwise be a nice area in C2S?

The city leadership does not seem to be looking very far forward on this one......they have tunnel vision on the area immediately adjacent to the Central Park and not much else.

Yeah this could definitely be a problem. While Core-2-Shore could still happen, the urban decay nearby wouldn't likely be redeveloped and thus would encourage people to continue to choose the suburbs.

[Spartan]

Yeah that would be a very bad idea. Nothing east of Western should be elevated under any circumstance, and preferably nothing east of Penn. Re-building an elevated highway would defeat the purpose of the entire thing. Does it look like that is the plan that is going forward or will there be enough resistance to change it?

It seems like there is a sizable portion of OKC that wants a more urban, hip, pedestrian friendly downtown, but a majority is suburban/commuter centric and just doesn't understand it. It's really not much different than other cities in the region, such as Little Rock which is still demolishing historic buildings and has loads of NIMBYs fighting any high-density development proposed for downtown. The difference is OKC has all the ingredients to become the next Charlotte or Nashville as long as the city doesn't squander it. Young, talented professionals by and large prefer high density, pedestrian-friendly environments and having such an option will go a long ways in attracting recent grads to OKC over other nearby cities and keeping local grads from moving away.

It's not the urbanists against the majority. It's large crowds of mobilized urbanists against entrenched engineer bureaucrats who only build a certain type of road and nothing else.

[catcherinthewry]

It's not the urbanists against the majority. It's large crowds of mobilized urbanists against entrenched engineer bureaucrats who only build a certain type of road and nothing else.

Yes, it's a true epic battle of good vs. evil

At least that is what you would believe if you only read this forum of like-minded people preaching to the choir.

[bombermwc]

Let's hope what actually gets built at least somewhat resembles that. This is the one kind of development OKC is really missing that other cities have. If this gets built as shown in the video, it could really thrust OKC onto the radar for in-migrating young professionals because this is the kind of environment many of them prefer.

The unfortunate reality is that C2S will never look anything like any of the master plans. Being a private development area, what you'll see is a few city projects that get built "relatively" quickly (in terms of the project's life even though they'll be 15 years away). Then the rest will slowly trickle in later, but be a hodge podge of whatever each random developer wants. So there's no way they're going to look anything like what we see here....they'll be far less imaginative and fare more "cost effective" for the investors...meaning boring....see Bricktown Hotels.

If we get the park in there and start some residential mid-rise next to it (that's not upscale only), you'll see something happen. If we follow our recent pattern of building only expensive stuff, then you won't see anything happen. Downtown's tapped on the upscale market. If it wasn't, you'd see a scramble to build it in the available space, which there is plenty of.

[betts]

I don't think downtown has remotely tapped the upscale market. And I don't blame developers for waiting to see what the park and convention center, not to mention Boulevard, look like before they jump. Deep Deuce is a perfect example of how you can't think too far ahead of the crowd. City Place particularly, and the Maywood Brownstones perhaps, are the only truly upscale for sale developments downtown right now. I see cracks in the thinking of people about living downtown if you have upscale money in your wallet, but the huge shift hasn't occurred yet. What I predict is going to happen is that the single and young marrieds living in apartments downtown right now will not necessarily see moving out to the burbs as desirable, as they start families. There's going to be a school downtown, and Core to Shore will provide land for housing very close to it. Once they get more money in their pockets, their knee jerk response will not necessarily be to get a mini-ranch complete with lawn tractor. They may well see buying a house downtown as a good thing. I see that in my kids right now. They're either buying or thinking about buying right now, and the last thing they want is to tie themselves in to a big commute and live away from the action. They're looking for housing close in enough so they can primarily use mass transit, but with schools that are acceptable for the families they're planning in the not so distant future.

[Just the facts]

The biggest deterrent to development in Core to Shore is the 400' foot width of I-40. I-40 is as wide as the Oklahoma River. I had high hopes for C2S to actually develop from the core all the way to the shore but I don't think that is going to ever happen as one unified piece of urban fabric. I-40 is just too wide. This make the land between I-40 and downtown even more crucial because it is the only place left in C2S that has any chance of pedestrian oriented development.

The problem with the boulevard is that it funnels all traffic onto two roads, the boulevard and Western. Traffic will increase in number or speed which will deter people from walking across either of them. If the boulevard ever does achieve the 94,000 cars a day ODOT predicts no one will ever want to walk across it. If this boulevard is built C2S is dead - you can stop dreaming about it. OKCs next great urban neighborhood will have to be built somewhere else, at which point the traffic engineers will claim victory by saying, "See, we told you the traffic was coming and that no one would want to live here."

[Just the facts]

The boathouse district is a land of it own cut off from everything else. It is surrounded by I-40, I-35, a 400' river with an adjacent railroad yard, a canal, and a concrete railroad viaduct. Soon you can add an elevated boulevard to the list of obsticles. Getting anyone to live there will be a challenge.

[OKCisOK4me]

ODOT is run by traffic engineers, who by very nature do not study or practice urban planning. They concentrate on the free flowing of automobile traffic. They just do not study or specialize in what "pedestrian friendly" means. They aren't out to purposely destroy walkability, they are just doing their jobs. Traffic engineers are hired to move car traffic, planners are hired to move people. Both have different goals and methods. Your traffic engineer will build whatever will move traffic, your planner will aim to move people.

So, ODOT does not "see" what we are seeing. They don't really give pedestrians any weight in this (or understand how pedestrian movement works and how fragile it can be). So they don't understand how a bridge hurts walkability, or how walkable development organizes around walkable streets. They have tried to make concessions to make it walkable, but they still do not understand how to build it walkable (because they are not planners).

My only gripe about this is that they're pedestrians too. Gotta crawl before you can walk--meaning walk before drive, lol.

[Just the facts]

My only gripe about this is that they're pedestrians too. Gotta crawl before you can walk--meaning walk before drive, lol.

You would like to think that but here are some photos of OKC traffic engieneers in their developmental years. Marketing cars to kids is pretty bad and wide spread.

[betts]

The boathouse district is a land of it own cut off from everything else. It is surrounded by I-40, I-35, a 400' river with an adjacent railroad yard, a canal, and a concrete railroad viaduct. Soon you can add an elevated boulevard to the list of obsticles. Getting anyone to live there will be a challenge.

The one thing that will make that less true is the walkway along the canal. Right now, living in Deep Deuce, the river seems far away and difficult to access. But, once the canal and path are complete, I'm sure most of our walks will end up at the river. I would guess it will feel the same coming from the river direction as well. It will be great for pedestrians and casual bike riders.

[Just the facts]

Even when the canal is completed that will be a long walk with nothing to protect people from the elements. At least with an urban street wall and buildings you can take cover from the wind and rain and walk in the shade or sunlight depending on the temp (not to mention the natural heat sink density generates). There will be no more development along the canal after KDs is done. Anyone living in that area will not have any daily necessities available to them on-site. They will need to drive to get them.

[Larry OKC]

The one thing that will make that less true is the walkway along the canal. Right now, living in Deep Deuce, the river seems far away and difficult to access. But, once the canal and path are complete, I'm sure most of our walks will end up at the river. I would guess it will feel the same coming from the river direction as well. It will be great for pedestrians and casual bike riders.

Betts,

Is the path you mentioned part of the MAPS 3 trails or is this something separate? If it is part of the Trails, has it been determined that is going to be part that we actually get? Meaning the $40 million "mistake" (leaving about 60 miles undone) and the funding shortfall of the remaining 57 miles (think it was cut back to 32)??? Has the Trails subcommittee determined where the 32 miles are going yet?

[bchris02]

The unfortunate reality is that C2S will never look anything like any of the master plans. Being a private development area, what you'll see is a few city projects that get built "relatively" quickly (in terms of the project's life even though they'll be 15 years away). Then the rest will slowly trickle in later, but be a hodge podge of whatever each random developer wants. So there's no way they're going to look anything like what we see here....they'll be far less imaginative and fare more "cost effective" for the investors...meaning boring....see Bricktown Hotels.

If we get the park in there and start some residential mid-rise next to it (that's not upscale only), you'll see something happen. If we follow our recent pattern of building only expensive stuff, then you won't see anything happen. Downtown's tapped on the upscale market. If it wasn't, you'd see a scramble to build it in the available space, which there is plenty of.

I definitely agree that C2S will not be as grand as the master plans. These projects are ALWAYS scaled down no matter what. My hopes is that what actually gets built at least somewhat resembles it. Something like Southend in Charlotte would be awesome (Google that to see some photos) and totally doable in OKC.

What we DON'T need are bland, suburban style apartment complexes being built down there. Yes, it may bring more middle-income people downtown but it would destroy the character that should separate downtown from anywhere Edmond or Moore.

[Larry OKC]

Completely separate. This is the canal connection to Regatta Park/Oklahoma River.

Betts is right though. This will suddenly make the Oklahoma River accessible to Bricktown traffic (pedestrian and cycle) where right now, it is just about impossible to walk to it.

I'm really excited about it.

Thanks Sid,

Are the trails part of the Canal connection? To keep it within the 2007 G.O. Bond budget, they cut a few things out (Project 180esque..."to be built later")???

[kevinpate]

Larry,

They will extend the spur off the river (currently ends at the Regatta Park plaza) under I-40 and to near the existing end of the BT canal.
The river spur will have a turnaround basin just to the southeast of the south canal basin.
The new endpoint of the river spur will be a lower elevation than the canal basin.
There will be a paved switchback walkway trail constructed between the canal basin walkway and the the new river spur basin.
I believe there will also be a walkway along the extended river spur to the current regatta plaza at the CHK boathouse (may be mistaken)

If I am correct then one eventually could start at the west end of the canal on the west end and walk along water on pavement all the way to the river and then along the river spur and then along the river as well.

[betts]

Even when the canal is completed that will be a long walk with nothing to protect people from the elements. At least with an urban street wall and buildings you can take cover from the wind and rain and walk in the shade or sunlight depending on the temp (not to mention the natural heat sink density generates). There will be no more development along the canal after KDs is done. Anyone living in that area will not have any daily necessities available to them on-site. They will need to drive to get them.

I don't know. We walk from 3rd St. along the canal down to the Land Run statues with our short-legged corgi all the time. It's just a wee bit further to the river. We carry water with us if it's hot, although I think water fountains with dog height fountains would be a very nice touch along the river trails. Trash cans too (is it really possible to comment on the lack of trash cans along the river trail too often?) Remember too, the weather in Oklahoma is very nice for all but 4 months of the year. January and February, July 15-September 15 can be miserable. The rest of the time, it's pretty pleasant. The canal bridges offer some protection from the weather, and there are places in Bricktown you can duck in, but really, how often do we get an unexpected shower? While I agree that it would be nice if lower Bricktown were something other than what it is, it is walkable.

[betts]

Larry,

They will extend the spur off the river (currently ends at the Regatta Park plaza) under I-40 and to near the existing end of the BT canal.
The river spur will have a turnaround basin just to the southeast of the south canal basin.
The new endpoint of the river spur will be a lower elevation than the canal basin.
There will be a paved switchback walkway trail constructed between the canal basin walkway and the the new river spur basin.
I believe there will also be a walkway along the extended river spur to the current regatta plaza at the CHK boathouse (may be mistaken)

If I am correct then one eventually could start at the west end of the canal on the west end and walk along water on pavement all the way to the river and then along the river spur and then along the river as well.

You are correct.

[Urbanized]

Kevin, you are correct in every aspect except that the new river basin will actually be NORTHeast of the south canal basin rather than SOUTHeast.

As noted elsewhere, the extension is being incorrectly described as a canal extension when it is in reality an extension of the Regatta Park river channel/spur.

It has been described inaccurately as a canal extension for years, owing most likely to the fact that in the original MAPS the canal had "zones" (this river spur was originally described as "Canal Zone G"). These zones were once supposed to be grade separated, including grade separations that would have made the existing canal multiple pieces instead of the continuous stretch that now exists. So early on it was understandable that all zones were united under the one description of "Bricktown Canal."

This initial plan was fortunately changed by taking the north part of the canal enough below grade and the southern portion slightly ABOVE grade compared to the surrounding landscape, resulting in a continuous waterway. Zone G remained a relic of the original plan, however, as the river is IIRC 17' below the elevation of the canal.

So the reality is that what is now being extended underneath the new I-40 realignment would be more properly described as being RIVER-related. It will create a visual and hardscape connection with the Bricktown Canal, but the twain shall never truly meet. It's not THAT big of a difference, I suppose, but it is truly confusing to visitors and the public in general, who often believe the existing canal either HAS been extended or IS currently being extended, and that is just not the case.

[bchris02]

"Steve Lackmeyer: I think the Core to Shore plan is garbage as it relates to suggested private development and irrelevant to what the market will dictate. I have seen and heard nothing that validates any of the suggested private development in that study by out-of-state consultants.
There will be no Nordstrums and definitely not a Borders Bookstore. We will likely see a lot of housing and just a few smaller retailers and service-oriented shops."

I think the Core 2 Shore concept with high-rises is a longshot for OKC, especially now that development is taking off north of downtown. The Core 2 Shore idea has its footings in the early 2000s in a very different OKC than the city we know today. I think something like Mud Island/Harbor Town in Memphis would be a cool way to do Core 2 Shore and also realistic for OKC.

HOME :: Harbor Town

Thoughts?

[ErnestA]

I think the Core 2 Shore concept with high-rises is a longshot for OKC, especially now that development is taking off north of downtown. The Core 2 Shore idea has its footings in the early 2000s in a very different OKC than the city we know today. I think something like Mud Island/Harbor Town in Memphis would be a cool way to do Core 2 Shore and also realistic for OKC.

HOME :: Harbor Town

Thoughts?

I agree wholeheartedly. For Core to Shore to come anywhere near its vision, it must be driven by new residential neighborhoods. A New Urbanist development with varied housing styles, both single and multifamily, at varying price points, would be perfect for the land west of the Central Park. Besides the airpark site, it would be a great opportunity for OKC to grow a wholly new, dense urban neighborhood with its own aesthetic. And it would boast a sense of place original to OKC, next to a massive downtown park along the Oklahoma River. Yes.

[OKCisOK4me]

I think the city is under the impression that if they plant the central park then Core to Shore will come...like Field of Dreams or something.

[bchris02]

I think the city is under the impression that if they plant the central park then Core to Shore will come...like Field of Dreams or something.

Agreed. The thing is, the concept was envisioned before all the development north of the CBD we are seeing today was even on the table. The master plan of Manhattan-style high-rises surrounding it is a pipe dream for OKC and simply isn't going to happen without an Austin or Charlotte style boom. However, a new urbanist community like the example I posted above is not, and would be a great way to get young families and others who might otherwise opt for the suburbs to consider downtown.

[OKCisOK4me]

Agreed. The thing is, the concept was envisioned before all the development north of the CBD we are seeing today was even on the table. The master plan of Manhattan-style high-rises surrounding it is a pipe dream for OKC and simply isn't going to happen without an Austin or Charlotte style boom. However, a new urbanist community like the example I posted above is not, and would be a great way to get young families and others who might otherwise opt for the suburbs to consider downtown.

Very true. I wish I knew how to use a computer to produce the rendering in my head because it'd be a lot better than what the current vision for the Central Park is.