Scissortail Park

[ErnestA]

Catch22, your pedestrian paths make great sense for the park. The park's going to alienate users if, with its size, people can't easily make their way through park to get to their preferred spots.

One of the nice aspects of the former Hargreaves renderings was the NW plaza (with ring-like public art) forming a diagonal connection to the arena. Between the new pedestian "funnel" and edge trees in that corner in the new rendering and the elevated entrance of the new SW entry of the arena, it seems the architects of both were told to minimize the connection between the two. Too bad.

I hope programming for the park is going to be aggressive, because in order to be successful, the park will have to attract non-downtown residents (along with visitors) daily. No one wants to go to park nobody else is enjoying. This is why dense residential must be a priority for Core to Shore. It must be an urban neighborhood the likes we haven't seen in decades.

Overall, it's a nice enough design, but attractiveness will mostly depend on its perception at street level.

[catch22]

I think the meeting was well received and put together.

Most of the concerns seemed to be with maintenance, security, etc. -- the actual operations of the park. Mary Margaret, the speaker with Hargreaves, reinforced the idea that this meeting was for the actual physical design of the park, and they are not far enough along to address specific concerns for operating budgets.

Also, the latino community was well represented and wanted to ensure Manuel Perez Park (on the lower section) was not ignored by MAPS3, the design team, or the city itself and wanted to be in the conversations with those groups as the park moves forward. It was made clear the MAPS3 money cannot be spent west of Harvey on the lower section, which would mean MAP3 cannot address that park, but can design the lower park to open up into that park for future connectivity.

After the meeting, I handed a copy of the above modifications I made to Mary Margaret, so hopefully they may be able to address East/West pedestrian flows. I think it's an easy solution without modifying the design much, she seemed neutral on the subject, but stated (and this is paraphrase) they didn't really want to include the grid 100%, as there needs to be some winding to the trails.

All in all I believe it was a productive meeting. I, and others, seemed to come away a little more educated and possibly excited over the park.

One thing I just thought of, the promenade (as it's being called -- the main pedestrian spine), will be open to both slow-moving/recreation bicycling and pedestrian use. I am going to recommend or suggest they use barriers to separate the traffic. These are well used in Santa Monica, and they make it both easier and safer for pedestrians and bicyclists to share the space and not be constantly dodging each other. As well as making a statement that cycling is playing an active role in our thinking and not an afterthought. Perception is everything.





You can see the small 8 inch tall barriers in the above photos. Signs and pavement markings make it clear where pedestrians go and where cyclists go.

[lasomeday]

I was at the meeting and asked why they were designing a new modern cafe when they had the Original Film Exchange building. She said that we were lucky to have Union Station and that it would take most of the "programming functions", and the location of the building was horrible.

I don't know how the building couldn't be in a better position. It is not in the middle of the park. It would be easy to design it as the cafe.

They also emphasized the park along the Boulevard and Convention Center. I don't understand why they would put the cafe and other functions next to the high traffic boulevard? Didn't make sense to me, must be a Mayor Cornett thing.

[BoulderSooner]

Viability is key to any restaurant

[jamesben]

She didn't state that the location was "horrible" but less than Ideal(paraphrase). They're wanting the traffic from north to supply business to a cafe following the completion of the first part(2014 on). The building-if renovated- would be abandoned until the completion of the upper park. She also stated that the building was too big. The renovation costs would be very expensive and getting tenants would be more difficult. It sounded like they tried to justify using the older buildings as much as possible, however it just didn't add up economically.

I'm all for keeping historic buildings, however the history and architecture of the building have to be able to justify the increased costs. Unfortuantely, the Film Exchange buildings history and architecture doesn't justify its' existence.

I was at the meeting and asked why they were designing a new modern cafe when they had the Original Film Exchange building. She said that we were lucky to have Union Station and that it would take most of the "programming functions", and the location of the building was horrible.

I don't know how the building couldn't be in a better position. It is not in the middle of the park. It would be easy to design it as the cafe.

They also emphasized the park along the Boulevard and Convention Center. I don't understand why they would put the cafe and other functions next to the high traffic boulevard? Didn't make sense to me, must be a Mayor Cornett thing.

[kevinpate]

... ... It was made clear the MAPS3 money cannot be spent west of Harvey on the lower section, which would mean MAP3 cannot address that park, but can design the lower park to open up into that park for future connectivity.
...

Possibly because I'm rather sleepy, but I am not following. I thought the actual language was so open ended they could do almost anything they want to with MAPs3 funds so long as it is considered a civic improvement inside the OKC borders

[catch22]

That's what she said. (In a non-sexual joke way)

[Snowman]

Possibly because I'm rather sleepy, but I am not following. I thought the actual language was so open ended they could do almost anything they want to with MAPs3 funds so long as it is considered a civic improvement inside the OKC borders

Maybe if told to by the city council, however it likely they will already be balancing what can pay for in the area they already are committed to.

[lasomeday]

She didn't state that the location was "horrible" but less than Ideal(paraphrase). They're wanting the traffic from north to supply business to a cafe following the completion of the first part(2014 on). The building-if renovated- would be abandoned until the completion of the upper park. She also stated that the building was too big. The renovation costs would be very expensive and getting tenants would be more difficult. It sounded like they tried to justify using the older buildings as much as possible, however it just didn't add up economically.

I'm all for keeping historic buildings, however the history and architecture of the building have to be able to justify the increased costs. Unfortuantely, the Film Exchange buildings history and architecture doesn't justify its' existence.

I took it as, its in the way of my design. I had to compromise by using Union Station in my design. You are lucky to get that! Its a huge building and its going to be tough "programming for it". That is what I got from her. Even though there are tons of companies and restaurants that would love to lease space in Film Exchange building in the park. I shouldn't have led her by saying using it as a cafe, when it can be used for offices along with a restaurant. I just wanted to emphasize how the older buildings in the city being fixed up is trendy while the modern buildings like the cafe in the Myriad Gardens in the hottest spot in the city lies empty. The Film Exchange building's location is perfect in my opinion hugging the street bringing the urban fabric into the park, but its in the way of their walkway to the Scissortail Bridge.

[MDot]

That's what she said. (In a non-sexual joke way)

Since there isn't a "like" button in this section... Like.

[betts]

So, on one hand access is good, and on the other it is bad. On one hand you said that people would have to pass through the underbrush, and on the other it is no good because there is no hedge or other barrier. On one hand the street and ring are great but we have a street and perimeter walkway, but that is no good. And, we need an entrance at each side street and a grid across the park.

I've spent a fair amount of time in Regent's Park, Boston Commons, Central Park, Hyde Park, etc. and feel like if any of those were actually proposed here they would be highly criticized as I can point out many features which don't seem to fit the rigid requirements. LOL.

I like the curving pathways, a series of gardens, an great open area and lots of smaller, more intimate areas. I like the water features as one of my favorite things in NY Central Park is to go watch the remote control sail boats and all the kids dangling their feet in the water on a summer's day. I like patches of people under trees on their blankets reading their books. I like the joggers running the paths and cross country. I think this could have a really nice feel as the vegetation matures.

This may be unknown detail, but are the paths solid stone, poured concrete, pebble stones, or other?

I agree with your commentary. I was at one of the presentations during the day yesterday and we were told that the bicycle/pedestrian paths, at this point in time, are planned to be done from cast stone with very tight spaces between the stones. In addition, the presenter said that while there would be trees creating a sense of a barrier up higher, the distances between the trees and the lowness of the vegetation underneath them would create a sense of openness - that you can walk among the trees. So, I don't think there will be barriers, or any sense if barriers. Which is fine with me. I think that it's really difficult to visualize from a plan and so the criticism may not be based on a 3 dimensional understanding of what it will be like to be in the park. There were some interesting vantage point drawings at the presentation, which gave a much better sense of how the park will feel. While looking down on it I don't find the design extremely exciting, the vantage point drawings showed a very attractive series of areas.

[CaptDave]

I like the design overall. I couldn't make it to the meeting, but from what I heard on the live stream, they took the public input received seriously and have the basics right on. I think the slight adjustment made in catch22's drawing is worth considering too. It doesn't alter the design or character of the park and does connect the park with what will hopefully be surrounding future neighborhoods.

[jamesben]

Yeah that sounds like it would be true as well.

[Just the facts]

..she seemed neutral on the subject, but stated (and this is paraphrase) they didn't really want to include the grid 100%, as there needs to be some winding to the trails.
.

She is joking right? No one is suggesting that the paths need to be straight once they are in the park, only that the entrances to the park line up with the streets around the park. Unless she knows a way people are going to walk through buildings to get the park then they are all going to walk there on a sidewalk adjacent to a street. It only makes sense that a person on a sidewalk, adjacent to a street, can enter the park.

How did a simple park for which there are literally thousands of good examples of become so complicated?

[kevinpate]

She is joking right? No one is suggesting that the paths need to be straight once they are in the park, only that the entrances to the park line up with the streets around the park. Unless she knows a way people are going to walk through buildings to get the park then they are all going to walk there on a sidewalk adjacent to a street. It only makes sense that a person on a sidewalk, adjacent to a street, can enter the park.

How did a simple park for which there are literally thousands of good examples of become so complicated?

Because most everyone still drives and so few walk, perhaps the mindset was doomed from the get-go to no park entrances near streets lest folks drive right in

[catch22]

Speaking of parking...

The parking along Robinson will be parallel. The parking along Hudson will be perpendicular.

[betts]

She is joking right? No one is suggesting that the paths need to be straight once they are in the park, only that the entrances to the park line up with the streets around the park. Unless she knows a way people are going to walk through buildings to get the park then they are all going to walk there on a sidewalk adjacent to a street. It only makes sense that a person on a sidewalk, adjacent to a street, can enter the park.

How did a simple park for which there are literally thousands of good examples of become so complicated?

I didn't get the impression they were going to wall the park. I would guess you can enter anywhere you want. While I agree with the formal entrances lining up with streets around the park, looking at the model it looks as if you can enter anywhere you want if you don't mind walking on grass or other low-growing plants.

[skanaly]

I kinda hope that in the final draft, there's not as much pink as there is now...haha

[Larry OKC]

Early pre-vote renderings showed Union Station at the edge of the lake (along with an event center that got scrapped). So now they are going to hide Union Station behind a bunch of trees? Needs to be open and visible from just about anyplace in the Park...a destination

Also, I really like the slight alterations that someone made to get the entry points to align with the existing grid. But as we know with the Boulevard, trying to get anything to tie in with the existing grid is an uphill battle with the City.

[catch22]

I think it is important to integrate the sidewalks into the grid because when I visit other cities, you are never really looking for the park. You are walking down the street, and you end up in the park. There's no deadend, and then search for the pathway. There might be on some streets, but the major pedestrian corridors lead you right into the park without realizing it.

Edit: Which they have done on several of the streets in this image, I am concerned about the position of the lake being a barrier for east/west pedestrian traffic. A simple move to the SE and rotation of just a few degrees allows easier pedestrian flow from the street grid across the park without being diverted out of the mind's walking distance.

[UnFrSaKn]

Doh, old article, sorry.

[OKCisOK4me]

Doh, old article, sorry.

I caught that when it popped up at the bottom of the Convention Center article on NewsOK...clicked on it and saw the date, lol. I thought to myself, I hope UnFrSaKn doesn't go posting that

[Pete]

New draft of the Central Park plan to be considered next week by the MAPS 3 subcommittee:

[ljbab728]

I'm sure there are pros and cons (queue those who want more direct East to West flow across the park) but, overall, I like it. It appears from the depiction that the great lawn in front of the stage can also be used for athletic fields.

[GoThunder]

I'm sure there are pros and cons....but, overall, I like it.

I completely agree. Obviously, pleasing everyone will never happen, but I love how this looks.