Widgets Magazine
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 142

Thread: Core to Shore sucks

  1. #76

    Default Re: Core to Shore sucks

    For a "Major League City" , 40 acres is extremely dissapointing.

    This Core to Shore park is nothing more than a real estate venture with the elite Okc property owners.

    I don't trust our city at this point to handle anything that has to do with development. Just look at the latest venture developments: Lower Bricktown, The Hill, The Legacy, Overhaulser Greens.

    All extremely dissapointing, just like the Core to Shore will be. We need to "Shore" up the Urban areas that we have now and not venture into creating more unfinished areas that we will regret later.

  2. #77

    Default Re: Core to Shore sucks

    yeah, the more I educate myself on this subject, the more disappointed I am with Core To Shore.

  3. Default Re: Core to Shore sucks

    OK, so you don't like Core To Shore in it's current form. Get involved and try to change it. It's certainly not too late. I was just in Kansas City and got to see The Plaza there for the first time. What a wonderful area - - of course all it would take is money but wouldn't it be fantastic if they used that as the model for the OK River lakes or if they used Wash. Park in Denver as the model for the Central Park? Unlike the I-40 reconstruction and move, its not too late for input on this project. OKCLee states this is nothing more than something for developers...well, of course it is. Who else is supposed to 'develop' an area? Especially if you are building on a large scale, experienced developers kinda have to be the ones to do it. They aren't doing it for free so, yes, they may even make a <gasp> profit on it!

  4. #79

    Default Re: Core to Shore sucks

    Quote Originally Posted by mugofbeer View Post
    OKCLee states this is nothing more than something for developers...well, of course it is. Who else is supposed to 'develop' an area? Especially if you are building on a large scale, experienced developers kinda have to be the ones to do it. They aren't doing it for free so, yes, they may even make a <gasp> profit on it!
    If that's the case, let the developers foot the estimated $1 billion dollar MAPS III.
    ...this shortest straw has been pulled for you

  5. Default Re: Core to Shore sucks

    JUst like with Bricktown, there has to be seed money and seed development to attract private development. If there had never been a MAPS 1, bricktown would still be a bunch of decaying warehouses. If C2S is done with MAPS money, it will be another total transformation of the central city - the way Bricktown has been. There has been chat about how few people there are living in the central core. This will be the catalyst that will attract people downtown. The demographic change of the 2000's will be a move back to the city and more urbanization. OKC is so spread out this would be of great benefit to our city. C2S will start the process. Just as with Bricktown, there is a critical mass where private industry takes over. The only reason you haven't seen more development in Bricktown in recent months is, quite simply, the fact developers can't secure funding for their projects. 12-18 months from now this, hopefully, will correct itself and you will see more projects get underway. OKC doesn't have a "Bass brothers" to just come in and put their own $ billion into renovations. It's going to have to be seeded with public money and, so far, the MAPS projects have been great successes.

  6. #81

    Default Re: Core to Shore sucks

    Quote Originally Posted by AFCM View Post
    If that's the case, let the developers foot the estimated $1 billion dollar MAPS III.
    Yeah, let them fund it and watch as that area stays the exact same for the next 50 years.

  7. Default Re: Core to Shore sucks

    If you own a home, you have to put money into it at some point for remodeling and renovation, otherwise it decays and looks like ****. At some point, citizens need to pony up and put money into renovating and remodeling their city. MAPS has been successful. I am not sure I favor all the points being brought up on C2S right now but I am in total favor of the concept of renovating and redeveloping the blighted areas south of downtown to the river. The specifics have yet to be worked out so instead of griping about projects that haven't been finalized, give your input to those who are working on C2S.

  8. #83

    Default Re: Core to Shore sucks

    Quote Originally Posted by mugofbeer View Post
    OK, so you don't like Core To Shore in it's current form. Get involved and try to change it. It's certainly not too late. I was just in Kansas City and got to see The Plaza there for the first time. What a wonderful area - - of course all it would take is money but wouldn't it be fantastic if they used that as the model for the OK River lakes or if they used Wash. Park in Denver as the model for the Central Park? Unlike the I-40 reconstruction and move, its not too late for input on this project. OKCLee states this is nothing more than something for developers...well, of course it is. Who else is supposed to 'develop' an area? Especially if you are building on a large scale, experienced developers kinda have to be the ones to do it. They aren't doing it for free so, yes, they may even make a <gasp> profit on it!
    I have been very involved with it behind the scenes and been vocal.

  9. Default Re: Core to Shore sucks

    Quote Originally Posted by CuatrodeMayo View Post
    Include exploding ceramic statues, and I'm in.
    Pull!

  10. Default Re: Core to Shore sucks

    Quote Originally Posted by metro View Post
    I think I proved yesterday before you posted this, in the thread with the C2S models that I've seen them behind the scenes. Show me where they are widely and easily viewable to the public please. How can we take you seriously when you've been known to be schizophrenic on this website with multiple alias' and personalities over the last few years? What "proof" do you have that C2S sucks? What is you're rational behind it? Were you in on the steering committee's? What have you done to notify City leader's your thoughts on why C2S sucks? Bash all you want, but at least I've done my diligence with City leaders and also provided pics.
    Can anyone even take this guy? Good grief..

    "Please refer to this other thread where I posted something." "You are schizophrenic on this website." "At least I've done my diligence with City leaders and also provided pics." "What 'proof' do you have that C2S sucks?" Um, I started this thread..did you read any of it? Drama queen troll...

  11. Default Re: Core to Shore sucks

    Metro - that's great that you have gotten involved. SInce I am not involved at this point, I don't know if they are even at the point of making any concrete plans. Master plans and preliminary proposals are really all I have seen and those can always be changed. To say C2S sucks and that its nothing but a way for developers to make a profit is silliness. That's like saying the new paint job on my house sucks when they haven't even started painting it.

  12. #87

    Default Re: Core to Shore sucks

    Quote Originally Posted by AFCM View Post
    If that's the case, let the developers foot the estimated $1 billion dollar MAPS III.
    But that would eat into their profits. Why would they want to do that?

  13. #88

    Default Re: Core to Shore sucks

    Quote Originally Posted by Spartan View Post
    Can anyone even take this guy? Good grief..

    "Please refer to this other thread where I posted something." "You are schizophrenic on this website." "At least I've done my diligence with City leaders and also provided pics." "What 'proof' do you have that C2S sucks?" Um, I started this thread..did you read any of it? Drama queen troll...
    Get over it, you're the one that goes 2 weeks back and digs up my posts. I don't know why you're always so obsessed with me. You act like I don't get involved with things in this City I talk about or provide no proof of what I'm talking about, when in fact the opposite is the reality. Move on.

  14. #89

    Default Re: Core to Shore sucks

    Back to the topic at hand. How did the meeting go? Did you mention that the designs are for parks that are just superficial and not functional or a benefit ecologically?

  15. #90

    Default Re: Core to Shore sucks

    No the design is very real and the City has been moving forward with it. It is being presented to the Council this month and Mayor is rumored to announce MAPS 3 next month.

  16. #91

    Default Re: Core to Shore sucks

    I don't think you understood what I said. The design is for a park that is just for looks and not a functional park. The park will not be used!

  17. #92

    Default Re: Core to Shore sucks

    lasomeday, yes I made my thoughts known, but the more I learn and understand urban planning, park planning and just the whole C2S thing the more I get involved, the more I don't like the park. I wish I could have made it to today's City Council meeting.

    This item is up at today's City Council meeting which started at 8:30. See Steve's blog for more details:

    Spending money on Core to Shore

  18. Default Re: Core to Shore sucks

    Metro, I was at the city council meeting this morning. And spoke on rail transit. What about you? I don't have an obsession with you, I just get extremely agitated by the bull **** you're constantly streaming, not to mention the personal attacks you slip in, so I am responding to that.

  19. #94

    Default Re: Core to Shore sucks

    Quote Originally Posted by lasomeday View Post
    I don't think you understood what I said. The design is for a park that is just for looks and not a functional park. The park will not be used!
    The park hasn't even been designed yet. You cannot possibly know or reliably predict whether it will be used without even knowing it's design. A park does not have to be huge to be extremely functional.

    FWIW, Hargreaves is one of the world's best park/landscape design companies. They will most likely deliver an awesome design for OKC. For those interested in learning and exploring and not just blindly insisting that c2s sucks no matter what, I encourage to take a look through Hargreave's website. You will learn that functional beautiful parks come in all sizes.

  20. Default Re: Core to Shore sucks

    Hargreaves did the Grant Park framework (but not specific design for Millennium Park) and the AICC, right?

  21. #96

    Default Re: Core to Shore sucks

    Quote Originally Posted by Spartan View Post
    Metro, I was at the city council meeting this morning. And spoke on rail transit. What about you? I don't have an obsession with you, I just get extremely agitated by the bull **** you're constantly streaming, not to mention the personal attacks you slip in, so I am responding to that.
    I couldn't make that meeting, I couldn't take off from my employer. That's the main downside to our city council meetings as they are smack dab in the middle of the workday unlike many of our suburban cities who have them at night. Just curious but what aspect of rail did you speak on?What is your background in rail transportation or mass transit?

    I talked to Urban Pioneer from MTP yesterday and he didn't make the meeting either. Are you going to launch a rail proposal? If so how are you proposing it be funded?

    I was in a meeting yesterday and was pretty much assured MAPS 3 is going to stick to the "basic 3" of Convention Center (being the most funded item), Central Park (about $150 mil) and a Downtown Streetcar. Mayor Cornett has been pretty clear that there will not be rail in MAPS 3. It's obvious we won't have the funding to start a light rail with MAPS 3. The consensus with the "city leaders" are that MAPS 3 has become a grab bag and everyone is coming to the table wanting their piece of the pie. I think cooler heads have prevailed as they are now sticking to the basics. I am also told that a councilperson (I believe it was Sam Bowman if I remember correctly), is pushing for some Senior Centers in MAPS 3 and may actually get it, although they will be at a MUCH smaller cost than the other main projects. Hopefully one of us can catch yesterdays meeting replayed on Ch. 20.

  22. #97

    Default Re: Core to Shore sucks

    Quote Originally Posted by Spartan View Post
    Hargreaves did the Grant Park framework (but not specific design for Millennium Park) and the AICC, right?
    Yes on the Grant Park framework. I don't recognize the AICC acronym

  23. #98

    Default Re: Core to Shore sucks

    Oil Capital

    I looked at the website a few times. Some of the parks look funcitonal and some of them don't.

    The problem I have with the park they are proposing is the size. IF we are going to build a park to attract people to our city core, then it should be a big enough park to do more than sit and look at cars. It should be big enough to have many different uses. Small parks typically don't have development boom around them. And with the city developments being spread thin, I don't see a small 40 acre park attracting any development around it.

    VOTE NO ON CORE TO SHORE CENTRAL PARK! It is a disaster waiting to happen.

  24. #99

    Default Re: Core to Shore sucks

    Quote Originally Posted by metro View Post
    I couldn't make that meeting, I couldn't take off from my employer. That's the main downside to our city council meetings as they are smack dab in the middle of the workday unlike many of our suburban cities who have them at night.
    That way they can "get things done" without too much interference...in their minds.
    It's not just suburban cities, the City of Austin has theirs in the evenings sometimes lasting until 1:00am or so.

  25. #100

    Default Re: Core to Shore sucks

    Its so people with real 8-5 jobs can't run for council.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 6 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 6 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Core to Shore Park....estimated park size?
    By okclee in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 07-26-2009, 11:26 PM
  2. Core To Shore gets one step closer
    By metro in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 06-09-2009, 04:28 PM
  3. Core To Shore update
    By metro in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 11-19-2008, 04:46 PM
  4. Core to Shore plan completed
    By metro in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-15-2007, 05:25 PM
  5. Community Meeting Planned for Core to Shore Plan
    By Keith in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-21-2007, 07:42 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO