Core to Shore

[Pete]

A good chunk of the required property has already been obtained and they are in process with the remainder, so it would make sense to keep moving forward. Also, they are already demolishing the old postal facility and the Salvation Army is set to leave soon. Besides those two large facilities, the remaining properties are vacant lots and a handful of small structures.

[Questor]

I have mixed feelings on the Core 2 Shore aspect of MAPS 3. I understand the concept and can see the nice amenities it could bring, but really I have to wonder why we would be looking at expanding the useable sphere of the downtown area when we have SO MUCH that is just going to waste right now. Bricktown has a long way to go before the place is filled in, and that is just the buildings that exist there... completely ignoring the empty space along the canal and along the surrounding city streets. Deep Duce is completely under-developed... yes more housing has been built in recent years but there is very little in the way of restaurants or just common livability retailers in the area. Midtown is up and coming but still there are so many vacant buildings. To me it would seem that the two major problems with our downtown are density and housing, and I don't see how Core 2 Shore helps either of those... if anything it just increases the problem as it expands outward the downtown land mass and creates yet another area for housing... which does nothing for improving density. Meanwhile the one aspect of MAPS 3 that I was really behind, and most of my friends are looking forward to, the downtown rail lines, seems to have taken a back-burner to everything else. I guess I just don't understand the thought process there.

Who is in charge of this version of MAPS? Is there a steering committee like there was in the previous MAPS? I have not heard much about it this time.

[Questor]

Also, one final follow-up thought... this isn't NYC where our downtown is surrounded by cement and a central park would be a novelty. If you want parks and trees you can go to literally any other part of town. Even downtown we have the botanical gardens, which are so awesome I don't know why anyone would want to try and compete with that. So I don't see how there is market demand there for C2S? I guess I just don't get what our city planners are thinking.

[Spartan]

I agree with you that we need to focus on filling in our current downtown districts. I also agree that it is frustrating that the downtown streetcar transit has taken the backburner.

However, as for the park, I also agree with your assessment--but keep in mind that this park was planned before Myriad Gardens improvements were ever even considered. We've been really wanting a super-nice park for a long time, and the Myriad Gardens were really lacking. Then the city suddenly had a new funding source and decided to do a Myriad Gardens overhaul, and that has COMPLETELY changed the park situation. The overhaul really did an awesome job.

I think the park can still be put to good use. I wonder though if the location is right. Maybe that's what we need to change more than anything, and perhaps the land we've acquired for the park can be used for the convention center instead. It makes more sense to either use the M3 park funds to expand the Myriad Gardens to the south and west into more of a super-park, or to pursue a park opportunity somewhere further than 2 blocks away from the MG. But the goal with this M3/C2S park is to have a residential living room. The idea is a park surrounded by townhomes and apartments on all sides. It's a living amenity, and something that would draw people in from all over the region to experience a different kind of environment.

But I think some serious changes to the park proposal need to be considered.

[Questor]

Thanks for the well-reasoned reply Spartan. One thing that scares me to death about C2S is the sort of mentality of just hitting the "reboot" button and starting from scratch somewhere new. Isn't that what we did with Urban Renewall that we said we would never do again? Isn't that what ultimately failed with the IM Pei plan when certain realities changed? Maybe I am being too narrow-minded here, I don't know, but I just really fear the wisdom of basically abandoning downtown and the Myriad Gardens and going off and creating something new. I don't understand why our starting point wouldn't be with the gardens we already have which have won numerous awards. I think maybe you are alluding to the same sort of concerns when you wonder about the location of C2S's park being right.

So how locked into this plan is the city right now? I have seen comments from... I think it was Humphreys... that would seem to say that maybe some influential business leaders are starting to ask the council to reconsider the plan.

[Spartan]

There are definitely a lot of people suddenly thinking about the TIMELINE of the park, and there is a strong consensus for pushing the park back at this moment, with the exception of the mayor's office who wants this park as his legacy which is understandable. However, I don't know how locked in we are to this site. I have some really interesting ideas I'm working on, some maps and graphic illustrations that I'll finish tomorrow and unveil that might have a good alternative. But as for how locked in we are, well we now own what, 80% of the land for the park?

Definitely don't think you're being narrow-minded though. Welcome to the forum, by the way.

[Rover]

The core to shore area was the elephant in the room that was ignored for a very long time. While we were considering how to make the core livable again we were surrounding it with unsightly, unkempt and neglected areas...first deep deuce then the area south to the river. We addressed deep deuce and still ignored south of downtown. With I-40 being moved we can no longer ignore it. I doubt we want people exiting a great new highway on their way to a great downtown and pass through weed infested junkyards and shabby hubcap shops. Something had to be done. A park is probably the cheapest way we could deal with it. To change a blighted area of this size into something usable by a great number of citizens, $150 million is pretty good.

[Larry OKC]

Rover & Spartan have it right. This all came about because of the relocation of the I-40 crosstown a few blocks south. An area that has long been blighted and an eyesore no one gave any thought because it was "out of sight, out of mind". With people driving though it to get downtown, the need was there to improve it and be more of a Welcome mat rather than a Danger-Keep Out sign. Mayor Cornett was correct with the idea that few cities get the opportunity to completely redefine, without the destruction of a Urban Renewalesque. I agree there are areas (like the Canal) that are still vacant a decade later and more needs to be done to build up what is existing. To those that have the money and the burning desire to do so, hats off to you and keep up the great work. Just as Core to Shore is a 30 to 50 year vision, it may take that long for the rest to fully mature too. I hope it happens much more quickly.

[HOT ROD]

i agree with the points noted, but - the key is, we're moving I-40 down which will render the C2S area as necessary to develop. The aformentioned points are true as long as downtown remains north of I-40. But with I-40 moving, we will have the C2S section still blighted, to greet visitors as they exit the freeway. This can not stand and it is in the city's best interest to do something proactively - and a Central Park is arguably the best and easiest solution.

The problems I have are 1) the price - seems like $130M is too much for blighted land and a rather low programmed park (considering MGB was $30M with a LOT more squeezed in). I think maybe half of that is probably sufficient and the city should use a portion of the C2S Central Park funds to remove the substation, with OG&E splitting the costs (dreaming, but that would be ethical of them). ... 2) purposefully not using the land adjacent for the cc. This remains to be seen, but if the city goes with anything other than the mayor's original idea of the cc E of the Park, then it is a - well, what the hell are we doing/planning moment for OKC, imo. To me, the park and the cc go together - two direct public injections to set the C2S area on its way quickly.

One more point, C2S likely would have different character and feel than the other downtown districts, so I don't really see them competing. We should build the park and cc, and let the surroundings redevelop organically. I believe there is increasing interest in the other downtown districts, with most of them starting to gain synergy (CBD - retail and office looks to be on the increase, B-Town - i hope/look for infill, AAlley - seems to be filling in nicely, Film Row - again, nice organic infill, Midtown - same, Arts District - MGB and the new elementary school will likely spur additiona residential, DD - holding its own as downtown's urban bedroom community, Triangle - look for it to take off). Just because we are building the park (which will take years), it will take even longer for C2S to ever be considered competition for ANY of the other downtown districts, which have had a tremendous head start and even more nourishment with the streetcar. I dont see the streetcar going into c2s for Maps III.

Anyways, those are my points/ideas, and why I think the city should go ahead and move forward. We can't let the land sit empty and we don't really want to open all of it up for private development/squatting either. So having the park (and cc to the east/northeast) to 'regulate' c2s development is a wonderful idea and at the same time will create a nice downtown gateway from I-40 - which is the primary civic reason for doing c2s in the first place imo.

[Spartan]

Here is my proposal now:
http://downtownontherange.blogspot.c...f-changes.html

Will post more on it later, but for now I have to run out the door and start my day!

[ljbab728]

Here is my proposal now:
http://downtownontherange.blogspot.c...f-changes.html

Will post more on it later, but for now I have to run out the door and start my day!

Spartan, I sort of understand what you're saying but to start thinking about parks as a revenue stream opportunity is really not very realistic or practical when doing planning. I'm not saying it shouldn't be considered, just that it isn't a majory priority. What other parks in OKC or in any city for that matter make profits for the city?

[Spartan]

Well you know I would absolutely assert that good public parks are a public necessity, of course a park shouldn't be required to earn money. But it was still a good point brought up already by Dr. Shadid--it is one of many areas in which this park and the MG would be competing and it could still be dysfunctional it seems. We are also planning on funding continued maintenance of this M3 park with a conservatory group similar to the MG. That would be another dysfunctional scenario in my opinion. It is by far the best to combine these efforts here.

[kevinpate]

In light of not needing the blight as the new front door of the city, and in light of the amount of time the tax has now been collected, and in light of the collection running ahead of schedule, seems getting the park done, or done more than pretty grass and a rock trail, with a big arse more to come sign, would be a good idea for the city.

Just an outsider looking in perspective.

[Rover]

Blight will absolutely scare off developers in the area of influence. A basic park will not, unless it is unsafe and not patrolled. If we can achieve a threshold for developers then the city can afford to do more.

[Spartan]

The point though is how BEST to use our resources. We're all in agreement that resources should be used and improvements made. There's just a better strategic way forward than with Core2Shore as originally planned, I believe. And I also believe that is a growing consensus out there.

The thing I want to stress is that Core2Shore was the ONLY masterplan that we had that could even potential tie different projects together. It was the only way we could determine how the park and convention center and shopping mall would interact. Now the park is the only thing that's stayed there. We still have ZERO downtown masterplans that show all of the changes. IF anything, we need to go back to the drawing board and redo Core2Shore, expanding it to include all of downtown. There needs to be ONE planning document that shows the park, streetcar, convention center, new boulevard, anticipated infill areas (who would have predicted Deep Deuce taking off like it has??), the Devon Tower, Project 180, and all the countless other big improvements. We need to see how these things interact. The point is that we are now at this point of questioning the park because we never considered how to separate projects would interact, the Project 180 improvements to the Myriad Gardens, and the new C2S/M3 park.

Now we need to go back and do that proper due diligence before we just get stuck in a pattern of having to perpetually change things.

[Rover]

In business, some time ago long range strategic planning gave way to strategic management. In other words, long range objectives are outlined, but the actual tactics used are determined closer to the time in which the actions are needed. It is a process of constantly being aware of options and of choosing actions based on more current conditions. It is saying, if such and such is the case we will do this, but if this other such and such is the case, we will do this other thing. No one has a crystal ball for 5-10 years out, let alone 20-30. To lock into a fixed plan without the possibilities of adaptation is folly. I also contend that the best cities developed based on unique conditions and their citizens' actions along with business opportunities. OKC will ultimately be influenced by these decisions we are making, but the true character of the city will develop in ways we don't even imagine. Who know 5 years ago what Devon would do and how it would impact downtown. There will be more game changers. It just makes sense the use of the land from downtown to the river should be reviewed and possibly changed. This would be a success of our leaders and not a failure to faithfully complete Maps3.

[Spartan]

I am saying to have a plan. We don't have one anymore, C2S was a joke plan to begin with, and now we're seeing that the key pieces won't even be there. The planners of one project don't talk to the planners of another project. There is no way to rationalize that as a positive.

[Urban Pioneer]

Questor- "Meanwhile the one aspect of MAPS 3 that I was really behind, and most of my friends are looking forward to, the downtown rail lines, seems to have taken a back-burner to everything else."

Spartan- "I also agree that it is frustrating that the downtown streetcar transit has taken the backburner."

I'm not sure why either of you think this. We are literally scrambling to get through the required processes to get to the engineering phase. I guess I realize that this might simply be a perception issue with all of the rhetoric from other committees, oversight board, and recent press. But believe me that the streetcar is going forward in a big way. I can't and won't blog all of the details, but we are doing our part.

[Steve]

xxx

[Rover]

Steve, please elaborate.

[lasomeday]

Urban Pioneer, How much has the "Core to Shore" plan affected your process?

I don't mind the theory of "Core to Shore", but to use it as a set base map is beyond idiotic.

[Urban Pioneer]

Urban Pioneer, How much has the "Core to Shore" plan affected your process?

I don't mind the theory of "Core to Shore", but to use it as a set base map is beyond idiotic.

It hasn't really affected it at all with exception of the Park subcommittee. They have specifically asked that we go down and interface with the park. At a minimum, we will be at Robinson, which is a block away. Integrating transit into the new Boulevard may offer expansion possibilities, but because the design process for it has not begun yet, it hasn't been a debated item.

So C2S as it stands by itself as an "idea" has not swayed Phase 1, 2, or 3 streetcar conceptual routes as of yet. Obviously, that could change, but the "drivers" have not been there specifically.

[Popsy]

Urban, Not that anyone would care but I could feel a lot better about the streetcars if a route did not go up to 13th St. I thought the streetcars were sold as being just in the core.

[Urban Pioneer]

Urban, Not that anyone would care but I could feel a lot better about the streetcars if a route did not go up to 13th St. I thought the streetcars were sold as being just in the core.

Well, originally, it was just a "core circulator." What happened is that Councilman White among others basically impressed up on us that the only way we would have Council support is if the streetcar was designed to "get somewhere out of downtown." Thus the advent of the "Bricktown to Midtown" line. Designed for future expansion to the NW being Plaza District, OCU, 23rd/Classen.

Today we learned a few hours ago that the consultants for the hub agree and further exploration of the future transit numbers suggest that a "Light Rail Line" is a possibility all the way up Classen and NW Expressway. Obviously it will take further study. But undeniably, it seems as though the math is backing up the Committee's answer to Councilman White.

It is easy to grasp why they would go for a "Light Rail Line" as there is no existing rail corridor to use for commuter rail to the NW. And that is where much of the suburban growth is.

To reduce costs, "Rapid Streetcar" may be an option for such a corridor in the future up that way. Such vehicles can use the MAPS track and powering system but have priority enabling express service at around 50 MPH back to the Santa Fe Hub.

So I wouldn't feel to concerned yet as we explore all of this in long range planning if we did get up to 13th street.

[Steve]

Was there a MAPS 3 subcommittee meeting today? Nothing is posted at www.okc.gov