Scissortail Park

[Pete]

You could easily argue that the park is the only way to create density in that area.

Land is already being snatched up all around it and it's not going cheap. Any development will surely be dense to justify the expense and you can bet views of the park will be a priority.

[catcherinthewry]

How's the old song go ... they razed them some blight, and put up a parking lot.
Ahhhh, progress.

"They paved paradise, and put up a parking lot"

This case is just the opposite, though.

[warreng88]

From the Journal Record:

Clearing the way: OKC moves to raze buildings to make room for Central Park

By: Molly M. Fleming The Journal Record November 20, 2014

OKLAHOMA CITY – The city of Oklahoma City has nearly finished demolishing the buildings on SW Fifth Street and to the south in preparation for the Core to Shore Central Park.

On Thursday, a request to demolish two former Salvation Army Central Oklahoma Area Command headquarters buildings at 311 SW Fifth St. went before the Downtown Design Review Committee. In November, the Salvation Army moved into a new facility, The Salvation Army Chesapeake Energy Center of Hope, 1001 N. Pennsylvania Ave.

The old site has four buildings in total, but the two other buildings will go before DDRC separately because they are listed as a different address, said Scott Copelin, project manager for Metropolitan Area Projects.

No action could be taken on the demolition issue Thursday because the DDRC did not have a quorum. The committee plans to have a special meeting, but no date was set as of press time.

The only other remaining buildings to be demolished for the park are the Film Exchange and adjacent north buildings. Those buildings have previously been considered for demolition, but any progress on razing them was put on hold after residents expressed concern at a MAPS 3 Citizens Oversight Board meeting in July 2013. The buildings would be on the park’s east side.

“If you go by the master plan and everything in it, then (the Film Exchange Building) comes out,” Copelin said. “(The renovated) Union Station (railroad depot) is the jewel of the whole park.”

The 40-acre, $130 million downtown Core to Shore Central Park is a MAPS 3 project and was originally designed with the north phase being done in two sections. Copelin said the north phase, which runs from the Oklahoma River to SW Fifth Street, could be completed in one phase.

He said the park’s completion date is a moving target since the city has moved more quickly on the convention center and hotel portion of the MAPS 3 project.

“The schedules are changing somewhat,” he said.

Copelin must prepare a Central Park preliminary report by Jan. 15. The report will improve upon the existing master plan, he said. Once the preliminary report is complete, then construction documents will be created.

“We’re at 95 percent for all the plans on utility relocation,” he said.

The remaining utility lines will be bid out in January.

“We will hopefully start the project this time next year,” Copelin said.

[boitoirich]

woah woah woah. Nobody ever said this was going to happen over night. Best believe this park will help spur development at a way quicker rate than a Goodwill would/did.

Just walk a block north to see how a park can lead to high quality developments. Hell, the 3 best developments of the last quarter century will all happen on 3 sides of the Myriad Gardens. Then JTF wanted to take a shot at the canal, which basically led to all new development east of the railroad tracks.

You guys can trash on this park all you want, but you Eeyors will come crawling back in 20-30 years when most major downtown development will be taking place in this area.

The park certainly needs to happen. However when it comes to adding density to the core, things such as our relative lack of geographical limitations, transit, and in this case the park become red herrings. Density will be a response to both market demands and sound municipal policy. That's the only way this area will develop properly.

[Just the facts]

You could easily argue that the park is the only way to create density in that area.

Land is already being snatched up all around it and it's not going cheap. Any development will surely be dense to justify the expense and you can bet views of the park will be a priority.

I guess we will all know soon enough but downtown OKC has had multiple parks for 60 years and where is all the development that surrounds them. Park Oriented Development hasn't seemed to work. Look at all the new developments in OKC - how many are adjacent to the dozen existing downtown parks and open space? What parks were the catalyst for Deep Deuce, Broadway, Midtown, Bricktown, SOSA, etc....? The only downtown park that has lured any development is MBG - which was rebuilt AFTER Devon selected the OCURA land. On one side is an old convention center and another side is a new convention center. Hell even the Clayco project puts office space fronting the park (which is a huge mistake btw - the park needs 'eyes' watching it at night - not empty office buildings). So much for it being a residential attractor.

[bchris02]

I guess we will all know soon enough but downtown OKC has had multiple parks for 60 years and where is all the development that surrounds them. Park Oriented Development hasn't seemed to work. Look at all the new developments in OKC - how many are adjacent to the dozen existing downtown parks and open space? What parks were the catalyst for Deep Deuce, Broadway, Midtown, Bricktown, SOSA, etc....? The only downtown park that has lured any development is MBG - which was rebuilt AFTER Devon selected the OCURA land. On one side is an old convention center and another side is a new convention center. Hell even the Clayco project puts office space fronting the park. So much for it being a residential attractor.

I disagree.

What other parks does downtown OKC currently have that are failing? MBG has been a HUGE success since being upgraded by Devon. Parks and green space are great for placemaking and for being centers of community. I know if given a choice, I would rather live near a well-done park. Parks promote health and activity and definitely have their place in an urban environment.

[Just the facts]

I disagree.

What other parks does downtown OKC currently have that are failing? MBG has been a HUGE success since being upgraded by Devon. Parks and green space are great for placemaking and for being centers of community. I know if given a choice, I would rather live near a well-done park. Parks promote health and activity and definitely have their place in an urban environment.

Define what you mean by "failing". If it is the ability to attract adjacent development then all of them have failed. Even the great MBG has attracted 0 adjacent residential development. People use parks and there needs to be a certain level of time-diversity to make them successful. They can't just be used M-F from 9-5 (by office workers) and on special occasions (by suburbanites). They have to attract people 7 days week from 5AM to Midnight for no other reason than people want a positive public space to hang out in. Like Howard Kunstler said - if you need to have a festival to attract people you already failed in the basic purpose.

[hoya]

Well, historically there haven't been people living downtown to make use of the parks. For a long time, the only people who lived downtown were homeless people, and they did make use of the parks, so there you go. OKC still doesn't have a very large downtown population, though that is changing. The problem with OKC's lack of residential development over the past few decades was not because we had too many parks.

The purpose of the Central Park was clear -- provide a large park for future development to build around, and tear down a really nasty area that used to be blocked from downtown by the interstate. In those goals I think it will be successful. It may take 20 years before the area around the park is fully developed, but I think you'll get a hotel or two, and maybe an office tower and an apartment complex, pretty quickly. It will take time for deals to come together, but I think the portion of the park that is north of the interstate will be used fairly regularly.

[PhiAlpha]

You could easily argue that the park is the only way to create density in that area.

Land is already being snatched up all around it and it's not going cheap. Any development will surely be dense to justify the expense and you can bet views of the park will be a priority.

I was thinking the same. What better way to assure density than to take 80 acres of land that otherwise would've been developed?

[ljbab728]

I guess we will all know soon enough but downtown OKC has had multiple parks for 60 years and where is all the development that surrounds them. Park Oriented Development hasn't seemed to work. Look at all the new developments in OKC - how many are adjacent to the dozen existing downtown parks and open space?

Not residential, but here is a recent one.

OKCTalk - Oklahoma Contemporary reveals plans for new downtown museum

As for residential, this will be coming on line next to Bicentennial Park.

http://www.okctalk.com/showwiki.php?...ighlight=flats

I really don't know why you mention developments next to open space. That is happening all over the downtown area.

[Spartan]

No, you country. I'm urban. I wear pants.


I'm listening. Microecon is your thing, huh? Well, go on...


By way of whose voodoo? Why wouldn't they just sit empty for a while? If so, that would suggest that those land values are too high, leading to a lack of development.


Q.E. mf'ing D. right?

-_-

So are you saying that the addition of the park to the area will cause land speculation to stymie the pace of development?

[boitoirich]

So are you saying that the addition of the park to the area will cause land speculation to stymie the pace of development?

No, I was responding to two things. One was the insinuation that since OKC has few geographical barriers, it should continue to sprawl. The other was that density would be the result of the park. Allow me to take those one by one.

The first one should be easy. Density + Core = Homerun. If not, I'll entertain arguments to the contrary. But be brief, because on this topic my TL;DR tolerance is very low.

It's the second one that I found much more curious. In theory, building the park raises property values to the point that dense development should occur. I agree with that. However, OKC has shown a willingness to allow lesser uses in prime locations. I look at Lower Bricktown and the office building approved next to Wheeler Park as prime examples. I have ZERO confidence that suburban development patterns will not be allowed to proliferate near the park despite our civic investments. Thus the crux of my argument was that it will take more than siting a park in the area to ensure the desired density.

[David]

Apparently there was a presentation about the park at the city council meeting yesterday:

[Stickman]

Glad they are making changes. I guess the purchase of the property is done? I had not heard, seems strange it is quiet. I know Ed was not happy with the stalling. Probably could have saved a little $ if purchased 2 years ago.

[Snowman]

Glad they are making changes. I guess the purchase of the property is done? I had not heard, seems strange it is quiet. I know Ed was not happy with the stalling. Probably could have saved a little $ if purchased 2 years ago.

Any property that was not bought several months ago (at least on the north side) was probably due to it being in litigation (or at least a phase threating it would be)

[Stickman]

Anybody know what the City paid for the southern half of the block of the stage center?

[Urban Pioneer]

Quite a great deal of additional detail in that presentation.

[lasomeday]

Still a boring sterile park that says nothing about OKC or Oklahoma. Tired of our city destroying our past for "new" things. Tired of nobody with any balls saying no. Tired of this city! Ready for a change!

[Just the facts]

Still a boring sterile park that says nothing about OKC or Oklahoma. Tired of our city destroying our past for "new" things. Tired of nobody with any balls saying no. Tired of this city! Ready for a change!

It gets a little frustrating doesn't it. OKC seems to be struggling with the idea of building a city for millennials (who actually prefer historical character) while still marching to the beat of the old guard (aging Baby boomers who want everything new and shinny). Talk about built in obsolescence.

[Rover]

Still a boring sterile park that says nothing about OKC or Oklahoma. Tired of our city destroying our past for "new" things. Tired of nobody with any balls saying no. Tired of this city! Ready for a change!

So change....move. From your screen name, it looks like you really want to be in LA anyway. LOL. it's the world's shining example of sprawl and anti urban.

Bye.

[Plutonic Panda]

So change....move. From your screen name, it looks like you really want to be in LA anyway. LOL. it's the world's shining example of sprawl and anti urban.

Bye.

LA is pretty urban in a lot of places from what I've noticed. I'm moving there in March and about to fly out to check on a couple things. I've also been there once and have been exploring it on street pretty extensively. Even the places that aren't urban are better than the urban places here. Their suburbia is done right and is very pretty. There are some rundown areas, but the same is said about every urban and suburban area of the city in the world.

[Rover]

It gets a little frustrating doesn't it. OKC seems to be struggling with the idea of building a city for millennials (who actually prefer historical character) while still marching to the beat of the old guard (aging Baby boomers who want everything new and shinny). Talk about built in obsolescence.

Ah....more conspiracy by classes.

It is possible to have progress and new development and still follow good development rules. To cast a shadow on all baby boomers and blame them isn't the answer. There are plenty of boomers, x'ers, y'ers, and whatever the heck category your are in and prize, who are working to do the right thing.

Is there ANYTHING about the park that the hipsters and the oldsters can agree on, or is this an all or none death match? I understand and agree with wanting to keep the old film exchange building. Other than that, in your opinion is this park a complete waste?

What are the specific changes shown above which you object? Or, would any change be satisfactory? What in the presenter's presentation do you disagree with?

[AP]

So change....move. From your screen name, it looks like you really want to be in LA anyway. LOL. it's the world's shining example of sprawl and anti urban.

Bye.

Still can't take your own advice about not being condescending, huh? When did he say anything about sprawl? Or the urbanity of OKC? He said the park was sterile. He was very much in support of restoring the Film Exchange. What the hell is you're problem with talking down to everyone like you know everything and everyone else is some child who is wrong? You need some real help with not being a douche to everyone you interact with.

Still a boring sterile park that says nothing about OKC or Oklahoma. Tired of our city destroying our past for "new" things. Tired of nobody with any balls saying no. Tired of this city! Ready for a change!

Curt, we both know you're not going to leave.

[Rover]

I love it.... it is not condescending to call a whole class of people stupid and cowards, but to call someone's bluff on moving is condescending. The drama on here is better than a soap opera.

[boitoirich]

Poring over the improvements, it amazes me that Hargreaves was able to find the flexibility to move/enlarge some features but remains utterly incapable of making simple changes that would preserve the Salvation Army building and Film Exchange building. Nothing in the schematic would be adversely affected by retaining the two structures.