Core to Shore sucks

[RedDirt717]

Denver has several parks,

Cheesman Park
Washington Park
Denver City Park


And yes Washington Park is very far from the downtown area.

from: washington park to: downtown denver - Google Maps

[mugofbeer]

Ummmm... I did and you need to. You are trying to make it sound like Washington Park sits on the border of downtown when it is nowhere near. It is 3+ miles from the state capitol to Washington Park. More to the CBD (I confess my 9 miles was exaggerated; I just took the longish route that bing maps gave me; but the point is the same. It is not in or particularly near downtown Denver.)

And is your argument that because this large-ish park 3+ miles from downtown is successful, therefore a small-ish park immediately adjacent to/in downtown cannot be successful? Very odd argument.

See my previous examples of small-ish downtown parks that are VERY successful.

OC - its not that big a deal but please, Washington Park is precisely where I said it was - one half mile east and 1 1/2 miles south of Colfax and Broadway. Come on, I lived there for 9 years within walking distance of both the park and my job. Please stop arguing the world is flat - or are you just one of those who will argue anything?

Now for my real point - - NO, Washington Park in Denver is not a "surrounded by high rises" central business district park but it is a prime example of an URBAN park that is used and loved by thousands every (nice) day and is within a mile and a half of the core of the Denver CBD. It is simple in design and isn't full of pricey capital works projects such as aphitheaters and senior centers. It is the epitome of a park that will encourage walking, running, bike riding and any other type of pedestrian traffic the city wants.

It is such a wonderful attraction that it is one of the top 5 most desired neighborhoods in Denver to live in. If such a park atmosphere could be recreated in the Central Park concept here, people would flock to live near the park - whether mid rises, high rises or brownstones/townhomes. It could very well be the catalyst for larger scale downtown residential living nestled between the CBD, the park and the river lakes.

[betts]

Washington Park feels more like a Crown Heights type of neighborhood, and it feels about as far from the CBD as Crown Heights is (I lived there 9 years as well, and had a friend with a house on Wash Park). To me, Cheesman felt more urban, although it too is not strictly downtown.

Regardless, we should not try to and cannot be Denver. Denver could use a nice downtown park, and Core to Shore is something special Denver does not have. Just as we cannot strictly use their experience with mass transit, we have a different setting than they do downtown.

Personally, I think the park planned for Core to Shore is a start. If my opinion can make a difference, I think we need to drop the block of business/retail between our new park and the Myriad Gardens, and I feel pretty strongly about that. If we can creatively bridge I-40, there's no reason we cannot work towards a second park that stretches to the river and which feels like an extension of the other park. We have to work with the terrain and budget we are given, but should push for as big a park as possible, even if it has to be built in stages, IMO.

I think there are parts of everyone's opinions that are correct. NYC has done very nicely with a massive park, and it has not had a negative effect on pedestrians. However, I also agree that one of the nice things about an urban landscape are surprises....walking around the corner of a building and finding a small, perfect park....seeing a mixture of different types of living and working environments. I don't have a problem with the park being the front lawn of a convention center, although I like the idea of using the mill area for a convention center better. I think it's a better location for conventioneers. I do think, however, that having some public buildings facing the park removes the concept that it is a park for the residents, primarily, a sense I think people might get if the park were surrounded by mid and high rise residential buildings only.

The nice thing about how much space we have to redevelop is that we can come up with multiple ideas for the same pieces of land. I'm not sure any of them are wrong, or any of them have to be right. What we should do is take the best ideas from multiple sources and come up with something unique to our city.

[lasomeday]

Betts,

You are right. I think the main point of core to shore is to connect the Myriad Gardens to the river parks. That was the original concepts, so someone can start running/riding/skating/whatever in a park downtown and end up at the river parks all in one main park with a mix of developments around it.

Oil Capital,

I didn't say anything bad about small parks. I love small parks. Everytime I got to NYC I end up hanging out at Paley Park. The only difference is, we have a chance to change the city and a Paley Park will not change a city. It is a great addtion that would be awesome in Bricktown next to the Banjo Museum, but not for Core to Shore.

You are obviously not a runner, nor do you live downtown. Try running downtown, and see what obstacles you will get. One continuous park eliminates most of those obstacles (give or take a random family of ducks that would be attracted to a larger park).

As far as the boulevard goes. There won't be enough traffic for 6 lanes, and can you imagine someone that is handicapped or small in stature trying to cross that many lanes. I was in NYC a few years ago and a small person was trying to cross 4 lanes of traffic next to me. She struggled. I finally had to carry her across the street. Where have you seen the lanes you describe?

And if you think someone will want a townhouse next to a convention center, then you are smoking something. That is the last place I would want to live, even if it is next to Central Park in NYC.

[krisb]

With OKC's density, or lack thereof, a smaller park could suit us well. It will make it feel more crowded and lively, rather than spread out and sparce with people.

[Oil Capital]

Betts,

You are right. I think the main point of core to shore is to connect the Myriad Gardens to the river parks. That was the original concepts, so someone can start running/riding/skating/whatever in a park downtown and end up at the river parks all in one main park with a mix of developments around it.

Oil Capital,

I didn't say anything bad about small parks. I love small parks. Everytime I got to NYC I end up hanging out at Paley Park. The only difference is, we have a chance to change the city and a Paley Park will not change a city. It is a great addtion that would be awesome in Bricktown next to the Banjo Museum, but not for Core to Shore.

And if you think someone will want a townhouse next to a convention center, then you are smoking something. That is the last place I would want to live, even if it is next to Central Park in NYC.

No, the main point of Core to Shore is to connect DOWNTOWN (the Core) to the River (the Shore). NOT to connect Myriad Gardens to the River. It is about a LOT more than just creating a good running path.

Take a look at Discovery Green in downtown Houston . . . a small park (actually less than 1/3 the size of the proposed park in OKC) that is actually changing the city. As I believe I posted earlier, it's been open about 1 1/2 years and, so far, they have started construction on a 35 story apartment tower, a 22 story hotel, and a 30 story office building on its borders. It teeming with people and activities pretty much every day and evening of the week.

I do not understand the fear of convention centers. I see no reason that townhouses in front of a convention center, facing a beautiful, lively park, would not be attractive. Is it some fear of conventioneers? ;-)

[betts]

I have no fear of a convention center on the east side of the park, but think a more logical location would be in the Cotton Mill area, with it's proximity to Bricktown/hotels, etc.

And while I agree that it's not the size of the park as much as the concept of the park that matters, I think that having the "front" of the park open, and not hemmed in by office/retail would be a good thing. Again, to use Millenium Park as an example, it is hemmed in visually on three sides, not four. When you've got a smaller park, that gives it a more open/inviting feeling. And, why NOT have it connect visually to the Myriad Gardens? It may not be the end of the world if it doesn't, but it wouldn't hurt either. There will be plenty of room for development in the Core to Shore area, and that area can easily extend west as well as east, given what is currently in the area. Why are those two blocks between the Myriad and the proposed new park so important for development? I just don't see that it is that big of a deal.

[lasomeday]

Oil Capital

Have you been to a convention in Houston at their convention center? Did you go to the park afterwards?

I doubt it. The convention center should be near the restaurants and entertainment district. That is where the tourists want to go. They do not want to go the park. I have been to many conventions in many cities, and I have never been invited to go to the park after a session at a convention. Most people want to eat or hit the bars. That is why the convention center should be south of Bricktown where the Mill is located. The closer we can have the tourists to our entertainment district the better it is for the tourists.

The tourists will get to the hotels whether they are two or ten blocks away.

The park as you mentioned is a place for the citizens of the city. It should have its borders unobstructed by a massive convention center. The existing buildings that Steve mentions in his blog OKC Central are great locations to build a community around. The mill is not! It should be moved to its new locations ASAP.

[mugofbeer]

Denver has several parks,

Cheesman Park
Washington Park
Denver City Park


And yes Washington Park is very far from the downtown area.

from: washington park to: downtown denver - Google Maps

Yeah, exactly where I said it is...1/2 mile east and 1 1/2 mile south of where I worked in a high rise. What part of this don't you all understand?

[Oil Capital]

Oil Capital

Have you been to a convention in Houston at their convention center? Did you go to the park afterwards?

I doubt it. The convention center should be near the restaurants and entertainment district. That is where the tourists want to go. They do not want to go the park. I have been to many conventions in many cities, and I have never been invited to go to the park after a session at a convention. Most people want to eat or hit the bars. That is why the convention center should be south of Bricktown where the Mill is located. The closer we can have the tourists to our entertainment district the better it is for the tourists.

The tourists will get to the hotels whether they are two or ten blocks away.

The park as you mentioned is a place for the citizens of the city. It should have its borders unobstructed by a massive convention center. The existing buildings that Steve mentions in his blog OKC Central are great locations to build a community around. The mill is not! It should be moved to its new locations ASAP.

Again, I ask you to take a look at Discovery Green in Houston. If you can't do it in person, take a look at their website. There are two restaurants in the park. And yes, they get a LOT of business from conventioneers. Conventions sometimes make use of the park for their meetings, entertainment, etc. Conventioneers do spend time in the park. I've seen it on several occasions. The park of couse is not just for conventioneers, but it's all about connectivity, which is one of the primary purposes of the core 2 shore plan.

You apparently know nothing about convention planning. Talk to any convention planner and they will tell you the convention center must be VERY close to hotels. Conventions DEMAND adjacent hotels; the more the better. immediately adjacent entertainment districts are less important. Conventioneers will indeed find their way to bars and restaurants, especially if they can get there easily on a canal boat.

And again, please spend a moment or two learning about the actual design concepts for Core to Shore: The park will not be fronted by a massive convention center, but by townhomes and retail that line the park in front of the convention center.

Steve has raised an interesting point about the older buildings that would have to be removed for the convention center. That certainly needs to be considered in balancing the benefits of the location. I am certainly open to persuasion on the convention center location, and historical or quasi-historical buildings could be pretty strong persuasion.

Regarding the earlier discussion of the Boulevard, I think I may have gotten the number of lanes wrong. It appears the plan is for 6 through lanes, plus the side lanes I described. I agree, that seems totally overkill and at cross-purposes with the aim of connectivity from core to shore.

[Oil Capital]

I have no fear of a convention center on the east side of the park, but think a more logical location would be in the Cotton Mill area, with it's proximity to Bricktown/hotels, etc.

And while I agree that it's not the size of the park as much as the concept of the park that matters, I think that having the "front" of the park open, and not hemmed in by office/retail would be a good thing. Again, to use Millenium Park as an example, it is hemmed in visually on three sides, not four. When you've got a smaller park, that gives it a more open/inviting feeling. And, why NOT have it connect visually to the Myriad Gardens? It may not be the end of the world if it doesn't, but it wouldn't hurt either. There will be plenty of room for development in the Core to Shore area, and that area can easily extend west as well as east, given what is currently in the area. Why are those two blocks between the Myriad and the proposed new park so important for development? I just don't see that it is that big of a deal.

Again, 40 acres is just not that small of a park. It's roughly twice the size of Millenium Park. It is more than twice the size of Myriad Gardens (which is 17 acres). And it is NOT proposed to be hemmed in by tall buildings on all sides (actually, it's not hemmed in at all on any side; it is accessible from the street on all sides). IIRC the proposal is for tall building on two sides and only town-house type structures on the other two sides.

[betts]

Oil Capital, as I've said, I don't think it's the end of the world to have the park hemmed in by buildings on all sides, but why would it matter if the park were a block bigger and open to the Myriad Gardens. Would that be so bad? Might it be slightly better? Couldn't that development move over a block? That's what I don't understand. I see no way in which development on the north side of the park improves it. I agree that 40 acres is not a small park, but I also see nothing wrong with it being a bit bigger. I think there should be some flexibility inherent in Core to Shore, especially since we all know that there will be a lot of things in the plan that, over time, will end up being something other than what has been drawn.

[hoya]

Yeah, I've got no particular love for having an auto lot on the north side of it. It's not like that's something with a lot of heritage that we need to strive to maintain.

[lasomeday]

Oil Capital

There are better places to put a convention center than by a park. I don't feel that we should COPY what Houston did with their park. Sure they have a good park. You will never find me in that park because I don't like the weather in Houston.

[Doug Loudenback]

I've set up a blog article which is intended to provide resources for thinking about Core To Shore, pro and con: Doug Dawgz Blog: Core To Shore Resources. One of the resources linked to is this thread and another here, as well as specific articles in Steve's OkcCentral, and elsewhere.

Except for the last area (Discussion), it is pretty much done.

[Spartan]

Wow Doug. You've done it again.. you've compiled such a hefty and info-packed resource that I can't even read it right now.. I'll have to designate time in my schedule when I can read this in its entirety, each and every piece. From what I can tell though you provoke important points and provide a useful resource for someone to form their own conclusions about C2S.

This project needs to become a controversy.

P.S. I just clicked on it again to jog my memory of something it made me think of, and it looks like large pieces are missing from where I visited the page just seconds ago. I guess it's still a work in progress.

[Doug Loudenback]

Thanks, Spartan. Yes, it is a work in progress but I don't think that I've deleted anything but am intending to expand it on an ongoing basis, beginning this evening. What was it that you thought was missing?

The last section, Discussion, is what I'll develop next, pros and cons for the questions presented (and any others that occur to me to add).