That's an interesting perspective, considering the fact that one of the main differences is that Bricktown has ...clubs. Nothing against him or his place (which is nice), but maybe he should consider converting Club ONE15 to a great beer hall or some other concept that resonates better with the type of crowd that he's envying.
Anyway, we've wandered off-topic.
People we know tell us all the time. Anyways, I'm pretty sure Circus is circling the drain. One of the owners is djing now which tells me that he can't afford to pay the guy that was the resident. Never hear anyone talk about Candy either. Honestly, Midtown is a bigger threat to Bricktown. Most of my friends go to the Plaza or the Paseo and never consider Bricktown.
OK, but now back to the OG&E Energy Center, which is the issue at hand in this thread.
Along with the OGE building, are they going to start construction on the second building as well?
I get what you are saying. Bricktown has a few good bars but it's mostly restaurants and nightclubs. Most young professionals over age 25 or so will take a place like Fassler Hall any day over Candy Nightclub. More housing as well as new, unique attractions like the Criterion Concert Hall should give Bricktown a much-needed boost.
With regards to downtown housing, we had 1,000 people living downtown in 2000. Up to around 8,000 and growing now.
That's basically a very good time for 0-60 acceleration. Rooftops downtown will lend tremendous staying power to the good establishments. Cheesy businesses however will come and go; most new businesses fail.
We need to maintain a big picture perspective. We need to keep incubating new businesses and districts, and rather than competing with each other, they will all support each other through the natural ebbs and flows.
Yes, I physically counted them. It's not that hard to do. Now I will say this, after I got back to my car and started down the road a fair number of children had populated the playground. By comparison, I estimate the basketball court across the street had around 25 to 30 people.
Oh, I see. I agree if your point is that we aren't surrounding the park with an array complimentary uses.
See, I don't believe your count could be accurate for exactly the reasons Spartan stated. There is no single point in the gardens where you can see the entire place such that one person could count them. A count while walking around means it takes place over time, and that means you cannot see the rest of the garden and know if anyone else arrived or left. The children at the playground are a perfect example of that, they came from somewhere but you did not see them arrive. I bet there were parents there with them too, which means even more people than the estimate of 15.
For the love of Pete. Fine - double it, then add another 10 for people who ran through so fast I could even seen them. Then add 10 bums sleeping in bushes. 48 people in MBG is still NOT full. 100 people wouldn't be full. A park the size of MBG would be consider adequately used if it had 250 people in it at any give time.
Let me know when this is average and typical at MBG because this is what urban parks are supposed to look like.
Kerry, I think the point is that, considering what the current surroundings of the MBG are, it is surprisingly well used all of the time. Even though you may not agree with the placement of proposed buildings around the park, that placement won't harm it's use in the least. Could it be better? Perhaps, but it won't be harmed.
What get's me is that we're going round and round about this merely because the residential towers aren't park facing. So bloody what, I can guarantee that having to walk down a block and around a corner is not going to stop people who live that close from walking there and making use of the gardens. The 15 people Kerry counted are already people using the park who by the simple reality of the moment live further away than that (well, unless they're the homeless guys living in the bushes).
David - let me ask a simple question. Do you have a preference of residential or office fronting the park?
My preference is for whichever gets the complex built such that we don't end up living for years with a muddy pit where the Stage Center used to be, and I do not buy the idea that the future usage of the gardens is particularly dependent on one versus the other. In either case we get residential units far closer than we currently do, and that can only be a good thing.
That right there is the problem with this city. Too many people are willing to settle for almost anything. This needs to be done right.
And maybe I consider both options to be right? I'm not settling for anything, I'm settling for this:
That's great. A shiny picture is that is needed to buy people here. I was really excited for it, but Kerry is right. Residential should face the park.
It doesn't matter. It's getting built and it'll be a cool building. I'll sure enjoy seeing it from the highway.
Do you actually have a sensible argument to back up why "residential should face the park" is "right"?
David, I just believe parks are made for people and residential is better suited to be facing it vs. office.
You'll have people living right across from it which virtually makes the park their backyard and within plain sight, reduces the potential for crime, encourages more activity and connectivity between the park and apartments, and apartments will be utilized 24/7 vs. office which will be more 9-5.
If you had a park, would you rather it be surrounded by office or residential?
They could even compromise by putting one residential tower facing the park and one office placing both of the residential buildings facing Sheridian. They could open the street back up and connect the school with the park.
There are currently 172 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 172 guests)
Bookmarks