Widgets Magazine
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567
Results 151 to 152 of 152

Thread: Wheeler Park

  1. #151

    Default Re: Wheeler Park

    I love these perspectives. We need more people like you to buy real estate and make a difference. It’s unbelievably hard to do what you are saying, but it’s obviously working. Turn these words into action!

    On another note, public policy and input is a very patient and worthy cause.

    New York City, Seattle, Portland, Boston and San Fran went through unbelievable struggle and it continues as we speak.

    What I love and dislike about OKCTalk is that there are so many ideas but that there are so many ideas. Put your money where your mouth is!

  2. #152

    Default Re: Wheeler Park

    Quote Originally Posted by unfundedrick View Post
    That's very true. Getting an agreement to put the canal under the railroad track was a major ordeal and caused delays.
    I can understand the difficulties, however there's a substantial difference between building something OVER the railroad as opposed to something UNDER it. Managing construction is never an easy endeavor, however to place the framework of a lid over the rail line would probably require the closure of two lanes of the westbound interstate and relegating the exit ramp on Shields as a construction-only access, leaving around 4 lanes open for traffic. Again, easier said than done, but building construction around and over rail takes coordination and compromise. I will admit with the rail being the only one in the immediate area running an east-west connection through the city makes it a pivotal artery that would require rigorous planning around the schedule, but if you work on that first, the rest of this hypothetical lid project would fall in line.

    As for the reason why lids and tunnels are far more popular these days, they do more to connect communities and reduce scarring caused by interstates. And as an added bonus, they can be built on top of provided that it's constructed to handle the load distribution properly, which further adds land value as well as buildable space. It gives the area uninterrupted functionality as far as living/working/commercial accommodations are concerned. And then in the case of a critical collapse like what happened in Seattle, San-Fran, or a situation as recent as Philly, you end up with a severed artery that has no means of an alternative for locals and passerby's alike. It's visually appealing from a drivers point of view, but what about the locals? We already have a boulevard (one that could've been planned better) that runs the route of the old interstate overpass. If anyone wants to take a drive into the city, they can take that route. Building a lid looks to prevent those catastrophic failures because they will be built to accommodate much heavier loads than that of bridges.

    I know when I was a kid, I used to love watching the towers roll by while I'm in the car, it makes things look exciting when you're passing by it all. But when you get older, you realize that some things are really better off without, and that the local population may not want to see that division throughout their city. Furthermore, most people who drive BY the city are just trying to get to another destination, they're merely passing through. I mean it looks fun, but that may not be the final destination to some with any license plate not from the state. How many a road trip have you had that stopped in every major city outside of a Greyhound bus? Not many, and I can guarantee that you won't be there long enough to really explore the city. So it wouldn't really make sense from a travel perspective just to have your interstate run directly by the downtown area, further causing congestion in the town by allocating those exits to some streets within the city's business district. That not only taxes local traffic, but also passing traffic that have destinations elsewhere.

    As for that experience of riding by the city, we already have a highway (I-235) that cuts through it, and we have it's primary connection that can introduce visitors to the town (I-35 soon to feature it's arch-span bridges in the next few years). Most of I-44 is submerged and wouldn't have great views to begin with, especially considering that the taller buildings is about two-to-three city blocks away, so a lid in one small area that's already submerged below surface level shouldn't be too much of an issue when it comes to views. If anything, a lid in that spot would connect the downtown park instead of having this gargantuan concrete gash between the two areas. And as a bonus, Scissortail Bridge could serve as a great façade for the westbound entrance, a 'gateway to the west' if you will.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Classen Park II
    By Pete in forum Development & Buildings
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-27-2012, 11:46 AM
  2. The Park-O-Tell
    By Doug Loudenback in forum Nostalgia & Memories
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-14-2010, 11:19 PM
  3. smoking in the park
    By blangtang in forum Norman
    Replies: 81
    Last Post: 08-22-2009, 04:15 PM
  4. SoundBites in the Park 07
    By ksearls in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-01-2007, 10:01 AM
  5. What's going on between Remington Park and I-44?
    By jbrown84 in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-18-2005, 05:05 PM

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