Wheeler District

[wschnitt]

Skanaly, welcome to OKC talk and it's great to have a young person interested. This project will honestly have no affect on needing a larger river though. Our river will never be in danger of becoming too crowded.

As a rower at the Olympic Training Center, I disagree with that. For boat traffic, it is far less than other places, but Philly for example has 3 miles worth of rowing, 50% wider at most points. Where here we only have 4k worth and most people only train on the 2k straight away from Lincoln to Eastern. The kayak program is only going to grow and that takes up a lot of water space. I am not complaining, just stating. Also with more boats comes more coaching boats, which add wake to the water.

[Just the facts]

True, but that doesn't stop the fact its two small..if they were to do a "waterfront" project, they would have to widen the river in that general place

For comparsion sake:

Oklahoma River: 425' wide
Thames in London: 830' wide
Seine in Paris: 400' wide
Chicago River: 250' wide

[Snowman]

Not to mention the river water is nasty and who would want to do swim/sail activities in it.

In core to shore plans they make statements that the water quality needs to be improved to get the desired level of development to happen. Though when improvement may be seen or what level of improvement is believed necessary are not mentioned.

[wschnitt]

Not only will the water quality actually need to improve, but the [I] perception[I] of the water quality will also have to improve greatly.

[ljbab728]

As a rower at the Olympic Training Center, I disagree with that. For boat traffic, it is far less than other places, but Philly for example has 3 miles worth of rowing, 50% wider at most points. Where here we only have 4k worth and most people only train on the 2k straight away from Lincoln to Eastern. The kayak program is only going to grow and that takes up a lot of water space. I am not complaining, just stating. Also with more boats comes more coaching boats, which add wake to the water.

I appreciate the imput of someone who regularly uses the river. I hope you right about the continued additional use. I still doubt that the river will ever have any serious overcrowding conditions though.

[G.Walker]

noticed that construction bid was updated for this development, hopefully we will see something started soon...

[gurantula35]

are there any recent renderings someone could point me to about this project? i have skimmed some but havent seen anything recent.

[Just the facts]

If the rendering at the front of this thread is the most current one then I am glad this project is delayed. Why on earth would you create a waterfront development and NOT put the housing next to the water? Are they doing this same Tom Foolery with their Eufaula project?

[Snowman]

Why on earth would you create a waterfront development and NOT put the housing next to the water?

There is about a 19 foot difference between the normal water level and the bank, after that the 100 flood plane is somewhere around 7 to 10 feet above the bank (granted they might as well ignore the pre-1960s flood plane but good luck getting underwriters to go along). It also may be necessary to give accommodation for requirements of amenities to plat the development. The park/garden space could make a decent transition to the river-walk and much less costly to fix if the banks are overrun.

The plan being entirely designed around massive surface parking lots seems like a bigger design flaw in what seems like it is trying to be urban.

[skanaly]

Although, isn't this just a concept? Even if houses and apartments are put up there, doesn't entirely mean that the water front will go down

[Spartan]

I liked the idea of planning a public park centered around the iconic ferris wheel to line the waterfront.

[Just the facts]

Sooner or later we have to break out of the suburban design concept that every development has to have a park. Core To Shore will have 2 very large parks that will meet the demands for open space. What good is high density urban development if it only exist as nothing more than little islands in a seas of open space? How often do you think people living in those towers will venture across the road, across the open space, and visit the waterfront? And what are they going to even do when they get to that waterfront, ride the same Ferris Wheel every day? Push the buildings right up to the river and around the marina and create a REAL waterfront with real people and real things to do - not made up entertainment options, but 'daily needs and necessity' type stuff.

[Spartan]

C2S will not provide us with a world-class waterfront. This potentially could. I agree though it would be nice to maybe move the high-rise row up 50 feet to bring it up to the water, while still leaving the pocket of open space against Western for the waterfront park.

But also keep in mind that we're bickering over a dead development. The real question isn't how urban this project is, but rather, is it even going to happen at all? I would be willing to bet that even if it is revived in the future (keep in mind Humphreys has already put down $7 million on land acquisition), major modifications will be made. It won't be revived until there is at least one major shift in market trends.

Additionally, I'd add that this is a pretty ill-conceived project. I always thought it was a bizarre location.

[Just the facts]

C2S will not provide us with a world-class waterfront.

Show me two world-class waterfront dominated by a parks. The only one that I can of that even comes close is Chicago, but they have hundreds and hundreds of building along their waterfront park.

[Spartan]

Oh my gawd...

[Just the facts]

Oh my gawd...

Are you stuck on the word "dominated"? Granted, is hard for a park to dominate.

[Spartan]

Are you questioning my command of the English language? Right...

This development is deader than the horse that you're beating.. dead development is dead.. for now

[ljbab728]

Kerry, never wastes an opportunity to be against something, Spartan.

[Spartan]

Well there's nothing wrong with being an advocate and standing up for what you believe in, I've just always been a big proponent of picking your battles.

Anything that one of the Humphreys builds in Downtown OKC is going to be heavily influenced by Blair, count on it. This is not a problem developer, the problem is just that they're not developing anything anymore. Grant lost his lunch money on Block 42 which was a disappointing project for him. Kirk is much more interested in Lake Eufala personally, although I think he realizes if he wants to beat his chest anymore in local politics, he'll need to put his money where his mouth is - "ex mayor" doesn't just lend itself to extended local influence like it used to.

Hopefully they get back in the downtown game here soon. Obviously they're planning to, I just don't think "soon." Maybe in 2-3 years we'll see an announcement, maybe it will even involve moving The Waterfront forward (however I doubt that, I think this needs more time to pass), but I really don't expect any applications for building permits from them in the near to medium-range future. It just happens to be that I'm not capable of speculating further than 5 years out on micro economics..

[ljbab728]

I'm guessing 5 to 10 years out before this project gets underway so any speculation about how it might be developed is just that, speculation. There is little reason to be concerned for now.

[Just the facts]

Well there's nothing wrong with being an advocate and standing up for what you believe in, I've just always been a big proponent of picking your battles.

Maybe we are just fighting different wars. You seem content with debating individual projects but I am looking at regional long term development trends. That is why you can justify trying to save Stage Center while I am consistently pro-high density and urban developmenta and see Stage Center as a waste of space (now havng said that, I hope this doesn't turn in to a Stage Center thread).

[Spartan]

We're talking about 2 miles SW of the downtown core, in an area with nothing nearby, certainly no synergy yet to feed off of along Western. I get your premise, but I think it's important to draw a geographic box that delineates projects that need to pass urban muster. If someone wants to emulate urban and do it outside that box, that's fine and dandy I suppose..

[Just the facts]

I thought the line of demarcation was I-240/I-44/I-35 loop. This is a large plot of land and I hate to see them use the entire site for something that could fit on 25% of it. Development shouldn't be like a gas expanding to fill the space available.

[heyerdahl]

Show me two world-class waterfront dominated by a parks. The only one that I can of that even comes close is Chicago, but they have hundreds and hundreds of building along their waterfront park.

Parks are one of many solid urban waterfront treatments.

As you noted, Chicago is an example with three of America's most important parks on its waterfront. Other good examples:

Austin's Lady Bird Lake (one of the most active downtown waterfronts in the US and probably the most comparable setting to Oklahoma River)
DC National Mall
Vancouver's Harbor Green Park
Miami's Bay Front Park
Sydney's Royal Botanic Gardens

And also any city with a beach

[Just the facts]

You know, never mind. We are debating something that probably isn't even definable (what is waterfront and dominant). My only points were these; 1) I would like to see the Oklahoma River urbanized by pushing structures upto the riverbank, and 2) not all private developments should have open space included.