Boardwalk at Bricktown / Dream Hotel

[Urbanized]

It seems extending the canal south from the photo I showed would be another viable option. The City owns the only property between the canal and the Boardwalk site.

It would certainly be another option; and in fact was previously proposed. Actually they were BOTH proposed, and shown connection to one another on what has now become the site of Boardwalk.

Incidentally Johnson and Associates, who originally designed the canal and who also drew many other potential extensions/connections, has been doing the initial planning and engineering studies for Boardwalk.

Here were the City’s initial plans for what such extensions might look like:



The problem being that - as pointed out above - the construction of the streetcar made that north-south connection infinitely more complicated and expensive.

[jn1780]

Did they design the boardwalk site plan with a potential canal extension in mind?

[Urbanized]

I believe the original lagoon is still in the site plan. A canal connection to the lagoon would be simple, inexpensive within the scope of the whole project, and would clearly qualify as public infrastructure improvement if TIF dollars were used to fund it.

I’ve spoken with a number of folks directly connected to this project over the past few years and they were very intrigued at the thought of a canal link to the project, but I have no idea if that idea has been carried to the developer. His quote about “the river” makes me hopeful that it’s still in discussion (makes more sense than the Oklahoma River due to proximity and the fact that folks often mistakenly refer to the canal as a river), but I don’t have any insight at this point.

[Grant]

I've long thought that the potential of our canal has been held back by the lack of a loop connection through this area. Somebody mentioned in a thread on the pedestrian bridges the idea that a trail system that's 98% complete goes unused without the final 2% tying it all together. That's what we need here: the final connection that makes the canal more than a long, one-way drag.

[David]

It would certainly be another option; and in fact was previously proposed. Actually they were BOTH proposed, and shown connection to one another on what has now become the site of Boardwalk.

Incidentally Johnson and Associates, who originally designed the canal and who also drew many other potential extensions/connections, has been doing the initial planning and engineering studies for Boardwalk.

Here were the City’s initial plans for what such extensions might look like:



The problem being that - as pointed out above - the construction of the streetcar made that north-south connection infinitely more complicated and expensive.

Fascinating, that does make the possibilities a lot more clear.

[Urbanized]

Fascinating, that does make the possibilities a lot more clear.

To be clear that is a City document, and dates back to the very early 2000s. Here is an expanded and refined vision of these ideas, drawn by Johnson and Associates in 2009 as part of an effort to have potential canal routes protected and preserved as MAPS 3, Project 180 and its related Myriad Gardens improvements and the boulevard all came online:



Note that this was created and made public prior to any of those things being done; in fact this was drawn before MAPS 3 projects were voted on or even formally announced. The fact that projects like the convention center and hotel ended up in precisely the pictured locations is due to the fact that those buildings in those locations were already envisioned in Core 2 Shore.

Unfortunately the messaging for this was poor. The drawing was made public by a third party without context, and left up to the public’s interpretation. The group knew it was an uphill battle, as MAPS 3 projects were largely already chosen, though not yet announced.

Pretty much everyone including those planning MAPS 3 took it as a Johnny-come-lately proposal from Bricktown to get more stuff from the City and to have everything in this drawing built as a part of MAPS 3 (though the cost if built would have essentially been a rounding error for MAPS). In that way it had some similarities to the popular, but ultimately rejected, effort to add an aquarium to MAPS 4.

The reality was that proposers were trying only to ask that when the other projects mentioned above were built that they would preserve the POTENTIAL for various canal extensions as shown, perhaps to be funded in the future.

Unfortunately the group’s messaging was poor, eventual MAPS 3 projects had powerful allies while this did not, and the idea was dismissed out of hand with little if any consideration.

The reality is the thing that would make the canal more successful is for it to be a connector. It should be a place to go THROUGH rather than only simply being a place to go TO. Connecting it to other nodes of activity would help both the canal AND the connected node.

[David]

To be clear that is a City document, and dates back to the very early 2000s. Here is an expanded and refined vision of these ideas, drawn by Johnson and Associates in 2009 as part of an effort to have potential canal routes protected and preserved as MAPS 3, Project 180 and its related Myriad Gardens improvements and the boulevard all came online:



Note that this was created and made public prior to any of those things being done; in fact this was drawn before MAPS 3 projects were voted on or even formally announced. The fact that projects like the convention center and hotel ended up in precisely the pictured locations is due to the fact that those buildings in those locations were already envisioned in Core 2 Shore.

Unfortunately the messaging for this was poor. The drawing was made public by a third party without context, and left up to the public’s interpretation. The group knew it was an uphill battle, as MAPS 3 projects were largely already chosen, though not yet announced.

Pretty much everyone including those planning MAPS 3 took it as a Johnny-come-lately proposal from Bricktown to get more stuff from the City and to have everything in this drawing built as a part of MAPS 3 (though the cost if built would have essentially been a rounding error for MAPS). In that way it had some similarities to the popular, but ultimately rejected, effort to add an aquarium to MAPS 4.

The reality was that proposers were trying only to ask that when the other projects mentioned above were built that they would preserve the POTENTIAL for various canal extensions as shown, perhaps to be funded in the future.

Unfortunately the group’s messaging was poor, eventual MAPS 3 projects had powerful allies while this did not, and the idea was dismissed out of hand with little if any consideration.

The reality is the thing that would make the canal more successful is for it to be a connector. It should be a place to go THROUGH rather than only simply being a place to go TO. Connecting it to other nodes of activity would help both the canal AND the connected node.

That loop south of the Boulevard still seems possible at least, depending on what happens with this development.

[jccouger]

https://x.com/mualphaxi/status/1808130122945286645

Even Elon Musk gave his opinion on it (in support)

[Jersey Boss]

https://x.com/mualphaxi/status/1808130122945286645

Even Elon Musk gave his opinion on it (in support)

Elon Musk? Lol.

[dankrutka]

https://x.com/mualphaxi/status/1808130122945286645

Even Elon Musk gave his opinion on it (in support)

I didn't see an Elon tweet, but I guess that's because I blocked him after he directed Twitter's coders to amplify his tweets. Championing a tower that won't happen is pretty in line with Elon's promise of products he'll create that never seem to happen either. lol.

[Anonymous.]

The link is confusing because it doesn't show Elon's comment. But he replied to that tweet saying "I like the Oklahoma City plan. Strive for great heights!"

[Jake]

It's nice to see OKC got Elon's attention without having to paint his face on Devon Tower.

[Grant]

Obviously, the chances of this tower being built as proposed are extremely small. But the more I think about it the more convinced I become that it would be an actual game-changer for OKC. I constantly see people online bring it up (even using six-month-old CNN articles like that one). And the responses are overwhelmingly positive ("wish my city could build one," "so cool," etc.). This building could boost both tourism and population growth by functioning as a sort of signal and a vibe shift that legitimizes us in the eyes of people around the country as a place to put on the "move to" or "go check it out" list. To that point, I wonder if it's possible for Matteson to dump the smaller buildings and focus the funding he's got on the supertall.

[jn1780]

I don't think it makes sense on paper, but they are trying really hard to will it into existence.

[bamarsha]

Between the 4 buildings, they could house the entire population of the state! (Ok, not really, but close.)

[dankrutka]

I don’t think there’s any chance the tower happens, but I agree that its uniqueness could actually be really beneficial. I certainly could see the top floor view becoming a real tourist attraction. Unfortunately, I still can’t imagine a context where it’s economically feasible.

[TheTravellers]

... To that point, I wonder if it's possible for Matteson to dump the smaller buildings and focus the funding he's got on the supertall.

That would literally be the worst thing to happen to this project. There is no proof he has *any* funding lined up for that pie-in-the-sky tower, and I'd bet (along with most rational people that have been following this) that it will never, ever happen. Then we'd have nothing at all.

[Laramie]

A 1,907 ft., high skyscraper would far exceed anything in Austin (1,022 ft., UC), Houston (1,002 ft.,) , Dallas (921 ft.,) San Antonio (750 ft.,) Denver (714 ft.,) Tulsa (667 ft., ) Kansas City (624 ft., and St. Louis (593 ft.,--630 ft., Arch). Great Dream for our city.

Like many of you, the 350 foot towers in the Bricktown Boardwalk ($200 million TIF) will impact the skyline add to filling in the DT area.