New Downtown Boulevard

[ljbab728]

I just returned from a trip to LA to see my brother. While there are many things about LA we don't want to emulate, the Santa Monica Boulevard reconstruction is something we should definitetly look at for the new boulevard replacing I40. As shown in the following link, after reconstruction it has 2 traffic lanes in each direction along with a bicycle lane and parking. There is a fairly small lanscaped median and in addition to very wide sidewalks there are marked pedestrian walkways in areas besides at intersections.

Google Maps

He lives two blocks from Santa Monica Boulevard and the type of residential development in this area would be perfect around the new park. Within 2 to 5 blocks walk from his condo are a regulary grocery store, a Whole Foods, and a multitude of local (non-chain) restaurants and shops. The architecture is SoCal but the idea is the same.

[ljbab728]

Here are a couple of the other types of establisments attracted to this area.

[MrZ]

I love that area. On weekend nights there are always interesting people to see around there. Lots of nice outside seating for restaurants also. Something like that would rock in the OKC of the future.

[mugofbeer]

The question becomes, how do you "create" that kind of atmosphere? Most of where you see that type of thing it grew spontaneously and over time.

[ljbab728]

The question becomes, how do you "create" that kind of atmosphere? Most of where you see that type of thing it grew spontaneously and over time.

That's very true and in large part it's because of the bohemian population originally living in that area. It's become a very high dollar location now. You have to start somewhere though and having a very workable and walkable boulevard would kick it off.

[SkyWestOKC]

I think a promenade similar to Santa Monica's 3rd street would be awesome! Encourage lots of restaurants, shops, and such. Allow street performers and close the street off. Would be really cool.

[Larry OKC]

That shot reminded me of Disney's Mainstreet (complete with Streetcars running down the middle)

[ljbab728]

I think a promenade similar to Santa Monica's 3rd street would be awesome! Encourage lots of restaurants, shops, and such. Allow street performers and close the street off. Would be really cool.

That is a great area as well. I have been there and enjoyed it very much. I don't think, however, the planners would ever agree to a pedestrian only area when they are wanting a grand entrance into downtown from the new I40.

[Larry OKC]

The particular grand entrance into downtown from the new I-40 is somewhat of a mystery as most won't come in that way (they will be coming off the exits that will be bordering the east/west edges of the park). Instead of this perpendicular Boulevard, turn one or both of the main exits of the new I-40 (north bound into downtown) into this format. Should be the quickest route into downtown rather than the Boulevard, that from all reports is designed to impede vehicular traffic.

Every article I have read that mentioned the route of the Boulevard mentions it is going to follow the same path as the current crosstown. Problem with that is, has anyone bothered to look at a map and see what the current path is? it is NOT a straight line. it jogs north and south. We are going to be putting an at grade street literally within feet of current streets and at some odd angles.

Which brings up the question, is there a NEED for another street downtown? The Mayor has said the Boulevard is critical (or something to that effect) but has never explained WHY? If anyone has a link, please provide.

Instead, I would propose a reverse eminent domain and return the land occupied by the current crosstown back to private ownership and development (getting it back on the tax rolls). This would bring revenue into City coffers instead of more money going out (the Boulevard is still unfunded at this point).

[OKCisOK4me]

Larry OKC, I'm in complete agreement with you. Here's a post I made on thunderfans forum:

"Considering that the new facade of the Ford Center is suppose to be on the SW side of it, I can not wait til the new I-40 is open to traffic and they can destroy the current rustolium concrete structure that bumps up right against our Thunder's home!

Honestly, I don't think the new boulevard should be built. We have Sheridan and Reno so there's no need for another bisecting cross street. I think the Boulevard money should be focused on revamping Robinson Avenue from the new I-40 into downtown OKC. Other reasons this street needs to be a main focus is that you're going to have the new Central Park on the west side and possibly a new convention center or some kind of retail fronting on the east side. That trip up from I-40 on the west edge of the Ford Center needs to be as aesthetically pleasing as possible!"

[CCOKC]

That is an interesting concept which may need to be really considered. Reno is probably wide enough and definitely goes all the way through town and may have possibilities as a boulevard. Notice all of the conditional tenses there.

[ljbab728]

[QUOTE=Larry OKC;303244]of the park).
Every article I have read that mentioned the route of the Boulevard mentions it is going to follow the same path as the current crosstown. Problem with that is, has anyone bothered to look at a map and see what the current path is? it is NOT a straight line. it jogs north and south. QUOTE]

I don't see the fact that it isn't straight as a major issue. Most streets are more interesting if they aren't. Proximity to other streets should be something easy to work out with proper planning. Keep in mind that the boulevard itself is unlikely to be as wide as the highway in most places giving some room for realignment.

[Larry OKC]

Maybe they are going to fix things but again, every article where it is mentioned doesn't indicate they are going to do so. Proper planning is a key element, and OKC's record is iffy at best on so many levels. I think the general consensus in these threads is that it doesn't need to be as wide as the crosstown (but think there was talk about it being 6 lanes, plus median, plus sidewalks and street parking, "buffer areas"...some even suggested the Canal thrown into the mix...add that all up and things can get fairly wide). As pointed out before all of that (especially the higher the lane count) impedes the pedestrian/walkability. Serves just as much of a deterrent as the current crosstown does.

[gen70]

Just make a "Plaza" area where there is no vechicle traffic allowed, and the area will become a "gathering" spot for the people. I can see the future in my mind. In the early 70's Aspen Colorado had a good concept. (no motor vechile traffic in plaza area)

[rcjunkie]

Larry OKC, I'm in complete agreement with you. Here's a post I made on thunderfans forum:

"Considering that the new facade of the Ford Center is suppose to be on the SW side of it, I can not wait til the new I-40 is open to traffic and they can destroy the current rustolium concrete structure that bumps up right against our Thunder's home!

Honestly, I don't think the new boulevard should be built. We have Sheridan and Reno so there's no need for another bisecting cross street. I think the Boulevard money should be focused on revamping Robinson Avenue from the new I-40 into downtown OKC. Other reasons this street needs to be a main focus is that you're going to have the new Central Park on the west side and possibly a new convention center or some kind of retail fronting on the east side. That trip up from I-40 on the west edge of the Ford Center needs to be as aesthetically pleasing as possible!"

Was told that once the new boulevard is completed, most of Reno Ave. will eventually be closed/removed.

[betts]

Closed? To make a pedestrian mall? I'm not really sure, with all the businesses on Reno, how that will be accomplished. Hotels would have to completely change their access/parking. It's not that I don't love the idea of a pedestrian mall, but it seems like a big job to remove Reno, with a lot of obstacles. And that would put a lot of parking nearer the boulevard, which, if it's just a big street for cars, wouldn't bother me, but it seems like a lot of poor planning to put that much emphasis on a street that is designed for cars and adjacent parking.

[kevinpate]

Was told that once the new boulevard is completed, most of Reno Ave. will eventually be closed/removed.

If accurate, it sounds like a poorly thought through, terrible idea.
Sadly, that happens to also be what makes it so believable.

Closing Reno between the arena and Cox permanently would be
an ok idea, and it's closed frequently already in that block.

Closing Reno between Lincoln and EKG to traffic would make no
sense at all.

I've not been on other stretches recently, so can't really comment.

[rcjunkie]

Closed? To make a pedestrian mall? I'm not really sure, with all the businesses on Reno, how that will be accomplished. Hotels would have to completely change their access/parking. It's not that I don't love the idea of a pedestrian mall, but it seems like a big job to remove Reno, with a lot of obstacles. And that would put a lot of parking nearer the boulevard, which, if it's just a big street for cars, wouldn't bother me, but it seems like a lot of poor planning to put that much emphasis on a street that is designed for cars and adjacent parking.

The only section of Reno that would be closed is adjacent to the new boulevard, the only section of Reno that has hotels is in Bricktown which would not be closed.

[Larry OKC]

Maybe they are going to fix things but again, every article where it is mentioned doesn't indicate they are going to do so. Proper planning is a key element, and OKC's record is iffy at best on so many levels. I think the general consensus in these threads is that it doesn't need to be as wide as the crosstown (but think there was talk about it being 6 lanes, plus median, plus sidewalks and street parking, "buffer areas"...some even suggested the Canal thrown into the mix...add that all up and things can get fairly wide). As pointed out before all of that (especially the higher the lane count) impedes the pedestrian/walkability. Serves just as much of a deterrent as the current crosstown does.

From the Core to Shore report, the proposed Boulevard will be 272 feet wide (the diagram on page 46/47 gives a good idea about just how wide it could be)
25ft sidewalk
28ft parking
35ft tree lined median
36ft (3 lanes) traffic
24ft median/turn lane
36ft (3 lanes) traffic
35ft tree lined median
28ft parking
25ft sidewalk

Basic Street Channel Between Walker and Oklahoma Avenues, the new boulevard provides three lanes in each direction. The lane closest to the sidewalk will be used for parking or public transit, unless traffic volumes require its use as a travel lane. The speed limit will be 25 miles per hour, reinforcing the boulevard as an urban environment where pedestrians are primary and speed is secondary.

Parking Slips The north side of the boulevard as well as the blocks on the south that do not front Central Park will have parking slips with parallel parking on both sides. These slips are separated from travel lanes by 35-foot side medians, landscaped with two rows of trees. They will provide convenient parking while separating the primary sidewalk from moving traffic.

Sidewalks The sidewalks between Walker and Oklahoma Avenues will be 25 feet wide to accommodate outdoor cafés and provide a generous pedestrian space. A single line of trees will run along the curb edge next to the parking slip. A simple scoring pattern on the sidewalk will be punctuated by an accent of local red granite to decorate the edge.

[ljbab728]

Maybe they are going to fix things but again, every article where it is mentioned doesn't indicate they are going to do so. Proper planning is a key element, and OKC's record is iffy at best on so many levels. I think the general consensus in these threads is that it doesn't need to be as wide as the crosstown (but think there was talk about it being 6 lanes, plus median, plus sidewalks and street parking, "buffer areas"...some even suggested the Canal thrown into the mix...add that all up and things can get fairly wide). As pointed out before all of that (especially the higher the lane count) impedes the pedestrian/walkability. Serves just as much of a deterrent as the current crosstown does.

That was the intent of my post originating this thread. I wanted to give a good suggestion on the way the boulevard could be constructed to make it work for cars, bicycles, and pedestrians.

[kevinpate]

Where exactly will the blvd. become ground level on the east side?
I suppose I've either missed or forgotten the blvd. drawings, but I'm hitting a blank wall in my mind (no surprise to some I'm sure.)

Seems an ugly mess would exist for a 6 lane (or wider) surface level in the stretch which is the parking immediately south of Bass Pro and then there's the canal to deal with.

Sorry so dense, but the mind is like a freshly wiped blackboard right now.

[SkyWestOKC]

Where exactly will the blvd. become ground level on the east side?
I suppose I've either missed or forgotten the blvd. drawings, but I'm hitting a blank wall in my mind (no surprise to some I'm sure.)

Seems an ugly mess would exist for a 6 lane (or wider) surface level in the stretch which is the parking immediately south of Bass Pro and then there's the canal to deal with.

Sorry so dense, but the mind is like a freshly wiped blackboard right now.

I am also having a tough time visualizing this. Can someone post a map, teaser image, or something?

[Kerry]

You know, the more I think about a road that is 272 feet wide the less I like it. That likes 28 feet being the width of a football field and runs for several miles. That is going to make a huge barrier to pedestrians even if it does have 3 medians to cross. I am also not sure if another 6 lane road (like EKG) thru central OKC is a good idea.

[Architect2010]

Well I dunno. It seems that the actual road portion only represents 72 feet out of the total 272 feet. I don't think that it will be such a barrier in terms of vehicular traffic. It seems the pedestrian environment [25 foot sidewalks on either side, large medians, 144 feet total] represents a much larger footprint of the boulevard. Also coupled with the 25 mph speed limit. This is not a boulevard that should be compared with EKG or even Reno, it is very pedestrian orientated in blueprint. But I think it is a bit over done. Cut the lanes to two each way, and minimize the medians a tad and you'd have a good boulevard.

[Kerry]

Well I dunno. It seems that the actual road portion only represents 72 feet out of the total 272 feet. I don't think that it will be such a barrier in terms of vehicular traffic. It seems the pedestrian environment [25 foot sidewalks on either side, large medians, 144 feet total] represents a much larger footprint of the boulevard. Also coupled with the 25 mph speed limit. This is not a boulevard that should be compared with EKG or even Reno, it is very pedestrian orientated in blueprint. But I think it is a bit over done. Cut the lanes to two each way, and minimize the medians a tad and you'd have a good boulevard.

I agree with moving from 3 lanes to 2. I don't see 3 lanes @ 25mph working. It will be a racetrack.

This is Reforma in Mexico City. Looks great with the trees and buildings.


This is what the trees are hiding. The sidwalks are pedestrian friendly, crossing the road isn't.