Comments on: Mr. Bates Goes to Iowa http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2008/09/14/mr-bates-goes-to-iowa/ The Oklahoman\'s Steve Lackmeyer breaks down Oklahoma City brick by brick Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:15:29 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Jess M. http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2008/09/14/mr-bates-goes-to-iowa/comment-page-1/#comment-875 Jess M. Wed, 17 Sep 2008 21:10:37 +0000 http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2008/09/14/mr-bates-goes-to-iowa/#comment-875 There are plenty of undeveloped areas that could be potential sites. Especially once I40 gets knocked out of the way, that should open up a lot of opportunities. I think most people like the convenience of the Ford Center and Convention Center. So I'd hate to take that way too much. I think they should still be relatively close. Conventions will look at hotel space and restaurants, so it would make sense to build in the general area of those. I think there's a lot of under used land around that area that a shinny new arena would look great and take away the less attractive things. I also agree with the others, this should be a unique and pleasing to the eye building. Not a square big box. With all the new great buildings that are going to be unique to this city, I'd hate to stray from that. There are plenty of undeveloped areas that could be potential sites. Especially once I40 gets knocked out of the way, that should open up a lot of opportunities. I think most people like the convenience of the Ford Center and Convention Center. So I’d hate to take that way too much. I think they should still be relatively close. Conventions will look at hotel space and restaurants, so it would make sense to build in the general area of those. I think there’s a lot of under used land around that area that a shinny new arena would look great and take away the less attractive things. I also agree with the others, this should be a unique and pleasing to the eye building. Not a square big box. With all the new great buildings that are going to be unique to this city, I’d hate to stray from that.

]]> By: Nick Roberts http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2008/09/14/mr-bates-goes-to-iowa/comment-page-1/#comment-876 Nick Roberts Tue, 16 Sep 2008 21:55:51 +0000 http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2008/09/14/mr-bates-goes-to-iowa/#comment-876 I don't understand why a convention center can't be a thing of beauty. The Cox Center was designed by I.M. Pei and was not meant to be a thing of beauty, just look at the rest of his works with the exception of Crystal Bridge. Convention centers do work as development triggers and they can also serve a purpose as vital pieces of the urban fabric. Go check out DC or Seattle, where they have brand new convention centers..ones that are extremely attractive on all sides. The problem is that in the past we had the big box mentality with these buildings, in that they should be a box, and you should dress up the side that faces front, and not worry about the other sides since it won't be in snapshots. Today we realize that anything facing an expansive blank wall is going to be unattractive to pedestrians. We build city's today for practicality on all sides. The modern downtown must be a place where you can live/work/play/shop and you can't lose a huge amount of space to no function. In order for all of downtown to be healthy all of it must serve a purpose. I would not worry about some things that cities like Des Moines or others have done. OKC is its own city, and we clearly have put every emphasis on doing every single thing top-notch. No detail will be forgotten, right down to the type of trees that they choose to line the new downtown boulevard with. We're going to take some things from cities like Des Moines, or more likely, Indianapolis, Charlotte, and Denver. We're going to look beyond just the US' standards for attractive places and we're going to have a downtown that will withstand the cycle of trends in the US. I mean, yes believe it or not, they have convention centers in European cities, too..and they do a much better job with designing them, too. There they actually pour their civic pride into major community projects of this sort. As for better alternatives, not really. The only two places I can think of, because I'd hate to tear down a street that already has matured and built character, are the parking behind Bricktown, everything along Reno in Bricktown (hell just build over LB lol), and the existing convention center site. None of these are very attractive options though. The existing site that's been talked about would actually involve tearing down the existing convention center, AND the Century Center and Main Street parking garage and building a very long convention center. I still don't think that this would be a very large site, and what--are we supposed to do without conventions and parking for 4 years or so, during demolition and construction? That's insane. The Bricktown sites would work. I don't think the parking lot behind Bricktown is big enough, but a site along East Reno would be. I just think that the same argument goes for that. We very nearly got all of that land developed by Bob Funk. No reason why we shouldn't let Bricktown just fill in, it has enough major event buildings already. Maybe we should consider C2S "downtown south" for the purpose of filling it in with landmarks, event centers, style, and development. I don’t understand why a convention center can’t be a thing of beauty. The Cox Center was designed by I.M. Pei and was not meant to be a thing of beauty, just look at the rest of his works with the exception of Crystal Bridge. Convention centers do work as development triggers and they can also serve a purpose as vital pieces of the urban fabric. Go check out DC or Seattle, where they have brand new convention centers..ones that are extremely attractive on all sides. The problem is that in the past we had the big box mentality with these buildings, in that they should be a box, and you should dress up the side that faces front, and not worry about the other sides since it won’t be in snapshots.

Today we realize that anything facing an expansive blank wall is going to be unattractive to pedestrians. We build city’s today for practicality on all sides. The modern downtown must be a place where you can live/work/play/shop and you can’t lose a huge amount of space to no function. In order for all of downtown to be healthy all of it must serve a purpose. I would not worry about some things that cities like Des Moines or others have done. OKC is its own city, and we clearly have put every emphasis on doing every single thing top-notch. No detail will be forgotten, right down to the type of trees that they choose to line the new downtown boulevard with. We’re going to take some things from cities like Des Moines, or more likely, Indianapolis, Charlotte, and Denver. We’re going to look beyond just the US’ standards for attractive places and we’re going to have a downtown that will withstand the cycle of trends in the US. I mean, yes believe it or not, they have convention centers in European cities, too..and they do a much better job with designing them, too. There they actually pour their civic pride into major community projects of this sort.

As for better alternatives, not really. The only two places I can think of, because I’d hate to tear down a street that already has matured and built character, are the parking behind Bricktown, everything along Reno in Bricktown (hell just build over LB lol), and the existing convention center site. None of these are very attractive options though. The existing site that’s been talked about would actually involve tearing down the existing convention center, AND the Century Center and Main Street parking garage and building a very long convention center. I still don’t think that this would be a very large site, and what–are we supposed to do without conventions and parking for 4 years or so, during demolition and construction? That’s insane. The Bricktown sites would work. I don’t think the parking lot behind Bricktown is big enough, but a site along East Reno would be. I just think that the same argument goes for that. We very nearly got all of that land developed by Bob Funk. No reason why we shouldn’t let Bricktown just fill in, it has enough major event buildings already. Maybe we should consider C2S “downtown south” for the purpose of filling it in with landmarks, event centers, style, and development.

]]> By: Blair http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2008/09/14/mr-bates-goes-to-iowa/comment-page-1/#comment-874 Blair Mon, 15 Sep 2008 04:41:31 +0000 http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2008/09/14/mr-bates-goes-to-iowa/#comment-874 The position of the convention center along the park could potentially destroy the viability of the park from the start. This is something we discussed as part of the Core to Shore planning process and current plans indicate that the facade will be softened by a strip of non-convention buildings facing the park. Still, it is imperative that we pay attention to the details if we are going to have these two elements adjacent to each other. If you want an example of what can happen when this arrangement is carried out with poor urban design, then head to the east side of the Myriad Gardens and enjoy a the view of corduroy concrete ugly enough to suck the life out of any area! Speaking of the concrete bunker we call the Cox Convention Center - I know I have heard at least one prominent city leader mention the possibility of tearing it down and rebuilding a new larger (multi-story) convention center on the same site. But I am pretty sure this idea was already shot down...is that right Steve? Anyway, I say we spare the extant buildings between Robinson and Shields (along the east side of the new park) and use the convention center development as the impetus for removing the old mill facility - providing the perfect convention center site sandwiched between the tracks, the new I-40, and sitting on the new boulevard directly across from Bricktown! Final note: the area south of Reno between Walker and Robinson is large enough for a convention center (especially given that it could be directly connected to the Ford Center and the Cox Convention Center). However, I am fairly certain that this would never happen, because it be completely idiotic! The position of the convention center along the park could potentially destroy the viability of the park from the start. This is something we discussed as part of the Core to Shore planning process and current plans indicate that the facade will be softened by a strip of non-convention buildings facing the park. Still, it is imperative that we pay attention to the details if we are going to have these two elements adjacent to each other. If you want an example of what can happen when this arrangement is carried out with poor urban design, then head to the east side of the Myriad Gardens and enjoy a the view of corduroy concrete ugly enough to suck the life out of any area!

Speaking of the concrete bunker we call the Cox Convention Center – I know I have heard at least one prominent city leader mention the possibility of tearing it down and rebuilding a new larger (multi-story) convention center on the same site. But I am pretty sure this idea was already shot down…is that right Steve?

Anyway, I say we spare the extant buildings between Robinson and Shields (along the east side of the new park) and use the convention center development as the impetus for removing the old mill facility – providing the perfect convention center site sandwiched between the tracks, the new I-40, and sitting on the new boulevard directly across from Bricktown!

Final note: the area south of Reno between Walker and Robinson is large enough for a convention center (especially given that it could be directly connected to the Ford Center and the Cox Convention Center). However, I am fairly certain that this would never happen, because it be completely idiotic!

]]> By: Shane http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2008/09/14/mr-bates-goes-to-iowa/comment-page-1/#comment-873 Shane Sun, 14 Sep 2008 22:47:24 +0000 http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2008/09/14/mr-bates-goes-to-iowa/#comment-873 But, Bricktown not much before MAPS and who knows where it would have ended up without the canal and ballpark, acting as its anchors. Core to Shore feels much different than just " a convention center to draw development." There is also the park and the river and the boulevard and I-40 to act as anchors for Core to Shore. This is not just plopping a convention center and hoping it works. It's plopping several things with a comprehensive plan in place to guide private sector development among them all. I'm not sure what other potential location you might be referring to that's sort of in the middle of the action... Spent some time looking at Google Maps and it seems like most of the big open lots in or adjacent to the 235/40/Walker/10th square are already being developed- most notably the Triangle, the Hill, Galleria site, Legacy Apts, and the Chamber's location. But, Bricktown not much before MAPS and who knows where it would have ended up without the canal and ballpark, acting as its anchors. Core to Shore feels much different than just ” a convention center to draw development.” There is also the park and the river and the boulevard and I-40 to act as anchors for Core to Shore. This is not just plopping a convention center and hoping it works. It’s plopping several things with a comprehensive plan in place to guide private sector development among them all.

I’m not sure what other potential location you might be referring to that’s sort of in the middle of the action… Spent some time looking at Google Maps and it seems like most of the big open lots in or adjacent to the 235/40/Walker/10th square are already being developed- most notably the Triangle, the Hill, Galleria site, Legacy Apts, and the Chamber’s location.

]]>