Don King Would Have Drawn Blood
I guess I don’t have the heart for this fight promotion business. Casey and Blair are still friends, and there is still peace between the Humphreys and Cornett clans.
But give Casey credit for responding to my last post. He has shown either the bravery or recklessness lacked by our local television weathermen and Tom Elmore when it comes to answering my questions:
I think Blair and I are on the same side when it comes to seeing OKC become more walkable and pedestrian friendly. I hope to join in Blair’s efforts to keep OKC’s decision makers on track (as they have been stepping up mightily with bringing Speck and pushing for the Core to Shore plan).
The one thing I hoped to accomplish with my last blog posting was to ensure hope into all those protesting the block at 4th and Gaylord that there is another project worth your time and efforts. I’m just hoping that enthusiasm for OKC’s future isn’t hanging on the fate of that block that has already been approved for change. I need all those wishing to keep OKC going in the right direction to not get discouraged yet to shift focus to what could/should be a project for OKC’s next generation(s).
Here’s my response: more questions!
Keeping NW 4 and Broadway as a park was an idea wedged into this debate late into the discussion by Anthony McDermid. Let’s leave that alone for a minute and contemplate instead whether or not there was any real public discussion, review or chance to challenge the decision by city traffic engineers to reject a proposal by the chamber to redesign the intersection.
Casey, Blair, others – what say you?
Thank you for joining our conversation on OKC Central. We encourage your discussion but ask that you stay within the bounds of our commenting and posting policy.
Comments
And per your question on the Chamber process, I think I have expressed my viewpoint on the matter. If people did not see the post you linked yesterday, here is the link. The long and the short of it is:
1. The Chamber site, as designed, hinders our ability to create an urban, walkable downtown for decades to come.
2. The process that allowed the design through was deficient and lacked an appropriate level of public engagement
3. The Chamber is NOT TO BLAME. The Chamber actually tried to do a better site plan, but was blocked by a Public Works department that was was not acting in good faith AND was not honest as to the traffic implications of the proposal.
I think the current delay gives everyone an opportunity to work with the Chamber in re-visioning the project to create something that works better for the Chamber, better for downtown residents, and better for everyone that cares about having a great city!
Hey Steve, since the design for the chamber was already approved, is there really a chance for a reinvisioning of the project at this point realistically?
I have accepted the fact that the Chamber will build on that location. However the design of the building and especially the site layout should be unacceptable.
The entire process of which it seemed this building was pushed through, is what makes me question the future developments and projects, i.e. Core to Shore.
Put me in the “discouraged” citizen category.
From what I hear the chamber design itself is set. But I’m not so sure that the street grid is beyond questioning.
Yeah, it’s a little shady how there were only a few design committee members who actually voted on the Chamber building. The general lack of transparency is troubling. If the city hopes to create public spaces that citizens will actually frequent, they need to change their decision-making processes to include public discussion and input.
My next fear is that the thousands/millions of dollars being spent on consultants (like Jeff Speck) will be a total waste because of no follow-through…despite widespread public enthusiasm for Mr. Speck’s (and other’s) recommendations.
Yeh, Casey is right, we are both on the same page for the most part. We stayed in touch on the issue both before “Don King” entered the picture and throughout the bout yesterday
We both want to see a thriving, urban, and walkable downtown.
While we disagree on the Chamber site, and with all due respect to Mr. Elmore, I don’t think Casey (or myself hopefully) have ventured into a category of recklessness that makes our opinions irrelevant to the broader discussion. Props to Casey for having an opinion he is willing to back-up.