A Journey: Part Two
What was intended to be Dallas' answer to Rockefeller Center is missing something - people.
When I was in college in the late 1980s, a fun weekend consisted of going to the West End in Dallas. Back then Dallas was a big city with a sleepy central business district, no clusters of urban housing to speak of, and just one real urban entertainment district.
West End seemed to be a utopia for urban fun – it had the Marketplace, a mall that had art galleries, restaurants, a game room and theaters, it had an outdoor concert stage, clubs and bars.
It was cool, and it was difficult to see how it could ever fade away. But as we all know, West End is just a shadow of its former self. Downtown Dallas, meanwhile, has exploded into an aspiring world class city with multiple districts and thousands of apartments and condomiminiums. Retail and restaurants can be found everywhere, and lightrail and streetcars link it all together.
But even with an Aquarium, ample shops and stores, even a grocery and a CVS, downtown Dallas is missing something.
None of it really links together. The streets aren’t walkable. Downtown Dallas has a lot of “districts,” but not one of them, not even West Village, is enough to rise up and say “this is Dallas!”
Empty storefronts, lifeless streets are the norm in Victory Park
I brought up some of these issues in my column Tuesday. One supporter of Core to Shore contacted me and argued that Core to Shore is necessary if downtown Oklahoma City is to lure in national developers. This individual, a developer himself, added that inflated land prices and splintered ownership of undeveloped downtown properties require creation of an area more friendly to national developers.
What I didn’t hear in all this is how such an area – Core to Shore – will make it any easier to develop these pockets that prevent downtown from becoming one compact community that attracts a critical mass of residents, retailers and office workers. If anything, this argument seems to support Jeff Speck’s warnings that Core to Shore could seriously slow or stop efforts to develop these empty pockets.
After talking to various folks in Dallas, a concensus emerges: Victory Park is the shining symbol of what’s gone wrong in Dallas. Powerful voices, backed with ample funding, dictated the future development of downtown Dallas. But while these individuals (most notably the Perot family) had money and power, they didn’t know much about urban development. The assumption that “all growth is good” is proven wrong by the rows of empty storefronts at the street level of Victory’s stunning new towers.
Score one for Jane Jacobs against the Perots.
The question then is can Oklahoma City learn from Dallas? And can we learn from our own past? As I’ve delved into these issues, I keep hearing that we can’t stop our momentum, that Core to Shore is critical to moving forward. Oklahoma City is moving toward a future that is based on assumptions that may or may not have been fully throught out to begin with. Are we following the same logic promoting Core to Shore that Dallas did with Victory? Sure, the mayor and others say Core to Shore is an inevitability. Likewise, our grandparents heard that destruction of Main Street to make way for a Galleria mall was an inevitability. We also hear that placement of a new convention center south of Ford Center, detached from Bricktown and existing hotels, is an inevitability. But is it?
Over the past couple of days I’ve been amazed to learn that such questions have been bouncing around behind closed doors for quite some time – but nobody has wanted to be the one to take a chance and be the first to challenge the mayor, challenge the chamber, challenge the planners.
I’m not so shy. More to come. Up next: What about the Santa Fe Depot? How can it help solidify Bricktown as “a place” worthy of Jane Jacob’s seal of approval. And if a convention center is needed, is south of Ford Center really the best site?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
additionally, Steve, while in Ft. Worth did you get by the Fort Worth convention center? This is exactly what they did there. Rebuilt and expanded convention services on their original downtown site.
Agree with you, Steve. Almost anything labeled “MAPS” will pass these days — the brand is that strong — but that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily wise.
Some sort of reliable central transit system — even just a circular trolley route among downtownish locations (say, OUHSC to St. Anthony’s/MidTown to downtown to Bricktown to the river) — seems wiser than what could become a distraction that could suck the life out of the fledgling core we have in place. Separately, an extension of the canal to downtown could help link things too.
Bottom line: we need a real, thriving “core” before a “core to shore.” Expanding development without a solid center is symptomatic of the worst of Oklahoma City’s historical development. Seems like more of the same to me.
Steve, It looks to me like the “MAPS III” should be used in conjunction with TIF Districts to set up the development area districts for private development. Many of the center city districts are becoming defined by Midtown, Bricktown, and The Arts and Film areas.
The improvements can include an electric trolly system, core to shore park, and other items that will allow private developers, local and national to seek out the locations they believe will be profitable to improve.
Other areas of the City can also use improvements and should be included like Taft Stadium, SW 29th Street in Capitol Hill and N Classen Blvd. The improvements along NW 16th Street and NW 23rd Streets have been great to provide those areas a boost.
As for the Oklahoma City convention center, remember Dallas built the Dallas Conventio Center along way of anything and now the City of Dallas is having to build a $500 Million Dollar Hotel, owned by the City of Dallas, adjacent to it to make the center more useable.
Also, leave the Cox Center alone, it will be useful for many more years and serves as a great arena and convention center. PS: I assume you saw the City of Dallas tearing down Reunion Arena on your visit to Dallas.
Steve, I know you do a lot of historical stories, have you ever thought about finding stories regarding the original MAPS and what other people thought of it? I was only 14 at the time it happened (and didn’t live in OKC) but only 54% of people voted for it. It would be hard to imagine what BT would be like without it now.
Gary, Jack Money and I acdtually authored a book that tells the entire story you’re asking about – “OKC Second Time Around.” So as to not be seen as just trying to get another book sale (the last couple hundred of the second printing can be found at Full Circle Bookstore and Oklahoma’s Red Dirt Emporium), you can also check this book out at most of the metro libraries. I promise you you’ll find it an interesting read.
There’s nothing wrong with having multiple districts, neighborhoods, villages in the downtown area. Think about New York…Tribeca, SoHo, Greenwich Village, Upper East Side, Little Italy, Chinatown, etc. What ties them together are walkability and a superb public transit system…two things that OKC is majorly lacking. But it’s not impossible to make it work successfully.
I think city leaders need to remind the public of why Core to Shore makes sense…if it does make sense. My vote is just to make the whole stinkin area south of I-40 into the new central park, then build housing/retail all around it like a square, gradually working outward towards the river and the already existing core.
What would be wrong if the city were to acquire enough land in the Core to Shore area to make the park 20 times the size of the intial plans?
Core to shore could be one enormous sized nature park, no other development needed or permitted. The city would own all of the land and then it could sell off pieces as needed and only after the city felt other key areas were complete.
I am saying that after I-40 moves something needs to be done with all of the area between the new I-40 and downtown, but it does not need to be developed right away. We are not ready for all of the planned development in the Core to Shore area, other than a park that needs to be at least 10 times the size that is being planned.
Core to Shore cannot and should not become Bricktown II. The city can’t support that, period. It should only involve development that complements downtown…mixed use residential and retail, with a well planned and reliable transit system to link it to downtown, bricktown, midtown, and OUHSC. If we’re dead set on a new convention center, I say knock over Bass Pro and put it there. I know it’s hard to imagine an urban entertainment district where you can’t readily obtain wolf urine, but we have to make some sacrifices.
I love how the city leaders bring in Jeff Speck to provide consultation on making downtown more walkable and then ignore all of his recommendations because they contradict what Cornett et al have in mind. Good use of city money.
By the way, I don’t think the city leaders (including corporate leaders like CHK and Denton) want a dense urban core. That sort of liveable urbanism is not the cultural value of the conservative capitalists running the show around here. Instead, a big park, a big skyscraper, a big convention center, a big whatever, with their names on it, is likely a better outcome for them than a dense walkable core, public transportation, etc. The focus isn’t on the masses, it’s on the edification of the leaders.
Good observations James, but I know for a fact that Devon CEO Larry Nichols is pro-density. He is advocating for the Devon Tower TIF dollars to go towards enhancements of downtown street life (streetscapes, public art, public entertainment, enhancement of Myriad Gardens). As far as wanting a “big park”, that is a must for any urban environment. But it has to be done right in order for people to actually use it.
What’s wrong with putting the new convention center where the cotton gin is now? When it is completed, tear down the cox center if that’s what needs to happen. At least the new convention center would still be walkable from Bricktown & the hotels. That would be true Core to Shore. The more I read, it sounds like Shore to Core.
[...] few weeks back I traveled to Dallas and had this to say: Downtown Dallas is missing something. None of it really links together. The streets aren’t [...]
There is no other smart place for a convention center except exactly where it is right now. Tear down cox and rebuild it correctly, perhaps taking Robinson st. between Sheridan and Reno and building over the top of Gaylord to connect it to the rail station. Then you build a convention center Hotel on the site of Fred Jones Ford and take the blocks going west, including Harvey street between the interstate and Reno. To me that makes the most sense and keeps Bricktown and the current hotels connected to a new convention center.