Comments on: A Journey: Part Three

By: Colin

Colin — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 08:18:15 +0000

Also I think it’s important to note that any development has to be in line with the city we live in- 1500 half million dollar condos sitting empty on the river will do us no good, but sell those same condos for 150-250 and you can have a real honest to god middle income urban neighborhood. Developers need to come to terms with the economic realities of this region and not try to get San Diego prices on downtown real estate. This is why local ownership is a good thing.

By: Colin

Colin — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 08:13:49 +0000

It really is a good question: are we ignoring our existing assets for the tantalizing prospect of a blank slate? I think the answer is yes and no…obviously there has been less public investment and planning in midtown and other up and coming areas, but I gather from attitudes of city leaders that this is because these areas have their own momentum, and only need the occasional push from city hall (streetscaping in the Plaza District and Little Saigon, for instance). The area between Reno and the river is obviously not the first thing that you want tourists and visitors to experience about OKC, but that’s where the exits from the interstate will be. That area has very little momentum of it’s own, and I can understand why the city is concerned. A vibrant residential and retail area abutting the north side of the river also has potential to interact in a positive way with Capitol Hill, the Stockyards, and Meridian Ave. on the southside and help stitch the city together. I think maybe the reason that I and many other OKCitians trust the city to be able to maintain this balance is that the development over the past 20 years has been with a very few exceptions wise and deliberate, not the haphazard and freewheeling development of other cities (most of which are now being crushed by foreclosures). There is a bad way to do C2S (an area that is “downtownesque” but disconnected from the core, see Kansas City), and a good way (A true extension of the urban core that draws and directs people into downtown instead of pulling them away- LoDo in Denver for example). I think (or hope) we’ll do it the right way.

By: Kris Bryant

Kris Bryant — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:23:05 +0000

I am 24 years old and very excited to be a part of Oklahoma City’s resurgence. My interest in downtown re-development stems from my own crisis of identity. I grew up in the late 80s (Oklahoma City’s second-most depressing era behind the Dust Bowl) and became accustomed to the collective low self-esteem that we shared. All of this happening around me is like a psychological shot in the arm.

I think the “big” plans that have been proposed function to sustain optimism for the long haul…even if we should majorly tweak those “big” ideas. Moreover, I am confident that places like Bricktown and Midtown will continue to grow at a steady pace. We might not see empty storefronts fill overnight, but most respectable developments happen over a long process, rather than through a quick speculative frenzy. Correct me if I’m wrong on that.

By: Brent

Brent — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:12:19 +0000

These have all been great points Steve. We need to make sure we go into any new plan with our eyes fully open to the potential pitfalls. However, I don’t think this has to be an either/or proposition with either we stop the development of AA, Bricktown, etc. and go ahead with MAPS3 or we let the MAPS taxes expire and wait for these others areas to develop. The new Devon Tower and subsequent TIF projects estimated in the hundreds of millions, if properly used, can greatly enhance our image and “walkability” by adding plenty of streetscape projects which I think should include fountains, perhaps stautues to our great city/Oklahoma leaders of the past, Myriad Gardens improvements, and other elements that will encourage people to spend some time walking around our city. The small things though should not keep us from continuing to think big. The risk of not being able to re-start a MAPS process outweighs any potential benefits of stopping, in my mind.

We need to look at the differences between us and Dallas’ “failed” projects as well as the similarities. The DFW metroplex really dwarfs OKC and there are plenty of areas in DFW that have overlapping functions, such as the West End. I don’t see that happening with a new central park and its potential surrounding shops, offices and residential areas. First, any new central park here would be unique in OKC, but would still take years to fully implement. Without a crystal ball, it is hard to say whether Automobile Alley and others will really halt development as the park takes shape over the years. If I get cynical for a second, of course the people who own land or buildings in the Deep Duece/AA area and others are concerned as they may have to make further concessions and improvements to bring people to their areas. Competition is usually a good thing for the users though. OKC is certainly a work in progress and although I like much of what Mr. Speck has to say (and plenty of your readers too), he is not infallible. Again, beside the potential risk of slowing down growth in our other districts, I have not yet seen any substantive argument that says we should stop any new MAPS plan. But, if there are other alternatives for what we should do with a new MAPS program, hopefully more readers and others will share. Maybe we should just build a giant airconditioned bubble over downtown for days like today.