Coffee Talk Time Again: MAPS 3

I can’t say what I’ve heard, but this is probably the last week we can make an influence on the Council and Mayor as the Mayor’s mind has already been made up. Let your voices be heard THIS WEEK!! Please write your councilperson and Mayor Cornett. TRANSIT needs to be the focal point of MAPS 3, it’s what the citizens have said they wanted for several years now in the annual citizens survey.

I really like the idea of the Central Park and the Convention Center being a part of MAPS 3. My wife sets up seminars and meetings and thinks that a new convention center would bring another great option to DT, where the Cox is really the only large meeting space option available. I would like to see a streetcar connecting all the areas of DT/BT/C2S to make it easier to get around. I think a canal extension connecting downtown to bricktown would be great. My question is this: If Light Rail is not included in MAPS 3, do you think it will pass? It seems there are so many advocates for LR due to the study and how spread out we are, that it might fail due to it not being included. That is unless there is a separate vote (possibly a bond issue) for a line connecting Edmond and Norman.

Well, my first question would be, why does all this need to go together in MAPS 3? As it is, it’s looking like these are going to add up to a $500M+ price tag. Could we not do a much more limited version? Bump C2S off for three years or so. Is there any reason why the programs for MAPS 3 could not be MAPS 3, 4, and 5? Spread them out over the exact same time frame, but in bite-sized chunks so that we can see the results of one or two of the programs more quickly.

My second question would be, why is the C2S park so small? If there’s one thing we have in abundance in the C2S area, it’s space. It’s not like we’re going to run out of urban blight to replace. If we doubled or tripled the size of the proposed park, we could alleviate some of the concerns of people like Jeff Speck and other planners who think we’d be stealing Bricktown’s thunder. We’d have fewer available properties to develop, so the need for development in that area would be smaller. It would give us higher density developments simply because there would be less room.

Brian#2, I think the price tag on MAPS 3 will be closer to a Billion than half that. The study for a new convention center puts the price tag anywhere from $250-$400 million. Add to that the park, canal extension, street car, etc and it should reach that Billion mark.

I think the reason it is important to have it in the same vote is to help spur development in five years when the park is done and the convention center is started.

When the Mayor talked about the relocation of I-40, opening of the boulevard, etc in his state of the city speech in January of this year, he was adamant about the Central Park opening at the same time the boulevard did, 2014.

I remember in the C2S plans, there being a “promenade park: south of the new I-40, north of the river.

We talk about C2S as if it’s an undeveloped greenfield when in fact it’s a well-established habitat. Granted, a large segment is being redeveloped as major highway, but the remainder is home for many people and businesses. Other than the “boulevard,” “park,” and the “new convention center,” what exactly is included in the program, and what are the development timelines? Do we assume that the rich and powerful developer class will simply buy up everything needed, and wipe the slate clean for a new start?

I used to be a wholehearted supporter of full-steam-ahead C2S, and when Steve questioned its timing and purpose (to allow other CBD areas to mature) I thought he was nuts! Upon reflection I think it is a very worthy consideration. If the “boulevard,” “park,” and “new convention center” are the only components of C2S then I think it makes sense to go forward now… If wholesale slate cleaning is included I think that WOULD drastically stunt the growth of Bricktown, Midtown, Film Row, etc. and should be postponed.

Installing a 6-lane boulevard where previously there has been NO traffic seems stupid. Something obviously has to happen to hide the old I-40 scar, but why 6 lanes of traffic? C2S will be dramatically bisected by the new I-40… why bisect it again with another pedestrian barrier?

Underpassing Gaylord Blvd. with a canal extension should be a priority. This will serve to stitch together two critically important nodes. Some sort of very efficient CBD transit is important, but not nearly as important as the canal extension.

I sometimes (almost always)wish that I had a greater capacity to think “comprehensively” about things like this.

On one hand, I very much liked the mayor’s earlier presentation about Maps 3 … what, in January or February, I don’t recall. Glitzy graphics and eye-opening as to possibilities. That’s what one hand saw.

On another, I do have a sobering appreciation for the comments made by those who are in the process of developing the area north of Bricktown, as well as Bricktown itself … those areas and investment definitely deserve a fair amount of time to get firmly established, mature, and become the great areas that that they seem to have the capacity to become. The comments we’ve read by developers there in the context of proceeding too quickly with Core To Shore don’t strike me as disingenuous. And, so, timing is a factor that would be foolhardy to ignore.

On yet another hand, I as do many of you recall that before Maps I, there was the Pei Plan and its Urban Renewal agenda. In hindsight, we unfortunately know that the plan did not fully consider what might happen if the economy suddenly turned to crap, which, of course, it did. Unexpected and huge economic downturns left the city with a mixed bag which consisted of some nice new buildings north of Main Street but an expansive area south of Main which was, after buildings destroyed, essentially a great void.

On my fourth hand, it occurs to me to recall that the city’s environment today is nothing like what it was pre-Maps I. That was a time in which the city was in dire straits and needed something uniquely focused and special. Mayor Ron Norick’s leadership in those regards was absolutely critical and essential. Today is not the same. In this day, we continue to enjoy the benefits generated by Maps I (and IA – the arena). Skipping Maps II and more recently, the arena and our city are yet again benefiting — I see the recent arena vote as actually being the completion of that part of Maps I — the circumstances are different today than were true pre-Maps I.

On my fifth hand, without a doubt, I agree with the mayor that an opportunity, perhaps a golden one, is present to (and I hate to use the cliche) to take it to the next level. The city absolutely needs to mesh its plans and timing with the relocation if the crosstown, and this is the time to do that … I certainly favor of that convergence.

My last hand, the 6th, tells me that the 5th hand begs the real question, which is, what IS the next level?

That’s where my wishing for a better comprehension comes into play and where my urban rudder fails me. I do not perceive that ANYONE has presented a plan which addresses all of the issues that my body-slapping hands are telling me need more information about and clarity upon.

Blair Humphreys of imagiNATIVEamerica.com has written an outstanding master’s thesis in his work toward an urban planning masters degree at MIT and it has been a privilege and pleasure to read it. In it, he traces the development of Grand Boulevard about 100 years earlier in our history … pieces of which (my interpretation, at least) were that a cloistered group of people (leaders) thought they knew what was best for the city in that time. Those leaders thought that an automobile speedway could make Oklahoma City a destination, and they thought more about that aspect of the plan and design than they did the need of all citizens for a comprehensive and well-thought through major park and roadway system. Despite recommendations from outside urban planners, who emphasized the need for inner, as well as outer, city parks and roadways, the cloistered group pushed through its own agenda (and over the objections and thoughtful analysis of Henry Overholser, by the way) only to wind up with, in aftermath and at a later point in time, a roadway that attracted less-than-desirable elements and, for practical purposes, represented a failed city dream and project, even if with some successes. The Pei Plan, though different because a star-chamber didn’t push through its un-analyzed agenda, represents a similar outcome.

We are blessed with a string of successes going for us but just ain’t as simple as it was before Maps I when we were in something like a do-or-die situation. I absolutely concur that the time is right for SOMETHING to occur with Core To Shore, Maps IV, or whatever it may come to be called.

But, so far, all my hands are slapping me all over my head and voices are in my ear saying, “HEY, YOU! Has this (whatever “this” is) been thought through fully … don’t we need more time for analysis and perhaps some outside analysis and recommendations?

So, what does all this rambling amount to? Absolutely nothing, and that’s my point. I don’t feel, at the moment, that enough information is available to have a clear rudder. I want to have one, but I need more information.

I’d like a little less haste in this important matter. And I’d like to hear more from what someone outside the city, who studies the matter objectively, has to say.

I didn’t intend to “bold” all of my “third hand” point, above, but unfortunately no ability exists here to preview stuff before posting.

What all that I said boils down to is:

Let’s not be hasty. Another 6 or so months devoted to discussion and public edification and education will not kill the success of Maps III (IV or whatever) … it may well facilitate its success. Without that type of period though, this may become the 1st Maps vote to fail. I don’t want that to happen, and, probably, neither do you.

No Star-Chamber techniques are called for. Even if the mayor has in mind what he perceives is best for the city, he hasn’t yet made his case to the public, probably not the Council, particularly considering the discussion during the last couple of months. If memory serves, Ron Norick got council members involved in developing Maps I. As much as I admire Mayor Mick, if he has not done that, he should. As individual constituents, we have greater access to our council members than we do to the guy at the top of the heap. Of course, unless the Council agrees, NO Maps III (IV or whatever) will even be submitted for a vote.

The city needs to do something to converge with the I-40 relocation. So, time is to some extent of the essence. But it doesn’t have to be this year … we want to get this right and nothing has been presented of which I’m aware that a six-month study/analysis period will cause any harm to the long-term viability of whatever it is that we eventually wind up voting on.

Light rail alone would be a billion+ price tag. I’m not quite sure what people dont get about that…

“Transit” is not light rail. A DART-style system is not being contemplated, rather a way to efficiently get people to & from key CBD nodes. Light rail is not in the MAPS-3 picture.

DART wasn’t built in one chunk; neither were the successful transit systems in our competitor cities. We need one leg of commuter service for proof-of-concept, plus the downtown circulator a la Jeff Bezdek. That will be nowhere near a billion, more like $250 million.

The mayor is right about needing to do this soon, if we want to keep doing MAPS at all. Once we drop the tax for a while, reinstating it would truly be a tax increase, and harder to sell.

The mayor is wrong about keeping his plans close to his vest. The city council, the media, and the public need to be involved.

A plan with no council/public input is at risk of failure, as is a plan that spends more on the developers (convention center) than on the people (transit). The central park concept is obviously a boon to developers, but the public might see it as a great place for them too. Also, a transit plan with no commuter portion is only a sop to those residents who want transit and have been working for it for years.

Light rail is being discussed with other nearby municipalities through the auspices of ACOG. MAPS 3 cannot really fund light rail because MAPS only involves Oklahoma City proper. A light rail system will likely get mixed funding from federal, state, and municipal sources.

Downtown Park, Convention Center, and Transit are all good ideas for the next MAPS vote. Any more than that I am not so sure of liking. I could be convinced of a canal extension, however.

1. I don’t like the overall size of the proposed downtown park. I have never heard of a reason that this park can’t be much, much larger. If the city were to buy every square foot of land in south of I-40 to the river would be best. Build a PGA style golf course, fishing ponds, a beach area, horse trails, dog parks, kids playgrounds, nature center, sports areas, etc.

2. I am not sure about the location of the convention center. I believe that the “Cotton Gin Location” makes more sense.

3. The transit needs to be very detailed to get my vote. Something small, would be a good start. Build confidence in the system then look to expand.

4. A Canal extension sounds good, but the existing Canal has so much wasted space (parking lots, vacant canal hill, blighted canal level buildings, poor designs by Residence Inn), that sits there year after year.

A convention center that is not connected to Bricktown, would sink Bricktown long term. MAPS should be about enhancing what we already have, not destroying it. Bricktown isn’t perfect, but you CAN NOT ignore the public and private investment already made.
“Ready, Fire, Aim”?

Kinda looks like everyone here but me KNOWS what they want and minds are already made up. But not me. I’ll fish around elsewhere and see if I can find something useful for the likes of myself.

I kinda all the MAPS 3 ideas. Im for anything that makes OKC look better. I kinda wish they could add more recreational things downtown or in bricktown though.

Over the weekend I caught the repeat of Mayor Cornett’s Mayor’s Development Roundtable from May on city TV…yes it was a slow weekend. In any event, the interesting part to me was that the Mayor had the following timeline for a MAPS3 vote: the MAPS3 proposal to the community would be unveiled in October and the vote would have to be in December in order to meet the timeline of extending the tax when it expires March 31.

With that in mind, my questions would be: Is this timeline still on the board? Who is currently putting together the MAPS3 proposal? Are there city council meetings being held either openly or in the background to resolve any differences of opinion between council members, civic leaders, Mayor’s office, etc.? Is public input still being actively sought by any person at the city level, and if so, by whom (a natural venue would be the MAPS3.org site, but this site no longer appears to be active)? Will there be any town hall-style meetings on MAPS3 for the public to be able to voice any ideas/concerns? If a member of the public wanted to get involved in some capacity with MAPS3 is there any current means of doing so? I probably have a dozen other questions about how the process alone is currently being run, not to mention the actual ideas out there, but I’ll leave it at that.

You’re asking if there will be a full and open discussion of our city’s future.

Yup…so, where are we at? Is the Mayor’s office, city council members, any civic/business leaders willing to go on record yet at to their thoughts and concerns? If not, that alone says something. There is a time for private discussion to avoid needless public squabbles and if there is actual discussion going on behind the scenes to resolve differences I could perhaps accept that…for now. So far I have heard the Mayor publicly address some concerns, but if no other member of city government is willing to either go on record with concerns or voice their own ideas, why should we be concerned with vague and ethereal “problems” with the current MAPS3 ideas? Time is beginning to run short if the Mayor’s timeline is still accurate, so to use a more crude aphorism: It is put up or shut up time.

By the way, based on a previous post, turning Sante Fe station into a community welcome center for OKC would seem to be a logical idea…just expand it under the tracks to open it up a bit and give access to the other side of the railway. There can be plenty of visitor orientation space with a small history of Bricktown/OKC museum area along with just small shops, food carts or convenience stores (like you would see in any major city rail station). But I digress.