why on earth do we need a road that divides downtown from the south? lets forget about the boulevard to replace i40.

The sprawl of this version of downtown echoes the sprawl of the rest of Oklahoma City. They should make the new boulevard north of Central Park a toll road and the concept will be complete.

^^? What the hell are you talking about. I see infill in this possibly glimpse in the future. I see an extended canal that will fuel more urban businesses where there are now parking lots. I see two new high rise hotels taking the place of a vast auto dealership. I see a milling plant being replaced by an urban development.

Akin to our suburban sprawl? You’re remarkably dumb for that. This area has always been OKC’s downtown and it used to be something of a destination. This is not sprawl. It is the revitalization of what this area used to be and more.

The convention center should be where the future devolopment/grain mill, and the hotels should be south of the Ford Center and the Myriad Gardens should connect to the Central Park.

The sprawl is that there is no density here. The convention center is moved out of downtown/bricktown, away from hotels and other current businesses. And what are the buildings in the “future development” section supposed to represent? Many of those buildings are as large as the Harkins Theatre. So are those Lowe’s and Wal-Marts or something? This “future development” section of land is as big as bricktown, so aside from Michaels assurances that adding some canal here will lead to businesses taking root, what exactly is planned for this section?

I support an extension of the canal. I also support it being part of the supposed MAPS 3. After looking at the attached rendering, I must confess I’m having trouble following the route. There seems to be, implicit in the rendering, a lot of backtracking that would be necessary in navigating the proposed, larger canal – particularly the northern extension. I’m trying to envision riding the canal in its entirety as a tourist.

As to the “lets forget about the boulevard” idea…are you nuts?!

This is a navigational rendering and not so much an architectural one. The urban-ness or suburban-ness will depend upon the actual design of the buildings. My hope is that all of this future development will be in harmony with the Downtown and Bricktown Urban Design standards. Then again, we now have Lower Bricktown which throws that out the window!

James. You are taking too much liberty in this simple conceptual plan. You don’t know what those buildings could be used for and in all reality, that is just a drawing of development that will eventually will go there. Wal-mart’s, Lowes? C’mon. It’s merely a placement to show future development goes in that spot. Nothing more.

The Convention Center is not moved away from hotels. It is a mere hundred feet from those two labeled hotels. A block from the Courtyard. 2 blocks from The Sheraton, and Renaissance. And 3 blocks to The Colcord or Skirvin.

It seems you are the one thinking in a suburban manner. You think its all too spread out. Truthbetold, I find our downtown relatively small and a couple more footsteps in walking isn’t goin to hurt anyone. You sound like you are afraid of a walk. And how is there no density? If there’s no density in this conceptual drawing then Downtown as of present must be akin to MOORE! Looks to me that there is substantial infilling in some of Downtown’s most ominous gaps.

Besides. It’s just a Concept! GAH. I get all flustered n’ stuff. Excuse me for the caps James.

Actually. Look at it this way. If people taht stay at the Courtard, Colcord, Sheraton, Renaissance, or the Skirvin can walk to Harkins to catch a movie. Then it won’t be any farther to the Convention Center.

Kris Bryant’s explanation is pretty much on target. This map doesn’t represent a request to build out all these different extentions, but rather possibilities that could be pursued. The Bricktown Association is not demanding that all these be built now if ever – it’s more of a master plan.

What was the route going to be of the MAPS I canal extension? Why didn’t that go ahead in the end? (Sorry I don’t have your book to hand Steve!)

Why not expand the Myriad Gardens area and make that the Central Park? That would be more “central” than the new park. And do the park (as drawn here) and the new convention center reinforce or benefit each other?

My concern here is that there is no naturally occuring density in OKC. The poplulation is too small and land is too abundant. So instead of trying to manufacture density, the city is pulling at the edges of what little density there is. It seems to me they should instead maximize the density in the areas we have already invested in and then let the pressure for growth beyond that area occur more organically.

Q: And do the park (as drawn here) and the new convention center reinforce or benefit each other?

A: No.

I think a questions that has to be asked, is “where should the new convention center go?”
If it is located in the Cotton Gin site, it’s more expensive, but it would connect Bricktown and the River!
People staying at the Conventin Hotel could easily go to Bricktown OR to Boathouse Row and a White Water rafting facility. Talk about connecting things…

Everyone needs to chillout, this is clearly one of the councilman or councilwoman’s children’s color by number art projects that accidentally got scanned into the web site.

The problem with this diagram is it lacks explanation. The designers intended it to illustrate the canal expansion but there is so much “stuff” going on, it is hard not to critique the whole thing and people tend to see this as an actual proposal rather than a concept.

My two cents on the concept (worth probably just 2 cents) is that the entire concept lacks connectivity. The physical barriers caused by the Boulevard, Canal, and Railroad don’t help, but the lack of pedestrian sized blocks, or pedestrian connections where there should be streets, is something that clearly needs to be thought out.

Only two points of access to the future development phase equals a major traffic problem. No connectivity from the future development to the convention center and central park equals auto orientation, which compounds the traffic problem. It’s will be expensive to build connectivity but it will be the difference between a lively area and a dead one.

Jeff B. it’s meant to illustrate the possibilities of the Canal’s future. As development happens in downtown or Bricktown, the Canal is an excellent way to achieve Connectivity. From a pedestrian standpoint, it is currently the most walkable part of Bricktown. Walkability improves and Connectivity is achieved with a Canal extenstion.
Not to mention how this benefits our City from a tourism standpoint.
Are you aware that S.A. just doubled the size of the Riverwalk?

This proposal looks good to me, but my concern is about the portion that would go through “future development” and the timing of when this would be built. If the extension is to be built with MAPS money, I thought the future development area (which is where the current Mill sits) is not expected to be built up for quite some time after a new MAPS program. So for an undetermined period of time we would have a portion of any canal extension getting a good look at the heavy industrial Mill site? Not really a great tourist magnet in my mind. So is this extension not really being proposed for the same time as a new MAPS? Or are the people behind this drawing thinking it will not really be built at the same time as MAPS3 or that MAPS3 money will also raze the Mill site and “pretty it up” until the future development takes place?

It seems that unless we want part of the canal meandering next to a temporary eyesore, the new convention center should be moved to that area (thus connecting more to Bricktown) and the canal can pass by it instead. The proposed hotels can be placed in between the convention center and the park, and then we just connect the Myriad Gardens with the new central park thereby giving us even more green space downtown. I guess I just have too many questions about this one. In any event I know this is just a drawing, hopefully we can hear more precise details about this proposal and the timing of when everything would be built.

Just to clarify- I am not Jeff B. Lol

Here is an example that OKC can possibly replicate. Click on link to the Indy canal that is align with various development: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=874282

[...] to be posted here, but was originally going to be a quick three sentence contribution to a sinuous discussion over at OKC Central.  For better or for worse,  I am really amped up about all things OKC and [...]

I agree with your last post James wholeheartedly.

Honestly, stuff like this. Uncertainty in Convention Center
placement, canal extensions, and the correct design of the boulevard are really scaring me. I hope we aren’t rushing things. Maybe it is more logical to size down the boulevard. I think so. Maybe the Convention Center should go where the Co-Op is. I think so. I like this canal extension proposal. But it’s obviously controversial.

We need to think about these things.

Since it is a foregone conclusion that a new convention center will be built, what happes to the Cox center? At that point it’s primary benefit would be a 2nd downtown arena being only 50-some-odd steps from the 1st. An argument could be made for whether-or-not a 2nd arena is enough reason to keep the building, but it is my opinion that it is not the highest and best use (besides, its nearing the end of it’s design life).

Currenly, the main barrier between Bricktown is not the railroad tracks but the bleak row of buildings along the west side of EK Gaylord. The Cox is one of those buildings. The Cox is also guilty of the same crime on the east side of the Myriad Gardens. The removal of the Cox center would be an opportunity to connect the more walkable parts of the CBD and the under-utilzed Gardens with Bricktown. This site would also be the ideal location for the canal extension that has been discussed ad naseum. Something like this:

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s225/CuatrodeMayo/concept1.jpg

During the Core-to-Shore discussions a commercial/retail development was always located the the south of the Gardens. This development could be moved to the Cox site would open up the car-lots for parkland connecting the Gardens with the new Central Park. The former Cox site then would serve as a pedestrian enhancement rather than detriment as it is now.

I posted this over at OKC Talk but I thought I would repeat it here.

Since it is a foregone conclusion that a new convention center will be built, what happes to the Cox center? At that point it’s primary benefit would be a 2nd downtown arena being only 50-some-odd steps from the 1st. An argument could be made for whether-or-not a 2nd arena is enough reason to keep the building, but it is my opinion that it is not the highest and best use (besides, its nearing the end of it’s design life).

Currenly, the main barrier between Bricktown is not the railroad tracks but the bleak row of buildings along the west side of EK Gaylord. The Cox is one of those buildings. The Cox is also guilty of the same crime on the east side of the Myriad Gardens. The removal of the Cox center would be an opportunity to connect the more walkable parts of the CBD and the under-utilzed Gardens with Bricktown. This site would also be the ideal location for the canal extension that has been discussed ad naseum. Something like this:

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s225/CuatrodeMayo/concept1.jpg

During the Core-to-Shore discussions a commercial/retail development was always located the the south of the Gardens. This development could be moved to the Cox site would open up the car-lots for parkland connecting the Gardens with the new Central Park. The former Cox site then would serve as a pedestrian enhancement rather than detriment as it is now.

Andrew,

Great concept. I have been working on something similar, though I have the canal dead-ending in a Broadway/California centered plaza, so that a streetcar line can run down Broadway and bend to continue south on Robinson.

I like the thought put into improving the Ford Center vista as well.

“As to the ‘lets forget about the boulevard’ idea…are you nuts?!”

Grant, what about the Boulevard makes sense?

Originally the cost was included in the I-40 relocation budget, as the cost of that kept increasing, the Boulevard has been removed from that project. To date, it is still unfunded (not sure if the removal of the old Crosstown is a separate item now or not, but the new Boulevard is definitely a separate, unfunded item).

Also, articles over the years keep saying that the Boulevard will follow the path of the current Crosstown. If you have ever looked at a map, the Crosstown is not a straight path. If the Boulevard follows tha same path, you are going to have places where it crosses at some very odd angles to existing streets and will literally be within feet of existing streets.

Is there really a need for yet another street downtown? Forget how many lanes wide the Boulevard is suppose to be, but think it is fairly wide. How is that any different as a “barrier” separating downtown and the river, than the current crosstown?

What is the purpose of the Boulevard? If it is to bring people into downtown, why are we relocating people away from downtown with the I-40 relocation to begin with? The relocation is several blocks further away from what the City has spent 100s of millions in building up. I-40 is going from a raised highway, where drivers can see the area, with access to the downtown and Bricktown areas in close proximity. The relocated I-40 was originally designed to be below grade (underground), but due to some problem will be partially below grade (only half way buried). Drivers won’t be able to see anything about downtown/Bricktown and the City has banned the use of billboards along the relocation route.

The Revised Map shows the canal simply connecting to the proposed convention center site.
I’m sure the average person hasn’t considered the increased distance from this proposed site to current bricktown restaurants.
Currently the Distance from the Cox Center to Btown Restaurants:
Abuelo’s 952 ft
Bricktown Brewery 1093 ft
Coach’s 2029 ft
Crabtown 2163 ft
Earls 2868 ft
Toby Keith’s 3195 ft

Distance from the proposed site South of the Ford Center:
Abuelo’s 3284 ft
Bricktown Brewery 3407 ft
Coach’s 3692 ft
Crabtown 4426 ft
Earls 3692 ft
Toby Keith’s 3845 ft
When you double, in some cases almost triple, the length of a walk into Bricktown for convention goers, it a serious concern for merchants. When Merchants were surveyed last winter, it was determined that anywhere from 20 to 40 percent of their annual sales, were from the convention center.
With a Canal Ext. to the convention center, it provides the pedestrian connectivity merchants need. Abuelos just renewed their lease for the next 15 years, do you think they were expecting it to take 3 times longer for a convention goer to reach them for lunch?

Wow. Those numbers are downright scary. Every single one of them higher than the highest numbers today. I see now why Bricktown is so fired up. Might hurt the convention center’s bookings, too, being that far from the entertainment district. Every place listed would be more than a half mile walk, instead of a block or two. A half mile across three speedways: boulevard, Gaylord, Reno, plus under the rail road wall. They’ll get in their cars and go someplace else if they don’t have an interesting, dedicated and safe walkway to take them to Bricktown.

Maybe I’m missing something… What makes the “proposed” map a legitimate map? Who made this map? How is it affiliated with what the city will present? (I really hope that we aren’t wasting all this time talking about a map that has no actual relevance to MAPS 3) All these fired up comments and numbers from an unofficial non-city proposed map…? really? Somebody help me understand what I’m missing, please…

Your comment confuses me Casey. Are you saying that the Bricktown Association has no say in downtown’s future? Would you also discount the efforts of the MTP for the same reason?

No no no. They have a say. Just like everyone else. My point was that of the 30+ comments I only counted five that actually talk about the canal…and that is the only thing this map should be about. I’m just wondering why there have been soooo many comments critiquing all the surrounding MAPS 3 projects when this is clearly not an official layout and quite frankly not even an official canal layout. That’s all. I have no idea what the official layout will be so I just wondering where all this reaction was coming from…

Did the map change? I thought it was a larger view than what is there now.

Casey, we both know that the location of the convention center and boulevard and park reflect what has been put out repeatedly by city planning and presented by the mayor and chamber during various presentations on Core to Shore.

Is there an “official Map”? From what I understand, there are still many facts to consider. All we did was take what was in Core to Shore and SUGGEST a concept. Very simple, maintain connection to the Convention Center. Bricktown was busy today with business from the Cox Center. How much of that business is willing to navigate a much further walk without some form of Connectivity?

I have said it before and I will continue, Vote NO for MAPS 3. Any type of canal extension is a waste, until we see the existing canal property infill.

Other than mass transit every other item that I see proposed is based on greed. The mass transit proposal is the only item that truly makes our city better and has the original MAPS “feel” to it.

It will be sad that I will vote down mass transit because so many other MAPS items are likely to be attached.

So LJ, are you opposed to the central park, the convention center and State Fair exhibition hall as well?

The logic being used to say the canal shouldn’t be extended because some of the buildings remain to be developed along the current canal requires you to also be against Core to Shore.

Downtown still struggles with lots of vacancy, which will only be worse – for a while – once Devon leaves their current buildings for the new tower. New housing in Deep Deuce and elsewhere is struggling to fill up. Bricktown is far from finished. Automobile Alley and Midtown are really just getting going, and both still have a long way to go.

And now we’re going to double the size of downtown, adding office, residential and entertainment? Now, personally I think C2S is great, longterm. Maybe we’re rushing it a bit. But to say that slow development is a valid reason for not extending the canal and at the same time saying that C2S is a fabulous idea is intellectually dishonest.

Steve – Yes I am opposed to central park, the convention center, and anything at the state fair. Now add the canal extension to that growing list.

Of course I am basing my opinion off of the early proposed layouts and plans. If plans were to drastically change between now and the time to vote, I too could change my opinion. Good ideas but bad planning.

If you have good public transportation options, the distance between a new convention center and Bricktown won’t be an issue. If I can walk out the door and hop on a trolley that comes by every ten minutes and go, say, no more than four stops to go back and forth, they’re as good as next door to me. Sell me a three-day pass, and I can wander around downtown just seeing what’s to be seen.

It’s great to come back and see that Bricktown is doing better and better each time. I understand people wanting to protect Bricktown’s success, but wouldn’t it be great if there were two or three successful areas downtown like Bricktown? You’ve really succeeded when people come to downtown OKC for a game or a conference and go home telling people they loved what they saw but wished they had time to see it all. Even better if they could use transit the whole time instead of worrying about finding parking in an unfamiliar town.

Hoping that a Trader Joe’s or Whole Foods moves in downtown by the time the real estate market picks back up and we can afford to move back to OKC!

So when 5,000 convention attendees exit an event at the same time, they are all going to cram onto a few streetcars? Assuming all of the streetcars have been pulled off of their routes to service the convention center? I doubt it. Instead, they’ll probably be in their cars, in search of a Chili’s. What a kick in the junk to the very concept of urban planning and responsible transit.

Listen: transit needs to happen. Streetcar/rail and a canal extension are NOT mutually exclusive. Attempts to make it so are clouding the issue. Transit is for locals, downtown residents, and probably also tourists. Convention attendees walk. Or they drive.

Has anyone even considered that this proposed canal extension, if the Bricktown people are right about how much it would cost, would only use 3% or 5% of the total MAPS three budget, depending upon whether it is 5 or 7 years? Seems like a reasonable amount to guarantee the success of the convention center and the future of Bricktown.

1. Bricktown is the face of OKC.
2. The canal is the most walkable pedestrian thoroughfare in the city.
3. Tourism and successful convention events are quickly becoming a major economic force in OKC.
4. 10-15 all weather water taxis carrying 30-40 people each can move a tremendous amount of people to and throughout Bricktown from a Convention Center
5. Bricktown’s return on the City’s investment has been tremendous, the highest of any MAPS venture. Just water taxi alone has contributed $1 million total in shared profit and sales tax.
6. Every Council member needs to be made aware that the people support a solid connection between a new Convention Center and Bricktown, and a canal extension will be the best way to do it. There is no need to re-invent the wheel.

help me try to understand this a little better. is the canal now going to actually be a transit vehicle, rather than just a boat ride? we were told that back when it opened, but i’ve never been offered the opportunity to do anything other than ride it as a “loop.”

also, is the proposal going to make a moat out of the area west of the existing canal? the sketch seems to indicate so, even though not all of it is highlighted.

don’t get me wrong, i like the canal. however, as a mode of transportation it has yet to live up to its original billing. as a fun little diversion, though, it’s great. i’m glad it hasn’t declined as of yet.

To David Ball: I have seen with my own eyes visitors using the boats as water taxis, with destinations being Bass Pro and Toby Keith’s. Is the majority of the traffic? Probably not. But it’s pretty much a daily pattern.

Great new info just put on the website, http://www.canalconnection.com

[different Larry than the post on July 16, 2009]

From the Canal website links provided:

“An extension that runs directly to the proposed convention center sites could be funded by MAPS 3 for an estimated $25 Million.”

Voters were told under the original MAPS that the Canal would cost $9 million, actual cost ended up being $23 million (or a 255% increase). If they are saying it is going to cost $25 million, will probably end up costing $63.75 million. Even that may be low-balling it. The County Jail was built in 1991 for $52 million and a replacement jail is going to cost $391 million (750% increase).

“This would represent only about 3% to 5% of the projected total cost of MAPS 3, according to officials.”

What are they basing this on? We don’t even know what is in MAPS 3 (other than the Big 3 categories the Mayor mentions frequently…new convention center, the “Central Park” for Core-to-Shore and mass transit). The Mayor said recently that everything is still on the table for discussion for MAPS 3.

An updated version of this site launched today, so everyone needs to check it out to get more information on the proposed canal extension.

http://www.canalconnection.com

[different Larry than the post on July 17, 2009]
What makes you think the canal would uniquely run over budget and no other projects would? More double-standard application from canal opponents. You do realize that they’re only talking about the short leg from the end of the current canal to the convention center being funded by MAPS, right?

If you look at the conceptual the canal people are using, you’ll see that it was sketched and costs were put togethter by Johnson and Associates, who designed the first canal. I think they’re qualified to put a price to it in a way that the people who put together the first MAPS ballot were not. Nearly EVERYTHING on the first MAPS ran over budget. I’m thinking the city has learned some lessons from that, and would now put together a tighter proposal.

Also, It’s pretty easy to guess that they are basing the 3 percent to 5 percent number on speculation that a new MAPS tax, which would bring about $100 million per year, would last either 5 or 7 years. That’s pretty easy to back into with a calculator, knowing the $25 million estimate.

RE: Comment by a different Larry on July 21, 2009 @ 7:15 am

Sounds like you are presumming I am a canal opponent. Not at all. However, I am an opponent to being lied to by city leaders/politicians etc.

Did I say the canal “would uniquely run over budget”? You are correct, under MAPS only 1 of the 9 projects were completed on time/on budget. Overall, MAPS was slightly less than 50% over budget. The Canal was on the extreme edge of the cost over runs (255% increase). Did I pick the Canal as an exaggerated example? No, it is the example used because we are talking about a Canal extension. Most projects come in over budget (that is why most advise budgeting cost over runs into the budget). Will the extension run over budget? Probably. Will it run 255% over budget? Don’t know for sure, but the historical fact shows that it certainly can.

If the same people that designed the 1st canal, came up with this sketch/costs, what makes you think they are any better at it now than they were then? We can hope they are better at it now but are they offering any sort of price guarantee?

From the cost estimate standpoint, does it matter if it is just a “short leg from the end of the current canal to the convention center”? Again, if the cost estimates are off by an average of 50%, they are off by 50%, If they are off by 255%, they are off by 255%. Point is if they severely underestimate the cost (just to get people to vote for it, as they did in MAPS), the taxpayers are the ones getting the shaft.

Again, the 3% to 5% is pure speculation at this point because we don’t KNOW what is in MAPS 3 or the length of the tax or if the estimate is accurate.

Mayor Mick said that Core-to-Shore was a 30 YEAR project, costing about $3 BILLION (public/private, but no ratio ever given). To keep the math simple, presume the City’s part is $1 billion, at $100 million a year that’s 10 years JUST for the Core-to-Shore element (the “Central Park” is just a part of that). Not counting the new convention center ($250 to $400 million) and mass transit (“$394 million to build and $90 million a year to maintain“) that the Mayor frequently mentions. The convention center and mass trans has already used up the 6.5 to 8 years tax length.