"Core to Shore Sucks."
His words, not mine.
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
Thanks for posting the link. I REALLY like his plan. It makes a lot more sense than the “official” C2S plan.
Our city council leaders seem very ignorant concerning the principles of pedestrian-friendliness. I’m worried this is going to be a disaster…
Thank you Steve for this find and for opening this discussion.
We need more plans and ideas thrown around before it is to late.
Everybody now… Let’s paint by numbers! (Bungalows abutting I-235/I-40??) Please, let’s give SOME credit to the real Planners.
The proposed convention center must function with the existing convention facilities. The design should first accommodate good functionality within THAT use, THEN good functionality with Bricktown. We can’t have both… (Partition the use with a strangely wide boulevard AND an elevated railway?!)
This can be batted around all day long, but unless “they” expose the C2S design to a public charrette none of our ideas will be considered. (A charrette would be a ridiculously unmanageable event and a futile exercise, unless those invited to attend had germane credentials.) Extreme interest and passion for the subject is good, but something more is needed to get us to the design table.
Dennis, you know I respect you a lot – you’ve quickly built a following in MidTown planning issues. So here’s the question: if you can’t have an ideal convention center design and also have the best possible connection to Bricktown, which issue should take priority?
Steve,
It doesn’t make sense to design a conference room that is chopped up into little pieces separated by walls and corridors… It also doesn’t make sense to do it with buildings. The Convention Center functionality has to take precedence over the connection to Bricktown. If the Convention Center doesn’t work, then who cares about the Bricktown connection?
Ideally the proposed building would be as close to the existing convention buildings (Ford Center & Cox Center) as possible. The connections to Bricktown are very important, and need to be properly designed, but they are secondary to the success of the whole package.
Steve, I think the question you ask is needlessly pitting the convention center against the Bricktown connectivity, just like a number of posters here and elsewhere needlessly pit transit against the canal. OF COURSE the number one priority of the convention center should be to be a highly-functional convention center.
The question you should be asking is whether attempting to guarantee Core to Shore and “Central Park’s” success by forcing the convention center into that location should come at the expense of Bricktown, or even at the expense of the convention center’s own performance.
Also, is a convention center highly-functional if it is located a half-mile and three treacherous street crossings away from the amenities the CVB staff will be using to sell bookings? I think that the people who book conventions will tell you that those are not optimal booking circumstances. Convention attendees walk. That’s one of the reasons Bricktown is so successful today. For the most part, convention attendees don’t ride streetcars, and they don’t ride boats. Think about the conventions you have attended.
If we put the convention center where it is shown on the maps that have been shown, then by all means, let’s not make those people cross a bunch six lane streets with 40 MPH traffic to have lunch, or to go out after their meetings. It could cause the slow death of Bricktown.
Most comments to me seem like nobody knows how to walk. People in other cities all around do it…especially when they travel. Tourists and the like are not gonna have trouble walking from the park to Bricktown. It is our “Geez, I have to get in my car to go anywhere” Oklahoma City mentality that is making us believe that.
It is an 8-10 minute walk from the “proposed” central park to Bricktown. 8-10 minutes. I saw the numbers on the previous blog of people outraged that the furthest point to walk to would be about 3800 feet…that is 3/4 of a mile…12 min…to the furthest point. Give me a break.
Good point, Casey.
Here is a suggestion: It doesn’t take an artist to draw a city plan…let’s have a Core to Shore-off! Everybody draws their ideas, we post them here, and let the comments ensue.
Casey, I guess you’re saying that everyone coming to a convention or conference in OKC is going to be from, let’s see… …New York, Chicago, Boston or Portland and won’t mind walking across three virtual freeways in 105 degree weather to get to Bricktown?
See, I would think that quite a few if not most of them (regional convention destination, remember?) will be from places like Dallas, Houston, Little Rock, Memphis, Omaha, and the like, and will hate walking about as much as Oklahomans. Well, Oklahomans other than you and me and a few hundred others. Come to think of it, people from NY, Chicago, Boston and Portland will probably also hate it too, thanks to the 105 degree weather.
It’s a free country, everybody is entitled to their opinion. I just don’t find myself weighting the opinion of a student that heavily. The world is a different place when you grow up. I’m with Casey in regards to walking. You sure see a lot more when you do and it’s not that bad folks! Really! Core to Shore will NEVER be a panacea or be able to make everyone happy. The proposal, however it ends up being, is far, far better than the current situation. Progress happens a little at a time–just like Bricktown. What “sucks” are slow thinkers who always let perfect be the enemy of good.
Oh Larry, you’re crying about the 105 degree weather. How do you expect to taken seriously? Don’t try to mischaracterize my post. Like I said, it’s the slow thinkers who let perfect be the enemy of the good. It is absolutely indisputable that Bricktown and the surrounding area is far better off than it was in the 1980’s. Of course, I always see plenty of people saying it’s not good enough. For some, it never will be. So, here’s wishing you a “somewhat better than crappy” day!
“Steve, I think the question you ask is needlessly pitting the convention center against the Bricktown connectivity…”
Nope, I’m not doing that. Instead, I’m taking what Dennis said and asking him to extrapolate on his thoughts….
Larry, you should have said “three virtual freeways and THREE QUARTERS OF A MILE in 105 degree weather.” Casey said it himself. That is a long way to ask guests and convention-goers to walk unless we make it seem easy and entertaining, and many, many of them will take a pass.
Of course, maybe a new entertainment district will pop up in C2S to fill the vacuum and better service the convention-goers, so none of them will have to go to Bricktown. Wow, now that I think about it, maybe that’s been part of the plan all along. Maybe I CAN see why Bricktown is so concerned.
And let’s not be thoughtless and forget those that have any kind of mobility issues or problems getting around. Throwing the word ‘walking’ around like it’s something everyone can do with ease is inconsiderate and insulting. Assuming laziness is the only thing making people not ‘want’ to walk is a bit arrogant. As an example, one might think about our servicemen/women that have come home with wounds or injuries that prevent them from getting around as well as the rest of us.
Business seminars/conferences are not personal vacations – people go because it’s important to their careers or they are required to by their employers. And some of those people have these issues. Making their experience/visit here arduous or even unpleasant will have consequences. And not just to Bricktown. Don’t kid yourself by thinking otherwise…
So…people who don’t think exactly the way you do are slow, Plainsman? Strong argument. Don’t waste your effort trying to lure me into an insult war. Surely there are other endeavors at which you can be more productive. Personal insults are the last resort of exhausted minds.
OK everybody, pay attention now: This is not the wild west on this board. We’re going to keep all of this civil. There will be no personal attacks, no accusing others of personal attacks. If you think this is going on, email me and I’ll handle it.
If I catch people being too hostile or insulting, they will go into the moderation que for review before posting.
Please don’t put me in this position – I don’t like it.
Whoa, I missed a lot on here in the past couple hours. Ok, let’s all just get in a circle and say one nice thing about the person on your left…ready, go. 
Casey,
Walking for 8-10 minuets is a big deal for Oklahomans. It’s also the reason we’re so fat.
Working people to get out of the house and actually walk may be the best thing for the City.
I’ll start first:
Casey, you’re a great example of how the 20somethings can transform a downtown into a 24/7 community.
Larry, you’re asking some good tough questions.
Dennis, you do a great job at exposing me to new ideas.
Plainsman, you’re great at forcing people to rethink their positions.
Great discussion, everyone. I have a few points to add. I disagree with Larry’s earlier assertion that, “For the most part, convention attendees don’t ride streetcars, and they don’t ride boats.” In my experience, that just isn’t true.
I lived in Boston for seven years, working directly in the city the past two years, and I rode the subway and train almost every work day. I rode the Orange Line to the Back Bay, walked across Copley Square, and caught the Green Line at Copley. That is conventioneer ground central, as the Hines Convention Center is just up Boylston Street. I routinely saw tourists (all wearing badges, caps, t-shirts, and toting bags emblazoned with the logo of whatever conference they happened to be attending) eagerly walking around looking for the T stops or on the trains happily looking at the route maps. Boston public transit was, like Copley Square and the Public Garden, just another point of interest for visitors to the city. It was something to see and do…with the added benefit of being helpful to their efforts to get around.
Boston isn’t the only place, though, where transit systems are used by visitors or conventioneers. When I was driving across country to come back to OKC (just three days ago, in fact), I stopped for a night at the Cleveland Airport Marriot. I had no idea that Cleveland had a light rail system! You know how I found out? There was a conference of NASA scientists staying at the hotel and they were all abuzz about taking the RTA (Cleveland’s Regional Transit Authority) train into downtown Cleveland.
One more point. A streetcar system will connect all the hotspots of our growing downtown…and will then make moot the fact that 3/4 of a mile may be too long for some visitors. I don’t think it’s too long to walk, but some people might, and for those people, it sure would be nice if we built a system (not a rubber tire “trolley” but a real streetcar) to bring them to and fro and back again.
I thought I might address a few of the comments that were illicited by Steve’s post. This is what I call a fun Saturday night..
“Our city council leaders seem very ignorant concerning the principles of pedestrian-friendliness. I’m worried this is going to be a disaster…” – Kris Bryant
Kris, the city council has been surprisingly silent on the matter of Core to Shore. While we have to assume that they will support MAPS 3, obviously, I almost feel like the city council isn’t even very involved in the process. Ultimately they will be the deciders, but I don’t know how many original thoughts they have. I can’t judge for myself, because there is no known, 100% reliable way to determine the original thoughts of a largely silent group of people, with the exception of the Supreme Couty.
That said, I just wanted to point out that it wasn’t city council leaders that created the plan we deem as pedestrian-God-awful. It was actually an ensemble of local architects, Hans Butzer and Anthony McDermid (great guys..and I had Butzer for a class even), City Planner Russel Claus, and Sara MacLennon. MacLennon was the leader of a planning firm brought in (and paid about $100,000) to help design C2S. The firm was not even from within 1,000 miles of Oklahoma..I believe they had some planners from Denver and Omaha that I met at the public meetings in the Cox Convention Center. I have to question why people with no clue about Oklahoma City were brought in as the professionals behind the C2S project, when there are plenty of planning firms here in Oklahoma. Of course, there is a separate C2S Steering Committee, which does include city council, as well as dozens of community leaders.
“Everybody now… Let’s paint by numbers! (Bungalows abutting I-235/I-40??) Please, let’s give SOME credit to the real Planners.
The proposed convention center must function with the existing convention facilities. The design should first accommodate good functionality within THAT use, THEN good functionality with Bricktown. We can’t have both… (Partition the use with a strangely wide boulevard AND an elevated railway?!)
This can be batted around all day long, but unless “they” expose the C2S design to a public charrette none of our ideas will be considered. (A charrette would be a ridiculously unmanageable event and a futile exercise, unless those invited to attend had germane credentials.) Extreme interest and passion for the subject is good, but something more is needed to get us to the design table.” – Dennis Wells
Dennis, I don’t see the problem in having a bungalow neighborhod adjacent to I-35/I-40. The reality is that there is still a wide right-of-way separating the neighborhood from the freeway interchange that the intrusion is minimal, and the reality is that in cities all across America that are neighborhoods that back up to freeways. Crown Heights backs up to I-235 (and what will return to being a construction zone, at that) and the separation would be equal. Jefferson Park is right up against I-235. There are upscale neighborhoods off of I-35 in Edmond, and freeways all over the metro pass through close proximity to residential neighborhoods. A dense single-family unit neighborhood is the best use for that land, or else it will just go as dead space in the middle of the city.
The main reason I moved the convention center wasn’t because it wasn’t close enough to Bricktown, but because it was too close to the existing Coc Center and the Ford Center, and the park. I feel like it’s imperitive to break up these super-block structures or else we will be stuck with a huge vacuum of 24/7 activity in the middle of C2S. In order for the park impact to be fully realized on development, the park edge needs to be lined with as much development as possible, and as few super-block structures as possible. It happens to be a huge benefit that the alternative site is across the street from Bricktown. As for the boulevard in my alternative being huge and inhibiting access, I would say that’s wrong, and that’s actually one of the main points to my alternative. My alternative boulevard is mirrored after Commonwealth Avenue in Boston, and is the complete opposite of the Okie Champs Elysees that the C2S planners have envisioned.
“Here is a suggestion: It doesn’t take an artist to draw a city plan…let’s have a Core to Shore-off! Everybody draws their ideas, we post them here, and let the comments ensue.” -Andrew (Cuatro deMayo?)
This is a great idea. We don’t need a charrette, we just need for concerned citizens to show what they can do. I think that those of us that live and breath in OKC can design a far-better masterplan for Core to Shore than anyone that has to be paid in the ballpark of a hundred grand to come to Oklahoma. Seriously. We’re not talking about designing a real estate project; we’re talking about designing the center city of a community that is filled to the brim with talented, creative citizens.
Nick says: “I don’t see the problem in having a bungalow neighborhood adjacent to I-35/I-40…. A dense single-family unit neighborhood is the best use for that land, or else it will just go as dead space in the middle of the city.”
Nick,
In every instance you listed, the use preceded the highway. Although the uses (bungalows, etc.) have been made to function adequately in these transformed locations, they were NOT originally intended to abut major highways. Nestling bungalows into the armpit of a highway interchange is NOT the best use for that land.
I think it’s a horrible idea to plan for land to be an armpit. What’s that called, armpit zoning? I bet that development wins awards..
Chad Reynolds, I don’t think I have heard anybody pushing the canal extension say anything against streetcar or other transit, nor have they said it is a substitute for. In fact, the only people who have consistently said anything negative about any other possible MAPS projects are a small segment of the transit proponents, consistently slamming the canal like it was some sort of threat. But that’s OK, because some of the same people have also called for MAPS to include NOTHING but transit, which marginalizes their position.
Those people reveal themselves to be passionate one-issue people (there’s not necessarily anything wrong with that) who get really uncomfortable with anyone intruding on their “turf,” which they deem to be getting people from one place to another. The truth of the matter is that transit and highly walkable areas only complement each other, and need each other. Those people also appear to believe that streetcar/transit is some sort of panacea that will address every problem, which is not based in reality. Their position would be stronger if they recognized the limitations of their product and admitted that there is room for other solutions too.
Listen, I am not anti-streetcar in any way. I would probably be one of the people who uses it heavily. I am very familiar with the T, the L in Chicago, the streetcar in Portland, the Tube in London, and have seen or ridden several others. But even to compare streetcar to the T to the canal is an apples and oranges and watermelons comparison. A streetcar carries what..60-70 people? A train on the T carries at least a couple hundred. The canal extension is designed for thousands, at one time.
Streetcar is fantastic for downtown workers and residents looking for a ride from home to work to dining and entertainment. But nobody has yet answered the question of how that is supposed to address the need of 5,000 (or 10,000) people exiting an event at the same time. If you had 5 streetcars and pulled them all from regular service to dedicate to an exiting event (which would likely anger regular downtown users), you could carry only a tiny fraction of the convention attendees. Apparently nobody is thinking about the actual FUNCTION of a convention center.
Those people need a safe way to WALK to lunch and after-hours entertainment. The holy grail for the convention business is for a center to be a safe, convenient 5-10 minute WALK from hotels and entertainment. Currently, that exists, and it’s one of the reasons Bricktown and the current convention center are so successful. The place where they are looking to put the new convention center breaks that connection, and streetcar, as great as it is, does not address that very specific issue. Sorry.
Larry,
I wasn’t suggesting that visitors would ride a streetcar exclusively, nor do I think that a transit system and walking are mutually exclusive. I think they can and should coexist and support one another. I did suggest that a streetcar system would be nice way to give another option to people who are looking to go from one place to another, and that it would drive mixed-use development and create more walkability. I do not think of myself as a one-issue person, by the way. I think Core-to-Shore, a new convention center, and a canal extension would all be exciting components of a new MAPS vote. How to afford all of those things is a different issue. I think the streetcar would be the wisest investment, however.
Chad, I didn’t necessarily think that you were one of the people with a “one approach fixes everything” point of view. Unfortunately, what I am saying is that there ARE a number of those people, who irrationally think that only one project is needed, and that it addresses all problems without limitation. I thnk the point is that there is room/need for multiple approaches to getting people from point A to point B. One of them needs to be safe, convenient walkability. Suggesting that streetcar is the solution to getting 5,000 people back and forth between a convention center and Bricktown or anywhere else during lunchtime ignores the laws of physics.
I dunno, actually, I’m starting to really doubt the current layout and plan of Core to Shore. I feel like it’s not thoroughly thought out to meet our urban needs. For example, the highway-like boulevard and the placement of the Convention Center. Ehhh, and what will it do to the current momentum of Bricktown, DeepDeuce, AA, Midtown, and Maywood Park?