Comments on: Downtown OKC 2020: Bert Belanger

By: Casey Cornett

Casey Cornett — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 14:25:54 +0000

Thanks for the reply, Steve.

By: slackmeyer

slackmeyer — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 21:30:00 +0000

I didn’t see a lot of people upset over out-of-town designers on this site. That said, isn’t this an apples and oranges comparison?
People who do question the use of out-of-town designers vs. in-town designers, at least when I’ve heard this discussion over the years, aren’t questioning the qualification of the outsiders – they only want to see more work going to people who live here.
And when it comes to the hiring of “outside” consultants, it’s my understanding they are preferable because they come with no bias and no stake in the game other than their contract fees and maybe trying to appease who is hiring them (an issue sometimes regardless of where a consultant is hired from)

By: Casey Cornett

Casey Cornett — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 19:31:50 +0000

For some reason I see a lot of contradictions among many people posting on this site…I read a lot by people bringing up the point that some of the designers for the park were from out of town (non-bias) and that we should use designers here…I’m fine with that. Then I read about why people here aren’t listening to people from out of town (Speck) instead of just local people…which is it? Do we want to listen to people from here or people from out of town?

When do we listen to non-biased people and when do we not?

For the record- I loved listening to Speck and hope most of his ideas get put to use.

By: ThePlainsman

ThePlainsman — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 19:27:27 +0000

I don’t disagree with you in regards to input Steve. But, the worries here are over the harm to private development in primarily the downtown housing market, correct? I mean, I’m definitely still going to go eat and take in a movie in Bricktown on a Saturday afternoon. Then afterward, maybe stroll on over to the park (if it existed). All I’m saying is that real estate speculation is just that–speculation. Do you think it was “fair” for those folks in Edmond to have a Wal-Mart built essentially as their backyard neighbor? I respect your opinion and love the fact that you love OKC and are a true historian about it. I just don’t don’t find it hard to say that it’s easy to see the motivation of those who are self-serving. I’m not saying it’s wrong, I’m just saying it’s obvious. Also, I’d be interested in knowing just how self-serving OCURA was back in the day when they wiped out Main Street? I’m guessing there was quite a bit more of that going on and far less public interest going on when those decisions were made. Perhaps you can speak to that. It’s not in the public interest to underwrite real estate speculation. While I’m rooting for all of those developments, I’m simply pointing out the obvious (or at least I think it is)–that opposition is shaping up under the guise of “cart before the horse” when it’s actually self-preservation. As always, thanks for the forum about something I really care about–OKC-and in particular, downtown/urban OKC.

By: steve lackmeyer

steve lackmeyer — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 19:00:56 +0000

Here’s the rub, Plainsman: did the committee studying Core to Shore have an obligation to first question how it would impact downtown and whether it was even a good idea? From what I saw and heard, they automatically started with the assumption they needed to do it and move forward. Wasn’t that sort of assumption made with tearing out Main Street during the height of Urban Renewal?
I’m not saying Core to Shore is good or bad. But it troubles me to hear such assumptions made, especially when there are experts without any bias (like Jeff Speck and others who have yet to go public) issue warnings about how Core to Shore could damage downtown development.
What do we know that they don’t? Or what do they know that we don’t?

By: ThePlainsman

ThePlainsman — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:14:44 +0000

Interesting and informative post. I have to say it’s refreshing to have someone so openly be self-interested. At least that’s my reading of it. While I tend to agree with some of the points (esp in regards to downtown housing), I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that OKC (all of us) shouldn’t pursue a core to shore (especially the Central Park part). It seems to me that the CP portion of c2s would be used by many OKC citizens that don’t live downtown. To me, that benefits a far greater amount of people and moves the city forward. Why doesn’t any of the folks who are “worried” about to c2s say what they really think? I believe that to be “hey man, we spent a lot of money on real estate, plans, etc on the east side of downtown OKC and we’d just HATE for the people to vote to build a park, etc where we don’t have any land to speculate with”. Hate to be harsh. But I can see the opposition shaping up for C2S under the guise of “getting the cart before the horse”, but let’s be honest here, it’s really “we already have sunk costs and could lose a lot of money”. Again, while I agree with many of the points made, it troubles me to see the self-serving part. It should be a big red flag to everyone.

By: Joe

Joe — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:20:15 +0000

Well my post wasn’t to get into details on housing numbers and costs, my dad and I have been buying old houses and fixing them up around OKC and in Edmond since I was a toddler as side projects and long term investments. So when it comes to dollars and cents I have at least a decent idea of how far the dollar goes in most areas of Oklahoma.

Also, let me say I’m super pumped people like you are living downtown and actually contributing to the urban feel and quality of life. My point was simply, and I think this is the general point. Fantastic Okie’s like you and your husband wouldn’t be living in downtown if it wasn’t for the successes of MAPs 1 and 2. Those successes initiated the drive for downtown development and urban living. I know there is a chew before you swallow feel going on with a lot of people, but if we aren’t forward thinking now about a developmental project that may take 1-2 decades it will simply never happen.

Steve – Obviously a fan of the writing, would it be better if it was a “Look at OKC”?

Ed – You keep dreaming the big dreams man, Oklahoma could always use more man made mountains with roller coasters going through them and caves, and maybe a chocolate waterfall like the movie Willie Wanka, we could put that on the back of our quarter.

By: Ed

Ed — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 18:01:55 +0000

Another idea for artificial rock formation.
You could place one or more of these on the canal so the canal would flow through it. You could have a small train to move people around inside and out of the structure. It would be a ride and a way for people to move from one area to another. Waterfalls everywhere. It would be a good place for tourists to go when you have 100+ weather or rain. Rock formation designs are only limited by nature. You can use any formation mother nature provides. Hope these ideas help.

By: Ed

Ed — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 04:11:58 +0000

Keith, we could also use a mountain in flat OKC :~)
I read an article about an artificial rock mountain which was a smaller scale that was in Illinois or Indiana, I think. It was a great success. Imagine a park where all the bathrooms and buildings look like giant rocks sticking up out of the ground. Any of which could have a water fall on the outside. They have a artificial mountain at Disney land in California which has a roller coaster in it. The Artificial Rock Mountain could be expanded with ease at any time buy adding more stone surface any where around the structure. Any man made object could be hidden from ground view with ease. One area could have a high cliff with a waterfall on the out side with smaller waterfalls anywhere inside or out. Think about Mall Of America with the rides and entertainment there, only here you could make the whole thing look like a natural stone mountain with a cave like internal space. Would look good in or near a park and be unusual enough to draw many tourists and locals. The possibilities are great. Private business may want to invest in it to get space for business.

By: Nick Roberts

Nick Roberts — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 03:59:19 +0000

I think if we move Crossroads Mall to Core to Shore, and make that our brilliant futuristic planning gesture, that not only will we have finally put downtown Oklahoma City on the map, but we will have capitalized on Ed’s brilliant idea for retail caves…