Mandatory Reading – Core to Shore
My good friend Doug Loudenback has put in considerable time putting together what may very well be the most exhaustive look at Core to Shore by anyone in this city. It’s a lot of reading, but if you’re confused by Core to Shore, if you think you’re being spun by various interests, if you want to see all the various sides of this somewhat controversial proposal (a lot of prominent people I know are unhappy with it but have yet to say so publicly), then take the time and go here.
Feel free to come back here and tell me what you think.
PS: I have taken Doug’s comments to heart about my inconsistent use of categories – I have gone back and done so on every item relating to Core to Shore over the past three months. I will go back and edit more posts as time allows and will be more vigilant about coding in the future.
Thank you for joining our conversation on OKC Central. We encourage your discussion but ask that you stay within the bounds of our commenting and posting policy.
Comments
It’s the most complete overview of C2S I have seen so far. The vision is much clearer thanks to your piece. Great work!
I love the vision that is being laid out for C2S and the future of OKC. Cannot wait for the next ten years to unfold for OKC.
Steve,
Thanks again for calling attention to my C2S article. Since you posted it, at this counting, of the 666 or so hits in my blog since then, 170 derive from OkcCentral and presumably your post (I may have miscounted, but that should be close).
That said, I’m not getting much feedback on the article … 1 comment in the blog article, 3 e-mails and a couple of comments here. I also e-mailed the mayor and 3 council members a link to the article as well as some other comments. The mayor and council member Skip Kelly acknowledged receipt and expressed kind remarks (more of a personal nature and not having to do with the substance of the article which they’d not then read). I’ve received no response as yet from my friend Pete White or my own council member Meg Salyer whom I’ve not met.
Anyway, this follows up the C2S article you linked to before I put it down and turn again to Okc’s history. I’ve just received by e-mail a fascinating story about an early-day Oklahoma Citian (probably unknown by everyone) from one of her distant relatives. Her male ancestor came to Oklahoma City using his mother’s maiden name (for anonymity) since he’d apparently fled a mining operation in Butte, Montana, fearing for his life — he didn’t want anyone to know where he might be found. His sisters living in Denver presumed him dead for 20 or more years and were stunned in the late 1930s when he dropped in for a visit. Great stuff!
Anyway, I hope that the C2S article is helpful to some and I certainly got satisfaction from doing it and it helped me form at least some conclusions of my own in the process.
go over to okc talk – you are linked with this information on the tag Voelker park master plan…. an ongoing discussion of the c2c committee plan you have mentioned here. Basiclly saying that this is not the plan…..
Thanks, Kent. The report that I used is the last report (so far as I am aware) that the Core To Shore Steering has made and I’m rather sure that you won’t find any updates, etc., at the City’s Core To Shore website. So, sure, I understand that the drawings may well be different when everything is said and done and I’d be surprised if there weren’t several changes before a more “final” plan is put together. Is that what you mean?
well the comments were coming on the okctalk board -
My feelings are that your link to the drawings are the only plans that have been put out by the c2c steering committee.
Those drawings are a point of reference. Discussion should be occurring about what is proposed… and the results of that discussion should be part of the input for the hargreaves concept. Otherwise the drawings are just pictures drawn up and PAID FOR that have no value. Just public money being spend creating a “placemarker”.
Too often after a plan is presented there is little possiblity in making larger changes to the process or to even change direction with the plan.
Kent, when either the Core To Shore Committee or anyone else in authority posts new stuff, I’ll be sure to include it. To date, the Committee Report is the latest report having that status. If something later of that status has been presented, I’m unaware of it. But perhaps you will be kind enough to me and to us all to point me to an authoritative reference to the contrary?
I’m fond of OkcTalk as you may know and participate there regularly, much more than you have. For what I write in my blog articles, though, I require sources which are particularly, and verifiably, identified and I don’t base my articles on what anonymous posters have to say.
Doug thanks for your comments on both sites. My point is that I don’t see discussion about what c2c is going to really be.
I believe all my references have been based on that c2c presentation which you have posted the links to.
So again that presentaion is a point of reference. There should have been discussion with input from the public as what was good with the plan, what is missing from the plan, and what was not liked with the plan. If the next phase of planning is occuring right now with Haregreaves to procduce the next plan for c2c, has information been provided to Haregreaves on the strength and minuses as seen by the community been included in the programing?
Yes all this discussion is speculative and the plan will change as time goes on.
Only after review and discussion can we make sure the process results in a final concept that can be supported and hopefully implemented.
Thank you, Steve.