Core to Shore – Vision vs. Reality

Can you explain your point of view either in this thread or another post why a street car system is the answer to some problem that you see? Why not just fix or repurpose the bus system for downtown use?

I’m not advocating a streetcar system or a bus system. I’m advocating that all ideas be considered and debated in a public forum because as a journalist it’s my goal to help ensure readers are informed about what is going on in their community.
Interestingly enough, the folks who advocate streetcars became quite upset with me earlier this year when, with this same goal in mind, I questioned whether they truly had the endorsement of Mayor Mick Cornett (they had his photo on their website) and asked for a background on their board members and non-profit status (they are out fundraising for the upcoming campaign).
Likewise, I’m sure Core to Shore advocates might suspect I’m being anti-Core to Shore here. I’m not. But I do think there are issues and questions not being discussed.

I totally agree, Steve. It seems to ma that not everyone is set on this issue. While the Core to Shore plan is a grand vision and would make a great addition to downtown, there is real motion going on right now in Midtown and Automobile Alley. This is a tougher issue for the citizens and leaders than I once thought.

I understand your job as a journalist is to present the facts and inform the public but I think it’s very misleading to the public when all you post on Core to Shore are negatively slanted materials.

I’m fine if you and others don’t approve of Core to Shore because this is something for the whole city…but I do think it’s wrong if you say (as a journalist) you’re not “anti-Core to Shore” when every post on Core to Shore you post gives a negative tone.

Saying you’re not anti-Core to Shore and only posting negatively toned topics is not doing the city any justice on letting the voters decide for themselves what is right or wrong for the city.

These are your headlines…doesn’t sound neutral/simply informing to me:

“Not Everyone Will Be Happy to See This”
“Core to Shore Sucks.”
“The Truth Comes Out About MAPS 3”

careful casey…he will try to ban you from posting here. steve does not like seeing/reading post that question his point of view.

core to shore is a grand idea, i agree. as a current downtown resident i would much rather see public money used to develop all the current vacant lots and dilapidated buildings that currently exist all over downtown. it seems ridiculous to try and redevelop all the land between I-40 and the river when we cant even develop the land we currently have in downtown/midtown. we need the core first.

I think that one major argument for the Core to Shore proposal that is often missed is that the MAPS 3 initiative is proposing improvements mostly on the North side of the new I-40 Crosstown. It is undeniable that the area proposed for the park and possibly the convention center is blighted. Imagine that area becoming the new entrance to downtown as the current entrance moves farther away from the beautiful improvements that we have made that create instant gratification when taking the exit ramp.

The skeptics of Core to Shore have an argument if indeed the entire area was immediately available for redevelopment. The reality is that only the North side is to have the major improvements initially. And with such an expansive space taken up by the Central Park and Convention Center, there will be minimal large areas (near the core) that remain vacant lots even in the short term.

Keep in mind that if you want to apply public funds of the size being discussed to our existing vacant infrastructure- how would you do it? I don’t hear specifics from the skeptics.

Ok, lets go along with it. Why can’t the formation of TIF Districts be the catalyst for these vacant spaces often discussed. Without buying the property with public funds and giving away, there is no quick resolution to redevelopment in these areas. The development that occurs there should be organic and quality development. This can only come with time, private influence, new ideas, and variety.

Core to shore can be an enemy to “infill” projects if too much land is available to redevelop too quickly. The current outlines and proposals do not suggest that is the plan by our city leaders and planning department.

Casey, I guess you didn’t see the posts about ideas on the Central Park. I’m asking questions I guess you don’t like. That’s fine. I asked questions the transit folks didn’t like either. That’s fine too. This is called journalism. I only moderate comments that involve personal attacks or those who are stealing other’s identities.
“Core to Shore Sucks,” by the way, was a post by Nick Roberts, not myself, and reflected my effort to include other voices on this site, including your own (in which you’ve stated arguments pro- Core to Shore).
Further, if you want to read posts that explore the upside of Core to Shore written by me (there are numerous guest posts of this theme, including by Casey), I suggest the following three, all posted this year:
“Shall we build a big pavilion?”
“Mayor Mick’s dream park”
“Mayor Mick Cornett Looks Ahead”

I’m fine with tough questions being asked of all sides, rude or disrespectful questions and responses are another story though. However, I don’t think that line was crossed here at all by anyone. I think that is especially the case with this post, these are issues that are appropriate and need to be discussed. I would like to see a few more tough questions thrown to the C2S detractors too (since it has been a while since we had some of those), but it isn’t my blog. As far as the issue of whether we should spend money on C2S before it passes I think that is a close one in this situation.

I have no problem with money being spent on planning for C2S, but if the city is spending funds to actually purchase land/buildings which may be otherwise allocated on other projects I think you have to assess several issues. First, what are the chances MAPS3 does pass? I think most would agree that there is a significant chance of it passing as of today despite any of the issues mentioned so far. Second, what would the cost to the city be if the city waited until passage of MAPS before purchasing the land? There would seem to be a good argument that the land prices will significantly increase following C2S passing and the city would spend much more if it waited. I’m a little rusty on my eminent domain compensation rules, but I believe the city would be required to pay for the “highest and best use” of the land at the time of condemnation (assuming these properties would be condemned) and this would be measured based on other properties in the zoned area. After C2S, property value in this area will increase and the city would have to probably spend much more later so I think the purchase passes muster there. Third, if C2S does not pass, will the city have any use for the properties? As of now, the answer seems to be “no.” I think it is possible to re-use these properties if C2S does not pass, but it would be inefficient for the city. So on the whole, the city seems to be taking a risk, but is it too big of a risk and does this save more money in the long run? I think the answer is that the risk is somewhat minimal and it may save significant money for the city in the long run which can then be allocated to the other uses mentioned in the post…but this is an extremely close call in my opinion.

I just read my last post again…still don’t know where I came across as being against Steve asking questions. I know what journalism is. I also never said that the headline “Core to Shore Sucks” was his quote…I did, however, infer that the tones and lots of headlines are meant to stir negative emotions towards Core to Shore…and again, that’s ok because we all will (probably) have a vote on the matter. I just don’t like being told that he’s JUST being a journalist and JUST asking questions and reading that he’s NOT anti-Core to Shore when clearly it’s more than that.

Yes, I am pro core to shore and I’m not hiding it.

I know you ask tough questions, that’s why I like reading your columns and blog even when those tough questions are asked to my dad. I have faith in our City government and feel like I should have faith in it and look forward to where our leaders take it.

BOOMER!!

“Not stirring positive emotion” ≠ “stirring negative emotion.”

Boomer indeed and concerns noted.

I’m no expert on this but it seems to me when the first maps tax was passed back in (1993??) it was narrowly passed and huge amounts of skepticism were ever present. Now after around 10 years of being realized we all can say how amazing Maps 1 for downtown has been. Is it perfect? Absolutely not and is still a work in progress, but I feel like alot of these are skeptics resemble a few current OU football fans who want to run Bob Stoops or a offensive/defensive coordinator out of town for losing a national championship. 10 years ago these fans would have killed for Meinikie Car Care bowl loss are now complaining about losing in the big game. Im sure there are flaws and concerns with C2S, but OKC has done so much and convinced my wife and I to stay here and continue to see the growth in downtown that my main concern is if nothing is done and MAPS 3 is voted down, any momentum of our city truly becoming Big League (sorry for the cliche) well be finished and we will become stagnate.

It depends on what is in MAPS 3. If they fail to include mass transit with some sort of rail, then the citizens were not heard. I don’t like how every thing they are doing is behind closed doors and the public is not invited. They already chose a landscape architecture firm without the public’s knowledge to design a park and paid them a few hundred thousand to design it. Even though the citizens have not voted for it.

Mayor Cornett and his cronies are taking over. If they fail to include what the citizens want then MAPS 3 will be voted down.

I don’t think that MAPS 3 will push the city as much as MAPS 1. If it is just a convention center park and core to shore stuff, it won’t be that much change for the city. MAPS 1 hit the arts (Civic Center), sports (Bricktown Ballpark and Ford Center), and increased the aesthetics of the city by adding the canal and damming the river.

We have a lot of momentum already with the River, Devon, Midtown, and Bricktown. They are all still developing and will for another 15 years.

“So on the whole, the city seems to be taking a risk, but is it too big of a risk and does this save more money in the long run?”

Good questions Brent but in light of the fact the City is having its second tight budget year in a row, debates on keeping swimming pools open or not, can spend close to $2M on a new scoreboard at the fairgrounds arena (instead of reusing the barely used one from the Ford Center), etc., etc. Spending $5M the City could definitely use on other things right now on a project that has not even been put to a vote yet (much less approved), makes it less of a close call (IMO).

I agree that Core to Shore is a grand vision, and I also agree that it’s grand visions like it that transformed Oklahoma City with MAPS 1. We’ve got a nice downtown, but we still don’t have very many people in Oklahoma City who see it as a plce to live, much less the kind of place to live you set as a goal for yourself. I’m not sure spending money to improve current buildings and vacant lots in our existing core will capture the public’s imagination, or cause the city to move beyond what it is today. As a downtown resident, much as I’d like the existing vacant lots to be developed, I’m not sure it’s the wisest way to spend our money to create long term success.

I think we need to shoot for something grand, recognizing that it’s not going to be a five year deal. As outlined, this is something that will take 25 years to be what is planned. As the Core to Shore area improves, I think it will cause the areas that need filling in to look attractive to developers. We need more people and retail downtown, and I think it’s going to take more public works downtown, an air that the city is growing and changing to get both of those.

As far as public transportation goes, I’m certainly in favor of a streetcar, but I’m not really sure the public knows what it wants in terms of public transportation. There weren’t many people who posted their Core to Shore suggestions, and you can assume most of them are the highly interested. I don’t think the average voter, if he or she found out what sexy types of public transportation like light rail cost, would be nearly as interested as we might think. We do need to include something in the Core to Shore plans for public transportation, but we need to think practically, and not create a financial white elephant that no one uses. That will kill any future MAPS projects as quickly as anything. The public needs to see things paid for with MAPS money that excite the imagination, that make them proud to live here, IMO.

Also, I think the park should not be underestimated. Think of Central Park in NYC (admittedly bigger), the Boston Public Garden and Millenium Park in Chicago. Those parks are among the most identifiable landmarks in each city. I think it might be one of the single most important things we can do as part of MAPS3, as it should almost assuredly be used be more of the citizens of OKC than anything built by MAPS 1. Beautification of a city should never be underestimated. Creation of an iconic city landmark should never be underestimated.

Steve,

I have some thoughts, but am getting worn out commenting on blogs and billboards. Could you please let us know when the first open public meeting is held?

One more question for everyone else:

Is the expectation of a meaningful public process considered positive, negative, or just overly optimistic?

Blair, I’ll definitely post it. I look forward to the answers your question provokes.

Steve,

Know that downtown was THE center of commerce and retail at one point but did it ever have the concentration of residential that everyone seems to be hoping that Core 2 Shore and other developments are supposed to produce? Even in my parents day, they lived in Bethany and Capitol Hill but Downtown was THE place to shop.

“…I’m not really sure the public knows what it wants in terms of public transportation. There weren’t many people who posted their Core to Shore suggestions…”

Jill, were you talking about the City’s MAPS 3 survey?

Yes I was, Larry. There were about 700 people who posted, if I remember correctly. That’s a very small percentage of 1.3 million, and it’s the percentage who cared enough to post their thoughts. I think most of us who posted envision or hope for Oklahoma City becoming as “cool” as some of the cities we’ve visited, and there are certain forms of public transportation such as light rail which seem far “cooler”. In a world where money is unlimited, it would be great to have light rail. However, it’s probably not the most cost effective or logical type of mass transit in a world where money is limited, as it seems to be now. It’s easy to pick mass transit in a poll or mention it in an e-mail, but less easy to come up with a system that is practical, well planned and cost effective. I think the streetcar system being discussed is a great place to start, but it’s certainly not city-wide mass transit. I’d be happy with a better bus system, but that’s not what I think the people mentioning mass transit for MAPS 3 had in mind. But, I also think when they picked it, these people had no idea what it would cost to build and maintain light rail or a similar system.

Mr. Lackmeyer do you have the info on this? I can’t recall seeing anywhere what the projected cost of the Central Park element of Core to Shore is expected to run (the City has already spent $5M of the $26M authorized in the general obligation bond issue for the elements of Core to Shore of MAPS 3 which has NOT been approved by the voters yet). Some of these things sound like they could be rather expensive (like the underground parking).

According to the City’s “Core to Shore Plan 2008″:

Central Park should include
• Structures and spaces for community events such as the Oklahoma City Festival of the Arts
• A distinctive children’s play area
• A small pond for changing seasonal uses
• Shaded open areas with attractive landscape for casual activity
• A “Great Lawn” for large events, concerts, and unstructured use
• Public art
• An events center
• A formal garden
• Underground parking