Comments on: Core to Shore – Vision vs. Reality

By: Larry

Larry — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:03:19 +0000

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

By: Jill

Jill — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 05:09:47 +0000

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.

By: Larry

Larry — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 03:38:28 +0000

“…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?

By: Larry

Larry — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 03:32:32 +0000

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.

By: steve lackmeyer

steve lackmeyer — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:45:52 +0000

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

By: Blair

Blair — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 21:54:55 +0000

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?

By: Jill

Jill — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 19:25:04 +0000

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.

By: Jill

Jill — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 13:27:08 +0000

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.

By: Larry

Larry — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 03:09:26 +0000

“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).

By: Curt

Curt — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 23:11:17 +0000

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.