This is a really long comment, and it probably includes a few typos, but basically I’m suggesting that we lack a happy medium between private property and public projects. The planning process tends to exclude private property, putting too much focus on public projects, and segmenting the public use areas in a neighborhood. That’s it in a nutshell.

I have a lot of comments, so many in fact that as reading this it felt as if I was in a conversation with Phillip Morris. I think the general pattern that I would have an instant response to one sentence, that I see refuted in the next sentence, is proof that this urbanist debate is nothing new. And also, my initial reaction is that this column stands for everything that I’m against in terms of practical urban plan. That’s not that I’m saying Phillip Morris is a crackpot, quite the contrary.

I think this is a brilliantly written article, mentions a few points that I believe in, has a lot of reasoning I disagree with, and the bottom line is that it was written by someone who clearly intended the best for OKC. Mayor Mick is someone I have a lot of disagreement with at the moment, but there’s no question that he is at least addressing the urbanist question, and of course he wants OKC to be the best.. such was evident with Morris’ column, as well as everyone else who cares enough about OKC to pipe up and express their point of view.

As for this article, I wonder what Dean McGee thought when he read this back in 1964 when downtown was deep in a funk. I disprove strongly that cities don’t naturally develop, they do. Of course planning is a good thing, and there’s no reason planning can’t gently nudge the development of a city the right direction. What this article argues for is over planning, which led to Urban Renewal. The only scenario that historic trends support the need of “over planning” for is special circumstances, such as after a huge fire, a war, or Urban Renewal. OKC is in the last of those special circumstances, as we attempt to simply undo the damage done to downtown by Urban Renewal. The natural development of a downtown that was unnaturally destroyed is not a strong enough force to overcome the extensive damage that was inflicted on Downtown OKC.

I think that one thing this column as well as the C2S crapola share in common is toooooo much focus on the thoroughfare, not enough focus on the environs. Yeah, streetscapes are nice, and yes they naturally attract people–as long as they don’t come in the way of urban development that supports natural pedestrian flow. Believe it or not successful, vibrant urban neighborhoods that are great for pedestrians often don’t have these flashy streetscapes we talk about here in OKC. On the East Coast, you frequently have million-dollar townhomes and cool shops lining streets with plain sidewalks and crumbling streets, like the inner city of every city in the WORLD.

The column gets some things right. A lot of city development is more reliant on PEOPLE than you’d think, such as businesses that coexist together, rather than independently. This is why today there is so much focus on things like the Bricktown Association. You have to have neighborhood associations that support a vibrant community. It also correctly points out the problem with the belief that urban development naturally follows land values, which will typically rise. I think today though, we’ve fully evaluated that idea especially with the phenomenon that’s all the rage these days, Bricktown land values! We love to complain about developers who squat on the land values for a multitude of reasons, that for outnumber the reasons that might convince a land owner to develop.

Sometimes they hold out for an amazing deal on the resale of the land, so they can hit it rich and do no work at the same time (the problem with that is that everyone in Bricktown is trying to get rich quick). Others hold out because they have a single underutilizing use for a building, such as the Haunted Warehouse. Others just sit on the land because of over planning, which can cause development to be not worth the trouble, and also because of backfire with property taxes designed to prevent squatting on buildings–the owner is unfortunate to come into possession of high-tax properties that drain an owner’s resources and don’t attract other prospective buyers who would run into the same problems.

So yes, it’s absurd to assume that high land values should make underutilization cost prohibitive. Sometimes it just ends up making utilization cost prohibitive. This is where economics and city planning are heavily interconnected, and the disappointing thing is that the planning establishment still has failed to find a solution for this problem. But I would assume it’s much more likely to come from government stepping away from the problem, rather than getting more involved in the problem..this economics problem is already complicated enough. There was never a need for Urban Renewal to completely redistribute the property around.

I also find it interesting how he opposes the conversion of homes into businesses. He has a strong distaste for this that he brings up more than once–makes me wonder if he’s currently an angry old man at the thought of the Red Cup and the 23rd Street Cottages, and other well-done businesses. Of course he’s probably rightfully upset at all of these new ranch house-looking medical offices popping up everywhere. I think this is more indicative of the problem with architecture in OKC, not building uses. Vernacular residential architecture in OKC for the most part sucks. In Philadelphia or Boston most of the vernacular buildings would do fine as either a law office, home, coffee shop, clothing shop, convenience store, whatever. In OKC that’s not the case and it all looks like crap in my opinion, except for a great collection of “high-design” buildings in OKC.

Towards the end of the column, is he more excited about the prospect of Classen becoming urban, or is he more excited about the prospect of expanding it beyond 6 lanes? Nobody is arguing that a plan shouldn’t exist for cities. That could have been what caused downtown’s demise, was that there was no plan until people thought it was time for overplanning. There SHOULD always be a plan, yes–but Morris and Mayor Mick argue for a plan that focuses on public spaces. It makes sense, the public generates the plan, as well as the streets and the parks, convention centers, and yes, the “boulevards,” so it’s basically a “Me, me, me, me!” approach. The comprehensive government plan should be focusing on private property, not public projects.

And I’m not saying it should be all about private property either, because that’s also one-sided. I’m just saying that some balance between private property interests and public projects would be nice to see, for a change, in urban planning. I think that private property needs to be incorporated into the public realm in order to make the public realm actually relevant, and I think that this avoidance of touching private property needs to be overcome so that we stop excluding private property from the planning process. That’s the problem with Classen Boulevard and Downtown OKC, not that there wasn’t enough government intervention.

Captcha: are dimwits

Mr. Lackmeyer: Though I spent the rest of my career with Southern Living here in Birmingham, AL, I try to keep in touch with OKC. Very much enjoy your coverage of urban development, but am astonished to find this article included in your blog. Like I’d been dug up from the ground. Very impressed with what I see in OKC downtown and in the vigorous streetscape projects throughout. Much more to be done –including Classen Boulevard. Keep up the good work.

(Steve just spent five minutes in shock. Dog nudged up against his arm to make sure he’s still alive. Yep. Still alive. Just amazed.)

Well Mr. Morris, let me just say it’s no surprise to me you got to enjoy a career with one of the country’s finest magazines. This story really caught me by surprise on so many different levels. How in the world, in 1964 no less, did you get to write a piece like this? What were your influences? There are so many aspects of this story that were ahead of their time. When you spoke about lighting, about street furniture, about amenities and design that were focused on people – you were talking about streetscapes. Yet that concept wasn’t, to my knowledge, seriously introduced to this city until the middle 1990s. And even then, when Planning Director Garner Stoll made the push, he was treated as a radical. Yet there you were, introducing ideas that weren’t a part of any discussion I’ve found in all my research.
It’s not reasonable for me to ask you to remember details of what was probably one of thousands of stories you’ve written over the years. Yet I’m doing just that. Or at least speculate a bit. And as someone who appreciates our past, if you ever get back to OKC, I’d love to buy you a coffee at one of those converted bungalows you mentioned. I’d pay to hear you share anything you might know about the battle between Mary Jo and Gilbert Hill in covering the Pei Plan.

Nick, I think it’s important to read this story in terms of 1964, not 2010. It seems to me, but I could be wrong, that essentially what Mr. Morris was advocating was, without saying it, a version of what we now know as urban design review mixed with streetscapes and a more advanced approach to zoning. Understand that when homes were being converted back in the 1960s, the properties were not being renovated in a way we see today with the NW 23 bungalows. Take a look at Shields Boulevard to understand what I suspect Mr. Morris was trying to warn against.
It’s only after your comment, Nick, that I was able to reach this conclusion. Again, the story itself left me a bit stunned trying to get a grasp of it all. I look forward to what Blair and Dennis have to say. And Phillip as well.

Classen Boulevard remains a critical artery in all respects to greater downtown. Urban Neighbors defines its Western boundary by Classen for good reason.

It is a significant interface that is almost as competitive in relevance to the Eastern border of I-2535 / Broadway Extension.

One of the most significant points I found of the Urban Land Institutes’ Council Chamber presentation, was the pressed consideration of the addition of a new major intersection with the newly planned Boulevard replacement for the Crosstown Expressway.

It is something that has been largely unmentioned in the greater conversation distracted by Core to Shore discussions and bears greater examination to provide even more connective tissue to the burgeoning Western side of Downtown.

Nick, the problem with the Pei plan wasn’t the plan itself in a great deal, it was how the City mangled the implementation of it. Yes superblocks are/can be bad, and yes it created some, but it called for a sort of in situ swapping of space, not destroying the old before the new was there, which the City ignored. Pei specifically said don’t destroy where Brown’s was until after the new location for them was established, for instance.

One thing I’m missing seeing in some of these what should downtown be discussions is what if your downtown isn’t your CBD? Cities needed a CBD in the past as everyone had to be in close proximity to exchange documents, hold meetings, etc. but that’s not the case anymore.

I have some recent photos of Classen that Mr. Morris might enjoy. I don’t think he could imagine the Jeep on a Stick when he wrote this article in 1964. Many of the buildings that he was concerned about have fallen in disrepair and should be removed. I am afraid though that the replacements will be far less interesting and will need their own replacements soon.

All: Most interesting responses. The Pei Plan was certainly of its time, and, in terms of urbanism, better than most other urban renewal projects I saw across the South later that just plopped buildings in pointless green space — suburban, not urban at all. What was lacking was the sophisticated urban design, recognition of historic context and processes of implementation developed later (e.g. Midtown Manhattan Plan directed by Jaquelin Taylor Robertson). The federal dollars were abundant; the skills lacking. Of course, I only discovered this later!

Many good models now, especially strong urban codes that allow flexible responses but within firm guidelines dealing with frontage, transparency, etc. Just what your downtown design review does today, I gather.

FYI, the City of Birmingham (truly a center city wrapped by close suburbs) used urban renewal only for UAB expansion, but in the 1980′established more than 20 design review districts overseen by a single board with guidelines written with imput from property owners (who must organize and formally request the designation before public improvements are made). They are titled “Commercial Revitalization District” and do just about everything you would in a local historic district — but without the red flag name. Incrementally adds up over time, but only where the economic base supports development.

(Steve: I will let you know when I’m coming that way to visit family. It would be great to sit down with you and maybe others involved in urban issues.)

You’re right Steve… Phillip Morris criticized the gruesomely converted houses; presumably this leaves room for well done conversions. But I think it’s safe to say he wouldn’t approve of the Jeep-on-a-stick even if it were a Lamborghini-on- a-Corinthian-column. (Were similar complaints raised about the Milk Bottle after it first went up? What are the positive aspects of Jeeps-on-sticks? Where do you draw the line between gruesome and eclectic?)
If the blogosphere had existed during Phillip Morris’ critique of Classen Blvd., would that have increased the chances of it achieving Boulevard status?

We now have the OKC Boulevard being planned to occupy the space soon to be vacated by I-40. Why? Well, there’s a road there now… so, don’t we have to put a road there when it’s gone? What else are we going to do with this valuable bonus space that currently has exactly no East-West traffic demand? Can you say: gruesome conversion?

“…the problem with the Pei plan wasn’t the plan itself in a great deal…”

I hope to have a more expanded comment on the article, but had to jump in here in response to this statement to say that the Pei Plan (link) was, in and of itself, both poorly conceived and devastating to Downtown OKC. In fact, if anything, we are lucky that the Pei Plan was not fully implemented, as there are a number of beautiful buildings standing today that were targeted for demolition.

An amazingly thoughtful discussion – I’ve learned a lot from this thread. One question comes to mind – isn’t walkable urbanism still essentially a non-starter in most of the city based on zoning restrictions? For instance, the requirement for substantial setbacks, segregated use, parking, and a variety of others that lend themselves to sprawl intensive development – In a way, the forced suburbanization of everything?

I’m away until Thursday but I’ll quickly add what an interesting thread this is. So very cool, \calling for … Phillip Morris …,\ that you joined in.

I mentioned the photos without posting a link. The Jeep does make for interesting photos. http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2031264&id=1232843730&l=ad1d333fc3

I agree with the thesis that cities NEED to be designed. Of course, the rub comes when you decide things like: designed how, by whom, and to what end.

In Oklahoma City we have favored design through top-down measures utilizing the planning/design talent of renowned consultants, trusted (almost revered) our “infallible” traffic engineers, and depended on the benevolent motivations and decision-making of small groups of powerful businessmen.

More often than not, this has led to: the destruction of our urban heritage in favor of alien models of urbanity, a move away from walkable urban form in favor of an autocentric city with a street infrastructure that is grossly over capacity (and without streetlife), and the allocation of resources towards major public improvements and economic development programs that consistently ignore quality of life concerns.

I think we should shift the way we “design” our city in this way:

Designed how? Through an open public process that includes access to information, free exchange of ideas, and a thoughtful discourse.
Designed by whom? By multidisciplinary teams of professionals and amateurs working at the direction of citizens that choose to be engaged in the process. The size of this “engaged community” will depend on the scale of the plan, but the more local the better.
To what end? To whatever end the community decides. For me, I want to enhance the quality of life in OKC both now and for future generations – with priority on the future. And build back a downtown that offers a true urban lifestyle.

Some of this is happening now. Some members of our planning staff are doing incredible work in neighborhoods throughout the city, and the Oklahoma Main Street program has done a tremendous job in places like the Plaza District and Stockyard City. Also, a few local developers – notably Midtown Renaissance & Steve Mason’s 9th street – have embraced historic areas and given local businesses a shot, and in the process created some of the most popular places in the city.

That said, for the most part our city continues to be “designed” by transportation engineers and the results are evidence enough that they have little understanding of their role in creating good urban form (thought they clearly know something about short commute times). And our historic model of power broker decision-making is still ingrained, no matter how much rhetoric you might hear about most “public”, “transparent”, “democratic”, etc. Often, one wonders, whether our spending is really thought to be in the best interest of the city and really in the direction desired by the community.

Until there is a process that values the contributions and criticisms of our citizenry, OKC will fall short of its potential.

By the way, one example of a “citizen idea” that deserves consideration is Dennis’ proposal to turn the old I-40 right-of-way into a linear park and art exhibit which incorporates remnants of the existing structure. An interesting idea that shares some themes with the High Line in NYC – an incredibly innovative and successful public space.

Where is there evidence that this idea has ever been considered? Where is there a process for submitting such an idea for consideration? What does more for the city’s quality of life, spending $80 million on a boulevard with capacity that is completely unnecessary; OR, creating an interesting open space and repository for public art, that has a unique tie to our city and the history of our urban form?

Blair, the idea of keeping some of the abandoned bridge columns came from the architectural thesis project that a friend of mine did many years ago. I understand that he did meet with the mayor (last year) to present the concept. Mayor’s response: Thank you very much! Don’t call us, we’ll call you…

I’m not specifically promoting such an idea, but I do question the rote fashion in which the ‘boulevard’ idea was generated. I don’t object to the boulevard concept; I do object to the notion of automatically excluding other possible uses for portions of that space, and for assuming that ALL of the I-40 shadow must be used for roadway.

I wholeheartedly agree. Blair. Dennis’s idea needs serious consideration. Especially since said $80 million dollar boulevard HAS NOT been funded.

Great article. I’ve been an advocate for the betterment of Classen Blvd. for quite awhile. There is no reason it can’t be a signature boulevard in our city. Like Nick, I too have disagreements with Mayor Micky about the way he ignores some key components such as this, that could really propel our city forward in an urban manner. One thing has not changed since 1964;Classen Blvd. still has real potential! We should have a streetscaping plan for Classen and have it tie into the new “DT boulevard” with a grand roundabout, perhaps with a grand fountain and/or statue where the two boulevards would meet. Now that would be “world-class” to have a N/S and an E/W boulevard tie into each other.

Dennis – thanks for the back-story. Unfortunately, the boulevard was considered a “must include” going into the Core to Shore planning process, so it is impossible to know what other ideas might have received consideration both from the public and the committee.

It is not too late though. Until something is constructed, all ideas – even ideas not in official plans – have some chance of implementation. Would it be possible to share the thesis work so that we all have a better idea of what this space could be?

All: About the new boulevard. I watched the ULI video presentation on the city’s website and found the team’s review of Core to Shore plans englightening. They specifically warn about letting the replacement boulevard to be a traffic engineering-only project. They suggest making the right-of-way a max of 110 feet wide, 30mph, centering a civic monument within the right-of-way aligned with Myriad Gardens and the new office tower. They even argue for congestion as a good, urban thing. This is the sort of sophisticated planning you refer to. Hope this is pushed. I don’t think it needs to be park. If done well, it will be a lively pedestrian open space as true boulevards are.

I think that today in 2010 we’re making great steps forward with Classen Blvd. The Asian District is becoming a great area, and work that began on the streetscape when I was in town over the summer should still be going on at the moment. As a result of that public investment, the Asian District is one area of town where development never really slowed down through the recession, although I have concerns about some of those projects being bad strip centers.

There is some really great potential along either end of the new Asian streetscape–the area between 23rd and 16th is very dense and urban, and maybe cleaning it up some would result in a walkable, urban area–and maybe even contribute some more success to The Classen and the Gold Dome renovations. North of the Asian District is a really, really fantastic collection of mid-century office buildings, a lot of really unique mid-century architecture. I hope the city can capitalize that. The north side could benefit from some better linkage between the diverse NW 23rd area and the posh Classen Curve/Nichols Hills area.

As for C2S–I think it’s a mistake that I instantly jumped to take this column of Mr Morris’ in context of what we know today about 1964 downtown. We should be able to talk about Classen Blvd, even its non-downtown portions, without jumping back to the downtown debates. When all of the debates become intertwined and you can separate the C2S hot button from any other issue elsewhere in the city, it’s going to be difficult to be heard by the forces that be..it will be difficult to move forward as a community as well.

I’m guessing the ULI report will be made available on the OKC.gov website similar to how the Jeff Speck report can be viewed?

Good point Nick.

I digress too much (and too late in the night). Downtown is certainly monopolizing my thinking, and that of many others, as of late.

An independent discussion on Classen Blvd would be very worthwhile. I am particularly interested b/c I will soon be moving into the area.

Here we go. A couple of thoughts on Classen Boulevard:

1. We should view it as an urban corridor and attempt to create an appropriate urban edge with street fronting buildings and screened surface parking behind the buildings.

2. Classen should be under consideration for the MAPS 3 streetcar (or future extension) due to its surrounding residential density, and its ability to connect the CBD to the retail amenities along the street and anchored by Penn Square.

3. Embracing the cultural identity of the local demographic is on target. We should continue to enable this and create design guidelines that incorporate these themes into the fabric of the built environment and architectural design.

Just a start…thank you for the correction of (dis)course.

Great conversation, everyone. I just drove up and down Classen with Mr. Morris’s thoughts from 1964 rattling around in my head. One thing that makes a boulevard a “boulevard” and not an abbreviated “blvd” (I love this idea, Mr. Morris) are alternate modes of transportation. It’s hard for any road to be anything but a thouroughfare when cars are the only viable mode of transportation. It’s hard for any place to become a Place with a capital P when parking is such a big concern. I think OKC should mandate that any new building going on one of its major roads (May, Classen, Western, etc) should front the road and that parking should be behind the building.

Apropos of nothing, an idea just occurred to me, and even though this isn’t the right thread to say, I’ll say it anyway. I know that some people wanted to see the canal extended with MAPS 3 funds; what about extending the canal west along the old 1-40? Wouldn’t that be neat? Might be a draw away from Bricktown, but if the Convention Center is located in the lumberyard south of Harkin’s Theater or in North Bricktown/Lower Deep Deuce, then this might not matter.

Blair, I really like point #1. I think it should be a requirement not only there, but along 23rd street from I-235 to I-44 as well.

Unfortunately, like Nick said, there are already suburban developments taking place along Classen and 23rd.

#2 would work for me as well, and I wish they would do it right thru my neighborhood. I live in one of the old medium density trolley neighborhoods with the occasional commercial property.

The main problem with the OKC boulevards is that you can view them as too wide for pedestrian traffic or too narrow. Anybody seen Panhandle park in San Fran?

All: Good to read so many interesting ideas about Classen Boulevard. I never fail to drive it when I’m back visiting family. It has great movement and changing views, not usual in your grid. Certainly worth your attention. FYI, Orlando Planning Director Rick Bernhardt changed codes there 15 or 20 years ago to require that all typical strip buildings front thoroughfares with parking to the side and rear. He’s now planning director for Nashville metro government and over the past 8 years or so has transformed their approach with overlay districts. Google City of Nashville Planning and click Urban Design if you want to see these. Classen could use an overlay with different requirements for different stretches but an overall boulevard landscape to tie things together. Rick does a very good presentation on this if there were an occasion to bring him there. Also: I found the ULI video on City of Oklahoma City site under planning. A good reality-check on Core to Shore plans.

It’s funny how the ULI video has become synonymous, with the help of Steve, to the point that we’re all pretty familiar with the issue the panel brought up..even if we haven’t gotten a chance yet to view the whole video for ourselves.

just FYI, Cox has been replaying the ULI video frequently on the CityVue channel. Supposedly, also available for download on the City’s site somewhere (haven’t looked for it since I have it recorded at home).

I commend the reference to The Highline. What a gift it was to NYC and a model for other cities looking for ways to ‘re-use.’

It’s interesting that Nick brought up the potential between 16th and 23rd. I noticed the ACOG-proposed route for the MAPS streetcar has it going up Shartel and around the curve in Mesta onto 18th and ending at Western. I think that would be a great catalyst for TOD in the area between Classen, Western, and 23rd.

Sidenote (maybe Doug has some insight): What was historically in that triangle? Everything there now can’t be older than the 50′s or 60′s.

Currently you have a lot of surface parking, a few small forgettable strip centers, and the American Fidelity headquarters that they are rumored to be abandoning for downtown. Imagine the kind of mixed use development that could go there, anchored by residential marketed to people working downtown–just a quick 15 minute streetcar ride away.