Change on Downtown Design Review Committee?
The city council agenda includes an appointment of Stan Carroll to the committee to replace Anthony McDermid. Discuss amongst yourselves
Deferral, not a Moratorium
Historic tax credits will be deferred for two years, but won’t be canceled out (assuming this gets the governor’s signature) I’m sure there are a lot of historic building developers very, very relieved tonight.
URGENT UPDATE
Waiting for confirmation, but Preservation Oklahoma is reporting the effort to amend the suspensions on historic tax credits has passed. Story developing…
Status of Efforts to Amend Suspension of Historic Tax Credits
Still hung up friends… not sure why the bills aren’t getting voted on yet.
Doug Loudenback Tackles Let’s Talk Transit
And he does it thoroughly, having invested hours and hours and hours in attending these meetings. Read his very interesting and informative take here.
Something that stood out, and I want to show it here, is the original Oklahoma City Railway map for downtown:
Look at how simple the alignments are. Notice the Broadway and Walker pairing – the same alignment sought out by the majority of participants in the sessions but for some reason not reflected in the maps shown Thursday night. It’s as if the alignments were chosen on how best to serve passengers, and didn’t involve politics or other undue influences. Go figure.
The Bricktown Blog
I’ve been following the blog at www.welcometobricktown.org for a few weeks, waiting to see it would be a flash in the pan or the real deal. For now, it’s the real deal. And the latest post has a Texan singing Bricktown’s praises. Go here.
Let’s Talk Transit – I’m Coming…..
UPDATE: Whatever lack of responsiveness that was reported to me this morning vanished with the evening session. In light of the late hour, here’s an abbreviated update showing answers given at tonight’s Let’s talk Transit session.
- Why was the Cox Center left off of all three route options? Please don’t avoid answering this question as I’m told you did this morning. CONSULTANT’S ANSWER: Don’t know. It was an oversight.
- The Urban Land Institute indicated Core to Shore will take 50 years. Why the concern over getting the first phase of the transit system into an area that won’t be developed for a half century? Please don’t avoid answering this question as I’m told you did this morning. ANSWER: Would advise against putting transit system in Core to Shore if it’s just empty land with no buildings or commercial development.
- Which is more likely to happen by the time the transit system is set to happen – the OCU law school, Film Row and Devon Tower, or Core to Shore? Please give a concrete answer to this question. ANSWER: The areas with some development already underway should take precedence.
- You identified constraints this morning with each option. You showed a picture of trying to get under the railroad underpass at Reno. Have you also considered economic constraints – that passing Bricktown could hurt a district that is already established. I’m told you simply answered “we know all about Bricktown” at this morning’s meeting. I expect a better answer than that. If you haven’t considered the economic impact to Bricktown being left off the transit system, please just say so. If you have, please share the details. ANSWER: Talk of constraints shouldn’t be confused with any reluctance to go into Bricktown. Based on citizen input and importance of area to downtown, a connection into Bricktown is a must.
- Will the plan that will be submitted to the MAPS 3 oversight board and city council reflect citizen input? If so, how? YES. Citizen’s input will continue to be sought through the Let’s Talk Transit website.
- Further, attendees were told tonight it was a mistake to not reflect their desire for a Walker/Broadway coupling and to further suggest the lines go along the Boulevard.
God bless ya – Steve
I Really Wish I Could Be Cloned
Based on reports from multiple parties, I’m curious if anyone who attended the first MAPS 3 oversight board meeting today still has any doubts as to whether the mayor favors the south of Ford Center site for the new convention center?
Everyone’s Talking Transit, but is Anybody Listening?
Today’s guest blogger is Blair Humphreys, who ,has had a great influence on my understanding of urban planning over the past couple of years. I don’t pretend to know as much as Blair knows – but I’m often awed by his ability to beyond conventional thinking and to propose solutions not considered. Blair’s experience includes real world urban development, time spent with Hans Butzer, one of the city’s leading design professionals and professor of architecture at OU, an internship at the Oklahoma City Planning Department, and of course, a front row to seat to the city’s political scene. Blair, a national merit scholar at OU, won national recognition and honors while attending Massachusetts Institute of Technology, from which he graduated last year with a Master in City Planning and Urban Design Certificate. Blair is now an instructor and researcher at the University of Oklahoma, and has been following the Let’s Talk Transit far closer than I.
After seeing comments already made by respected Oklahoma City blogger Doug Loudenback questioning whether real public input was taking place with the downtown transit, I asked Blair to share his insights.
Hey Everyone,
It has been a while since I last blogged over at www.imaginativeamerica.com! I recently moved back to Oklahoma City and am enjoying being home. While a new job (and a new house, and new puppy, etc) have kept me from blogging lately, I believe this issue is extremely important and hope you will find the post worthwhile.
I will be at today’s Lets Talk Transit meeting at 11:30am – hope to see you there!
Best, Blair
—-
INTRODUCTION
The first Let’s Talk Transit meeting was held on March 29, 2010 and the process will finish on Thursday, May 27, with meetings at both 11:30am and 6:00pm. Let’s Talk Transit is the public’s opportunity to interject their thoughts into the decision-making process for the $120 million MAPS 3 streetcar system:
“This is why these meetings are being held so the public can have a voice about what is most important to them. The public’s opinion is vital in meeting the needs of those who work, live and visit downtown.”
- Rick Cain
I was able to attend the first meeting and have kept up with the process by completing surveys, watching videos of meetings, and reviewing the meeting agendas. In fact, Let’s Talk Transit has done a great job making information on the process available. All of the images and/or quotes in this post come from public documents available at: http://www.letstalktransit.com/meetings (#1 – see note). As I have watched and listened, I have developed my own opinions on the best routes for the MAPS 3 Streetcar, and have found myself in agreement with much of the public input to date, but now I am beginning to wonder whether the output of this “public process” will truly represent the input the public gave.
APRIL 13 MEETING
At the second meeting on April 13, 2010, members of the public worked in small groups to layout proposal for the new streetcar routes. There were six tables each of which was asked to take-on the perspective of a potential streetcar rider: resident, worker, and visitor. Figure 1 shows the various proposals that the citizen groups came up with. All of which were aggregated by the consultant to produce the frequency map shown in Figure 2.
Figure 1 – Routes Proposed by Citizens at April 13 Meeting
Figure 2 – Frequency of Routes Proposed by Citizens at April 13 Meeting
So what did the citizens say? What routes had some consensus?
Top routes selected by the citizens at the April 13 meeting:
- Broadway Avenue – 5 out of 6
- Sheridan Avenue – 5 out of 6
- Walker Avenue – 4 out of 6
- N. 10th Street – 3 out of 6
- Stiles Ave – 3 out of 6
Interestingly, if you take a closer look at the individual maps, you find that a majority – 4 out of 6 of the groups – selected both Broadway Avenue and Walker Avenue as a north-south pair with Sheridan Avenue and/or Reno Avenue serving the accompanying east-west connection (#2). In fact, most of the routes are also similar in their use of straight lines and few turns (#3). Given the number of possibilities, to have such a consensus on preferred routes is incredible. It certainly got my attention. But apparently did not impress the consulting team.
APRIL 29 MEETING
The consulting team returned at the next meeting and provided the meeting participants with north-south and east-west route options. There were six north-south route options presented by the consultant – see options – but the Broadway/Walker pair favored by a majority of citizen groups at the previous meeting was not included, and there does not appear to be any explanations as to why. The consultant presented these route options and then, once again, asked the citizens to work in groups to sketch out their own route proposals.
Figure 3 – Routes Proposed by Citizens at April 29 Meeting
Figure 4 - Frequency of Routes Proposed by Citizens at April 27 Meeting
Once again, the citizens showed a very clear consensus on routes with at least 5 out of 6 groups proposing a route that included Broadway, Walker and/or Sheridan. The bright red line – visible in Figure 4 – outlines the core of a simple system on which the majority of the public participants agreed (#4). When you combine the preferred routes from the April 13 meeting with these proposals from the April 27 meeting you get the following:
North-South Routes:
- Broadway Avenue – 10 out of 12
- Walker Avenue – 9 out of 12
- Lincoln Boulevard – 6 out of 12
- Walnut Avenue – 5 out of 12
- Hudson Avenue – 5 out of 12
- Stiles Avenue – 4 out of 12
- Robinson Avenue – 1 out of 12
East-West Routes:
- Sheridan Avenue – 11 out of 12
- N. 10th Street - 8 out of 12
- Harrison Ave – 6 out of 12 (#5)
- N. 4th Street – 5 out of 12
- N. 13th Street – 4 out of 12
- The Boulevard – 3 out of 12
So what is the public saying? The only routes shown on a majority of the citizen’s proposals were Broadway and Walker running north-south, and Sheridan and 10th Street running east-west. Also noteworthy is the strength of both Lincoln and Harrison, which speaks to a desire by the public to connect to the Health Sciences Center complex (#6). And once again I will point out the public’s consistency in producing simple systems made up of straight-lines and few turns.
MAY 11 MEETING
At the May 11 Meeting the consultants presented three “conceptual” alignments – see Figure 5 – that were “drawn based on input from past public meetings and the results’ of [the consultant's] analysis.”
Figure 5 - Consultants Conceptual Alignments Presented at May 11 Meeting
Of the three “options” presented, none include the Broadway/Walker north-south pair favored by the public. In fact, only one includes N. Broadway at all, despite the overwhelming support of the public for this route. And while Sheridan is partially included in all three options, none of the consultant’s three options use the straight route on Sheridan found in the majority of the proposals by the public. Also gone is the simplicity of the system favored by the public’s proposals, replaced by an ever-winding path of turns and loops reminiscent of our much maligned rubber-tire trolley system. Some of this winding is done in order to incorporate two options with a Boulevard route, even though this route had little support from the public. According to the meeting summary, Option #1 was the favorite of the citizens in attendance. However, the summary also mentions that a number of concerns were vocalized, including a plea for Broadway to be used instead of Robinson. Of course, this begs the question: how could the consultants take the input of the public which favored Broadway in 10/12 compared to Robinson in 1/12, and decide Robinson was the better choice? Surely the citizen’s input is worth more than that?
MAY 27 MEETING
It was my hope that the routes to be presented at the May 27 meeting would revert back to the public’s wishes and provide a simple system incorporating Broadway/Walker and Sheridan, but the newest “options” – see Figure 6 or download pdf – continue to stray from the input given by the citizens. While the exclusion of Broadway has been changed in 2 out of 3 of the options, the clean Broadway-10th-Walker connection favored by citizens is confused in a series of interconnected loops and bends. And the continuous east-west connection along Sheridan that was preferred by the citizen groups is forfeited, it would seem, so that two of the options can include a Boulevard route. There is no simplicity, few strong corridors, and very little evidence of citizen input.
Figure 6 - Consultants Final Options Presented at May 27 Meeting
CONCLUSION
These routes will be presented by the consultant today – Thursday, May 27 – in public meetings held at 11:30am and 6:00pm in the City Hall Council Chamber. While the consultant will no doubt claim that these routes were “created using the input received from citizen surveys, hands-on exercises and through open discussion,” all evidence points to the contrary. This is not an insignificant fact. The consultant’s “options” will be placed in the hands of decision-makers that select the final routes and they will be told this represents the public input received during the Let’s Talk Transit process. Mr. Cain stated at the beginning of the process that these meetings are being held so that “the public can have a voice,” but what good is a voice, if no one will listen (#7).
notes
- Give it up for the meeting planners and public relations team. Thank you!
- The April 13 groups that included Broadway & Walker for N-S, with Sheridan and/or Reno for E-S are: 1, 2, 3 & 5
- This typically provides a system with higher degrees of legibility for the user
- Once again, notice that the public recommends simple routes with few turns
- A Harrison line typically connects east-west via N. 4th Street or north-south via Walnut Ave.
- I have heard a lot of people say that even though the HSC has no housing or retail attractions, it makes sense because the workers will ride the trolley to lunch in Bricktown. Sounds great. However, it will take at least one mile of track – or $20 million – to connect to the HSC. And with a 127 passenger capacity and no better than 10 minute frequency between cars, you will not see more than 500 riders per day (or 500 x 250 work days = 125,000 riders per year). Even at municipal bond rates (5% per year on $20 million) this works out to a cost of $8 per rider per year in infrastructure investment (not including operating costs). And the likely routes feature comparitively very little in adjacent development opportunities
- Thank you to Steve for giving me the opportunity. And once again, I apologize for the length of my post(s).
Anger of the People
There are a lot of questions out there concerning tax credits. It’s understandable. As shown by www.prowlingowl.com, some credits have clearly been abused.
But there is some confusion out there. I got an email from one person today who I’d assume knows how to read a news story. And yet they are confusing the historic tax credits with other, more mysterious tax credit programs that have seen fraud and abuse.
I’ve not heard or seen one example of abuse involving historic tax credits here in Oklahoma. They are easy to track, they are transparent and the benefits have been shown throughout the state, with projects including the Skirvin, the Sieber, the Mayo Hotel, the Aldridge in Shawnee and many more.
Preservation Oklahoma is reporting that a “rider bill” is being attempted to separate the historic tax credits from the two-year moratorium. They are saying that you readers who often feel helpless watching historic properties decay, see nothing happen, can make a difference – now. Now. Not tomorrow. now. Legislators are about to vote on this rider sometime this evening.
We’ve heard from a developer who wants to do the Bond Bakery at NW 11 and Broadway, we’ve heard from Marty Dillion, owner of the Tower Theater on NW 23; this moratorium will kill their projects.
I’ve been shown a list of other potential recipient projects: have no doubt, we’re at a crossroads. One call to your legislator is all Preservation Oklahoma is asking for.
If you oppose redevelopment of historic properties, then this too is your chance to make your voice heard.
I’ve not heard a single person say this isn’t a big, big moment for the future of preservation in Oklahoma.
UPDATE: HEARING BEST BET IS TO NOW COMMUNICATE VIA EMAIL, NOT BY PHONE
