I would put Rands thoughts, ideas, and designs in a class that one day Blair may grow up into but now, not hardly. His allegation that Rands design is less safe is bald/uninformed speculation based upon opinion and not fact.

Since the new park has not been built he has no clue if it is “less safe”. There is NO DATA to rely upon for a reasoned determination. Many times people of his stripe are allowed to make whatever non-factual/emotional based statements and are rarely called to heel on them. If he has proof that the new design is less safe he should be prepared to show it.

After all he is only just one more voice in the debate. I find his concern of “money wasted” a bit tongue in cheek.

MikeN,

Very seldom do I post on a blog, but I read this site daily & I must say I’ve NEVER read a positive comment by you. The only thing I see, that you have against Blair, is his last name. If this is the case, I’m sure you won’t admit it publicly but perhaps YOU are the one who should grow up!!

His family connection is not relevant to me or this discussion. What is germaine is the fact that I value Rands’s decades of experience and expertise over the thoughts of a new upstart. Age and wisdom always trumps youth and inexperience.

Fine wine takes time it does not come of age quickly. With time and seasoning Blair may one day achieve the greatness that Rand has already reached. Wisdom is the prominent feature of the long term investment.

I’d be curious to match up Rand Elliott’s experience, exposure to urban planning and design against Blair’s. Rand is a superb architect – but I’m not aware of extensive prior work in the world of urban space and urban park planning. Mike, age doesn’t always reflect ability, experience and expertise. And when Rand was coming up in this town at a similar age, his work back then far exceeded that of architects twice his age. I would also point out that it is often those who are younger who break out of conventional wisdom and are most innovative. I’ll even go one step further – it is just as often it is those who are over the age of 50 (an age I’ll be hitting in just a couple years myself!) that end up at a disadvantage in innovating, adjusting to new realities. With all due respect, those who discount a person’s ideas, challenges, simply based on their age are in danger of being the ones whose thoughts are most discounted…
FINAL thought: one weakness I definitely see in Blair’s comments in his use of the phrase “passive park” – what exactly does that mean, and why is it bad?

Rand was and continues to be a phenonminal asset to architecture and planning. One day Blair may reach that pinnacle but he is nowhere near that today IMHO. Rand is a proven commodity and Blair is not, but one day will be with proper mentoring and experience.

As to innovaitve how is it possible to be innovative and maintain historical perspective. Those tend to be mutually exclusive terminologies.

I believe that Rands design IS innovative and should be moved forward. I agree with you Steve on Blairs use of the nebulous terminlogy of “passive park”. What do you make of his claim of “less safe”?

Mike, I agree – Rand is an INCREDIBLE architect. But his experience in planning is a bit more murky to me. We know he’s involved with the planning for the Chesapeake Energy headquarters and surrounding neighborhood. But these plans have been not been shared with the public, we don’t the extent of Rand’s involvement, and so it’s difficult to say based on that whether he’s a good planner or not. Likewise, the only other planning effort with Rand’s imprint that I know of is Boathouse Row – again, too early to say whether it’s a success or not. Neither effort, by the way, involves urban planning. To be blunt, I don’t see ANYTHING that indicates Rand is a proven commodity in the world of urban planning. Until I see information that indicates otherwise, and I realize this will probably not sit well with Rand (as will any of this), but I see Blair as being more well versed of the two when it comes to urban planning. If Rand’s design is REALLY the best, surely it can withstand the extra scrutiny instead of being rammed through design review for a quick rubber stamp approval.
As for Blair’s comments on it being a “passive park” and “less safe,” yes, let’s see if he can’t expand on that…

I will add, by the way, that when the Office of James Burnett was hired to do master planning for Project 180, I was the one questioning THEIR experience with this scale of an effort and asked why local experts on architectural lighting like Rand Elliott, urban design and planning like architect Anthony McDermid and others weren’t at the table. City staff then invited the two and others to scrutinize Burnett’s work. The review process went a bit longer than city staff desired, but we do have a pretty good public buy-in for the resulting redesigns of downtown streets and the Myriad Gardens done by Burnett. From where I’ve been sitting, I’m seeing good results when patience and additional scrutiny are given to these projects, and I’m noticing a pattern of problems resulting when things are rushed…

I agree with you Steve on public oversight and bringing many differing viewpoints to the table. But when is enough enough. Take for instance the old Mercy hospital location. That horse has IMHO been beat to death and it still is a vacant lot.

If a project looks good, works and is the most popular why does it have to be done by a “urban designer”? Isn’t possible that a complete novice, I am not saying Rand is a novice, might get it right? Not likely but anything is possible. After all we are talking about a park not an entire development zone.

I agree that the jury is still out oh Boathouse Row but I feel that it will turn out to be a smashing success.

Well, in this case, I can tell you that there was A LOT of changes that were done by Rand and PPG without going through ANY public scrutiny. When the committee selected to review this project wrapped up, we had designs displayed in this post: http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2010/11/29/what-will-the-future-bicentennial-park-or-civic-center-park-look-like/

That was a year ago. There were people who THEN asked to have their concerns heard – people who are wired in, involved with downtown, like Jeff Bezdek and Blair Humphreys. Their efforts were rebuffed.
This is far different from the Heritage Hills/Mercy site where there was plenty of time given for public input and the neighborhood was GIVEN a seat at the table.

In this case the park designs were significantly altered, concerns voiced a year ago were not addressed, and the city’s public works department actually accepted construction bids for the project assuming, I guess, that they would get an immediate approval from Downtown Design Review Committee and not have to make any changes, not address any concerns or criticisms. I’m not saying this project is good or bad. I am saying it appears to be getting rushed through and that I’m not sensing an eagerness by the city to slow down, address concerns and criticisms about this project.
This is your taxpayer money being spent gang. …

The comments by Humphreys comes off charged, unsubstantiated, and frankly rather rude. If Mr. Elliot isn’t insulted I’m insulted for him. It appears that Humphreys has been waiting for years for this park to meet HIS expectations. I work in this area and I find Mr. Elliots design quite appealing. Do I think it should be done exactly as proposed? Absolutely not. There are changes I would love to see and I’m sure others want some changes for their own respective reasons. But to make the accusations that are in these comments with absolutely no cited proof other than:

“I am not aware of a single successful public park created for passive observation. Citygarden in St. Louis, the best new sculpture garden in the world, is the opposite, encouraging interaction with the art and among the adults and children that flock to it.”

And then it continues and says the new design is less flexible than the CURRENT design. What? Have you been there? And then there is no given reason as to why it is less flexible.. less safe.. less respectful.. less walkable. These comments come off (in print) as angry and almost vengeful. In addition the blog author (whom I have met and really have much respect for-both in personality and journalistic integrity) seems to present the comments without pointing out or presenting any evidence to back up the claims.

Change is certainly difficult. And I support getting the best product and results we can, but to do it in such a way I believe is poor form. There are better ways to make changes and get people engaged than attacking an acclaimed member of our business and cultural community.

For what it’s worth, if anything, this whole discussion is evidence that friendships, etc., do not impede what I do. Rand is a friend. Blair is a friend. I’ve know both men for more than a dozen years.
I’d really love to see this whole discussion proceed with personal attacks on either man. is not possible to question and even criticize someone’s work, ask for changes, without it being seen as an attack on the person who created that work? I asked Blair for a copy of his comments that were addressed at the last meeting of the Downtown Design Review Committee. I posted them. I’m not saying he’s right. I’m not saying he’s wrong.
I will say that there was NO public vetting of many of the design additions made since the review committee wrapped its work. I will say that I’m aware of NO effort to address concerns by Blair Humphreys or by Jeff Bezdek since they first popped up more than a year ago. Humphreys did try to bring up his concerns in private more than a year ago and got no response….

MikeN, Steve, et al,

I have no interest in comparing and contrasting my experience and expertise with Rand. I worked hard to structure my comments in a way that addressed some of the issues with the proposal directly, while attempting to avoid personal attacks on any person involved in the project.

To answer a couple questions that have come up.

1. A park for “passive observation” was how the proposed design was described by Laura Story, the project manager. It is not a term regularly utilized, but does have a clear meaning when used in the context of public space design. I am not sure why it was deemed an appropriate design goal for Oklahoma City’s Bicentennial Park. The Project for Public Space (pps.org) uses the phrase to describe an outdated top-down approach to public space design:

At the same time, there is more happening in public art today to engage with the public space in which works are sited. More than ever before, public artworks are stimulating and inviting active dialogue rather than just passive observation, thereby fostering social interaction that can even lead to a sense of social cohesion among the viewers themselves. Maybe this is happening because some planners, artists, and architects are no longer afraid to see themselves as resources, facilitators, and collaborators, rather than as experts. In such cases, the design of art in public spaces moves away from reverence for textbook ideals and toward flexibility, changeability, evolution, and an appreciation for humanity.

“…planners, artists, and architects are no longer afraid to see themselves as resources, facilitators, and collaborators…”

We salute this new paradigm, one in which designers actually welcome the opportunity to work with communities to open up places for new interpretations, creating more room for public art—especially in parks, transforming them from ersatz cemeteries and static sculpture gardens into great multi-use public destinations.

2. I stated that the proposed design will be “less safe” because it fails to utilize established best practices that have been proven to produce safer, more people friendly public spaces. I could have just as easily stated before the renovations of the new Myriad Garden’s that it would be safer, and more people friendly based on it’s design proposal. While we still have a long way to go, our understanding of how people use public spaces has advanced to a point where we do not have to wait until after construction is complete to understand whether a space will be successful or not.

In the case of Bicentennial Park, my assessment that it will be less safe is based on a couple of factors.
- the sweeping walkways with approx. 3′ granite retaining, topped by vegetation and landscaping reduce sight lines into the park.
- the sweeping walkways will also limit pedestrian foot traffic north-south through the park.
- the lack of hard and soft programming, movable seating, and other elements proven to attract users.
- the “tower light pole” screen wall limits site lines and movement.

All said, parks that limit visibility and struggle to attract users are typically less safe. Bryant Park is often pointed to as the exemplar case study in how a park can be made safer by shifting the design to attract more people. The American Society of Landscape Architects website says this about Bryant Park:

“In the early 1900s, Bryant Park slowly deteriorated. Poor design made it an unappealing public gathering place. Stairs, walls and overgrown greenery sectioned off the space into small isolated pockets and prevented positive community interaction.”

–

A park intentionally designed for “passive observation” cannot also be designed for “positive community interaction.” And that is the heart of the issue.

Let me first say that I was not implying that you, Mr. Lackmeyer, were being biased or had any motive besides presenting a side of the argument. I have read this blog for a long time and, as I said, really respect your reporting and find a lot of journalist value from your work.

That said, I was disappointed at the lack of actual substance the comments posted contained. I do think critique and concern can be given with respect to a fellow community member. Civility is something that should be taken to account when we are building something for the civic good. My comments were mainly directed at the lack of civility in Humphreys comments, not toward the concerns, some of which I also feel, toward the actual design or the lack of response by the city leaders toward those concerns.

Spencer, I’ll be curious to see what you and Mike think of Blair’s comment posted at the same time as your latest comment. I never took any offense – I just want it to be clear I have no bias against Rand and I have invited him to comment on this whole matter.

Spencer et al,

That was certainly not the tone I was going for. It is very difficult to speak to something in a public forum and take time to cite research on the statements that are made, while staying within the couple of minutes that public comments are allowed. Also, I am not sure of how the same objections could have been worded to communicate the same message in a less offensive manner. If I knew, I certainly would have done so.

Per your question about “less flexible”, I am referencing the very structured design that is proposed with “sweeping walkways” shaped by retaining walls, limited programmable space, and an overall design aesthetic that limits what civic elements can coexist.

This lack of flexibility is likely the reason that the proposal ends up being “less respectful of our city’s history.” I do not think this point needs explanation for anyone that has read the brief. The proposal requests the permanent removal of approx. 50 plaques, statues and monuments from Bicentennial Park, including a time capsule placed there in 1966. I find that lack of regard for the city’s history and efforts of its citizens unfortunate and unnecessary.

Spencer et al,

I assure you that civility was a goal, and a reasonable objection was my priority. It is difficult to disagree with civility – or politeness – in a civic culture that views explicit disagreement as rude. I tried really hard. Sorry I missed the mark.

By the way, many of my statements merely echo themes addressed in the City’s own “Staff Report” which also did not recommend approval of the proposal. Given this, they provided context for my comments, and helped to provide some specificity to my conclusions. Here is one section of their report which is quite applicable:

“The ordinance expresses the purpose and intent for proposed development in the Downtown Design Districts to be compatible with cultural, historic, and governmental significance, create a network of pleasant public spaces and pedestrian amenities, and preserve and restore the historic resources and
circulation patterns.

This significant civic site is the perfect venue to attract and accommodate large public gatherings and celebrations. The proposal for the Civic Center creates places for park users to gather or rest in several small pockets of space, but also reduces the area of the park that can accommodate large gatherings in the central lawn area. The ability for the area outside of the front entrance of the Civic Center to optimally function as a large pedestrian gathering area is hampered by the immediately adjacent drop-off lane and raised elevation and spray jet portals of the “Fountain Stage.”

The application includes several “alternates” including reflective gateway arch,
spinning rods (called “Spinner Towers”), shade pavilions, and EMD signage. The Gateway arch while possibly reflecting the curve of Patience Latting Circle is not reflective of the history, architecture, or significance of the site. The proposed Spinner Towers are a strong visual element. However, they also serve as a visual and physical barrier dividing the site in two. The Spinner Towers may not be appropriate within the grounds of the Municipal Building, where a more sedate environment would be considered more fitting to the gravity and significance of the structure and activities taking place within.
Several of the proposed elements distract from the prominence and significance of the historic structures, and are not consistent with the historic context. This assembly of multiple disconnected features neither preserves the historic connection nor allows for easy circulation and flexible utilization of the pedestrian spaces.”

I certainly do appreciate you going into some of the specifics of your concerns. Providing substance to the argument like that makes for a much better understanding rather than a mostly rhetorical statement that could lend a reader to the feelings I had. While some, or many of my opinions differ, I think you have valid concerns that should be offered into the conversation. I am disappointed that you have been met with resistance by those trying to put the entire project together. While it will be impossible to get 100% of concerned people to agree, I hope that any improvements that increase a positive reception to the park can get added before the project begins.

Side note: It has always been my understand that the plaques, statues and monuments are all being placed in other locations throughout downtown. Frankly, I was excited when they removed the bunker-like housing in front of the civic center. It is my belief that placing them in that location was a poor decision in the first place. If that is not the case I would certainly like to know because I think maintaining those memorials to our history should be a top priority in any change to bicentennial park.

Spencer, the city has not come up with any new placement plan for the statues and monuments. I’ve been told by some the plan was to put them in storage and figure out an answer at a later time. I agree, the “bunker” was a terrible design

Blair if you have a plan would it be possible for you to post it here so all can see what you are referencing? I am not talking about a verbal description but a visual one? Since you do not like the as propsed plan I would be very interested in seeing what you consider “better”.

Sight lines into the park are ALREADY compromised and restricted. Rands design appears to me to open up the openness of the park. I agree that the historical situation is being compromised but what makes anybody think that a different design would improve the historical aspects?

I see the crux of the matter as trying to blend two mutually exclusive elements, historical significance and a cutting edge futuristic design.

Blair I am reasonably sure you would agree that somebody who sat next to you in class and has similiar educational/work experience would come to a completely different conclusion. So please explain why yours is better?

I’m a bit older than Steve and as much as I respect new ideas as an “oldster” I have a string tendency to more quickly take the counsel of my contemporairies and up. Blair you are just a few years older than my college student son so it is a bit difficult for me to come to terms with his generation knowing better than the generation that is ahead of me.

Mike, at age 46 I’m not a youngster either. But in this case, I fail to see where Rand’s experience makes him an expert to go unquestioned or unchallenged when it comes to urban planning and park design. I would like to think that the wisest amongst us knows that our work is made better when we are hit with questions and challenges. I don’t think someone is required to have an alternate design to question and challenge the one being presented. What if this isn’t a question of one design being better than another (which I don’t believe exists at this time), but rather, is the RIGHT design for this park?

MikeN,

I do not have an alternative proposal, but can offer alternative models that seem more appropriate for the site.

Two already mentioned:
1. Bryant Park – larger in scale, but the mix of programming and space configuration are worth emulating.
2. CityGarden – An incredible sculpture garden that seems very forward thinking, and could easily incorporate historic statues and features.

Others worth considering:
3. Houston’s Market Square – At around 1.5 acres, it is more comparable in size and offers an attractive public square that is differentiated from Discovery Green (Houston’s Myriad Gardens).

4. Pioneer Courthouse Square – an incredibly dynamic plaza of comparable size.

5. Jackson Square – traditional in design, but appropriate given the context.

I would bring in the Project for Public Spaces, which has been involved in the creation of hundreds of great public spaces around the world, to provide assistance as part of the redesign process. I think we could emulate a number of the successful characteristics of these parks and squares, while still making something that is unique to Oklahoma City and our history.

Interesting point, but is there only ONE RIGHT choice or a possibility of many from which a choice can be made? Well I kinda feel that it enhances credibility when you criticize others to have a valid alternative.

I have no problem with the vetting process but in the end you cannot satisfy ALL the parties. Then it is time to make a decision and move on. Are we at that point, maybe so maybe not. But one unassailable fact remains we are approaching that point and no matter what somebody is going to be disappointed. Thats life.

Mike, I guess what this is all about: complaints there was NOT a real vetting process on this design. I have not yet heard why it is urgent to begin this construction now nor have I seen or heard anything concrete that indicates we are approaching that point.

Steve I believe Blair anwered that, it has to do with the 75th anniversary gala oc the Civic Center. They probably want to get it doen prior to that.

After further investigation I’ve discovered that it is actually a joint design. Elliot and PDG in Tulsa (a landscape design company with what appears to be plenty of urban planning experience). It seems as if Elliot was responsible for the one foot wide spinning towers and other aesthetics while PDG did the actual park design. Perhaps these questions and criticisms should be direction in their general direction.

This design has been out for at least 6 months (at least that’s the earliest record I can find of it) and went through what I had be plenty of meetings with elected officials to get there. Perhaps they could provide a higher quality mock up of the actual design?

Spencer, I’ve reported repeatedly on this blog and in my stories the designs were done by Elliott and PDG. I’m curous as to what record you’re referring to that goes back six months. If you have a record of this final design going through a meeting that was open to the public earlier than the Devon Implementation Committee in early January, please let me know. If you click on the renderings on the previous post they should pop up in higher resolution.

The “spinning towers” do not spin. They each have five vertically mounted panels that spin in the breeze. Each of these five panels is composed of dichroic material that reflects light in amazing, changing colors. Special lighting will be mounted in each tower to maximize the effect of the dichroic material. The line of these towers will be a MAGICAL sight, and create a needed connection between City Hall and the Civic Center. Pedestrians can walk amongst and through the tower-line unimpeded. It will be a phenomenal thing to behold! The people will come.

I’m not knocking Blair’s passion or knowledge, however all of the wonderful parks he referenced are “Myriad-quality” spaces… multiple-function destination parks (many not nearly as open, and “safe” as the one he’s criticizing). The Myriad Garden Park is just a short walk from this park! The Civic Center Park occupies a different kind of space. Is it wrong to have a different purpose?

I think the new Civic Center Park design is good. If completed as designed it will surely bless the covers of many magazines. That said; what will these towers look like after the dulling effects of Oklahoma dust-blasting, and mud-raining, and years of improper maintenance? Will jammed, dulled, or missing dichroic panels be replaced? Will fritzed lighting be repaired? We should fully support this design only if proper maintenance is assured.

Looking at the PDG website, I can’t see any evidence of urban park experience other than the Muskogee Civic Center, if you want to count that. If there is something I have missed, I would appreciate someone pointing it out.

From what I understand, the selection of Rand was due to his original involvement in the Civic Center long before Project 180 came along. So, they kept him involved and brought in PDG as they had helped the City with the OKC Tennis Center redo and some spray parks. If both these firms submitted resumes in a truly open, objective competition for this work, I doubt either would have been given serious consideration.

This entire process seems strange and political; completely opposite of how the home-run Myriad Gardens project was handled.

I would also add it seems to be a rather silly use of what is now limited Project 180 funds. They have cut over 40% of their scope due to cost overruns and are now throwing away monuments, a historical fountain and the biggest trees downtown to spend millions on a design that is very suspect.

Spencer & Mike,

I don’t know what catagory I fit in, I’m 45, but I find it strange that the person being vilified(Blair), is the one responding, trying to clear up ANY confusion, yet the person you are defending has yet to respond to some legitimate questions. Does that speak more for the “oldsters” catagory or your college son’s group?

To Craig:
First of all, I wasn’t trying to vilify anyone. My original comment had to do with my initial reactions to the blog post and I believe Mr. Humphreys gave more detailed information to back up his comments which I acknowledged and thanked him for. It is not my intent to be a defender, I just want to make sure we are asking the right questions to the right people. Mr. Humphreys’ comments had some pretty serious accusations in them and if you are going to present comments like that I believe one should give more information to back them up or they become more incendiary toward the conversation than helpful. Once again, I appreciate his elaboration on his initial comments.

Which brings me to Mr. Lackmeyer:
I was not saying that you have hid PDGs involvement. But many of the concerns presented by Mr. Humphreys and others were directed at things not really controlled by Mr. Elliot; ergo I wanted to make the point in the conversation so those who may be looking to get these questions answered could have another avenue to communicate their concern.

Also, I have no stamped evidence of a six month period. After a few polite phone calls a person within the process said meetings started at least six months ago. They did not comment on if they were open to the public, or who was involved; only citing the presence of “city members.” That could probably mean city officials, city citizens, or even city business that may be involved with construction. Not being trained as a reporter, and not wanting to sound intrusive, I didn’t press for specifics.

And Dennis: The “spinning towers” have “five vertically mounted panels that spin in the breeze.” I’m sorry for not being more specific in my description of the towers.

<—still confused about what the connection was with the
Minnesota shopping thing

Spencer, we’re totally cool. I’m not sure the person you spoke to who is “within the process” has been totally forthright with you. I’m totally unaware of any opportunity for these final renderings to be reviewed or scrutinized by the public until they were submitted to the Devon Implementation Committee a couple weeks before they arrived at the Downtown Design Review Committee.
It was my experience at the early review meetings that they were hosted by Rand Elliott, that he led the discussions, and most of the presentations were done by Elliott, not by PDG.

That looks really sad all by itself. Definitely looks better in a series but I still think it is out of place for tis particular location

RE: urgency question ( http://newsok.com/oklahoma-citys-civic-center-park-makeover-challenged/article/3642367#ixzz1lo9juwYy)

Laura Story, a former assistant city engineer who now works as a private consultant for the project, repeatedly pleaded with the committee to approve the project design and let construction begin. … Story said that delay could jeopardize efforts to have the park makeover completed for a potential Sept. 25 celebration of the Civic Center’s 75th anniversary. … A major redesign, she warned, could result in construction bids expiring and park completion being delayed. That could complicate the city’s efforts to complete reconstruction of adjoining streets. “It’s not just the park that’s at stake here — it’s Project 180,” she said. “There are significant construction issues related to this.”

Reminds me of the saying: “Lack of planning on your part doesn’t constitute an emergency on my part.”