Thread: Consultant on OKC: Jeff Speck update

Blah Blah Blah on AA. I just don't see the benefits of turning Broadway into a 2-lane road. Parking really ISN'T a problem down there. Most places have lots in the back. When you turn the street into angled parking, you end up with downtown Norman where you take your life into your hands every time you back out. You can't see the on-coming traffic that you are backing in to and just have to hope no one is there.

And as for it being a problem for pedestrians, how in the world does having a few less lanes help make people want to walk more? I really like the way Broadway turned out and it's helped to make the place more accessible. I've walked around down there and been fine. Not once did I decide I wasn't going to walk simply because the road was 4 lanes instead of 2. I just don't see how it makes a bit of difference. People in major cities walk across more lanes and even we do downtown.

To me, his opinions seem to be a waste of money on this particular issue. It's great that we're taking in different views, but tearing up Broadway like that just doesn't float. And the arguement for routing traffic to another road.....why? Broadway was built to BE THE connector. The other N-S roads are residential and SHOULDN'T be converted to anything else.

i agree with bomber and i will parallel park any day of the week than try and back out of angled parking.

I see his points, although bomber has good points about the dangers of backing out. A speed limit decrease would porbably be necessary too...there's no traffic problem now, but elieminate lanes going both ways and knock down the speed limit to 20mph and you might develop some...?

Jeff Speck takes a walk in Oklahoma City and finds too-wide streets, too-low density and too much danger for pedestrians.

Planetizen

I'm not really sure why Broadway is his target. There have to be a few larger arteries into a downtown, especially since we currently don't have any significant access besides cars. If I were going to make Broadway narrower, I'd do it by putting a boulevard down the middle and add a few more stoplights. To me, streetscaping is what makes streets more pedestrian friendly, rather than angle parking. Also, you need multiple things people want to walk to in the same stroll to really make a street user friendly. A small grocery store on Broadway, a pharmacy, a couple of little boutiques...things like that might make Broadway a destination stroll.

For the record, Speck didn't suggest turning Broadway into a two-lane road. That's not what I reported or wrote at least. Early discussions involved eliminating the rarely used center turn lane.

Oklahoma City public works officials were tasked long ago with the mandate of "creating a city easy to travel through, but not worth arriving at.”

The efforts to make Broadway more pedestrian friendly may be misdirected, but that statement is so true.

At this point, I'd just be happy if all street lights downtown were automatically timed for pedestrians.

People in major cities walk across more lanes and even we do downtown.

Most downtowns have much more narrow streets than Broadway.

And as for it being a problem for pedestrians, how in the world does having a few less lanes help make people want to walk more?

It shortens crossing times significantly, making the need for crossing lights to be timed shorter, which lessens the time cars are stopped and increases the frequency at which crossings can be allowed.

However, the desire to walk will be created by the density of services more so than the layout. If there were a lot of pedestrian traffic then it may make sense to narrow the street to possibly slow the traffic.

but tearing up Broadway like that just doesn't float.

I'm pretty sure it could be narrowed by simply repainting the lines. No actually street work would be required.

I'm not really sure why Broadway is his target. There have to be a few larger arteries into a downtown, especially since we currently don't have any significant access besides cars.

This is probably true. It would probably be more beneficial to use the extra space for a trolley that could be part of a downtown light rail system that moved people between the CBD, hospitality, bricktown, and AA districts.

Originally Posted by bombermwc

Blah Blah Blah on AA. I just don't see the benefits of turning Broadway into a 2-lane road. Parking really ISN'T a problem down there. Most places have lots in the back. When you turn the street into angled parking, you end up with downtown Norman where you take your life into your hands every time you back out. You can't see the on-coming traffic that you are backing in to and just have to hope no one is there.

And as for it being a problem for pedestrians, how in the world does having a few less lanes help make people want to walk more? I really like the way Broadway turned out and it's helped to make the place more accessible. I've walked around down there and been fine. Not once did I decide I wasn't going to walk simply because the road was 4 lanes instead of 2. I just don't see how it makes a bit of difference. People in major cities walk across more lanes and even we do downtown.

To me, his opinions seem to be a waste of money on this particular issue. It's great that we're taking in different views, but tearing up Broadway like that just doesn't float. And the arguement for routing traffic to another road.....why? Broadway was built to BE THE connector. The other N-S roads are residential and SHOULDN'T be converted to anything else.

Angled parking in DT Norman wouldn't be a problem if Main was 2-way with a center median. The high rate of speed of people going one way on Main is what makes it dangerous. Reduce speeds by reducing lanes making it safer for pedestrians and cars backing out.

Just out of curiousity: of those of you opposing Speck's suggestions, how many major urban centers have you visited outside of Oklahoma? Have you read Speck's book, "Suburban Nation," or any other books about urban design? How much of your opinion is based on what you've always known and experienced here in Oklahoma City?
In other words, I have to ask: how do you know it's not broken if you've not seen it functioning properly?

Originally Posted by Steve

Just out of curiousity: of those of you opposing Speck's suggestions, how many major urban centers have you visited outside of Oklahoma? Have you read Speck's book, "Suburban Nation," or any other books about urban design? How much of your opinion is based on what you've always known and experienced here in Oklahoma City?
In other words, I have to ask: how do you know it's not broken if you've not seen it functioning properly?

I've read Suburban Nation and have a good idea of his urban ideas. To be honest, his thoughts on downtown OKC are interesting, but I would be more interested in knowing his thoughts on the possibility of New Urbanist design and developments in Oklahoma City. I posted in another thread about Legacy in Plano and think something like that would be incredibly enticing to a lot of people around here. He is, of course, a major proponent of these kinds of developments.

I like that Mike. Heck, even Addison has a nice area where there is retail on ground level, nicer apartments aboce and all around, and there's a towncenter/park of sorts. Even something that simple that doesn't quite rise to the level of the Legacy in Plano would be awesome. We're not far from it with all the new downtown condos, but those aren't exactly affordable and there's a lack of retail.

Originally Posted by MikeOKC

I posted in another thread about Legacy in Plano and think something like that would be incredibly enticing to a lot of people around here. He is, of course, a major proponent of these kinds of developments.

That is like the Triangle in Austin.

Originally Posted by Steve

Just out of curiousity: of those of you opposing Speck's suggestions, how many major urban centers have you visited outside of Oklahoma? Have you read Speck's book, "Suburban Nation," or any other books about urban design? How much of your opinion is based on what you've always known and experienced here in Oklahoma City?
In other words, I have to ask: how do you know it's not broken if you've not seen it functioning properly?

I've been plenty places and have seen many different thoughts on the issue. The main point is that it needs to fit the situation/location. AA isn't exactlly dense. It's a lot of low rise buildings with back lot parking. Many of the buildings are only single story. So the idea of making it a real urban classified area just doesn't work. It doesn't function badly as it is built now, in fact it works much better than it did before they did the work to make it as it is now.

Take a stroll around there at various times of day and you'll see that people don't walk around not because it's pedestrian unfriendly, but they don't have anywhere to walk to. The sidewalks are plenty big enough to be utilized if that need was there. It's more offices than anything else. You want an area where people are going to walk from their home/office to go eat or shop, you're looking at Midtown, not AA. AA folks are more likely to head to bricktown....in which case they are gonna take their car, guaranteed. And spending all that money on Broadway wouldn't change that fact.

Originally Posted by Steve

Just out of curiousity: of those of you opposing Speck's suggestions, how many major urban centers have you visited outside of Oklahoma? Have you read Speck's book, "Suburban Nation," or any other books about urban design? How much of your opinion is based on what you've always known and experienced here in Oklahoma City?
In other words, I have to ask: how do you know it's not broken if you've not seen it functioning properly?

Haven't read the book, but have been to plenty of urban centers (probably 50 or more of the major metros in the US and several abroad), much more urban than OKC, and have rarely if ever seen diagonal parking work as Jeff Speck is mentioning. I echo some of the other posters comments, I prefer parallel parking in urban areas and find it easier to see traffic. I also don't have a walkability problem with downtown or AA. I do have a mass transit problem with this city though.

Bomber, I'm still confused on your take on Broadway. I guess whether Broadway has anything worth walking to is really a matter of opinion from one person to another. But cost is a factual matter, and I don't understand where you're coming up with a big pricetag if we're only talking about a few curb bump outs and restriping the road from five to four lanes. I've not heard Jeff or anyone else suggest widening sidewalks.
Jeff's reasoning behind angled parking is that it creates a safety buffer between cars and pedestrians.

I can tell you that some people who live downtown have told me they would like to see it become more accomodating to walking and biking. As for alternate north-south routes, I can tell you the city is already looking at converting Oklahoma from one-way to two-way traffic, and that Walnut Avenue is carrying a lot of the traffic into Bricktown that used to primarilly depend on Broadway/E.K. Gaylord.
I'm not saying Jeff Speck is right or wrong here. But I do question those who automatically dismiss his ideas and suggestions.

I'm with you Steve. I work downtown and I have lived downtown. In a metro area of 1MM+, you should see some bicycles downtown. Rarely do you.

I don't necessarily disagree with his ideas, and I love the convenience of angle parking, but I think it looks busy and detracts from the view if there are interesting old buildings. That's why, if we're going to try and make the street either less busy or more pedestrian friendly, I'd like to see a boulevard. Boulevards make it far easier to cross the street. Street crossings with angle parking can be dangerous, because people dart out from between parked cars. With a boulevard, you can cross half the street at a time. Then, they can be attractively landscaped and really green up an urban area.

When you try to back out of an angled parking place from behind an SUV you take your life in your hands. Please, outlaw angled parking.

I agree. If I stop for a Donut at Clark's bakery on 39th in Bethany it is quite hard to see to back out, especially if I am in my Jetta and a pickup or SUV is next to me. Gratefully there is a light at the corner to slow the cars down. I personally think AA has a lot of potential and could easily see Urban Outfitters or Crate and Barrel there.

THIS is why its a bad idea.

CCOKC, I totally agree with you on the angled parking in Downtown Bethany. It is a nightmare getting in and out. Same situation would be with Broadway in AA if they went to angled. Pretty STUPID, IMO. Downtown Edmond is the same way, but it's a little better since slower speed limit, landscaping, and a median in some spots.

I'm a downtown OKC resident, property owner, worker and part of the "young creative class" that the City and Speck are trying to attract and I DO NOT support changing it.

This is the type of angled parking that should be considered on AA: Back in angled parking

There is a lack of parking in AA. If you got out of your cars and actually walked along Broadway, you would notice that prime, ground-level retail space in several buildings is taken up by cars. Why are there cars in these prime, ground-level retail spaces? Because the offices on the upper floors of these buildings do not have adequate parking anywhere else, so they make due with what they have at the detriment of the whole district.

Let's vote!