Prairie Surf Studios (formerly Cox Center)

[Bellaboo]

What exactly is hideous? The buildings, the people, the fountain, the movie theater, the restaurants?

Or did you just dismiss the entire photo because you don't like the mechanical roof which is not even a major reason why I shared those pics?

Teo, He's pulling your chain, he likes what you posted.

[Plutonic Panda]

In a small city like OKC, removing downtown parking will simply drive development to the suburbs. Developers design for the infrastructure that is here, not what theoretically should be here under a certain worldview or not what may be here in 15-20 years. This isn't NYC where density and mass transit are a requirement because of limited space. Comparing OKC development practices with Manhattan, like is often done on this site, couldn't be more ridiculous. There probably couldn't be any two cities that are more different than OKC and NYC.

I promise everyone, if many of the dogmatic demands of some of the urbanists on this site were enacted in OKC, it would mean the end of the downtown renaissance. Developers wouldn't spend the money nor go through the hassle in a place like OKC to conform to some of these standards and demands.

I am all for higher standards in OKC. I think development standards here have long lagged peer cities and think things should be taken to the next level. They have to stay realistic though for OKC. This cities size, economy, and culture has to be taken into consideration. What may be good for Tokyo may not be good for OKC. Instead of looking at what cities like NYC, London, and Paris are doing, which have no comparison to OKC, look at what Memphis, Nashville, Louisville, and San Antonio are doing and try to emulate that.

+1

[warreng88]

From the Journal Record:

Three-peat: Hosting NCAA caps strong year for OKC convention business

By: Brian Brus The Journal Record December 23, 2014

OKLAHOMA CITY – Oklahoma City gained rare sports bragging rights in 2014, with three consecutive NCAA championships, Mike Carrier said.

“It’s definitely worth bragging about that. By hosting volleyball, wrestling and softball, we became the first city in NCAA history to have three Division I championships in a single calendar year,” the president of the Oklahoma City Convention and Visitors Bureau said.

“There’s no such thing as an uninteresting year for us,” he said. “Our hotel occupancy citywide was solid, and downtown life has been very active. And from what we’re hearing from our downtown partners, 2015 has all the potential to be even better.”

Carrier is still sorting through attendance numbers and economic impacts as he prepares the agency’s end-of-the-year report, and he was reluctant to provide incomplete totals. However, he confirmed that the city’s tourism was up overall, and more event organizers are inquiring about available space and prices.

“One event in particular will be a really nice win for us, and we should be ready to announce that in just a few weeks in early January,” he said. “It’s a few thousand people planning to come here in July 2016, a very nice piece of business that we would be able to take from a city we don’t normally compete with.”

In August, the United Pentecostal Church will hold its international youth congress in Oklahoma City, an event of about 20,000 people.

“Obviously with a youth, religious organization, you’re talking about well-behaved kids having a great time in Oklahoma City, and we can expect many adult chaperones and family members coming along as well,” he said.

He cited the Oklahoma Indian Gaming Association conference and trade show, which attracted about 7,500 delegates and vendors nationwide in August, as another example of the city’s successes in 2014. That show used all available space at the Cox Center downtown.

In September, the city hosted the National Rural Water Association, with about 1,500 primary attendees. That organization has agreed to come back again in 2015. And the Red Earth Festival organizers have signed a five-year contract to keep the event downtown. The festival usually attracts about 25,000 people, many of whom travel from out of state.

Carrier said the agency over the last few years has been planting seeds for discussion about a new convention center scheduled to be built in downtown under the MAPS 3 temporary sales tax. Now that the City Council has agreed to the overall design for the 550,000-square-foot, $286 million project, potential clients are trying to get calendar dates for long-term scheduling. Carrier was unable to name those organizations while negotiations are underway.

“We have groups that are ready to finalize decisions, and we’ll probably be signing contracts for future business at the same time we break ground,” he said, referring to an estimated start in early 2016 and a completion in 2018.

[Anonymous.]

Playoff banners going up. They look nicer this year than in years past, maybe since missing last season - they had more money to drop.

[OkiePoke]

I have heard plans that this will be demolished and a traditional block structure will be replacing it. Is this set in stone? Or are they still trying to figure out uses for this once the new convention center gets built?

[Pete]

I have heard plans that this will be demolished and a traditional block structure will be replacing it. Is this set in stone? Or are they still trying to figure out uses for this once the new convention center gets built?

The city paid for consultants to look at the highest and best use for the Cox Center site once the new convention center opened.

They recommended restoring the street grid and mid- to high-rise office buildings to help the CBD expand to the south.

It was just a study but at some point this is the likely course of action, where the city would ultimately put out RFP's for redevelopment.

[OkiePoke]

Did they only present the highest and best use for the center? Are the other options available to the public to view?

[Pete]

Did they only present the highest and best use for the center? Are the other options available to the public to view?

Here is an article I wrote about it:

http://www.okctalk.com/content.php?r...-office-towers

[bchris02]

The Cox Center is one of the most important pieces of real estate for downtown going forward.

Personally, I would love to see a fully pedestrian oriented, mixed-use development there. Include residential, offices, restaurants, and big name retail all in one location. Restore the streets but close them off to non-essential auto traffic.

Something like the Epicentre in Charlotte is kind of the idea, but it could be a little more organic than the Epicentre is. Instead of a single residential tower like the Epicentre has, have 3-4 floors of housing above the 2-3 floors retail. Street interaction and urban density is key here, not height.

Here is an image of the Epicentre. Keep in mind, I am not wishing for EXACTLY this, but this concept. It would be cool to have a unique, local spin on whatever is done here.



Does anybody think that kind of development would be doable in OKC?

[stlokc]

I definitely hope that whatever goes in to that space restores the street grid. And while I agree that the business district is in desperate need of more retail, I would be a little concerned about what something like you have posted above would do to Bricktown, Midtown and Auto Alley. There's only so many nodes of that that downtown can support. I would hate to create a new subsidized (bc of course it will be subsidized) area that only succeeds in moving people around. I don't know the answer - but true mixed use, office/residential with street level retail and actual streets would probably be my preference to some kind of new mass-produced entertainment district.

[OkiePoke]

What I would love to see here is a top-of-the-line aquarium. This would be a tourist attraction to anyone visiting the area. I'm not talking on the scale of Jenks. More along the lines of New England Aquarium or Georgia Aquarium. High hopes for sure, but the benefits would be high as well.

[shadfar]

I don't know the answer - but true mixed use, office/residential with street level retail and actual streets would probably be my preference to some kind of new mass-produced entertainment district.

i don't know either, but this is what i would hope for!

[TU 'cane]

I personally think it needs to be one of two things (maybe a combo of both).

A dense cluster of multi-use blocks, street grid restored. Dense housing, retail and office space space to help fill in the CBD and promote growth within the core.

And/or something entertainment related ala the Fremont Experience in Vegas. I prefer the former, but I think they could make both ideas happen on such a large site. Use the Northhalf of the site for multi-use buildings/towers, and the South half for entertainment.

[ethansisson]

Madrid has started implementing something they call "superblocks," where squares of 9 blocks are permanently closed to through traffic and the roads within prioritize pedestrian and cycling traffic.

http://www.businessinsider.com/barce...llution-2016-6
http://thecityfix.com/blog/super-blo...rgio-trentini/
http://thecityfix.com/blog/the-super...rgio-trentini/

The Cox Center site would be smaller, of course – only a third the total road length*– but that wouldn't stop it from potentially being a good fit. It might be easier to sell the idea of pedestrian priority than a pedestrian-only area, and it would come with a lot of the same benefits. I would think it would encourage more high-quality urban development and involve less risk of the vision for the area not being realized. A pedestrian plaza style development would probably need to largely be done as a single project for it to work, which means waiting around for someone with the resources and will to do such an enormous development without compromising on the standards and vision of making a great pedestrian-oriented area. With a "superblock," the city could build the streets, set the rules, and evaluate proposals for smaller developments case-by-case. Fewer developers would probably be interested, given the limitations on use of the internal streets, but by the same token I would think a higher proportion of those interested would be on board with the pedestrian-first idea.

It's a big chunk of the city to entrust to a small number of people doing really big developments. I'd prefer to see it divided up into many more reasonably-sized parcels and have it open to a greater number of developers than just those with the resources to do something really big. Maybe none of what I'm saying is how things would actually work, but it makes sense in my mind, which is admittedly ignorant of how complex development opportunities like this might play out.

[Ross MacLochness]

Madrid has started implementing something they call "superblocks," where squares of 9 blocks are permanently closed to through traffic and the roads within prioritize pedestrian and cycling traffic.

http://www.businessinsider.com/barce...llution-2016-6
http://thecityfix.com/blog/super-blo...rgio-trentini/
http://thecityfix.com/blog/the-super...rgio-trentini/

The Cox Center site would be smaller, of course – only a third the total road length*– but that wouldn't stop it from potentially being a good fit. It might be easier to sell the idea of pedestrian priority than a pedestrian-only area, and it would come with a lot of the same benefits. I would think it would encourage more high-quality urban development and involve less risk of the vision for the area not being realized. A pedestrian plaza style development would probably need to largely be done as a single project for it to work, which means waiting around for someone with the resources and will to do such an enormous development without compromising on the standards and vision of making a great pedestrian-oriented area. With a "superblock," the city could build the streets, set the rules, and evaluate proposals for smaller developments case-by-case. Fewer developers would probably be interested, given the limitations on use of the internal streets, but by the same token I would think a higher proportion of those interested would be on board with the pedestrian-first idea.

It's a big chunk of the city to entrust to a small number of people doing really big developments. I'd prefer to see it divided up into many more reasonably-sized parcels and have it open to a greater number of developers than just those with the resources to do something really big. Maybe none of what I'm saying is how things would actually work, but it makes sense in my mind, which is admittedly ignorant of how complex development opportunities like this might play out.

Im all for making this area as pedestrian focussed as possible. Especially with it's proximity to the Arena, Train station, Myriad Gardens, and Broadway/cbd. However, I would be strongly against a single entity developing the whole block like you mentioned. I agree that splitting it up would be be preferable.

Id rather see a larger quantity of buildings with many storefronts than three or four tall skyscrapers. This area could really be successful in a way OKC hasn't seen in decades if it's done in a way that's scaled to people - it's in a perfect location. Building 4 499 sheridans wouldn't be the ideal way to accomplish that level of success.

[2Lanez]

Restoring the street grid, but with pedestrian streets only, would make this literally the crossroads of downtown. From Santa Fe station/Bricktown to the park. The CBD (and parking) to Chesapeake Arena.

[Ross MacLochness]

Restoring the street grid, but with pedestrian streets only, would make this literally the crossroads of downtown. From Santa Fe station/Bricktown to the park. The CBD (and parking) to Chesapeake Arena.

Yep! Imagine walking from parking through a vibrant and interesting area rather than the lifeless arena side of the Cox center to get to a game at the Peake.

[bombermwc]

I'm not sure that i'll ever be convinced that restoring the grid here is that big of a deal given how downtown is currently configured and the potential changes in the future just given the location of the Myriad. I mean one side of it faces the rail line and we wont have anything other than a false (and somewhat literal) wall between downtown and bricktown. On the opposite side, the gardens. THen we've got the Peak and real CBD space opposite that. But i do have a reason (and you've probably heard it before).

In all practical reality, the city will never give up this land, but lets look at it for future speculation.
At some point, we'll want to replace the Peak. Guess what? The city owns a huge block of land on prime land in downtown, right next to the Peak. SWEET! Guess what else? It's larger than what we need now that the convention center is open. Opportunity time! What i envision is something like a Barclay's Center original plan had (i think that's who it was). We could still get a new arena on the location, but also include some mixed-use space on the plot. It REALLY didn't work out for Barclays because they were a bit too ambitious, especially given the economy at the time. But on a smaller scale, it really could work. The only catch would be, does the city sell the land or does it become a landlord?

[Bellaboo]

Barclays or Clayco ? Not sure where were at here ?

[huskysooner]

My pipe dream concept for the Cox site....something like Berlin's Sony Center. Imagine visitors and commuters streaming into a semi open air area from Santa Fe station and enjoying food and drink before Thunder games. Conventions holding special events in a plaza like this during the evenings. OKC needs to think big when it takes RFPs for this parcel. We need something truly world class that serves as the front door and calling card for the city. Would be nice to see a mix of uses integrated into the concept - trophy office headquarters, luxury hotel, apartments, condos, etc. I think it would truly be the heartbeat of downtown.

[Ross MacLochness]

I'm not sure that i'll ever be convinced that restoring the grid here is that big of a deal given how downtown is currently configured and the potential changes in the future just given the location of the Myriad. I mean one side of it faces the rail line and we wont have anything other than a false (and somewhat literal) wall between downtown and bricktown. On the opposite side, the gardens. THen we've got the Peak and real CBD space opposite that. But i do have a reason (and you've probably heard it before).

In all practical reality, the city will never give up this land, but lets look at it for future speculation.
At some point, we'll want to replace the Peak. Guess what? The city owns a huge block of land on prime land in downtown, right next to the Peak. SWEET! Guess what else? It's larger than what we need now that the convention center is open. Opportunity time! What i envision is something like a Barclay's Center original plan had (i think that's who it was). We could still get a new arena on the location, but also include some mixed-use space on the plot. It REALLY didn't work out for Barclays because they were a bit too ambitious, especially given the economy at the time. But on a smaller scale, it really could work. The only catch would be, does the city sell the land or does it become a landlord?

I think restoring the grid would be an amazing way to engage and connect the people that are already downtown. Despite being surrounded by sub-par non-human scaled space, people come downtown in droves to the attractions that surround this block. The Myriad Gardens are bordered by a blank wall to the east, nothing to the south, and a fenced off field to the west yet it is always packed. The Arena draws thousands of people on the evenings. The Transit center/hole to bricktown will eventually draw people. The CBD draws in people for work. Imagine all of these areas connected to allow people who are already downtown to move from area to area easily, with engaging street life along the way. This block could easily be the epicenter of Downtown life and be the first true urban space in OKC. We'd be crazy to not take advantage of this opportunity. It would make the city lots of $$$ and would be the gathering place for the community.

[hoya]

We need to break it into 4 different blocks and develop them seperately. Very few developers on OKC have the money to do something the size of the Cox Center with the level of density we want. Break it into different pieces and we are more likely to get higher quality developments. Even if it takes longer that way, this isn't something that should be rushed.

[baralheia]

We need to break it into 4 different blocks and develop them seperately. Very few developers on OKC have the money to do something the size of the Cox Center with the level of density we want. Break it into different pieces and we are more likely to get higher quality developments. Even if it takes longer that way, this isn't something that should be rushed.

I'm thinking that each block should be further divided into four or more parcels; this would maximize the opportunity for more dense, organic type growth on those blocks, instead of an entire monolithic block going solely to one project. But otherwise, I totally agree.

[ethansisson]

I mean one side of it faces the rail line and we wont have anything other than a false (and somewhat literal) wall between downtown and bricktown. On the opposite side, the gardens. THen we've got the Peak and real CBD space opposite that.

It being boxed-in like you describe is exactly why breaking up this monolith is such a significant opportunity.

[bombermwc]

I'm just stirring conversation here.....so knowing that a new arena will be going back and forth for any foreseeable future, what would be the overriding reason to break up the block rather than make the city search for and purchase new land each time the conversation comes up instead of using existing owned land downtown?

Is there current pedestrian traffic that would benefit from this restoration? Going west/east, there's already a barrier in both directions from the gardens and the rail line. North to South, there could be benefit there.

From a traffic standpoint, would this help or hinder flow? Adding more stoplights would probably slow down traffic....which can already be terrible at busy times. But a GOOD traffic study could potentially solve that if the city will do it. Not some of the crap studies they have been doing that dont actually DO anything.

In understand the desire to split it up and spur development. Of course that's an assumption that there is interest in creating good development in this space. It's speculative at this point, but i will for sure acknowledge that it would probably happen....im guessing low-rise.

If this were a couple of block west, i think i would probably be less of a fan of keeping it. But given where it is, (obviously) im skewed to leaving it as is. And remember, i'm trying to spur conversation for people to discuss this, not to start a mud slinging fest