Page 5 of 76 FirstFirst 1234567891055 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 1884

Thread: Scissortail Park

  1. #101

    Default Re: Central Park

    Quote Originally Posted by ljbab728 View Post
    I just think it's indicative that we actually have some members of the MAPS3 advisory boards who are interested in doing a good job as opposed to some (can you say convention center?) who are more in tune with special interests.
    The Salvation Army building is nice, but I think the two Film buildings have more potential for interaction with the park than the Salvation Army building. I think they shoul look at how the historic buildings have potential for re-use in the park. I am all for keeping historic buildings but the placement of the Salvation Army Building and its function does not bode well for a park.

    Union Station is definitely a potential destination building that has lots of potential for multiple kinds of gatherings and uses. I don't think the park should have a 3 par golf course. One in a park along the river would be a lot better use.

    I like that they are looking to keep as many trees as possible. There are a lot of massive Catalpa trees between the old and new I-40 that are amazing!

    I was hoping they would choose a different LA firm due to Hargreave already doing the massively over budget Native American Culture Center. I feel there were better firms that are more cutting edge that could have brought a different perspective to the city that are known for using historic buildings. Hargreave had the upper hand with the pre Maps design. I hope they don't use that design. It was very basic and destroyed a lot of buildings and put a modern restaurant. We have seen in the Myriad Gardens how that has not worked. The Film Row buildings could be reused as restaurants with their prime locations and potential back patios.

  2. #102

    Default Re: Central Park

    I thought they were going to look at possible changing the size, location, or scope of the park due to the Myriad Gardens revamp? I guess the Mayor pushed it through because it is the heart of his poorly planned Core to Shore goals.

  3. Default Re: Central Park

    Agree

  4. #104

    Default Re: Central Park

    This isn't exactly a windfall but it certainly doesn't hurt the funding issues for the park.

    http://newsok.com/epa-grant-frees-up...rticle/3678770

  5. #105

    Default Re: Central Park

    Quote Originally Posted by lasomeday View Post
    I thought they were going to look at possible changing the size, location, or scope of the park due to the Myriad Gardens revamp? I guess the Mayor pushed it through because it is the heart of his poorly planned Core to Shore goals.
    I never heard any talk about changing the size or location of the park, and I've been at a lot of MAPS meetings. There was some talk about changing the scope, because of the programming at the Myriad Gardens and the desire to avoid overlap. That's reasonable, and I hope it's something the Hargreave group will take into consideration.

    Regardless of what you think about Core to Shore, I believe the park will be a success. I've been amazed at how utilized the Myriad Gardens are on weekends. It's just a shame there's going to be such an impediment to moving from the Myriad Gardens to the Central Park.

  6. #106

    Default Re: Central Park

    The one change they did make was the decision to get the park to a very basic state of completion early on, then do all the programming and heavy lifting in a second phase seveal years down the road.

    That makes perfect sense given all the moving parts and the fact that area is still very rough.

  7. #107

    Default Re: Central Park

    I agree with Pete that this course of action makes the most sense. However, doing it for the benefit of the CC/at the expense of the park, that is wrong-headed. Really the shuffling around of funds should have benefited the later Phase 1b of the modern transit project, which will be producing the most immediate economic development gains.

  8. Default Re: Central Park

    Quote Originally Posted by lasomeday View Post
    ...I was hoping they would choose a different LA firm due to Hargreave already doing the massively over budget Native American Culture Center. I feel there were better firms that are more cutting edge that could have brought a different perspective to the city that are known for using historic buildings. Hargreave had the upper hand with the pre Maps design. I hope they don't use that design. It was very basic and destroyed a lot of buildings and put a modern restaurant. We have seen in the Myriad Gardens how that has not worked. The Film Row buildings could be reused as restaurants with their prime locations and potential back patios.
    A little confused here about parts of your post... but their website doesn't mention LA as an office:
    http://www.hargreaves.com/firm/index.php
    With offices in San Francisco, California; Cambridge, Massachusetts; New York, New York; and London; the firm serves an international clientele, and its projects address a broad range of scales and types.
    Didn't realize that they are doing the AICC, while it is severely over budget, is that because of them? How have their other park designs fared concerning budget issues (like the Houston park they did that was often mentioned as the template for ours)?

    Lastly, what about the Myriad Gardens has not worked? It seems to be a huge success. Granted they lost the casual restaurant due to budget issues and they went ahead and built the upscale one and then tried to find an operator to fit what they had built Instead of the other way around but I thought I read recently in the Oklahoman or Gazette that they had found an operator??? But again, is that Hargreave's fault or the MG redesign folks changing things along the way???

  9. Default Re: Central Park

    FYI: The architecture firm Johnson Fain out of LA did the AICC http://www.johnsonfain.com/architecture/29

    Hargraves and Associates is a landscape architecture firm.

  10. #110

    Default Re: Central Park

    Hargreaves was definitely the lead on the Discovery Green. Douglas Hollis designed stuff like the pavilions, hardscapes, etc. SOM did the Millennium Park in Chicago. I would love to see OKC try and get SOM, but Hargreaves isn't bad - they've done solid work, I just question if it will outlast current trends in landscape architecture. Their work is exceedingly trendy IMO.

  11. Default Re: Central Park

    Quote Originally Posted by CuatrodeMayo View Post
    FYI: The architecture firm Johnson Fain out of LA did the AICC http://www.johnsonfain.com/architecture/29

    Hargraves and Associates is a landscape architecture firm.
    You are right ("At the forefront of landscape architecture for over 20 years, Hargreaves Associates continues to offer full services in landscape architecture, planning, and urban design...") and as such, Hargreaves has the AICC listed as their project on their site:
    http://www.hargreaves.com/projects/I...mericanIndian/

  12. #112

    Default Re: Central Park



    This is how you do a downtown central park - especially if you already have a great public space to build on, a la Public Square in Cleveland, or Myriad Gardens in OKC.

  13. #113

    Default Re: Central Park

    Quote Originally Posted by Spartan View Post


    This is how you do a downtown central park - especially if you already have a great public space to build on, a la Public Square in Cleveland, or Myriad Gardens in OKC.
    Spartan, I'm not really sure about your point. Are you just saying this is how you do because they're asking for public imput? It certainly doesn't appear from that video that they have any definite plans for what they are going to do.

  14. #114
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    5,341
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Central Park

    Lol. In fact it shows a 6 lane boulevard running through it on the depictions. And park, not buildings up to the waterfront. As well as city buildings around the open green spaces. All things I thought we were in an uproar against here.

  15. Default Re: Central Park

    What i took away from it was that they were asking for public input...that these decisions weren't going to be made behind closed doors and they build something that people didn't want...if they want a 6 lane boulevard, fine...if they wanted to ban autos completely...fine..location connections (public gov spaces or private etc)...the point being ... GET INVOLVED ...discuss it, sort things out, weigh pros & cons (like we do here)...be proactive instead of reactive after it is to late and the mistakes have been made.

  16. #116

    Default Re: Central Park

    Quote Originally Posted by ljbab728 View Post
    Spartan, I'm not really sure about your point. Are you just saying this is how you do because they're asking for public imput? It certainly doesn't appear from that video that they have any definite plans for what they are going to do.
    They know where they're going to put the park, which was my point.

    We haven't even yet gotten to the nuances of park design and amenities.

  17. #117
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    5,341
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Central Park

    Quote Originally Posted by Spartan View Post
    They know where they're going to put the park, which was my point.

    We haven't even yet gotten to the nuances of park design and amenities.
    I thought we know where the park is going and have known for some time. What am I missing? Is there a chance that it is NOT going where it has been designated?

  18. #118

    Default Re: Central Park

    Right but you guys were shrouding it with saying they have no plans yet, when they're exactly as far along as we are, except they're taking public input. The takeaway however is that they are taking their existing landmark public space, Public Square, and extending it in two directions with their new park project to make a single grand central park that they're going to call the mall.

    We took our existing landmark public space, improved it, then planned a separate competing park to the south, and made sure the two were separated by the convention center. Ours is one of the stupidest capital projects in the nation right now. For the life of me I don't understand why we don't either move the convention center or swap the site of the two projects and just expand the Myriad Gardens to the tune of $120 million.

  19. Default Re: Central Park

    I have wondered the same thing since when Core to Shore was unveiled... the Park and MG separation (yet connected by the Harvey Spine)? In C2S, it was supposed to be mixed use retail etc and we switched that out for the Convention Center. But the question remains as to why the separation at all? The only reason I can think of is that they want the MG to have its own identity and a more intimate/smaller scale experience. Yet there are other ways of doing that. Instead of having a 70 acre park, it could be billed at the higher acreage...

  20. #120

    Default Re: Central Park

    Quote Originally Posted by Spartan View Post
    Right but you guys were shrouding it with saying they have no plans yet, when they're exactly as far along as we are, except they're taking public input. The takeaway however is that they are taking their existing landmark public space, Public Square, and extending it in two directions with their new park project to make a single grand central park that they're going to call the mall.

    We took our existing landmark public space, improved it, then planned a separate competing park to the south, and made sure the two were separated by the convention center. Ours is one of the stupidest capital projects in the nation right now. For the life of me I don't understand why we don't either move the convention center or swap the site of the two projects and just expand the Myriad Gardens to the tune of $120 million.
    Incorrect. I recommend watching the video linked earlier in the thread.

    In fact, Cleveland is taking space that has for over 100 years been known as the Mall (it was designed in 1903 by Daniel Burnham, et. al.) and are re-imagining it (after tearing up a bunch of it and building a convention center below surface). A separate existing space known as Public Square is distinct from the Mall and located diagonally across an intersection from one end of the Mall. They are making design efforts (including I think closing streets) to "connect" it with the Mall. But it will still maintain a distinct identity.

    Note also that according to the linked video Cleveland's Mall is barely more than 3 acres. Our proposed 40 acre Central Park will be plenty big, even without having Myriad Gardens directly attached to it.

    I am not fond of the convention center between Myriad Gardens and the Central Park, but if properly designed it could work. Just as, with good design, having hotels and retail/office space between the 2 parks could work very well.

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with having two distinct parks in our downtown. And a lot to be gained. Different uses will draw people along from one area to another and infuse the whole downtown with more activity. Too much of one thing in a particular area will act as a roadblock, even if that one thing is a park.

    Imagine someone strolling around downtown along Sheridan. They are likely to be drawn into Myriad Gardens. If, while in the Myriad Gardens, they look to the south and see twenty more blocks of relatively open park space stretched out in front of them, there is an excellent chance they will not venture any further south. If, on the other hand, there are shops, restaurants, etc. across Reno to the south, they may stroll through Myriad Gardens to the shops and restaurants. Then, they may stroll into the northern part of the Central Park as well, and/or to any shops/restaurants/developments that line the sides of the park.

  21. Default Re: Central Park

    Good points but that presumes that there will be shops/restaurants etc accessible to the pedestrians at the Convention Center and not a dead end...that being said, is New York's Central Park (on 800+ acres) to imposing (compared to our 70+ of the combined MG & MAPS 3 Park?

  22. #122

    Default Re: Central Park

    Quote Originally Posted by Larry OKC View Post
    Good points but that presumes that there will be shops/restaurants etc accessible to the pedestrians at the Convention Center and not a dead end...that being said, is New York's Central Park (on 800+ acres) to imposing (compared to our 70+ of the combined MG & MAPS 3 Park?
    My hypothetical scenario was really for the original plan with shops, hotels etc on that intervening parcel, rather than the convention center. But if done right, there could still be shops and restaurants.

    I would venture to guess that most people strolling around midtown Manhattan pretty much stop when they get to the park. They may venture into the very end of it, but that's pretty much it. whereas, if there was a small park, then some more buildings, then more park, there would be more continued strolling. OKC needs to work on and improve connectivity every chance it gets. NYC has it pretty well licked (and besides, when Central Park was built, it was practically out in the country, not on the edge of downtown.)

  23. #123

    Default Re: Central Park

    Quote Originally Posted by Oil Capital View Post
    Incorrect. I recommend watching the video linked earlier in the thread.

    In fact, Cleveland is taking space that has for over 100 years been known as the Mall (it was designed in 1903 by Daniel Burnham, et. al.) and are re-imagining it (after tearing up a bunch of it and building a convention center below surface). A separate existing space known as Public Square is distinct from the Mall and located diagonally across an intersection from one end of the Mall. They are making design efforts (including I think closing streets) to "connect" it with the Mall. But it will still maintain a distinct identity.

    Note also that according to the linked video Cleveland's Mall is barely more than 3 acres. Our proposed 40 acre Central Park will be plenty big, even without having Myriad Gardens directly attached to it.

    I am not fond of the convention center between Myriad Gardens and the Central Park, but if properly designed it could work. Just as, with good design, having hotels and retail/office space between the 2 parks could work very well.

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with having two distinct parks in our downtown. And a lot to be gained. Different uses will draw people along from one area to another and infuse the whole downtown with more activity. Too much of one thing in a particular area will act as a roadblock, even if that one thing is a park.

    Imagine someone strolling around downtown along Sheridan. They are likely to be drawn into Myriad Gardens. If, while in the Myriad Gardens, they look to the south and see twenty more blocks of relatively open park space stretched out in front of them, there is an excellent chance they will not venture any further south. If, on the other hand, there are shops, restaurants, etc. across Reno to the south, they may stroll through Myriad Gardens to the shops and restaurants. Then, they may stroll into the northern part of the Central Park as well, and/or to any shops/restaurants/developments that line the sides of the park.
    The old mall in Cleveland with its beaux arts landscaping motif was completely scrapped and is absolutely no more. Was there the other week and there is virtually nothing left of it except the southern terminus, reminding me a lot of Bicentennial Park. I can also assure you that they're very interested in OKC's plan with C2S but many of the guys I met with thought we were making a huge mistake and wanted their mall redesign to be a teaching lesson. Right now they're planning a similar N/S green space spine but it won't be perfect because it has to meander around Key Tower at the diagonal intersection you mention. But with that slight alteration, there is nonetheless a N/S spine that starts at Public Square and then goes through downtown Cleveland up to the Lake Erie waterfront, which has the Browns stadium, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, among other things. The point though is that they certainly aren't interrupting their green spine with a convention center.

    Your own post is unfortunately a contradiction with regards to the CC. You admit that it isn't preferable, then argue it can be turned into a positive, then suggest that something on the other side will need to draw people in from the northern end. But you say it should be shops and restaurants. What is proposed between our two parks is not shops and restaurants, like originally planned, but will instead be a massive CC wall. In fact our new landmark "boulevard" won't even be a straight corridor anymore because they are bending it southward to free up more space for the CC.

    In case it's not clear what project is calling the shots in our downtown, it's the CC, not parks, not private development. Also I did want to bring up the Cleveland Medical Mart as another interesting lesson, but I'll do that in the other thread..

  24. #124

    Default Re: Central Park

    Quote Originally Posted by Spartan View Post
    The old mall in Cleveland with its beaux arts landscaping motif was completely scrapped and is absolutely no more. Was there the other week and there is virtually nothing left of it except the southern terminus, reminding me a lot of Bicentennial Park. I can also assure you that they're very interested in OKC's plan with C2S but many of the guys I met with thought we were making a huge mistake and wanted their mall redesign to be a teaching lesson. Right now they're planning a similar N/S green space spine but it won't be perfect because it has to meander around Key Tower at the diagonal intersection you mention. But with that slight alteration, there is nonetheless a N/S spine that starts at Public Square and then goes through downtown Cleveland up to the Lake Erie waterfront, which has the Browns stadium, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, among other things. The point though is that they certainly aren't interrupting their green spine with a convention center.

    Your own post is unfortunately a contradiction with regards to the CC. You admit that it isn't preferable, then argue it can be turned into a positive, then suggest that something on the other side will need to draw people in from the northern end. But you say it should be shops and restaurants. What is proposed between our two parks is not shops and restaurants, like originally planned, but will instead be a massive CC wall. In fact our new landmark "boulevard" won't even be a straight corridor anymore because they are bending it southward to free up more space for the CC.

    In case it's not clear what project is calling the shots in our downtown, it's the CC, not parks, not private development. Also I did want to bring up the Cleveland Medical Mart as another interesting lesson, but I'll do that in the other thread..
    The old mall is "gone" because they are completely re-working it and building a convention center underneath it. You completely misstated reality in your first post. They are merely re-imagining existing green spaces, contrary to your initial post. They are not expanding the public square in two directions. And again, the entirety of their mall is THREE acres. If you add the PUblic Square, you might get as much as 5 acres (but again it is not exactly continuous). Myriad Gardens is 17 acres. The proposed central park is 40 acres. Having a significant continuous green space is NOT a problem for us in OKC.

    Read my posts more carefully, please, alomg with follow-up posts that clarify. For that matter, you should read everything more carefully. ;-). I think filling the CC parcel with a massive block convention center is the worst result. There is no reason we could not put our convention center largely underground like Cleveland is doing, and have shops/restaurants/open space on the surface. As I argued in my earlier post, I think the ideal usage for the surface of the CC parcel is shops, restaurants, perhaps hotel.

  25. #125

    Default Re: Central Park

    Quote Originally Posted by Oil Capital View Post
    The old mall is "gone" because they are completely re-working it and building a convention center underneath it. You completely misstated reality in your first post. They are merely re-imagining existing green spaces, contrary to your initial post. They are not expanding the public square in two directions. And again, the entirety of their mall is THREE acres. If you add the PUblic Square, you might get as much as 5 acres (but again it is not exactly continuous). Myriad Gardens is 17 acres. The proposed central park is 40 acres. Having a significant continuous green space is NOT a problem for us in OKC.

    Read my posts more carefully, please, alomg with follow-up posts that clarify. For that matter, you should read everything more carefully. ;-). I think filling the CC parcel with a massive block convention center is the worst result. There is no reason we could not put our convention center largely underground like Cleveland is doing, and have shops/restaurants/open space on the surface. As I argued in my earlier post, I think the ideal usage for the surface of the CC parcel is shops, restaurants, perhaps hotel.
    A few things first, I'm going to take the high road and not get caught up in defending past records. My explanation of the project was a simplification written for people who weren't just in Cleveland the other week like myself. I don't think the average OKC Talk readers cares about the nuances or the historic importance of the mall. Another issue I have with your post is that you're making a huge deal out of the acreage difference. Public Square is 4 blocks. The mall is several times bigger, stretching all the way to the shore. There is an interesting graphic illustration out there that explains how OKC's block sizes are the largest of almost any major city (trying to find it, couldn't find it on Blair's blog, anyone else remember this?), so the distance between 1 block in downtown OKC is actually several times the distance between 1 block in downtown Cleveland. 40 acres would be almost all of downtown Cleveland, especially if you cut off the haggard eastern side. Cleveland's east side goes up into the east 120 streets, just a mere 4 miles from downtown. So, having actually been to this city and not merely bloviating like you are, your point about 40 acres v. 5 acres falls pretty flat. Cleveland's planned green spine is their equivalent to ours and grasping at straws to make a defense doesn't diminish the lessons we could learn from them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oil Capital View Post
    I think filling the CC parcel with a massive block convention center is the worst result. There is no reason we could not put our convention center largely underground like Cleveland is doing, and have shops/restaurants/open space on the surface. As I argued in my earlier post, I think the ideal usage for the surface of the CC parcel is shops, restaurants, perhaps hotel.
    Now that I have the technical issues I have with your post out of the way - I understand that you live in Tulsa so naturally you aren't as aware about the intricacies of OKC projects and stuff, and especially given the amount of time that you dedicate to flaming every single OKC poster on this board, I certainly couldn't expect you to know the fine details of our CC project. That said, I commend you for having at least the insight to recognize that a massive block convention center would be the worst result. Unfortunately the entire facility will not be underground, just the exhibition hall, and there will be a massive block, perhaps even a CC hotel (this thread's topic) squeezed into the block. Shops/restaurants/open space aren't in the picture here. There is 1 out of 3 options that have been in the media which include a small 50-foot wide green opening through the middle so that at least the green spine can be superfluously marketed.

    The crazy thing is that Fred Hall came out last year announcing that he wanted to build the largest mixed-use development in OKC history on this site. Something like the Power & Light District in KC or even better. Everyone agreed that this plot of land was by far the most important in downtown. Then the powers that be decided that their convention center project was the single most important thing for downtown to have, and decided that needed to go on this land.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Map of Potential Infill Sites in Central OKC
    By shane453 in forum General Real Estate Topics
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 01-22-2012, 10:14 PM
  2. The Lincoln at Central Park / Gardner Tanenbaum project
    By metro in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 12-16-2011, 10:58 AM
  3. First MAPS 3 Project (70 Acre Central Park)?
    By G.Walker in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-17-2011, 09:31 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO