By John Estus
Staff Writer
The bench at NW 80 and Western Avenue is nothing but three wobbly wooden planks tacked to a concrete block.
It's a typical city bus stop: a gloomy place with no shelter, shade or sidewalk, but plenty of trash and tall grass.



Sights like this are one reason citizens and city officials have had changing Oklahoma City's mass transit system on their minds — and they're not alone.

An architecture group has vowed to replace dirty, dated bus stops with cutting edge hubs meant to attract people to mass transit rather than shoo them away.

The plan started as a design competition that asked architecture students to come up with the ultimate Oklahoma City bus stop.

Once the designs came in — more than 80 of them from around the world — the architecture group decided to try to make the designers' dreams a reality.

"The main thing we want to get across with this competition is upscaling the image of riding the bus,” said local architect David Brewer, who helped design one of the seven bus stops featured on the Web site: OKC Bus Stops (http://www.okcbusstops.com).


Replacement project
The central Oklahoma chapter of the American Institute of Architects is trying to raise money to start replacing Oklahoma City's bus stops with one of the artsy, modern designs on the Web site. In the meantime, the Web site's visitors can vote for their favorite bus stop design.
The design Brewer worked on calls for a covered hub with a colored roof that would identify which routes the bus stop serves.

He said he came up with the colored roof idea while sitting at bus stops talking with people about what could make waiting for the bus more enjoyable.

"They felt like there wasn't attention paid to them,” Brewer said. "They said: ‘I can be sitting on the bench in the rain waiting on the bus to get to work to feed my family, and evidently no one cares because they won't give me shelter here.'”


Starting small
Another local architect thinks the new homes and businesses popping up in and around downtown present an opportunity to make a major overhaul to the metro area's mass transit system. Building new bus stops is one way to start, he said.
"Metro transit is just on the bubble of a lot more use,” said Kenny Dennis, an architect at TAParchitecture.

"A lot more people are going to want to use it not because they have to, but because it's convenient and it's environmentally friendly and it's the right thing to do.”


Other designs
One of the bus stops on the Web site is a green design done by a group of Columbia University students. It's called ParkStop and features sustainable wood and glass, a grass roof with a hole for a tree to grow through and a solar-powered sign.
Another was designed by University of Oklahoma architecture graduates Bernie Colbert and Shawn Lorg. The stop's loopy design was inspired by the way bus routes are drawn on transit maps, Colbert said.

The design also includes a fairly simple item — a trash bin — missing from the bus stop on Western Avenue, where an empty pack of Kool cigarettes and crumpled can of Mountain Dew were resting beneath the rickety bench.

Those are all really cool, but I voted for the "green design", ParkStop (#4). That would make OKC look REALLY progressive.

I'm not overly crazy about any of them but I think #2 offers the most protection from the elements..... I do like the Green one #4 but I'm thinking of Downtown professionals taking the bus with our famous red mud and grass stuck to their shoes.

Yes, I don't think it would take very long for that lovely green grass to turn to dirt and then to mud, considering all of the foot traffic. However I do like the tree that is featured in #4.

I am not to impressed with any of the options , but I would say it is between #1, and #2 for me. I will vote later.

I agree jbrown, I think #4 is the best bet. We can't go wrong with any of them though compared to our current ones. I'm a downtown professional and resident and I'd definitely support it and vote for it in a heartbeat. It's more eco-friendly and blends better into the natural environment, a huge plus in my book. I'm going to buck the trend, I don't think it would be that much of an issue with mud, etc. If you note, it has overhead and rear glass as well as on the sides to protect the area from most wind and water. I'm guessing the designers are smart enough to take into consideration of what direction the rain usually comes from. They can also design "smart" drainage systems for water to drain quickly such as using more sand under the sod, etc. Golf courses do this all the time.

Thanks for the update Misty, I hadn't heard anything more on this lately. Although the designs aren't new, the voting feature was much appreciated. Hopefully they will have at least one installed by November for the Centennial.

I really like # 4 as well. It would be a great feature to our city and make us look very progressive and cool all at the same time. VOTE # 4

1 and 7 are my favorites, just on aesthetics and personal preference.

I agree jbrown, I think #4 is the best bet. We can't go wrong with any of them though compared to our current ones. I'm a downtown professional and resident and I'd definitely support it and vote for it in a heartbeat. It's more eco-friendly and blends better into the natural environment, a huge plus in my book. I'm going to buck the trend, I don't think it would be that much of an issue with mud, etc. If you note, it has overhead and rear glass as well as on the sides to protect the area from most wind and water. I'm guessing the designers are smart enough to take into consideration of what direction the rain usually comes from. They can also design "smart" drainage systems for water to drain quickly such as using more sand under the sod, etc. Golf courses do this all the time.

Thanks for the update Misty, I hadn't heard anything more on this lately. Although the designs aren't new, the voting feature was much appreciated. Hopefully they will have at least one installed by November for the Centennial.

Alright. I'm all about sustainability, but just sticking grass on it does not all-of-a-sudden make it the "eco-friendly' choice. Any of the other designs can be just as sustainable. #4 "looks" green.

1. #4 would cost substantially more than any of the others due to the complexity involved.

2. #4 would be a maintenance nightmare.

3. #4 reminds me of the reason our bus system is not very effective...sprawl.

4. The...grass...will...die...

5. Blending in with the natural environment? What natural environment? Bus stops and in developed areas.

All of the designs are great. The would all work.

I gotta vote #2 with #7 coming in second (for my man, Neil).

Why would it remind you of sprawl?

And I don't see why it is any more complex than the others. They all look complex.

And there are plenty of stops that are in grassy yards. Obviously that design doesn't fit for Park & Broadway, but 80th and Western--yeah.

I decided to vote for number #1.

I like the overall contemporary design and I like how it adds the bright colors to the canopy rooftop. It also incorparates a large light pole into the bustop and I do believe that it would be low maintenance, therefore looking the same years later as the day that it would be installed.

After voting I see that #4 has the most votes, but I must agree with Cuatro. The "grass....will.....die" and the maintenance for #4 would be costly to our city budget in the transportation department.

It is a spread-out scheme with a substantial footprint.

The cantilever roof would have to be a very strong material to resist wind uplift and the force or gravity, which would be increased by the presences of earth and plant material above. The foundations would have to be extensive for the same reasons. This would involve large amounds of labor on-site. I'm all for green roofs, but they are complex and pricey systems.

The grass will be shaded a good part of the day plus the concetration of foot traffic on a small area will eventually kill it. Besides...why have grass there in the first place? Use permeable concrete.

I think it would be cool to have one or two like #4, in appropriate places, and then others could look different. We can afford to maintain one or two #4 designs.

. . . not only would the grass die, the tree wouldn't be happy either. Concrete coverings don't make for happy roots under the canopy.

7 for me

#3 is my least favorite.

Any would be an improvement. I like the ones which appear modular. I think the modular thing is the way to go -- much cheaper to build -- and even cheaper than that to maintain. If one of those more customized, let's say #4's were to be damaged somehow, the city is going to be out a lot of money fixing it. If it's one of those more modular units? No problem. Just snap in a new part.

Also, the modular systems seem to be easily adapted to whatever they're needed for.

My vote is for #1. I like the way it flows and has potential for good info displays for maps and junk. Plus, its just a different type of design that you wouldn't expect to see here...which earns many points for me.

Here's what my thoguhts were on the others...
#2 - looks like some weird throwback to the 60s like those old egg looking chairs...just strange.

#3 - Looks sort of cold and uninviting. It's very...i dont know. It may be a little too contemporary furniture for me.

#4 - OK yes the grass is nice and all, but we all know that the place wouldn't stay like that. It would die off, look like crap, and just end up being worse than the park bench. Not to mention that a pergola isn't as good as a roof.

#5 - I don't dislike this one really. But it looks like it should be in a subway station more than outside. I like how expandable it is for larger stops. It could be used more at main stations??

#6 - Yuk in ever sense. What the terd??? Talk about the minimalist approach.

#7 - This is actually my favorite. I aboslutely LOVE the idea of it being self sufficient in power. That concept would save Metro Transit a lot in getting power to the stations. I don't know that the cost doesnt override the benefit though. It may just be too much of a cost prohibitive design....but by far my favorite.

It's great that they're doing this. Modern looking bus stops (IF KEPT UP!) can really make a city look nice. Whatever option they go with, I hope the priority is put on choosing a design which will be both aesthetically pleasing as well as inexpensive to maintain.

Looks like I am pretty much in line with others, liking 1, 4, and 7. I voted for 7 after some deliberation.

as did I brianok.

I think/hope Metro will select more than just one design, based on the type/location of the stop. Perhaps they will select the top 4 vote getters,with emphasis being on the higher ranked ones.

but in all honesty, none of these stops will work without significant sidewalks being added to the city!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And lighting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

yeah #1 and #7 are my favorites. #4 I think if built would be like those restrooms at the lake at thunderbird. i dunno y but i bet after a couple years, its gonna be torn up and no ones going to want to go to the bus stops just like thunderbirds restrooms. lol not trying to offend anyone. but i love #7's design and #1's also. those would look great around oklahoma city to show it as a much more modern city with a sophisticated transportation system. my vote is for #7

What restrooms at Lake Thunderbird? I doubt very many here know what you're talking about.

Frankly, none of them impress me that much. They all look like they would look very old in a few short years. None of them look timeless. The bus system should be very sensitive to their appearance and I don't think any of them look like they would stand the test of time.

I see what you are saying Cid. I think a lot of the stuff in the Myriad Gardens looks very dated.

Show me "Timeless". I hear that alot.

Examples of timeless...

Rolex (actually, timeFULL, har har)

Chrysler Building

Most things designed by Frank Lloyd Wright


Let me tell you my biggest complaint about the entries. You know how harsh the Oklahoma wind can be in winter, right? The cold isn't so bad if you can just get out of the wind and sitting at ANY of these bus stops will only stop the wind on half the days. The other half, you'll be sitting with your face to the wind in the middle of winter.

The designs need to incorporate the need to be sitting on either side of the divider so that on any given day you can be protected from the elements. One of the designs, #7, you can sit on either side, but there is no divider.

Can you tell me even one person that will want to be sitting at any of these bus stops on a windy, freezing day in January? I certainly wouldn't.

Show me "Timeless". I hear that alot.

The skirvin hotel ... "timeless!"

And no I don't have an answer as to how you can make a bus stop "timeless."

I think instead of trying to make a "timeless" bus stop we should make a nice modern well lit bus stop that meets the needs of the city and most importantly upkeep them. And when they become outdated update them again.

Show me "Timeless". I hear that alot.

http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/imagemid/florencedome.JPG

Timeless

–adjective 1. Without beginning or end; eternal; everlasting.

2. Referring or restricted to no particular time: the timeless beauty of great music.

So the skirvin is out and Florence is out.

If you want timeless, look at Le Corbusier, the Bauhaus, Philip Johnson ,a little FLW, and our local guy, Rand Elliott, and other modern architects.



I think instead of trying to make a "timeless" bus stop we should make a nice modern well lit bus stop that meets the needs of the city and most importantly upkeep them. And when they become outdated update them again.


I think we have a winner.

Show me "Timeless". I hear that alot.

...and...



If you want timeless, look at Le Corbusier, the Bauhaus, Philip Johnson ,a little FLW, and our local guy, Rand Elliott, and other modern architects.

Interesting. You ask to be shown timeless, then proceed to correct us on what timeless is.

????????????

"Timeless" is one of those words that get thrown around alot without really understanding the meaning. I was just curious what people really thought it meant. The answers were what I expected. People somehow equate traditional with timeless and nothing could be further from the truth. I wanted to know what "timeless" meant to you because the word usually signals a lean towards very tradional design. I'm don't want to see miniaturized historic bus stops.

Sorry to pick on you.

I do agree with the wind issue. That is a critical design flaw that needs to be addressed. Design has to be functional!

Can you tell me even one person that will want to be sitting at any of these bus stops on a windy, freezing day in January? I certainly wouldn't.


Exactly, that's why, even though #2 isn't the greatest looking thing.. in my mind it offered the most protection from the elements. I was thinking practicality over beauty I guess.

Can 'timeless' mean that in 10-30 years, the design won't look dated and need to be redesigned or remodeled?

Yes.

"Timeless" is one of those words that get thrown around alot without really understanding the meaning. I was just curious what people really thought it meant. The answers were what I expected. People somehow equate traditional with timeless and nothing could be further from the truth. I wanted to know what "timeless" meant to you because the word usually signals a lean towards very tradional design. I'm don't want to see miniaturized historic bus stops.

Sorry to pick on you.

I do agree with the wind issue. That is a critical design flaw that needs to be addressed. Design has to be functional!

First, I didn't think you were picking on me. I thought you really wanted to know what timeless meant.

Now I know that were testing us. Thanks.... I guess.

Second, you'll notice that my examples of timeless, are pretty much, well, timeless.

Am I reading into this too much that you are an architecture student from OSU and one of the entries is from an architecture student from OSU?

Exactly, that's why, even though #2 isn't the greatest looking thing.. in my mind it offered the most protection from the elements. I was thinking practicality over beauty I guess.

Can 'timeless' mean that in 10-30 years, the design won't look dated and need to be redesigned or remodeled?

Actually, I think that all of the proposals would look dated in less than 10 years. If the winning design didn't look dated in even 15 years, I would think it would be a good investment.

First, I didn't think you were picking on me. I thought you really wanted to know what timeless meant.

Now I know that were testing us. Thanks.... I guess.

Second, you'll notice that my examples of timeless, are pretty much, well, timeless.

Am I reading into this too much that you are an architecture student from OSU and one of the entries is from an architecture student from OSU?

I don't know that was exactly a test, but whatever.

With the exception of the Chysler, I agree.

What you should be reading is that I do not want some minature, neo-historic, nonsense to represent our city. I would like to see a well-designed modern bus stops that show the creative and progressive direction of the city.

And since you want to know, yes on both counts. Neil is a great designer and I like this design. But it has very little protection from the elements. It looks good but doesn't work that well.

I know it would probably be cost prohibitive but I would like to see actual full size productions of these designs before I could confidently choose one. I am sure they would all look quite different when actually built than they do on paper.

I'd settle for "timely," as in "Hey, here comes the bus, and it's on schedule!"

lol! That would be good!

Most of these designs can serve a small part in creating interest in actually using mass transit and contributing to OKC re-vitalization. I've seen all these final options up close and reading the text explaining the designs is very helpful...

The #4 green "Parkstop" is the most appealing and the negative criticism so far is ambiguous at best.

EXPENSE: As an architect, yes, I suspect that #4 will be one of the more expensive options but not any more so than a couple of others such as #1 & 7. The least expensive at face value are perhaps #2,5,6 and arguably the worst options. They are cheap because they are most like what we are all used to and what's already available. Since at least the prototype will be paid through donations and corporate money, let's all support the one we feel will work best and could inspire the most in the city. The reality is that the new stops will generate it's own income via corporate sponsorship and advertisements. Whether you believe this is a public sell-out or not, it's a reality and no design will be able to avoid it. Example, NYC is currently putting up hundreds of brand new bus stops and newsstands with zero constructon cost. But of course nothing is free as NYC is exchanging the infrastructural costs for an advertising contract.

SPRAWL/GREEN BLENDING: How can a spot of park (at least when idealized) in the concrete landscape be considered sprawl? It is anti-sprawl as it attempts to spread outdoor leisure space woven into mass transit infrastructure. I've never heard anyone complain that there are too many parks and they don't want a park in their backyards. The idealized "green" stop isn't meant to "blend in" either. It is exactly the opposite of things around it - it provides an oasis in our everyday path through concrete.

GRASS WILL DIE; JUST BECAUSE THERE'S GRASS DOESN'T MAKE IT GREEN: no arguement on either point. But #4 as well as a few other designs have multiple "green" features and when the grass dies, #4 will still be the park option. #7 has a green roof, #6 utilizes energy saving LED lighting, #1 has solar panels, but ahhhh #4 has them ALL and more (integrating the tree that was existing at the proposed site). The so-called grass ground is ultimately just one detail that most superficially screams this is a Parkstop but there are park/garden examples that replace vegetation with man-made material for practicality. #4 could still be a potent satellite park without literal grass. There are several options to build the stop with an eco-friendly permeable ground cover instead of growing grass. This option of non-run-off surfaces should be considered for all the options. We need to maximize the amount of water penetrating the ground in our cities.

#1,5,7 all seem very generic and uninspiring although safe options. #1 is very amiable but I think we would want to build a stop for 2010 rather than one that is adequate for 1990. None of these options will be "cheap." The current stops we see everywhere are about $7K and all of the new options will run 3-4x that amount. Let's make this count especially since most of this will be paid thru private money.

Unless parking dries up, masstrans in OKC is not going to work on a large scale, in my opinion. The only times people use masstrans routinely is when they:
1) don't have a place to keep their car overnight;
2) it is so congested where they are going that there is no parking;
3) they are retired or work close enough to home that they can walk (in which case, they might use masstrans for other excusions - think NYC. Addendum to 3) - My friends and family in NYC routinely hire cars or cabs for shopping because when they are getting bigger items, they won't fit on the subway, either; or
4) Traffic is so congested that it takes less time, overall to take masstrans or traffic is so IFFY (think volume and what happens when there is an accident) that masstrans is routinely more reliable. Where I live, it takes an hour for the train to go to DC but only 40 minutes to drive when traffic is moving (forget that there is no parking in DC). The problem is that you can count on an accident several days a week so your commute to or from could be anywhere from 40 minutes to 2.5 hours, depending. Many people just take the train and eat that extra 20 minutes each way in the interest of predictability.

I like the idea of improving bus stops but what I think would make things better is some buses to actually go to them stops. Oklahoma City's bus system is really lacking. Every main artery should have regular service.

Today, driving down western, I saw someone sitting on the ground, as the bus stop didn't even have a bench. That is ridiculous, especially in light of fuel prices and our emphasis on fuel conservation. We should be doing everything possible to encourage the use of mass transit, and our failure to even provide a bench, much less shelter from the elements, is terrible.

I agree with you completely. On the East side where I live there are not even buses to ride on.