I don't really believe C2S sucks, it's just a real attention-getting title. But still, I'm starting to realize it has major flaws that, if realized, almost definitely would prevent OKC from becoming this grandiose vision of new urbanism. I wrote a LOT about it here:

A Downtown ontheRange: Closing argument on the C2S boulevard (http://downtownontherange.blogspot.com/2009/07/closing-argument-on-c2s-boulevard.html)
The boulevard has to go..

A Downtown ontheRange: Questioning the layout of the C2S plan (http://downtownontherange.blogspot.com/2009/07/questioning-layout-of-c2s-plan.html)
The layout doesn't make sense..

A Downtown ontheRange: Alternative C2S vision...closer to 20/20 (http://downtownontherange.blogspot.com/2009/07/my-alternate-c2s-proposal.html)
Offering a better alternative..

Here's my better alternative:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_L3gtvb8usg4/Sl1xAmIOljI/AAAAAAAAAF4/_TDqpW7dXOA/s400/myc2s.jpg

Key differences....

1. The boulevard doesn't hog the glory and threaten to be an even bigger flop than I.M. Pei.
2. The canal extension route, which I agree is needed, does not cut off downtown.
3. The convention center is moved to break up the cluster of super-block structures.
4. The park is a continuous flow of greenspace from the core to the shore.
5. I added a smaller pocket park to the west to build an upscale district around.
6. I included for historic preservation along SW 3rd Street to preserve some cool brick warehouses.
7. I call for Shields Boulevard being lowered, so that it doesn't become the next thing to blame after I-40 is moved.
8. A streetcar system similar to Jeff Bezdek's proposal is included in the C2S masterplan.
9. The neighborhoods make a lot more sense and flow better, so it feels more like a continuous area.

Anyone can do this. Just make a screenshot of a map of OKC, open it up in MS Paint, and let 'r rip. It took me an hour, and that was mostly putting thought into it and stuff. I'd like to invite others to weigh in creating their own C2S visions, because half will almost certainly be better than what we're going with at the moment, which is sheer idiocy in my opinion.

Spartan dont hold back tell how you feel lol

Looks nice... couple of things:

Regatta Park is East of Lincoln so that needs to be adjusted
Please let's not use the word "commons." That isn't used outside the Northeast and is a little grasping.
Where did the name "Ellison" for the boulevard come from?

I wonder about the future of SW 3rd as well if C2S is done like planned. Anyone also know what might happen to some other historic buildings in the central park area? Namely the Film Exchange building on S. Robinson?

1. Regatta Park is west of Byers Avenue.
2. I like Commons, what's wrong with it?
3. That's why we need Ralph Ellison Ave.
4. The Film Row District is W of downtown.

Looks nice... couple of things:

Regatta Park is East of Lincoln so that needs to be adjusted
Please let's not use the word "commons." That isn't used outside the Northeast and is a little grasping.
Where did the name "Ellison" for the boulevard come from?

I wonder about the future of SW 3rd as well if C2S is done like planned. Anyone also know what might happen to some other historic buildings in the central park area? Namely the Film Exchange building on S. Robinson?

pleas tell me you know who Ralph Ellison is?!

i believe the Film Exchange building, and the other film related businesses are being developed now

no matter what the problem is, a $1 Billion convention center is the solution. Get in line, or get outta the way!

There is already a Ralph Ellison Avenue, in Gatewood. It runs N to S past the Classen School of Advanced Studies.

I havent had much of a chance to look at your plan Spartan, but at first glance I like the location of a park between the CC and boathouse row and the continuous greenspace from the core to the shore.

Im a twit when it comes to computers, but I may try your design plan using screenshots and MS paint. If it took you an hour it'l take me a week. lol

Looks nice... couple of things:
* * *
Where did the name "Ellison" for the boulevard come from?
Platemaker, he was a Deep Deucian who rose to national prominence as an author. See Doug Dawgz Blog: Famous Deep Deucians (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2006/12/famous-deep-deucians.html#ralph%20ellison).

Spartan, I'm proud of you for the Avenue/Boulevard's name, and I think what you've done is pretty cool. Keep it up.

pleas tell me you know who Ralph Ellison is?!

OK OK!!! I didn't realize it was in reference to him!

i believe the Film Exchange building, and the other film related businesses are being developed now

There are other film exchanges outside Film Row.

1. Regatta Park is west of Byers Avenue.


Well the Chesapeake boathouse is... that is part of Regatta Park... but the rest is east I promise... you are talking about were all the boasthouses are being built right? You have hotel and mixed use in those spots... and it isn't Byers until it crosses the river.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_L3gtvb8usg4/Sl_CBOtCtnI/AAAAAAAAAGY/D60c72_p1Pk/s1600/Ellison.jpg

I think we should name something better after Ralph Ellison.

For some reason I had this photographic memory of the ground for the OCU Boathouse being broken west of the Chesapeake and making one continuous Regatta Park. If you're right then obviously that should be changed, but honestly that's not a big deal because that neighborhood I would have accidentally stuck there is probably the one unimportant neighborhood. There isn't really any way to un-seclude that little pocket across from Byers/Lincoln.

And thanks Doug. I think I can live my entire life without ever hearing the term "Deep Deucian" again tho..ha ha

Deep Deucian

I don't really believe C2S sucks, it's just a real attention-getting title. But still, I'm starting to realize it has major flaws that, if realized, almost definitely would prevent OKC from becoming this grandiose vision of new urbanism. I wrote a LOT about it here:

A Downtown ontheRange: Closing argument on the C2S boulevard (http://downtownontherange.blogspot.com/2009/07/closing-argument-on-c2s-boulevard.html)
The boulevard has to go..

A Downtown ontheRange: Questioning the layout of the C2S plan (http://downtownontherange.blogspot.com/2009/07/questioning-layout-of-c2s-plan.html)
The layout doesn't make sense..

A Downtown ontheRange: Alternative C2S vision...closer to 20/20 (http://downtownontherange.blogspot.com/2009/07/my-alternate-c2s-proposal.html)
Offering a better alternative..

Here's my better alternative:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_L3gtvb8usg4/Sl1xAmIOljI/AAAAAAAAAF4/_TDqpW7dXOA/s400/myc2s.jpg

Key differences....

1. The boulevard doesn't hog the glory and threaten to be an even bigger flop than I.M. Pei.
2. The canal extension route, which I agree is needed, does not cut off downtown.
3. The convention center is moved to break up the cluster of super-block structures.
4. The park is a continuous flow of greenspace from the core to the shore.
5. I added a smaller pocket park to the west to build an upscale district around.
6. I included for historic preservation along SW 3rd Street to preserve some cool brick warehouses.
7. I call for Shields Boulevard being lowered, so that it doesn't become the next thing to blame after I-40 is moved.
8. A streetcar system similar to Jeff Bezdek's proposal is included in the C2S masterplan.
9. The neighborhoods make a lot more sense and flow better, so it feels more like a continuous area.

Anyone can do this. Just make a screenshot of a map of OKC, open it up in MS Paint, and let 'r rip. It took me an hour, and that was mostly putting thought into it and stuff. I'd like to invite others to weigh in creating their own C2S visions, because half will almost certainly be better than what we're going with at the moment, which is sheer idiocy in my opinion.

Spartan, you really should spend some time studying the materials available on the city's website regarding the process they went through in designing Core to Shore. And spend a few hours studying the actual plan:

http://www.okc.gov/planning/coretoshore/CoreToShorePlan_2008.pdf

There is already a Ralph Ellison Avenue, in Gatewood. It runs N to S past the Classen School of Advanced Studies.

That's okay. There can still be an Ellison Street. It's like Kelly Avenue. It's "Kelly" in Edmond and south of Memorial it's "Kelley"! I've always found that weird.

Spartan, you really should spend some time studying the materials available on the city's website regarding the process they went through in designing Core to Shore. And spend a few hours studying the actual plan:

http://www.okc.gov/planning/coretoshore/CoreToShorePlan_2008.pdf

I know the process, I went to two of the public meetings in the Cox Convention Center back when I was still at OU. They brought in some consultants from Omaha, and it was evident they did not know Oklahoma City like a select few of us do. I would take a design planned by a collaboration of local enthusiasts over some out-of-town consultants that were paid, I think, $125,000 (that figure could be a little off because I forget).

But thanks for providing a link to everything that I am against. lol

Platemaker, I drove by the Regatta Park area and I can say that you were right. The OCU Boathouse did break ground just east of Byers/Lincoln, across the street from the Chesapeake Boathouse.

Oil Capital

It is a horrible layout. You can ask anyone with Planning or Landscape Architecture degrees that the choppy parks and the entire layout is horrible! It is choppy and not pedestrian or environmental friendly. If they do one continuous park like Spartan suggested it would have a ring of development that would be more feasible and could be a step by step process than the a park here a park there concept.

The initial core to shore is just a drawing, they weren't actual developable plans. Things have changed since then. The Mill is for sale. That is the perfect location for the convention center. Hotels could then be south of the Ford Center and west of the Convention center, even closer than the "hypethetical core to shore". Having one large park also allows for the street cars to wrap around it instead of zig zagging around the small parks.

I've seen the newest renderings/models for C2S. More than likely, we'll get a string of 5 parks, now how many of them will be funded by MAPS 3 is the question. My guess is 1-2 of them.

metro: Where did you see that... and is it available to the public?

No, it is not available to the public.

Who is in charge of designing C2S?

Who is in charge of designing C2S?

Depends on what level you speak of - the City will design the parks. The design of new structures will be left to developers, using zoning and design guidelines as reference.

I've seen the newest renderings/models for C2S. More than likely, we'll get a string of 5 parks, now how many of them will be funded by MAPS 3 is the question. My guess is 1-2 of them.This is great news. Does this mean the City will finally complete the String of Pearls river project which they started work on some 30 years ago? I hope they rebuild the horse stable pearl.

Oil Capital

It is a horrible layout. You can ask anyone with Planning or Landscape Architecture degrees that the choppy parks and the entire layout is horrible! It is choppy and not pedestrian or environmental friendly.


Oh, Puhlease. Even if I believed it was true that all people with planning and landscape degrees think the entire layout is horrible, any time I see a statement to the effect that all urban planners agree . . . I think it's past time for a reminder of some past urban planner consensuses... e.g. pedestrian malls; clearing blocks of property to be replaced by downtown malls, etc (ala the IM Pei plan for downtown OKC).

(And fwiw, there were clearly a number of planning and landscape degreed people who worked on putting this plan together. I rather doubt they unanimously agree or that even a plurality of them agree that the entire layout is horrible.)

This is great news. Does this mean the City will finally complete the String of Pearls river project which they started work on some 30 years ago? I hope they rebuild the horse stable pearl.

No clue considering the two projects aren't even remotely related.

Oil Capital

IM Pei was an architect, not a planner, that is why his design was flawed.

I haven't talked to any of the planners that agree that the design is good. They all say that Core to Shore was conceptual and not something that was going to be implemented. It was just a concept they worked on to show the city a rough outline of what could happen with development to the river from downtown. They all agree the highway should be further south and the convention center should be moved to where the mill is located.

My Landscape Architecture people agree that there should be one large central park that will be the place for social gathering and an ecological respite from the city. A large park will actual help cool the city by making a larger area that is not concrete or asphalt.

Oil Capital

IM Pei was an architect, not a planner, that is why his design was flawed.

I haven't talked to any of the planners that agree that the design is good. They all say that Core to Shore was conceptual and not something that was going to be implemented. It was just a concept they worked on to show the city a rough outline of what could happen with development to the river from downtown. They all agree the highway should be further south and the convention center should be moved to where the mill is located.

My Landscape Architecture people agree that there should be one large central park that will be the place for social gathering and an ecological respite from the city. A large park will actual help cool the city by making a larger area that is not concrete or asphalt.

IM Pei did not create that plan by himself. Carter & Burgess, a planning/architecture/engineering firm was in on it too.

And of course you conveniently ignored the rest of the record of the urban planning degreed folks, you know, all of those pedestrian malls that "all" urban planners agreed were the thing to do...

Apparently, the planners you have been talking to were not paying very close attention if they thought they were just doing something purely conceptual that would never be built. Clearly, that was not the intent of the Core-to-Shore planning exercise.

No clue considering the two projects aren't even remotely related.Sure they are. Think about it.

Well there has been no discussion for the "String of Pearl's" project recently, let alone to be a serious MAPS 3 proposal. Call me crazy, but it won't be on MAPS 3.

Well there has been no discussion for the "String of Pearl's" project recently, let alone to be a serious MAPS 3 proposal. Call me crazy, but it won't be on MAPS 3.I wouldn't expect there to be any recent discussion regarding the S of P river project. Furthermore, there is no way I would expect it to be considered as a project for the upcoming MAPS 3. The S of P river project is nothing more than a failed and forgotten pipe-dream of yesteryear. C2S of 2009 is the String of Pearls of the 70's. I really hope our City leaders get it right this time.

No, it is not available to the public.

I'm raising the baloney flag.


IM Pei did not create that plan by himself. Carter & Burgess, a planning/architecture/engineering firm was in on it too.

And of course you conveniently ignored the rest of the record of the urban planning degreed folks, you know, all of those pedestrian malls that "all" urban planners agreed were the thing to do...

Apparently, the planners you have been talking to were not paying very close attention if they thought they were just doing something purely conceptual that would never be built. Clearly, that was not the intent of the Core-to-Shore planning exercise.

Oil Capital, the difference is minor, but it's what makes all the difference, that between dated fad urban planning and timeless urban planning. We're trying to put together a plan that won't be a flop 30 years from now because it was too sentimental of urban design fads from 2009, just as I.M. Pei's projects (the few that got built) today are too sentimental of the 1960s/70s, the "Urban Renewal" period. Today there is a significant move to rethink some of the fads that have come up in urban planning and try and bring it back to a more timeless, common-sense approach. That is the two sides that you currently see clashing over C2S, rather than pro-downtown or anti-downtown.

I'm raising the baloney flag.



Oil Capital, the difference is minor, but it's what makes all the difference, that between dated fad urban planning and timeless urban planning. We're trying to put together a plan that won't be a flop 30 years from now because it was too sentimental of urban design fads from 2009, just as I.M. Pei's projects (the few that got built) today are too sentimental of the 1960s/70s, the "Urban Renewal" period. Today there is a significant move to rethink some of the fads that have come up in urban planning and try and bring it back to a more timeless, common-sense approach. That is the two sides that you currently see clashing over C2S, rather than pro-downtown or anti-downtown.

I'm raising the baloney flag ;-)

I'm interested into delving further into this. Can you share with me your criticisms (in detail, not "c2s sucks") of the plan?

Spartan: I'm raising the baloney flag.


I think I proved yesterday before you posted this, in the thread with the C2S models that I've seen them behind the scenes. Show me where they are widely and easily viewable to the public please. How can we take you seriously when you've been known to be schizophrenic on this website with multiple alias' and personalities over the last few years? What "proof" do you have that C2S sucks? What is you're rational behind it? Were you in on the steering committee's? What have you done to notify City leader's your thoughts on why C2S sucks? Bash all you want, but at least I've done my diligence with City leaders and also provided pics.

The core to shore design sucks! I agree with Spartan.

It has hotels blocking off parks, it has a huge conventions center bordering the park? It has small parks here and there. If there was one huge park that stretched to the river, that would be a true Core to Shore. If you ask someone not on the message boards what Core to Shore is, and they will tell you that it is a park that stretches from Downtown to the river. That is what they think it will be. The don't think it will be a patch work of parks and development with no flow.

The convention center should not be next to the park. That is a waste of prime commercial real estate! The convention center should be where the mill is. Having it there will get the eye sore of a mill to move quicker and develop land that if not developed will be a parking lot for years.

Just imagine all of the residential sites next to Central Park in NYC or Millenium Park in Chicago. Those are continuous parks with developments around the edge.

Metro and Oil Capital

Show me a city with the spotty parks with a convention center next to a park and the random mixed developments proposed in Core to Shore and lets see how well they have developed.

The core to shore design sucks! I agree with Spartan.

It has hotels blocking off parks, it has a huge conventions center bordering the park? It has small parks here and there. If there was one huge park that stretched to the river, that would be a true Core to Shore. If you ask someone not on the message boards what Core to Shore is, and they will tell you that it is a park that stretches from Downtown to the river. That is what they think it will be. The don't think it will be a patch work of parks and development with no flow.

The convention center should not be next to the park. That is a waste of prime commercial real estate! The convention center should be where the mill is. Having it there will get the eye sore of a mill to move quicker and develop land that if not developed will be a parking lot for years.

Just imagine all of the residential sites next to Central Park in NYC or Millenium Park in Chicago. Those are continuous parks with developments around the edge.

Metro and Oil Capital

Show me a city with the spotty parks with a convention center next to a park and the random mixed developments proposed in Core to Shore and lets see how well they have developed.


Just a few quick thought. Learn a little about the plan. The vision for the convention center includes the front (you know the part facing the park) being lined with townhouses and possible a little retail space. Thus capturing that "prime commercial real estate" and more importantly creating some activity so that the convention center is not a dead zone on non-convention days.

There is certainly a flow through the plan from "core" to "shore". One can have flow without it being all parkland. If anyone not on this board thinks it's nothing but park, then they haven't paid ANY attention. And so what? The plan flows from park to and through the proposed hotel sites (two hotels separated by green space), then into more park space and then into and through additional commercial spaces. What's so bad about that?

Millenium Park is good example, for exactly the opposite reasons you think. It is chopped off (to use your lingo) from adjoining areas by major streets. One side of it is blocked off by the Art Institute. It is surrounded by mostly office buildings. AND it's only about 20 acres. One could go further in Chicago and note how "choppy" their park system is, separated by museums, highways, and office and residential development instead of a continuous flow of park land all along the water front. I guess you're right, that's no way to develop a successful inner city. ;-)

You continue to show us you know very little about either this plan or other cities. Central Park is not NYC's only park, nor is it in or near downtown NYC, nor does it flow into other parks. Manhattan has many other parks, in a "spotty pattern" around the island. Same for Chicago.

Oil Capital.

Really, who wants to live in a Townhouse next to a convention center? That is not going to happen. That is going to end up being another parking lot.

Millenium park is part of Grant Park, which extends to the lake. The art museum is in the middle, which would be our Union Station. So, Milenium Park is a small part of a larger park that if you have been to Chicago lately you would know that it is the heart of most of the new developments (at least for high rises).

The area around Grant Park to the west is a mix of retail/office/hotel/residential just like Central Park.

Central Park is in Manhattan and it is the heart of the city. It is not "downtown", but it is in the heart of the residential area of Manhattan. That area is prime real estate because it is next to the park.

As an ecosystem and what people of OKC think that Core to Shore and the "central park" they think is proposed, a large park extending to the river is what they think is what they are getting, not the hodge podge of developments with hotels in the middle and residential in the middle of the park. The park should be one large park with the residential/retail wrapped around it.

Do you know anything about designing parks? Do you have any planning or landscape architecture experience? Obviously not. Your support of the plan is very narrow minded and focused on what is trendy today. Central Park has shown to be a timeless park that will be around for hundreds of years. IF we take notes from it and Grant Park, we will have a park that will make it through the ups and downs of the economy.

I think that core to shore is being rushed too soon on the city by Mayor Cornett. I appreciate his overall vision, but I do think that we should see more development in our existing neighborhoods and areas before we try to stretch the goals of the city and limit the progress of what we have.

So Oil Capital, what do you think of having the Convention Center where the Mill is currently located? What do you have against that spot? If we develop that piece of land, that will not be developed for probably 20 to 30 years otherwise, it will open up the other pieces of land for development. The hotels can go where the convention center is at now.

Without getting in to all of the minutia, I agree that residential townhomes near the convention center is a guaranteed failure. How anyone could propose that with a straight face is beyond me.

I have carefully looked at where the're headed and the concept is actually quite solid for the North part of the highway (being park, convention center, and housing/redevelopable). My guess from studying planning for so many years is that it is the southern redevopable areas that will remain blighted for many years and are the properties that would threaten density in other areas if they were "dumped" on the market. However, the chasam that is the highway almost ensures that it is almost it's own "island" for many years unless there are major "anchors" causing the public to go over there.

this is a double post.... that I feel is relevant to both discussions.

The past city leaders and planners of Oklahoma City have used the planned parks for expansion of the highway system... It still going on today with the demise of
Topping park and the bird sanctuary along the broadway extension. Look at what has happen to all four of the original grand parks of Oklahoma City. Parks have historically in Oklahoma City been looked at as a storage location for future developments. Till there is a mind set of the community that parks are an integral part of urban living development of parks and the continued maintenance and improvements will all be just a fantasy.

Without getting in to all of the minutia, I agree that residential townhomes near the convention center is a guaranteed failure. How anyone could propose that with a straight face is beyond me.

Why? What is wrong with that concept?

Metro and Oil Capital

Show me a city with the spotty parks with a convention center next to a park and the random mixed developments proposed in Core to Shore and lets see how well they have developed.

San Antonio seems to fit your description pretty well.

Oil Capital.

Really, who wants to live in a Townhouse next to a convention center? That is not going to happen. That is going to end up being another parking lot.

Millenium park is part of Grant Park, which extends to the lake. The art museum is in the middle, which would be our Union Station. So, Milenium Park is a small part of a larger park that if you have been to Chicago lately you would know that it is the heart of most of the new developments (at least for high rises).

The area around Grant Park to the west is a mix of retail/office/hotel/residential just like Central Park.

Central Park is in Manhattan and it is the heart of the city. It is not "downtown", but it is in the heart of the residential area of Manhattan. That area is prime real estate because it is next to the park.

As an ecosystem and what people of OKC think that Core to Shore and the "central park" they think is proposed, a large park extending to the river is what they think is what they are getting, not the hodge podge of developments with hotels in the middle and residential in the middle of the park. The park should be one large park with the residential/retail wrapped around it.

Do you know anything about designing parks? Do you have any planning or landscape architecture experience? Obviously not. Your support of the plan is very narrow minded and focused on what is trendy today. Central Park has shown to be a timeless park that will be around for hundreds of years. IF we take notes from it and Grant Park, we will have a park that will make it through the ups and downs of the economy.

I think that core to shore is being rushed too soon on the city by Mayor Cornett. I appreciate his overall vision, but I do think that we should see more development in our existing neighborhoods and areas before we try to stretch the goals of the city and limit the progress of what we have.

So Oil Capital, what do you think of having the Convention Center where the Mill is currently located? What do you have against that spot? If we develop that piece of land, that will not be developed for probably 20 to 30 years otherwise, it will open up the other pieces of land for development. The hotels can go where the convention center is at now.

Millennium Park is connected to Grant Park by a single pedestrian bridge that goes over the 6-8 lane highway that separates them. The Art Institute (which is 2 blocks long) blocks the other direction. For that matter, Grant Park itself is rather chopped up by major roadways crossing through it. To the west of Grant Park is downtown Chicago, almost entirely office space, hotels and some accompanying retail, VERY little residential. To the extent that Millennium Park is the heart of new development in Chicago, it rather proves my point that a relatively small park can have seriously positive effects on on an area's development. (oh, and by the way, Chicago's convention center? On the lake front. Think that might not be some valuable commercial property? Oh, and it's also at the far end of their spotty series of parks, interrupted by museums, a stadium...

For some reason you seem to think we can't have any flow unless we have a continuous block of uninterrupted park space. Millennium Park proves otherwise. There is plenty of flow and positive result even though Millennium Park is separated from Grant Park (and other parks in the vicinity, by art institutes, major roadways, apartment buildings, officer towers, etc (and again, Grant Park itself is rather chopped up by roadways.

I think having the convention center on the mill site is a very poor choice, compared to the proposed site, especially combined with putting the hotels on the current convention center site, for multiple reasons:

(1) It's further from most of the existing hotels
(2) It's further from the proposed new hotels (and convention planners want hotels ADJACENT to and VERY NEAR the convention facilities.
(3) I don't think they plan to tear down the existing convention center
(4) It would place the new convention center farther from the Ford Center and the current convention center, making them MUCH less usable as a package.
(5) It cuts the convention center off from the park and downtown. We're going to want to be marketing this convention package. Having the center immediately adjacent to the park with its activities and the easy pedestrian flow it will offer to the new hotels and retail spaces and to the riverfront, with the Ford Center immediately across the new Boulevard to the north, will be a much more attractive package than a center stranded at the intersection of south Shields and the interstate highway (and that's the FRONT door).

Why? What is wrong with that concept?

Oh you can't be serious. Really. Can you imagine people in this town choosing to live in housing adjacent to the Cox Center? Now try to imagine one that is even bigger than the Cox Center.

There's nothing remotely appealing about that from a residential standpoint.

Oil Capital

The Art Institute is a part of the Millenium/Grant Park. It adds to the park/cultural experience. The entire park even though it has roads going through it is one continuous ecostystem. I don't think you have realized that a park is more than just for people.

The proposed hotels are in a horrible spot. That area should be park as well, uniting the "central park" with the Myriad Gardens. The parks should be united.

Do you honestly think that the Mill is that far away? Honestly. It may be another 50 to 60 feet west. It is closer to lower bricktown and the Marriott there.

Is there anything with the Core to Shore that you find wrong? Really? It is not that good of a plan that you are head of heals in love with it. It is a bad design.

I hope that they have everything separate on the MAPS 3 ballot, because the only thing that is worth voting on is the Street Cars/ Mass Transit. The rest is poorly planned!

Metro and Oil Capital

Show me a city with the spotty parks with a convention center next to a park and the random mixed developments proposed in Core to Shore and lets see how well they have developed.

Not sure why you're lumping me with Oil Capital. I don't have the same mindset or stance. I'm with you, I think the C2S park needs a redesign and overhaul. We only have one chance to get it right. I've seen the models and presentation already, and I think it needs more thought personally.

Oh you can't be serious. Really. Can you imagine people in this town choosing to live in housing adjacent to the Cox Center? Now try to imagine one that is even bigger than the Cox Center.

There's nothing remotely appealing about that from a residential standpoint.

Ummm, the park across the street, maybe? The easy access to all of the other amenities planned in the core-to-shore area perhaps?

Oil Capital

The Art Institute is a part of the Millenium/Grant Park. It adds to the park/cultural experience. The entire park even though it has roads going through it is one continuous ecostystem. I don't think you have realized that a park is more than just for people.

The proposed hotels are in a horrible spot. That area should be park as well, uniting the "central park" with the Myriad Gardens. The parks should be united.

Do you honestly think that the Mill is that far away? Honestly. It may be another 50 to 60 feet west. It is closer to lower bricktown and the Marriott there.

Is there anything with the Core to Shore that you find wrong? Really? It is not that good of a plan that you are head of heals in love with it. It is a bad design.

I hope that they have everything separate on the MAPS 3 ballot, because the only thing that is worth voting on is the Street Cars/ Mass Transit. The rest is poorly planned!

Okay, you've gone right over into lunacy.

Apparently, all we have to do to satisfy your "flow" and "eco-sytem" concerns is to declare the convention center and the new hotels to be part of the park and to declare that henceforth Myriad Gardens is part of the new Central Park. Voila! Instant flow. Instant eco-system.

As to the mill site. First of all, it is to the east, not the west. and 50 or 60 feet??? You are pretending to be some sort of urban planner/park planner or something and you have that little grasp on measurements? Just getting across S. Shields will be easily 100 feet. And surely you understand that it's more than JUST distance. It's the psychological boundary provided by S. Shields. The convention center needs to be VERY Close to the convention hotels. Period. The proposed canal extension will do the job of connecting the convention center to Bricktown. That would NOT be adequate to connect to the main convention hotels.

You keep telling us your conclusion that it's a bad design, but so far the only reasoning for your conclusion is your looney idea that the convention center would be better on the mill site and your even-more looney concept of "flow" and "eco-system" deficiencies in the parks. Using Chicago as your example completely disproves your concept.

Your last paragraph is totally precious. When all else fails, pull out the straw men. ;-)

Not sure why you're lumping me with Oil Capital. I don't have the same mindset or stance. I'm with you, I think the C2S park needs a redesign and overhaul. We only have one chance to get it right. I've seen the models and presentation already, and I think it needs more thought personally.

Metro, what are your specific criticisms of the plan?

Oil Capital

You obviously don't see outside the box. The Convention Center Hotels should not be built where they Core to Shore wants them. That is a bad design. They should/could be where the convention center is proposed or between the mill and the boat houses.

Have you been to big cities like Vegas, people can walk. They need to walk!

Study park designs and get back with me with some logical ideas on what real parks should look like.

Oil Capital

You obviously don't see outside the box. The Convention Center Hotels should not be built where they Core to Shore wants them. That is a bad design. They should/could be where the convention center is proposed or between the mill and the boat houses.

Have you been to big cities like Vegas, people can walk. They need to walk!

Study park designs and get back with me with some logical ideas on what real parks should look like.

LOL Millennium Park is great. And it and its environs are a rather perfect example of why this design is pretty darned good. You obviously have learned just enough academic design jargon to make yourself completely useless. ;-)

Discovery Green in downtown Houston is another very good example in a similar situation (convention center, hotels, etc.)

Why is it bad design to build hotels in a park as opposed to building an art museum in a park? (You're going to have to think outside your jargon-filled box here and imagine that Myriad Gardens and the new park are one park with the hotels in the park, just as you have imagined that Millennium Park and the various choppy sections of Grant Park are one park with the art institute also part of the park). What else, if anything, is "bad design" about the placement of the hotels in the C2S design?

Oh, by the way, the "bad design" of placing the hotels in the c2s proposed spot is superior to either of your choices because it keeps them closer to the core of downtown, as well as close to the convention center. Your proposal pulls them further from the core, making them more reliant solely on convention center business, and, dare I say it, makes for a much more spotty plan, which would more likely fail to achieve critical mass.

Somehow, you seem to have gotten the idea that core to shore is or should be all about the park and nothing else should be allowed to intrude on your imagined acre upon acre of green grass between Myriad Gardens and the river. That's not what Core to Shore is about. It's all about an overall development of the core to shore area, including some well-designed park space.

Ummm, the park across the street, maybe? The easy access to all of the other amenities planned in the core-to-shore area perhaps?

That's a big if. There have been lots of other "planned" amenities that have never come to fruition in our existing housing developments.

If you want a chuckle, reread the stuff that was originally proposed for the Deep Deuce area. It's a laugh riot.

Or, for fun, reread the stuff about the river in MAPS 1. They actually referred to the flimsy tree planting as "reforestation" of the Oklahoma River.

I suppose it's remotely feasible that there could be a residential feel next to a large convention center. It's more likely that it wouldn't work.

I guess on this we'll have to agree to disagree.

That's a big if. There have been lots of other "planned" amenities that have never come to fruition in our existing housing developments.

If you want a chuckle, reread the stuff that was originally proposed for the Deep Deuce area. It's a laugh riot.

Or, for fun, reread the stuff about the river in MAPS 1. They actually referred to the flimsy tree planting as "reforestation" of the Oklahoma River.

I suppose it's remotely feasible that there could be a residential feel next to a large convention center. It's more likely that it wouldn't work.

I guess on this we'll have to agree to disagree.


As to your earlier suggestion of townhouses attached to the Cox Center, I'm thinking if they faced Myriad Gardens, they could certainly appeal to an urban-oriented household. And that would be even more so in the case of the planned new park.

As to it being a big "if", well, yes, this entire thread is based on nothing but giant "ifs". We are talking conceptually here. Conceptually, I don't see anything particularly unattractive about townhouses across from an urban park and very near to many other amenities, just because their rear happens to be attached to a convention center.

Reliving the history of the old proposals does sound like fun, though. Can you provide any links to make it easier?

As to your earlier suggestion of townhouses attached to the Cox Center, I'm thinking if they faced Myriad Gardens, they could certainly appeal to an urban-oriented household. And that would be even more so in the case of the planned new park.

As to it being a big "if", well, yes, this entire thread is based on nothing but giant "ifs". We are talking conceptually here. Conceptually, I don't see anything particularly unattractive about townhouses across from an urban park and very near to many other amenities, just because their rear happens to be attached to a convention center.

Reliving the history of the old proposals does sound like fun, though. Can you provide any links to make it easier?

I'm sorry I don't have any ready links, but I did move to Deep Deuce when it opened and followed news stories on it for two years prior to that. There was going to be a history museum and the neighborhood was going to be "reborn" as a jazz district.

The stuff on the "reforestation" of the then North Canadian River shouldn't be too hard to find on Google.

I guess my overall point is that, while it is remotely possible there could be widespread appeal for housing abutting a large multiuse convention center, there are other, more optimal locations for housing. Since we don't want to see a massive faceplant yet again, perhaps we should steer the developments in the most likely successful directions.

I'm sorry I don't have any ready links, but I did move to Deep Deuce when it opened and followed news stories on it for two years prior to that. There was going to be a history museum and the neighborhood was going to be "reborn" as a jazz district.

The stuff on the "reforestation" of the then North Canadian River shouldn't be too hard to find on Google.

I guess my overall point is that, while it is remotely possible there could be widespread appeal for housing abutting a large multiuse convention center, there are other, more optimal locations for housing. Since we don't want to see a massive faceplant yet again, perhaps we should steer the developments in the most likely successful directions.

"A massive faceplant yet again"??? Wow. You have quite the dim view of OKC's recent history, contrary to most observers.

I guess there will be no reaching for the stars or thinking outside the box for you, eh. Yeah, let's just play it safe... ;-)

And, FWIW, one does not really need "widespread" demand for a dozen or so townhouses. (I'm totally guessing at the number; but it surely will not be much larger than that.

You have quite the dim view of OKC's recent history, contrary to most observers.


And you have quite the rosy one. Let's review:

1. Urban Renewal
2. Classen Circle, Gone
3. Numerous landmarks, gone
4. Epic urban sprawl
5. The "string of pearls"

etc. etc.

This city has done much to improve itself in the last few years, but it doesn't erase decades of bad or nonexistent urban planning.

I'm not a pessimist. I care passionately for this city.

I'm not willing to just shut up and trust people like Mick Cornett to make decisions.

You seem overjoyed by Core to Shore. Congratulations. That makes you one of only a couple of folks on this message board. Please don't make this personal.

"A massive faceplant yet again"??? Wow. You have quite the dim view of OKC's recent history, contrary to most observers.

I guess there will be no reaching for the stars or thinking outside the box for you, eh. Yeah, let's just play it safe... ;-)

And, FWIW, one does not really need "widespread" demand for a dozen or so townhouses. (I'm totally guessing at the number; but it surely will not be much larger than that.

Perhaps you should study our city's recent history a little more closely. We have dozens and dozens of condos currently languishing on the market without attracting a sniff.

Don't act like putting more condos on the market -- in a less than optimal location -- isn't a risky move.

I fully expect you'll be the first in line to buy a condo with a view of a loading ramp at a convention center.

I'm a little confused by this thread. The suggested housing would be on the western edge of the park- with a glorious view of the park looking eastward. Yes, you would be looking at the convention center straddling the eastern edge, but you are separated by a two block wide green space. I can't imagine anyone wanting a better view of urban green from their balcony. The western view from the convention center exemplifies the pride we have in our city from within and our new found pride in our investment in parks for all our citizens.

There are flaws. Notably the immense expense in an underground parking garage that could instead go towards an even better park. In my years studying planning, I would say the greatest flaw is an I-40 that is a conventional highway rather than the origionally proposed/sold fully depressed highway. The ramping to get over it takes up tremendous space and requires giant "band aids" such as Sky Dance bridge to try to get people over to the other side.

The things you guys are arguing about are somewhat icing compared to the cake that has been half baked due to ODoT and our fears of inadequate parking.

The small size of this park is the real problem. The Core to Shore park should be at least four times in size of the proposed drawings I have seen.

I would like to see the park include a golf course.

And you have quite the rosy one. Let's review:

1. Urban Renewal
2. Classen Circle, Gone
3. Numerous landmarks, gone
4. Epic urban sprawl
5. The "string of pearls"

etc. etc.

This city has done much to improve itself in the last few years, but it doesn't erase decades of bad or nonexistent urban planning.

I'm not a pessimist. I care passionately for this city.

I'm not willing to just shut up and trust people like Mick Cornett to make decisions.

You seem overjoyed by Core to Shore. Congratulations. That makes you one of only a couple of folks on this message board. Please don't make this personal.

You'll notice I referenced "recent" history. None of your list count as recent history.

Just trying to get the discussion beyond the sophomoric "c2s sucks" and understand what the issues are from those who claim it "sucks". So far, they are incomprehensible and illogical, so I guess just saying it "sucks" is their best way to state it. ;-) I apologize if I sometimes respond in kind to the "suckers". I'll try to do better at taking the high road.

If I may ask, what are your specific problems with the c2s plan?