I feel as tho I'm watching the death of Core to Shore right before my eyes OKC Central - Information about Oklahoma City, Bricktown and beyond (http://www.okccentral.com)

I don't think that's true at all. The park was and should continue to be the heart of Core to Shore. But, by moving the convention center location, it would allow Core to Shore development to be more citizen-friendly. The park should first and foremost be for the locals, and development should be designed to appeal to locals, not conventioneers, IMO.

I come and go on the entire placement of the convention center. I look around the country and see other convention centers that are devoid of people. The Orlando Convention Center is one of the largest in the world but when you drive by you never see anyone (they are all inside during the day). Then I see the Georgia World Congress Center (over 4 million sq ft) and they are in the deadest part of downtown Atlanta. While in Memphis a few months ago I walked down to their convention center - what a crappy area.

The question I ask myself, were these areas dead or crappy before the convention centers were built or did they become devoid of people after the fact? Do convention centers attract people or do the stop other development from occuring. I do know one thing, land around the core to shore park will be at a premium and it seems a waste to take what could be midrise housing/retail/entertainment space and use it for a large convention center that closes at 5PM for the most part and isn't open on weekends.

The more I think about it the more I like the Cotton Seed site. It would encourage additional hotel development in Bricktown and thus provide more people at night and will leave the park area for the locals.

I still say the north end should take in (and possibly incorporate) the U-haul building, span the new boulevard and extend south from that. It would be close to bricktown and downtown and still be expandable south.

The more I think about it the more I like the Cotton Seed site. It would encourage additional hotel development in Bricktown and thus provide more people at night and will leave the park area for the locals.

I've waffeled back and forth on the location, between parkside and cotton mill site, but I ten to agree with you. The Cotton mill site would encourage more hotels in Bricktown and be accessible to the river and the canal. They could possibly build the hotel portion of the covention center on the west side of the tracks and connect it with a skywalk crossing over the tracks and Santa fe. That would give the guests/convitioneers the best of both worlds. Parkside views, and easy access to Bricktwon and the river/canal system.

I don't think that's true at all. The park was and should continue to be the heart of Core to Shore. But, by moving the convention center location, it would allow Core to Shore development to be more citizen-friendly. The park should first and foremost be for the locals, and development should be designed to appeal to locals, not conventioneers, IMO.

Ok, color me confused again....I don't disagree that it should be for the locals but wasn't one of the arguments that we needed our version of Central Park because of the draw for tourists (conventioneers)? Didn't you say that you make it a point to visit those parks in Boston, New York, etc when you visit? Think you mentioned it was one of THE reasons for your visits? If that is the case, what better place to put the Park but in the most convenient place for those visitors?

No, my argument has never been that it should primarily be a draw for tourists, nor do I think that putting a big blank building wall on one side of the park is the way to make it attractive for anyone. I personally like to visit parks when I go to other cities, and I think other people do too, but making the park attractive visually, including its surrounds, is far more important, especially since convention centers typically are empty at night. A far better argument, if one wants to make it accessible for tourists, is to put a hotel adjacent to the park. But I think having streetcar access is good enough, and it should be viewed as a community gathering site far more than a tourist attraction, IMO.

Ok, color me confused again....I don't disagree that it should be for the locals but wasn't one of the arguments that we needed our version of Central Park because of the draw for tourists (conventioneers)? Didn't you say that you make it a point to visit those parks in Boston, New York, etc when you visit? Think you mentioned it was one of THE reasons for your visits? If that is the case, what better place to put the Park but in the most convenient place for those visitors?

Larry, conventioneers and tourists are two different animals. I have been to many conventions and having a park nearby was never a consideration or an attraction. People attending conventions have the convention as the main purpose and having nearby hotels and restaurants as the next biggest concern. While some people may combine a convention with a tourist visit (Las Vegas), that's not going to be our forte. We should focus on what is best for the local population when planning the area near the park.

betts,
May have gotten you confused with someone else then. Neither of us are in favor of a big blank wall (we both liked the idea of the residential fronting the exterior of the C.C.) And
I can see both sides of the different locations (am partial to the Bricktown ones)

Larry, conventioneers and tourists are two different animals. I have been to many conventions and having a park nearby was never a consideration or an attraction. People attending conventions have the convention as the main purpose and having nearby hotels and restaurants as the next biggest concern. While some people may combine a convention with a tourist visit (Las Vegas), that's not going to be our forte. We should focus on what is best for the local population when planning the area near the park.

I don't disagree, I was just saying the argument that some gave for the MAPS 3 park was the tourism/convention center draw. Think your point is valid and you need to ask the Mayor and the Chamber as they seem to be the ones pushing the park location as we saw in the MAPS 3 campaign.

Again I agree. It is true that all tourists are not conventioneers, but I would say most conventioneers are tourists (to at least a limited extent). Except for those that fly in/out for a particular meeting, most venture out during their "free" time and visit local bars, restaurants, clubs and even local attractions (Bombing memorial, Cowboy Hall of Fame etc). If they like their stay while here for a convention, they will tell friends/co-workers etc and may even come back on their own at some future time. Again, need to talk to the Mayor and the Chamber as they lumped the Conventioneers with the economic impact numbers that we get from Tourism.

I'm not a big convention attender, but it seems like a lot of the people attending conventions with the conventioneers (wives or husbands) like the scheduled activities that go along with the trip. To make this an attractive destination, we absolutely need retail within a reasonable distance, or easily accessible with mass transit like a streetcar, as most people hate getting into their cars and driving in an unfamiliar city. I think we need to concentrate (as much as the city and state is a part of this) on pushing the Native American Cultural Center forward and improving as well as linking attractions in the Adventure District. Having the Stockyards easily accessible via streetcar would help as well. One of the places I've always liked to go for a convention in Kansas City, and it's all because of the Plaza, with it's shopping and restaurants. I would love to see some sort of retail development in or near the Core to Shore that's attractive and has stores that appeal to residents and visitors. I don't know what the chances of that happening are, but I know it would help.

I like the Urban Land Institute's recommendation of the lumberyard ... whatever is built, I hope it is within easy walking distance of Bricktown ... I would hate to see Bricktown hurt by the C2S plans, and I fear the mayor's (unstated?) preference of placing it on the park would do just that. Additionally, I'm persuaded a location on the prime real estate of the new central park is highly suspect from the perspective of good urban planning.

Lastly, I hope that whatever finalized location and design we end up with can be repurposed at some future date should the entire premise upon which it is built fail to materialize - namely, convention business and trade shows. Some key assumptions on building a big new convention center, is that the economy picks up, gas prices remain affordable enough to make the expense worthwhile for conventioneers to make use of it, and new technologies such as telepresence and more fully immersive virtual reality, don't end convention business in the future as we have always known it.

Bearing in mind that the future is uncertain and unknowable, I think it would be a mistake if we don't at least consider the possibility that what worked in the 20th century will not continue to work in the 21st. Just look at newspapers and media as an illustrative example of this point. I do believe it's a worthwhile project regardless ...but it wouldn't hurt to have a plan "B" in our back pocket for the new convention center. I'm not sure what that would be exactly, but, given given the current accelerated economic and technological changes occurring before our eyes, the thought does cross my mind.

Lastly, I hope that whatever finalized location and design we end up with can be repurposed at some future date should the entire premise upon which it is built fail to materialize - namely, convention business and trade shows. Some key assumptions on building a big new convention center, is that the economy picks up, gas prices remain affordable enough to make the expense worthwhile for conventioneers to make use of it, and new technologies such as telepresence and more fully immersive virtual reality, don't end convention business in the future as we have always known it.


Keep in mind that even the great depression only lasted 10 years. The economy will improve. In my occupation, I have many chances to attend both "webinars" and attend in person hosted events. Webinars serve their purpose but I enjoy and get much more out of attending events in person. I don't see that ever changing. You can't develop personal business relationships or duplicate personal contact with a computer or a camera.

This may be a dumb question, or it may have already been answered, but the new boulevard, how will it incorporate with the large elevated rail line that runs along R.S. Kerr? Are we going under it, over it.. around it?

Webinars serve their purpose but I enjoy and get much more out of attending events in person. I don't see that ever changing. You can't develop personal business relationships or duplicate personal contact with a computer or a camera.

This is very true.

People are the most social creatures on earth and we long to be with others and get much more out of person-to-person interaction.

It's why telecommuting has largely failed... It's easier now that ever yet most have realized it only has very limited applications.


I believe that people will continue to want to come together via conventions and other means. And maybe more so that ever given how detached technology can make us all feel from time to time.

This may be a dumb question, or it may have already been answered, but the new boulevard, how will it incorporate with the large elevated rail line that runs along R.S. Kerr? Are we going under it, over it.. around it?

Are you asking how the new blvd will cross the main north/south tracks through downtown OKC? Right now I-40 goes over them. I think the new blvd will need to go under.

Are you asking how the new blvd will cross the main north/south tracks through downtown OKC? Right now I-40 goes over them. I think the new blvd will need to go under.

Kerry, don't recall now where the Boulevard connects with the relocated I-40 on the east end...is it possible it might not end up crossing the rail tracks at all?

Kerry, don't recall now where the Boulevard connects with the relocated I-40 on the east end...is it possible it might not end up crossing the rail tracks at all?

The original plan was to have it tie into the existing 1-35/40 interchange. It is going to have to go under the elevated tracks.

@Kerry, Yes I was wanting to know if the new boulevard would cross over the N/S lines of the train tracks. It would suck to be elevated above, at grade would cause too much congestion when a train is crossing, and under seems more of a possibility.

off subject, but I like the George C. Wallis Tunnels in Mobile, Alabama.

@mmonroe - is that the one that passes underground on the drive from I-10? If so, I agree - on the drive home from Florida one year, I took that route, and it was rather cool and unexpected.

Those are the ones, I was taking I-10 out to Panama City Beach and I was passing through there. I liked it. Wish we had tunnels in OKC.

What would they go under in OKC? The only thing I can think of would be the river.

The river isn't like the Chesapeake Bay which they tunneled under in Norfolk. Are there any sand hogs in our area?

Mt. Trashmore, duh!

Mt. Trashmore, duh!

Don't ask me how I know, but tunneling through trash isn't a good idea.

I thought everyone did that?

Dang. There goes my Sunday afternoon hobby. :(

I spent a week in Mexico City last month and the traffic was amazing. Got caught in a grid lock that lasted three hours. I was impressed however with how courteous the drivers were to others the whole week I was there.

Don't ask me how I know, but tunneling through trash isn't a good idea.

Neither is swimming or boating in a cess pool, but it is an Olympic training site and it was swum in a triathlon.

Neither is swimming or boating in a cess pool, ...

Why do you think that? I really do want to know. Is it the water color, the rock along the bank, or something else?

Kerry, the cess pool comment was probably talking about the fecal contamination (or something along those lines) that caused some of the athletes to become sick after swimming in the river

Kerry, the cess pool comment was probably talking about the fecal contamination (or something along those lines) that caused some of the athletes to become sick after swimming in the river

So somewhere, somehow, the water became contaminated. Do they know where it came from? There is a big cow complex called the Oklahoma City Stockyards right next to the river upstream.

So somewhere, somehow, the water became contaminated. Do they know where it came from? There is a big cow complex called the Oklahoma City Stockyards right next to the river upstream.

You're speaking of Stockyards, and that's exactly where it came from. The source was traced to this location and corrective action was taken to prevent future incidents. This was all over the news and in the papers.

You're speaking of Stockyards, and that's exactly where it came from. The source was traced to this location and corrective action was taken to prevent future incidents. This was all over the news and in the papers.

Thanks for the update. Makes you wonder what has been seeping into the river before they put a dam on it. Without MAPS 1 they might have never found this.