I just returned from a trip to LA to see my brother. While there are many things about LA we don't want to emulate, the Santa Monica Boulevard reconstruction is something we should definitetly look at for the new boulevard replacing I40. As shown in the following link, after reconstruction it has 2 traffic lanes in each direction along with a bicycle lane and parking. There is a fairly small lanscaped median and in addition to very wide sidewalks there are marked pedestrian walkways in areas besides at intersections.

Google Maps (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=34.088191,-118.3786&spn=0,359.997599&z=19&layer=c&cbll=34.08819,-118.3786&panoid=6uUudcaIOBI4TnJ8vvr-mg&cbp=12,246,,0,-2.75)

He lives two blocks from Santa Monica Boulevard and the type of residential development in this area would be perfect around the new park. Within 2 to 5 blocks walk from his condo are a regulary grocery store, a Whole Foods, and a multitude of local (non-chain) restaurants and shops. The architecture is SoCal but the idea is the same.

Here are a couple of the other types of establisments attracted to this area.

I love that area. On weekend nights there are always interesting people to see around there. Lots of nice outside seating for restaurants also. Something like that would rock in the OKC of the future.

The question becomes, how do you "create" that kind of atmosphere? Most of where you see that type of thing it grew spontaneously and over time.

The question becomes, how do you "create" that kind of atmosphere? Most of where you see that type of thing it grew spontaneously and over time.

That's very true and in large part it's because of the bohemian population originally living in that area. It's become a very high dollar location now. You have to start somewhere though and having a very workable and walkable boulevard would kick it off.

I think a promenade similar to Santa Monica's 3rd street would be awesome! Encourage lots of restaurants, shops, and such. Allow street performers and close the street off. Would be really cool.

http://www.hillsideengineering.com/3rdstreet.jpg

That shot reminded me of Disney's Mainstreet (complete with Streetcars running down the middle)

I think a promenade similar to Santa Monica's 3rd street would be awesome! Encourage lots of restaurants, shops, and such. Allow street performers and close the street off. Would be really cool.

http://www.hillsideengineering.com/3rdstreet.jpg

That is a great area as well. I have been there and enjoyed it very much. I don't think, however, the planners would ever agree to a pedestrian only area when they are wanting a grand entrance into downtown from the new I40.

The particular grand entrance into downtown from the new I-40 is somewhat of a mystery as most won't come in that way (they will be coming off the exits that will be bordering the east/west edges of the park). Instead of this perpendicular Boulevard, turn one or both of the main exits of the new I-40 (north bound into downtown) into this format. Should be the quickest route into downtown rather than the Boulevard, that from all reports is designed to impede vehicular traffic.

Every article I have read that mentioned the route of the Boulevard mentions it is going to follow the same path as the current crosstown. Problem with that is, has anyone bothered to look at a map and see what the current path is? it is NOT a straight line. it jogs north and south. We are going to be putting an at grade street literally within feet of current streets and at some odd angles.

Which brings up the question, is there a NEED for another street downtown? The Mayor has said the Boulevard is critical (or something to that effect) but has never explained WHY? If anyone has a link, please provide.

Instead, I would propose a reverse eminent domain and return the land occupied by the current crosstown back to private ownership and development (getting it back on the tax rolls). This would bring revenue into City coffers instead of more money going out (the Boulevard is still unfunded at this point).

Larry OKC, I'm in complete agreement with you. Here's a post I made on thunderfans forum:

"Considering that the new facade of the Ford Center is suppose to be on the SW side of it, I can not wait til the new I-40 is open to traffic and they can destroy the current rustolium concrete structure that bumps up right against our Thunder's home!

Honestly, I don't think the new boulevard should be built. We have Sheridan and Reno so there's no need for another bisecting cross street. I think the Boulevard money should be focused on revamping Robinson Avenue from the new I-40 into downtown OKC. Other reasons this street needs to be a main focus is that you're going to have the new Central Park on the west side and possibly a new convention center or some kind of retail fronting on the east side. That trip up from I-40 on the west edge of the Ford Center needs to be as aesthetically pleasing as possible!"

That is an interesting concept which may need to be really considered. Reno is probably wide enough and definitely goes all the way through town and may have possibilities as a boulevard. Notice all of the conditional tenses there.

[QUOTE=Larry OKC;303244]of the park).
Every article I have read that mentioned the route of the Boulevard mentions it is going to follow the same path as the current crosstown. Problem with that is, has anyone bothered to look at a map and see what the current path is? it is NOT a straight line. it jogs north and south. QUOTE]

I don't see the fact that it isn't straight as a major issue. Most streets are more interesting if they aren't. Proximity to other streets should be something easy to work out with proper planning. Keep in mind that the boulevard itself is unlikely to be as wide as the highway in most places giving some room for realignment.

Maybe they are going to fix things but again, every article where it is mentioned doesn't indicate they are going to do so. Proper planning is a key element, and OKC's record is iffy at best on so many levels. I think the general consensus in these threads is that it doesn't need to be as wide as the crosstown (but think there was talk about it being 6 lanes, plus median, plus sidewalks and street parking, "buffer areas"...some even suggested the Canal thrown into the mix...add that all up and things can get fairly wide). As pointed out before all of that (especially the higher the lane count) impedes the pedestrian/walkability. Serves just as much of a deterrent as the current crosstown does.

Just make a "Plaza" area where there is no vechicle traffic allowed, and the area will become a "gathering" spot for the people. I can see the future in my mind. In the early 70's Aspen Colorado had a good concept. (no motor vechile traffic in plaza area)

Larry OKC, I'm in complete agreement with you. Here's a post I made on thunderfans forum:

"Considering that the new facade of the Ford Center is suppose to be on the SW side of it, I can not wait til the new I-40 is open to traffic and they can destroy the current rustolium concrete structure that bumps up right against our Thunder's home!

Honestly, I don't think the new boulevard should be built. We have Sheridan and Reno so there's no need for another bisecting cross street. I think the Boulevard money should be focused on revamping Robinson Avenue from the new I-40 into downtown OKC. Other reasons this street needs to be a main focus is that you're going to have the new Central Park on the west side and possibly a new convention center or some kind of retail fronting on the east side. That trip up from I-40 on the west edge of the Ford Center needs to be as aesthetically pleasing as possible!"

Was told that once the new boulevard is completed, most of Reno Ave. will eventually be closed/removed.

Closed? To make a pedestrian mall? I'm not really sure, with all the businesses on Reno, how that will be accomplished. Hotels would have to completely change their access/parking. It's not that I don't love the idea of a pedestrian mall, but it seems like a big job to remove Reno, with a lot of obstacles. And that would put a lot of parking nearer the boulevard, which, if it's just a big street for cars, wouldn't bother me, but it seems like a lot of poor planning to put that much emphasis on a street that is designed for cars and adjacent parking.

Was told that once the new boulevard is completed, most of Reno Ave. will eventually be closed/removed.

If accurate, it sounds like a poorly thought through, terrible idea.
Sadly, that happens to also be what makes it so believable.

Closing Reno between the arena and Cox permanently would be
an ok idea, and it's closed frequently already in that block.

Closing Reno between Lincoln and EKG to traffic would make no
sense at all.

I've not been on other stretches recently, so can't really comment.

Closed? To make a pedestrian mall? I'm not really sure, with all the businesses on Reno, how that will be accomplished. Hotels would have to completely change their access/parking. It's not that I don't love the idea of a pedestrian mall, but it seems like a big job to remove Reno, with a lot of obstacles. And that would put a lot of parking nearer the boulevard, which, if it's just a big street for cars, wouldn't bother me, but it seems like a lot of poor planning to put that much emphasis on a street that is designed for cars and adjacent parking.

The only section of Reno that would be closed is adjacent to the new boulevard, the only section of Reno that has hotels is in Bricktown which would not be closed.

Maybe they are going to fix things but again, every article where it is mentioned doesn't indicate they are going to do so. Proper planning is a key element, and OKC's record is iffy at best on so many levels. I think the general consensus in these threads is that it doesn't need to be as wide as the crosstown (but think there was talk about it being 6 lanes, plus median, plus sidewalks and street parking, "buffer areas"...some even suggested the Canal thrown into the mix...add that all up and things can get fairly wide). As pointed out before all of that (especially the higher the lane count) impedes the pedestrian/walkability. Serves just as much of a deterrent as the current crosstown does.

From the Core to Shore report, the proposed Boulevard will be 272 feet wide (the diagram on page 46/47 gives a good idea about just how wide it could be)
25ft sidewalk
28ft parking
35ft tree lined median
36ft (3 lanes) traffic
24ft median/turn lane
36ft (3 lanes) traffic
35ft tree lined median
28ft parking
25ft sidewalk


Basic Street Channel Between Walker and Oklahoma Avenues, the new boulevard provides three lanes in each direction. The lane closest to the sidewalk will be used for parking or public transit, unless traffic volumes require its use as a travel lane. The speed limit will be 25 miles per hour, reinforcing the boulevard as an urban environment where pedestrians are primary and speed is secondary.

Parking Slips The north side of the boulevard as well as the blocks on the south that do not front Central Park will have parking slips with parallel parking on both sides. These slips are separated from travel lanes by 35-foot side medians, landscaped with two rows of trees. They will provide convenient parking while separating the primary sidewalk from moving traffic.

Sidewalks The sidewalks between Walker and Oklahoma Avenues will be 25 feet wide to accommodate outdoor cafés and provide a generous pedestrian space. A single line of trees will run along the curb edge next to the parking slip. A simple scoring pattern on the sidewalk will be punctuated by an accent of local red granite to decorate the edge.

Maybe they are going to fix things but again, every article where it is mentioned doesn't indicate they are going to do so. Proper planning is a key element, and OKC's record is iffy at best on so many levels. I think the general consensus in these threads is that it doesn't need to be as wide as the crosstown (but think there was talk about it being 6 lanes, plus median, plus sidewalks and street parking, "buffer areas"...some even suggested the Canal thrown into the mix...add that all up and things can get fairly wide). As pointed out before all of that (especially the higher the lane count) impedes the pedestrian/walkability. Serves just as much of a deterrent as the current crosstown does.

That was the intent of my post originating this thread. I wanted to give a good suggestion on the way the boulevard could be constructed to make it work for cars, bicycles, and pedestrians.

Where exactly will the blvd. become ground level on the east side?
I suppose I've either missed or forgotten the blvd. drawings, but I'm hitting a blank wall in my mind (no surprise to some I'm sure.)

Seems an ugly mess would exist for a 6 lane (or wider) surface level in the stretch which is the parking immediately south of Bass Pro and then there's the canal to deal with.

Sorry so dense, but the mind is like a freshly wiped blackboard right now.

Where exactly will the blvd. become ground level on the east side?
I suppose I've either missed or forgotten the blvd. drawings, but I'm hitting a blank wall in my mind (no surprise to some I'm sure.)

Seems an ugly mess would exist for a 6 lane (or wider) surface level in the stretch which is the parking immediately south of Bass Pro and then there's the canal to deal with.

Sorry so dense, but the mind is like a freshly wiped blackboard right now.

I am also having a tough time visualizing this. Can someone post a map, teaser image, or something?

You know, the more I think about a road that is 272 feet wide the less I like it. That likes 28 feet being the width of a football field and runs for several miles. That is going to make a huge barrier to pedestrians even if it does have 3 medians to cross. I am also not sure if another 6 lane road (like EKG) thru central OKC is a good idea.

Well I dunno. It seems that the actual road portion only represents 72 feet out of the total 272 feet. I don't think that it will be such a barrier in terms of vehicular traffic. It seems the pedestrian environment [25 foot sidewalks on either side, large medians, 144 feet total] represents a much larger footprint of the boulevard. Also coupled with the 25 mph speed limit. This is not a boulevard that should be compared with EKG or even Reno, it is very pedestrian orientated in blueprint. But I think it is a bit over done. Cut the lanes to two each way, and minimize the medians a tad and you'd have a good boulevard.

Well I dunno. It seems that the actual road portion only represents 72 feet out of the total 272 feet. I don't think that it will be such a barrier in terms of vehicular traffic. It seems the pedestrian environment [25 foot sidewalks on either side, large medians, 144 feet total] represents a much larger footprint of the boulevard. Also coupled with the 25 mph speed limit. This is not a boulevard that should be compared with EKG or even Reno, it is very pedestrian orientated in blueprint. But I think it is a bit over done. Cut the lanes to two each way, and minimize the medians a tad and you'd have a good boulevard.

I agree with moving from 3 lanes to 2. I don't see 3 lanes @ 25mph working. It will be a racetrack.

This is Reforma in Mexico City. Looks great with the trees and buildings.
http://boiseguardian.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/old/image/Reforma.jpg

This is what the trees are hiding. The sidwalks are pedestrian friendly, crossing the road isn't.
http://thecityfix.com/files/2008/03/reforma.jpg

I agree with moving from 3 lanes to 2. I don't see 3 lanes @ 25mph working. It will be a racetrack.

Not necessarily, with stop lights at every corner downtown.

Some of you mentioned tying it into the canal. KC's Ward Boulevard is divided by a creek near the Plaza area.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Brush_creek.jpg

Some of you mentioned tying it into the canal. KC's Ward Boulevard is divided by a creek near the Plaza area.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Brush_creek.jpg

What a great image! Thanks for posting. There are numerous possibilities that could be employed to make this new road a significant contributor to the city. The planning just needs to be done very carefully so we are really getting something that is a place maker not just an expensive street.

Metro - I would much rather see that (^) type of road. Atlanta has something similar in the Atlantic Station section of downtown/Midtown.

This is a picture of the center median of 17th street. While it only last for a few blocks it makes a nice divider.

http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09_17/.resized/.resized_275x244_figure_0_7.jpg

http://images03.olx.com/ui/1/18/14/8001414_3.jpg

Yeah I'm familiar with Atlanta, went to college out there for awhile and spent much time in Atlanta from 1996 Olympics on. Philadelphia (as you can see in other thread) is my ideal city to model after.

I like the idea of a road with curves in it. It would make a nice change from every straight road in OKC and would help reduce speed. An extension of the canal down the center would be really cool.

You know, the more I think about a road that is 272 feet wide the less I like it. That likes 28 feet being the width of a football field and runs for several miles. That is going to make a huge barrier to pedestrians even if it does have 3 medians to cross. I am also not sure if another 6 lane road (like EKG) thru central OKC is a good idea.

Downtown does not need any 6 lane streets. It's not NW Expressway traffic except maybe for a short time during rush hours.

I like the idea of a road with curves in it. It would make a nice change from every straight road in OKC and would help reduce speed. An extension of the canal down the center would be really cool.

My thoughts exactly. The canal should be extended between the two arenas, connected somehow to the Myriad Gardens, turn south thru Fred Jones, run the new boulevard median and then south to connect into the central park lake - could then turn back east and connect to the canal in south Bricktown and make a loop.

I like the idea of a road with curves in it. It would make a nice change from every straight road in OKC and would help reduce speed. An extension of the canal down the center would be really cool.

I disagree entirely... straight roads are more urban IMO. Especially if this is to be a 'Grand Boulevard"

Some of you mentioned tying it into the canal. KC's Ward Boulevard is divided by a creek near the Plaza area.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Brush_creek.jpg

Wow! What a refreshing image. I love this idea...a loop around the new C2S development, keep Reno as the east west feeder and use Western or Gaylord as the north/South feeders.

In my mind a good idea because OKC wants foot traffic and a point of interest for visitors. Those coming for NBA games and the new convention center have an IMEDIATE point of interest in a canal/river loop, central park and the revamped Myriad gardens right next to a thriving Bricktown all within walking distance. And if a mixed use retail area were immediately across the pedestrian bridge, adjacent to the Convention Center along the new cross-town I40, this would essentially connect it all of it...the river, the park, renaissanced downtown, bricktown and the deuce. From the hotels downtown and in brick town and along this river/street development, these points of interest would all be within 1/2 mile walk along and through a grand park or a 10 min boat ride or a 5 min rail stop. Brilliant!

It would also give the private developers a new element for design and provide impetus. I do think this would give direction for development to narrow strips E/W along the new canal/Blvd and then N/S from just across I40 to the new Convention center between Shields and Walker. Private developers would eat up that property like candy! The city would have a hard time keeping up. Conversely, as a private investor, I would be hesitant and likely wait and see along what would be just another street. I mean, within a block of the Ford Center and Convention Center maybe, but I would have no interest in property to the west 3 or more blocks away along the new 'Grand Boulevard'. But, give me a unique element to design around like a canal and I'm in! Especially with the OK river events and people already in an 'aquatic transport' mood. It's a shame it’s late in the game and will likely never even be an option.

Great Pic and Idea though!

I disagree entirely... straight roads are more urban IMO. Especially if this is to be a 'Grand Boulevard"

I agree, that is why I don't want an urban road bisecting our central park. How many major roads do other cities having going thru their parks?

Forest Park in STL.

Forest Park in STL.

I took a look at Forest Park via Google Earth and didn't see any 6 lane roads going thru it.

BTW - that looked like a real cool park.

KC's Ward Boulevard in the Plaza area is a wonderful area and would fit in so well in the
C2S area. The one complaint I had about the river vs. the street was not enough points of access and no river level crossings. This actually made me see it as something of a divider when I was there last summer. Something like this, done right, would really make the CBD area even more of an attraction just as The Plaza has been for KC.

I like the idea of a road with curves in it. It would make a nice change from every straight road in OKC and would help reduce speed. An extension of the canal down the center would be really cool.

A possible canal extension is certainly something that the planners should consider when desiging the bouldevard even if that only might happen years from now. Keep in mind, however, that the boulevard will start in the area around Agnew so that could only be for a few blocks of a much longer boulevard.

I took a look at Forest Park via Google Earth and didn't see any 6 lane roads going thru it.

BTW - that looked like a real cool park.

The Boulevard is going to be cutting thru the Park? I thought it was just the northern border of the Park? Maybe you meant dividing the Myriad Gardens and the Park (but isn't there a city block of mixed use development that is already going to be doing that)?

Think it would be nice if the Myriad Gardens could somehow connect with the string of parks instead of getting cut off like the plans show now. But maybe they are afraid the MG would lose its identity/distinctiveness if connected.



...At 1,293 acres, [Forest Park] is approximately 500 acres larger than Central Park in New York. ...

Completely dwarfs our 40 acre "Central Park". The 40 acres (70 when the Promenade Park is added in) always seemed rather on the smallish side to me. Especially when you consider all of the land OKC has within its limits. But then again the entire Core to Shore area that was recently declared blighted was 600+ acres total.

The Boulevard is going to be cutting thru the Park? I thought it was just the northern border of the Park? Maybe you meant dividing the Myriad Gardens and the Park (but isn't there a city block of mixed use development that is already going to be doing that)?

Your correct Larry. What was I thinking? I retract my concerns. Thanks.

I took a look at Forest Park via Google Earth and didn't see any 6 lane roads going thru it.

BTW - that looked like a real cool park.

It is. It bears great resemblance to Central Park and it used in much the same way. Great zoo (which is FREE).

Forest Park Parkway cuts a nasty gash across the NE portion of the park. It's pretty much a 4-lane road lined with concrete walls. It's sad.

Forest Park Parkway cuts a nasty gash across the NE portion of the park. It's pretty much a 4-lane road lined with concrete walls. It's sad.

I saw that on Google Street view. What were they thinking?

Your correct Larry. What was I thinking? I retract my concerns. Thanks.

LOL...Not so quick...Wed's Oklahoman mentioned I-40 as bisecting the Park(s). True it isn't the 6 lane Boulevard but it is the 6 (?) lane partially below grade I-40 that is cutting thru the Central Park and the Promenade portion. Will give you points...

LOL...Not so quick...Wed's Oklahoman mentioned I-40 as bisecting the Park(s). True it isn't the 6 lane Boulevard but it is the 6 (?) lane partially below grade I-40 that is cutting thru the Central Park and the Promenade portion. Will give you points...


The new I-40 will not bisect the planned park, what the article was talking about is the old I-40, which is the route for the new boulevard.

OK - you guys are throwing me off so I went back and checked the most recent renderings I could find on the Core 2 Shore site. No road over 2 lanes wide will be bisecting any parks. I did see where Promenade park will have 5 roads cutting thru it that will essentially turn one large park into 7 smaller parks all next to each other. Not sure I like that. I would rather have just one large intact park that people have to drive around instead of thru.

LOL...Not so quick...Wed's Oklahoman mentioned I-40 as bisecting the Park(s). True it isn't the 6 lane Boulevard but it is the 6 (?) lane partially below grade I-40 that is cutting thru the Central Park and the Promenade portion. Will give you points...

New I-40 is going to be 10 lanes.


[/COLOR]

The new I-40 will not bisect the planned park, what the article was talking about is the old I-40, which is the route for the new boulevard.

No the new 10 lane I-40 will be at the southern end of Central Park, right behind the current Union Station, where the tracks were. Then the other large section of "Central Park", that will probably get a different name, is on the other side of the new highway. The two parks will be connected by the Skydance Bridge. Promenade Park is small pocket park connecting Myriad Gardens to the Boulevard and then on the other side of the boulevard, Central Park starts.


OK - you guys are throwing me off so I went back and checked the most recent renderings I could find on the Core 2 Shore site. No road over 2 lanes wide will be bisecting any parks. I did see where Promenade park will have 5 roads cutting thru it that will essentially turn one large park into 7 smaller parks all next to each other. Not sure I like that. I would rather have just one large intact park that people have to drive around instead of thru.

Correct, It will ultimately be a collection of 7 parks if it stays as planned. FYI, as it stands now I've been told ODOT has some pretty serious "inconveniences" the public hasn't really been informed about yet. Stay tuned.

FYI, as it stands now I've been told ODOT has some pretty serious "inconveniences" the public hasn't really been informed about yet. Stay tuned.

Let me guess, the new depressed highway is below the water table and water is seeping in. They just found that same problem here in Atlanta where I-75/85 is being expanded downtown.

Nope, not related to the water table, although I guess that's a possibility.

Nope, not related to the water table, although I guess that's a possibility.

Tom Elmore chained himself to something?

Let me guess, the new depressed highway is below the water table and water is seeping in. They just found that same problem here in Atlanta where I-75/85 is being expanded downtown.

Good Lord! Expanded again? To what now? 25 - 30 lanes?? (LOL)

Good Lord! Expanded again? To what now? 25 - 30 lanes?? (LOL)

To be honest - I can't even count the number of lanes now. Looking at Google Earth it has 15 lanes now and they putting in two new exits and more lanes. I think they also have a plan to double stack it.

Let me guess, the new depressed highway is below the water table and water is seeping in. They just found that same problem here in Atlanta where I-75/85 is being expanded downtown.

No, not the water table. The highway was supposed to be depressed 20 feet, and when they discovered the water table was higher than that, the depression was dropped to 6 feet. I would guess it's some environmental issue, given the location.

That shot reminded me of Disney's Mainstreet (complete with Streetcars running down the middle)

Didn't Tulsa try something like this and it eventually failed miserably?

Nope not "environmental" issues either, one is related to the I-40/new boulevard area, the other is not but nearby.

...No the new 10 lane I-40 will be at the southern end of Central Park, right behind the current Union Station, where the tracks were. Then the other large section of "Central Park", that will probably get a different name, is on the other side of the new highway. ...

This IS the Promenade Park according to the Core to Shore report (Still available from City of Oklahoma City | Core to Shore (http://okc.gov/planning/coretoshore/final_report.html)). See maps on pgs 5, 38, 40, 55 and brief text on page 57


...Promenade Park is small pocket park connecting Myriad Gardens to the Boulevard and then on the other side of the boulevard, Central Park starts.

Do you have a link?

I am not seeing any "pocket park" connecting the MG with the Central Park in any of the C2S materials. The materials show the space between MG and the park as being "Mixed Use" development.

The C2S stuff shows an Events Center standing between the Central Park and Promenade (next to Union Station). The Events Center had vanished by the time the came up with the renderings/model for the MAPS 3 Park so don't know its current status.

No, not the water table. The highway was supposed to be depressed 20 feet, and when they discovered the water table was higher than that, the depression was dropped to 6 feet. I would guess it's some environmental issue, given the location.

Dang, I remember reading something along the same lines but don't have it bookmarked and not using search criteria that is close enough (kept bringing me back to OKCTalk threads...LOL

Couldn't recall if it was a water table issue or what that caused the change from being completely below grade to partially....

I don't have it bookmarked either, but I am quite sure that the water table level was the reason given in print.

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)