View Full Version : Urban Land Institute Sends Advisors / MAPS Oversight Board Moves Forward



Pages : [1] 2

Urban Pioneer
03-02-2010, 10:11 AM
Lots of things happening this week with a panel (I believe 9 people) who will advise on a redevelopment plan for downtown/Core to Shore.

They are conducting interviews throughout the week with almost 100 people and will unveil their findings/concepts Friday morning in council chambers.

Also, it is my understanding that the City Council may be voting on the "proceedural structure" at today's council meeting.

Lots of stuff happening. This week may very well orient plans and affect major decisions such as placement of key MAPS components.

mugofbeer
03-02-2010, 10:25 AM
I recall when they were here after the MAPS 1 vote. It's a great thing and they can give a lot of good ideas and support to the projects.

Urban Pioneer
03-04-2010, 03:31 PM
Just a reminder. ULI will give their design team report to the public in City Council Chambers tomorrow at 9:30 AM. I am not sure if it will be televised live or not. I would encourage anyone speculating on these various developmental matters to attend.

It should be interesting. It will be even more interesting as to whether it will "direct" many of the developmental plans to be decided by the council/MAPS oversight board to be made in the near future.

betts
03-04-2010, 04:22 PM
Hopefully someone will attend and give a report to those of us who have to work and cannot get away to attend. I would really love to go to that.

Urban Pioneer
03-05-2010, 12:00 PM
Just attended the meeting. See Steve Lackmeyers blog OKC Central - Information about Oklahoma City, Bricktown and beyond (http://www.okccentral.com) for synopsis.

betts
03-05-2010, 02:04 PM
Wow! Narrow the boulevard, move the convention center to another location and build it first. I think they're spot on on every one of these recommendations.

betts
03-07-2010, 11:42 AM
I went and looked at the lumbar yard site yesterday, because I didn't really ever distinguish it in my mind from the Cotton gin, and honestly thought it was all part and parcel of the same thing. I did have a couple of thoughts when I looked at it.

It does seem rather small in size. Perhaps that's perspective, and if the area were leveled it would be easier to see that it's adequate in size. Does it indeed have enough room to expand were we to want to expand?

When I looked at it, I thought a convention hotel would either have to be built on the site of the cotton gin or the U-Haul building. The Cotton Gin owners, if anything, would probably increase or certainly wouldn't lower the cost of their property if they knew a convention center was going to be built there. I know Doug has posted pictures of the U-Haul building in it's earlier incarnation, and I didn't know if people would be amenable to it being demolished. It would be a pretty cool-looking building if its current facade were removed, but certainly would probably not be amenable to renovation into a convention center hotel.

Since I live near the tracks, I know that there are a lot of trains that go through. The lumbar yard is immediately adjacent to the tracks, and train noise would be very loud. If you live near it, you get used to it and literally stop hearing the trains, but if you're a visitor, you wouldn't have time to get used to it. Would the train noise disrupt presentations? Would people staying in the convention center hotel be unhappy about the train noise, especially the whistles? You could significantly improve the noise if you had a Quiet Zone, however.

shane453
03-07-2010, 12:47 PM
If you live near it, you get used to it and literally stop hearing the trains, but if you're a visitor, you wouldn't have time to get used to it. Would the train noise disrupt presentations? Would people staying in the convention center hotel be unhappy about the train noise, especially the whistles?

The Cox Center is also adjacent (across the street) from the train tracks, and the Renaissance and Courtyard hotels, so it wouldn't be a problem that would remove the sites from consideration. Aren't all three potential convention center sites adjacent to the Santa Fe tracks?

The ULI presentation was kind of disconcerting and hopefully leads to thoughtful but quick discussion and decision among city leaders about the issues that were covered.

Doug Loudenback
03-07-2010, 03:00 PM
Shane, I've not seen the presentation or discussion, just what Steve has written in his blog and the newspaper. What was disconcerting?

ssandedoc
03-07-2010, 03:44 PM
I was in Bricktown yesterday and parked at the Lumbar yard. It would make sense to put the new convention center here. Its within a short walking distance of hotels, restaurants, and the Cox & Ford centers. If there was a shuttle or a rail line, it would really connect the whole area well.

I agree with the ULI that putting the convention center several blocks south is not good for the city.

Also, has anyone noticed the amount of graffiti and gang activity in the proposed core to shore area? Definitely, don't want to get our stuff messed up by gangs. Need more patrol and security.

onthestrip
03-07-2010, 05:34 PM
At the presentation it appeared that the city was considering putting the convention center at the SE corner of Robinson and the new boulevard, with the park just to the west, and the ULI just suggested moving it a block to the East (lumber site) and putting the convention hotel at that spot instead. They also stated that the convention hotel should be at least 700 rooms.

One other thing they said is to not expect any new or speculative office construction and high rise housing

betts
03-07-2010, 05:36 PM
You're right about the Cox Center being close to the train noise. I guess it wouldn't be that much of a problem, then. I've always thought a close to Bricktown location would be better, for obvious reasons. Do we know that the lumbar yard is purchaseable, and what kind of price they might expect? And again, is there space there for a convention center hotel?

I'm not too worried about graffiti in Core to Shore. As the area improves, the graffiti will decrease.

Mikemarsh51
03-07-2010, 08:56 PM
I am wondering how this is working out? the convention center was shown to have the least support, was supposed to be built last and now we have professionals telling us it should be first. I will say it loudly, "Man did we have a job done on all of us"!!!

onthestrip
03-07-2010, 09:07 PM
I am wondering how this is working out? the convention center was shown to have the least support, was supposed to be built last and now we have professionals telling us it should be first. I will say it loudly, "Man did we have a job done on all of us"!!!

Whats the big problem? Things should be done in whatever order makes the most sense.

Having said that, at the meeting the park still was assumed to be built first or in conjunction with the convention center.

OKC@heart
03-07-2010, 09:39 PM
At the presentation it appeared that the city was considering putting the convention center at the SE corner of Robinson and the new boulevard, with the park just to the west, and the ULI just suggested moving it a block to the East (lumber site) and putting the convention hotel at that spot instead. They also stated that the convention hotel should be at least 700 rooms.

One other thing they said is to not expect any new or speculative office construction and high rise housing

That comment about speculative office and high rise housing does not surprise me at all, and is more a comment about what is happening (or not happening) in any of the US major markets right now. Lending for spec offices and high rise residential is almost non-existent.

That certainly doesn't mean forever and that it is doomed, rather based on the realities of the current market climate, few are willing to take the risk on something like that. They would be right in that regard. However, if the right corporate relocation were to take place then we certainly could have another high rise built capitalizing on the momentum of what is taking place in OKC. Lenders would not have a problem with lending based on an existing fortune 500 type company relocating to OKC and building new digs. It would be a much safer bet and would get funded.

Residential high rise could come back more quickly in OKC simply from the respect that we have none. So whom ever did the first would capture the market share of those who truly want to live in a high rise. (I know that we have some to speak of) but nothing new and really tall that would give people the views of the city and the world class amenities found in other cities on site. I just hope that whomever gets there first does it right, and does not skimp simply to be first. We need it to endure and be successful to lay the groundwork and precedence for future projects.

Larry OKC
03-07-2010, 10:40 PM
Wow! Narrow the boulevard, move the convention center to another location and build it first. I think they're spot on on every one of these recommendations.

If this is a duplicate post, my apologies...

I agree and think the consensus in these threads and the Oklahoman is that these folks are correct.

I will point out that they seemed to think the overall C2S plan was a good one, that it just needed to be tweaked some.

One thing I found interesting was about the Streetcars. I was in agreement with those on these threads that one of the advantages of a fixed rail system (as opposed to buses) was that developers would know where the routes/stations are going to be and development will naturally follow.

But Russ Tillman, offered a cautionary note. Said that since they are expensive and permanent, that routes need to be chosen very carefully. He stated:


There is a vast industry that will tell you build a streetcar and the buildings will follow it. It's more complicated...it's less clear if streetcars really spur development. It is one of many factors that can spur development.

(emphasis supplied in presentation slide)

So now I don't know....

Mikemarsh51
03-07-2010, 10:45 PM
Onthestrip, it matters because of the way it was presented to the voters. Had I not opposed it for political reasons, I would have supported it for all of the obvious reasons. I still would not be happy because now it is not the plan that was sold to us. I also think it is disgusting the way they are now planning to take land from rightful land owners!!!

onthestrip
03-07-2010, 11:30 PM
Onthestrip, it matters because of the way it was presented to the voters. Had I not opposed it for political reasons, I would have supported it for all of the obvious reasons. I still would not be happy because now it is not the plan that was sold to us. I also think it is disgusting the way they are now planning to take land from rightful land owners!!!

We were sold on certain projects, not on a certain schedule. Nothing is being taken, everyone will be compensated.

shane453
03-07-2010, 11:32 PM
Shane, I've not seen the presentation or discussion, just what Steve has written in his blog and the newspaper. What was disconcerting?

I also have only seen the media accounts, not the full presentation, but what concerned me was that there were so many discrepancies with the ideas that the city and planners have developed over the last few years compared to the opinions of the ULI panel. And I want to believe that each bit of advice will be weighed fairly and given due consideration, but don't know if that will be the case.

blangtang
03-07-2010, 11:33 PM
Lumbar Yard! LOL

ljbab728
03-08-2010, 12:07 AM
Onthestrip, it matters because of the way it was presented to the voters. Had I not opposed it for political reasons, I would have supported it for all of the obvious reasons. I still would not be happy because now it is not the plan that was sold to us. I also think it is disgusting the way they are now planning to take land from rightful land owners!!!

Mike, the voters didn't approve the projects based on what would be built first just on the merits of the projects themselves. While there was talk of what would be first there was never a promise and if there had been there is no way in something of this magnitude to not allow for changes. As for eminent domain that is certainly nothing new or unexpected. My grandfather owned land on the NW side of Norman that was "taken" for the construction of I35. He was a "rightful owner" and was compensated as will be these owners.

Larry OKC
03-08-2010, 05:55 AM
I also have only seen the media accounts, not the full presentation, but what concerned me was that there were so many discrepancies with the ideas that the city and planners have developed over the last few years compared to the opinions of the ULI panel. And I want to believe that each bit of advice will be weighed fairly and given due consideration, but don't know if that will be the case.

Definitely take the time to catch the repeat showing or view online @ okc.gov. One thing they stressed was that overall the C2S plan was a good one, it just needed some tweaking is all. It was not a complete abandonment. Certain elements weren't going to happen at all (like getting a major dept store, i.e. Nemin-Marcus etc).

USG '60
03-08-2010, 06:38 AM
What lumberyard is being referred to in this thread? Where is it?

betts
03-08-2010, 07:58 AM
It is immediately south of I-40 and just east of the railroad line. Or, behind the Harkins Theatre and the U-Haul building south of lower Bricktown.

BigD Misey
03-08-2010, 09:07 AM
3 things...

1.Do conventioneers really want to see the U-haul Bldg outside of their 10th story hotel room? Or the freeway? Or a central park and ford center? It is only one block further. To the Brick.

2.What will provide the catalyst for development in the blighted area? By saying 'development will take 50 years',and moving the convention center away from the blighted area, essentially they are saying that the whole ugly area will have a stay of execution for 50 years. 'Go ahead, don't improve your properties for another 50 years, bring in more auto parts and hub caps! We dont care!' The suggestion for 'the other side of the tracks', will stifle any improvement south of the Boulevard, and A central Park will likely be pointless, as there will be no reason to traverse the park. Let face it, who of us will want do go downtown for JUST the park? This is a valid question, because that will likely be the ONLY improvement installed south of the Boulevard for decades. The more interesting things we can put around the park, the more people will include the park in their reasons to come downtown.The point of entry to the park will only be from one side, the north. With the convention Center on the west side of the tracks, and next to the park, at least there will be multiple entry points for the park, and the hotel on the north and west side of the convention center will at least give a view of the park and/or Ford center. In my opinion a much better venue. Keeping the convention center where proposed will...a)give notice to property owners- hey shape up or ship out! b)give a REASON to have a park, c)Give developers a reason to develop there.

3.A large convention center and parking area and hotel will not fit in just the lumber yard area. It would call for a smaller convention center or no hotel. The city likely MUST purchase at least some of the co-op as well which will drive the overall cost way up, as opposed to clearing the land on the west side of the tracks.

I just wonder what underlying reason is driving this suggestion.

Thats just my opinion,
My opinion, over and out!

Kerry
03-08-2010, 09:08 AM
One thing I found interesting was about the Streetcars. I was in agreement with those on these threads that one of the advantages of a fixed rail system (as opposed to buses) was that developers would know where the routes/stations are going to be and development will naturally follow.

But Russ Tillman, offered a cautionary note. Said that since they are expensive and permanent, that routes need to be chosen very carefully. He stated...

This isn't aimed at you Larry, but who would have thought the street car lines WOULDN"T need to be well planned? This is the very reason the orginal rail plan in MAPS I would have been a disaster. It was not well thought out and would have doomed any future rail expansion because the anti-rail crowd would of had actual evidence of rail failure in OKC. We dodged a bullet back then.

lasomeday
03-08-2010, 11:11 AM
Big D Mosey

The Uhaul Building is actually a beautiful building underneath the aluminum siding. It can be redone.

If you went to a convention, would you rather be able to walk to lunch in Bricktown or be forced to have lunch at two shady options in the convention center.

Look at it this way if we have a grand boulevard with a lumber yard and cottin gin next to it, how would that welcome people into the city. I would rather have a convention center there. The lumber yard is big enough for the size of convention center we voted on, parking can be beneath it. NO big deal!

The park will be enough to spur development. If you look at other cities, many offices and residential tend to want to build next to parks. There are buildings adjoining the park that could be refurbished and become awesome lofts or office buildings or mixed use.

OKC@heart
03-08-2010, 11:42 AM
Big D Mosey

The Uhaul Building is actually a beautiful building underneath the aluminum siding. It can be redone.

If you went to a convention, would you rather be able to walk to lunch in Bricktown or be forced to have lunch at two shady options in the convention center.

Look at it this way if we have a grand boulevard with a lumber yard and cottin gin next to it, how would that welcome people into the city. I would rather have a convention center there. The lumber yard is big enough for the size of convention center we voted on, parking can be beneath it. NO big deal!

The park will be enough to spur development. If you look at other cities, many offices and residential tend to want to build next to parks. There are buildings adjoining the park that could be refurbished and become awesome lofts or office buildings or mixed use.

Would love to see the skin of the original U-haul building! Am encouraged by the recommendations ULI made regarding the Convention center moving more to the east to anchor Lower Bricktown. More about securing and and ensuring continued success of Bricktown. You know that development that we poured a ton of both public and private money into just a while back. It is important to realize that it is by no means mature and fully stable. It is doing great as an entertainment venue, but is lacking in residents, and retail. We need to do more to bolster its sucess, and adding the new convention center is a great way to show that its progress continues, while preserving the land around the park for the best uses, such as allowing for the redevelopment of the existing usable structures which would likely be the first type of development we would see, followed by infil projects.

I also love the fact that they supported the idea of the new 700 room Hotel remaining where it is located. That would be a great building to anchor the corner adjacent to the park, so long as it is a vertical expression and not a horizontal one that denotes a more suburban attempt at filling the land available. That would be a huge mistake. What I would ultimately love to see, is the 700 room hotel vertically oriented, with a partnership with a residential developer who has successfully done highrise condos in other markets, add an appropriate amount of for sale residential condos to the top giving great views of the downtown skyline while becoming a contributor to the skyline itself.

It is this type of partnered mixed use building that are having any sucess in other markets these days.

Urbanized
03-08-2010, 12:27 PM
This is a bit off the topic of the thread itself, but since it has been discussed, here you go. Underneath the sheet metal facade of the U-Haul building is the beauty shown below, with all windows (casements on all four sides) still intact. Interior modifications have all been superficial, with sheetrock walls built between concrete pillars. The building could probably be taken back to near-pristine condition with ONLY minimal demolition.

Other than the Model T plant on Main, which now appears to be headed in a different, exciting direction, the U-Haul building is probably the single best candidate for major-market style loft housing in all of Oklahoma City. This is compounded by its location. If not used for housing, it could surely be used for something else, and become one more iconic building added back into our tragically small inventory of vital historic structures.

It would be a damned shame to see that building demolished for ANY reason.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/maps/vintage/itenbiscuit2s.jpg

OKC@heart
03-08-2010, 12:43 PM
Thanks Urbanized! You are correct, indeed what potential! I could see anything from Awesome residential lofts to possibly one of those additional needed hotels that the ULI menitoned beyond the origninal 700 room hotel. There have beensome really cool adaptive reuse buildings that have preserved the base building and exterior while adding a much larger and contrastingly modern tower portion in the center utilizing the historic base to anchor the building and give human scale at ground level and then transition from there. Not saying this should be, just that it is a possiblity.

It is a beautiful building and most certainly should be preserved!! That metal facade make the thing look horrible! removing the metal facade would be tantamount to a public service!

Kerry
03-08-2010, 01:17 PM
I wonder how long it took someone to find their own car back in those days. Could you imagine walking out of Penn Sq Mall today and trying to find your black Ford in a sea of black Fords.

progressiveboy
03-08-2010, 02:00 PM
This is a bit off the topic of the thread itself, but since it has been discussed, here you go. Underneath the sheet metal facade of the U-Haul building is the beauty shown below, with all windows (casements on all four sides) still intact. Interior modifications have all been superficial, with sheetrock walls built between concrete pillars. The building could probably be taken back to near-pristine condition with ONLY minimal demolition.

Other than the Model T plant on Main, which now appears to be headed in a different, exciting direction, the U-Haul building is probably the single best candidate for major-market style loft housing in all of Oklahoma City. This is compounded by its location. If not used for housing, it could surely be used for something else, and become one more iconic building added back into our tragically small inventory of vital historic structures.

It would be a damned shame to see that building demolished for ANY reason.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/maps/vintage/itenbiscuit2s.jpg Yes indeed! Lofts would be a great and exciting for this building. Another adaptive use that I could see is a major public market with fresh vegetables and fruits and maybe "unique" dry goods or vendors that sell one of a kind products or products that could be introduced to the marketplace. Maybe perhaps a unique restaurant inside as well that had a concept of cooking fresh, homemade vegetables, organic meats or a nice upscale bakery/coffee shop. Lots of endless possibilities!!!

Kerry
03-08-2010, 02:44 PM
Not to dampen the excitement - but I saw this building before the current facade was attached. It doesn't look like this under the aluminum now. One thing I do remember is that all the windows were bricked over. Probably not a big deal but it isn't as easy as remove the aluminum and you have what is in the picture. The building was also all red brick, not sure why it is white in this photo.

Urbanized
03-08-2010, 03:12 PM
Yeah, I saw the building up-close before the facade too. The red on the brick was paint. The white might also be paint, over red brick. Not sure about that. The windows are bricked... ...over the intact casement windows. It would be a snap to remove the brick. Having been inside many times, and having seen the metal facade being installed, I'm pretty confident that the intact building is rather gently entombed.

BigD Misey
03-08-2010, 05:52 PM
Big D Mosey

The Uhaul Building is actually a beautiful building underneath the aluminum siding. It can be redone.

If you went to a convention, would you rather be able to walk to lunch in Bricktown or be forced to have lunch at two shady options in the convention center.

Look at it this way if we have a grand boulevard with a lumber yard and cottin gin next to it, how would that welcome people into the city. I would rather have a convention center there. The lumber yard is big enough for the size of convention center we voted on, parking can be beneath it. NO big deal!

The park will be enough to spur development. If you look at other cities, many offices and residential tend to want to build next to parks. There are buildings adjoining the park that could be refurbished and become awesome lofts or office buildings or mixed use.

I believe i could walk ONE BLOCK further, yes i do.
As far as looking at other cities...I live in dallas. They have been considering the Trinity Park idea for years down here. It almost happened when jerry decided to build a stadium. But, with Jerryworld moving out to Arlington, that idea is now squashed. Why? Because the surrounding area is a 'blighted' area...unsightly, undeveloped and NOTHING AROUND.
Conversely, a park was proposed a couple of years ago that would be built over the Woodall Rogers Expwy. It is already being built. Guess why? Attractions around the park. Sculpture center, MCkinney Ave., Arts Museum, mixed use retail/residential (which by the way was just built and finished about 5 years ago) up off Hall & James.
It seems when ANY other major city builds a park downtown, it is not bordered on 3 sides by blighted areas. Either they are at points where you traverse or are bordered on 2 or more sides with points of interest. Just building a park will not spur growth and is a huge reason trinity park will not be built here in dallas for a long time.
Just sayin'

mugofbeer
03-08-2010, 07:46 PM
Originally Posted by Mikemarsh51
Onthestrip, it matters because of the way it was presented to the voters. Had I not opposed it for political reasons, I would have supported it for all of the obvious reasons. I still would not be happy because now it is not the plan that was sold to us. I also think it is disgusting the way they are now planning to take land from rightful land owners!!!

MikeMarsh was a rabid anti-MAPS3 poster who simply can't accept that his side lost. His previous posts on other threads show he will tell half-truths and pull conclusions out of a hat to try to make his points.

He has no real concern for those "poor rightful owners" of land in the C2S area who have left boarded up shacks, junk car lots, bars, vacant houses and blighted junk real estate thats worthless for all current uses. He just wants to gripe about, and cast insinuations about those who choose to look forward and understand the concept of "investment."

betts
03-08-2010, 08:40 PM
I suspect, even if eminent domain has to be used, that most of the property owners will get far more for their property than if MAPS 3 had not passed. If they've got a working business, however, they will need enough compensation to be able to move their business to a different location. I feel quite sure that the plan is the same one that was sold to us; some of us have some questions about whether that plan is the best one, but I don't believe there was any deception about what was planned for MAPS 3.

mugofbeer
03-08-2010, 09:10 PM
Lawsuits are inevitable for eminent domain. I wonder if the city can preemt some of it and get the courts to provide a suitable formula or if prior cases have already provided that?

BOBTHEBUILDER
03-08-2010, 09:14 PM
I suspect, even if eminent domain has to be used, that most of the property owners will get far more for their property than if MAPS 3 had not passed. If they've got a working business, however, they will need enough compensation to be able to move their business to a different location. I feel quite sure that the plan is the same one that was sold to us; some of us have some questions about whether that plan is the best one, but I don't believe there was any deception about what was planned for MAPS 3.


Betts,

I think for the most part that you are absolutely right. However, there are several businesses in the C2S area and park area that are not going to make out well with eminent domain, such as Blumenthals transmission, Airgas, just to mention a couple that are really established businesses. But I guess that its ok to move or shutdown these businesses after 50-70 years of profitable operation, just so we can build a park and a convention center.

If you watched the last city council meeting, I dont think the city has a clue on where their boundaries are going to be for the new park. They have a really nice map with boundary lines drawn in, but those may or may not change.

Asst. City Manager Catherine O' Conner and ??? Van Bullard did a poor job of trying to answer some questions about the park and its location. She said that the boundaries would not be moved, then they may be moved a little bit, then they may be moved a block or so, then they be moved up to a 1/2 mile. Thats a huge difference from sentence to sentence.

Either she knows exactly what is going to happen and is not trying to spill the beans just yet on the property owners or she just doesnt have a clue.

It was obvious that these business owners were told one thing prior to the MAPS3 vote and now they are dealing with something entirely different now.

Another observation, how could Ward 4 councilman Pete White vote in favor of this, while he had been telling property owners one thing and city is doing another. He was demanding some sort of answer or clarity. All he got was Asst City Mgr O'Conner talking in circles. No answer or clarity was given.
Yet, he voted in favor of it.

If I were him I would been all over the city manager and his staff until I got a clear concrete answer that I could take to those business owners that may be affected.

Hopefully, this oversight board will have some real headhunters on there that will ask the tough questions and get some real answers, and not just a bunch of puppets for the mayor and city manager. We owe it to the citizens to do this thing right and get a well thought out concrete plan with no deviations and get these improvements done on time and under budget.
If this is not the case, we can kiss MAPS 3.5 or 4.0 goodbye.

Mikemarsh51
03-08-2010, 10:00 PM
Mugofbutt, Wow you are something. Maps3 Passed, yes it sure did! Didn’t support it for political reasons. Issues change and so do peoples involvement. I do have my brick and plaque that came with it from the groundbreaking for the canal where it went under Oklahoma. You got one of those?* Were you around then? You must have been there.
*
Show me a half-truth!!!
*
You don’t know me and have no clue of my concerns. I have been buying Cusack meats for at least ten years and don’t want to see them get screwed. This “move forward mantra” that you speak of makes me want to barf. Investment should come from the private sector. The city should assist, but not fund all of it.

progressiveboy
03-08-2010, 10:41 PM
Mugofbutt, Wow you are something. Maps3 Passed, yes it sure did! Didn’t support it for political reasons. Issues change and so do peoples involvement. I do have my brick and plaque that came with it from the groundbreaking for the canal where it went under Oklahoma. You got one of those?* Were you around then? You must have been there.
*
Show me a half-truth!!!
*
You don’t know me and have no clue of my concerns. I have been buying Cusack meats for at least ten years and don’t want to see them get screwed. This “move forward mantra” that you speak of makes me want to barf. Investment should come from the private sector. The city should assist, but not fund all of it. Just curious from your perspective? Why or how will Cusack meats get screwed?. Do you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they will get screwed? Did you have an ephiphany or hear a voice in your head? Sorry to sound condenscending but you sound a bit on the ridiculous side. I hope that the city will take a huge bulldozer and level out all that area South of Downtown. It is nasty, filthy, dirty and gives OKC a very bad image kinda like Detroit. I realize you are entitled to your opinion however it is time for OKC to grow up and have a better city. I support eminient domain for this project because it's quite obvious that the residents down there do not have any pride and live in that filth and squalor. It really looks like skid row down there and needs to be cleaned up. Where are all of of these OKC philanthropist that should be funding these projects? Devon and Chesapeake are already making huge investments in the city. Now it is time for the residents to help and make OKC attractive to it's residents, outsiders and potential major employers moving in. If you don't like what is being done to your city then move! A penny sales tax it not going to break the bank and if your to cheap to pay it then move on and let the more forward thinking residents and influential leaders of OKC continue to make the city a better moer attractive place! Sorry for the rant:)

andy157
03-08-2010, 10:48 PM
MikeMarsh was a rabid anti-MAPS3 poster who simply can't accept that his side lost. His previous posts on other threads show he will tell half-truths and pull conclusions out of a hat to try to make his points.

He has no real concern for those "poor rightful owners" of land in the C2S area who have left boarded up shacks, junk car lots, bars, vacant houses and blighted junk real estate thats worthless for all current uses. He just wants to gripe about, and cast insinuations about those who choose to look forward and understand the concept of "investment."Because MikeMarsh was anti-MAPS3 you may view his current complaint as simply a case of more sour-grapes. So be it.

Nevertheless, you can't deny the fact that the Mayor for what ever reason claimed over and over each time he spoke about, or addressed questions regarding the convention center, that it would be "staged last" 10 years down the road. There is nothing half-truth about that. Now it appears as though it (the c.c.) may be moved to the front of the line, is that right or wrong, good or bad, I don't know, nor do I care.

Furthermore, who are you to determine whether or not his concern for those land owners is real and not just another attempt to cast insinuations about those of you who believe you know whats best for the rest of us?

andy157
03-08-2010, 11:11 PM
Lawsuits are inevitable for eminent domain. I wonder if the city can preemt some of it and get the courts to provide a suitable formula or if prior cases have already provided that?Don't they already have a suitable formula for handling potential judgements against the City? I thought there was a sinking-fund established as a way to pass the cost of judgements against the City off on to the business community for payment, am I mistaking?

Mikemarsh51
03-08-2010, 11:15 PM
Sweet ideas you got there Progresso! What next? For those who don't think like you? Going to start weeding out those with a lesser IQ and then start on those not as pretty as you? I suppose your going to start bulldozing through all the neighborhoods you don't feel live up to your expectations. Good thing we have rotten toothed rednecks to help offset your type!

mugofbeer
03-09-2010, 12:11 AM
Mugofbutt, Wow you are something. Maps3 Passed, yes it sure did! Didnít support it for political reasons. Issues change and so do peoples involvement. I do have my brick and plaque that came with it from the groundbreaking for the canal where it went under Oklahoma. You got one of those?* Were you around then? You must have been there.

Sure I was around. Born and raised here but my "around" at that time was in Dallas so I didn't get a brick. Sorry to disappoint you but having a brick really has nothing to do with making silly accusations about people and things pertaining to MAPS and C2S.
*

Show me a half-truth!!!

Sure, I can show you about 20. Go to the Search function and type your screen name and start reading. Much of what you said in the MAPS threads was just laughable as are some of the things you say now. The bottom line is that nobody can plan something like MAPS3 down to every brick and give you a perfect timeline. If this were MAPS1 it might be different but our city leaders have proven 3 previous times that they can be given some discretions. I'd far rather have the plan flexible so the citizens get the most out of their money than have them set the MAPS3 plans in concrete and give us something that isn't the best possible option. For what most of us call flexibiltiy, you call a "bill of goods." It just boils down to sour grapes MikeMarsh.
*

You donít know me and have no clue of my concerns. I have been buying Cusack meats for at least ten years and donít want to see them get screwed.

Eminent Domain does not equal "getting screwed." You are accusing the city so far ahead of the action its just laughable. I don't want to see Cusack Meats get screwed but there isn't anything in the wind that says they will. You're just pulling rabbits out of a hat right now.

Yeah, eminent domain has screwed a lot of people over in the past in other parts of the country (and probably here too at some point), but the Supreme Court put limits on that to some extent and, again, our city leaders haven't shown one iota of evidence they will screw anyone over. Until they show some propensity to take advantage of someone, I think they have earned their stripes so far with previous MAPS programs.


This ďmove forward mantraĒ that you speak of makes me want to barf.

I seeee............ (LOL!)


Investment should come from the private sector. The city should assist, but not fund all of it.

You just defined the previous MAPS programs and their result to the tune of some $2 billion in private investment. Thanks for helping me make my point! (smile)

mugofbeer
03-09-2010, 12:24 AM
Because MikeMarsh was anti-MAPS3 you may view his current complaint as simply a case of more sour-grapes. So be it.

Nevertheless, you can't deny the fact that the Mayor for what ever reason claimed over and over each time he spoke about, or addressed questions regarding the convention center, that it would be "staged last" 10 years down the road. There is nothing half-truth about that. Now it appears as though it (the c.c.) may be moved to the front of the line, is that right or wrong, good or bad, I don't know, nor do I care.

I really wasn't referring to that particular statement when I made mention of half-truths. I've read his comments going throughout the MAPS process. Look, the city leaders couldn't present MAPS3 for a vote without a plan. The original plan was apparently to build the CC last since it was the most expensive part of the plan.

A few of the nations most prominent city planners, sociologists, architects, etc. came to town to view MAPS3 and suggested it be pushed to the top of the list. OK, someone had a better idea? BFD! I would hope our city leaders would be smart enough to seriously take these suggestions under consideration than to be so arrogant as to think they (our city leaders) are above reconsideration. Flexibility is a virtue in such a massive undertaking. So far I've seen nothing but the leaders trying to do the best job they can.


Furthermore, who are you to determine whether or not his concern for those land owners is real and not just another attempt to cast insinuations about those of you who believe you know whats best for the rest of us?

His last 6 months of anti city tirades for the most part. Arguements should somehow support an accusation. His arguements often don't do this. Just as he said he wants to support Cusack Meats (which is a noble cause), he insinuated that they and all the other landowners were going to get screwed in some way. The process hasn't even started so he has no basis on which to make that kind of accusation.

Be real. Legit businesses are few and far between in the C2S area. Give them a fair deal on their land. Help the legit businesses move and succeed elsewhere and - who knows - Cusack may just find doing business outside of a gang infested, auto junk yard and abandoned property infested area just may make them more successful.

mugofbeer
03-09-2010, 12:31 AM
Sweet ideas you got there Progresso! What next? For those who don't think like you? Going to start weeding out those with a lesser IQ and then start on those not as pretty as you? I suppose your going to start bulldozing through all the neighborhoods you don't feel live up to your expectations. Good thing we have rotten toothed rednecks to help offset your type!

OK. Lets just leave all those rat infested, gang graffiti-covered boarded up houses and former businesses. Lets leave all the auto salvage yards leaking oil, gasoline and other chemicals into the dirt and just not have an ambitious redevelopment program to make this city a better place to live. One section of the CBD south of downtown isn't bulldozing the entire city.

But, for what its worth, look at what Detroit is planning to do. Bulldoze (literally) 40 square miles of similar land. Nope, I guess making something nicer, safer, cleaner and usable isn't something we should do with C2S.

betts
03-09-2010, 12:37 AM
You donít know me and have no clue of my concerns. I have been buying Cusack meats for at least ten years and donít want to see them get screwed. This ďmove forward mantraĒ that you speak of makes me want to barf. Investment should come from the private sector. The city should assist, but not fund all of it.

First of all, you might have noticed that the ULI said the city is overly optimistic in its time frame and that it might take 50 years to implement Core to Shore fully. Cusack meats is not going to be affected by the initial park location. They've probably got a fair amount of time to think about relocating and may never be affected by eminent domain.

Who said the city is funding all of the investment in that area? All I know we're paying for is the park and convention center, and it is still possible only the park will be in the Core to Shore area, leaving a considerable amount of area available for private development.


Nevertheless, you can't deny the fact that the Mayor for what ever reason claimed over and over each time he spoke about, or addressed questions regarding the convention center, that it would be "staged last" 10 years down the road. There is nothing half-truth about that. Now it appears as though it (the c.c.) may be moved to the front of the line, is that right or wrong, good or bad, I don't know, nor do I care.

I don't think we have any evidence the Mayor has plans to move the convention center to the front of the line. From what I can tell, the mayor has had nothing to do with the Urban Land Institute's recommendation, and for all we know, may even oppose it.

I personally think it's a pretty good idea, and would be more in favor of the convention center and streetcar being at the front of the line than the park, which I will admit is a reversal of my earlier thinking. I've been convinced by arguments by others here and elsewhere. It's possible the mayor will be convinced as well, but I think it's rather premature to assume that will be the case, or to imply that it was an untruth on his part to say it could take 10 years to complete the convention center. I'm quite sure that was his intention at the time he made those statements.

andy157
03-09-2010, 02:23 AM
[QUOTE=mugofbeer;305548]
*Eminent Domain does not equal "getting screwed."

Yeah, eminent domain has screwed a lot of people over in the past in other parts of the country (and probably here too at some point), but the Supreme Court put limits on that to some extent and, again, our city leaders haven't shown one iota of evidence they will screw anyone over.


Somewhat of a contridiction don't you think? Thank God for the Supreme Court.

Kerry
03-09-2010, 07:19 AM
I haven't been to Cusak Meats but why would anyone think they should move? C2S is about to bring thousands of residents and dozens of restaurants to the area. Seems like a butcher could make a pretty good living off providing select cuts of quality meats to this incoming population. This should be a huge boost in business for them. If they are located on future park land then they might have to move a few blocks but they should stay in the C2S area. There will be lots of hungry mouths to feed.

The same thing goes for muffler shops. The people moving to this area will be bringing their cars with them. Granted it will be a more pedestrian oriented area but people will still have cars. Think how great it will be to have an auto repair business just blocks from your home and employer. No more having to wait around for the repair or trying to get a courtesy shuttle to and from work. You might even get to know your mechanics name because he just might live around the corner from you as well. Heck, your kids might play with his kids in the park.

Mikemarsh51
03-09-2010, 08:13 AM
Andy, I'm glad you noticed mugofstuff was blowing smoke both ways too!

Betts, I appreciate your comments. They do seem reasonable. Maps1 all the projects were listed and done as listed. Maps3 they werent, I think to cover the CC that polled at something like %30 approval. I just dont like what I see as a shiftyness to get someones agenda done. That's it, I dont like that aspect of the program, I just dont like it. IMO, thats all it is, so get over yourself mug!

progressiveboy
03-09-2010, 08:34 AM
MikeMarsh was a rabid anti-MAPS3 poster who simply can't accept that his side lost. His previous posts on other threads show he will tell half-truths and pull conclusions out of a hat to try to make his points.

He has no real concern for those "poor rightful owners" of land in the C2S area who have left boarded up shacks, junk car lots, bars, vacant houses and blighted junk real estate thats worthless for all current uses. He just wants to gripe about, and cast insinuations about those who choose to look forward and understand the concept of "investment." Agree!!

OSUFan
03-09-2010, 09:09 AM
Did I miss something? You guys are acting like the Mayor and/or council has decided to move the convention center first. All I've heard is the is that is what the ULI recomended. Please let me know if I missed anything. I haven't even heard the Mayor comment on it.

OKC@heart
03-09-2010, 09:44 AM
Did I miss something? You guys are acting like the Mayor and/or council has decided to move the convention center first. All I've heard is the is that is what the ULI recomended. Please let me know if I missed anything. I haven't even heard the Mayor comment on it.

Nope you haven't missed anything and you are right, it was a recommendation by ULI to move the site as well as to move up the order of priority for doing the convention center and Hotel sooner rather than later. It is a recommendation that is founded on a vast combined wealth of experience and should be taken seriously. It is my sincere hope that the mayor and others involved will value that recommendation and further qualify it and then do the right thing. If they go maverick on the process and do what they want and disregard those recommendations even under the guise of doing what they promised, that is a real disservice to the public investment and shows recklessness.

The public needs to be educated that with development of anykind, and particularly of the immense scale of what we have undertaken, involves a process of responding to an immense amount of constraints that have to be qualified and programmed around to make any one of the proposed projects to be successful. The ULI made the very good point that the sequence matters in that many of these projects are linked together and so the order can further support and spur private investment that will maximize the return on investment. Doing it wrong could potentially jeapordize the process and stymie the private investment that we hope to incentivize and encourage.

mugofbeer
03-09-2010, 10:26 AM
[QUOTE=mugofbeer;305548]
*Eminent Domain does not equal "getting screwed."

Yeah, eminent domain has screwed a lot of people over in the past in other parts of the country (and probably here too at some point), but the Supreme Court put limits on that to some extent and, again, our city leaders haven't shown one iota of evidence they will screw anyone over.


Somewhat of a contridiction don't you think? Thank God for the Supreme Court.

The use of eminent domain has been abused all over the country. I don't know if it has been used much in OKC in an abusive way since the '60's but I don't recall any local controversy. Yes, the Supreme Court needed to step in and stop obvious abuses such as have been used in CT, NYC and Ft. Worth.

My entire point which you simply overlooked is that our city leaders have had MAPS1, MAPS4Kids, the Ford Center vote, a short MAPS extension and the 2007(?) bond issue as examples of their intentions and leadership where they have not abused anyone. Sure, there have been some unforseen changes, inflation and problems, but they have shown integrity and deserve some discretion in putting together such a massive new set of projects.

City leaders had to put together some sort of plan to present to the people for MAPS3. Whether they make small alterations is of no concern. Until they show any sign of abuse, payoffs or any sort of questionable decisionmaking, whether the CC is built first or last makes no difference whatsover.

Find the contradiction in that.

mugofbeer
03-09-2010, 10:29 AM
Andy, I'm glad you noticed mugofstuff was blowing smoke both ways too!

Betts, I appreciate your comments. They do seem reasonable. Maps1 all the projects were listed and done as listed. Maps3 they werent, I think to cover the CC that polled at something like %30 approval. I just dont like what I see as a shiftyness to get someones agenda done. That's it, I dont like that aspect of the program, I just dont like it. IMO, thats all it is, so get over yourself mug!

Explain blowing smoke MM......

Where in the world do you get MAPS3 projects were not all listed and completed?? MAPS3 hasn't even started! Show some shiftyness. Give an example of anything anyone has done that was belowboard? You are acusing what seem like good, honest people of doing something wrong when a program hasn't even started. Whose done these alleged wrong things? What was it they did? This type of program has to be flexible and someone has to have authority to make decisions as the need for them come up.

Mikemarsh51
03-09-2010, 11:41 AM
Mug, I just laughed when you told Andy157 "Eminant domain does not equal betting screwed......Yeah eminant domain had screwed alot of people". Priceless!!!!!!

My point was Maps1 listed the exact project, all nine of them. They didnt do it on Maps3.

I don't know about you, but for me when a city official says the CC is going to be last, I'm going to think that is the plan. Now that the vote passed a new brain trust says you gotta do it this way! I think that was planned and it looks shifty!

andy157
03-09-2010, 12:04 PM
[QUOTE=andy157;305563]

The use of eminent domain has been abused all over the country. I don't know if it has been used much in OKC in an abusive way since the '60's but I don't recall any local controversy. Yes, the Supreme Court needed to step in and stop obvious abuses such as have been used in CT, NYC and Ft. Worth.

My entire point which you simply overlooked is that our city leaders have had MAPS1, MAPS4Kids, the Ford Center vote, a short MAPS extension and the 2007(?) bond issue as examples of their intentions and leadership where they have not abused anyone. Sure, there have been some unforseen changes, inflation and problems, but they have shown integrity and deserve some discretion in putting together such a massive new set of projects.

City leaders had to put together some sort of plan to present to the people for MAPS3. Whether they make small alterations is of no concern. Until they show any sign of abuse, payoffs or any sort of questionable decisionmaking, whether the CC is built first or last makes no difference whatsover.

Find the contradiction in that.Find the contradiction in that you ask. To begin with, you were doing ok right up to the point where you praised the City for their leadership regarding bond issue projects.

andy157
03-09-2010, 12:11 PM
Nope you haven't missed anything and you are right, it was a recommendation by ULI to move the site as well as to move up the order of priority for doing the convention center and Hotel sooner rather than later. It is a recommendation that is founded on a vast combined wealth of experience and should be taken seriously. It is my sincere hope that the mayor and others involved will value that recommendation and further qualify it and then do the right thing. If they go maverick on the process and do what they want and disregard those recommendations even under the guise of doing what they promised, that is a real disservice to the public investment and shows recklessness.

The public needs to be educated that with development of anykind, and particularly of the immense scale of what we have undertaken, involves a process of responding to an immense amount of constraints that have to be qualified and programmed around to make any one of the proposed projects to be successful. The ULI made the very good point that the sequence matters in that many of these projects are linked together and so the order can further support and spur private investment that will maximize the return on investment. Doing it wrong could potentially jeapordize the process and stymie the private investment that we hope to incentivize and encourage.I agree with everything you have said. Hopefully when its time to do MAPS4 in order to save time, money, and confussion, the City leaders will cut to the chase and bring in the ULI from the get-go.

mugofbeer
03-09-2010, 12:13 PM
Mug, I just laughed when you told Andy157 "Eminant domain does not equal betting screwed......Yeah eminant domain had screwed alot of people". Priceless!!!!!!

My point was Maps1 listed the exact project, all nine of them. They didnt do it on Maps3.

I don't know about you, but for me when a city official says the CC is going to be last, I'm going to think that is the plan. Now that the vote passed a new brain trust says you gotta do it this way! I think that was planned and it looks shifty!

Point 1 - Yeah, just like hitting a lot of fly balls to left in Fenway park result in home runs, but hitting a fly ball to left in Fenway Park doesn't = a fly ball. You know what I meant. You're not that dumb.

Point 2 - I don't have time to go back and re-read the 10000 posts about MAPS3 but it was said early on that state law prevents the ballot from listing out the specific projects and earmarking specific funds that way.

Point 3 - what in the world does it matter if the CC is built first or last? I am far and away more concerned it is built in the right place, it is built in an architecturally successful way and that it doesn't detract from everything else done in downtown.

Our city leaders are just that - city leaders. They aren't urban planners, they aren't architects (I don't think) and they aren't urban sociologists. When a group such as the Urban Land Institute sends advisors who are of such prominence and they, as a group, tell the city leaders that some things should be changed, I hope the city leaders pay close attention!