Streetcars
Then: Doug has an excellent 2 part blog entry (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2007/09/okc-trolleys-part-1.html) In 1921 we had "66 miles of city tracks and its 85 miles of interurban connections". Couldn't locate it but would imagine the number of miles was higher when they were abandoned in 1947.
Now: 5 to 6 miles returning downtown

Traffic Circles
Then: Taken out because of safety concerns
Now: Being brought back, due to "advancements in technology". Still haven't understood how technology has anything to do with the safety factor of a traffic circle. What has changed? If they were dangerous before, they are dangerous now.

Two-way Streets
Then: were converted to one-way
Now: Converting back to two-way

Anyone have others?

Old buildings. Education downtown. A downtown park.

Gee, pretty much everything. There is nothing new going on in downtown today..we're just bringing back the downtown we once had, in every way.

Spartan, it was my understanding that we never really had a downtown Park. There had been some plans for it but never really materialized. Think the Mayor mentioned it somewhere along the way. There was land that the Oklahoman had allowed to be used but they later took it back for one of their buildings.

Seems like this has been a very expensive lesson (and have we really learned anything from it or is history just repeating itself). Consider the tremendous cost in taking those things out and then putting them back in again years/decades later. Often these type of things are funded thru bond issues and the actual cost (after the borrowed money is paid back with interest is double or even triple the stated amount). Like in the case with the removal of the Traffic Circles, bond money was probably used and probably just now paid off. Now we are using bond money again to put them back in again. When those bonds get paid, they will probably decide to tear them out again.

I agree with the buildings. While it is a difficult thing to build an old building, they can certainly be saved from demolition and repurposed. Once they are gone, they are gone. Urban Renewal anyone?

What downtown education are you talking about?

I agree that Downtown was once THE place for shopping but that was before the advent of the burbs and malls/strip centers all over the place. Only way I really see that coming back is for those to vanish or that unique destination retail return. But apparently, one has to pay rather steeply for that type of destination retail. Bass Pro anyone? Even the ULI folks said that the retail envisioned just isn't going to happen. To get ONE store, they said they are looking at a $40M in taxpayer funds. Then when new retail does come, what do we do, we don't put it downtown but let it be built on the fringe (Outlet Mall). Destination retail, stores or at least brands that we don't currently have. I could easily see this as being a key piece to the Core to Shore concept. An anchor point on the South side end of it (not exactly in the CBD, but a heck of a lot closer than I-40 & Council).

When it comes to residential, was downtown ever the concentrated Urban center? I don't recall there being a concentration of mid to high rise residential. There were a slew of hotels (most gone the way of Urban Renewal) but I honestly haven't seen much evidence of the residential most are envisioning. Doug probably has an excellent post but I haven't stumbled on it yet. Not saying it is bad, but again the ULI folks said the Urban Towers in the Core to Shore plan just aren't going to happen either. The cost for building them would make the rents/sales costs too high and we just don't have the economic density to justify more high end. Been mentioned a few times in the threads of people wanting to move downtown but budgets are tight and the consensus seems to be that it doesn't exist. The ULI recommended a range of housing types and price points. But to get those lower price points, they mentioned it would require significant taxpayer subsidy as well.

Well, I wouldn't be taking history lessons from the mayor--there was a downtown park, Delmar Gardens and Wheeler Park (near the site of the new downtown park) were once a meticulously landscaped, Frederick Law Olmsted-inspired park. The space that is currently Bicentennial Park was also once a lot more interesting.

In the way of downtown education, I'm talking about the new elementary school planned for downtown. Also talking about the ACM and OCU Law and OBU MBA program and other educational purposes downtown, which used to be where the city's main high school was. So in that way, students are making a return downtown as well.

As for residential, you can look around the city and you'll find that the majority of apartment buildings that still exist in the inner city were built in the 20s, 30s, and 40s. Jefferson Park, Mesta Park, Paseo, Gatewood, and other areas are just littered with these buildings and a lot of them have been restored and have nice units. Downtown, and especially MidTown which was the residential area of downtown, had a large share of urban apartment buildings as well. Of course, no highrises, but this was never New York, New York.

LOL, was editing my post when you responded

Wasn't Delmar a private operation? Was thinking more of a public MAPS 3 type park (central gathering place for the Community). We have parks scattered all over the City from small neighborhood types to more regional ones, but never the "Main" one that they are talking about w/MAPS 3. But that brings us back to costs again, if Wheeler park was once meticulously landscaped, why did we allow that to go away? What does that say to the new Park being maintained? Yes we can build these things, but especially with MAPS style projects there was never any funding mechanism for the maintenance of the projects. An afterthought if considered at all.

Well it's up to the city's civic passion to maintain what we've got, whether we're talking about roads, or a grand central park. Delmar was once private just as the streetcar was..Wheeler on the other hand was flooded badly by the North Canadian River, and then the civil engineers of the world basically eliminated what was once a great river by damning it up at Overholser. There was flood damage, and then the river was no more, which of course had a detrimental impact on a park located between the riverside and the downtown. Then add to the fact that people just gradually stopped maintaining things downtown. And 60 years later, that's where we are today.

Larry - it all has to do with what I call a Sustainable Society. I was driving down the road the other day and the news came on saying the Jax City Council wants to raise property taxes by 9% to cover funding gaps. One of the items mentioned being cut was median maintenance for local roads (like the one I was on). I then began to look round me at all of the miles and miles and miles of roads that had been built and needed maintenance.

I don't think we as taxpayers can continue to fund the type of geographic expansion we have seen since WWII. We simply don't have that much money, especially considering a large portion of the expansion into suburbia was built on debt. Cities are going to have to become smaller in size with more reliance on public transportation (and by Public I don't necessarily mean public funded - wasn't the OKC streetcars and interurban private?)

Unfortunately in the day and age we live in I just don't see where a private enterprise streetcar could stand on its own, especially considering the alternative (roads) is going to be so heavily subsidized anyway.

...especially considering the alternative (roads) is going to be so heavily subsidized anyway.

That is what I am saying. These well maintained ribbons of roads that we are used to are not sustainable in the long run. They are great now because they were all built on debt, but those days are coming to an end. Governments at all levels are out of money and out of credit. Just today we learned the Oklahoma Teachers Union retirement fund is under-funded by $8 billion dollars. The entire Oklahoma state budget is just $6.8 billion. I'm not sure how many new road are going to get built, especially in a city with 600 sq miles to cover.

Read that part in red real slow. Someone isn't going to get paid or some asphalt isn't going to get laid.

Someone isn't going to get paid or some asphalt isn't going to get laid.

Or both

That is what I am saying. These well maintained ribbons of roads that we are used to are not sustainable in the long run. They are great now because they were all built on debt, but those days are coming to an end. Governments at all levels are out of money and out of credit. Just today we learned the Oklahoma Teachers Union retirement fund is under-funded by $8 billion dollars. The entire Oklahoma state budget is just $6.8 billion. I'm not sure how many new road are going to get built, especially in a city with 600 sq miles to cover.

Read that part in red real slow. Someone isn't going to get paid or some asphalt isn't going to get laid.

I think the $8 billion dollar number is the entire fund, which is only 50% funded. Still, a $4 billion unfunded liability would be crippling for the state.

I'm not confident that Oklahoma realizes that it could see some huge cost savings if it started to become more sustainable and reigned in its sprawl.

At the turn of last century we had a ballpark downtown, but after it was destroyed by a tornado it was never rebuilt. At one time we also had a "riverwalk" downtown, but after massive flooding early in the 20th Century the entire thing was filled in.

Isn't that weird?

At the turn of last century we had a ballpark downtown, but after it was destroyed by a tornado it was never rebuilt. At one time we also had a "riverwalk" downtown, but after massive flooding early in the 20th Century the entire thing was filled in.

Isn't that weird?

It is examples like this that make me really frustrated when I hear people say, this won't work in OKC, or that can't be done, OKC will never be a convention destination, or we will never have a high density downtown. Oklahoma City already did all of those things.

Oklahoma City also had a NASCAR points race in 1954.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20030902/ai_n10159189/pg_3/?tag=content;col1


1954

The new fairgrounds facilities opened. Two years later, the fairgrounds speedway would attract defending NASCAR champ Tim Flock, along with the other stars, to race against the top Oklahoma City drivers in a 100-mile NASCAR points event. This was not the city's launch into motorsports. Before the speedway opened, Oklahoma City had held races at the Stockyards Coliseum and Taft Stadium since '37. Racing ended at Taft in '63.


I had also read several years ago that in the 1950s OKC was the third highest convention city in the country. Only New York and Chicago had more convention business. Wish I could remember where I read that.

Well I'm not sure if dismayed was joking or not.

I was serious Spartan, we really had those things long ago in OKC. I found this out while perusing the downtown library once upon a time. There are many great old books there that document the early years of OKC.... I even remember finding a book on the history of Capitol Hill that, if I'm not mistaken, included such fascinating things as maps of lightrail lines throughout the area. What shocked me was there were lines that went from that area up into the central downtown area, and north into Heritage Hills. I believe there was also a substation where you can switch trains and go as far south as Norman or north to Belle Isle.

I can understand why there was doubt though, my normal state is often sarcasm followed by dismay.