Larry, the difference between demolishing buildings in the Core to Shore area and demolishing buildings in the CBD (from an urban design standpoint) is that there is no streetwall to preserve in C2S as there is along Robinson.

Many people who have never heard any discussions on urban design and never given any thought to the subject will remark that they think a proper urban street (a streetwall as simple as DT Edmond or more built up like Guthrie) is somehow pleasing to them; modern urban design holds the opinion that mheaton described- streetwalls, urban canyons, etc, are inherently inviting and comforting to humans. But you are right, abandoned buildings are not comforting so in the ideal situation the buildings at Sandridge campus would be preserved and restored.

-

There are a few ways to look at Sandridge's plans: 1) Wouldn't it be great to have a new park (but we have lots of parks coming to DT anyway), 2) Wouldn't it be awful to lose a chunk of an urban canyon (we have very few urban canyons), 3) Wouldn't it be awful to lose large buildings of some historic merit (we have only a fraction of DT's architectural legacy left after the demolitions of the 60s and 70s)

Larry, keep it apples to apples and not bring in oranges to the comparison.

You all need to remember, we are talking about the Central Business District. This is (and should be) the densest, busiest, and closest collection of buildings, businesses, and people of the entire metro area AND STATE since OKC is the largest and capital city. We should strive for increased density of said buildings, businesses, and people and protect that which we have - even if it is currently empty.

Why?

Because the CBD should be a dense collection of buildings, businesses, and people - that is the definition of Central Business District and in OKC's history, this has been the case.

I for one, am not totally against ALL of SandRidge's plans - they are quite ambitious and with a few modifications it could totally be a huge boon to that part of downtown. But there needs to be some serious plans to either replace or retain/develop the existing buildings on the Robinson front. In fact, I would be saying the same thing about Devon if they were'nt expanding the East Parking garage or building the Podium building.

also, you need to look at the reasons SandRidge has given for tearing down (and so far not replacing) the buildings on the Robinson front - "to improve views of the tower". ... Hmm, this seems to be an oxymoron sort of comment, because the 30-storey tower can be seen for most of downtown anyways, especially at the Robinson front. So, why tear the buildings down without replacement?

another argument would say, well - if we tear the buildings down, we'd get rid of an amount of class c and lower office space. BUT - there are developers who would LOVe to turn those buildings into housing with retail on the bottom, and this is what the city should be encouraging.

So, in final - I hope my very uneducated thinking could shed a bit of light into why it is important to build and retain the urban fabric we have in OKC's CBD. 1) it is the state's premier CBD and should be 2) in CBD's, you have density and should have it 3) the buildings that are no longer economical as office should be turned into housing (residential and hotel) with retail on the bottom.

These should be key points the city should use in persuading SandRidge to "modify" their plans a little. It wouldn't hurt them if they tore down one of the buildings and sold the others to be developed into a "historic" hotel or condo conversion. Or if SandRidge tore down all of them, but rebuilt two and sold them as office or Hotel/Residential.

Can you imagine if OKC were to get a historic hotel like Conrad in the Hilton Chain, or a REAL renaissance in the marriott chain? I could totally see one of those buildings on the Robinson Front being converted into Oklahoma's ONLY Conrad Hilton hotel, with the other either replaced or being itself converted into condo or for-rent housing; with retail on the bottom.

This is the renaissance the CBD should have and NOT just opening it up further just for the sake of developing a skyscraper.

Yes, SandRidge moved to OKC and purchased the KMG tower, now it is OKC's time to stand up and be a big city - and enforce rules on companies that encourage the central city to prosper. In the long run, SandRidge will benefit because people COULD locate themselves a stone's throw from work or stay in a hotel that takes 30 seconds to walk to the tower, not to mention the myriad of retail options that could be immediately available to their tower employees.

That is a thriving CBD and that is what OKC should be pushing and Im glad to see the city finally start doing just that.

To clarify, in a perfect world, save all the buildings you can (especially if they have some architectural or historical significance). If they really can't be saved then replace them with another building. If there is a building, make sure it is occupied. Enforce City codes and don't allow buildings to get into the condition that they need to be labeled as "blighted" to begin with. Enforce the same rules on out of state owners of property (there was an article in the Oklahoman a while back that said the City doesn't even attempt to enforce out of area landlord violations).

I personally don't see Urban Canyons as being that comforting, actually the idea is more disconcerting than anything else. When ever I think of "Urban" it is mainly negative images that come to mind (crowded, traffic congestion, high crime, over-priced etc etc).

Not sure where someone thought I brought oranges into it (the Mall example?). In any case, throw out the oranges.

In some ways the City is doing things to build up the CBD, then they turn around and give $2M in financial incentives for PayCom to move their business even further out from the CBD. Steps forward/steps back??

Apple Plaza NYC - no people
http://www.howardmodels.com/photo-retouch-digital-enhanced-07/apple/apple-800.jpg

Three people in a plaza - NYC
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2255/1802844740_cfde3e2b5f.jpg

Federal Plaza - NYC
http://www.pps.org/graphics/gpp/federal_plaza_nyc_large

Urban Canyon - NYC
http://streetvendor.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/plaza-photo.jpg

If you think Plazas are great - go to Google Earth and search for plazas. Then go into Streetview and see if anyone is in them. Most are nearly 100% empty and the photos are all shot during the day, and usually a weekday.

It must be really tough to be an OKC urbanist. To envision everything the urbanist wants to embrace about the perfect urban core in OKC and no one stepping up to implement those dreams must be frustrating. Certainly Devon coming to the table has given the urbanist hope, but even their plan was not the perfect plan as they did not build up to the sidewalk and are creating plazas and a park like setting for a substantial section of their property. The only streetwall they are creating happens to be a parking garage. The OKC urbanist gave them a pass though as I am sure the trade off was the 50 story tower, so how could they criticize the plan?

The OKC urbanist dreams of old crumbling buildings being converted to living units and hotels with no regard to the cost of these conversions and the rents and sales prices that would have to be charged to cover the expense of those conversions. The OKC urbanist dreams of retail exploding in downtown OKC on the street level, but there does not seem to be anyone clamoring to lease or buy any space to create retail. It must be difficult to point to OKC's lone urban canyon, Robinson Ave., when UMB sits in the middle of that canyon and has substantial set back from the sidewalk which does not conform to the urban canyon criteria. The most consistent theme that OKC urbanist cling to though is that the risks taken should always be done with someone else's money to devlop what they want to see happen.

I am conlicted as to whether I should feel sympathly for the OKC urbanist or disgust for the unflinching denialability they have in ignoring the reality of the OKC situation. Then again, maybe it is me that is not able to grasp the big picture. I suppose time will tell.

Popsy, I don't think you or Larry understand urbanism and all that is being done behind the scenes to change that. (Project 180, ULI, MAPS 3, C2S and private developer plans). It's okay if urbanism isn't for you, but let us that do care about it have a voice and not drown us out.

Metro. My intent is not to drown you out. My intent is to show the other side of the debate, while at the same time trying to get a handle on your thought processes. I am not privy to private developer plans, but I whole heartely support core to shore, project 180 and Maps 3. I very much want to see OKC's downtown prosper, but I do not share the urbanist ideal of urban canyons, streetwalls, etc.

Pospy. Park Avenue is also a good urban canyon we have. UMB Tower is not setback, unless we are referring to a different tower. You are correct, Devon is building a little park, however, their tower does come close to the street, and what's better is that their development is replacing a parking lot. I think that's another reason the OKC Urbanist loves that project. Or that's how this enthusiast sees it. Also, the city just can't neglect the suburbs, I am pretty sure everyone understands that the suburbs aren't just going to up and evaporate. People in the outlying areas need jobs too.

I understand your debate here, but I think "disgust" is a little too much for me to take in. Especially, when we are just hoping for a better OKC. I don't think you understand urbanism or what we and the downtown leaders of OKC are trying for either. Besides, how long has it been since OKC started it's downtown renaissance? Just over ten years? I think you are jumping the gun just a bit. This is only the beginning.

If I come off as wrong or rude, don't it take it that way please. :]

Architect2010. I would agree that my use of "disgust" was not the appropriate word in this case. Upon reflection, I believe I could have accurately used "frustrated" as i do feel I understand urbanism, but I do not understand the inflexibilty of the OKC urbanist position. Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought Devon was taking the place of a parking garage instead of a parking lot. Also, is 50 feet considered close to the street?

You infer that the OKC urbanist and downtown leaders are working in conjunction to develop downtown and I can only ask if the urbanist and downtown leaders share exactly the same view other than to say we are all trying for a better OKC? Even all of we heathen non-urbanist are closely aligned with downtown leaders in trying for a better OKC. Additionally I would have to say I am not worried about the suburbs as they seem to be thriving for the most part.

Likewise, it is not my intent to come off wrong or rude, but it can sometimes happen as I often feel overwhelmed by the number of urbanist gathered in this forum. Good grief, urbanist even have a member of the media shilling for their position.

Popsy - do you ever cross the tracks to Bricktown or Deep Duce? There is great progress being made in OKC to rebuild a once vibrant OKC high density urban district. If we didn't have to spend sooo much time fighting the 'downtown suburbanist' we could probably make more progress.

This is a really good discussion. Just to elaborate a bit further on my earlier post using visuals, because I think they speak so strongly to the concepts being discussed. I would encourage anyone to check out this site that shows a "what if" rendering of existing spaces transformed along the lines or modern, urbanist principles:

Digital designer shows what future towns could look like | Grist (http://www.grist.org/article/2010-03-05-urban-advantage-steve-price-envisioning-future-urbanism/)

Notice, all the transformations involve creating density, streetwalls, spaces with a more closed in feel. Also, a noticeable absence of large setbacks, and big sweeping plazas, etc...

Kerry. I frequently drive from the suburbs to visit that specific area and the rest of downtown. Could I ask who the downtown suburbanists are at present?

Pospy. Park Avenue is also a good urban canyon we have. UMB Tower is not setback, unless we are referring to a different tower. You are correct, Devon is building a little park, however, their tower does come close to the street, and what's better is that their development is replacing a parking lot. I think that's another reason the OKC Urbanist loves that project. Or that's how this enthusiast sees it. Also, the city just can't neglect the suburbs, I am pretty sure everyone understands that the suburbs aren't just going to up and evaporate. People in the outlying areas need jobs too.

I understand your debate here, but I think "disgust" is a little too much for me to take in. Especially, when we are just hoping for a better OKC. I don't think you understand urbanism or what we and the downtown leaders of OKC are trying for either. Besides, how long has it been since OKC started it's downtown renaissance? Just over ten years? I think you are jumping the gun just a bit. This is only the beginning.

If I come off as wrong or rude, don't it take it that way please. :]

And to add to this, the "devon mini/park plaza is designed to interact with the newly redesigned (and also funded by Devon), multi-million dollar makeover of the Myriad Gardens across the street. This interaction and revamp will breathe much needed life into the Gardens that never reached near potential.

Kerry. I frequently drive from the suburbs to visit that specific area and the rest of downtown. Could I ask who the downtown suburbanists are at present?

Sandridge is in the discussion.

mheaton. Your examples are from the new urbanist school of which I have no problem with and even embrace. Do you believe new urbanism calls for the continuation of having urban canyons or is more emphasis placed on the new facades and landscaping?

mheaton. Your examples are from the new urbanist school of which I have no problem with and even embrace. Do you believe new urbanism calls for the continuation of having urban canyons or is more emphasis placed on the new facades and landscaping?
Reply With Quote

From what I understand, new urbanism, or modern urbanism more generally, embraces the idea of density and development at the human scale. It's not necessarily that you must have urban canyons, rather that the built environment emphasizes mixed use, walkability, and pedestrian scale development - these goals, then lend themselves to the built environment being a certain way. You'll see more streetwalls, urban canyons, buildings closer to the street, and a deemphasis of massive boulevards, windswept plazas, setbacks, parking lots, and huge gaps and distances between buildings that impede those goals.

Importantly, I think the psychology of how people relate to the built environment also plays a key role, which is what I emphasized in my prior posts and attempted to get at with the use of visuals.

As we relate these ideas specifically to the Sandridge proposal, I personally feel that it is contrary to these principles - and, as I took the time fairly recently to walk around the area, look at the buildings, it strikes me viscerally as a very bad idea. We have so few areas of true density in our city. As it's been said on this thread earlier, a CBD is defined by its density, and this would kill a really significant chunk of it. Thus my concern, and why I echo the sentiments of many others here.

mheaton. Did you encounter a lot of pedestrians in your walk around the Sandridge complex? When I took that same walk in the middle of the afternoon I saw very few people, so in my mind I deemed that the building density did not enhance the people density. Granted, adding living units in those buildings might increase the human density if the occupants were retired. Younger folks would be at their jobs during the day, so the only human density would be during the morning and evening rush hours unless they worked at a location downtown where they walk home and back to work during the lunch hour. You could also turn them into section 8 housing or even housing for the homeless and that would increase the human density. Usually the need to walk downtown requires a purpose. Will there be that much interaction between the various buildings to require foot traffic? Do my observations and thoughts have any relevance or do the modern urbanist principles mandate that I am wrong without qualification?

You could also turn them into section 8 housing or even housing for the homeless and that would increase the human density. Usually the need to walk downtown requires a purpose. Will there be that much interaction between the various buildings to require foot traffic? Do my observations and thoughts have any relevance or do the modern urbanist principles mandate that I am wrong without qualification?

Ouch - homeless? Section 8? Well...that's hardly what I had in mind. But no reason for me to beat a dead horse any further.:fighting4

Popsy, you're forgetting the biggest reason that that area is dead. Because Sandridge has most of those buildings boarded up. If they were occupied, it would be a completely different story.

mheaton. I'm sorry if my suggestions did not set well with you as I was only trying to get to the urban human density you seek. As to beating a dead horse I can assure you I feel the same frustation. I would like to ask two more questions concerning the pictures you recently posted. Do you know an area in downtown OKC where those scenes depicted could easily and quickly be replicated? If Sandridge drops their proposal and does nothing with the properties like Kerr McGee did for the last - I do not know how many years, will OKC urbanists feel they accomplished something by opposing those plans?

Do you know an area in downtown OKC where those scenes depicted could easily and quickly be replicated?

That's a really good question. I think we have all seen really, really positive signs of this type of progress in parts of Bricktown, Automobile Alley, and Midtown specifically. Nothing that has reached a critical mass yet - but I am amazed and delightfully surprised at the continued progress in these districts.


If Sandridge drops their proposal and does nothing with the properties like Kerr McGee did for the last - I do not know how many years, will OKC urbanists feel they accomplished something by opposing those plans?

That's a very fair point. I see the problem with the buildings sitting empty. However, given Oklahoma City's sad history as it relates to the demolition of so much of the urban fabric of the CBD, I would ere on the side of caution, and historic preservation in this instance. The flip side of the coin of which you speak, is that should they get approval, tear down the buildings and don't follow through with their plans such as they are - well, that's not a great outcome either. The future is uncertain, and there are no guarantees of...anything, really. But we do know that there are so few mid-rise buildings, as well as any sort of density, anywhere in the city. The whole thing seems a little too IM Pei-esque for me ... I just don't want us to repeat our mistakes, 1970s style. Ya know?

If Sandridge drops their proposal and does nothing with the properties like Kerr McGee did for the last - I do not know how many years, will OKC urbanists feel they accomplished something by opposing those plans?

It's not a simple matter of doing what they propose versus doing nothing at all. They could still do a great deal and not remove all three of those buildings.

Also, allowing them to be removed is no guarantee they will go forward with their plans as outlined. They could simply change their mind, run out of money, or change ownership before they built anything back. This has happened countless times in OKC.

And finally, there are other groups that want to convert those buildings to condos and the only reason that didn't happen is because Kerr McGee was sold and the pending deals fell through. Since that time, SandRidge has fought those developments, no doubt because they wanted to tear them down.

Also, allowing them to be removed is no guarantee they will go forward with their plans as outlined.

This is a huge reason why Oklahoma City is so disjointed and sparse for a city of its size. We tend to tear stuff down and then never build anything else in its place. It took about 30 years for something to be built where Devon is being built now, simply because we tore down what was there and never built anything.

^

This is why I'd like to see the permitting process for demolition changed.

As of now, anyone can tear a structure down without the resources or even plans to build in it's place. In many cities, that is not allowed -- for good reason.

Popsy, I don't think you or Larry understand urbanism and all that is being done behind the scenes to change that. (Project 180, ULI, MAPS 3, C2S and private developer plans). It's okay if urbanism isn't for you, but let us that do care about it have a voice and not drown us out.

I don't think we are trying to drown anyone else out, just trying to understand and if anything, encouraging you to present your side. Explain it, help us understand and sell us on it.

You are correct, I don't understand urbanism, as I posted recently, when I think of urban, it is mainly in a negative context. (When ever I think of "Urban" it is mainly negative images that come to mind...crowded, traffic congestion, high crime, over-priced etc etc). Help me understand what you mean by Urbanism and what are the positive aspects of it? How do you get the positive aspects without bringing along the negative ones as well?

Again, there seem to be views held by the same people that seem to be at opposite ends of each other. They want Urban Canyons but oppose Super Blocks (effectively the same thing). They support buying local and only shopping at the mom-n-pop store (boycott Wal-Mart) yet want the national chains that have so far passed us by to come here. They oppose tearing down of buildings to create open space, yet fully support the park elements of MAPS 3/Core to Shore which has designated the entire 640 acre area as "blighted" and potentially everything in its path will be bulldozed (with some notable exceptions)...with nothing any more definite of taking its place than Sandridge.

I am in favor of Project 180 (but question how many times we are borrowing the money to do it).

I was nodding in agreement for practically the entire 2 hours of the ULI presentation.

Was in favor of most, if not all of the MAPS 3 projects but had serious concerns over the campaign, the Ballot/Ordinance language.

Core to Shore looks very impressive. But as the ULI folks pointed out, some things just aren't going to happen at all and other things need to be rethought. The main obstacle to all of the residential areas in the Core to Shore plans and renderings is cost. All of those new buildings are going to be rather expensive and cost prohibitive for most to afford. Does OKC have enough high end incomes to support the critical mass/high density envisioned here? Again, the ULI indicated we don't and we have already maxed out on that end of it.

What is the median income in OKC? Most say that no more than 25% of your income should go towards housing. What price range does that leave you in?

mheaton. Did you encounter a lot of pedestrians in your walk around the Sandridge complex? When I took that same walk in the middle of the afternoon I saw very few people, so in my mind I deemed that the building density did not enhance the people density. Granted, adding living units in those buildings might increase the human density if the occupants were retired.

Popsy, I dont mean to single you out (but you asked for it, lol :) ), :LolLolLol

but what about my idea, if one (or more) of the buildings on the Robinson front were converted into hip and/or historic hotels? Also, with retail on the bottom, there would be pedestrians and depending upon the type of retail - there might even be pedestrians there all times of the day.

I think this is what you (and a few others) might be missing. You have to go downtown and visualize the existing buildings, but with retail in them, with people living and/or staying temporarily in them.

Look at the life that Hilton Skirvin has brought to that section of downtown. It is a lot, but would have been EVEN MORE if the Chase plaza was not there and instead was a streetwall. But even with that plaza, the hotel has brought back life and even RETAIL to it's surroundings. People have come with it.

Also, look at colcord, same thing. :D

This is what Im suggesting to you and others who can't really invision yet what many on the forum are suggesting we keep. It's not so much (at least in my mind) keeping old empty building just for the sake of keeping the best urban canyon in the state - but it is moreso the potential that urban canyon has at making Oklahoma City a great city. Whenever I come to town with visitors, I always take them to the Robinson canyon; because it along with Park Avenue is really the only TRUE downtown that compares to other big cities. Yes, ours is empty - but even with it being empty people from larger cities can see it's potential (as most often tell me, why don't they open up those storefronts; it would bring tremendous life to the canyon and city....)

Again, we're talking about Oklahoma City's downtown central business district. CBD's should all have some things in common, centre of government, centre of finance, centre of entertainment, centre of commerce, etc. Having this, means it all need to be close together in order to work. It is the part of a city that closest mimicks Chicago and New York - and successful cities are those who have a little slice of their CBD that does. And OKC (today) does, even if it is empty. Imagine with it full.

I do agree with you that those buildings dont work anymore as office, but I am more than confident they could work as residential with retail in the storefronts. Retail might not work right now, but imagine if one of the buildings was a Hotel and the other two were condo/apartment rent buildings. There would be retail at the bottom, and since it is a canyon, there would be significant pedestrains returning.

Again, for case study - Colcord (end of canyon, but retail 'flourising' on Main Street and the end of Robinson canyon); Hilton Skirvin (end of Park Avenue canyon, and despite Chase plaza - the hotel has brought significant upperscale retail); ParkHarvey apartments (the other end of Park Avenue canyon; has brought retail and created a demographic if you will).

Now, imagine the Robinson buildings as all hotels or some hotel, some residential. .... There would be a slew of restaurants and shoppes opening up on the bottom and nearby storefronts. And you would see the nearby populous shopping and eating there as long as those stores offer good product (which competition should ensure).

This to me, is the urban model - and this is what I envision everytime I visit my hometown and see the empty but impressive Robinson and Park Avenue canyons.

I hope that helps give a little food for thought. :D

I don't think we are trying to drown anyone else out, just trying to understand and if anything, encouraging you to present your side. Explain it, help us understand and sell us on it.

You are correct, I don't understand urbanism, as I posted recently, when I think of urban, it is mainly in a negative context. (When ever I think of "Urban" it is mainly negative images that come to mind...crowded, traffic congestion, high crime, over-priced etc etc). Help me understand what you mean by Urbanism and what are the positive aspects of it? How do you get the positive aspects without bringing along the negative ones as well?

Again, there seem to be views held by the same people that seem to be at opposite ends of each other. They want Urban Canyons but oppose Super Blocks (effectively the same thing). They support buying local and only shopping at the mom-n-pop store (boycott Wal-Mart) yet want the national chains that have so far passed us by to come here. They oppose tearing down of buildings to create open space, yet fully support the park elements of MAPS 3/Core to Shore which has designated the entire 640 acre area as "blighted" and potentially everything in its path will be bulldozed (with some notable exceptions)...with nothing any more definite of taking its place than Sandridge.

I am in favor of Project 180 (but question how many times we are borrowing the money to do it).

I was nodding in agreement for practically the entire 2 hours of the ULI presentation.

Was in favor of most, if not all of the MAPS 3 projects but had serious concerns over the campaign, the Ballot/Ordinance language.

Core to Shore looks very impressive. But as the ULI folks pointed out, some things just aren't going to happen at all and other things need to be rethought. The main obstacle to all of the residential areas in the Core to Shore plans and renderings is cost. All of those new buildings are going to be rather expensive and cost prohibitive for most to afford. Does OKC have enough high end incomes to support the critical mass/high density envisioned here? Again, the ULI indicated we don't and we have already maxed out on that end of it.

What is the median income in OKC? Most say that no more than 25% of your income should go towards housing. What price range does that leave you in?

Larry, I think you might be confusing the word 'urbanism' with something else along the lines of 'blight' or perhaps 'grit'.

Blighted areas exhibit the characteristicts that you mentioned but you should realize that many blighted areas area NOT URBAN and don't follow urbanism. Similarly, Gritty areas often have many of the characteristics that you mentioned, and while Gritty areas are urban - they also don't follow most of urbanism.

I'll let others who are more well versed comment further, but I just wanted to make a point that your definition of urban is actually more probably definitions of subsets which could be urban, suburban, or even rural.

You are correct though, that urban areas tend to have congestion and traffic, aka critical mass of people/businesses; but this is a good thing in an urban area because it ensures that said area has commerce and prosperity which translate into city 'quality of life' and livability (and eventually city reputation and tax base) - which is what big cities should want and what OKC should strive for especially in the CBD. And the traffic portion of the critical mass wouldn't ONLY need to be auto oriented, with transit you could get even more pedestrian congestion to an urban area.

^^^

Sounds great but how do you go about doing all of that?

Supposedly much of what you described was in the works before Kerr-McGee left town. Are there no other buildings that those same developers could do this?

It is my perception that Urban Canyons are a relic from the past. That they weren't "designed" per se, that they were a natural out growth from the buildings surrounding them. Keeping up with the Jones type of thing. Have seen old photos and post cards and OKC used to have them. Apparently urban renewal destroyed much of what we had. I am not advocating the further destruction. Even if a building is sitting abandoned, once it is gone, its gone. One has to weigh carefully the costs and benefits and proceed with destruction very carefully.

Are there contemporary examples (last 20 years or so) of new urban canyons? Can we even create the type of dense urban setting as envisioned in Core to Shore? As ULI pointed out, this is all very expensive and to even get a major department store to come here, requires significant public (tax) monies. IIRC, they were saying something in the neighborhood of $40M to get a Nordstroms. That to get a $220M, 700 room Convention Center hotel, would require another $50M in taxpayer subsidies. When it comes to residential, does OKC have the average income needed to make those high rise and medium ones cost effective?

(this post was in response to the one before it, not the one that snuck in while I was typing...LOL)

we do it by having the city champion the idea and the chamber and business community promote it.

We're seeing signs of this happening, but the public at large needs to also show support by attending meetings to make sure the city champions urban development in the CBD AND by supporting businesses and ventures (especially in the short term) once those developments come on board. Over time, they should support themself - but in the short run we'd need a core starter community so that new businesses can survive the infancy stage.

there are examples of cities revitalizing their downtowns and urban canyons are part of that. one thing, larry - it all wont happen overnight; but it can be sustainable with careful planning (by the city) and encouragement (by the city and chamber) and participation (by the city residents at large).

Again, every city started somewhere. Maybe OKC could look back to it's past, when the Main Street canyon was active and live. What did it take to make it the premier shopping street in the state? What did it take to destroy it?

Put the two together and benchmark a few other cities' development, and Im sure we can find great ways to bring downtown urbanism back to Oklahoma City's CBD.

Hot Rod

The problem there is this is all very long term stuff...City leadership...chamber leadership...business community etc is constantly in flux...very difficult to maintain the myopic focus needed for that. Where are you going to get all of the money required to do all of that? The Mayor put a $3 BILLION figure on Core to Shore at one point (probably double that now).

Looking back at the past I would say it was before the growth of enclosed Malls and the wealth of shopping choices anywhere other than downtown. In my parents day, downtown was still THE place to shop (especially during the holidays). Steve could probably give a much better answer on that.

About the only way to realistically get that back is to have destination retail in downtown and ONLY in downtown. But as ULI pointed out, that is not something that is going to happen in the near future and $40M in corporate welfare just to get a single store is absurd. IMO. That is akin to the Bass Pro Deal (which according to the last article I saw on it, years ago, hadn't come anywhere close to the projected payback to the City). Heck, we couldn't even get Bass Pro to commit to it being the only one in the State (then they turned around and built another one in the Tulsa area, reportedly without the financial incentives they "had" to have to come here). Go figure. Only time will tell if the PayCom deal works out as projected.

Then there is that, the City ends up giving them $2M in incentives to move further away from the very CBD they are trying to build up? Steps forward/steps back.

Then you run into the whole competition factor. If the City puts too many restrictions on what can be built etc, they may be inclined to go somewhere else where they can do what they want. Case in point. My employer wanted to build a new printing plant in Edmond (owner lives there) but Edmond had too many restrictions in what type of construction materials etc could be used. This was going to add to the building cost substantially making it cost prohibitive so he decided to build it in OKC instead. Now this was detrimental rather than incentive based, but the end result to the company's bottom line is the same.

May run into that type of situation with Sandridge. Don't know how committed they are to being downtown and in that specific spot. It seems they inherited that location. What is keeping them there?

If you don't see the pleasant elements of urbanism, you are confusing the Industrial Revolution, White-Flight, and Rust Belt economic depression versions of urbanism with modern urbanism. Look to the Pacific Northwest in particular to see beautiful, modern, clean, pleasant, good urban design. Urban does not have to equal overcrowded, smoggy, and crime-ridden, and when you understand that you understand urbanism. The urban environment has been the natural habitat of humanity for thousands of years (until the suburbs became dominant last century)

Newer streetwall in Vancouver

http://cache.virtualtourist.com/1997544-The_Yaletown_Brewing_Co_on_Mainland_Street-Vancouver.jpg

Urban Canyon in Portland

http://pics4.city-data.com/cpicc/cfiles46643.jpg

Future of Union Station neighborhood of Denver

http://www.denverinfill.com/images/blog/2007-02/2007-02-12_wewatta_plaza_private.jpg

One of Europe's fastest growing cities is Oslo, Norway, and they know how to create a clean, modern urban neighborhood.

Aker Brygge

http://www.osloservicedapartments.no/images/arbinsgate1.jpg

Rendering of an urban streetwall currently under construction in Oslo (Google the Barcode Oslo for pictures of construction)

http://media.aftenposten.no/archive/00699/NylandAlle_071123_F_699088a.jpg

Hopefully this shows that any ideas of urbanism as something that will create squalor and poverty are outdated.

Great photos, Shane!

You know guys, I'm starting to become more of a fan of this SandRidge Commons proposal, the more I mull over it. I'm hoping we can get some new plazas that resemble my new favorite downtown plazas..check these out:

http://www.moderntulsa.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/Tulsa-Architecture.jpg
This is a particularly cool plaza in front of Tulsa's abandoned former City Hall bldg. Look at how vibrant, inviting, and bustling it is. This was a cutting edge architectural crown glory when it was first installed, over what used to be an urban neighborhood, in the 60s.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/800px-Boston_City_Hall.JPG
Or this plaza in front of Boston City Hall--I could go on about what a wonderful space this is, but suffice it to say, that this is obviously where Boston gets its world-famous charm, not from dense, walkable neighborhoods.

lol, Spartan is obviously being facetious. lol

both of those plazas look like cold war era bomb shelters.

Spartan scared me for second until I saw the photos. I took a Google Earth tour of the plazas around New York City - all empty.

And people talk about me and Apples/Oranges. Compare the recent posts of empty plazas against what Sandridge is proposing. Night and Day. Mostly barren/concrete/brick with little to no landscaping (in other word's there is nothing inviting about them) or Sandridge's park like atmosphere.


Thanks for the link, Edge.

Having looked over the images there, I have to say that IF Sandridge does everything contemplated in those images, my general opinion is that, overall and in balance, what Sandridge proposes would be a good step in Okc downtown development, though I say this with caveats and some caution.

I say this as one interested in historical preservation on one hand, but having an equal interest in making downtown more spiffy on the other. That mix does present some degree of conflict, but only qualifiedly so. ...

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/sandridge/sandridge1.jpg
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/sandridge/sandridge2.jpg http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/sandridge/sandridge3.jpg
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/sandridge/sandridge4.jpg


(refer back to page 8, post #199 for Doug's complete thoughts...borrowed for the images)

that is far too open on the Robinson Front.

I dont have any problem whatsoever with their plans for Kerr Park and the RSK frontage building (India Temple and that parking garage). If those can't be saved, no problem to me.

But the Robinson front buildings, that's different. It is WAY TOO OPEN, even you can see in those pics. It almost looks like 25% of downtown just got flattened by mother nature (with trees growing in place).

I think a great compromise would be do everything else, but keep/replace the Robinson buildings. If they are kept, they should be sold and redeveloped. If they are replaced, the SandRidge could do what they want (even have a smaller opening for a plaza) provided the frontage wall was retained. Those are my thoughts.

And people talk about me and Apples/Oranges. Compare the recent posts of empty plazas against what Sandridge is proposing. Night and Day. Mostly barren/concrete/brick with little to no landscaping (in other word's there is nothing inviting about them) or Sandridge's park like atmosphere.

Larry, very true. This IS a different plaza.

However my argument, that I was trying to make, is that no matter what environment, no matter how "nice" it is supposed to be when planned, and so on--almost all plazas end up looking like utter crap. Kerry made my point even better by bringing up all of the empty plazas in front of NYC corporate kingdoms, and we know NYC isn't lacking in the street life department--even they have a plaza problem.

The plaza phenom is the plague in corporate-dominated environments, and NO MATTER how nice they are, they always impede from true urban functional form, and they always degenerate over time into something really undesirable. A plaza is not a sustainable form of development, like a building is. Nobody uses a plaza, nobody has memories of a plaza, nobody "goes to" a plaza, and nobody will want to take care of a plaza unless they HAVE to pass through it many times a day.

On a side note, thank goodness we always have Tulsa to make fun of.. :)

...It almost looks like 25% of downtown just got flattened by mother nature (with trees growing in place)....

Well, this IS Oklahoma, "where the wind comes sweeping down the plain" (if not interrupted by those annoying buildings...LOL)

Oh, and don't forget about our tornadoes...it could happen

...no matter what environment, no matter how "nice" it is supposed to be when planned, and so on--almost all plazas end up looking like utter crap. ... The plaza phenom is the plague in corporate-dominated environments, and NO MATTER how nice they are, they always impede from true urban functional form, and they always degenerate over time into something really undesirable. A plaza is not a sustainable form of development, like a building is. Nobody uses a plaza, nobody has memories of a plaza, nobody "goes to" a plaza...

Not taking issue with any of that, but this is where I get confused...if all of that is true...why the HECK DO THEY KEEP BUILDING THEM?

Also adding to my confusion, is all of this is so bad, why are we adding the string of parks from Core to Shore (and beyond)?

Is it just the location (if the string of parks were replacing some sort of street wall, that would be bad but since it is a building here and there that is going to be bull dozed, that is perfectly ok)

Or is it the City is doing it so that's ok, but let a private owner try to do it, then that is what makes it bad?

Why they keep building them: Good point. I would say that there is value in plazas from a corporate image perspective, just as extremely large residences in France still had moats up until WW1. The plaza is vestigial of urban renewal and we haven't gotten rid of it yet, and people like Tom Ward are adding them still yet because they separate the corporate fortress from the bustle of the streets, setting up an area of "calm and tranquility"--an "oasis" in the city. For some illogical reason people are real big on the whole "oasis" idea no matter what you're talking about. We see development as a Thomas Kincaid painting, and the plaza serves a purpose similar to a frame around a Thomas Kincaid painting.

There's one problem with that...
http://www.artfolio-silver.com/art/thomas_kinkade/thomas_kinkade_spirit_of_christmas_lg.jpg
Not downtown-friendly.

As for the park, a park is different from a plaza. A plaza is an irregular space, and a park, if done right, should be a defined space that is its own part of the city. SandRidge is more than welcome to do a 100+ acre park that can become its own part of the city, but they need to do it somewhere other than downtown. The vital thing that has urban advocates up in arms about the C2S park is that we want it done right so that it isn't just another damn plaza. We want it hemmed in by the edges of neighborhoods that will open up into the park. The worst thing we can do for the park is to border it against a superblock structure such as a convention center, and the thing will just be no more than a front lawn for the convention center--just a huge, expensive plaza space when it comes to the side fronting the convention center.

The reality is that in order for the park to be the environment we want it to be then it will have to be surrounded on all sides by activity morning, day, and night. A corporate fortress doesn't generate that, it barely generates activity let alone during the day. Throwing in basketball courts and an auditorium space for SandRidge employees doesn't make the SandRidge Commons proposal mixed-use either. As for the "streetwall," you have a very good point--but consider this: a well-defined park space is the kind of thing that new street wall is built around. SandRidge plaza is being conceived in exactly the opposite manner, by having a chunk of the city hollowed out to make room for nothing.

In the end, don't you have the same thing?

From a practical standpoint what is the difference between a super block (convention center) and a streetwall?

Would it help any if the convention center had residential and mixed use on the exterior walls (so that it didn't even look like a convention center? I know I saw some renderings that indicated that concept (not any of the MAPS 3 renderings). That would also mitigate the loss of the prime space on one edge of the park (since only those units directly fronting it would be maximized).

I have come to the conclusion that debating this subject is only an effort destined to end in futility. From my perspective I have nothing against an urban environment for downtown if it can occur naturally, such as NYC and Chicago developed. What I have a problem with is the urbanist minority trying to impose their will on everyone else. The urbanist in this forum decry the evils of urban renewal in ruining downtown, but I was around in that era and what they did was tear down some very crappy buildings. Were there some historical buildings that should have been preserved, I have no idea. In my opinion it was not urban renewal that decimated downtown, it was the fact that no one wanted to rebuild downtown. Business wanted to be near where their employees and customers lived, which is natural for a business to be successful. This is why Northwest Expressway and Memorial flourished.

Urbanist complain about the growth on the outskirts of OKC and talk about deannexing large chunks of land to force infill, but that will not work because people have a desire to live where they want to live and infill cannot be forced from deannexation. Do urbanist really think that people want to live in OKC for the sake of living in OKC. This is not the case as evidenced by the growth of Edmond, Moore, Yukon, Mustang, Midwest City, etc.

I have come to realize that Urbanism as practiced by the diehard Urbanist, is very much like a religon and debating an Urbanist is similar to debating the bible with the most devout christian. Urbanist have a liturgy that they will repeat constantly and nothing will change from debating the subject. An Urbanist told me a day or two ago that there was no need to try to beat a dead horse and I tend to agree with that, so I will take myself out of the debate unless I read something that makes my blood boil. I do thank the Urbanists however, for allowing me the opportunity to join the discussion.

Not taking issue with any of that, but this is where I get confused...if all of that is true...why the HECK DO THEY KEEP BUILDING THEM??

I am not sure about most cities, but in NYC they had zoning rule in the 70s and 80s that to add stories to the buildings they had to add plazas. The larger the plaza the more stories they could build.

I have come to the conclusion that debating this subject is only an effort destined to end in futility. From my perspective I have nothing against an urban environment for downtown if it can occur naturally, such as NYC and Chicago developed. What I have a problem with is the urbanist minority trying to impose their will on everyone else. The urbanist in this forum decry the evils of urban renewal in ruining downtown, but I was around in that era and what they did was tear down some very crappy buildings. Were there some historical buildings that should have been preserved, I have no idea. In my opinion it was not urban renewal that decimated downtown, it was the fact that no one wanted to rebuild downtown. Business wanted to be near where their employees and customers lived, which is natural for a business to be successful. This is why Northwest Expressway and Memorial flourished.

Urbanist complain about the growth on the outskirts of OKC and talk about deannexing large chunks of land to force infill, but that will not work because people have a desire to live where they want to live and infill cannot be forced from deannexation. Do urbanist really think that people want to live in OKC for the sake of living in OKC. This is not the case as evidenced by the growth of Edmond, Moore, Yukon, Mustang, Midwest City, etc.

I have come to realize that Urbanism as practiced by the diehard Urbanist, is very much like a religon and debating an Urbanist is similar to debating the bible with the most devout christian. Urbanist have a liturgy that they will repeat constantly and nothing will change from debating the subject. An Urbanist told me a day or two ago that there was no need to try to beat a dead horse and I tend to agree with that, so I will take myself out of the debate unless I read something that makes my blood boil. I do thank the Urbanists however, for allowing me the opportunity to join the discussion.

Popsy, I gather by your comments and your name that you aren't in your 20s or 30s. Most people in those generations that are educated and have great jobs want to live in vibrant urban areas full of culture and activity. They want to live in downtowns and be near people their age. That is why people are leaving OKC for cities that have this culture. I know hundreds of people in their 20s that don't want to commute 20 miles to work. They want to walk or bike to work.

This is why a dense urban city is important! I know you can't see outside your box, but try to look at the young people's perspective. I am not saying that all 20 and 30 year olds want to live in an urban envriornment, but a lot do! I feel the more variety of environments for people to live in the more diversity you get in a community. The more diversity the more culture. I am not even refering to race but peoples ideas and jobs. Urban environments tend to attract more creative people. Artists, designers, etc that want to live where they have more interaction and inspiration.

That is why we need a dense urban environment, and by the way we may be the minority now, but that is because OKC does not have an urban enviornment to foster the urbanist, but if it did we would have more urbanists!

Lasome not once have I said anything against a dense urban environment. I have only argued against Urbanists attempting to impose their will on others. The truth of the matter is that if those 20 to 30 somethings want what you say they do, then they need to go now because under the best of scenarios OKC will not be as you envision for quite some time. I am certain OKC would welcome them back if we ever get to the point you would like to get to eventually.

So far as me getting outside my box, I would have to take issue with you. My box has no tops or sides to it. I can be happy and content in most any environment. I hope this is not offensive, but I feel the urbanists are the ones that have the box around them, but I do hope you achieve your goals as long as you do not attempt to infringe upon the lives of others.

Why they keep building them: Good point. I would say that there is value in plazas from a corporate image perspective, just as extremely large residences in France still had moats up until WW1. The plaza is vestigial of urban renewal and we haven't gotten rid of it yet, and people like Tom Ward are adding them still yet because they separate the corporate fortress from the bustle of the streets, setting up an area of "calm and tranquility"--an "oasis" in the city. For some illogical reason people are real big on the whole "oasis" idea no matter what you're talking about. We see development as a Thomas Kincaid painting, and the plaza serves a purpose similar to a frame around a Thomas Kincaid painting.

There's one problem with that...

Not downtown-friendly.

As for the park, a park is different from a plaza. A plaza is an irregular space, and a park, if done right, should be a defined space that is its own part of the city. SandRidge is more than welcome to do a 100+ acre park that can become its own part of the city, but they need to do it somewhere other than downtown. The vital thing that has urban advocates up in arms about the C2S park is that we want it done right so that it isn't just another damn plaza. We want it hemmed in by the edges of neighborhoods that will open up into the park. The worst thing we can do for the park is to border it against a superblock structure such as a convention center, and the thing will just be no more than a front lawn for the convention center--just a huge, expensive plaza space when it comes to the side fronting the convention center.

The reality is that in order for the park to be the environment we want it to be then it will have to be surrounded on all sides by activity morning, day, and night. A corporate fortress doesn't generate that, it barely generates activity let alone during the day. Throwing in basketball courts and an auditorium space for SandRidge employees doesn't make the SandRidge Commons proposal mixed-use either. As for the "streetwall," you have a very good point--but consider this: a well-defined park space is the kind of thing that new street wall is built around. SandRidge plaza is being conceived in exactly the opposite manner, by having a chunk of the city hollowed out to make room for nothing.

Very well said, Spartan! This is one of the best short videos I have found recently that delves into some of concepts we've been discussing in this thread. Kunstler is perhaps a little over the top in parts - but his overall points make this worthwhile viewing:

James H Kunstler dissects suburbia | Video on TED.com (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/james_howard_kunstler_dissects_suburbia.html)

Popsy, I appreciate your being a part of the discussion and this kind of dialogue truly isn't intended to be a script or an imposed will. It is recognizing that there is great potential in OKC and that things have been and are improving and are beginning to slowly take shape that will lead to a more vibrant downtown core. With each renovation of an empty class C office building to residential or other use there are more residents who are entering the dialogue and creating a need for the basics that one looks for where they live. There is a natural lag that happens at first where retailers are hesitant to open shop until there are enough people to support them. But things are beginning to look up, there is no question that we need more to further support those who do wish to live downtown, and it is not just the 20-30 somethings but also emptynesters; who want to have access to amenities and arts etc, but who are trying to simplify and downsize their lives, be free of yardwork, reduce the need to take long drives everywhere.

Again, the recommendations and reactions of us "urbanists" are solutions that can preserve and strenghthen the sense of urban/city living, that we have so little left of. The ideas regarding deannexation and incentivizing businesses who build upward and in the CBD will aid in restoring some of the lost density. These are possible solutions to the challenge. A city is like anything else in life. If you want it to become something great it takes concerted care and attention guiding it until the goal is reached and then constant vigilence and maintenance to keep it going or it will languish and fall to decay and ruin.

So it is with those intentions that we propose principles that are valid and work to increase and encourage development that will add to the quality of the City as a "City". We have hundreds of miles which if a corporation wants to be in a suburban setting they are free to choose to locate in. But there is a desire by many to be in the city and to contribute to the excitement and vibrancy that is there and that they can see is coming and so they desire to participate in that. Well if one then wants to do something that ends up destroying part of the sense of city it is necessary to speak up. While there still may be an opportunity to show our own goodwill and extend a hand in helping the corporations to understand how its fellow City, citizens feel about it so that a workable solution can be arrived at that will hopefully meet with consensus.

The principles of urbanism are not always understood without some research into what has gone into these thoughts and so as was suggested previously if you are so inclined to wish to understand where we are coming from. Please do go to the library and see if they have the bood by Jane Jacobs, "The Death and Life of Great American Cities" and it will not take very long before you will see based on the case studies shown and used as basis for many assertions as to why these principles are valid and actually essential for creating a ballanced and sucessful city that is economically viable which has to be for any of it to work at all.

I suppose that you are actually a lot more close to understanding these principles then you may suppose there is just some of what has been communicated that may not have been clear enough to answer the remaining hesitations and reservations that you have. If you would read some more on it I think that a good many of your unanswered questions might be addressed and satisfied.

I hope that you will take the time on it becase I think whether or not you ever would be interested in living in a downtown area or not, it would more clearly help you understand why some of proposals have a common thread. This comes from a 35 year old Architect, who is the father of 4 children who lives in the burbs, but loves our city and desires for it to regain its health and vibrancy as a way to strengthen the economy of the entire region and state. The issues of city are far wider consequence than simply the incorporated areas. I have no idea if this is at all helpful but that was the intent, not looking for a "convert" but simply seeking to share information so you can form your own opinion but based on seeing where "urbanists" are coming from. Anyway have a great day!

In the end, don't you have the same thing?

From a practical standpoint what is the difference between a super block (convention center) and a streetwall?

Would it help any if the convention center had residential and mixed use on the exterior walls (so that it didn't even look like a convention center? I know I saw some renderings that indicated that concept (not any of the MAPS 3 renderings). That would also mitigate the loss of the prime space on one edge of the park (since only those units directly fronting it would be maximized).

Well if it looks like a convention center, acts like a convention center, smells like a convention center.. it's probably a convention center, no matter how you dress it up. The best approach with that project is to design the best convention center, make it unique and extremely attractive, even make it into a landmark for our city--and then put it somewhere that it won't kill downtown if its design ends up being flawed. Don't take the chance with the parkside neighborhood, but at the same time, relegating it to the producer's coop area is an opportunity to elevate that area and a challenge to the convention center designers to do it right.

As for the streetwall vs superblock, the two couldn't be more different, but the danger is in the fact that they can both be mistaken for the same. The streetwall is something that interacts and caters to the human scale, which primarily exists on the sidewalk (or should). This is where people jog, stroll when they're out on dates, get a table and people watch, walk from home to the store, head out to go find their car, etc. The superblock is a wall that defines the space exactly the same as the streetwall would, but fails to foster activity and interact with the portions of the city it borders. The convention center will be closed and locked up when a convention isn't in town NO MATTER what the Mayor's office is probably fixing to come out with about the convention center being mixed-use and blah blah. It's still a convention center and nothing will change that. Housing attached to the front facade of a convention center will fail because most people don't want to live their entire life inside of a convention center, believe it or not..

OKC@heart. Thanks for sharing your views, however before I check out or buy "The Death and Life of Great American Cities" I have a couple of questions which you can probably answer. First, would you mind listing which Great American Cities have died? I am only aware of some dying ones like Detroit. What seems to be killing large cities today is the growing taxation by those cities on their corporations, businesses and citizens. I read stories about taxation killing off cities more than anything else.

My Second question about the book is that I would like to know if it is a page turner. When I read, I do not want to put the book down except to go to the bathroom as I can even read while eating. What I'm trying to ask is will I find it to be extremely entertaining or does it include numerous pages of boring statistics? Does the writing keep you on the edge of your seat? If not, I am probably not a canidate.

As I have tried to stress in several posts in this thread I am not anit-urban living. In fact I would even be willing to live in the core if the new park had an 18 hole golf course in it and my deck backed up to it.

I hope no one took this as my attempt at continuing the debate, as in this thread I am no longer a debater. Moderation and exceptions are not always detrimental to a cause.

popsy, not to gang up on you - but the suburbanist and ruralist have ruled over OKC for two decades (or more) and almost destroyed the inner city and downtown with forcing thier rules and encouringing growth only if it expanded the city.

Why can't there be a puch now for urbanism in the ONLY urban district we have left?

Why can't there eventually be a balance, with OKC being a dual city (urban and suburban)?

As Iam said, it would be a balance that would ensure OKC to be among the most diverse and prosperous cities (meaning, many high paying jobs and culture) that OKC has been lacking until just recently.

Hot Rod. I have no problem with being ganged upon. Most members of this forum seem to be urbanists and I certainly expected it, however I foresaw being attacked more harshly and that has not happened, for which I am appreciative. I have to admit I do find OKC urbanist being confusing to me. My understanding is urbanist want to see zero setback, with a continuos streetwall in each block, yet claim that Robinson and one other street are the last urban canyons in the City. This confuses me.

It confuses me because I was at the Devon site this morning watching the second crane being erected and afterwards drove down Robinson to experience the sense of security of urban canyons and streetwalls that I have overlooked in the past. What I found was in contrast to what I expected. Bank of Oklahoma and Bank of America had significant setbacks and Bank of America had a small plaza or park with sculpture on one corner. There was an extra wide alley type area between the IRS building and the building to the north. There was a small park and entryway between the IRS building and the Colcord Hotel. There was also one alley that opened up that made me feel insecure about ever walking that side of the street. From the observations I made I can only ask if OKC urbanist make an exception in these cases and still call Robinson an urban canyon?

It also confused me when you said a balance between urban and suburban (dual city) would ensure high paying jobs and culture. An explanation here would be greatly appreciated as all the economics, business and management classes I have taken failed to mention the connection.

The only other question I would like to ask is who, besides Sandridge, is going to be pushed to make the core more urban. Apparently other corporate towers are about to be built and I just have not heard about them yet, maybe.

Other than the above, I do agree with you that it is downtown's turn. For those out there that are saying "Don't Chicago my OKC", I would urge you to find a different forum to express your views.

Popsy,

As for Robinson Avenue..

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/statehood/1910robinson.jpg
This is what it used to look like. It's nowhere near like this today, but it has suffered a fate better than Broadway. I always say if you want a street in downtown that actually does FEEL urban, check out Harvey Avenue..

However there are 2 or so blocks north of Couch that begin to feel well hemmed-in along Robinson. What we're talking about is further eroding the density of the north side of downtown which hasn't been eaten away as badly as the south side of downtown.

I appreciate that you're pulling for downtown, and you've expressed that you want it to be successful--and there is NOTHING wrong with your point of view in that you're definitely not an urbanist. You're a suburbanist who's willing to give downtown a chance, and that's awesome. The only statement I have a problem with is the idea, "Aside from SandRidge, what corporation is going to help make Downtown OKC more urban?"

I take issue with that statement for a number of reasons, the first being that I don't want a corporation coming to the rescue of Downtown OKC because usually it doesn't go nearly as well as Devon Tower. SandRidge is in fact about par for corporate investment in downtown real estate, so kudos to them for failure to think outside the box.. and I also take issue with it because downtown is about more than just corporations. I'd rather a residential real estate developer or a retail come to the rescue of that block of Robinson.

And I also take issue with the idea that downtown development is limited..there is no reason it should be limited, and the only thing limiting it is that rational. We do NOT have to accept the SandRidge development for fear that there is nothing else coming for Downtown OKC. And of course you have to believe SandRidge wants to do their project, and that the plaza isn't a vital component to them..the idea is to get them to make their project, the rest of which is great, just without tearing down buildings that they don't want to replace. Especially the KerMac Bldg which has historical merit and can easily be restored.

As I have tried to stress in several posts in this thread I am not anit-urban living. In fact I would even be willing to live in the core if the new park had an 18 hole golf course in it and my deck backed up to it.

Now your talking. A high density condo/apartment/hotel development built around a golf course downtown would be very cool. I don't think you can get 18 holes but a quality 9 hole course would fit nicely north of Reno between I-235 and the Ft Smith Junction. Most of the land is vacant industrial.

As others have pointed out, which makes more sense, having a building that is vacant/empty/boarded up or an open landscaped green park like space? Which is more inviting and gives you a feeling of security? Boarded up buildings sure don't. IMO

When we talk about walkability, it's not just about getting from point A to point B. We don't want people just to walk though. We want them to stop and stay awhile. Get a snack or lunch and eat it at a bench, or do a little window shopping before taking a rest under a tree.


If parks are such a bad thing to have in a downtown/urban setting why then are we establishing a chain of parks extending from the CBD, to the River and beyond? If the Suburbanization of the Urban space is so bad, why are we going full steam ahead with it?

There's a huge difference. We're talking about taking a large chunk out of our densest few blocks. The Core to Shore park replaces a few one- or two-story blighted buildings. There isn't significant suburbanization involved. PLUS, the central park is to be a programmed park, not just a landscaped plaza surrounded by locked corporate buildings. Again, a REASON for people to be there.


They want Urban Canyons but oppose Super Blocks (effectively the same thing).

Not in the least. Urban canyons have street level activity and the things that bring that activity. They don't require blocks and blocks of space to be gobbled up so a half-mile long blank wall or parking lot can be erected.


I often think of malls as an example. The stores could be described as having zero set back etc but which mall do you feel safer at? The mall that has true density with nearly 100% occupancy and is busy with shoppers or a mall that has a couple of anchor at opposite ends with nothing but empty store front space in between?

Interesting analogy. Forget "feeling safe". That's just one aspect. Would you rather go to a mall where you have to walk past a bunch of empty storefronts to get from one anchor to another, or would you rather go to a mall that's 100% occupied with stores? Even if you're passing stores you aren't so much interested in, at least you're passing activity and LIFE. If we allow Sandridge to proceed as planned, that leaves that same empty, open space and we'll never have the potential to be the Penn Square equivalent of downtown pedestrian friendliness.

What's more inviting, this:

http://www.priceedwards.com/announcements/boksale08/bld.jpg

or this:

http://www.troubadour-blues.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/3rd_beale.jpg

If we are going to allow them to demolish, they need to replace with street fronting mixed-use space.


I probably won't get an answer to this question, but I have to ask. How did you become an urbanist. I think it would be really interesting if each urbanist in the forum could share.


I grew up in the suburbs (Edmond) but my family were members of an inner city church (Northwest Baptist) that intentionally chose not to abandon 23rd Street for the wealthy, homogeneous suburbs. I think that has a lot to do with the evolution of my own thinking. Because I grew up in a very diverse church--ethnically, socioeconomically, politically--I developed a more open mind to others and an appreciation for the areas of town that fostered creativity and community. All of this dovetails with the ideas behind urbanism.


I think a great compromise would be do everything else, but keep/replace the Robinson buildings. If they are kept, they should be sold and redeveloped. If they are replaced, the SandRidge could do what they want (even have a smaller opening for a plaza) provided the frontage wall was retained. Those are my thoughts.

It would make much more sense to put the new structure on the corner of RSK and Robinson, and make Kerr Park slightly larger.


From my perspective I have nothing against an urban environment for downtown if it can occur naturally, such as NYC and Chicago developed.

HA! You think the average citizens in NYC and Chicago never had to stand up against bad decisions made by the powerful? What exactly is natural to you?

Actually Robert Moses was quite UN-natural. :ohno:

Great analogy (mall) jbrown!

Out of curiosity - who is going to use this plaza? How many people working downtown have time to lounge around for an hour and read a book under a tree? At best, this plaza would be used for 1 hour a day, and most days like if it is hot or cold, it won't be used at all. OKC isn’t ancient Greece where people are going to sit in public plazas and think great thoughts for hours on end. This is why every corporate plaza on the planet IS EMPTY under normal conditions.

Kerry, maybe they are building it so when we hit the Singularity (which experts predict will be within the next 30 years or less), we'll have plenty of time to think, while the machines do all the work.