http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5088/5351784215_7e462f3301_b.jpg

"Hindering Connectivity" - OKGazette


When the new Interstate 40 alignment is opened in 2012, the current I-40 alignment is set to be replaced with a partially at-grade boulevard. The eastwest vehicular connection made by the boulevard bisects the heart of the Core to Shore plan’s primary north-south pedestrian connection, introducing a significant barrier between Oklahoma City’s newly renovated Myriad Gardens and what will be the new MAPS 3 downtown park.

From the beginning, the purpose of Core to Shore has been to enhance the north-south connections between down town and the revitalized river corridor.

And more recently, after being identified as one of the worst cities in the U.S. for pedestrians, there have been signs city leadership is ready for a more balanced approach to infrastructure.

So why is this east-west vehicular connection being given priority over the plans for the park and pedestrian safety? After spending more than $600 million to construct the new 10-lane I-40, is it really necessary to spend more than $80 million more to build six lanes of redundant asphalt? We would do better to commit to building a first-class park system and give priority to the north-south pedestrian connection.

Read complete article here (http://bit.ly/hfOa7H).

Is that your plan? Why does Central Park extend up to the Myriad Gardens knowing that there will be a large mixed-use development on the current Ford Dealership site? I do love the idea of the boulevard going under the park, but that sounds so incredibly cost prohibitive.

I thought the mayor and several city leaders had spoken out and said they don't envision a six lane road. Do I remember correctly? I am totally against anything with that much asphalt. But, if we have a road that is more green than grey and has ease of access, I can see it being more pedestrian friendly and potentially even appealing to pedestrians.

I too thought the park starts south of the boulevard with the Ford site to be developed. If so, then the boulevard is the northern edge and is a grand entrance to the OKC Arena area and next to a modern mixed use urban development.

Boulevards done right can be very nice and not necessarily pedestrian unfriendly. One of the greatest pedestrian areas in the entire world is a wide boulevard. You may have heard of it...the Champs Elysees.

The diagram is intended to demonstrate the possibility of continuing the central park north to Reno, creating a continuation of, and adjacency to, the newly renovated Myriad Gardens. As it stands, the combination of distance and boulevard traffic will create a barrier between downtown (and the Myriad Gardens) and the new park.

Putting the boulevard underground is an option, but likely cost prohibitive. A better approach from a urban design and pedestrian standpoint is to dead-end the boulevard at the park's perimeter. This would mean the west side of the boulevard dead-ends at Hudson and east side of the boulevard dead-ends at Robinson. Of course, by terminating the boulevard(s) in this way it creates a vista opportunity that far surpasses what is currently proposed.

Chicago's Buckingham Fountain is an excellent example of the possibilities that exist if you properly terminate a major street downtown (aerial here (http://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&q=chicago+buckingham+fountain&fb=1&gl=us&hq=buckingham+fountain&hnear=Chicago,+Cook,+Illinois&t=h&ll=41.875896,-87.619625&spn=0.002279,0.005&z=19))

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2712/4249664411_ea6a69413c_z.jpg?zz=1

A number of similar street terminations and vista/monument examples can be found throughout the world.

I guess I'm just a little confused as to why this is a thread topic.

I understand the "dead end" idea of running the Boulevard into the park, but why is this being brought up like it's a viable solution? Are you saying the City should take the land already set for redevelopment (Ford dealership) and turn it into more park space?

The Central Park will not be going north of the new blvd anyhow. While road size might still be an issue, the park has nothing to do with it. However, I don't think OKC needs a 6 lane road running through downtown either. 4 lanes, nice median with a streetcar, and back-in angled parking should do it. That way people shopping don't need to stand in the road while putting stuff in their trunk.

I do love the idea of the boulevard going under the park, but that sounds so incredibly cost prohibitive.

I agree it is a nice concept but the reality with costs and what has already been decided it really seems this pie in the sky is not a happening situation.

I thought the mayor and several city leaders had spoken out and said they don't envision a six lane road. Do I remember correctly? I am totally against anything with that much asphalt. But, if we have a road that is more green than grey and has ease of access, I can see it being more pedestrian friendly and potentially even appealing to pedestrians.

Yeah, I think they've abandoned the vision for a super wide blvd.

The concept as presented would actually provide a cost savings to the city/state. The proportional construction costs of the boulevard is greater than would be the park land acquisitions. I absolutely think it is not only a viable solution, but a preferable solution.

You don't create vital urban centers by increasing the amount of roadway. The park will be a significant failure for years to come unless some effort is made to more closely connect the park to downtown. Stretching the northern edge of the park to Reno accomplishes this. Further, the boulevard would still exist for ingress/egress into downtown, and I think the entry experience would be enhanced as a result of the changes.

Yeah, I think they've abandoned the vision for a super wide blvd.

It is currently being designed as a six lane thoroughfare with the possibility of an additional designated left-hand turn lanes. The "super wide" version was even wider still.

My only question is if this was to be done who profits financially from it??? Follow The Money!!!

What problem is trying to be solved by going underground where a park doesn't exist?

Putting the boulevard underground is an option, but likely cost prohibitive. A better approach from a urban design and pedestrian standpoint is to dead-end the boulevard at the park's perimeter. This would mean the west side of the boulevard dead-ends at Hudson and east side of the boulevard dead-ends at Robinson. Of course, by terminating the boulevard(s) in this way it creates a vista opportunity that far surpasses what is currently proposed.

See above.

MustangGT - As for "who profits financially from it???"

From the proposal above? I would argue the taxpayers of Oklahoma City, both from lower costs and increased quality of life.

How is burying a road cheaper than bulding it at grade??? First time I have heard of this? As to benefitting I mean those in the know who stand to put money in their pockets, and no I do not mean the contractors hired to do the work.

Once again, what problem are we trying to solve by going underground? BTW - downtown already have multiple dead-end streets that cause enough problems. Not sure another is needed.

It is a solution in search of a non-existent question. Kerry once it is discovered who lines their pockets with the money we will know why.

It is a solution in search of a non-existent question. Kerry once it is discovered who lines their pockets with the money we will know why.

The basic premis is wrong. There will be No park north of the New Blvd other than the Myriad. Those 4 blocks with the words 'Central Park' on them are going to be part of a 6 block mixed use project containing residential and retail components. Construction will be starting soon on it (soon being sometime in 2011).

If they want dead end streets the Prominade Park south of the new I-40 is going to cause 3 or 4 of them.

It is currently being designed as a six lane thoroughfare with the possibility of an additional designated left-hand turn lanes. The "super wide" version was even wider still.

Blair, so you're telling us that since we gave the city flack over that and Mayor Mick conceded he'd favor downsizing the boulevard, that they really only downsized it by a lane? I remember it was going to have designated parking areas that had their own freeway exits practically..it sounds like that's all they've taken out.

Or has the city just not gotten around to redrawing the plans for the boulevard?

Kerry - I understand what you are saying. However, I am advocating that the city consider extending the central park north to Reno so as to more closely connect the new central park to downtown and improve the parks likelihood of success. Also creating a seamless, rather than interrupted, pedestrian/bike connection to the south. Thus, it is not a false premise, but rather a stated assumption that necessitates the modification to the boulevard.

I think the advantages our significant and the costs are minimal (if at all). The planned development could just as easily be carried out on the park perimeter, helping to frame and activate the park's edge.

Enjoying the dialogue. Thank you.

p.s. - To be clear, I have not - at any point - advocated putting the boulevard underground. I think this is not an appropriate solution to what is an actual problem. The problem being that the boulevard disconnects the park south of the boulevard from the pedestrians north of the boulevard.

Blair, so you're telling us that since we gave the city flack over that and Mayor Mick conceded he'd favor downsizing the boulevard, that they really only downsized it by a lane? I remember it was going to have designated parking areas that had their own freeway exits practically..it sounds like that's all they've taken out.

Or has the city just not gotten around to redrawing the plans for the boulevard?

This is more or less correct. The overall right-of-way of the boulevard, which was originally designed at over 270 feet, has been reduced significantly. However, the central thoroughfare portion is still on track to be built with at least six lanes, more or less creating an urban condition similar to that provided by E.K. Gaylord boulevard between downtown and Bricktown.

This is more or less correct. The overall right-of-way of the boulevard, which was originally designed at over 270 feet, has been reduced significantly. However, the central thoroughfare portion is still on track to be built with at least six lanes, more or less creating an urban condition similar to that provided by E.K. Gaylord boulevard between downtown and Bricktown.

OK, so basically what needs to happen here is the city needs to receive more grief and go back to the drawing board again and design a street with no more than 4 lanes that are narrow. Are there federal or state funding requirements in the U.S. that place restrictions on lane width? That might also be an issue.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if they attempted a somewhat wide median with huge trees. If they did that though, it had better be a street that is still pretty easy to cross..30 mph at the most. Perhaps utilize the median as park space. I'm not against creating a thoroughfare that is truly "world-class" I'm just saying do it realistically. The worst we can do is create a boulevard with too much capacity that will never be needed. That's not urban. The reason those 8-lane boulevards with enormous plazas are "world-class" in Europe and Buenos Aires is because they are full of traffic and people. Such would NOT be even close to the case in OKC.

OK, so basically what needs to happen here is the city needs to receive more grief and go back to the drawing board again and design a street with no more than 4 lanes that are narrow. Are there federal or state funding requirements in the U.S. that place restrictions on lane width?

My understanding is that ODOT is currently in charge of the project's design and implementation, and that existing agreements require at least six lanes, each eleven feet wide - or 66' of crossing distance. The contract has already been let on the design, so a change of course would need to happen fairly soon. ODOT is just doing what they do, but while they might give us a $80 million boulevard, in the process we will significantly cripple a $120 million park.

OK, so basically what needs to happen here is the city needs to receive more grief and go back to the drawing board again and design a street with no more than 4 lanes that are narrow. Are there federal or state funding requirements in the U.S. that place restrictions on lane width? That might also be an issue.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if they attempted a somewhat wide median with huge trees. If they did that though, it had better be a street that is still pretty easy to cross..30 mph at the most. Perhaps utilize the median as park space. I'm not against creating a thoroughfare that is truly "world-class" I'm just saying do it realistically. The worst we can do is create a boulevard with too much capacity that will never be needed. That's not urban.

Thank you. I couldn't agree more. I would be fine with the streetcar running down the boulevard, if that's a route the ultimately looks reasonable. But it's got to be pedestrian friendly or it does create a huge barrier between the city north of the boulevard and that south. If we're going to have stop signs every block, that negates the value of a multi-lane thoroughfare and without them, it creates a huge danger zone for pedestrians and will effectively cut off any access to the river, the park and any new development south of the boulevard. We'll have a no-man's land between the river and the boulevard, which will totally destroy any value of the park. If the park is to be the shining star of MAPS 3, the boulevard has to be pedestrian centric.

Thank you. I couldn't agree more. I would be fine with the streetcar running down the boulevard, if that's a route the ultimately looks reasonable. But it's got to be pedestrian friendly or it does create a huge barrier between the city north of the boulevard and that south. If we're going to have stop signs every block, that negates the value of a multi-lane thoroughfare and without them, it creates a huge danger zone for pedestrians and will effectively cut off any access to the river, the park and any new development south of the boulevard. We'll have a no-man's land between the river and the boulevard, which will totally destroy any value of the park. If the park is to be the shining star of MAPS 3, the boulevard has to be pedestrian centric.

Can you say Lincoln Boulevard?


My understanding is that ODOT is currently in charge of the project's design and implementation, and that existing agreements require at least six lanes, each eleven feet wide - or 66' of crossing distance. The contract has already been let on the design, so a change of course would need to happen fairly soon. ODOT is just doing what they do, but while they might give us a $80 million boulevard, in the process we will significantly cripple a $120 million park.

Alright Blair, so what can we do?

Spartan we can contact ODOT and voice opinions, write letters to the editor, maybe get some TV media play. However IMHO ODOT will be a much less inclined than OKC powers that be, to listen or change course. Changing the minds of local politicians is vastly different than changing the minds of a statewide agency with a multitude of constituencies both known and unknown.

The worst we can do is create a boulevard with too much capacity that will never be needed. That's not urban. The reason those 8-lane boulevards with enormous plazas are "world-class" in Europe and Buenos Aires is because they are full of traffic and people. Such would NOT be even close to the case in OKC.

Good point. Too much capacity would be killer. Most "world class" avenues that are heavily trafficked connect the center to the edge and are well suited to balance commuting traffic needs in a rich urban context. Champs Elysee, Las Ramblas and Commonwealth Ave are all such examples.

In contrast boulevards - a term that originated from bolwerk, a Dutch word for walls - were originally meant to provide pedestrian promenades and green belts on land that had previously been occupied by fortifications. (Vienna's Ringstrasse (http://community.webshots.com/photo/fullsize/1394804347046091027LZqElJ) is a terrific example). These paths necessarily encircled the town and thus did not enhance connections between center and edge, but between edge and edge. Either way, it was only later that many boulevards' grandiose park qualities were ignored in favor of more traffic capacity. The Boulevard Périphérique in Paris - one of Europe's busiest highways - is a prime example (http://image-photos.linternaute.com/image_photo/550/boulevard-peripherique-1417810321-968565.jpg).

What to do now?

As for what to do. Perhaps we should start by asking everyone - city reps, ODOT officials, okctalkers, and neighors - some thought-provoking questions.


Is the OKC boulevard a solution in search of a question? What problem is it that the boulevard is attempting to solve?
If we are rebuilding a ten-lane highway to replace a six-lane highway, how is it that another six-lanes of traffic capacity is needed?
If the primary objective of Core to Shore was to connect downtown to the river, why are we creating another major thoroughfare that runs perpendicular to this path and introduces a barrier to this connection?
Do you think you would choose to regularly walk the distance from downtown to the new central park, when the newly renovated Myriad Gardens already offers so much in terms of programming?


By the way, if you are late to the discussion, this OK Gazette piece (http://bit.ly/hfOa7H) was the jumping-off point.

Good point. Too much capacity would be killer. Most "world class" avenues that are heavily trafficked connect the center to the edge and are well suited to balance commuting traffic needs in a rich urban context. Champs Elysee, Las Ramblas and Commonwealth Ave are all such examples. .

Champs Elysees doesn't connect center to edge. It connects Place de la Concorde (a huge open plaza at the end of a gardens), with the Arc de Triumph and a huge traffic circle. It is only 2 km long and travels through park area at one end and some of the world's most expensive residential and commercial which is lining it. It is beautiful and iconic. Today, its design wouldn't be approved by any on here, I don't think, based on comments I read.. And Las Ramblas is primarily a pedestrian plaza with restricted single lanes for restricted access and not really for driving through. These two are completely apples and oranges.

Commonwealth is a different story, and maybe more applicable. The center area is heavily treed and has a walking path and benches along its length, if I recall correctly. It goes from Boston Commons past some pretty pricy residential. If we widened the median area for landscaping and built a winding walking path the length of it, it might actually ENHANCE the walkability. Add a bicycle lane separate from the walking path and either of the streets. Put stoplights at each block to make crossing easy. Create a walking/jogging/bicycling lane to the park/OKC Arena, etc. Make lemonade from lemons.

If you want something different, get active, the sooner the better. The neighborhood groups along Lake Hefner Parkway significantly altered the preliminary plans and pressured ODOT into making the changes.

Instead of bringing the boulevard to dead ends, why not create a traffic circle with a fountain or statue in the center? Which is sort of what the ULI recommended. That would create a vista point, but maintain vehicular connectivity.

I asked a long time ago why the Myriad Gardens and the MAPS 3 Park were not truly connected, interrupted by the dealership property w/mixed use development. But maybe it was because of the Boulevard (which I still say we don't need, but they seem hell bent on building it anyway).

Larry - I am kind of with you. I am thinking I would rather just see the area return to the original grid system. Just put California, 3rd St, and all the cross streets back in and be done with it.

Champs Elysees doesn't connect center to edge. It connects Place de la Concorde (a huge open plaza at the end of a gardens), with the Arc de Triumph and a huge traffic circle. It is only 2 km long and travels through park area at one end and some of the world's most expensive residential and commercial which is lining it. It is beautiful and iconic.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5086/5354722030_bfb308e303_b.jpg

Rover - I am impressed with your familiarity with all of the streets mentioned and you bring up a number of very good points. Before responding further, I have to defend my myself on the center-to-edge description of the Avenue des Champs-Élysées. While the street does terminate, in name, at the Arc de Triomphe, it continues outward, in a straight-line, as the Avenue de la Grand Armee until it reaches the aforementioned Boulevard Peripherique. Thus, while I understand your initial objection, to say the Avenue des Champs-Élysées connects center-to-edge is wholly correct.

I think your point on Commonwealth Ave and the potential suitability of a landscaped central median is worth considering. However, it would seem that would be better applied in a situation where we are attempting to provide for primarily east/west pedestrian traffic, rather than north/south traffic implied by the "Harvey Spine" concept.

Given the stated priority for north/south bike and pedestrian movement in Core to Shore, it still begs the question: why would we allow a east/west vehicular route to be given precedence?

Appreciate the thoughtful discussion.

I asked a long time ago why the Myriad Gardens and the MAPS 3 Park were not truly connected, interrupted by the dealership property w/mixed use development. But maybe it was because of the Boulevard (which I still say we don't need, but they seem hell bent on building it anyway).

Indeed. It was because of the boulevard the parks were not connected. I agree with you; I think reconnecting the grid will provide a far better outcome over time.

The boulevard is a bad idea. Scrap it.

http://i53.tinypic.com/dchdw.jpg[/IMG]

With regards to the above post^^^

Let's think about this problem from another urban design perspective. Do we really want to have mixed use buildings in this location given the fact that these structures will cast long shadows upon the Myridad Botanical Gardens? The above study shows what conditons would have been like today at lunch time. Would anyone really want to use the gardens when they are in full shadow during peak operatonal times?

The boulevard is a bad idea. Scrap it.

A distinct possibility when it was still unfunded, but funding finally came through and they seem to be proceeding full steam ahead with it.

I think the boulevard should be a regular two lane road and should be added to the grid like the other streets. It can go through the central park similar to the roads in NYC's Central Park, where they move with the contours of the park and topography and not dictated the pedestrian traffic. The two lanes won't be much of a barrier, but will provide a connection across the park.

With regards to the above post^^^

Let's think about this problem from another urban design perspective. Do we really want to have mixed use buildings in this location given the fact that these structures will cast long shadows upon the Myridad Botanical Gardens? The above study shows what conditons would have been like today at lunch time. Would anyone really want to use the gardens when they are in full shadow during peak operatonal times?

I don't see that as a problem. It doesn't seem to hamper the use of Central Park in New York which is surrounded by much taller buildings. And the shadows you are depicting would only happen for a short time in the winter when the sun is the furthest south. For most of the the year it wouldn't happen.

With regards to the above post^^^

Let's think about this problem from another urban design perspective. Do we really want to have mixed use buildings in this location given the fact that these structures will cast long shadows upon the Myridad Botanical Gardens? The above study shows what conditons would have been like today at lunch time. Would anyone really want to use the gardens when they are in full shadow during peak operatonal times?

So what are you suggesting goes along the east side of the park instead?

Don't get me wrong, I'm against the convention center going there, I just don't think that the shadow argument is that persuasive of a point. The ULI did however.

Although the ULI did mention the shadow when it came to the c.c., think the above shadow comment was the one caused by the proposed mix used development on the Ford dealership site (shadow on MG)??

Any comparisons between the Myriad Botanical Gardens and Central Park are invalid. In terms of overall size and geopgrahical orientation there is no comparison. Central Park does receive shadows from neighborhing buildings. However, if you find yourself in a shadowed area of Central Park you have another eight hundred plus acres to find sun. Even though my graphic shows the Gardens half in shadow during the lowest azimuth we can expect, we still have the potential for shading in the summer. If you project the buildings up to three hundred feet without setbacks or increase the building height up to four hundred feet you start to get similar shadow conditions at all times of the year.

Moreover, my study is meant to show the affects of the smallest probable building size we can expect to see on that sight and how this would change sun conditions in the Crystal Bridge and specialized botanical plantings. My point being that a large building or complex of buildings wil serve not only to provide a physical barrier between the core and shore, but would also alter the growing environment for the Gardens.

As Blair has pointed out, a logical solution to the problem of pedestrian inaccessibility, increased motorized traffic and physical barriers between the core and shore is to look at all possible outcomes of our potential actions.

Shading from late spring to beyond labor day sounds a lot like a park perk, not a problem.

Didn't the ULI basically say this whole idea, predicated on a supposition of retail, housing, etc. along the boulevard, was way too optimistic? That it would take years, maybe decades, for it to even begin to take off? To me, that seems obvious. The ideas floated are all so pie-in-the-sky. The question of the boulevard without all of those things makes it seem moot as far as even building the thing.

Blair, you're a good thinker. Something we have too few of involved in civic affairs. Thinkers and dreamers are two different things.

Any comparisons between the Myriad Botanical Gardens and Central Park are invalid. In terms of overall size and geopgrahical orientation there is no comparison. Central Park does receive shadows from neighborhing buildings. However, if you find yourself in a shadowed area of Central Park you have another eight hundred plus acres to find sun. Even though my graphic shows the Gardens half in shadow during the lowest azimuth we can expect, we still have the potential for shading in the summer. If you project the buildings up to three hundred feet without setbacks or increase the building height up to four hundred feet you start to get similar shadow conditions at all times of the year.

Moreover, my study is meant to show the affects of the smallest probable building size we can expect to see on that sight and how this would change sun conditions in the Crystal Bridge and specialized botanical plantings. My point being that a large building or complex of buildings wil serve not only to provide a physical barrier between the core and shore, but would also alter the growing environment for the Gardens.

As Blair has pointed out, a logical solution to the problem of pedestrian inaccessibility, increased motorized traffic and physical barriers between the core and shore is to look at all possible outcomes of our potential actions.

But what's your point? Where do you think the convention center should go? What should end up being on the east side of the park? All these questions you leave unanswered? Simplicity and concise is good?

Any comparisons between the Myriad Botanical Gardens and Central Park are invalid. In terms of overall size and geopgrahical orientation there is no comparison. Central Park does receive shadows from neighborhing buildings. However, if you find yourself in a shadowed area of Central Park you have another eight hundred plus acres to find sun. Even though my graphic shows the Gardens half in shadow during the lowest azimuth we can expect, we still have the potential for shading in the summer. If you project the buildings up to three hundred feet without setbacks or increase the building height up to four hundred feet you start to get similar shadow conditions at all times of the year.

There is nothing invalid about the argument at all. Maybe you haven't noticed where the sun is during the majority of the year. For a large part of the year no building south of the Myriad Gardens would cast a shadow there except possibly very early in the morning or very late in the afternoon. It's just not a concern worth worrying about. My back yard probably gets more shade from my house and I use it year round. LOL
I don't understand the notion that you would only use or enjoy a park if you're standing in full sunlight. Maybe they should take out all of the trees.
As for the idea that it could affect the growth of plants in the Crystal Bridge, that is laughable.
I'm not saying that a continous park area might not be preferrred, just that your reasons don't compute.

BAW - Thanks for posting the shade study. That is one variable of this issue that I had not adequately considered. Last semester we did some work on thermal comfort levels for outdoor public space in Oklahoma City. I was surprised to find out that in OKC's climate, it is "too cold" outside far more often than it is "too hot." Thus, I think worrying about shading is certainly valid.

A 200' tall building - or 12-20 stories depending on floor height - is certainly a possibility there. It would be interesting to do further shade studies that include different times throughout the day - like 9am, 12pm, 3pm, 6pm - and then different days throughout the seasons.

Since you already have it modeled, I will cross my fingers that you will do it. But if not, I will try to get to it at some point in the next couple of weeks.

Fill free to contact me if you would like to collaborate further: http://www.blairhumphreys.com/about

682681As I said, this is not an issue. New York City has a colder climate than OKC and gets more southern showdows in the fall and winter season. Look at these photos showing the buildings along Central Park South and tell me that OKC would have an issue with what might happen here. Of course Central Park is much larger but the concept is the same. It won't hamper the Myriad Gardens in the least.

Just great - Sandridge creates more open space where plenty already existed and now it appears our existing open space isn't open enough. If people are afraid the downtown park will be too cold in the shade then hell's bells - go to one of the other parks (unless of course they have trees there in which case - bring an ax).

BTW - see all those trees in Central Park - THEY CAST SHADOWS!!!!

I don't believe the boulevard will necessarily hinder pedestrian connectivity. There are many examples of boulevards around the world. Many are significantly wider than ours. For example, Paseo de la Reforma in Mexico City, Avenida 9 de Julio in Buenos Aires, Karl-Marx-Allee in Berlin, and of course the most famous of all, the Champs-Élysées in Paris. None have created a barrier; each has promoted density; and, each is crowded with pedestrians.

The difference is that these were designed to promote the flow of pedestrians - auto traffic flow was not the singular goal. Instead of becoming barriers, they have become focal points of their respective areas. They have attracted dense commercial and residential development and have become tourist attractions on their own.

Ours could be the same. Granted, it may take 50 years or more for OKC to develop around this boulevard. But, it could be the cornerstone to long-term development. A tree-lined boulevard with extra-wide easements (perhaps 50' on each side) capable of accommodating sidewalk cafes, galleries, & street performers would enhance our civic image and become a regional attraction. Its ample sidewalks could host small events such as book sales, food festivals, and art shows. It could also become the primary street for parades and expositions. And, it will encourage east-west development of the downtown area. Rather than impeding pedestrian flow, it would enhance it. Perhaps in the future, a streetcar line might run down the middle of the new boulevard further enhancing pedestrian access.

If badly designed, the boulevard will indeed slice up the downtown area and possibly cut-off the south end of the park. But this will also happen with poor zoning, building codes, etc. It should be built, and built well. It should be among the anchors of a long-term vision for the entire downtown core.

Population:
Oklahoma City - 1,200,000
Berlin - 3,400,000
Paris - 11,600,000
Buenos Aires - 13,400,000
Mexico City - 21,200,000

I won't even mention population density. You could build a road 1000 feet wide and it would be crowded in those cities.

Now for the million dollar question - what is the widest street in London?

When I first heard of the possibility of having 270 feet for a Boulevard...why does everyone think it has to be all concrete?
Look at what Madrid did with their Calle del Prado. Practically a park for a median. Hop on Google Maps and walk around using the "street view"

When I first heard of the possibility of having 270 feet for a Boulevard...why does everyone think it has to be all concrete?


Because that is how it was presented to the people by the City.

Because that is how it was presented to the people by the City.

Really? You think this is 270' wide? http://www.okc.gov/planning/coretoshore/boulevard.html

Even more, you think this was finalized? Instead of everyone complaining about it, come up with different ways to make it pedestrian friendly...like Blair did.

We have 270' to work with going in the heart of downtown...not many cities get that opportunity so how about some proactive suggestions people?

I really usually do not try to comment on anything city related other than the streetcar. But I must confess, I do not understand why a development would separate the two parks. Myriad Gardens seems to demand a more intimate usage. The Central Park, larger scale activities. Rather than trying to "mix and match" and "pit" parks against one another, why not make them a continuous green corridor?

Then at least the Boulevard will have at least one major "spine" that is on the scale of the concrete. What a great place for the edifice such as a "Buckingham Fountain" or some other marvel in a traffic circle?

It seems that the city has learned only "halfway" when it comes to pedestrian barriers made of concrete.

I really usually do not try to comment on anything city related other than the streetcar. But I must confess, I do not understand why a development would separate the two parks. Myriad Gardens seems to demand a more intimate usage. The Central Park, larger scale activities. Rather than trying to "mix and match" and "pit" parks against one another, why not make them a continuous green corridor?

Then at least the Boulevard will have at least one major "spine" that is on the scale of the concrete. What a great place for the edifice such as a "Buckingham Fountain" or some other marvel in a traffic circle?

It seems that the city has learned only "halfway" when it comes to pedestrian barriers made of concrete.

while this idea is ok in theory the costs would be very high to buy the ford dealer site.

while this idea is ok in theory the costs would be very high to buy the ford dealer site.

Maybe they could do a land swap. Give Fred Hall 30 acres of park front land for his 15 acres. They better do it quick because he will have plans ready soon.

Really? You think this is 270' wide? http://www.okc.gov/planning/coretoshore/boulevard.html

Even more, you think this was finalized? Instead of everyone complaining about it, come up with different ways to make it pedestrian friendly...like Blair did.

We have 270' to work with going in the heart of downtown...not many cities get that opportunity so how about some proactive suggestions people?

The statement that this needs to meet "federal highway standards" is rather chilling, to me. Why is this considered a highway, when we have a freeway adjacent and basically it is a road to nowhere?

I think it would be simple to make it pedestrian friendly, and I believe I've read lots of suggestions here for doing so. The way to make it pedestrian friendly is to create a massive grassy median, with a maximum of two smaller lanes of traffic in either direction, bisected by north south streets so that it is an undesirable route for people wanting to go through downtown and rather is a way to get from place to place downtown and in Core to Shore. Lots of stoplights and pedestrian right of ways would help as well. I wouldn't have a problem with the streetcar running down the center of the boulevard, ala the St. Charles streetcar in NO, as that's another way to make it pedestrian centric, with people walking to stops and between stops.

You could say the Embarcadero in San Franciso as well.