After the relocation of I-40, what is to become of the Oklahoma River? I'm just curious if any of you have seen or heard something that I may have missed in recent time.

I would like to see a boardwalk or something urban-like. If this happens, the Oklahoma River will no longer be able to host speedboat competitions because of the wake; but I know OKC plans to navigate tour boats.

Another question: How long would it take for "Riverside" to develop once I-40 is relocated?

With the new I-40, I see more traffic being carried through the river area, which will lead to more demand by retail and restaurant businesses in the area.

I'd still like to see a casino district on the river, complete with floating casino boats. How cool that would be.

As far as time it will take, I'll be honest and say years. Look how long it's taken Bricktown to develop. I'd say the Oklahoma River developments will be an ongoing thing from now until forever.

I thought a casino district would help develop the area at a much faster rate, but I don't think the voters of OKC would approve of any such district being built in the first place.

If any of you plan on travelling through Louisiana, take a look at Shreveport and what the casinos have done for that city. As for OKC, if ANY casino were to be built, I would rather it be a Hannah's or something nice.

Patrick, are we talking in the ballpark of 10 years or so?

Depends on what you mean to develop the entire river. I think development will occur on the river for decades. But, it won't all be developed in 10 years. In 10 years, I can see a few housing complexes, a few office buildings, a few restaurants, but that's about it. Look how long it's taken us to get Lower Brticktown going. There's a lot of land along the Oklahoma River and it will take years to develop all of it. Parts of it will be left vacant as well, as park settings.

This issue has been discussed numerous times. You can do a search to see what was said. In summary of the discussion, "Predicting the Future is all Speculation". You cannot dictate what the private sector will do only guide them hopefully. When you do the search, you will find links to the master plan for the river as far as what improvements the city will make, other than that, it's up to private investors to develop land.

The future of Riverside is most definately one involving an eminent domain notice and a crackpot lawyer.

The future of Riverside is most definitely one involving an eminent domain notice and a crackpot lawyer.

Is anybody suggesting the city of Oklahoma City do anything? It's been pointed out numerous times that it will most likely be private development along the river. No doubt with the recent history of dipping into the city cookie jar that some might look to the city for funding assistance; but to jump to the conclusion that eminent domain would be used is just ridiculous. In fact, I see more and more of your posts being extremely negative and snarky. I defended you on that once, but I'm seeing a lot and maybe I was just blind before. And by the way, am I mistaken, or don't you have your own forum that discusses all these issues? It's like the Coke guy drinking Pepsi as he rolls down the street in the Coca-Cola truck.

---------------------------

As far as the river development go's. The City needs to have some plans in place to restrict land usage. Let private development happen, but maybe guide the type of construction, placement, etc. Wouldn't want adult entertainment next to places for families and kids. I would hate to see it turn out like Memorial Road development. Looks kinda junky.

The City can decide where to place green areas, hopefully paying a market price. Then let private sector do what the do best.

Writerranger, I like eminent domain. I didn't mean that negative at all.

The city should definitely be responsible for improving infrastructure in Riverside, streetscaping, and (hopefully) a streetcar line through the distric, plus design guidelines requiring dense and quality development in the area. We can't just expect private development to occur without any action by the city- or anyway, not as quickly or as nicely as it will occur with heavy city involvement.

The city should definitely be responsible for improving infrastructure in Riverside, streetscaping, and (hopefully) a streetcar line through the distric, plus design guidelines requiring dense and quality development in the area. We can't just expect private development to occur without any action by the city- or anyway, not as quickly or as nicely as it will occur with heavy city involvement.


Yes, that's about right. Good old fashioned municipal socialism. The government always knows best. Private enterprise couldn't possibly provide streets and streetcars inside a private development. Just ask Disney!

----------------

I don't know where you're going with that. I would for OKC's gritty nature to be pried from its integrity, and for anything to look like Downtown Disney. Ick!

Do expound...

I don't know where you're going with that. I would for OKC's gritty nature to be pried from its integrity, and for anything to look like Downtown Disney. Ick!

Do expound...

Disney=Private Enterprise........They build their own streets and attractions that are referred to above as "infrastructure." I'm not comparing, I am actually only complaining about how the cities are now expected to give and give and give. Or rather the taxpayers are. I would argue Disney's parks have turned out better than if they allowed the local municipalities to build their roads, streetcars,. etc.

OKC= "gritty nature"........?????

Disney -- ICK? They're extremely successful at what they do - and not just the Magic Kingdom stuff. Private enterprise in action at its best. Quality.

----------------

If a single private entity were to own the entire area of Riverside then it would be safe to trust them with developing all of the infrastructure. But since it will probably be developed by many groups, it would be best for the city to be actively involved in master planning and making sure the area is not just haphazardly put together.

Writerranger, the city can have a master plan without having to actually pay for all of it. We all complain about the haphazard development on Memorial Road as well as Lower Bricktown. We don't want that here.

Huh? Memorial Road is GREAT for what it is -- a high-traffic suburban corridor.

This is a city, where we all have to live. The private sector is cheap and will do the minimum every time. It is the city's responsibility to provide for the quality of life and infrastructure needs.

I think I was misunderstood. Or, maybe I wasn't thinking straight and didn't explain my thoughts very well. I didn't mean the city government shouldn't necessarily be involved with it; only that they shouldn't stick the taxpayers with the tab.

----------------

Of course you were thinking straight, you know who *those* members are and I've always respected you as not being one of them...

If the city stubs the taxpayers with the tab for poor investments like suburban infrastructure, why not stub the tax payer with the tab for a good investment like urban infrastructure?

The fact that the River Redevelopment Authority is such a mysterious body works both ways. While there's little sunshine on what's put on the table, the Authority can act as a trustee that smokes out inferior proposals. Let's hope that's the case.

Seeing as OCURA does such a fine job.

Spartan, maybe you don't, but there are plenty of posters that complain about the way Memorial Road around Quail Springs has been developed. Don't act like I'm a raving lunatic.

Going back to what Shane said, yeah, if one single private entity with a good rep was developing the ENTIRE river, then the city would have no need to be involved, but it's much more likely that multiple developments occur all along the river and it's the city's responsibility to make sure it's done in a good way, ie required architectural consistency (see Taos, NM for a good example of this), greenspace, planned layout of development, etc etc

Going back to what Shane said, yeah, if one single private entity with a good rep was developing the ENTIRE river, then the city would have no need to be involved, but it's much more likely that multiple developments occur all along the river and it's the city's responsibility to make sure it's done in a good way, ie required architectural consistency (see Taos, NM for a good example of this), greenspace, planned layout of development, etc etc

Architectural consistency may make for good development, but it will by no means make any type of memorable structures. This "vanilla" approach will hinder the portrayal of OKC as being a mecca for the so-called "creative class". Every signature bulding built was not widely celebrated for "fitting in".

What would happen today if somebody tried to build a gold dome in OKC?

I'm talking about architectural consistency in a specific district, just like Bricktown proper is required to be red brick buildings and ideally all new buildings in the Asian District should be Asian architecture.

Perhaps riverside could be done in a Spanish/Italianate style similar to the nearby Farmers Market Building. We aren't talking about the CBD. That would be much different, and obviously if highrises are built, they couldn't be Italianate, but I just think some consistency would help it feel more like a Urban Neighborhood and less like Memorial and Penn.

Tulsa has a new Mediterranean-style midrise (Utica)... Highrise architecture can definitely have those type of influences.

I'd really like to see some coastal style architecture along the river- some Miami-style condo buildings maybe. I really like that look.

All suburbs are vanilla. If you continue to endorse suburbs you endorse vanilla. That will save us a rant from me, for now... I just don't feel like it, honestly. I could give a long bantering manuscript here of how I feel about the vanilla burbs, but I doubt anybody would pay attention, read it all, or maybe then it would result to more stupid Moore vs. Everyone bull crap on this forum.

Suffice it to say, my friends... suburbs = the cookie cutter. If you shift your mentallity, to something, dare I say it... urban, you would be discouraging the cookie cutter school of "design".

I think before you even think of there being much riverside development, you have to consider getting the area on either side of the river cleaned up a bit. I used to work south of the river a bit, and I don't think people are going to spend a lot of time riverside (particularly outdoors shopping and at the park and such) until they feel safe doing it. That being said, I hope that this can be done and I think there are great things ahead - it will just take time.

They'd be stupid not to clean things up the best they can, but even still, I'm not sure how far efforts will be focused south of the river.

It would be nice if they put some efforts into cleaning up between the south side of the river and Capitol Hill - it seems do-able to me..just a few blocks down towards 29th.

PLEASE leave room for lots of parks and landscaping along any river area. Add a hiking, joggine, biking trail. Add lots off trees...let's talk beautification!

Whoat do ya'll think of a mall where the canal ran through the center of it and you counld catch the taxi even inside the mall! Or, what about taking part of the river and building a mall in both banks with glass bridges going over the river. I know OKC could support some of the nicest malls in the southwest! This would be amazing for the demographics and structure of downtown.

Yes, I have loved the idea of a crystal bridge surrounded by retail for awhile .. not sure if it could be that big but wouldn't something like that be amazing? We can dream can't we?

a mall or something similar would be a good way to connect the OK River and the south point of the canal