Scissortail Park

[ABryant]

As strange as it sounds, I prefer the original conceptual renderings of the central park. I liked the angles and straight lines of the lake. Nothing irritates me more than humans trying to make something that imitates nature. I'm sure whichever deign they pick will be satisfactory, but I'm a little disappointed.

[HangryHippo]

Why don't they just place the cafes and things that they want in the park (the orange spaces in their designs) in the historic buildings that are already there? They could include visitor centers, cafes, restrooms, drink stands, anything they want really in these beautiful existing buildings. This could also probably help with Sid's mention of keeping the park tied in with intersecting streets at the periphery of the park depending on which buildings they save and use. I cannot believe there's not a stronger urge by those in charge to preserve what's already there... Perhaps it makes too much damn sense?

[Urban Pioneer]

As strange as it sounds, I prefer the original conceptual renderings of the central park. I liked the angles and straight lines of the lake. Nothing irritates me more than humans trying to make something that imitates nature. I'm sure whichever deign they pick will be satisfactory, but I'm a little disappointed.

Ah... if only we would get such a beautiful structure as Eaglevale Arch in our new park...

I agree with both of these sentiments. But there was a few very vocal people who spoke out at the last public meeting against Heargraves "cuestas" and the three lakes. I thought the idea was pretty cool and gave the park grand form. But oh well... lol And perhaps they were a bad idea in that I suspect there are several old buildings in the area potentially saveable in the area they were proposed. Also in the former "grand lawn."

Regarding the NY bridge in the pictures above, I wish we would spend the money to build something like that. But I doubt the architects would go for it. Everything has to be new, modern, and representative of something from the past. And while interpretation of things form the past, an overture have you, is normally a result of small budgets, it has now become the architectural norm rather than a last resort. But the grandeur of that bridge for example, is that it has warmth. Probably because of the scale, but I would argue also because of the more organic materials/stone it was constructed with.

We could easily build a modern day element such as that with natural Oklahoma stone that looks old.

Then there is the opposite result... the fake, bewildering, stone fountain at the NE corner of the new Myriad Gardens. Looking completely out of place. So designers can go wrong either direction. lol

[Dubya61]

... Something can always be added later. Right now, I want to see the fabric of the park -- or the threads of said fabric more appropriately defined -- correctly designed.
Parks are not dissimilar to conventional land in that higher best uses can emerge and new feature and functions can still be introduced later. The key is not to design the park that one day acts as a natural obstacle to such improvements. This is why a "grid" in the park acts as a useful plat. This essentially is one really, really massive super-block.

Sid, I assume you've read JTF's remarks in the Wheeler Park thread discussing OKC's park requirements / threshholds:

In retrospect the Central Park was not a good idea. In addition to losing valuable boulevard frontage it steals visitors from MBG. Here is a quick run down of how the parks should be done in my opinion.

1) Keep MBG as it is today
2) Devon shouldn't have been allowed a large setback and park in front of their building. If their employees want to sit in a park they should have gone to MBG to do it
3) Bicenntenial Park should have been a concrete plaza with planters. That would keep bums from sleeping in it.
4) Sandridge Forest should have never been approved and Couch Drive returned to 2-way traffic.
5) Central Park shouldn't be built. Once again it will steal visitors from MBG and would have allowed infill between the boulevard and I-40.
6) Promenade Park should be built, but not as big as planned.
7) The riverfront should have been urbanized, not turned to park space
8) Wheeler Park should be converted to residential with an urbanized waterfront
9) Wiley Post Park should be reduced by 66% and then use that land to build a mixed-use development (maybe include aquarium) that would be on future streetcar route to Capitol Hill.
10) The Federal Building park should be developed and 7th St reopened
11) Lower Bricktown (south of the old I-40) should be developed
12) Lower Bricktown (north of the old I-40) should be bulldozed and done again making it much more dense

I'm certainly not trying to incite anything, but I think you're saying something like JTF said.
Question: Do you think the Central Park idea is a good plan at face value? Does it take away from or add to the CBD? Say you're emperor for a period of time -- what would you do with the Central Park idea?