Maps 3

[warreng88]

Transit was the overwhelming majority of the votes coming in on the Maps 3 vote in 2007. If the streetcar is off to a good start, spend some of that on improving the bus system and more improvements to the transit hub. I remember seeing something UP posted a while back about Portland's system where people can see exactly when the streetcar will get to it's destination by using their smart phones. An investment in that system would be a good idea too. JMHO

[MustangGT]

On a side note,after hearing Ed Shadid speak He sounds like a very intelligent person and I'm glad He's on the cc.

Me too. He will bring a level of honest credibility that has IMHO been lacking on the CC for a while.

[ljbab728]

This would probably be a safe bet.

Actually, it's not a very safe bet. There is a lot of emotion here but, on the street, probably 90 percent of the voting public won't know about it and won't care much. I rarely even hear anyone I talk to even bring up any of the Maps projects at all, let alone have debates about it or voice concerns about how it's being handled. The posters here usually have special interests and are not a good indicator of public sentiment.

[Snowman]

Actually, it's not a very safe bet. There is a lot of emotion here but, on the street, probably 90 percent of the voting public won't know about it and won't care much. I rarely even hear anyone I talk to even bring up any of the Maps projects at all, let alone have debates about it or voice concerns about how it's being handled. The posters here usually have special interests and are not a good indicator of public sentiment.

Yea, outside of this forum, I have not heard MAPS3 come up in conversations nearly as much as the original MAPS.

[shawnw]

Well, this is somewhat redeeming. Hopefully they come up with a unique concept to disguise the sub-station.

Personally, I think spending any money to disguise the substation is a waste of money and a waste of a block along the park. How wonderful to have some fake castle disguising the substation on one side of the park and the entrance to the loading docks for the convention center on another. That's my idea of aesthetics, for sure. Find out what the real costs for moving the substation are, find another block to trade OG&E that's owned by the city and make a deal.

I'm not sure it has to cost a lot or be a castle. I mean, nothing short of moving it will be "ideal", but if that simply isn't an option for cost/budget reasons, there are seemingly cheap options. Below are pics of a disguised substation in downtown Toronto that I took while there in June. Not saying we have to do this exact thing, but it "works" for a big time city like Toronto...

Street Level:


Aerial:

[mcca7596]

Yea, outside of this forum, I have not heard MAPS3 come up in conversations nearly as much as the original MAPS.

Then, it was more about convincing people that MAPS was worth it and wouldn't be a farce; everyone was talking about it. Now, the discussion centers more about specifics; most people recognize that positive things will come from MAPS3 and probably just are not as concerned with how it will be implemented.

[betts]

I'm not sure it has to cost a lot or be a castle. I mean, nothing short of moving it will be "ideal", but if that simply isn't an option for cost/budget reasons, there are seemingly cheap options. Below are pics of a disguised substation in downtown Toronto that I took while there in June. Not saying we have to do this exact thing, but it "works" for a big time city like Toronto...

Street Level:


Aerial:

Do you really want something like that across from your iconic downtown park? Again, not me. And, it's about loss of developable space as much as aesthetics. That's an entire block that is unuseable if the substation stays. I've always questioned the $30 million price tag though. I'd like to know what it would cost to physically move the substation, as I'm sure there's another empty city block the city owns it could be moved to that would be a preferable location.

[kevinpate]

Ipad ads would suck. But something interesting on the panels would be acceptable. Of course, I've lost faith the park will be iconic at all so what's across the street is now of less concern, to me anyway, than when the grand and awesome type pitches were made. It will probably still be a nice park, but I'll be both pleased and surprised if it turns out anything even remotely similar to the early pitches when the votes were needed to get the necessary cover for the cc project. Time will tell and hopefully I've become cynical without good cause. I just don't feel like betting against me at present.

[MustangGT]

Actually, it's not a very safe bet. There is a lot of emotion here but, on the street, probably 90 percent of the voting public won't know about it and won't care much. I rarely even hear anyone I talk to even bring up any of the Maps projects at all, let alone have debates about it or voice concerns about how it's being handled. The posters here usually have special interests and are not a good indicator of public sentiment.

At places I frequent it is not a constant topice but it gets brought up at least anytime there is a city council meeting that discusses it. OKCTalk holds no monopoly on MAPS discussions.

[Rover]

The people will judge the success by how things turn out vs. their expectations. The process isn't most people's concern. If the CC or any of the other projects turn out to be substandard because of budget shenanigans and power plays, the public will judge harshly. If it turns out fine, along with other projects, there will be another MAPS. I doubt the general public will scrutinize the trails or senior centers nearly as much as the visible and expensive CC and streetcar projects, and even the park.

BTW, I'm betting the money eventually gets spent on the park with a little on the sub-station. This is the way that Mick voted and his preference all along. With a divided council, he wins....divide and conquer. He can stay out of the fray and still get what he wants. Don't underestimate the mayor.

[MustangGT]

It is interesting the number of folks who have basicilly wagered their political futures on the success of the CC. If it flops or does not perform to the expectations that are being touted now I hope the political repercussions are massive and brutal.

[Rover]

It is interesting the number of folks who have basicilly wagered their political futures on the success of the CC. If it flops or does not perform to the expectations that are being touted now I hope the political repercussions are massive and brutal.

It can fail for many reasons. Infighting and power plays by our local politicians is one of them. I just hope the public is smart enough to make the politicians pay for the REAL reasons if it fails.

[Just the facts]

It is interesting the number of folks who have basicilly wagered their political futures on the success of the CC. If it flops or does not perform to the expectations that are being touted now I hope the political repercussions are massive and brutal.

I fear it was doomed from the start (much like the Indian Cultural Center). How you can start constructon on something when a key piece of it (the convention hotel) is totally unfunded is beyond me. Plus, they picked the absoulte most expensive piece of real-estate to build it on and then picked the most expensive contruction technique (underground).

[urbanity]

Walk the line

MAPS 3 park subcommittee members are concerned the convention center will impede walkability.

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/ar...-the-line.html

[Just the facts]

They spent so much time deciding if they could use the Ford site, they never considered if they should.

[Rover]

I guess people could get hit by a streetcar trying to cross over into the park too.

What is the expected or desired foot traffic flow pattern and how is it expected to be impacted? Are users of the park walking from directly north of the site or from residential areas in DD and new housing from the west? If they are coming from mid-town, are they walking from mid town through the site to the park? Will the park actually gain traffic from putting a cc hotel on the site and creating visitors? If a private condo/mixed use development goes on the site does it obstruct foot traffic as much or more? If people use the new light rail to get downtown are they left off on a path to be blocked by the CC? Where is the transit hub going and do riders get blocked in their attempt to get to the park? Where do the park users likely come from anyway? If a parking garage is developed for the CC and hotel, does it actually encourage MORE people to come use the park? Will it provide parking closer to the park itself? Do the new Map3 paths lead to and from the park or through the CC site?

I think there are LOTS of yet unanswered questions that impact whether the location is good or bad.

[Just the facts]

Rover, I think the concern is having two major parks separated by an uninviting structure. Most likely, private development on the site would cater to the foot traffic, not discourage it. After all, private business is in business to make money. I could see the area with retail and sidewalk cafes on the first floor with residential/office/hotel above.

[betts]

They spent so much time deciding if they could use the Ford site, they never considered if they should.

There has never been any discussion by the convention center subcommittee about the park. The most I heard was Populous discussing the need to put the CC truck loading underground so it wouldn't impact the park negatively from a visual standpoint. Of course, they also gave low marks to the substation site because the truck loading would be a block away from the park and negatively impact development east of the convention center.....without ever discussing the possibility of putting the loading docks below ground. I found that rather interesting, but it was never questioned or discussed by the subcommittee members.

[Just the facts]

There has never been any discussion by the convention center subcommittee about the park. The most I heard was Populous discussing the need to put the CC truck loading underground so it wouldn't impact the park negatively from a visual standpoint. Of course, they also gave low marks to the substation site because the truck loading would be a block away from the park and negatively impact development east of the convention center.....without ever discussing the possibility of putting the loading docks below ground. I found that rather interesting, but it was never questioned or discussed by the subcommittee members.

In the plans I saw for the east park location, the loading docks were along Shields and out of view from the park. I think they were also elevated a story above Shields (but I could be wrong on that).

[betts]

In the plans I saw for the east park location, the loading docks were along Shields and out of view from the park. I think they were also elevated a story above Shields (but I could be wrong on that).

You're correct. But, Populous' argument was that having loading docks along Shields would negatively affect development to the east, and that was one of the reasons the east park site scored as low as it did.

[Just the facts]

You're correct. But, Populous' argument was that having loading docks along Shields would negatively affect development to the east, and that was one of the reasons the east park site scored as low as it did.

To the east? To the east is Shields and then a 25' high railroad viaduct.

[Doug Loudenback]

No, item passed, 5-4.

The videos of the $30M issue are in this thread:

http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=27090

[Rover]

Rover, I think the concern is having two major parks separated by an uninviting structure. Most likely, private development on the site would cater to the foot traffic, not discourage it. After all, private business is in business to make money. I could see the area with retail and sidewalk cafes on the first floor with residential/office/hotel above.

If the concern is interaction between the two parks, just buy the property and make it a continuous park. Don't build anything on it. LOL. This dream that someone is coming in to build this grand mixed use project on that site is totally unsubstantiated. The idea that it is somehow going to be less of a barrier is wishful thinking. There are no plans and no vision for that at this time or on the horizon that anybody of any impact has informed anyone of. This idea that suddenly there is demand for a great shopping area and upscale condo's in the core business district is unsupported at this time. No demographics for it and no one willing to take this massive risk. The CC may well be the best use for that property at this time. THEN, realize that dream when the Cox Center is scraped and reclaimed.

[betts]

I'd love to see it as one continuous park. That would be something worth seeing there, rather than a cheesy convention center.

[Larry OKC]

If the concern is interaction between the two parks, just buy the property and make it a continuous park. Don't build anything on it. LOL. This dream that someone is coming in to build this grand mixed use project on that site is totally unsubstantiated. The idea that it is somehow going to be less of a barrier is wishful thinking. There are no plans and no vision for that at this time or on the horizon that anybody of any impact has informed anyone of. This idea that suddenly there is demand for a great shopping area and upscale condo's in the core business district is unsupported at this time. No demographics for it and no one willing to take this massive risk. The CC may well be the best use for that property at this time. THEN, realize that dream when the Cox Center is scraped and reclaimed.

I realize you put in there, "at this time", but that is exactly what was presented in the Core to Shore plan...new, mixed use development with a pedestrian corridor to maintain the Harvey Spine and serve as the connection between the Central & Myriad Garden parks. That was something that I never understood, why separate the parks anyway? Go ahead and make it one continuous space from the MG all the way to the River and beyond. But this mixed use development was going to be part of the grand Boulevard retail revival in those Core to Shore animations.