Core to Shore

[Kerry]

Because it's the farthest from the core. You're taking that graphical representation too seriously. That's all it is is a graphical representation.

Review the ULI study. Some really smart folks made the recommendation that there be some single family housing the further you get from the core. There is going to be plenty of dense housing.

But there are already single family homes around downtown OKC. They are all over the place.

[Kerry]

I'm not really sure where to put this. But here is a map showing parcels of land in the future Central Park boundaries that need to be acquired, have been acquired, are under contract, and etc. The graphic is current as of 11/10/2010.

OKC.GOV - Maps3 Subcommittee

Can you try that link again? It doesn't seem to work.

[Architect2010]

Fixed.

[Spartan]

Maybe some of us instead need to come up with a fancy graphic map showing everything in its rightful place. It would be a shame if people gravitate toward these bad C2S ideas just because they have glitzy renderings behind them.

[Kerry]

Fixed.

Thank you.

I hate the fact they used 4 shades of blue to represent the stages of acqusitions. 15 million colors to pick from and they choose 4 that are right next to each other on the color spectrum. Brilliant.

[BoulderSooner]

Core to Shore is far more than real estate specualtion. The City is spending million and millions of dollars. Wouldn't it just be cheaper to build 500 single family homes out near Piedmont? If single family homes are not the goal, then WHAT IS the goal (let's call that X). What is X?

the goal is to redevelop a very blighted area close to our core. that will increase tax revenue and the downtown retail and business climate

[Pete]

here is a map showing parcels of land in the future Central Park boundaries that need to be acquired, have been acquired, are under contract, and etc.

Thanks for that... Very interesting.

Also interesting is that the City has acquired adjacent property that is not within the park's boundaries, such as Goodwill.

[betts]

That link doesn't work for me. But, I'm also fine with whomever owns land in Core to Shore, as long as they develop it. I certainly cannot afford to, and thus I'm not going to throw stones at those who do. I'd rather local people own and develop land in Oklahoma City than national companies who take their earnings out of state.

[bombermwc]

Come on folks....I think most of us realize that any masterplan is just that...a plan. And we all know how often masterplans work out when the private sector is involved. Anything that's not a public project in C2S, you can just assume won't happen the way it's seen in the designs. We've seen that time and time again in downtown already. Think of how many failed projects didn't come to fruition in Bricktown in the last few years...and they are a much smaller scale.

So basically, we'll get the park and the convention center and everything else will be left for development by the private sector. Even the mayor expects that process to span decades. I believe he said something about it being done when his grandkids are his age. 25 years would be a fast track on the whole process. So we really just have to sit back and wait and see what develops.

The one thing I hope that doesn't happen, is that they just start dozing everything and leave us with a multi-square-mile swath of empty land. How depressing would that be...especially since we won't even know what we want to put in there. By all means build infrastructure for the general layout as much as you can, but at least grass it over if you tear something out.

[J. Pitman]

But there are already single family homes around downtown OKC. They are all over the place.

And?

You'd be missing a large part of the market if there are no single family homes. This isn't LA, NYC, Philly, Denver, or Chicago. People here like their space, they like their yard and their dogs.

Take a look at the "dense" housing market downtown, what a huge success that has proven to be.

[Kerry]

Even the mayor expects that process to span decades. I believe he said something about it being done when his grandkids are his age. 25 years would be a fast track on the whole process. So we really just have to sit back and wait and see what develops.

I think some of you are going to be surprised how fast this fills in. Once urban living in OKC catches on with a large park right next door people are going to want to live there in droves. It might not be high density for-sale unit right away but mid-rise apartment building are going to be in high demand. Especially if there is retail on the ground floor. But the Mayor is correct, if half the land is single family homes it will take awhile.

[Spartan]

Come on folks....I think most of us realize that any masterplan is just that...a plan. And we all know how often masterplans work out when the private sector is involved.

So basically, we'll get the park and the convention center and everything else will be left for development by the private sector.

Yes, exactly.

[SkyWestOKC]

Let it grow naturally. Synthetic growth is unsustainable.

If single family homes all the way to the river front is the way the market pushes, then so be it. Over time demand will increase for these homes. Someone with deep pockets will buy up the land, demo the houses, and build larger. We are in the conception stage right now....we aren't even at the infancy level....let the market do it's job naturally.

[Snowman]

I am not sure to be happy or sad about randomly noticing that it looks like shields could have on/off ramps to SW 15th (with almost no grading work done), it is nice in that it could be used to improve traffic to the river area where their will be new developments in the city but sad that a city street is so interstate like.

[Larry OKC]

Thanks for that... Very interesting.

Also interesting is that the City has acquired adjacent property that is not within the park's boundaries, such as Goodwill.

If by that you mean it is Park adjacent, then that is correct. It is my understanding by various articles in the Oklahoman and Gazette, the City is buying the land surrounding the Park as well as the Park itself. The purchase of some properties were made even before MAPS 3 was put to a vote (much less passed). IIRC, they spent $6M of an authorized $26M from the 2007 GO bond issue. If numbers are off, hope Steve will correct.

[betts]

Here's a new article by Steve about timing issues:
Core to Shore faces questions about timing, viability of park


Read more: http://newsok.com/core-to-shore-face...#ixzz1NkDbg64B

[Pete]

I really do think it's too early for this massive park. In the Central Park thread I proposed acquiring the remaining properties, cleaning up the area, burying the utilities and making the park area open with playfields. That should only cost about $25 million and the remaining $105 million for the park could be saved until a later date when that sort of investment would make sense. It's just way too early right now IMO.

If we could at least get the park setup in basic form, then private development should begin to happen in the immediate area.

Even with the old I-40 gone that area is still a mess of crappy structures and vacant lots. We don't even have any funding to build the boulevard so it's not like all the sudden that section is going to be a lot nicer. Pull down I-40 and you still don't have much to make that area appealing, even with a park. In every direction, it's more like a battlezone than a district ripe for development.


I'm all for the idea in general but there are about another dozen urban districts that are still quite a ways from full realization. How about letting a few of those mature before we going running off and spending hundreds of millions -- not to mention tying up resources of city agencies like OCURA -- on the most desolate of all these urban frontiers?

[kevinpate]

But they did not pitch, as the voter enticement to go to the polls, a bare field of grass with a few lines marked off here and there. Though I agree they can do that, to cancel any meaningful resemblance to the pitch is something of a PR (and potentially a fiscal) nightmare.

So there's presently nothing there. Not unlike the pitch. The pitch was, we want a grand exciting park and around it will spring up all sorts of wonderful, thus making the city better for you and your children and their children.

I don't see if working well if today's politicos subsequently come along and say "oh, we really meant for your children's children, maybe your children, but we'll be so much better off today if we focus on this other thing, you know, the sort of thing that would never have gotten you out to the polls, but which was what we really, really wanted all along.

I can't think of many faster ways to trash out the future of the necessary citizen buy-in for more MAPs opportunities than to just say nah, we don't wanna go there after all, but hey, thanks for the moolah.

See, if I lose faith I can pretty much never drop another penny north of 89th and with very limited exception, never even cross into the city at all. It's not like I canna enjoy very nice opportunities in Norman, or elsewhere nearby. OKC for some of us is just a nice additional aspect to our lives.

But if the powers what be break their faith with the general OKC populace, well, I can see where trying to get another MAPs through would be hard, perhaps even if bond issues get tougher, or and that county jail, that could become a problem too.

Past MAPs votes make it fairly clearly that 40% plus of people who will bother to vote don't have any problem with saying no to begin with on just about anything that resembles a tax. That being the case, the city doesn't have to tick off too many people to have some serious issues arise down the line.

I'm sure they are aware of that. I'm not sure they are not in the mood to gamble, but I still hope they aren't.

[Pete]

But they did not pitch, as the voter enticement to go to the polls, a bare field of grass with a few lines marked off here and there. Though I agree they can do that, to cancel any meaningful resemblance to the pitch is something of a PR (and potentially a fiscal) nightmare.

I'm not saying don't do it -- just take this first step then do the final design and construction later.

A lot of the projects in MAPS 3 are still 10 years out. Why not just do the final build-out of Central Park at the end of this time frame?

[Spartan]

I think I would agree that the park would be a good thing to push to the very back of the list, if something must be pushed back. If we are looking for a compromise between quality of life and economic development, that might be a good one, actually. As long as the streetcar and convention center both get pushed forward. Do the streetcar at once first-up or whenever is best for a federal match, and then the convention center can be pushed forward 21-36 months, whatever can be freed up by moving the park. I would be okay with that, actually.

[Rover]

I also think that public opinion will shift a little too, and maybe already has. Good scientific surveying to study the acceptance by the public of the ideas may actually make the citizenry feel engaged and wind up making it EASIER to pass the next one.

[betts]

I really do think it's too early for this massive park. In the Central Park thread I proposed acquiring the remaining properties, cleaning up the area, burying the utilities and making the park area open with playfields. That should only cost about $25 million and the remaining $105 million for the park could be saved until a later date when that sort of investment would make sense. It's just way too early right now IMO.

If we could at least get the park setup in basic form, then private development should begin to happen in the immediate area.

That's exactly what I think. I think it would be a mistake the push the entire park back, but we could make the space parkland without spending a huge amount of money. Younger trees could be planted, which actually have a better chance of surviving, and they would have time to mature. Then, as MAPS gets into the second half of collections, the park could be improved as projected.

[Spartan]

That's exactly what I think. I think it would be a mistake the push the entire park back, but we could make the space parkland without spending a huge amount of money. Younger trees could be planted, which actually have a better chance of surviving, and they would have time to mature. Then, as MAPS gets into the second half of collections, the park could be improved as projected.

It might be a good idea to draw up some park plans and determine some things about tree placement patterns, and go ahead and start forestation now. That could give us a 5-10 year head start on tree maturation for the grand opening of the park off in the future.

[Rover]

And I assume we will focus on the park from the new I40 to downtown first and worry less about the lower park to the river.

[betts]

And I assume we will focus on the park from the new I40 to downtown first and worry less about the lower park to the river.

I believe that's the plan.