Prairie Surf Studios (formerly Cox Center)

[hoya]

Teo, I agree with you that this location should be mixed use and a great gateway to downtown. But the pics you posted just look hideous to me.

[Pete]

You know - it is almost as if no one at the City is actually planning for any mass transit to use the transit hub.

There is presently zero mass transit that has been confirmed for the transit hub other than the streetcar.

What percentage of people that work downtown do you think live close enough to walk or take the streetcar to the Cox site? As much as things have built up and with all the plans on the drawing boards I'd bet that number is still just a few percent.

Even if when there is a commuter line to/from Norman, Edmond and Midwest City I doubt that number grows to much more than 5%.

I used to work in the heart of downtown Los Angeles which has a pretty incredible mass transit system (extensive subway, many commuter lines, heavily used bus system, tons of bike lanes, etc.) and the department I managed handled parking among other things. Only about half the 300 people in our office received free parking; the rest were on their own but the company would pretty much pay for mass transit. Of those 300 people, only about 10-20 used mass transit.

[Laramie]

Cox Convention Center will not be demolished until construction is completed on the new convention center. Since the city owns the Cox Convention Center site, wouldn't it make more sense to keep this site for the future indoor sports arena when we retire the Peake?

[BrettM2]

Cox Convention Center will not be demolished until construction is completed on the new convention center. Since the city owns the Cox Convention Center site, wouldn't it make more sense to keep this site for the future indoor sports arena when we retire the Peake?

Not if they can sell the land for a lot more than it'll take to acquire it slightly outside the CBD.

[Pete]

Not if they can sell the land for a lot more than it'll take to acquire it slightly outside the CBD.

Plus, they just paid a consultant a lot of money to do a study and come back with recommendations on how this block and the others around the convention center should be developed.

There are plenty of places to put a new arena when that time comes and it shouldn't be in the middle of our central business district anyway.

[BrettM2]

Plus, they just paid a consultant a lot of money to do a study and come back with recommendations on how this block and the others around the convention center should be developed.

There are plenty of places to put a new arena when that time comes and it shouldn't be in the middle of our central business district anyway.

Definitely agree. They can easily keep it close enough to be convenient to all the amenities without maintaining a super block in the middle of the CBD. Hopefully the city sells the land in smaller parcels to keep one group from hampering a return to the grid.

[Pete]

When it's time for a new arena, the Producer's Coop might be a good possibility.

Or south of the boulevard near the new park, etc.

[Laramie]

When it's time for a new arena, the Producer's Coop might be a good possibility.

Or south of the boulevard near the new park, etc.

Those are excellent options.

[sroberts24]

When it's time for a new arena, the Producer's Coop might be a good possibility.

Or south of the boulevard near the new park, etc.

Or the Compress Lot (Uhaul)

[BrettM2]

Or the Compress Lot (Uhaul)

If they tear down that building, I'll be pissed. Someone needs to buy it and remove the Uhaul exterior.

[Plutonic Panda]

If they tear down that building, I'll be pissed. Someone needs to buy it and remove the Uhaul exterior.

Why wouldn't they tear it down? It's surrounded by vacant lots to build on, and that's the only standing building to tear down. Instead of building on a vacant lot, it's much funner to tear down a historic building, don't you think?

[bchris02]

If they tear down that building, I'll be pissed. Someone needs to buy it and remove the Uhaul exterior.

Most people probably aren't aware of what is under the exterior.

[BrettM2]

Why wouldn't they tear it down? It's surrounded by vacant lots to build on, and that's the only standing building to tear down. Instead of building on a vacant lot, it's much funner to tear down a historic building, don't you think?

Thankfully I read the full comment before I lost my mind... Now you're going to make me actually read your posts to see when you are seriously wanting a 44-lane highway and when you are just yanking chains.

[s00nr1]

On edit - thank goodness they labeled Devon Tower so we could all get our proper bearings .

Okay, that made me laugh.

[Just the facts]

There is presently zero mass transit that has been confirmed for the transit hub other than the streetcar.

What percentage of people that work downtown do you think live close enough to walk or take the streetcar to the Cox site? As much as things have built up and with all the plans on the drawing boards I'd bet that number is still just a few percent.

Even if when there is a commuter line to/from Norman, Edmond and Midwest City I doubt that number grows to much more than 5%.

Apparently, the streetcar won' be going to the hub for awhile either. Alas, just like mass transit doesn't reduce traffic congestion, mass transit isn't going to solve parking problems either. For every person who leaves their car at home and takes the train there will be someone else in a car to take their place. The only way to solve parking issues is to stop building more parking. I know that seems counter-intuitive to some but if people know there is no place for them to park they will stop trying to do it. Of course, that takes an alternative form of transportation to be made available but I wonder if all the TIF money for structured parking was spent on mass transit instead how much further along we would be.

[Just the facts]

There is presently zero mass transit that has been confirmed for the transit hub other than the streetcar.

What percentage of people that work downtown do you think live close enough to walk or take the streetcar to the Cox site? As much as things have built up and with all the plans on the drawing boards I'd bet that number is still just a few percent.

Even if when there is a commuter line to/from Norman, Edmond and Midwest City I doubt that number grows to much more than 5%.

Apparently, the streetcar won' be going to the hub for awhile either. Alas, just like mass transit doesn't reduce traffic congestion, mass transit isn't going to solve parking problems either. For every person who leaves their car at home and takes the train there will be someone else in a car to take their place. The only way to solve parking issues is to stop building more parking. I know that seems counter-intuitive to some but if people know there is no place for them to park they will stop trying to do it. Of course, that takes an alternative form of transportation to be made available to keep the wheels of commerce turning but I wonder if all the TIF money for structured parking was spent on mass transit instead how much further along we would be.

[BrettM2]

Apparently, the streetcar won' be going to the hub for awhile either. Alas, just like mass transit doesn't reduce traffic congestion, mass transit isn't going to solve parking problems either. For every person who leaves their car at home and takes the train there will be someone else in a car to take their place. The only way to solve parking issues is to stop building more parking. I know that seems counter-intuitive to some but if people know there is no place for them to park they will stop trying to do it. Of course, that takes an alternative form of transportation to be made available to keep the wheels of commerce turning but I wonder if all the TIF money for structured parking was spent on mass transit instead how much further along we would be.

Why do we keep going over this? Yes, this would be great. Very few people would argue this. But it isn't exactly possible in OKC in 2014 (or 2015). After decades of decay/poor urban renewal/economic swings, OKC is catching up to some of its peer cities. Hopefully things will improve (and they obviously are; we're getting the street car and local governments are working on a regional rail network). According to Pete's previous posts, the lack of parking will become a major issue in the next few years (and already is). I'd rather add the garages now, let downtown grow, and continue on the momentum of what we do have. Maybe ten years from now we can draw that line in the sand and tell the garage proposals, "You shall not pass!" Until then, we need a hybrid approach.

[Plutonic Panda]

Thankfully I read the full comment before I lost my mind... Now you're going to make me actually read your posts to see when you are seriously wanting a 44-lane highway and when you are just yanking chains.

lol

I really would love to see the Uhual building restored. I have never seen it in its original state.

[Just the facts]

Why do we keep going over this? Yes, this would be great. Very few people would argue this. But it isn't exactly possible in OKC in 2014 (or 2015). After decades of decay/poor urban renewal/economic swings, OKC is catching up to some of its peer cities. Hopefully things will improve (and they obviously are; we're getting the street car and local governments are working on a regional rail network). According to Pete's previous posts, the lack of parking will become a major issue in the next few years (and already is). I'd rather add the garages now, let downtown grow, and continue on the momentum of what we do have. Maybe ten years from now we can draw that line in the sand and tell the garage proposals, "You shall not pass!" Until then, we need a hybrid approach.

So at what point do we make the decision to say no more large footprint parking garages; when there is not a parking problem? There is always going to be a parking problem. No city in the history of the world has solved it. Alas, what if OKC was the first city to solve the parking problem what would then be the reason for building mass transit? In short, mass transit IS the solution to the parking problem for those people who use it. If OKC only had 1 parking space 5 people would drive downtown to try and park in it.

[bombermwc]

Did I just hear someone say that want to demo the Cox Center before we even have a proposal in place? Wow, so here we are complaining about blanket demo work, and that comes up for something that still serves a purpose.....and I still feel will continue to do so even after the CC is open.

We just lost the Barons, so we've now lost the main arena tenant. But will that still be true in another few years? Who knows.

I'm usually opposed to the reclaiming of this space for anything other than the new arena, but like most things I comment on....it all depends. If we can get REAL density out of replacing the Cox Center, great. I don't really care about the grid restoration because it's not as though it gets you anywhere....a rail line in one direction, buildings in 2 directions, and the gardens in the other. If you want more streetscape space, fine whatever. IF someone came up to me and said they were going to build the density that rendering had, I'd be all for it. But until we see the CC open and we know how it's going to operate...and how the Cox will relate to it, I'm not making any plans on the site.

[Just the facts]

I get what you are saying bombermwc but I look at it this way: abandoned bad urban design < occupied bad urban design < vacant lot < abandoned good urban design < occupied good urban design. Much like the Stage Center did, the Cox Center actually prevents adjacent development because it is such a non-inviting structure to be near. Pick any project downtown and drop it into my preference ranking and you can easily determine my stance on the project.

[Laramie]

We not going to solve every problem to make downtown Oklahoma City a CBD utopia. You move one development with the idea to solve a problem then you create another; sadly that's how it appears to work. Just work with the big picture items as we develop a suitable downtown.

It seems like it was only yesterday I so vividly recall the opening night of the Myriad Convention Center's 'Great Arena' with Della Reese (singer) as the marquee entertainment on that eventful day. Our new arena-convention center complex was to put Oklahoma City in the mix for some prime conventions; there was only one problem, we had only one legitimate downtown hotel.

[Jersey Boss]

Apparently, the streetcar won' be going to the hub for awhile either. Alas, just like mass transit doesn't reduce traffic congestion, mass transit isn't going to solve parking problems either. For every person who leaves their car at home and takes the train there will be someone else in a car to take their place. The only way to solve parking issues is to stop building more parking. I know that seems counter-intuitive to some but if people know there is no place for them to park they will stop trying to do it. Of course, that takes an alternative form of transportation to be made available but I wonder if all the TIF money for structured parking was spent on mass transit instead how much further along we would be.

This practice has served Manhattan well.

[bchris02]

This practice has served Manhattan well.

In a small city like OKC, removing downtown parking will simply drive development to the suburbs. Developers design for the infrastructure that is here, not what theoretically should be here under a certain worldview or not what may be here in 15-20 years. This isn't NYC where density and mass transit are a requirement because of limited space. Comparing OKC development practices with Manhattan, like is often done on this site, couldn't be more ridiculous. There probably couldn't be any two cities that are more different than OKC and NYC.

I promise everyone, if many of the dogmatic demands of some of the urbanists on this site were enacted in OKC, it would mean the end of the downtown renaissance. Developers wouldn't spend the money nor go through the hassle in a place like OKC to conform to some of these standards and demands.

I am all for higher standards in OKC. I think development standards here have long lagged peer cities and think things should be taken to the next level. They have to stay realistic though for OKC. This cities size, economy, and culture has to be taken into consideration. What may be good for Tokyo may not be good for OKC. Instead of looking at what cities like NYC, London, and Paris are doing, which have no comparison to OKC, look at what Memphis, Nashville, Louisville, and San Antonio are doing and try to emulate that.

[Teo9969]

Teo, I agree with you that this location should be mixed use and a great gateway to downtown. But the pics you posted just look hideous to me.

What exactly is hideous? The buildings, the people, the fountain, the movie theater, the restaurants?

Or did you just dismiss the entire photo because you don't like the mechanical roof which is not even a major reason why I shared those pics?