Innovation Link

[gopokes88]

I would bet big money a bridge cap is in Maps 4

[HOT ROD]

I personally would rather they develop the existing OHC as it's own neighborhood and build several pedestrian bridges + trails over I-235 to connect to the downtown neighbourhoods. This idea solves the REAL problem of the lack of density at the pedestrian level in the neighborhood and also likely is the cheapest. Capping I-235 to me is a band aide that doesn't solve the real problem.

[Rover]

Are we going to underwrite the private development to go on this cap? Do any of you think a privately funded building project can make money at the cost of construction required to build over the expressway? Does the city (or is this ODOT's) charge for the air space rights? Anybody care to work out the practical economics?

I know this is a modern urbanist googly eyes dream to do this cap, but it sure seems we can invest our money in way more efficient ways to create good urban development.

[Plutonic Panda]

Are we going to underwrite the private development to go on this cap? Do any of you think a privately funded building project can make money at the cost of construction required to build over the expressway? Does the city (or is this ODOT's) charge for the air space rights? Anybody care to work out the practical economics?

I know this is a modern urbanist googly eyes dream to do this cap, but it sure seems we can invest our money in way more efficient ways to create good urban development.

City projects aren't a business to make money. It's to make the quality of life better. You have to pay money for that. Anything built as a result is just a plus that offsets part a loss that was already expected. Classic example is Seattle's SR-99 Tunnel. Though tolled, it still won't make money necessary to cover it's multi-billion dollar cost and unfortunately for me and my love of tunnels, I think it will be the last freeway tunnel for awhile in the U.S. Even though other countries are building them like crazy, the U.S. is being left behind. If you want to see some incredible new freeways being built with an extensive tunnel network, look no further than Japan, Turkey, Sri Lanka, or China. If you really want to be wowed, have a gander at Rogfast Tunnel that will be 17 miles long and only costs a mere few billion dollars. Through extreme ignorance and flat out arrogance, the 710 tunnel gap is dormant and likely dead in L.A. Unfortunately new freeway progress seems to be in trouble in Los Angeles.

I am sure the residents of Seattle will apreciate the increased walkability and connection to the bay though it was a costly and lengthy road to get there. Ask any Bostonian and I'm sure most will tell you the big dig was worth it even though they still have to pay over 7 million a year to pump water back up that leaks in.

[GaryOKC6]

The plan is to not have an interstate carving the innovation district in half. It is supposed to include the research park as well. The chamber along with 80+ business leaders did an inter-city visit to Columbus last fall to visit with them about their interstate cap among other projects. This innovation district is already well under way although you don't see the visible signs of it yet.

[hoya]

Are we going to underwrite the private development to go on this cap? Do any of you think a privately funded building project can make money at the cost of construction required to build over the expressway? Does the city (or is this ODOT's) charge for the air space rights? Anybody care to work out the practical economics?

I know this is a modern urbanist googly eyes dream to do this cap, but it sure seems we can invest our money in way more efficient ways to create good urban development.

Capping the freeway seems like a good way to spend tons of money for not much impact. I think there's still a metric buttload of low hanging fruit for OKC's development, and we don't need to engage in something of this size and scale in order to move the city forward. Certainly not yet anyway.

Now, I feel like I'm channeling the ghost of Just The Facts/Kerry, but I think a far better investment would be for us to rip out I-235. That's not something that's going to be politically feasible for at least 30+ years, but I think it's going to take that long for us to use up all the available land that we've got downtown right now. I don't think we're ever going to hit a point where a freeway cap is either needed or makes economic sense. Put some pedestrian bridges over 235, run the streetcar over to the medical complex? Sure. But we don't need to cap the land. There's tons of land right on the other side that is currently nearly vacant. Let's use that up first.

Once the Innovation District is a real thing, and we're running out of room, by that point it'll be time to look at replacing 235 anyway. By that point we should have a regional mass transit system. By that point our downtown should have a sizable resident population. By that time we can look at just eliminating the interstate. But that's a long way off from today.

[Plutonic Panda]

Capping the freeway seems like a good way to spend tons of money for not much impact. I think there's still a metric buttload of low hanging fruit for OKC's development, and we don't need to engage in something of this size and scale in order to move the city forward. Certainly not yet anyway.

Now, I feel like I'm channeling the ghost of Just The Facts/Kerry, but I think a far better investment would be for us to rip out I-235. That's not something that's going to be politically feasible for at least 30+ years, but I think it's going to take that long for us to use up all the available land that we've got downtown right now. I don't think we're ever going to hit a point where a freeway cap is either needed or makes economic sense. Put some pedestrian bridges over 235, run the streetcar over to the medical complex? Sure. But we don't need to cap the land. There's tons of land right on the other side that is currently nearly vacant. Let's use that up first.

Once the Innovation District is a real thing, and we're running out of room, by that point it'll be time to look at replacing 235 anyway. By that point we should have a regional mass transit system. By that point our downtown should have a sizable resident population. By that time we can look at just eliminating the interstate. But that's a long way off from today.

Ripping out 235 is never going to happen until flying cars make freeways obsolete. Even then, 30 years is a long to just bank on that freeway being removed and there is plenty of good reasoning to build a freeway cap.

[Rover]

So, the consensus on this board is that this is the most efficient use of our money to create an urban environment.

[Plutonic Panda]

So, the consensus on this board is that this is the most efficient use of our money to create an urban environment.

Everyone will always have a better idea of how to spend someone else's money. I get you don't like this idea. That is fine. It will be up to the city or the people if it is brought to a vote to build it or not. Lots of major cities have been doing this with great results. St. Louis is poised to see a lot of new development and Dallas certainly already has around their caps. I-70 in Denver will be capped and already have new announcements adjacent to the cap, IIRC.

At the very least, other alternatives have been presented like this one:





As Urbanized said, Columbus, OH has done it with great success.

https://www.pps.org/article/bridges-and-placemaking

https://www.quora.com/What-bridges-h...-London-Bridge

[Rover]

I am not arguing if this is a nice thing to do, just that we have so many areas where we can improve our urban environment and enable and encourage private investments, I just question the cost/benefit vs doing other things like extending the streetcar and public transportation capabilities, infilling existing areas, etc. We have lots of areas for improvement. Is this the best bang for our limited bucks? Where we are talking about is very, very different than in Columbus and certainly than Florence or Prague.

[Rover]

I am not arguing if this is a nice thing to do, just that we have so many areas where we can improve our urban environment and enable and encourage private investments, I just question the cost/benefit vs doing other things like extending the streetcar and public transportation capabilities, infilling existing areas, etc. We have lots of areas for improvement. Is this the best bang for our limited bucks?

I believe Columbus was done by a private developer with them receiving "air rights" over the highway. The state kicked in around $1 million. If we can get the same kind of commitment and agreements, I say bravo. Let's see an OKC developer step up. The Columbus development was pretty much a commercial development and didn't include bike trails, walking trails, green belts, etc. Here, we might be able to do something like it IF ODOT agrees to give the air rights and support with some platform construction like Ohio did.

[Urbanized]

^^^^^^^^
I don't necessarily disagree with you that there are better ways to spend money than on the cap, and completely concur that infill and urbanization of the existing district is much more important than a cap.

All I am saying is that the cap I'm seeing floated is so incredibly ambitious - and by extension expensive - that if they are really looking to knit together the two areas over 235 they don't need to create a blocks-long park; they could do it much more inexpensively by using those Columbus models. And in the case of the bridge with buildings they could actually derive ongoing revenue in the form of rent. Besides, doing what was done in Columbus is INFINITELY more walkable than the park-like thing I've seen in drawings.

I really suspect that the cap happens at some point because it now has too much inertia behind it. Witness Gary's post. And I think it is telling that he talked about it also needing to connect to the research park. What this tells me is that to sell it as a district they have latched on to the west of 235 portion so much that to some extent the research park - which is the actual point of the whole thing - is secondary in the sales pitch. So if it's happening anyway, let's do the more walkable (and by coincidence more affordable) version.

[dwellsokc]

The original Link design was a concept test, based on capping as much as possible without interfering with I-235 traffic paths (present and future). The curving geometry is a result of that concept. However, because the purpose is to improve connectivity and walkability, not provide “park” space, the design is being modified to reduce the Cap area (and cost) to a minimum but keeping the swooping geometry.

It's important to understand that 9^th Street, not 10^th Street, is the true connector between both sides of the barrier… that’s why you see it pulled through onto the Cap, creating a “target” for the proposed pedestrian paths.

Why should the space over I-235 be considered any less of a missing tooth than other infill opportunities? Extruding the city fabric across the barrier is urbanization of the existing district…

[HangryHippo]

It's important to understand that 9^th Street, not 10^th Street, is the true connector between both sides of the barrier… that’s why you see it pulled through onto the Cap, creating a “target” for the proposed pedestrian paths.

I'm not sure I follow - can you expound on this? How is 9th St the true connector?

extruding the city fabric across the barrier is urbanization of the existing district…

Well said.

[dwellsokc]

I'm not sure I follow - can you expound on this? How is 9th St the true connector?

10th Street is probably destined to remain a major vehicle path... very pedestrian-unfriendly and biker-unfriendly. 9th Street is already pedestrian-friendly and contains many destinations for neighboring walkers. It's a natural connector to Automobile Alley.

[Urbanized]

...Why should the space over I-235 be considered any less of a missing tooth than other infill opportunities? Extruding the city fabric across the barrier is urbanization of the existing district…

Because of the geometric budget expansion it would create in the name of a more satisfying rendering, and because achieving walkability only need involve the touching the street, the sidewalk and building frontage. In the photo below, the tan building in the middle is suspended over the freeway, creates a thoroughly walkable connection, and totally obscures the highway visually, from street level. Who cares what’s behind it?

Walkability and quality urbanization has absolutely zero to do with attractive aerial renderings and everything to do with actual street-level interaction.

[catch22]

That is amazing ^^^^

If you hadn't mentioned that I would have had no idea that was a bridge.

[dwellsokc]

Who cares what’s behind it?

Context matters. The I-670 Cap in Columbus is an extremely successful model, and they didn’t care what was behind it because there was nothing behind it. In our case, 9^th Street is behind it… and 9^th Street is more important to pedestrianism than is 10^th Street.

The Innovation Link radically improves the 10^th Street pedestrian experience while reconnecting to the real pedestrian corridor… 9^th Street. I challenge everyone to spend some time walking and biking the area, then downplay the importance of 9^th Street.

Concept renderings are needed to make a vision easier to understand. And as with all projects, the final product won’t exactly match the first rendering. (But I must agree that it is an attractive aerial rendering!)

[Urbanized]

Context matters. The I-670 Cap in Columbus is an extremely successful model, and they didn’t care what was behind it because there was nothing behind it. In our case, 9^th Street is behind it… and 9^th Street is more important to pedestrianism than is 10^th Street.

The Innovation Link radically improves the 10^th Street pedestrian experience while reconnecting to the real pedestrian corridor… 9^th Street. I challenge everyone to spend some time walking and biking the area, then downplay the importance of 9^th Street.

Concept renderings are needed to make a vision easier to understand. And as with all projects, the final product won’t exactly match the first rendering. (But I must agree that it is an attractive aerial rendering!)

Both streets could get the same treatment and it would STILL be cheaper than capping both streets AND the area between them.

[dwellsokc]

Both streets could get the same treatment and it would STILL be cheaper than capping both streets AND the area between them.

I absolutely agree!

And street-level sidewalks are cheaper than a canal… And a collegiate-quality arena is cheaper than an NBA-quality arena… And busses are cheaper than streetcars… And a dry creek bed is cheaper than a rowing river…And doing nothing is cheaper still…

The mission is to improve connectivity and walkability across the I-235 barrier. Is cost the prime driver?

[catch22]

Why does 9th street even need to cross? 9th goes right across into the GE Parking Garage. It's not like there's some interactive street across the highway from 9th?

I'm with Urbanized here. The cap would be pretty, but really all we need is a more interactive 10th street crossing.

[benjico]

I think ideally you want to connect 9th street on the west side of 35 with both 10th street and 8th street on the east side of 35.

[Rover]

I absolutely agree!

And street-level sidewalks are cheaper than a canal… And a collegiate-quality arena is cheaper than an NBA-quality arena… And busses are cheaper than streetcars… And a dry creek bed is cheaper than a rowing river…And doing nothing is cheaper still…

The mission is to improve connectivity and walkability across the I-235 barrier. Is cost the prime driver?

OKC has a long history of expanding areas instead of improving areas. Personally, I would much rather focus on infilling efforts and walkability/bikeability/public transportation/code enforcement, etc. from I40 to 23rd, from Classen to I235, than from continuing to stretch out and make downtown bigger. When the innovation district itself makes itself worthy of connection, then this connection becomes important. It is not urban and does not seem to be moving towards urban. Connecting AA to it does not make it urban and even worth walking or biking to. Right now, what are we talking about connecting to? Let's connect areas where developers are already doing things to make their area urban. Let us knit the best together before we keep adding area. We keep promoting this notion of quantity vs. quality.

[dwellsokc]

9^th Street doesn’t cross. The cap is designed to steer westbound 10^th Street pedestrian traffic to 9^th Street because 10^th Street (west of I-235) is pedestrian-UNfriendly. 10^th Street is for cars… 9^th Street is for people. Functionality, not esthetics, is the design driver.

[hoya]

Yeah, 9th street on the west side of the interstate may be all walkable and great. But 9th street on the east side of the interstate is the GE building's wall.