This picture shows just how desolate the area around TCC really is..
(http://www.urban-photos.com/gallery/albums/city_galleries/tulsa/tulsa_69_9369.jpg)
Photo by Bill Cobb (KCGridlock at Skyscraperpage.com)
TCC's new arts building has made an impact though, does anyone know if they plan on building more new facilities at the Metro campus? I'd personally like to see TCC maybe consolidate its campuses into just three selling the northeast and midtown campuses to private companies and moving those programs to downtown. Maybe sell the west campus as well and concentrate solely on the downtown and southeast campuses, already the two largest. It would also be interesting to see TCC or a private developer build student housing in downtown on the parking lots around TCC. Having a large community college presence could really liven up this part of downtown, with classes during the day and night and especially if there is housing so it's not exclusively a commuter school. Build up OSU on the northside of downtown and TCC on the southside with the CBD, Blue Dome, and Brady in the middle, connected by a streetcar.. :)
This pic also does a nice job showing off the Osage Hills northwest of downtown, a beautiful area not many people know about mainly because it's so undeveloped..for now at least.
the huge lots between TCC and Boston ave methodist church were filled with a great warehouse buildings, a really unique cottage style apartment building, and an elementary school (which later became a minimum security prison) you can still see one apartment from the complex, it was moved to Baltimore ave between 17th and 18th street, its the pale green building on the right side of this link.,the complex was named Manhattan Court apartments
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=17th+and+baltimore,+tulsa+ok&ie=UTF8&split=0&gl=us&ei=97jfScOGNoHmlQfSv8TgDg&ll=36.137147,-95.986304&spn=0.009531,0.019569&z=16&iwloc=A&layer=c&cbll=36.13723,-95.986295&panoid=zbNtsnv6SRUo_dBPWgBHzw&cbp=12,92.26970913175434,,0,6.3326752221125355
I dont think TCC needs to sell any any campuses and dont think there is a snowballs chance in heck, of that happening. However, it does appear that the new building is set up to expand out the back. The Boston Ave, side is open with windows etc. The opposite side is a blank, windowless wall. My hopeful read of that is that a future expansion will go on that side.
I really think we need to do some zoning downtown like they do in Denver which says, this street is to be an "A" pedestrian friendly street, this one a "B" car oriented street.
This way we dont end up with scattered, disconnected pockets and tiny islands of walk-ability. We generally build big stuff downtown so once something is there, its expensive to remove and redo or at least it takes decades and decades for the changes to happen.
Was walking downtown a few weeks ago showing my brother around who was in town. I had parked over in the area in front of Holy Family closer to Boston Ave... We walked down Boston, then went towards main and the Mayo Hotel, started going back to the car. When we got to Bartlett Square, looked south towards where the Church and the car was, then looked down the street towards Boston Ave... The quicker way was south down main, but we both looked at each other and said the same thing... would rather take the long way that looked nice, down a couple of streets we had already been, than down the ugly main street lol.
How the buildings, and or parking, on a street are, really does greatly influence where people want to go. This affects businesses, especially those on the ground floor. If your a lone business or couple of businesses on a street where nobody wants to go, your gonna hurt. Where as a larger collection of street level businesses on a pedestrian friendly street, reinforce each other. The more the better.
Thus having some sort of A and B street designations shows where you want your pedestrian friendly areas to go, and does a lot of other things. Keeps unpedestrian friendly developments from breaking up and hurting the streetscape, but still allows those developments to go downtown on the B streets. You as a "trailblazer" business or developer will know that the guy going in beside you or across from you will help and reinforce your business, not hurt it. Right now its a crap shoot, you have no idea.
We dont have to designate every street downtown at this time for there are large areas with basically nothing and you can leave those areas as blank slates for whatever. But once some streets are becoming obviously one way or another, help everyone out by designating them as such. Plus designate the obvious connector streets which connect the pedestrian friendly streets around downtown.
I have said this many times... If you try to make all your streets great streets, none of them will be. It makes perfect sense to designate A streets and B streets, even high density and medium density residential streets downtown. Kind of a set of Form Based Codes for the IDL.
Looking at that blank slate of parking lots makes one wonder which streets would best be A streets and B streets with future development. Where could shared parking go etc. or do we just let things develop as they will without any direction and take our chances?
Btw, I think it would be a neat idea for the housing at OSU Tulsa to also be able to be used by TCC students if they want. Some metro TCC students use the housing at TU. So would make perfect sense if you were going to go ahead and transfer to OSU Tulsa to be able to use that housing. Plus since OSU has that new engineering/research building and emphasis, it would be great if the TCC metro campus also had the first year programs that dovetailed into that.
I'd like to see Boston and Boulder as 'retail' streets through downtown, and also Elgin, Denver, 6th, and 3rd. Wherever a future streetcar goes so will retail, restaurants, etc. I noticed that pattern on a recent trip to Portland where the area around the downtown streetcar was really active with shops and eateries and then blocks away from it were mostly office or residential with fewer people. I see downtown Tulsa being the same way and those active streets will be ones with transit.
Quote from: mobboss on April 10, 2009, 04:30:20 PM
the huge lots between TCC and Boston ave methodist church were filled with a great warehouse buildings, a really unique cottage style apartment building, and an elementary school (which later became a minimum security prison) you can still see one apartment from the complex, it was moved to Baltimore ave between 17th and 18th street, its the pale green building on the right side of this link.,the complex was named Manhattan Court apartments
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=17th+and+baltimore,+tulsa+ok&ie=UTF8&split=0&gl=us&ei=97jfScOGNoHmlQfSv8TgDg&ll=36.137147,-95.986304&spn=0.009531,0.019569&z=16&iwloc=A&layer=c&cbll=36.13723,-95.986295&panoid=zbNtsnv6SRUo_dBPWgBHzw&cbp=12,92.26970913175434,,0,6.3326752221125355
FYI, the school, Horace Mann, was actually a Junior High School, at least until it became a minimum security facility in the late 70s (I believe it was a "pre-release" holding place). I understand that it started as an elementary school in the early 1900s, but by the time the first class went through, it was converted to Junior High (I know of a woman who started there in 1st grade, and went straight through till 9th because it converted to junior high). It was a terrible loss when it was torn down for nothing more than a surface lot.
My step-grandfather worked as the janitor for Horace Mann for 30 years.
It was cool to have a school downtown.
Bring back good pre-through high schools downtown if you want it inhabitable. Or, you can just make it possible by creating a district that encompasses Booker T and Carver and you can send your kids there IF you live within the downtown district....
North campus won't be sold. There are a lot of political and financial reasons that campus is there, on top of the fact that TCC is trying to serve the communities. If any campus consists of students capable of driving around, it's SE. The also couldn't sell campuses for enough to rebuild those facilities elsewhere. I've never seen a midtown campus.
TCC staff has also said they are open to moving to structured parking, they just can't justify the cost. If someone like American Parking would build a garage and give free parking to TCC in exchange for land, then it would work out for all parties.
The new Metro campus building does allow westerly expansion and was supposed to also hold OETA studios but that got held up.
TCC student housing would be awesome downtown. Or OSU student housing. Langston. Hell, TU and OU student housing with buses. Whatever.
People downtown, not parking.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 13, 2009, 08:56:53 AM
TCC student housing would be awesome downtown. Or OSU student housing. Langston. Hell, TU and OU student housing with buses. Whatever.
People downtown, not parking.
OU and OSU are both eyeing student housing downtown.
Here is a picture of Boston Ave in 1978 (from the Beryl Ford Collection) That appears to have been taken from the Boston Avenue Methodist Church.
In the foreground is the Fred Jones Ford dealer ship, which had buildings on both sides of Boston Ave (you can see the roof tops). Just north is the Horace Mann middle school.(http://www.tulsalibrary.org/JPG/A0761.jpg)
Quote from: sgrizzle on April 11, 2009, 10:08:42 PM
North campus won't be sold. There are a lot of political and financial reasons that campus is there, on top of the fact that TCC is trying to serve the communities. If any campus consists of students capable of driving around, it's SE. The also couldn't sell campuses for enough to rebuild those facilities elsewhere. I've never seen a midtown campus.
TCC staff has also said they are open to moving to structured parking, they just can't justify the cost. If someone like American Parking would build a garage and give free parking to TCC in exchange for land, then it would work out for all parties.
The new Metro campus building does allow westerly expansion and was supposed to also hold OETA studios but that got held up.
Funny how last year, TCC needed money for an Owasso campus, which was of course rejected by voters, and then, the money later appearedd for the same project; also funny how they can give out free tuition; yet, they don't have money to be a good citizen of downtown and build a parking garage.
Quote from: carltonplace on April 13, 2009, 11:34:51 AM
Here is a picture of Boston Ave in 1978 (from the Beryl Ford Collection) That appears to have been taken from the Boston Avenue Methodist Church.
In the foreground is the Fred Jones Ford dealer ship, which had buildings on both sides of Boston Ave (you can see the roof tops). Just north is the Horace Mann middle school.(http://www.tulsalibrary.org/JPG/A0761.jpg)
I enjoyed the ghost flying out of the Mayo. ;) Thanks for the pic.
Quote from: Gold on April 13, 2009, 11:48:50 AM
Funny how last year, TCC needed money for an Owasso campus, which was of course rejected by voters, and then, the money later appearedd for the same project; also funny how they can give out free tuition; yet, they don't have money to be a good citizen of downtown and build a parking garage.
It just amazes me how TCC needs all this money and then, after getting my yearly ad valorem breakdown from the county, their share of the ad valorem was right around 13 percent of what I pay.
I doesn't do much good to lament what is gone, but that Jr High School could have made a great collection of shops with a courtyard in the middle.
Quote from: Gold on April 13, 2009, 11:48:50 AM
Funny how last year, TCC needed money for an Owasso campus, which was of course rejected by voters, and then, the money later appearedd for the same project; also funny how they can give out free tuition; yet, they don't have money to be a good citizen of downtown and build a parking garage.
This needs some correction.
They were asking for money for an Owasso campus. Now they are getting a small building they are sharing. While both technically "buildings" there is a big difference. Only 16 of the 76 Million was going to the owasso campus.
TCC also doesn't just "give out free tuition" they are leveraging existing programs, matching dollars, etc and TCC itself pays only a small portion of the Tulsa Achieves total funding.
Also, how ironic is it that you brag about the shooting down of a bond for classrooms but are shocked they don't have funding to build a parking garage? One is part of TCC's stated mission and the other is largely aesthetics.
I hope we can recreate that 1978 streetscape along Boston one of these days, with new mixed-use buildings and maybe a new office tower. I'd like to see the streetscape that looks so nice from 3rd to 8th extended all the way down to 18th with the space for parallel parking and new sidewalks and trees.
Also, the image I posted is from Skyscraperpage.com and is part of a large thread about Tulsa with some amazing recently-taken aerial photos. Lots of positive comments have been made about the city, take a look: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=158609 (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=158609)
Quote from: sgrizzle on April 13, 2009, 01:31:56 PM
This needs some correction.
They were asking for money for an Owasso campus. Now they are getting a small building they are sharing. While both technically "buildings" there is a big difference. Only 16 of the 76 Million was going to the owasso campus.
TCC also doesn't just "give out free tuition" they are leveraging existing programs, matching dollars, etc and TCC itself pays only a small portion of the Tulsa Achieves total funding.
Also, how ironic is it that you brag about the shooting down of a bond for classrooms but are shocked they don't have funding to build a parking garage? One is part of TCC's stated mission and the other is largely aesthetics.
That's fair. I really question the amount of investment our community has made in TCC. It serves a purpose, but I think we would be better suited investing more in four year universities, especially those with research facilities. I was not in favor of the expansion to Owasso. (Why help Owasso when Owassa won't help us?) I also didn't like that public funding when towards a pursuit that was defeated, even if it's not the same project.
TCC's downtown campus needs to be more integrated with downtown. Right now, they've done a pretty good job of making the campus an island.
Quote from: Gold on April 13, 2009, 02:54:01 PM
That's fair. I really question the amount of investment our community has made in TCC. It serves a purpose, but I think we would be better suited investing more in four year universities, especially those with research facilities. I was not in favor of the expansion to Owasso. (Why help Owasso when Owassa won't help us?) I also didn't like that public funding when towards a pursuit that was defeated, even if it's not the same project.
TCC's downtown campus needs to be more integrated with downtown. Right now, they've done a pretty good job of making the campus an island.
I wasn't a big fan of the Owasso expansion either but as I understand it is more of the college integrated with High School type programs. TCC is adding better programs and expanding but if they are determined to keep a stranglehold on first-two-years curriculum, then there needs to be 1000x more transparency between the institutions.
I have gotten the general idea that future development at TCC may be northward and more towards the rest of downtown. Personally I'd like to see TCC take over some existing space rather than buy a new building. Then you would have hundreds of students wandering around downtown to get between classes.
That would be great. Plenty of office space to the north that needs to be used.
They get a lot of funding and not many people understand how they operate and how they are held accountable. I actually really liked Bates' article on TCC last year. I'm all for spending on education. I just hope that the money we are spending on an increasing number of public post-secondary educational opportunities is done so in a way that we get the most bang for our buck. Right now, I see some things that make me have to scratch my head; the parking is probably the least of them, though it is annoying.
I'm not sure what would replace the parking lots. :-\
Is there not a name for this part of downtown? Seems like other parts of downtown have names like Blue Dome and Brady, is there a historical name for the area of south downtown?
Quote from: SXSW on April 14, 2009, 09:59:41 AM
Is there not a name for this part of downtown? Seems like other parts of downtown have names like Blue Dome and Brady, is there a historical name for the area of south downtown?
I believe the Downtown Live folks have coined it "Cathedral Square" in light of the large concentration of old religious architecture.
Quote from: mjchamplin on April 14, 2009, 10:06:36 AM
I believe the Downtown Live folks have coined it "Cathedral Square" in light of the large concentration of old religious architecture.
There is actually a sign in that area denoting "Cathedral Square" but it is talking about a smaller area. I think DTU calls it "The Rt 66 District" although Rt66 originally ran down 2nd.
Quote from: sgrizzle on April 14, 2009, 10:20:17 AM
There is actually a sign in that area denoting "Cathedral Square" but it is talking about a smaller area. I think DTU calls it "The Rt 66 District" although Rt66 originally ran down 2nd.
Yeah I think technically "Cathedral Square" is just that little green area at 11th (?) and Boulder.
Though I'm all for calling it the "TCC Parking Lot Wasteland". ;)
According to the Tulsa Now/Downtown Live! map... its Cathedral Square. And we all know thats the map that really counts. ;D The district just above that is the Deco District.
Personally I like the name Cathedral Square for the whole area. Now if we can just get an actual 'Square' in front of Holy Family Cathedral that could be the focal point for the entire district. I know that idea has been thrown around before. All it would take from the city is the investment in a half block park between Boulder and Main in front of Holy Family along 8th Street, and then hopefully a master plan could be developed for building mixed-use residential buildings on the parking lots around it. That would create a nice transition in between the churches/TCC and the CBD, and offer a place of recreation for future residents and school children at the church day schools.
Something like Jamison Square in Portland (which was a parking lot) with landscaping and a water feature would be cool framing one of the most beautiful cathedrals in the region (Holy Family):
(http://pro.corbis.com/images/42-17853035.jpg?size=67&uid=%7B7B94E530-8CA2-4BFF-A3CF-6A49C5D2FFB1%7D)
(http://omni.hs1.com/public/images_communities/35_news_thumbnail_192_20080616165511.JPG)
(http://omni.hs1.com/public/images_communities/35_news_thumbnail_197_20080616165810.JPG)
Looking at that picture.... Tsk, Tsk, Children and families in an urban environment? Thats heresy. Everyone in Tulsa knows that children and families can only live in a suburban environment. Those pictures must have been doctored.
Quote from: TheArtist on April 14, 2009, 04:24:18 PM
Looking at that picture.... Tsk, Tsk, Children and families in an urban environment? Thats heresy. Everyone in Tulsa knows that children and families can only live in a suburban environment. Those pictures must have been doctored.
Portland-area residents thought exactly the same. So, what did they do to convince suburbanites that the "big, bad city" wasn't so scary after all?
Not sure that most Portland area residents really thought that way. They have been very progressive on many fronts for decades as pertaining to urban design, urban boundaries, mass transit, etc.
One important etc. being... designing urban environments with children in mind.
Whatever we do in this city to revitalize our downtown, and areas around it, including possible ideas for the TCC wasteland, is to keep children and families in mind.
Looking at those pics its plain to see this is an urban neighborhood, not office park or entertainment district. Though right around the block may be areas that are more office or retail oriented, or that have more of an entertainment vibe. Most if not all of the buildings are residential, and meet the street in a pedestrian friendly manner. Perhaps having some retail on the ground floors and offices in some of the buildings as well. The square is designed as kind of a neighborhood park. The city children have a convenient, safe place to play with lots of eyes from all the windows and balconies looking down as a safety factor.
One of the things the Pearl District is trying to do is also make sure its a child friendly environment. The Woonerven streets are but one example. No real line between sidewalk or street, just one shared space. No signs, no stop lights, no speed limits, etc. The sidewalk, the street, the entrances and exits to the buildings, the buildings themselves, all part of one contiguous "room", one shared public space that creates a pshychology and awareness of everyone looking out for everyone else and a place where people naturally want to be. It creates a much friendlier place for families and children to be. Plus, again having nearby parks (the water retention ponds), trees, fountains, playgrounds, pedestrian friendly, child friendly streets, mixtures of uses, plenty of activity, permeable building facades/doors/windows/balconies as eyes on the streets, etc.
The best places take a holistic approach considering many many factors. An easy rule of thumb for creating a safe, pleasing, welcoming urban environment is to think of creating ones that you would allow your children to be in, that would be attractive to families. If we keep that as our focus, all the rest will fall into place automatically.
But again, these things dont happen by magical happenstance. We have to decide and actively make streets and areas that way. Thats why I ask, What do we want for that area? What streets should be "A" streets and "B" streets? Are we going to purposely make good areas and streets, or not? Unless some big developer goes in and decides for us, its up to us to make the descisions and guide the developments.
Jamison Square in the heart of Portland's Pearl District was Tulsa's TCC Parking Lot Wasteland 10-15 years ago. Transit, in the form of a streetcar through the district connecting it to downtown and other urban 'hoods, as well as mixed-use zoning and new public parks like Jamison Square spurred the renaissance. I think the Cathedral Square and Uptown areas have the same potential in Tulsa located near (in Uptown's case in between) established older, wealthier neighborhoods and also next to downtown with Cathedral square basically in downtown (inside the IDL). Both have some already established residential and a mix of office and retail space, just need more residents and shops/restaurants to be really active areas.
Quote from: SXSW on April 14, 2009, 06:49:36 PM
Jamison Square in the heart of Portland's Pearl District was Tulsa's TCC Parking Lot Wasteland 10-15 years ago. Transit, in the form of a streetcar through the district connecting it to downtown and other urban 'hoods, as well as mixed-use zoning and new public parks like Jamison Square spurred the renaissance. I think the Cathedral Square and Uptown areas have the same potential in Tulsa located near (in Uptown's case in between) established older, wealthier neighborhoods and also next to downtown with Cathedral square basically in downtown (inside the IDL). Both have some already established residential and a mix of office and retail space, just need more residents and shops/restaurants to be really active areas.
Be careful. Not all residential and shops/restaurants are equal. Some developments, simply because of the way they meet the street/sidewalk, and interact or dont with whats around them,,, can make a HUGE difference. The difference can be between an area thats alive, pedestrian friendly and bustling, or one thats dead. Zoning makes the difference. Whats our zoning for that area? The last new housing built near the area currently is the Renaissance Uptown Apartments. A terrible, unfortunate disaster.
Whats the problem with this city and its inability to do anything about zoning in downtown? There seems to be a taboo about even mentioning it. Even when I mention it on here, nobody seems to act like they even read what I said. No comment on it one way or another. Its just the same ol story of wanting this or that, but from my perspective, no care to push or talk about what it would take to get it done right?
Good places dont happen by accident. Matter of fact, our current zoning actually acts against it!
From what I can tell with a quick look. That area and others near it in Portland have zoning that Tulsans could currently only dream of. From building massing, heights, concern for views, mixed use, pedestrian friendly, gateway buildings, etc. Will look more into it later when I have time. Here, from what I can tell, you can build to just about any height, have parking up front or fence off, or have a blank wall, etc. You could end up with one really tall building in the middle of a fenced off parking lot, or a Wal-Mart in the middle of a large parking lot. There is not much to guide that area into anything in particular, let alone what many of us could agree we would like it to be. We look at pictures of neat areas in other cities and wish we had them... then do nothing to make sure they happen. Odd really.
Hopefully through mass discussion we can get these ideas to be part of a new downtown zoning overlay, or develop a form-based code for specific areas like they are doing in the Pearl area (the Tulsa version). I may take another trip to Portland soon and research the area and then I can better draft up a proposal. From there I can submit to the city, and hope for the best. I'd like to develop it myself but I'm not in the position to do that...at least not yet.
Isn't this one of the things that PlanIt Tulsa is supposed to address? Making zoning recommendations? It seems like that's the biggest roadblock to healthy downtown development at the moment.
Quote from: SXSW on April 14, 2009, 12:23:59 PM
Personally I like the name Cathedral Square for the whole area. Now if we can just get an actual 'Square' in front of Holy Family Cathedral that could be the focal point for the entire district. I know that idea has been thrown around before. All it would take from the city is the investment in a half block park between Boulder and Main in front of Holy Family along 8th Street, and then hopefully a master plan could be developed for building mixed-use residential buildings on the parking lots around it. That would create a nice transition in between the churches/TCC and the CBD, and offer a place of recreation for future residents and school children at the church day schools.
Something like Jamison Square in Portland (which was a parking lot) with landscaping and a water feature would be cool framing one of the most beautiful cathedrals in the region (Holy Family):
I read somewhere that Land Legacy has the Cathedral Square idea on their wish list.
Quote from: carltonplace on April 15, 2009, 10:01:50 AM
I read somewhere that Land Legacy has the Cathedral Square idea on their wish list.
It's the #2 idea. East village is the current forerunner. LL tried to do a south downtown park several years ago and it flopped.
Too bad we can't have both. A Cathedral Square and TCC mix seems like a perfect opportunity for creating development in empty spaces.
Quote from: carltonplace on April 15, 2009, 10:26:46 AM
Too bad we can't have both. A Cathedral Square and TCC mix seems like a perfect opportunity for creating development in empty spaces.
Might get both eventually. It's a financial thing.
Quote from: sgrizzle on April 15, 2009, 10:21:36 AM
It's the #2 idea. East village is the current forerunner. LL tried to do a south downtown park several years ago and it flopped.
If the LL thing was what I think it was. We are very lucky it flopped. It was Hooooooooorible. In no way, no how even slightly good urban design. Wasnt even good suburban design, was just bad period. And it didnt have a public square either. Was basically an apartment complex that took up most of the area.
Quote from: TheArtist on April 15, 2009, 01:02:02 PM
If the LL thing was what I think it was. We are very lucky it flopped. It was Hooooooooorible. In no way, no how even slightly good urban design. Wasnt even good suburban design, was just bad period. And it didnt have a public square either. Was basically an apartment complex that took up most of the area.
This was a park, and I don't think it even made it to a real design stage. I'm a bit uneasy about Kaiser's design for the park north of Matthews Warehouse myself.
Quote from: sgrizzle on April 15, 2009, 01:43:59 PM
This was a park, and I don't think it even made it to a real design stage. I'm a bit uneasy about Kaiser's design for the park north of Matthews Warehouse myself.
The John Hope Franklin Park, or another one?
Three places I would like to see public parks/squares in downtown (1 being easiest to create, 3 being hardest) two of which are surface lots and one is a really ugly building next to our iconic arena:
1. Cathedral Square, as mentioned above, on the half block in front of Holy Family between Boulder and Main. Green space and a huge, ornate fountain would be cool.
2. Blue Dome Square, or something like that, on the full block surface lot between Cincinnati and Detroit, 2nd and 3rd. Build a new library fronting this park on 3rd, with the PAC to the west, and then office/residential on the north and east sides. Great place for stages at Mayfest or other festivals in the Blue Dome area.
3. Full block where the Page Belcher Federal Building sits once it is moved to a new location, whenever that may be, bounded by Frisco, 3rd, Denver, and 4th in front of the BOK. The conv. center could be extended along 4th where old city hall is overlooking the park with a hotel attached where the library sits (assuming a new one is built elsewhere).
Quote from: SXSW on April 15, 2009, 02:04:58 PM
The John Hope Franklin Park, or another one?
Three places I would like to see public parks/squares in downtown (1 being easiest to create, 3 being hardest) two of which are surface lots and one is a really ugly building next to our iconic arena:
1. Cathedral Square, as mentioned above, on the half block in front of Holy Family between Boulder and Main. Green space and a huge, ornate fountain would be cool.
2. Blue Dome Square, or something like that, on the full block surface lot between Cincinnati and Detroit, 2nd and 3rd. Build a new library fronting this park on 3rd, with the PAC to the west, and then office/residential on the north and east sides. Great place for stages at Mayfest or other festivals in the Blue Dome area.
3. Full block where the Page Belcher Federal Building sits once it is moved to a new location, whenever that may be, bounded by Frisco, 3rd, Denver, and 4th in front of the BOK. The conv. center could be extended along 4th where old city hall is overlooking the park with a hotel attached where the library sits (assuming a new one is built elsewhere).
1. Every concept I've seen or heard calls for some greenspace south, the location varies regularly.
2. I've heard this is considered a site for large residential. Greenspace would be included, but the primary focus would be residential. Think Dfest from your balcony. This is also pretty close to the current "giant park" plan which is 4th to 6th, Frankfort to Kenosha.
3. I've heard this discussed before but it is dependant on the Post Office closing. This space needs to be flat since it would be a key pedestrian intersection from the BOK Center, Convention Center, Hotel(s), Parking, etc.
I do think its great that people seem to be understanding the need for lots of parks and plazas in an urban environment. Goes back to that family/kid friendly thing I harp on. Plus I am a big fan of the "Urban Village" concept. High density nodes that arent "too high density". Enough density to make an area walkable and have efficient mass transit, but also have space to breathe, open spaces, trees, water, etc. Balancing different "feels" and so your not claustrophobically (is that a word lol?) surrounded by buildings everywhere. Kind of the best of suburban and urban.
But, parks can be designed poorly (Williams Green is a bad design) or well. I think they should be integrated and woven into the streets, sidewalks, and buildings around them. Not isolated from those things. We can learn from the "best practices" that have worked for ages in old Europe. Which brings us back to a cathedral square type idea. Shops/restaurants on the ground floor, a great view (the cathedral) mixed use, living above, water feature, etc. There are reasons why some places just naturally attract us and become the heart of an area.
Those parking lots in front of the Cathedral by the college are an incredible opportunity, a blank canvas that could have something incredible put on it. Once something else goes there, its opportunity lost. Most cities in this part of the country would give their eye teeth for the kind of lucky scenario we have.
Quote from: TheArtist on April 15, 2009, 09:31:43 PM
(Williams Green is a bad design)
That's why it will get redone in the not-so-far future.
That and the structural issues.