OKC has their @#$@# together with "Core to Shore"

[Composer]

I agree with Artist.  I prefer all of Tulsa's nice areas like The Pearl District, Brookside, Cherry Street, etc...being connected in a more urban environment.  Tulsa has a lot of great districts.  Let's continue connecting them! 

[okcpulse]

I saw a good portion of that core to shore presentation the other night on TV. On the one hand I am impressed with OKCs ability to get things done.... BUT

What they have in those renderings, while they may look pretty to the average eye, I see an urban nightmare. They "talk" about pedestrian friendly spaces, but what your seeing in those pretty images is anything but. Large looming walls, parking garages, long spaces where nobody is going to be walking, etc.  It more reminds me of one of those grand communist "planned city" concepts. Fitting for OKC I guess, but nothing I would want in Tulsa.

I would rather have lots of smaller, interconnected, cozy, interesting and funky little projects. The Pearl District, East End, Blue Dome, Greenwood, Brady Arts Museum/entertainment District.  Our "Core to Shore" and we in essence already have one started if you go from Downtown through uptown past Veterans Park and to the River. Throw in the Trolley thats planned as part of Jack Crawleys vision through all of that, and also the Gunboat Park project, and the rail connecting the west side... and we have a great vision.  Its lots of little pieces, that if we built them would imo create a much better scenario than what OKC has envisioned.  We are/could be, creating a more organic, ecclectic, clustering of many different smaller areas which will feel so nice to actually be in and enjoy. Something uniquely Tulsa that we can be proud of.  Doesnt have the big flash appeal that the OKC pics present, but you will actually be able to LIVE, walk, work, and play in our area.

Goes back to the idea of the different ways to make waves. Throw in a big boulder ala OKC, or lots of coordinated pebbles ala Tulsa.

The only envy I have is their ability to get things done. IF we would get moving on our smaller projects. I have no doubt that our approach would create the better city in the end. At least our plans "could" actually create truly pedestrian friendly areas... look at their videos and renderings, its not pedestrian friendly folks no matter what they say. All the trees and banners in the world arent gonna fix those horrid streets, or give me a reason to walk past those blank walls and parking garages. Think of how well thought out the Pearl District Plan is. Its mix of uses, cozy streets, Woonerven streets, smaller parks woven into the neighborhoods fabric and fulfilling multiple uses. The shopping/retail areas zoned to have the buildings up to the sidewalk, lots of windows, doors, interesting details, water features, bollards instead of curbs and discernable sidewalks, etc. etc. all working together to make the flow between the buildings, sidewalk and street interesting and comfortable. Now THAT kind of thinking will create a truly pedestrian friendly city.  Lots of connected areas like that could be Soooo much better imo than what your seeing in the OKC thing. 

TheArtist, I think you might be confusing those "walls" you see in the renderings.  Oklahoma City wants to see midrise residential structures lining the park.  As far as parking garages are concerned... what would you rather have?  Parking garages or surface parking?  Or no parking?

Another note of confusion are the renderings themselves.  The renderings are simply a framework of Core to Shore... a master plan, if you will.  The idea of Core to Shore is to create a central park that links downtown OKC with the river with midriseand highrise residential to the east and west of the park.  City leaders also want quality retail as well.  I am under the impression that this project is being misunderstood, but then again, we all have a different vision.

[Breadburner]

Okc is a cesspool.....

[TheArtist]

You're just being provincial. "Our plans are better than yours cause your river sucks, cause you aren't as smart as we are cause you guys are just cowboys and will never, ever be as sophisticated as us."

They have a different pallette to paint with and a different canvas but have done a great job of communicating their plans and building support for them. Whether they are first rate plans in your opinion is not germane. They have been accepted by the public and have garnered them tourism dollars and development at a higher level than our planning process has. They are on version three of MAPS. We're on level one of V2025.

I think Jack Crowleys downtown plan and the Pearl District plans would be worth working towards. One started top down from the Mayor, the other bottom up starting with Jamie Jameson. Combine them and you have our own Core to Shore. Both are good plans imo. How do you propose we get them accepted by the public? (they were partly created by the public, even Crowleys plan includes parts, like Gunboat Park from earlier projects) People rail against the big bad plans those "up top" create(Channels), they also rail against (or elect into office those who will not go for) the small good ones the citizens create (Pearl District).    

Give me some examples of what we should do. How did OKCs process work? Can we do something similar?

[OpenYourEyesTulsa]

what would you rather have?  Parking garages or surface parking?  Or no parking?

I much prefer parking garages to surface parking but I would like to see them make it a rule that the parking garages should have retail on the first level with parking either above or below.  That way when you walk by you do not notice the parking garage.  An example of this is the parking garage at 4th and Main.

[waterboy]

I think Jack Crowleys downtown plan and the Pearl District plans would be worth working towards. One started top down from the Mayor, the other bottom up starting with Jamie Jameson. Combine them and you have our own Core to Shore. Both are good plans imo. How do you propose we get them accepted by the public? (they were partly created by the public, even Crowleys plan includes parts, like Gunboat Park from earlier projects) People rail against the big bad plans those "up top" create(Channels), they also rail against (or elect into office those who will not go for) the small good ones the citizens create (Pearl District).    

Give me some examples of what we should do. How did OKCs process work? Can we do something similar?

I give you respect by reading your posts and trying to understand them. Please reciprocate. I haven't said that our plans were not good or not as good as OKC's. We simply have a way of doing things here that has persisted for decades, or at least my lifetime. That process utilizes a phony input phase whether it comes from top down or bottom up. The policy makers and opinion leaders already have an idea of what they want but need others to agree to pay for their ideas. To not see that is to be part of it, knowingly or unwittingly.  FOTD, FB and others have more intimate knowledge of that "bananna republic oligarchy" and have described it much to the chagrin of those who still naively believe it doesn't operate. Can I do any better? Not likely but that's hardly a defense.

Probably operates in a similar manner in OKC too, only there, and this is the meat of my remarks, it is presented in a more palatable fashion. People there believe, rightly or wrongly, that they are not being manipulated and that they actually have a choice. Once they vote down one of these projects, and it gets built anyway through chicanery, then they will have lost credibility in their leadership and will reflect the cynicism you note that Tulsan's have. Tulsan's rail against either process because they feel powerless. Things like setting meetings during the day when regular folks work or immediately following a long day of work. Making sure meetings involve little non-screened impromptu questioning. Showing pie in sky renderings that don't jive with reality. These cause people to feel manipulated at the least and often angry.
I won't make any friends with these remarks but its the truth as I see it.

I have often noted this example: Trinity River in Dallas. Can't vouch for its feasibility, walkability, common sense or success. But they made an effort to reach out to everyone for input not just those who are retired, notable, professional, etc. by using the internet to guage feedback for each element of the project. Kind of like surveys we do here on this forum.  They then showed those results and continued to adjust the project to reflect those surveys. It may be a clusterf**k but no one can say they had no chance to influence the outcome.

Another example: we continue to ignore the public's errant perceptions. By not addressing obvious issues like the sewage treatment plant that they smell every time they cross the I-44 bridge (they think raw sewage will fill up the lake in Jenks) or the vagrants they see downtown they sense a coverup. These are real problems that are exaggerated or have solutions yet by not acknowledging them frankly, people become skeptical about the whole project.

Crowleys plan and the Pearl are hardly core to shore plans from what I saw. The area between downtown and the river is not the same makeup as the area between downtown OKC and the river (I got lost in that area a couple years ago and crossed tracks and cruised through low rent areas till I got dizzy.) They are fine plans and intelligently devised (especially liked Crowley's attitude) but go out into the city and ask someone at 91st & Mingo about them. Or East Tulsa or West. Have you even spoken to any of the 6th street property owners other than Jamie? You get cynicism, fatalism or outright ignorance of them as a response. Pearl is going to slowly materialize but there is lots of anger and cyncism about the tactics in the process there.

My instinct tells me its about age, honesty, and expectations. Our planners, presenters, county politicians and pr people involved with marketing the projects are all boomers or older. They know each other, they know the system and they know how to game. That OKC video was populated with younger professional folks with a techie feel to it. No water colors with sailboats and no smoke blowing.

[tshane250]

I much prefer parking garages to surface parking but I would like to see them make it a rule that the parking garages should have retail on the first level with parking either above or below.  That way when you walk by you do not notice the parking garage.  An example of this is the parking garage at 4th and Main.

Something along the lines of Smallwood Plaza in Bloomington, Indiana would be nice.  I've actually seen this development and it really looks nice.

Here's a Google Streetview of the development.

[PonderInc]

I didn't mean for this thread to turn into a debate of the merits of "core to shore" or any other specific referendum.

My point is that this video is an excellent way to show people why, how, when and where a public investment is a good idea.  It gives them an idea of what's involved and how it will benefit them.  It demonstrates (in a visual, tangible way) a bold vision and helps people "get it."   

It also has the luxury of time to explain the plan in detail.  It's not a 30-second sound bite that can be misconstrued.

It takes viewers "behind the scenes" with the design team to help folks become more invested in the project, and to help them catch the passion of the creators/designers/planners.   (The "behind the scenes" method allows the viewer to feel like an insider on the team.  Suddenly, it's not something created by "those people" or "outsiders," but it helps the viewer feel like they're part of the process.) 

It also takes an abstract idea, and converts it into something real.  (Most folks aren't good at visualizing new ideas...especially when they're asked to imagine something completely new based on a description or a sketch.  This video helps.) 

And instead of just reading names in the newspaper, you see who the players are; you see their faces, hear their excitement, and feel their passion for the project.  (Which is contagious, and helps break down barriers and kneejerk opposition to change.)

Just watch 5-10 minutes of the video, and you'll see what I mean:

http://creativity.oeta.tv/

(Click on the video called "Building the City of Tomorrow.")

[OpenYourEyesTulsa]

I watched the video.  I agree this is very good at selling the ideas.  Much better than some crude drawings.

I hope Tulsa does use this type of thing in the future to help sell future projects.  Maybe for Vision 2025 part 2.

[USRufnex]

Well, I used to characterize this debate as:
"Tulsa wants to be Boston when it grows up; OKC wants to be Dallas."

I watched the whole thing because I'm always intrigued to hear a former OKC sportscaster speaking as mayor.    
Mayor Mick was talking about core-to-shore as a project that will take elements of "Portland, San Francisco and Austin" and apply them to OKC.

Their debate about the future of their centrally located downtown has evolved; ours is still territorial.  A very impressive turnaround from my days in OKC back when there was a political firestorm over the construction of the Myriad Gardens...

Sounds like they want urban density; which is perfectly reasonable, especially compared to half-baked stuff like the Tulsa Project... the $10mil paid to designers for The Channels... and the laughably amateur proposal for the Tulsa Olympics, comparing T-town to Atlanta....

When Mayor Mick talks about keeping and attracting students and twentysomethings in an urbanized OKC, his rhetoric reminds me alot of the mixed-use development statements made by former mayor LaFortune.  When has anybody heard Kathy Taylor talk publicly about ways we can keep young people from moving out of Tulsa, and ways to attract highly skilled tech workers to the city?  IMO, Kathy Taylor never understood Tulsa before she became mayor, and still doesn't-- even now.

I was hoping that LaFortune would do for Tulsa what former mayor Ron Norick did for OKC....