Aug 13th Blvd Town Hall

AND

Do we make the news?

Well, I feel like Council went quite well today. Watch for us on the news! I know I myself may end up on News9 and KOCO, as I was interviewed by one of their lovely reporters as I was leaving council chambers. NewsOK's Michael Kimball was tweeting live, and he'll have a full wrap-up. No sign of KFOR - no offense to their viewing audience, but they're probably the least likely to cover something downtown.

edit: Here is the Kimball write-up, which was indeed quite favorable to the better boulevard. It's important that the factual record stress that the earthen ramp will hinder development, which we can all agree we need more of if we're ever going to keep up with demand for housing, etc.

edit2: News9 has their coverage of today up online, and it looks very good, congrats to News9 on a well-produced story. I was pretty surprised that I made the cut personally, as there's nothing quite like seeing yourself in high definition on the evening news. I think Wenger's bit is the most important, because it really shows the engineers coming around and beginning to think with more emphasis on planning's concerns, like walkability. Could we all be singing Kumbaya down on the Boulevard?

"The people in Oklahoma City have ideas themselves, and it's important for ideas to come from all kinds of diverse backgrounds," Nick Roberts said. 

Nick Roberts with Friends for a Better Boulevard says repeating mistakes from the past will keep younger generations and growth from OKC. 

"We've also seen this boulevard get designed in a way that's going to decimate the southwest side, we believe," Roberts said.

News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports |

(Please forgive any self-congratulating on my part, I just hate public speaking, and I'm not used to actually sounding coherent on these news reels and at City Hall.) :P

edit3: We made KFOR too (including a snippet of me up at the podium), and I heard that we made KOCO as well. I'll stop here. But it was a good one-day media blitz for sure!

Opening Arguments

With tomorrow being the day for official Opening Arguments on the ODOT Boulevard fiasco, in which ODOT wants to build an $80 million boulevard, the reason for the exorbitant cost being a large earthen ramp section of elevated freeway that will carry the boulevard over Reno, Classen, and Western avenues on the western edge of downtown. The mission of urbanists and government watchdogs is simple: To prevent this misuse of funds and redirect it instead to something that improves downtown, rather than damages it.

Downtown is important - it is where the majority of Oklahoma City's GDP is generated, it is the cultural and entertainment center of our metropolitan area, it is where young professionals moving to our city want to live, and it is the basis for the overwhelming majority of OKC's positive appearances in the national media. For fear of redundancy, allow me to stress that ODOT's earthen-ramp suburban freeways are not the basis for OKC's positive appearances in national media. Before I move on to the next point, here it is only fitting to conclude that ODOT must treat downtown uniquely from how it treats every other roadway in our state, which is shameful enough. This means that downtown, we do not need a new freeway where one was just removed, and those at-grade roadways need to be conducive to pedestrians, bicyclists, school children, Thunder/concert crowds, and just life in general. 

People live well downtown, and it shows - when you see people on a leisurely morning bike ride, or running an errand on the new OKC Spokies bike share system, walking their dog through Bricktown, or the throngs of people enjoying evening drinks on rooftops scattered across downtown. Whether or not these folks have a downtown address yet, these people are living their lives downtown - and that has been a very good thing for improving OKC's reputation over the last decade. These people do not need their lives disrupted by a new elevated, earthen-ramp freeway. Downtown's growth potential does not need to take a hit so that ODOT can move more cars than ever, faster than ever, during peak periods while the road sits empty all other times. Or more likely, downtown's future development does not need to be stunted just so that someone with ODOT ties can get a payoff as is common with their road projects. OKC's national reputation does not need to take a hit from building a misguided freeway downtown. All ODOT is doing is inducing traffic, rather than solving it, with their "our way or the highway" mentality of forcing highways on cities and refusing to even listen to other disciplines that have had considerably more success in combating traffic problems. 

This is why it is so important for a, urban planner, even if it's just one planner up against a cartel of public engineers, to have at least a say in major projects that will shape downtown for decades to come. That has not happened here. Not a single urban planner, or for that matter anyone not a public engineer, has been involved in this process.

Hello, this is ODOT, and we're going to build this highway

It all started back in 1998, when I was still a kid growing up in OKC, when City leaders first learned of ODOT's plans and tried to abate them then. Anyone wanting to know more about the timeline of how this came about, Steve Lackmeyer wrote an excellent context piece here complete with a flashback write-up that he did after ODOT chose the route in 1998, concluding with a tidbit on then-ODOT chief Neal McCaleb's disdain that the press would show up when he selected the route. McCaleb tried kicking Lackmeyer and his colleague, Jack Money, out of the meeting to no avail, and ended up settling for biting comments for public transparency. This is ironic because ODOT has predicated their insistence on the already-chosen route and proposal on "fulfilling a promise" (more like a threat) to OKC leaders back in the 90s. Even if their mumbojumbo was accurate about "fulfilling a promise," that still seeks to exclude all of downtown's growth, all of OKC's new residents, and all of OKC's <30 young professionals. When new residents and young professionals are so excluded from the public process, they are significantly likelier to move somewhere that they feel more appreciated. This is a fact backed up by studies. Yes, we should have known the boulevard would happen like this, however, we had a mayor who also lied to us when he told us the whole thing would be at-grade and conveniently excluded that Western/Classen/Reno intersections would not be. However this isn't about egos or getting the record right; This is about getting the finished product right.

Then there was the EIS. For those who don't understand public engineer jargon, the EIS is the environmental impact statement, which is required as a part of the FTA grant process (getting road projects funded federally). The EIS is supposed to outline the project scope and its impact on the surroundings, and is supposed to be finalized before the project may commence. Below is the text of the I-40 Crosstown Relocation EIS; Sections 3&5 are relevant to the Boulevard project:

3.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED"This chapter describes the alternatives and summarizes the evaluation process."3.4.1 Tier One Evaluation3.4.2 Short List of Build Alternatives RefinementAlternative D"A six-lane at-grade boulevard would be constructed in the existing I-40 right-of-way from east of the Union Pacific tracks at the I-235 interchange to west of Walker Avenue; however, from west of Walker Avenue to Western Avenue, the existing I-40 bridge structure would be rehabilitated. From Western to Agnew Avenues, the existing I-40 facility would be converted to a divided boulevard."3.4.6 Tier Two EvaluationProject Construction Time and Implementation Difficulty"Alternative D’s Phase I construction would achieve the full traffic flow benefits projected for Alternative D because only the boulevard construction would remain for Phase II."Access to Downtown"The proposed boulevard from I-235 to Agnew Avenue will provide improved access to Bricktown and the downtown area from eastbound and westbound traffic."3.5 Preferred Alternative"As a result of the Tier-Two evaluation, the ODOT selected Alternative D as the locally preferred alternative because this alternative provides a ten-lane facility approximately 2,200 feet south of the existing I-40 alignment and involves converting the existing I-40 facility to a downtown business route. This business route would maintain the current at-grade freeway from Agnew to Western Avenues and bridge structure from Western Avenue to west of Walker Avenue and reconstruct the existing I-40 facility from west of Walker to I-235 as an at-grade six-lane boulevard with at-grade intersections at the downtown cross streets."5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES"This chapter presents potential beneficial and adverse social, economic, and environmental effects for the proposed relocation and construction of the I-40 Crosstown Expressway..."5.2 NOISE IMPACTS AND VIBRATION ANALYSIS5.2.a Traffic Noise"The FHWA has established the Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) for various land use activity areas that are used as one of two means to determine when a traffic noise impact will occur.""When a traffic noise impact occurs, noise abatement measures must be considered. A noise measure is any positive action taken to reduce an activity area’s traffic noise impact""Alternative D’s boulevard alignment was modeled at 45 mph from Robinson Avenue to Classen Boulevard and at 60 mph from Classen Boulevard to Agnew Avenue.""As shown in Table 5-5, the projected noise levels with Alternative D would approach, equal, or exceed the receptor activity categories B and C’s NAC; therefore, this alternative would result in traffic noise impacts and mitigation measures must be considered in accordance with the 1996 ODOT Policy Directive, “Highway Noise Abatement.” This policy states that mitigation will not be considered for commercial or industrial areas or for those areas that are trending to commercial or industrial land use."5.2c Vibration Impact Analysis"There are no federal or state standards or regulations regarding traffic-induced vibration."5.3 LAND USE IMPACTS"The existing I-40 facility between the I-235/I-35 interchange and the Agnew/Villa interchange would be replaced under Alternative D with a boulevard. The current at-grade freeway would be converted to a boulevard from Agnew to Western Avenues. From Western Avenue to west of Walker Avenue, the existing I-40 bridge structure would be rehabilitated. From west of Walker Avenue to I-235, the boulevard would be a divided, multi-lane, grade-level facility with at-grade intersections with major cross streets and this is where land use impacts would occur.""The boulevard's north side for the first two blocks west of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe railroad would front the new indoor sports arena. The first block on the south side fronts an Oklahoma Gas and Electric facility and that use is not expected to change. The remainder of the boulevard corridor frontage will consist of over six linear blocks of vacant land and approximately seven blocks of commercial, industrial, and some institutional development on either side of the facility, including parking lots. Of the vacant land, most is zoned industrial, but one block is zoned residential, and another is currently unzoned since it falls entirely within the existing ROW. Transforming the existing facility to a grade-level boulevard with at-grade access to cross streets, would provide the incentive for commercial development on vacant land and, commercial redevelopment of existing industrial properties along the boulevard would increase. The least impact would be no change in existing land use and, no requests for rezoning if market demand were to be stagnant. The greatest impact would be commercial development or mixed commercial and industrial development on all vacant lands and possible commercial redevelopment of existing industrial properties. This would require rezoning currently zoned residential and industrial properties. The current commercial zoning along the north side of the proposed boulevard between the sports arena site and Hudson Avenue is consistent with the ULI’s “Downtown Oklahoma City” plan. Those two blocks are within the plan’s designated downtown entertainment district. Similar development along the south side of the boulevard would also be consistent with the plan, given the area’s designation as a “flex” district, which is designed to capture expanded downtown development. North of the boulevard and west of Hudson Avenue, the ULI plan designates residential, loft apartment redevelopment of appropriate commercial warehouse structures. The land fronting the boulevard in this area includes vacant lots and is zoned for industrial uses. Market incentives and planning and development policies could guide new area development and redevelopment, rather than the expected commercial development. The overall effects of converting existing I-40 to a boulevard could have positive land use impacts on the downtown area."5.5 HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION IMPACTS"Developing a grade-level boulevard serving the downtown area along the current I-40 alignment would change the SW 3rd Street Industrial District's visual setting. The change may bring the district closer to the original historic context, which included grade-level city streets. Therefore, this is anticipated to be a beneficial impact. Impacts to other historic resources would not be likely."5.14 JOINT DEVELOPMENT"ODOT recognizes the strategies identified in the City of Oklahoma City's land use and mitigation plan for implementing Alternative D. Alternative D would provide access to Bricktown's south end and downtown. Also, the urban boulevard would provide additional access to potential development sites between Walker and Western Avenues."5.15 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS"For Alternative D, improving the existing alignment to a boulevard is scheduled after the new facility is completed. Vehicles crossing I-40 along this section would experience occasional delays or be directed to alternate crossings."5.18 VISUAL IMPACTS"Adding a street-level boulevard along the existing raised facility would also shorten the visual distance between the Riverside neighborhood and the downtown."5.19 PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS"The boulevards associated with Alternatives B-3 and D offer the opportunity for east-west bicycle and pedestrian travel, as well.""Alternative D would include converting the existing alignment to a landscaped boulevard. This proposed facility was analyzed for its impacts to non-motorist activities. Crossings, which would merit attention as possible bicycle routes, include the same facilities as for Alternative B-3 (Agnew, Pennsylvania, Western, Walker, and Robinson Avenues and Shields Boulevard), with the addition of Reno and Classen. The facility would cross the Bricktown Canal Trail, but would present no greater impact than the existing I-40 facility. Using the I-40 ROW as a boulevard would have slight or no impact upon non-motorist access to nearby public schools. The current alignment is a boundary feature for Capitol Hill, Wilson, and Shidler Elementary School feeder areas, which means that students attending these schools should not have to cross the boulevard. The boulevard alignment is a prominent feature in the Mark Twain Elementary School feeder area. Although changing existing I-40 to a boulevard would result in a less imposing physical barrier for non-motorists, a boulevard would present greater opportunities for non-motorist conflicts with motorists than the present limited-access configuration. These conflicts could be minimized by using signalized crosswalks to allow non-motorist crossings without vehicular turning movements. Other possible safety measures include bicycle lanes, intersection design with places for pedestrians to stand at street corners and on the median, all-way red lights for pedestrian crossings, and raised crosswalks where larger pedestrian crossing numbers are anticipated. Because other existing pedestrian and bicycle activity centers, including downtown, the Myriad Center, and the Bricktown District, are concentrated north of the existing I-40 alignment, using the present I-40 alignment as a boulevard would divert vehicular traffic away from these non-motorist activities and result in improved safety. The bicycle/pedestrian impacts of the proposed boulevard along the present I-40 alignment would likewise depend upon the ultimate facility design. While a boulevard potentially would represent more opportunities for non-motorist conflicts with vehicles than a controlled-access highway, abutting boulevard land uses and facility design would also be important considerations. Facilities that attract special-event, tourist, shopping, and cultural activities, would necessitate slower speeds and painted and signalized crosswalks. Additionally, where warranted by the pedestrian traffic levels, elevated crosswalks should be considered. Through traffic will be encouraged to use the new I-40 alignment."5.23c Economic Impacts"The property tax base in the affected study area could be enhanced by potential commercial development and redevelopment in available areas along the proposed boulevard under Alternative D."5.24 ADDITIONAL MITIGATION"Downtown access concerns have been addressed by identifying three boulevard options associated with Alternative D. These options included maintaining the existing I-40 facility; constructing the six-lane at-grade boulevard from I-235, east to Agnew Avenue; and providing a modified boulevard combining the other two options. The preferred option is the modified boulevard that provides a downtown business route. This option involves retaining the current at-grade freeway from Agnew to Western Avenues and bridge structure from Western to west of Walker Avenues and reconstructing the existing I-40 facility from west of Walker to I-235 as an at-grade six-lane boulevard with at-grade intersections at the downtown cross streets." USDOT - RECORD OF DECISION"The decision is to select the preferred alternative, Alternative D, as described in the FEIS.""The selected alternative will provide a six-lane at-grade boulevard in the existing I-40 right-of-way from east of the Union Pacific tracks at the I-235 interchange to west of Walker Avenue. From west of Walker Avenue to Western Avenue, the existing I-40 bridge structure will be rehabilitated. From Western Avenue, west to Agnew Avenue, the existing facility will be converted to a divided boulevard."

In case anyone is confused by all of this jargon, I highlighted the parts of the EIS that are incorrect and in need of updating. Why is this relevant? Why does any of this matter? Because ODOT is claiming that they can not do an at-grade boulevard all the way to Western because they have to fulfill their obligations in the EIS, not that this has ever mattered before for ODOT (they broke the hell out of the EIS for I-235 in their quest to demolish downtown's black community, Deep Deuce, in its entirety). So not only is the moral of the story that ODOT lies, but also that ODOT expects us to not read this stuff, to just go away eventually, and let them get back to their work. The most glaring omission is the fact that the old Crosstown viaduct no longer exists, and therefor it is not possible to "rehabilitate the existing bridge structure." The EIS needs to be redone anyway, and this is hardly an impediment specifically to changing the plans to make them more urban. If the EIS has to be redone, causing delays on the project that will be justified to get it right, it will not be because OKC demanded a Better Boulavard, but instead because the Feds decided to reign in ODOT which has a long, storied history of breaking these documents. But it's okay ODOT, Mick Cornett and Eric Wenger also have a habit of telling lies.

Furthermore, they conclude that the boulevard has little impact on schools because it is nowhere near any schools. This is inaccurate as well due to the construction that will begin next year on the new Downtown Elementary which will back-up to none other than the BOULEVARD. Nowhere near any schools, right.

Opportunity squashed
Due to the new I-40's only downtown exits being at either Shields/Robinson or a full exit at Western Avenue, where the majority of people entering from SW or NW OKC come into downtown, Western Avenue is now the front door to downtown. It is our less-than-grand entrance to downtown. Blighted for blocks, congested and jammed like no other city street at 5 o'clock, Western has traffic counts to make development happen - all of those downtown workers taking Western to get on the highway heading home will stare at whatever properties line the ROW, so they might as well stare at redevelopment.

The group, Friends for a Better Boulevard, of which I am certainly informally a part of, has envisioned a grand entrance to downtown where people currently sit in traffic along Western. They are proposing the Market Circle, along the Boulevard at the Reno/Classen/Western intersections, and the Thunder Circle, along the Boulevard in between the Chesapeake Arena and new MAPS3 Downtown Park. In the Market Circle the pro-bono architects have envisioned an arch way that gives OKC the opportunity to realize a turn-of-the-century plan by legendary architect Solomon Layton (State Capitol, Colcord, Skirvin, et al.) to have a Veterans Memorial Arch in the middle of Lincoln Boulevard. Those plans, along with the Capitol dome (a bad idea) were never realized. However, often the best new plans incorporate good old ideas, that came about for a reason. This traffic circle proposal will catalyze a boom of dense development west of downtown and generate significant economic development for OKC. Here is an excerpt from a recent article by Lackmeyer on Film Row and west downtown's development boom (this quote is Film Row redeveloper Chip Fudge talking about several building projects and predicting that south of Film Row will be a hot spot):

With all this activity, and Devon Energy Center in the foreground, friends are no longer mocking Fudge for plowing his money into “skid row.”
“Life is good,” Fudge said. “My friends who thought I was nuts for doing this initially now think I'm brilliant. Really, I'm just lucky. We're continuing to buy property in the area. And if the boulevard (planned along the alignment of the old Interstate 40) goes in at ground level as I expect, I think the area south of here will be the next hot spot.”

Read more here.

There is also the matter of the Farmer's Market, which is what lies south of Film Row, and concurrently the city and a group of citizens are trying to revitalize. Currently it has been repurposed as an events center taking advantage of its beautiful mission-style architecture, but there may be plans in the future to bring back a permanent outdoor market and engage historic redevelopment in this area. The Farmer's Market is an extremely historic center of commerce for OKC, and my own grandfather used to work there long ago. In fact, back then, the entire clan worked there selling produce which was not a bad living back before WWII. The Farmer's Market was a magnet of middle class life in Oklahoma City back then, just as the once-beautifully landscaped Canadian River waterfront was with Wheeler Park and Delmar Gardens. This market-area masterplan seeks to bring back both the tranquility and the commerce:

Unfortunately for ODOT, all of these are things we are not willing to sacrifice just so that ODOT can pay somebody off and move on more easily to the next project. All of these visions, especially the hope for a grand entrance into downtown, and also the hope to revitalize the areas south of downtown such as the market area and the riverside, are all endangered by this elevated freeway plan. This is also a plan that was most recently articulated by highway engineers who weren't aware that the streetcar would run on rails in the Boulevard. How do you get through to these people, as oblivious as they are, aside from political means? At the state level it is time to pursue correcting and reforming ODOT, but in the interim, at the civic level, we have to engage to protect our city and any other plans ODOT simply isn't aware of.

Those seem to include the Downtown Elementary, the Downtown Streetcar, Farmer's Market revitalization, Core2Shore revitalization, Film Row/Arts District redevelopment, and the very idea of downtown development on the whole. All of these ODOT is either ignorant or hostile to, and all of these kinds of projects have proven to be the essential ingredients in the recipe for an OKC reborn. What does OKC reborn mean and why is it important? Because too many of us remember a river that had to be mowed, too many of us remember wrestling and minor-league arena football being the main attraction in town, too many of us remember Wal-mart being the only place to shop, and too many of us remember an OKC that was essentially no more than an extended truck stop between LA and Chicago. Today those are merely insulting reminders of how far OKC has come in its quest to justify itself as a "big league city" and even cast itself in similar fashion to truly "world-class cities."

The ODOT earthen ramp is not world-class, hell, it's not even bush-league. It is embarrassing. ODOT has pushed OKC around too much for the last two decades, and it's time for OKC to take a stand. They bulldozed all of Deep Deuce, the downtown black community, and built a suburban depressed freeway (I-235) where there used to be a dense, urban neighborhood. They forced the I-40 Crosstown Relocation against the city's will. Then, they decimated the railyard behind Union Station which will add billions in cost when we get around to building the commuter rail that is planned, which the city idly watched them do, while a few enraged citizens went away kicking and screaming (Tom Elmore). Now they are taking our best site for urban redevelopment and giving us a highway mound of dirt and grass that will have to be mowed while it isn't dead and brown, like grass all over Oklahoma.

This isn't the revenge of Tom Elmore. This is the culmination of ODOT's years-long recent legacy in Downtown OKC, and a decision that needs to be made whether we want to hear only ideas that come from highway engineers or if urban planners should also be brought into the fold. Urban planners and design specialists, being the folks who gave us entertainment in Bricktown and large-scale gentrification in what was left standing of Deep Deuce, Automobile Alley, and Mid-town. Today these areas are surprisingly decent and growing better with each new development, despite the unfortunate past these areas have endured until now. The choice seems pretty simple.

Paging any planners

One thing had me wondering about the proposed Boulevard plans. Has there been a SINGLE individual with a degree in urban planning, regional planning, urban design, environmental design, etc. (ie., anything BUT civil engineering) who has said that the boulevard should be elevated? Can anyone name someone? Anyone? Just one person??

(Of course that's a rhetorical question, because we're referring to a boulevard that has only come about through sparse cooperation with ODOT and OKC Public Works.)

How can we make such a major decision in our city planning without input from a SINGLE individual who actually has a degree in anything planning or design-related. The thought of the elevated boulevard is repulsive. The thought of such major decisions, not just failing to include, but actively patronizing those who do have planning or design expertise - that goes beyond this boulevard, and is a much more serious issue.

Something is rotten in OKC right now. Very rotten.

Roundabout reservations

Many readers and folks beyond know that I've become one of many side advocates of Friends for a Better Boulevard, and I support almost everything that has been said by Bob Kemper and others that have gotten very entrenched in that fight for a better boulevard for OKC. That said, I concede that I was erroneously espousing the term traffic circle when what has really been envisioned is a roundabout, and there is apparently a very major difference between the two.

To paraphrase, a roundabout is a perfect circle where entering traffic yields to everything else and exits right to leave the circle. A roundabout is more of an orbital intersection, less of a perfect circle usually, where the lanes flow out and staying in the roundabout requires left turns. Roundabouts can efficiently handle a large volume of traffic but can not safely accommodate pedestrians, whereas traffic circles are the opposite.

Here is a chart created by WashU and distributed by Friends for a Better Boulevard (click to enlarge):

This looks fine and dandy, but I think it raises questions as to which of these we really want. I agree that this intersection will have to handle large volumes of traffic, but I am uncomfortable with it doing that unless major design concessions are made to promote walkability in and out of the circle as well. Why would we put an arch and a park in the middle of this, just to improve the view that motorists have, esp if people can't get to it?? I'm wondering if there is a way to engineer a hybrid roundabout and traffic circle.

Let me make one thing clear before I even open up this can of worms, and before anyone accuses me of straying from the reservation: I support whatever the consensus alternative is to anything above-grade. I just also agree that this debate needs to play out. For instance, while I love the amazing renderings produced by Andrew Stewart, who has also been helping the group, the bone I have to pick there is that Western Avenue does not flow into the circle. For me, Western Avenue and its high traffic counts, high prominence, high blight factor, and huge rent gap potential for development, is one of the main reasons to do this intersection RIGHT. I want to be on the record supporting the movement in its entirety and I support whatever a public process would yield, that said, I am looking to see Western Avenue flow directly into a circular roadway that can also accommodate pedestrians. A circle of some sort that does not accommodate Western OR pedestrians is only half as sweet.

Having made my unconditional support clear, I keep going back to the name "better boulevard." To me, a better boulevard means something other than the strict and narrow purview of what is better for motorists. I am looking for what is better for pedestrians, for bicycles, for transit, for quality of life, for the environment, for economic development, and the entire city as a whole. While there is no doubt that a roundabout is far superior to those ends than an earthen ramp or anything above-grade, I would also suggest that an old-fashioned traffic circle may be even better. IF there is a way to make a traffic circle work for high traffic counts.

America embraces roundabouts

Western Avenue gridlock

Stuck in traffic for a good 20 minutes on that half-mile stretch of Western Avenue between Sheridan and the new I-40, I made a mental note to myself to revisit a post that I made a while ago. Western is routinely gridlocked during this half-mile stretch, and I myself was surprised that the new I-40 project's completion has actually finally given OKC the "big league city" rush hour that we all craved. Ok, or not..

However I think that this is an opportunity, not a problem (although trying a different synchronization pattern with the lights along Western may be a good idea to ease traffic circulation). It's an opportunity because these kinds of traffic counts don't exist anywhere else downtown, and even though Western is definitely the blighted back entrance to downtown, at least with this kind of bumper-to-bumper congestion and the corridor's newfound prominence, that lends a majority opportunity for the Market Circle proposal to take advantage of.

I happen to believe (call me crazy) that development should follow traffic counts, rather than try to magically manufacture them. Western must be redeveloped, the gridlocked rush hour traffic that only exists here is screaming for it. Imagine the exposure that a business would get if somebody is stuck sitting in their car for 5 minutes just in front of that business alone. Then gets to crawl up another hundred yards after a few lights turn green, and gets stuck for another 5 minutes staring at a different business. I think this is the kind of traffic that could actually make downtown destination retail (ie., another subject we've talked to death on here and around town) very viable, although as far as that goes I am still bullish on North Broadway and the A-Alley area, especially if they can get a public parking solution.

Here's the photo from NewsOK that shows you what Western becomes every single weekday between 4:30 and 6.

I think at a certain point, you have to stop basing your planning on how you understood downtown in 1990. Downtown has changed and evolved since then; downtown is dynamic. The new reality in 2012 is this. Take advantage of that new reality.

Market Circle renderings are IN!

Without saying a lot (I'll let the renderings, just completed by OKC Talk's CuatrodeMayo aka young architect Andrew Stewart, do the talking), I will just say that I think this marks the evolution of Friends for a Better Boulevard as one of the most dynamic local movements in recent history, perhaps second to only the Modern Transit Project. Could Andrew be the traffic circle's Jeff Bezdek? I doubt he wants that kind of commitment, I know I would be freaked out, but I also know that Andrew is very committed to seeing OKC evolve into the kind of community he and his young family can prosper in.

Please, click on these renderings to enlarge to full-screen, they're worth it:

The stakes

Higher than any poker game we've played lately..

So you've heard..

Great mention for the traffic circle movement on Kurt Hochenauers Okie Funk blog (Kurt used to write for the Gazette, idk if he still does) today - really summarizing what a movement this has become, with MAPS3 transit subcommittee members lending their support and enthusiasm for this city, myself, former ODOT engineer and consultant Bob Kemper really leading the charge, Councilman Shadid getting behind the idea in a big way, OKC Talk is buzzing about the idea, and so many more people. This is truly evolving into an organic preemptive strike against a huge blunder that is about to be made.

What really needs to happen is ODOT needs to wash their hands of this project and just give the funding over to the city and let the city do whatever it wants. I don't think ODOT is actually on a mission to screw up downtown OKC - Bob thinks they are concerned about going over budget and the city not wanting to maintain something. The solution here is easy, there is significant extra funding that the city has from the 2007 GO Bond Issue, and ODOT can just give the $80 million for the boulevard to the city and not worry about any more cost overruns (although that clearly wasn't a problem for them with the new I-40, which ran 3 times over budget and still isn't a depressed roadbed, just as they knew it would all along). There is also an extra $30 million in MAPS3, in addition to contingency funding there (that will likely go to the convention center when it comes in way over budget).

Anyway, here's the latest illustration that I have come up with for how this roundabout could potentially fit into a grander scheme.

I'll just add that this is also a work in progress, and definitely stay tuned. There's something else that we're going to roll out here in a few days, and we're hoping that we have a proposal that the entire community can really get behind, regardless of whether you want a premier center city or not. I've always believed that OKC can so easily be a first-rate center city, the bones are there, it just takes everybody realizing it and getting on the same page - which unfortunately is so much easier said than done.

And yes, my "grand scheme" for a better boulevard definitely involves moving the convention center to a location that is better for everyone, but that's not what this is about. This is about the roundabout, I just happen to take a holistic approach involving the entire boulevard. What happens west of Lee Avenue, in my mind, affects everything to the east.

Let me close by saying that I absolutely believe that everything in my illustration above can be accomplished with funding already committed - including MAPS3 funding, including 2007 GO Bond funding, including ODOT's committed funding, and including private funds that people have proposed going toward cultural institutions and private development. For those who don't know, the Kirkpatrick Foundation is moving the City Arts Center downtown, just not anywhere near the Arts District which I think is an unfortunate oversight of synergy, which is so important for the arts - and Fred Hall among others did talk about a major private development replete with mixed-use and high-rise residential (possibly the largest mixed-use project in state history) on the site that is now taken by the convention center.

Why can't we piece these things together from the perspective of what creates the most impressive, healthiest boulevard corridor, rather than what creates the best convention center? There are more important things than just a convention center, in the grand scheme of city planning. This boulevard, if we do it right, has the potential to pay dividends for OKC in terms of postcards, private development opportunities, and civic pride. Let's do this the right way.

Meet "Stakeholders"

Happy Monday everyone. To celebrate this glorious occasion, I thought I'd provide some insights into the C2S report recently compiled by MAPS 3 consultant ADG, which many took as a deliberate attack piece on the transit project. Why? Why else does a report about the implications on C2S need to go so far out of its way to attack the streetcar and "recommend" further study specifically to answer issues that have been answered in full already by ACOG, COTPA, Jacobs Engineering, the transit subcommittee, the Modern Transit Project, the Alternatives Analsysis process, and even ADG themselves.

But alas, about those stakeholders. First it should be mentioned that it has come out, through thourough investigation on the part of the transit subcommittee members who felt compelled upon seeing this "study," that not all "stakeholders" are equal, and not all "stakeholders" were asked the same questions, or even any questions about the streetcar at all. It seems indeed that the determination of who to ask about the streetcar was rather spurious and targeted toward individuals who would be prone to criticize the project. So this helps explain how a "study" based on interviews asking these people who have privileged status what they think about these public projects could have come out so unnecessarily negative for the transit project. The "stakeholders" interviewed were:

Mick Cornett
Meg Salyer
Gary Marrs
Larry Nichols
Tom McDaniel
Roy Williams
Anthony McDermott
Kim Low
Fred Hall
Bill Cameron
Bob Howard
Cathy O'Connor
Russell Claus
Kirk Humphreys
Blair Humphreys
Hans Butzer
Paul Green
Jim Tolbert

Now, meet the "stakeholder" +one whom I have information that leads me to believe are driving this attempted coup against the streetcar project.

Kirk Humphreys. Many of the you are actually already familiar with the former mayor, but Humphreys has been pretty busy since he has been out of office. Aside from a failed Senate run and continued electoral problems when he was voted off of the OCPS School Board, he has been fairly busy with real estate activities (hence OCPS) and chamber functions. I am also hearing that the former mayor has made it into a personal vendetta against transit, and hopes to derail the project. Humphreys also serves on the MAPS 3 Convention Center Subcommittee.

Mike Carrier. Meet Mike Carrier, who is the President of the OKC Convention and Visitors Bureau. I hope his surname does not derive from anything to do with transit, because Carrier has also made it into a personal vendetta against the transit project. I'm also assuming he does not see any value of the streetcar for his convention attendants. Carrier also serves on the MAPS3 Convention Center Subcommittee.

Oh yeah, route is final!

One of the ironic things about the MAPS 3 drama from this week (in case you haven't heard, ADG came out with this "study"), is that lost in all this in-fighting on committees (and the transit project being forced to defend itself from an unwarranted attack piece) is that the route is FINAL! Yes indeed.

It came out a few weeks ago that the BNSF underpasses leading into Bricktown would in fact be conducive to to provide enough clearance for the streetcar, which makes it an easy, viable option for connecting Bricktown and Deep Deuce to points west of the BNSF viaduct, which has had significant implications for the streetcar route planning process, which had been leaving open the likely possibility that those underpasses were not conducive. As a result of this discovery, the route is now finished: Here is the link to the route map on OKC.gov.

Here is the finalized route with a few graphic upgrades to help some of you guys pinpoint the route.

Administrative abuse

Last November I wrote a piece criticizing the proposed design of Rick Dowell's "Dowell Center," where he is having to do some major facade stabilization as a result of removing the adjacent parking-thing next to it (SandRidge project). SR is also reportedly helping Dowell with this project, as they remove a level of the garage at a time, to allow Dowell to stabilize the next level of the facade, as they both go down the building.

The problem is, as I detailed in my post last year (and I hate when I'm right about these things), that they're adding a blank facade. An orange blank facade, at that. OK, pretty bad, but they were at least going to be orange-reddish brick veneer, so maybe it was just a bad rendering.

Well, fast-forward to last month. Administrative approval was given by what is becoming a very clueless and destructive Planning Department to replace the brick veneer with..wait for it...EIFS! Last month I thought I vented and got my grief off my chest over this on OKC Talk, which exploded, as Steve notes on his blog (the link there).

6. DTCA-11-00092, at 250 N Robinson Ave (DBD), by Pierre Derenoncourt for Midland Center LP for revision to original Certificate of Approval to install EIFS in place of originally approved brick veneer on upper levels of the east elevation; and modify the proposed work to reflect only floors 13 to 18 at east elevation.
7. DTCA-11-00092, at 250 N Robinson Ave (DBD), by Pierre Derenoncourt for Midland Center LP, for second revision to original Certificate of Approval to delete previously approved window systems in upper levels of east elevation; install metal panel systems in lieu of windows in same configuration and location at rear elevation.

But I was realizing, this is becoming a trend of abuse when it comes to administrative approval. It's not just the big orange EIFS tower going in opposite the coniferous Sandridge forest (if you haven't seen it, yuck). Administrative approval has also been at play recently with the Bicentennial Park upgrades, where administrative approval was granted to advance construction AFTER council had deliberated and criticized the project. Not that it mattered as council reconvened the next week and a few key members decided to sing a different tune (hmmm, as they say).

Administrative approval was given in Bricktown for a giant inflatable dragon along the canal that violated just about every public appearance code. It was also given for a building that was demolished a few years ago along Sheridan. Both were Jim Brewer projects.

Administrative approval doesn't stop there. It is commonly given whenever developers throw up the distress flag and need to come out on the cheap. Or whenever there is a fire. However, these are instances in which a LOT of cities commonly stand their ground. It isn't at all uncommon for a city to recommend property owners pursue alternatives to demolition when a building is NOT totaled in a fire, especially if they show no viable building replacement plans. And when developers think of a good reason to orchestrate the old "switch and bait," other cities often stand their ground as well, but not OKC.

Here is another good example of the old switch and bait, one of the oldest tricks in the developer playbook.

I am beginning to think that the capability of an incompetent Planning Department to issue administrative approval to ANYTHING they want is one of the culpabilities of our currently broken building permit system, and one of the reasons that we have NO real building standards to speak of, and no desire to even try and enforce standards in the few districts with design overlays. Then there's also the problem of the switch and bait.

There are absolutely no repercussions for Planning Department to deal with when they wrongly issue administrative approval. There are absolutely no repercussions for developers when they orchestrate the switch and bait, so ostensibly, any developer can get away with building on the cheap just by proposing something higher, building something very different. This used to happen a lot with OCURA projects, too.

Somebody needs to be responsible. Somebody should be accountable. There is no way that we will ever have building standards or a better building permit system, even a streamlined system that developers keep calling for, if nobody is responsible, and nobody is accountable.

A very fluid MAPS 3 in transition once again...

I think we're seeing yet another possible shift, and possibly another complete bastardization, of MAPS 3 as we know it. Two important references for you to read, and I'll provide my commentary and background angle later:

Lackmeyer article & Bombshell C2S/MAPS3 study from ADG

OK, well I lied, there's three because Mike Mize took some..uh..liberties with his C2S impact study, and somehow finagled it to attack transit (kill two birds with one stone, I guess).

Transit subcommittee official response to ADG study

Shadid memorial a nice touch

Very glad that the city did this yesterday, to honor one of our city's most accomplished hometown heroes who died in the line of work.

Memorial service for Anthony Shadid set for Saturday, March 3
(March 1, 2012) - A memorial service to honor the life of Anthony Shadid will be held at 2 p.m. Saturday, March 3at the Civic Center Music Hall, 201 N Walker.

Shadid, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and foreign correspondent for The New York Times, died February 16 while on assignment in Syria. The service, which will be led by the U.S. Ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, is expected to draw journalists and dignitaries from around the world.

“In the finest tradition of foreign correspondence, Shadid was never content merely to opine from afar,” Vice President Joe Biden said. “He went where the story took him – from the fall of Saddam Hussein, to the battlefields of Southern Lebanon, to the profound transformations of the Arab Spring – often at extraordinary personal risk. Few foreign correspondents of his generation, or any other, could match his mastery of the language and cultures in the region he covered.”

Shadid, born and raised in Oklahoma City, has a large extended family that still calls Oklahoma City home.

Mayor Mick Cornett said, “He took the values he learned in our community – a sympathetic eye, a sense of right and wrong, and the bravery to point out the difference – and applied them to his craft.”

Friends and colleagues are invited to join the family in honoring his life at the memorial service.

The forgotten voter mandate

City Council, this is your mandate that you have forgotten (or done everything you can to try to forget). Don't forget, at any point, that usurping this pecking order in any way should be taken as direct infringement on the "will of the people" and all that jazz.


What's that project listed there at the bottom, very last? The one that nobody appears to have wanted. Oh yeah, the most expensive project, the convention center.

Divisiveness: A means to a convention

The convention center boondoggle has to come to an end, or be reigned-in somehow, yet how do you reign-in something that we have no control over? The committee structure of MAPS3 virtually guarantees that there is no way to hold their feet to the fire when a convention center takes over and orders the other projects around. The individual sub-committees are made up of members hand-picked by Mayor Cornett, who by and large, is a part of this convention center cartel.

Then city staff appears to have a major, major, major role in shaping the public discourse. It was the timeline drafted by them and their consultants that moved rocketed the convention center from being the last project, as was promised during the campaign by the mayor and all MAPS3 campaign literature. That is all orchestrated by City Manager Jim Couch, whom you’d better believe wants this convention palace built, come hell or high water.

Civic activism often takes on many different shapes and colors. Oftentimes, truthfully, it’s a mere means to an end. A group has a goal, and then accomplishes its goal by whatever means necessary. That’s not what urban activists normally do. The group that is displaying “means to an end” motives and actions is the convention crowd.

These are the exact same people who came out with this ridiculous boulevard to be named “Oklahoma City Boulevard,” following Mayor Cornett’s brilliant PR suggestion (that’s sarcasm). Behind the scenes, Couch’s planning department is pushing for streetcar to follow the new boulevard. These people genuinely want the landmark corridor to come to fruition, as they understand how it would boost sense of place in our community. They want to create an active, attractive downtown.

But they want this convention center even more, and that’s going to inevitably be self-destructive to all these other goals. Deep into their power binge, they saw the opposition to putting the convention center on a high-profile tract of land adjacent to the new park, and decided to show just how powerful they really are by moving it to an even more high-profile tract of land. Check-mate, they say. This is the essence of self-destruction and immaturity.

If urban activists wanted to be immature, for example, they could shun Heritage Hills residents for the recent to-do over the Mercy redevelopment site, in which Heritage Hills preservationists had some major egg on their face. Yet, those preservationists are generally great believers in OKC and excellent people to have on your side. Yet, I don’t believe the urban activists will be as rash and immature as these oil execs and big-time lawyers calling the shots on this convention center. This is the break-down of an “Us vs. Them” dichotomy, which we all wish wasn’t emerging in this city, but let’s face it—it is, due to the divisiveness of these convention center interests and the “Momentum” that they’re drunk on.

That community togetherness and that formerly united civic vision for rebuilding our inner city IS the collateral damage of the convention center assault. How else do you get a city to prioritize a project that very few people wanted to pass in the first place?

New parking sites

For those who haven't heard, COTPA is selling off parking garage after parking garage, which is building up funding for...new parking garages! I have some thoughts on those, first based on comments in the Oklahoman article.

Pete White is excited about the site at NW 10th and Robinson. Jim Couch says that regardless of whether they decide to target the office needs or mixed-use needs, both would be wins as far as downtown parking goes.

Theoretically, Couch is right. However the only problem with that is that this city currently has zero public parking facilities in mixed-use districts. All of this city's parking garages have been in the office core of downtown, which is anything but mixed-use and will remain that way for a while.

The proposed sites are as follows (I went ahead and ranked the sites based on favorability overall, but I admit I haven't really thought a whole lot about ALL of the sites yet):


I think that some of these sites have a lot of strengths. Immediately rising to the top of the list are the two proposed sites that bookend the streetcar system (1 & 2), for strategic purposes. These sites (SW corner of Bricktown and 10th and Robinson), rise above the fray for a multitude of reasons.

Mixed-use: Both of these sites serve mixed-use areas that have a strong need for a parking solution, which I'll talk about more. But I do believe that serving the mixed-use areas, and just developing mixed-use in general, needs to be a higher priority. We have office towers. We have office space. Available office space. Garages that serve office workers. And so on. As far as mixed-use goes, well, it's another situation altogether. We know that this needs to be a priority. We also know that most of the downtown "renaissance" has been spearheaded by adding some mixed-use development.

Parking need: A year ago we did not think there would be any parking need for the office core. Today, it looks like there is a need that exists. But we have known that Bricktown needed a parking solution for a LONG time. That parking crunch could be solved by adding more street parking, like is going to be done along N. Broadway. Speaking of Automobile Alley, we know that there is a strong need for parking around NW 9th, where retail has a foothold downtown. These small businesses and trendy restaurants don't have the resources to deal with parking on their own. However, a block or two away, parking can be easily found. Bricktown obviously has the strongest need.

Transit synergy: It would be vital for a new downtown parking masterplan to take advantage of the new streetcar system, which will serve as a walkability extender (extending the length of "walkable trips" across downtown). So any proposed site that isn't right on the tram route should be thrown away automatically. Furthermore, the Bricktown site happens to be right where there is a proposed garage to serve the OKC Transit Hub, which will be developed out of the old Santa Fe Depot facility. The parking garage would be needed for commuter rail and Amtrak rail, and would be connected via underground tunnels. We would need to talk about how to fund that if that site isn't chosen as the next public parking garage that we now have funds to build.

Contributing to infill: Downtown needs infill. This is another established goal that public actions NEED to be contributing to solving. One of the proposed sites, the one at W. Main and Dewey-to-Shartel, would involve a number of building demolitions on a block with enormous preservation potential. W. Main is another one of those incredible old streetwalls that remain on the edge of downtown's office core. Let's preserve the density we have, and build density where we don't have it, and the CITY shouldn't be doing anything to contradict those goals at the very least. Sites that have the potential to support future development should be given priority as well.

The garages closer to the center fail to do this, although to this end, I would also not write off the site across from City Hall. I think that the Arts District, particularly the Preftakes-owned buildings, could become the next hotspot downtown. This garage could support that and also prevent other building demolitions for parking, which have been rumored from Preftakes for a while. Also as far as future development goes, we know that NW 10th is becoming a vital corridor, so I'd consider that a worthwhile site, and there is also a lot of development left to be done in Bricktown up against the tracks (including a site that Hogan is rumored to be developing soon south of Reno).

Accessibility: Access to the most efficient traffic flow will obviously be another important consideration. One thing I would remind people of is the pending demolition of the Crosstown Expressway land bridge--the replacement at-grade expressway will be right up against the proposed Bricktown garage. You don't get better access to traffic flow in and out of downtown than that. This also has the potential to serve proposed mixed-use sites along the "boulevard," provided that any of these blocks are left untouched once this convention complex gets built. This could be good and bad. If this "boulevard" is an auto highway like planned, a parking garage would just make that even worse. Instead of "Champs d'Elysses" you have essentially..E.K. Gaylord deux. NW 10th, being that emerging vital corridor, is also great from an accessibility standpoint. The other sites mostly involve a great deal of zig-zagging and circling construction sites to get to.

We will just have to watch the Alliance closely (or as close as possible) and see which direction they're thinking about going in. But while Couch is right that theoretically there are many different needs to serve in terms of parking, there aren't just all right answers--it may seem this way when you live your life in a vacuum of power and cronyism like Couch. There are wrong answers and right answers, even if only because we have office and don't have mixed-use. I would say though that it goes beyond that. Downtowns across the nation, no world, have identified the need for as much mixed-use as possible. Mixed-use is potentially going strong 24/7. When your downtown caters to office needs, it rolls up its sidewalks and closes all of its doors at 5. That's what kind of downtown we HAVE.

And here, we start looking at the differences in leadership styles. The more progressive, proactive cities are being led by transformational leaders. A transformational leader is somebody who ignores the status quo and says, "Yeah, that's how things are, but this is how things could be. This is the goal to be working toward." Meanwhile, a caretaker leader just covers their bases and propagates the status quo. These people shy away from visionary ideas. A caretaker leader would prefer to keep doing what we've been doing with parking (obviously with much success - not) whereas a transformational leader would explore the potential for a parking solution to continue turning the land use dilemma around.

Incredible incompetency downs Automobile Alley project

Read more in Steve Lackmeyer's recent article about the stunning City Hall incompetency and misplaced priorities that downed what would have been a major development deal at Broadway and 13th. A large Houston-based development company that has had successful urban developments in Tulsa wanted to invest $38 million in Automobile Alley, giving it the jolt of mixed-use development it needs to continue growing.

The city shifted funds for a needed railroad quiet zone for land acquisition in Core2Shore. No wonder they started making progress on C2S so soon. We are now truly prioritizing this nonexistent area of the city AND convention centers above things that people actually want like TRANSIT and improvement to existing neighborhoods of downtown first.

This Cornett City Hall is loosing its luster every week. What it needs more than anything is for someone else to have another major success that they can take credit for again in order to retain popularity.

The truth about the "Chamber junta"

I want to start revving up my reaction against the convention center site location again. I have a feeling the location debate was blown wide open by the council standing firm against a $30 million budget increase for the project. Obviously it won't affect anything. Anything that anyone, or however MANY people say, even if they are echoed by a councilman sitting on the horseshoe--won't have any chance in effecting a change in course on this convention center.

Explaining this absolutely ridiculous CC subcommittee, who do they think they are?
A lot of attention around the rogue MAPS 3 Convention Center Subcommittee, that so-called "Chamber junta" as they have been aptly labeled by all of the alternative media, has focused on the role of Larry Nichols. Nichols is a local civic warrior who is pushing relentless for what he sees as OKC's best interest, and his influence and power is surging. As he minimized his day-to-day role in running Devon to focus more on his civic ambitions, he has taken the bull by the horns when it comes to this city (I think a very apropos analogy), and I suppose one could say that the arrival of his influence in the last year or so has been felt with the subtlety of a steer mounting a comely heifer. Every conspiracy theorist in town is wanting to blame anything that smells fishy on him, and every respectable leader in town is too afraid to even set the record straight because they don't want to mis-speak when it comes to Nichols. But Nichols is not a corrupt overlord, and I like to believe his interests are mostly above-board. There, I said it, sue me.

This whole "let's lynch Larry Nichols" thing has been a distraction from what I think is the real problem with this "Chamber junta." There are a lot of hotel owners and operators and assorted interests aligned with them that are on this subcommittee. I mean existing hotels, like the Skirvin, Colcord, Renaissance, Courtyard, Sheraton, and so on. The hotel operators that have the most local influence are immediately around the Cox Center, not by virtue of their Broadway or Robinson address, but by virtue of their working relationship with the CVB. The CVB wants to maintain those relationships, for right or for wrong, in spite of what we obviously know that these hotels are amazingly inadequate for handling the convention needs of a "Tier 2" city. We need to start from scratch because a scattering of around 800 rooms over 4-5 separate hotels is a joke and is not going to impress anyone.

In fact, we were going to locate this thing across from the current I-40, and the proximity concern raised by planners had nothing to do with THESE hotels but rather to Bricktown. We have known, mostly all along, that we will have to start over on the hotel front. But we also didn't think we would have to start over on the entertainment and restaurant front, we expected to keep using Bricktown for that, and we also knew that would be a lot harder to recreate in Core2Shore than the hotels would be.

Basically our hotel picture is a small scattering of rooms around the Cox, and probably an equally sized (albeit getting larger with the aLoft) cluster of rooms around Bricktown. Why is ONE of these clusters, particularly the one that is going to be smaller soon, more important to stay close to than the other? Ask that question. The answer is that this has everything to do with these hotels exerting local influence on the convention and hospitality industry, which is running this convention center subcommittee. Obviously, these hotels are at capacity with their current monopoly on the hotel market. More hotels means they will take a hit and may-gasp-only be fairly profitable. (Let's not understate the booming state of the downtown hotels, which are all benefiting from increasing demand and abnormally low supply for a city our size) These guys aren't going to go out of business by bringing in more hotels or starting over with the convention-front, but they won't enjoy being booked solid anymore.

And I've been told by a past president of the Bricktown Association in person that they feel helpless in advancing their cause for anything against these bigger interests because they already have the Ballpark and the Canal. They wish they could pick up "that damn ballpark" and move it to Core2Shore if it's the reason their concerns don't get heard. It may seem insane to outsiders to say that Bricktown interests are being trumped by hotel operators, but it's just the truth that I see.

Can urbanism stand on its own as an agenda?
The interesting thing about OKC's activist circles is that all of the progressives have traditionally been tied to the economic development agenda for the sake of survival. Without the economic development agenda or dare I say "momentum," there is no push for a progressive agenda either. The Chamber can at least make token progress on the issues that progressives care about.

I want to pose a big question. Can a progressive agenda for urbanism and sustainability stand on its own, and take on competing factions on its own? I see MAPS 3 as resembling a bond between progressives and juntas, both attracting voter support from different ends, and I see the last few months as this show of bait-and-switch. Progressive votes were baited with certain items, and then the switch came when the convention center nobody wanted became the new priority, at the expense of other projects. Did progressives really get a bad deal? The streetcar and park might not even be happening without the convention center. We know that voters overwhelmingly took sides with the progressive items and did not like that convention center at all, but--do we have anything else resembling real proof that a progressive agenda can stand on its own and not depend on whoring itself out to the convention center interests?

This past marriage of convenience of progressive issues and the chamber junta makes for odd bed fellows indeed.