Major news

Film Row is perhaps evolving as downtown's most under-reported news story. Not blaming Steve Lackmeyer, OKC Business, the Journal Record, the City Sentinel, or any other news outlet, but simply put, there are two major developments that have me giddy, and should have every urbanist in OKC giddy as well.

#1. Bicycle lanes in the new Film Row streetscape. These are actually the first urban bicycle lanes in OKC, ever, and probably all of Oklahoma as well. Way to be progressive! This is an occasion.

#2. Film Row's first restaurant will be Joey's Pizzeria. It's going into the Film Exchange right next to the IAO Gallery. Joey's is currently at Classen and 18th.

Greetings from Tram-sterdam

Just got back from a 4-day weekend in Amsterdam, which was absolutely amazing. What an incredible city. What an incredible test tube for urbanism. It's hard not to be interested in the trams from an American standpoint at this point in time, with so many cities wanting to adopt modern streetcar, and it's so easy to be quickly overwhelmed by the size and scope of some of these European transit systems. Amsterdam's trams..just wow. Unfortunately my camera died on my second day, but here's one photo:

Keep in mind, that Amsterdam is possibly one of the world's most famous cities for transit, but it's not the trams that earned it that reputation: it's bicycles. The city is the most bicycle-friendly place in the world, and it goes without saying you haven't experiences Amsterdam until you've spent an entire day on bike.

The tram system actually reminds me of a significantly enhanced version of the Toronto streetcar, with an intense network of mostly linear tram lines:

[Might have to open the pic in a new window to get to see it] So it's amazing that a city of about 800,000 people has all of these tram lines (granted at any given time tourists clearly outnumber locals). It's also amazing that it supports this in addition to a highly-developed underground metro system, commuter trains to other close-in regional cities, elevated rail similar to Chicago (they call theirs "the tube"), the bicycle-centric focus, and even the canals and River Amstel serve a transit function. It's truly a transit city. Not to mention so many areas in the Centre Ring are pedestrian-only.

I think perhaps all of these modes of transit have grown up around each other. At first it might appear to be a lot of competition for ridership--are the Dutch really that "on the move"? But then you realize, the simple fact is that having a car in Amsterdam is a nightmare! I saw it first-hand several times in the Centre Ring, and never more than when I saw a taxi trying to squeeze in with the bicycles and pedestrians through a crowded bridge a block from a busy weekend market in De Jordaan. Cars in Amsterdam simply go against the laws of physics.

Now obviously, this is not the case in any American city except perhaps NYC, and even NYC is packed full of too many cars. But the point still stands: there is no competition for ridership in a true transit-centered environment, as long as the different modes of transit each serve a real purpose. If Amsterdam was not the bicycle haven that it is, would the tram system be as well-used? Probably not. Would the commuter trains or even the inter-city trains to Den Haag and Utrecht be as heavily-utilized? Probably not.

Lesson that OKC can take from Amsterdam: In order for big-time streetcar utilization to work successfully, grow as many different complementary modes at once. This is why Project 180 coinciding with the streetcar timeline is actually an enormous opportunity, not a duplication of efforts. The city needs to do a lot to expand basic walkability and human access, including a real bicycle strategy that doesn't just involve the system of scenic park trails. That's not really what we need...

I see no reason OKC couldn't use a system of bicycle roads. Bicycle-only intersections, even bicycle round-abouts. Special bicycle lights at each intersection, some busier intersections even with dedicated bicycle left-turn lanes. Or at the very least, sidewalks on every street, that are actually usable. That would be a good start, even if it's just in the inner city! Perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself here and forgetting just how many 100s of years OKC is behind other cities in terms of basic sidewalk infrastructure. It is beyond embarrassing.

One great phrase you will never hear in OKC: Lekker fietstocht!

Somebody is not very smart

And that somebody works for OKC Public Works. Is this a comedy sketch or something?? Does someone at Public Works have a "What Would Amy Poehler Do?" poster above their desk or something?

First it was NE 2nd Street, which became sidewalkgate--several weeks of crucifixion by the blogosphere and anyone interested in walkability. Public Works rebuffed questions from reporter Steve Lackmeyer, refused to take responsibility, acknowledge that something was wrong, and was even lousy about getting back with the veteran reporter from the Oke.

Actually before that was an incident that peeved me, but nobody else seemed to press the issue at the time: The new Chamber of Commerce headquarters. Anyone want to guess why that beautiful new building was supposed to have an un-pedestrian friendly relationship with the surrounding street? Because Public Works refused to consider some solutions for the nightmare of navigating the Gaylord/Broadway split. Of course the Chamber didn't want people getting mowed over by motorists on Gaylord, but they took the public blame for that, and nobody pressed the real issue which was the crappy city engineers who refuse to consider "innovative solutions."

Now, they put a light pole in the middle of a handicap ramp. Seriously. On NE 10th and I-235. They must really hate the NE side of downtown or something. How could these people be THIS idiotic??

A true neighborhood asset in J. Park

Dear OKC Parks & Recreation,

I cannot rave enough about the tennis courts in Goodholm Park, they are a true neighborhood asset. There is nothing like decent neighborhood tennis courts to bring people out of their houses. Actually, I can't rave enough about all of Goodholm Park in general. It is one of the city's best parks. It is urban, surrounded by a dense neighborhood, it has a very well-defined (and somewhat irregular and interesting) space. The orientation of the neighborhood all around it is perfect (cute bungalows across the street to the west and north, great rowhouses across Robinson to the east). It has a great walking trail that goes all along the perimeter, you always see people jogging or taking a stroll. Great playground that is always well-used. The field also gets well-used by people walking dogs. It's just a great space, an example of what we don't have enough of.

The name is a little confusing. When you say Goodholm Park in the Jefferson Park neighborhood most people are kind of lost, so perhaps it should just be Jefferson Park, which would make sense to me. But if the city should take any action, IT SHOULD BE TO CREATE MORE SPACES LIKE THIS!!!!!!! There are too many underutilized and neglected parks just like this. Restoring those, putting in nice things like the well-maintained tennis courts, playground, and walking trail..would not only be a boon to the community, but it would inject these neighborhoods with life and vitality. I assure you that the condition of Goodholm Park has a lot to do with the boom in renovations the J. Park area has seen.

Lastly, tennis courts. Tennis courts in OKC are absolutely pathetic, and I say this as someone who really enjoys playing tennis. I took the above picture last week when we had a period of really amazing weather. Sometimes we get that in the winter, and when it happens, it really draws the people out of their houses. You'll notice there are a lot of individual courts here, all of which are being used. Actually Goodholm Park has the best backboards in the entire city in my opinion, which is important because you don't always have someone you can play with, and you can occasionally meet new people if you share the backboards, which I always end up doing.

Every time I visit these tennis courts, I find myself overwhelmed with a sense of community. The J. Park kids actually seem to have a hierarchy that's developed around the tennis courts, and I've observed that they have a system where grown-ups go there and teach the kids how to play tennis. The residents around there take care of the courts and keep skateboarders off of them. Actually I've never seen a skateboard on those courts, ever. Nothing against skateboarders, in fact, I think the city should add another skatepark since the one on South Robinson was a hit.

The reality is that OKC is the fattest city in America. Fattest, not phattest. It's been that way 3 out of the last 4 years, actually. The city has all these nifty PR campaigns to encourage people to lose weight, and there's even a City of OKC official diet program. Sponsored by Taco Bell.

Obviously we aren't serious about having a healthy city, because there is no other ostensible conclusion. We don't invest in parks. Most of OKC's parks are pretty pathetic. If they do have tennis courts, which is an extreme rarity, they are likely crumbling and then if they have backboards, another rarity, they're probably rotting wooden pieces of crap. Furthermore, we don't have sidewalks. We still aren't adding sidewalks, and don't even tell me about $10M in Maps3 for sidewalks, that's a joke. Walkability in OKC is a laughing stock. I see people get ran over all the time in the denser parts of S. OKC. I even myself come close to running people over, and I feel really guilty about that, but here's the reality: There's NO PLACE for people in OKC. Streetcar will help revolutionize the pedestrian experience downtown, and that's great, but I am not talking about downtown..I'm talking about the other 90% of our city.

Sidewalks. Neighborhood parks. Tennis courts. Skateparks. Trees. Walking trails. Not phony PR campaign diets sponsored by Taco Bell that the city needs to just terminate (before doing more damage by deluding people into thinking fast food is a "diet"). This is quality of life I'm talking about. QoL is NOT just how long you have to sit in traffic, how easy it is for you to get symphony tickets, or how attractive your community is. There are things in your environment that will directly affect your physical health, period. This city's residents are the most morbidly obese in the nation, so what does that tell you about QoL?

Furthermore, why do people even live in OKC? Oklahoma City city limits that is. In most cases, the reason someone might live in Dallas rather than Lewisville is directly because of QoL. Access to amenities, schools, jobs, and healthy lifestyle choices. Dallas is obviously tops in the Metroplex for that because it is the central city. Quality of life is the business of central cities. If you live in Gallatin, TN, you're not going to have tennis courts nearby more than likely, because you made the decision to live in a white bread cookie cutter suburb of Nashville. If you lived closer in, you'd probably have every QoL amenity you could think of, including tennis courts within walking distance. This is what we've come to expect in every central city of America.

So what is the difference between living in OKC proper and Moore or Yukon? As it is there is none whatsoever, aside from distance to downtown, and if that were vital, Del City would be a top-tier suburb.

Walkable OKC? Throw out your demographic assumptions.

If anyone were to check out OKC's "walk score" on www.WalkScore.com, you might be somewhat surprised to see their map of the most walkable areas of OKC city limits. ^ Posted above.

Apparently the most pedestrian-friendly areas of OKC, after downtown, are Lyrewood Lane, NW Expressway/May, Western/I-240, Quail Springs, and Crown Heights. I presume this is pretty unscientific raw data where they just matched residential density to commercial density and decided that any overlay is "pedestrian-friendly." Still, I can kind of see where there are arguments for some of these areas. Lyrewood Lane might not be a "great urban environment" but that doesn't mean walkable.

While all of these urbanist buzz words are not mutually exclusive of each other, I think there is a novice misconception out there that where one exists they all exist.. "Walkability, attractiveness, urban design, density..blah blah.. it's all the same, right?"

Obviously some concepts are a lost cause for the majority of OKC. Try rescuing Lyrewood Lane from an urban design standpoint. Doesn't mean it doesn't have density, and it doesn't mean that it can't have walkability if you consider the concept loosely without assessing quality values (I for one wouldn't enjoy taking a stroll down Lyrewood Lane, let along driving down it, despite how accessible or plausible such a method of getting around may be).

True urbanism is urbanism without the snootiness and snobbery. We've had some awesome urban infill projects downtown, but they all cater to a certain income group. What is the difference between a gated community and residential parts of downtown? All that's missing is the gated entrance, because OCURA has been so proactive in keeping out anything affordable by, you know, normal standards.. (anything under $300,000 or $1,000/mo).

Perhaps the truest urban neighborhood in all of OKC is Crown Heights. It's got live, work, dine, play.. it's got density.. it's got charm and historic qualities.. it's got proximity to downtown.. it's got diversity.. it's got urban design.. it's got walkability.