Comments on: Classifying Open Space: City Squares, Commons and Public Gardens

By: Jason

Jason — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:26:49 +0000

Don’t forget about Kerr Park/Couch Park, the closest thing we have to an urban square, as it is mostly paved. I would like to see it renamed ______ Square when it is revamped by Sandridge.

By: Shane

Shane — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:44:29 +0000

Making a portion of the C2S park something like Millennium Park could help it fit the requirements of public square and natural park (a two in one deal). In the C2S plans there are several parks/open spaces/plazas shown. The amazing thing is just how much thought really is being put into C2S. We can only hope that development of the caliber that city leaders are expecting will come to the areas around the park, because as your post points out Blair, the private development surrounding the public space makes just as much of a difference in defining it as a “good” or “functional” space.

Maybe the city should look at why the area around the civic plazas on the west side are not developing, and look at how to encourage development there. There are some great surface lots facing Bicentennial Park- are those lots owned by the city, how can we encourage development there? The whole idea of beautifying the civic plaza area decades ago was surely to help development, so what went wrong and why did the city not follow through? Is there a danger of the same thing happening when we build our Core to Shore parks?

By: Nick Roberts

Nick Roberts — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:45:46 +0000

Hey Blair,

I’m not entirely sure that C2S will come up short. We haven’t yet seen anything proposed. One thing is certain though: There are some real visionaries in charge of C2S, and there are also some real lame bozos in charge of C2S. Will C2S be bold, impressive, and substantially elevate OKC’s status as a major city? Or will C2S be a conservative, watered-down approach to stimulate development south of downtown? It remains to be seen, and I’m certain of neither, but hopeful that city leaders won’t be afraid to ask city residents to approve a very broad and impressive list of MAPS 3 amenities.

I’ve heard the “C2S Central Park” (yet to be named) compared to Chicago’s Millennium Park. I have no objection to that..

By: Keagan

Keagan — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 03:13:47 +0000

Don’t worry I didn’t take it that you said C2S was bad, I was just stating how much it will improve the aspects of OKC and the “central park” of it may be our only ticket close to a city square, which will be better than nothing. I haven’t really studied these city squares but it seems they are great for a city. But yes there will be a need for one later on is OKC really wants to achieve it’s role as becoming a more of a major city than it is now.

By: Blair

Blair — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 23:50:16 +0000

Keagan –

I completely agree. I didn’t mean to communicate in anyway that Core to Shore wasn’t a great thing, but merely to point out that OKC really needs an urban city square. And while the large “central park” at the heart of the C2S plan will be wonderful, it will fill a different role in the city’s urban open space system. Thus, even with its completion, there will still be the need for a viable urban square.

By: Keagan

Keagan — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 20:52:34 +0000

Core to Shore will still be such an interesting improvement to OKC and possibly most of the region. Core to Shore will bring much needed urban and natural development with the parks it will construct and all the urban neighborhoods. The “Central Park” of it all will still be a much needed step in improving downtown OKC. But as said it may still lack in the quantity and quality departments but will put OKC back on the map in some areas. Core to Shore will completely revolutionize OKC. And which is why the whole C2S process needs to be speeded up.