McKinney | May 2022

Casting a vision McKinney city sta are conducting a feasibility study to nd the “best-in-class” options to remake SH 5 at the Virginia and Louisiana street crossings. Three alternatives were presented. The goals of the project are to connect communities east and west of SH 5 and enable safe crossing across the corridor. Alternative 2: Alternative 1: DECK PARK INVERTED PARK

VIRGINIA ST.

high

low

high

low

PARK

Design complexity

Implementation timeline

LOUISIANA ST.

Pedestrian connectivity

Up to 5

Up to 27

properties a ected

Project cost range: $13M-$20M

Project cost range: $50M-$70M

CONTINUED FROM 1

a precedent from the Galaxy Soho Plaza in Beijing. In this vision, the deck park would be constructed underneath SH 5, with elevators and stairs to provide access to the park. Sta referred to this as an “inverted park.” This option would aect ve proper- ties and has an estimated cost range of $13 million-$20 million, not including the cost for the park, Graham said. The third alternative was inspired by the green space at North Park Mall and City Place in Houston. It creates two distinct parks at-grade, or level with, Virginia and Louisiana streets, but while the other alternatives sep- arate the parks from the trac, this alternative does require pedestrians to cross vehicular trac either at Virginia or Louisiana to access the parks. In this third option, the same ve properties would be aected, with an estimated cost range of $5 million-$7 million, not including the cost of the park. “This [cost estimate] is just con- structing the footprint that a park could be then put on,” Graham said.

blend the city of McKinney’s east and west sides through redevelopment that will unfold over the next few years, ocials said. While the redevelopment of the east side of SH 5 is one factor inuencing the project to reimagine the roadway, change is coming from the state level, too, Flom said. The Texas Department of Transpor- tation has plans to reconstruct the high- way from south of CR 275 in Melissa to Spur 399 in McKinney. TxDOT will start accepting bids on the rst phase of the SH 5 project in the summer of 2024. Once a bid is accepted, construction is expected to take three to four years. Besides the three deck park options, the city could also let TxDOT remake the road without any involvement. That option was not presented, however. “When TxDOT came and said, ‘We’re going to redo the [SH] 5 corridor,’ sta was never excited about what tradi- tionally TxDOT does on the design,” McKinney Director of Engineering Gary

NOTE: COST ESTIMATES DO NOT INCLUDE INSTALLATION OF PARK AMENITIES OR FEATURES

Moving forward City sta are scoping out the feasibil- ity of the alternatives presented to the council. There is the possibility of some funding opportunities that could help the project be its biggest and boldest version, Flom said. “I feel strongly we have an oppor- tunity to do something really great,” Mayor George Fuller said following the presentation. “We already are taking steps to do that with our City Hall and the Tupps project and the infrastruc- ture improvements that we’re going to be making over there.” During the work session, council provided feedback indicating that as a majority they preferred the second alternative inspired by ripples. This option had the best “compromise” of providing pedestrian connectivity with an ambitious concept while also being conscious of the surrounding area aected by the project, the mayor said. The rst alternative also received some

Graham said. “We were challenged to think of something bigger.” Options presented At the meeting, Graham presented three dierent options, or alternatives, for how SH 5 could be remade. The rst deck park alternative Gra- ham presented to council was inspired by waves, with a precedent coming from Pacic Plaza in Dallas. In this option, SH 5 would go underneath the park that would span across Virginia and Louisiana streets. This option could aect up to 27 dif- ferent properties in this area, Graham said. The estimated cost for this option would range from $50 million-$70 mil- lion, which does not include the costs to install the park. The retaining walls would also limit access, Graham said. The second alternative was inspired by rings and ripples in the water, with

COMMUNITY IMPACT NEWSPAPER • COMMUNITYIMPACT.COM