Caught word that someone is developing a sports bar downtown in this building at 2nd St. and Cheyenne. Anyone know details?
(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g82/ourtulsa/100_5678.jpg)
Dont' know anything about it. But the 2nd floor could have some awesome possibilities...
I'd be happy to patronize it but that building doesn't look like a good location for a bar. Besides being somewhat isolated, how would you even create a space that's inviting from the outside in that space?
That Brickhugger Bar project was supposed to go in one block south of here before being shelved. Is there any relation between the two projects?
Quote from: TheTed on October 08, 2009, 11:15:42 PM
how would you even create a space that's inviting from the outside in that space?
Add 1st floor windows?
Quote from: TheTed on October 08, 2009, 11:15:42 PM
I'd be happy to patronize it but that building doesn't look like a good location for a bar. Besides being somewhat isolated, how would you even create a space that's inviting from the outside in that space?
It's walking distance from the BOK and is right down the road from restaurants I frequent so I don't consider it isolated.
Speaking of sports bars, what ever became of the upscale one that was planned for 61st and Memorial? BTW this looks like a good location. Wasn't it a printing company at one time?
Quote from: dbacks fan on October 09, 2009, 10:16:24 AM
Speaking of sports bars, what ever became of the upscale one that was planned for 61st and Memorial? BTW this looks like a good location. Wasn't it a printing company at one time?
Hey, is Cooperstown still a hopping joint in Phoenix? I liked that place.
Quote from: dbacks fan on October 09, 2009, 10:16:24 AM
Speaking of sports bars, what ever became of the upscale one that was planned for 61st and Memorial?
Manchesters (http://www.manchesterstulsa.com/)?
Quote from: Conan71 on October 09, 2009, 10:19:35 AM
Hey, is Cooperstown still a hopping joint in Phoenix? I liked that place.
Yes it is. And it will probably be busy tonight with the Mercury going for the WNBA title. It's got a great location just behind US Airways (We still call it AWA for America West Airlines) and a couple of blocks from Chase Field. Most of those place came after the ball park was built, but it started in '92 when they built the arena downtown. You were here last year for NASCAR right? You wouldn't recognize some of the downtown areas with all the construction. The lates thing is that the Dbacks and the Suns have entered into an agreement with the light rail that a game ticket will work for a rail ticket. I also think ASU is doing something like that since it passes right by Sun Devil stadium.
Quote from: TURobY on October 09, 2009, 10:24:55 AM
Manchesters (http://www.manchesterstulsa.com/)?
not happening.
Quote from: dbacks fan on October 09, 2009, 10:35:47 AM
Yes it is. And it will probably be busy tonight with the Mercury going for the WNBA title. It's got a great location just behind US Airways (We still call it AWA for America West Airlines) and a couple of blocks from Chase Field. Most of those place came after the ball park was built, but it started in '92 when they built the arena downtown. You were here last year for NASCAR right? You wouldn't recognize some of the downtown areas with all the construction. The lates thing is that the Dbacks and the Suns have entered into an agreement with the light rail that a game ticket will work for a rail ticket. I also think ASU is doing something like that since it passes right by Sun Devil stadium.
I did the November races in '06 and last year. It was '06 when we went to Alice's place. I wanted to come out again this year, but since they closed Manzanita- which was a big part of the attraction and I've had a lot of cycling and rowing events this fall, I figured I might go to the spring race coming up. I really want to row on Town Lake as well some time. I got some contacts at Rio Salado Rowing Club but they didn't return any calls or emails until about three months later. ;)
Quote from: jbk on October 09, 2009, 10:39:31 AM
not happening.
Not enough interest? Financing fell through? I wouldn't have gone, but I'm just curious.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 09, 2009, 10:19:35 AM
Hey, is Cooperstown still a hopping joint in Phoenix? I liked that place.
http://www.alicecooperstown.com/ (http://www.alicecooperstown.com/)
So anyway, back to the originally topic. lol! Place looks like it could have real possibilties. If anyone knows for sure, please post.
Quote from: Townsend on October 09, 2009, 09:21:16 AM
It's walking distance from the BOK and is right down the road from restaurants I frequent so I don't consider it isolated.
If you stood in front of the place on an evening or weekend for an hour, you could count the foot traffic on one hand, except the couple times a month there's a major event at the BOK.
Quote from: TheTed on October 09, 2009, 11:43:13 AM
If you stood in front of the place on an evening or weekend for an hour, you could count the foot traffic on one hand, except the couple times a month there's a major event at the BOK.
That's because there is nothing like it over there to walk to. Seems like a good location to me, a block away from the towers and right behind the bankruptcy court; it's genius.
Don't get me wrong. I'd definitely patronize this place. I've been walking from downtown to the White Owl to watch football on Saturdays, as nowhere downtown has lots of HDTVs with lots of sports channels/packages like the White Owl.
But I walk and bike around desolate parts of downtown at nights and on weekends constantly and hardly ever see anybody else around other than bums.
If this rumor is true, I wish this place luck. But the BOK Center event traffic would account for such a small percentage of sales, that I question whether there'd be enough business to sustain this place the 99% of the time when that part of downtown is completely lifeless.
Quote from: jbk on October 09, 2009, 10:39:31 AM
not happening.
You sure? I was down at the shopping center last week and saw some folks in and around the space.
Quote from: TheTed on October 09, 2009, 11:43:13 AM
If you stood in front of the place on an evening or weekend for an hour, you could count the foot traffic on one hand, except the couple times a month there's a major event at the BOK.
Don't get downtown much, d'ya?
Let's look at what's coming up at the BOK Center:
Oct 9 - Creed
Oct 10 - River Rush
Oct 12 - Miley Cyrus
Oct 14 - OKC Thunder vs. Miami Heat
Oct 20 - Star Wars in concert
Oct 24 - Oilers vs. Wichita
Oct 27 - Oilers vs. Rapid City
Oct 30 - So You Think You Can Dance Tour
Nov 3 - Oilers vs. Allen
Nov 7 - Alan Jackson
Looks like a few things are coming up in the next few weeks. And, of course, that doesn't include the constant stream of events at Cain's Ballroom, the PAC, etc.
On concert/event nights, there aren't enough bars and restaurants downtown to handle the pre/post rush.
In the meantime, if they utilize this building so that folks can enjoy a drink while looking out the upstairs windows, they should have a pretty cool view on any night.
Sounds like a great spot to me. Hope it works out!
(I agree about the need for street level windows...but the lack of 1st floor windows could be a plus for a bar, depending on their plans for the space.)
Quote from: wordherder on October 09, 2009, 03:19:28 PM
You sure? I was down at the shopping center last week and saw some folks in and around the space.
might be with new people but the original plan is no more.
Quote from: PonderInc on October 09, 2009, 03:33:36 PM
Don't get downtown much, d'ya?
Let's look at what's coming up at the BOK Center:
Oct 9 - Creed
Oct 10 - River Rush
Oct 12 - Miley Cyrus
Oct 14 - OKC Thunder vs. Miami Heat
Oct 20 - Star Wars in concert
Oct 24 - Oilers vs. Wichita
Oct 27 - Oilers vs. Rapid City
Oct 30 - So You Think You Can Dance Tour
Nov 3 - Oilers vs. Allen
Nov 7 - Alan Jackson
Looks like a few things are coming up in the next few weeks. And, of course, that doesn't include the constant stream of events at Cain's Ballroom, the PAC, etc.
On concert/event nights, there aren't enough bars and restaurants downtown to handle the pre/post rush.
In the meantime, if they utilize this building so that folks can enjoy a drink while looking out the upstairs windows, they should have a pretty cool view on any night.
Sounds like a great spot to me. Hope it works out!
(I agree about the need for street level windows...but the lack of 1st floor windows could be a plus for a bar, depending on their plans for the space.)
I live and work downtown. I spend 99% of my time downtown. I walk desolate downtown streets nightly. I bike downtown daily.
I quantified my statement as referring to major events. The upper level is opened for events a couple times a month. The smaller events do very little to bring downtown to life. If I don't pass right by the arena, I don't even notice when there's a hockey game or minor concert. Everybody parks within a block, maybe two blocks.
Quote from: PonderInc on October 09, 2009, 03:33:36 PM
Nov 3 - Oilers vs. Allen
Nov 7 - Alan Jackson
For a second, I thought it was Oilers vs. Alan Jackson. "I never knew Alan Jackson was such a keen hockey player. Especially good enough to take on an entire CHL team".
Quote from: Conan71 on October 09, 2009, 04:18:58 PM
For a second, I thought it was Oilers vs. Alan Jackson. "I never knew Alan Jackson was such a keen hockey player. Especially good enough to take on an entire CHL team".
He might with this team.
Since it has no windows, maybe an expansion location for Night Trips or Cloud 9, pretty sure that is what downtown is missing.
Quote from: TheTed on October 09, 2009, 03:55:52 PM
I live and work downtown. I spend 99% of my time downtown. I walk desolate downtown streets nightly. I bike downtown daily.
I quantified my statement as referring to major events. The upper level is opened for events a couple times a month. The smaller events do very little to bring downtown to life. If I don't pass right by the arena, I don't even notice when there's a hockey game or minor concert. Everybody parks within a block, maybe two blocks.
A lower level event is still 5,000-9,000 people typically. Chances are, at least a couple of them drink.
For what it's worth, we get little to no bump from any of the hockey type events. The larger events like Miley Cyrus turn a weekday in to a weekend type crowd (for an hour and a half before the show), and turn a weekend night into a really good one. We're smaller than two of our neighbors (El Guapos and McNellies) and on most arena nights, none of us are forced on to a wait. There are exceptions. Dave Matthews (younger cooler drinking type crowd) was a crazy night with a wait, while one week later Creed (Affliction shirt wearing popped collar feaux-hawk crowd) was not that notable and we were on a wait only for a small time. Anyway, the perception that the downtown restaurants are at capacity when we have arena events is simply not true. If it is, then it's true for restaurants other than mine...which sucks and would be indicative of a greater problem at Joe Momma's. The events help, don't get me wrong, but there is definitely not a shortage of seats on most BOK dates. That perception probably hurts us and causes people to eat on Cherry Street or Brookside before driving into downtown.
Maybe the Oilers will turn it around and the crowds will grow to unmanageable levels...We can dream.
Quote from: JoeMommaBlake on October 15, 2009, 08:58:52 PM
For what it's worth, we get little to no bump from any of the hockey type events. The larger events like Miley Cyrus turn a weekday in to a weekend type crowd (for an hour and a half before the show), and turn a weekend night into a really good one. We're smaller than two of our neighbors (El Guapos and McNellies) and on most arena nights, none of us are forced on to a wait. There are exceptions. Dave Matthews (younger cooler drinking type crowd) was a crazy night with a wait, while one week later Creed (Affliction shirt wearing popped collar feaux-hawk crowd) was not that notable and we were on a wait only for a small time. Anyway, the perception that the downtown restaurants are at capacity when we have arena events is simply not true. If it is, then it's true for restaurants other than mine...which sucks and would be indicative of a greater problem at Joe Momma's. The events help, don't get me wrong, but there is definitely not a shortage of seats on most BOK dates. That perception probably hurts us and causes people to eat on Cherry Street or Brookside before driving into downtown.
Maybe the Oilers will turn it around and the crowds will grow to unmanageable levels...We can dream.
I'll do my part to make sure people know, but it depends on how well this new coach can make this team.
He did just sign a new behemoth of a forward today though (6'6", 245lbs). We'll see starting Oct 24th.
Well I did eat at Joe Momma's tonight, FYI.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 15, 2009, 10:25:09 PM
Well I did eat at Joe Momma's tonight, FYI.
Come to a game, big man. Hell, I'll even buy you a drink. You'll know how to find our group. Just ask any of the Oiler staff where to find the most obnoxious fans.
;D
I'll be at the Oct 24 game.
Quote from: Hoss on October 15, 2009, 10:09:40 PM
He did just sign a new behemoth of a forward today though (6'6", 245lbs).
That is a big skater. Let me guess...he likes to fight.
Slightly off topic but still relevant to the conversation.... Was talking to a friend yesterday and he mentioned that they were having a small convention/ball and said they were having it in Fayetteville. I was like, "Why Fayetteville and not Tulsa?" Apparently they had the convention in Tulsa previously and went to Downtown Tulsa earlier this year to scout things out and make a descision for this year. The opinion was that downtown Tulsa was "scary" not enough clubs, bars, etc. in one spot compared to Dixon Street in Fayetteville. The streets were dead in downtown Tulsa compared to Dixon Street where you could walk up and down the strip, there is lots going on, often live outdoor music, plenty of places to choose from and to go from one to the next. Also they could stay relatively nearby in inexpensive, but nice, hotels and get good clean new, Taxi service. The taxi service in Tulsa was also described as "scary" lol, and the downtown hotels were the more expensive kind versus new budget hotels they could get in Fayetteville.
I know we can argue against their descisions and say they were wrong or silly, but they still chose Fayetteville over Tulsa. The main reason seems to be the usual assessment we have all come to before.... Tulsa has a lot of stuff, all the parts, but spreads them out all over the place.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 16, 2009, 09:15:04 AM
That is a big skater. Let me guess...he likes to fight.
Actually, his PIMs don't really indicate that, although if you do a you tube search of 'Derek Merlini', you might find a few fight videos.
;D
Quote from: TheArtist on October 16, 2009, 09:19:07 AM
Slightly off topic but still relevant to the conversation.... Was talking to a friend yesterday and he mentioned that they were having a small convention/ball and said they were having it in Fayetteville. I was like, "Why Fayetteville and not Tulsa?" Apparently they had the convention in Tulsa previously and went to Downtown Tulsa earlier this year to scout things out and make a descision for this year. The opinion was that downtown Tulsa was "scary" not enough clubs, bars, etc. in one spot compared to Dixon Street in Fayetteville. The streets were dead in downtown Tulsa compared to Dixon Street where you could walk up and down the strip, there is lots going on, often live outdoor music, plenty of places to choose from and to go from one to the next. Also they could stay relatively nearby in inexpensive, but nice, hotels and get good clean new, Taxi service. The taxi service in Tulsa was also described as "scary" lol, and the downtown hotels were the more expensive kind versus new budget hotels they could get in Fayetteville.
I know we can argue against their descisions and say they were wrong or silly, but they still chose Fayetteville over Tulsa. The main reason seems to be the usual assessment we have all come to before.... Tulsa has a lot of stuff, all the parts, but spreads them out all over the place.
Our lack of foot traffic is a major problem in terms of perceptions of downtown. Even on the busiest Saturday night in the Blue Dome District, you can sit out on the patio at Joe Momma's and hardly see anybody walking by during the duration of your meal. And that's in the most happening part of downtown. When I'm walking around the rest of downtown, I get all giddy when I see a fellow non-bum walking or biking somewhere (and not just to their car 50 feet away).
The ballpark will help that problem a little bit, but it's still a major issue. Everything is spread out. Nobody lives downtown. There's no transit and everybody just drives and parks at their destination, meaning completely lifeless streetscapes everywhere.
Cherry Street and Brookside are far better in terms of not feeling dead because at least people have to park a few blocks away, then the number of attractions packed together leads them to wander around a little before driving home.
For smallish cities, I really think we need to look more at Memphis and less at OKC. I've never been that impressed with OKC's foot traffic. It always seems pretty dead except right at the ballpark and arena.
Memphis, on the other hand, you go there on a weekend and the level of foot traffic on Beale could almost be Chicago or New York. I haven't seen another smallish city with as much life downtown as Memphis. And it's because everything is packed so close together (ballpark, arena, Beale Street, Peabody Place, etc). The arena is literally half a block from the heart of Beale. Plus it doesn't hurt that their arena has two regular tenants who draw large crowds in the dead of winter (the NBA grizzlies and NCAA tigers).
William - this is where your desire to see "A" streets will come into play. Direct foot traffic to "HOT" spots and radiate out from there. Dead zones in downtowns are not rare . . .but many, most, or at least the places with good reputations direct the traffic that there is.
Walk 2 blocks from Beale Street and you can be in a ghost town (a scary ghost town). A little further than that off of Bourbon and it dies out. Ever been downtown KC? The Power and Light District is HOPPING, but stray too far away and it dies down. Hell, walk a (really long) block north of the Strip in Vegas and it is dead.
Additionally, all those places have a MAJOR venue feeding those entertainment districts. Imagine the foot traffic if the BOk center was placed in the giant empty surface parking lots near the Blue Dome, the ball park is going in, etc. *sigh* As it stand, you leave the BOK Center and leave. You have to work to stay downtown. :(
Pay attention city planners!
Even our entertainment districts are not dense enough to encourage foot traffic. Memphis and KC, the entertainment districts are packed so close together you have to park and walk a bit.
The Blue Dome and Brady are both kind of spread out where you just park near where you're going, which kills any hopes of foot traffic. We need some significant density increases in both.
Quote from: TheTed on October 16, 2009, 12:35:13 PM
Even our entertainment districts are not dense enough to encourage foot traffic. Memphis and KC, the entertainment districts are packed so close together you have to park and walk a bit.
The Blue Dome and Brady are both kind of spread out where you just park near where you're going, which kills any hopes of foot traffic. We need some significant density increases in both.
I don't see either one of those districts as being spread-out, per se. Pretty much everything is within three blocks which is about the length of Beale Street. I do realize Beale has density on both sides, but it's also got a 30 or so year head-start on our downtown development. I've not been to Memphis since they built the Fedex arena, can't imagine how that has changed that segment of the city.
I've got a good story about getting lost on the wrong part of Danny Thomas Blvd. after dark in a rented BMW, but I'll save that for another time.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 16, 2009, 03:34:13 PM
in a rented BMW, but I'll save that for another time.
The only place I had an option to rent a BMW was Germany. Then it was a 316 or a 520 in 1995. I opted for the 316. You must have better connections than I do.
So I went to a movie tonight at AMC. I literally parked in the corner of that massive parking lot. Seriously. The parking lot is as big as Coweta and I parked in the far corner of it because it was that full. Competing with high school football, all kinds of hayrides and haunted houses, OU v Texas, etc. and it was loaded. I did a little math. The AMC has 20 theater rooms, each holding at least a couple hundred people. Let's say then, that there are 4000 seats in that theater (and that's conservative). On a night like tonight where "Where the Wild Things Are" came out, the place was mostly full all night long. Wave after wave from 5PM to midnight. That's around 20,000 people who went to that theater today alone. We like arenas and ballparks, but neither do for an area what a movie theater does. Also, neither make as much money and neither are open 365 days a year. If we want to get people downtown, the most simple solution is build a multi-plex. Tulsans love movies, there are no competing theaters close by (within miles and miles), and there are more empty lots than we will ever fill up with cars or new buildings. Imagine a movie theater in that big stupid parking lot across from Joe Momma's. The Blue Dome District would have 10 times the visitors and our restaurants would be full all the time. There would actually be a need for more of them....and when there's a need for restaurants, restaurateurs get excited about opening them.
Part of the problem in the Blue Dome is that most of the businesses are on the same block, but across the street from that block in any area, there's almost nothing. There's no place where you feel you're in the middle of something and "feel is very important to an entertainment district." If you're at McNellie's, there's nothing next door on either side, a parking lot and an office building across the street, and you can't even see across the street to Joe Momma's because of Sak and Associates. If you're at El Guapo's, you look across the street at an office building one direction and a two story red building that's being used for storage in the other. If you're at Joe Momma's, you look at a parking lot across the street. If you're at Dwelling Spaces, you also look across the street at a parking lot. If you're at what was once The Blank Slate (now the IDL Ballroom) you look across the street at a parking garage one direction and the MET in the other direction. Only Dirty's, Arnie's, and Dilly Delly have visible across the street neighbors. It feels like an island. The Blue Dome is not a strip, it's a square. . . Brookside and Cherry Street feel like something's going on because no matter where you are, you have a view of things going on right across the street. In the Blue Dome, not so much, even though when you think about it, we have several cool restaurants and bars. As Elgin develops, and it's happening, the strip may come into it's own. We've got a retro bar going in next door to Joe Momma's, a BBQ place in the alley behind it, a bowling alley happening south of Dilly Deli, and another bar south of the porn shop. Hopefully, from the ballpark heading south, Elgin becomes a thriving strip of activity that starts to feel like a 6th street in Austin, a Beale Street, or at the very least...Cherry Street or Brookside.
Tulsa is spread out. Our options for fun are scattered all over the place. Right now, we can't even hang with most college towns when it comes to entertainment and nightlife. The earlier comment about planning is right on the money. Maybe someday, the empty spaces will start to fill in and things will be different, but because of years of bad planning, even our downtown doesn't have one cohesive entertainment area. Imagine if you grouped the ballpark, arena, brady district restaurants and bars, blue dome restaurants and bars, and the stuff on (or close by) the square (including the hotels). Now you have a killer downtown entertainment center.
In the meantime, the best thing we can all do is continue to support the downtown eateries and bars. Because things are spread out, it may take a little more time to seem festive, but we've got the beginnings of something. Brady has a good feel, Main St. by the Cains has some life, and The Blue Dome is still one of the best concentration of local restaurants in town....that, or build a movie theater.
I agree, a movie theater downtown, not stuck out by itself somewhere but in one of the budding entertainment districts, would be great. That lot opposite Joe Mommas or in that area would be my first pick.
Also, glad to hear there is a Bowling Alley going in. :)
I have always felt that the critical location for development in downtown is the lot across from Joe Momma's. It's going to take some deep pockets to acquire and develop it though. The developers able to take on a project like this I suspect will be sitting back for some time given the climate now and risks involved in downtown tulsa for something that size. In addition the land is not being actively marketed (did I read $3M at one time?). If only Kaiser would purchase it and sell off in manageable peices!
Glad to hear the bowling alley is going forward too. Who is doing it?
Guess.
Quote from: TheArtist on October 17, 2009, 09:37:06 AM
I agree, a movie theater downtown, not stuck out by itself somewhere but in one of the budding entertainment districts, would be great. That lot opposite Joe Mommas or in that area would be my first pick.
Also, glad to hear there is a Bowling Alley going in. :)
Since the devil's name is being used in vein it's time to thread up.
Ted Sack owns that old historic Santa Fe train station. Ted has been behind the scenes for many developments over the years acting as intermediary between the developer and the city. He has created lots of pull and has a rather incestuous relationship with public diswerks. He aims to make big bucks on his holdings between Joe Momma's and McNellies. Included in his dream is the old Franklin Building to the east....
FOTD thought the arena was your nucleus for downtown development. That didn't work? All those millions thrown after that project didn't make your dreams come true? Maybe Mayor La La should have spent less on that Chamber wish and instead spread the money through out the Brady (like Beale Street, Austin, etc) and Blue Dome. Well, let's get our crayons out and add a movie theater. Only issue is who is coming there instead of their own area of town. The demographics speak for themselves and no theater company will build (or lease) with such thin demographics.
Steps to revitalize downtown:
Better schools than anywhere else in town/region
More residences
More office users
Liquor in grocery stores
The melting of the ice caps and mass migration from coastal communities to quality cities like Tulsa
Quote from: FOTD on October 18, 2009, 08:57:01 PM
Since the devil's name is being used in vein it's time to thread up.
It's good to hear you speak up for a change. ;D
How does AMC (with a competing theater across the street) have a better demographic make-up around it than downtown? Even if you're simply referring to numbers (it would be tough to compete with 40,000 downtown workers, convention visitors, people that live downtown, N. Tulsa, Skiatook, Sand Springs, West Tulsa, Midtown, etc.). Furthermore, you know as well as I do that midtowners are territorial and would much rather support a downtown theater than one at 41st and Yale. It would do just fine. It would do better than fine. You really think people that live in midtown just couldn't be drawn away from Southroads to go downtown to watch a movie? You don't think people would rather make a night of eating downtown and catching a show than eating at any of the chains at 41st and Yale? If we can't compete with On the Border, El Chico, Subway, Quizno's, and Coney Islander then downtown is screwed.
I think it's funny that while the BOK, PAC, and Cains are some of the most successful venues of their kind, you would suggest that people will venture downtown for concerts, events, musicals, plays, sports, festivals, etc., but not to watch a movie. If a cinema company can't look at that (and the easy access from all over the area) and discern that a multiplex would work, especially in a town known for keeping them busy, they don't deserve the business. On top of that, a well designed retro redo of an old downtown theater with red curtains that open, a better food and drink menu, and comfortable seating would be a unique draw for the entire area.
I wasn't suggesting that a movie theater is the magic trick. My point was that it was the more predictable, cost effective, profitable way to get people downtown - more than the ballpark or arena. Almost sounds like something you would say, now that I think about it.
Sack may own that building, but he doesn't own that big lot. It's a beautiful building and can be incorporated nicely into any future development of that overall block, a block that can be an important piece of Elgin's development. I may be biased, but I still think Elgin will someday be the best street in town. It would be even better with a theater on or around it. The work the city and big money donors are doing with the ballpark and the arena are important. They are building the hubs. Now the smaller developers and entrepreneurs have to step up and fill in the blanks. Would it have been better if private donors had paid for all of the development entirely? Yes, I think so, but if we wait for people to do that, we'll continue to stay behind.
Quote from: JoeMommaBlake on October 19, 2009, 10:38:46 PM
How does AMC (with a competing theater across the street) have a better demographic make-up around it than downtown? Even if you're simply referring to numbers (it would be tough to compete with 40,000 downtown workers, convention visitors, people that live downtown, N. Tulsa, Skiatook, Sand Springs, West Tulsa, Midtown, etc.). Furthermore, you know as well as I do that midtowners are territorial and would much rather support a downtown theater than one at 41st and Yale. It would do just fine. It would do better than fine. You really think people that live in midtown just couldn't be drawn away from Southroads to go downtown to watch a movie? You don't think people would rather make a night of eating downtown and catching a show than eating at any of the chains at 41st and Yale? If we can't compete with On the Border, El Chico, Subway, Quizno's, and Coney Islander then downtown is screwed.
I think it's funny that while the BOK, PAC, and Cains are some of the most successful venues of their kind, you would suggest that people will venture downtown for concerts, events, musicals, plays, sports, festivals, etc., but not to watch a movie. If a cinema company can't look at that (and the easy access from all over the area) and discern that a multiplex would work, especially in a town known for keeping them busy, they don't deserve the business. On top of that, a well designed retro redo of an old downtown theater with red curtains that open, a better food and drink menu, and comfortable seating would be a unique draw for the entire area.
I wasn't suggesting that a movie theater is the magic trick. My point was that it was the more predictable, cost effective, profitable way to get people downtown - more than the ballpark or arena. Almost sounds like something you would say, now that I think about it.
Sack may own that building, but he doesn't own that big lot. It's a beautiful building and can be incorporated nicely into any future development of that overall block, a block that can be an important piece of Elgin's development. I may be biased, but I still think Elgin will someday be the best street in town. It would be even better with a theater on or around it. The work the city and big money donors are doing with the ballpark and the arena are important. They are building the hubs. Now the smaller developers and entrepreneurs have to step up and fill in the blanks. Would it have been better if private donors had paid for all of the development entirely? Yes, I think so, but if we wait for people to do that, we'll continue to stay behind.
Keep in mind mid-town teens account for a fair amount of the traffic at either one of the theaters at 41st & Yale. Can you convince their parents to drop them off in the middle of Downtown. Per one of the other recent threads, we have no parking in Downtown, high crime, and cops over zealously writing parking tickets (/snark).
Honestly, I think a theater could work in Downtown so long as there's plenty of on-site parking and you can keep the wrong elements from loitering outside the theater.
Hey, I'm a fan of Downtown and I applaud you for taking a risk, doing such a nice build-out on Joe Momma's, and further re-investing in the area. All we need is a few more Blake Ewings in the area...(and maybe a Trump to build the theater). ;)
For the theater: I think a normal mutliplex would do OK business. But I think it would be highly successful if it was something unique. That could be a throw back theater with red curtains and some faux flair, or a theater that serves alcohol and caters to adults (not that kind of adult theater, sicko). They exist in the urban areas of many other cities . . . maybe Tulsa could be part of the pack instead of trailing behind it.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 20, 2009, 09:18:34 AM
Keep in mind mid-town teens account for a fair amount of the traffic at either one of the theaters at 41st & Yale. Can you convince their parents to drop them off in the middle of Downtown. Per one of the other recent threads, we have no parking in Downtown, high crime, and cops over zealously writing parking tickets (/snark).
For most of those kids who are hanging out at the AMC, overbearing parents are not a concern. And it sure would make moviegoing enjoyable for the rest of us if they weren't there. One Saturday night I had to wade through hundreds of them loitering out front just to get inside. Several confrontations looked close to turning into fights. A lone rent-a-cop was trying to get them to stop loitering. As you can imagine, he wasn't getting very far.
Then inside the theater, various male-female couples of teens would enter the theater and leave 10 minutes later. Followed two minutes later by a rent-a-cop shining his flashlight around the theater.
I've heard the new downtown KC theather is great, what with its restaurant food and bar service.
Quote from: TheTed on October 20, 2009, 10:16:50 AM
I've heard the new downtown KC theather is great, what with its restaurant food and bar service.
I don't think we're allowed to do that in Oklahoma due to liquor laws.
Quote from: Townsend on October 20, 2009, 10:18:29 AM
I don't think we're allowed to do that in Oklahoma due to liquor laws.
"All right. Well, you can walk into a movie theater in Amsterdam and buy a beer. And I don't mean just like in no paper cup, I'm talking about a glass of beer."
Quote from: cannon_fodder on October 20, 2009, 09:31:35 AM
For the theater: I think a normal mutliplex would do OK business. But I think it would be highly successful if it was something unique. That could be a throw back theater with red curtains and some faux flair, or a theater that serves alcohol and caters to adults (not that kind of adult theater, sicko). They exist in the urban areas of many other cities . . . maybe Tulsa could be part of the pack instead of trailing behind it.
The AMC theater in Sundown Square in downtown Ft Worth seems to do pretty good. I have been there several times to see movies when I was down visiting friends. And they didn't serve adult beverages.
Quote from: Townsend on October 20, 2009, 10:18:29 AM
I don't think we're allowed to do that in Oklahoma due to liquor laws.
The Warren Theater in Moore serves beer and liquor in the theater. You pay extra for a balcony seat where they serve food and drinks. A Warren in downtown would be a huge draw. Build it with the main entrance facing Elgin at 2nd St. with all parking to the east. A public garage would be a good investment there that would serve all of Blue Dome allowing some of the other surface lots to be developed.
Quote from: SXSW on October 20, 2009, 10:35:47 AM
The Warren Theater in Moore serves beer and liquor in the theater. You pay extra for a balcony seat where they serve food and drinks. A Warren in downtown would be a huge draw. Build it with the main entrance facing Elgin at 2nd St. with all parking to the east. A public garage would be a good investment there that would serve all of Blue Dome allowing some of the other surface lots to be developed.
Then I hope I am misremembering. I'd love a booze theater. My friends in Dallas were regaling me about theirs.
Quote from: SXSW on October 20, 2009, 10:35:47 AM
The Warren Theater in Moore serves beer and liquor in the theater. You pay extra for a balcony seat where they serve food and drinks. A Warren in downtown would be a huge draw. Build it with the main entrance facing Elgin at 2nd St. with all parking to the east. A public garage would be a good investment there that would serve all of Blue Dome allowing some of the other surface lots to be developed.
I just went there on Sunday. It was awesome. Something like that would do GREAT in downtown, I have no doubt.
I'm all for a smaller "booze and real food" theater. If nobody beats me to it, it's on my list to do one of these days. It's a little more complicated than a restaurant. There aren't that many existing buildings that can accommodate the space requirements (even for a twin), so new construction will likely be necessary. The cost is in the millions, not the thousands. That's a big group of investors...or one really wealthy one.
I would love a throwback theater with the movie announcer, the grand lobby, the rounded ticket booth, the big marquee, etc. I think it would be incredible and that the draw would be tremendous. Someday, maybe.
In regards to teens coming downtown. I understand the sentiment and agree that it's out there. There are definitely people in Tulsa who have a misguided opinion about downtown safety. On a given night, however, a line of teens a mile long can be seen in front of the Cains Ballroom or the Marquee. My family (parents and younger siblings) is a south Tulsa, Union attending family. My brother (16 yrs old) and his friends regularly attend shows at the Cains and the Marquee. It may not be every parent in town that lets their kids run around downtown, but I'd guess it's more than we might think.
With more life downtown, people will be put more at ease. After a few trips downtown to Drillers games or BOK events, people will start to feel safer and old stereotypes will go away. This will be good news for all of us who are trying to make a living down there.
Conan, thanks for the kind words. I really appreciate that.
I like conversations like these where we dream out loud a bit. I think it helps people to envision what our city can become and things like movie theaters are a big part of our city's entertainment landscape. People define a city by their entertainment options and their buildings. Think of the city's you've visited. Your opinion of them is likely based on what they have to do there and what their downtown looks like. I know mine is. Memphis has all kinds of issues, but I love it and I enjoy visiting largely because it has wonderful restaurants and entertainment options and a unique downtown area. I couldn't tell you what their streets are like. I don't remember. I didn't care. I cared about where I was going to eat and what music I was going to listen to and what hotel I was staying in downtown. Part of our problem(?) here in Tulsa is that so many Tulsans are very happy with Tulsa. All they want is a city that feels like a suburb with chain restaurants, wide streets, and big malls. They don't care about the things that make us unique. They don't go to DFest or Tulsa Tough, or to shows at the Cains or to Riverside Park. They go to work then go home and watch CSI Pheonix. That's okay and I'm not begrudging them that, but that overwhelming level of contentment held by so much of our city, keeps us from being a notable place. Somehow the smaller group of us that have bigger dreams for Tulsa have to do the work of creating something noteworthy and maybe also convincing others that we can do even better. Tulsa is great as it is today. It really is a wonderful place to live and to raise a family. If we want it to stay that way, we need to think ahead about the needs of a new generation. I really get excited reading the forum sometimes because it reminds me that there is a large group of people with common objectives. Even FOTD wants Tulsa to be a better place. =)
Quote from: JoeMommaBlake on October 19, 2009, 10:38:46 PM
How does AMC (with a competing theater across the street) have a better demographic make-up around it than downtown? Even if you're simply referring to numbers (it would be tough to compete with 40,000 downtown workers, convention visitors, people that live downtown, N. Tulsa, Skiatook, Sand Springs, West Tulsa, Midtown, etc.). Furthermore, you know as well as I do that midtowners are territorial and would much rather support a downtown theater than one at 41st and Yale. It would do just fine. It would do better than fine. You really think people that live in midtown just couldn't be drawn away from Southroads to go downtown to watch a movie? You don't think people would rather make a night of eating downtown and catching a show than eating at any of the chains at 41st and Yale? If we can't compete with On the Border, El Chico, Subway, Quizno's, and Coney Islander then downtown is screwed.
I think it's funny that while the BOK, PAC, and Cains are some of the most successful venues of their kind, you would suggest that people will venture downtown for concerts, events, musicals, plays, sports, festivals, etc., but not to watch a movie. If a cinema company can't look at that (and the easy access from all over the area) and discern that a multiplex would work, especially in a town known for keeping them busy, they don't deserve the business. On top of that, a well designed retro redo of an old downtown theater with red curtains that open, a better food and drink menu, and comfortable seating would be a unique draw for the entire area.
I wasn't suggesting that a movie theater is the magic trick. My point was that it was the more predictable, cost effective, profitable way to get people downtown - more than the ballpark or arena. Almost sounds like something you would say, now that I think about it.
Totally agree, and I live at 41st and Harvard. If there were a theater downtown, that is where we would go and so would the other couples we go out with that live in the area. We'd love the added option of something to make a night of headed downtown and we'd rather give our money to a locally run place with a more unique experience. A good unique downtown theater would not only bring us downtown more often, but would be an attraction for visitors.
QuoteKeep in mind mid-town teens account for a fair amount of the traffic at either one of the theaters at 41st & Yale. Can you convince their parents to drop them off in the middle of Downtown. Per one of the other recent threads, we have no parking in Downtown, high crime, and cops over zealously writing parking tickets
Personally, I feel more safe Downtown than at 41st and Yale. Plus the bonus of fewer teens? Excellent.
Quote from: jne on October 20, 2009, 11:11:29 AMA good unique downtown theater would not only bring us downtown more often, but would be an attraction for visitors.
Unique is the key word. If it's just another run-of-the-mill AMC that happens to be downtown I don't think it would be a big enough draw. Maybe if downtown was already 'the place to be' but it's not..at least not currently. It needs to be large but not too big, 8-10 screens would be fine. It needs to be digital as that would set it apart from other theaters like the Warren does in Moore. And it needs to be a beautiful space, either retro Art Deco or cutting edge contemporary. Let's just say we don't need something like the Palace 12 or Riverwalk 8 downtown..
I still think Alamo Drafthouse or an urban Warren would be amazing downtown along Elgin.
http://www.drafthouse.com/main/franchise/ (http://www.drafthouse.com/main/franchise/)
Many years ago, I lived in Colorado Springs. There was a groovy place downtown called Poor Richards. In adjacent buildings (with connecting doorways inside), they had a used bookstore, a coffee shop/magazine stand, and a restaurant. In the back of the coffee shop, they had a small space where they showed independent movies.
Over time, the movie business grew so much that they purchased the old (vacant) movie house several blocks away. It was the original downtown theater, with red curtains, ornate architectural details and a balcony. They fixed it up, and continued showing indy movies, but also showed selected first runs.
There's a martini bar in Portland, OR that shows classic movies cabaret style. (I haven't been, but I've heard about it.) Kind of a cool idea...
Quote from: PonderInc on October 21, 2009, 01:24:20 PM
Many years ago, I lived in Colorado Springs. There was a groovy place downtown called Poor Richards. In adjacent buildings (with connecting doorways inside), they had a used bookstore, a coffee shop/magazine stand, and a restaurant. In the back of the coffee shop, they had a small space where they showed independent movies.
Over time, the movie business grew so much that they purchased the old (vacant) movie house several blocks away. It was the original downtown theater, with red curtains, ornate architectural details and a balcony. They fixed it up, and continued showing indy movies, but also showed selected first runs.
There's a martini bar in Portland, OR that shows classic movies cabaret style. (I haven't been, but I've heard about it.) Kind of a cool idea...
One thing which impressed me about Co. Springs was how well they enforce local codes. I used to stay at the Antlers Doubletree downtown and would walk to dinner just about every night. Didn't matter which way you walked through downtown, there were no junk cars parked in front of houses, most had very well-kept paint, and were kept pretty tidy.
Great little city, they were starting to experience a lot of growth in the late '90's early '00's due to a lot of high tech relocating there. Curious how the city has been able to keep up with that.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 21, 2009, 01:44:15 PM
One thing which impressed me about Co. Springs was how well they enforce local codes. I used to stay at the Antlers Doubletree downtown and would walk to dinner just about every night. Didn't matter which way you walked through downtown, there were no junk cars parked in front of houses, most had very well-kept paint, and were kept pretty tidy.
Great little city, they were starting to experience a lot of growth in the late '90's early '00's due to a lot of high tech relocating there. Curious how the city has been able to keep up with that.
Never ventured too far into Co Springs, but I have been to and from their airport several times; it is probably one of the cleanest I've ever seen. I can remember waiting for my flight via WestPac (harhar) and the absolutely spectacular view of Pikes Peak out of the concourse window to the west.
The issue with a theater complex downtown is *choke* parking. The big multi-plex theaters want dedicated parking; x number of spaces at their front door (see Bricktown). I agree that it is a sad state of affairs, but until downtown is more populated, and we have a better transit system, a theater is relying on people, in cars, to come see their movies. The best option is to have a smaller theater, locally owned, who will be more flexible with their thinking about parking. Blake is right about one thing. The more there is to do around the theater, the higher likelihood that people will park once, eat, shop, and go to a movie....it's the mall concept. So, as boring as it sounds, the best thing that the city of tulsa planners can do to stimulate development is to deal with the so-called parking issue. I don't mean more surface lots, (there are plenty of those) but creative parking solutions: strategically located facilities that can be used to pull in those who have trepidation about being downtown.
Quote from: pfox on October 26, 2009, 10:09:10 AM
The issue with a theater complex downtown is *choke* parking. The big multi-plex theaters want dedicated parking; x number of spaces at their front door (see Bricktown). I agree that it is a sad state of affairs, but until downtown is more populated, and we have a better transit system, a theater is relying on people, in cars to come see their movies. The best option is to have a smaller theater, locally owned, who will be more flexible with their thinking about parking. Blake is right about one thing. The more there is to do around the theater, the higher likelihood that people will park once, eat, shop, and go to a movie....it's the mall concept. So, as boring as it sounds, the best thing that the city of tulsa planners can do to stimulate development is to deal with the so-called parking issue. I don't mean more surface lots, (there are plenty of those) but creative parking solutions: strategically located facilities that can be used to pull in those who have trepidation about being downtown.
With the general lack of interest in mass transit in Tulsa, it will be a very, very long time for something to happen like that if what you are saying is holding back a national chain from building downtown.
That lot east of Elgin between 1st & 2nd is plenty big enough for a theater and parking garage. Maybe not a 20 screen multiplex, but you could have a good sized theater. The parking garage would solve a lot of parking issues for other businesses in the immediate area.
Exactly...but the garage could also serve as additional parking for other development than the theater, and possibly overflow parking for City of Tulsa employees.
I hope you are wrong, btw, about the "general lack of interest" in mass transit... :)
Quote from: Conan71 on October 26, 2009, 10:12:55 AM
With the general lack of interest in mass transit in Tulsa, it will be a very, very long time for something to happen like that if what you are saying is holding back a national chain from building downtown.
That lot east of Elgin between 1st & 2nd is plenty big enough for a theater and parking garage. Maybe not a 20 screen multiplex, but you could have a good sized theater. The parking garage would solve a lot of parking issues for other businesses in the immediate area.
THere is a movie theater in downtown Springfield, MO that has a parking garage adjacent. It is a Hollywood theater with 14 screens if I remember correctly. Why can't we have something like that?
I'm still really hopeful that at some point (soon) we can take the first steps towards a transit/garage combo that would allow for an interconnected group of parking structures, all of which help their respective areas to grow. Imagine a nice parking garage to the southeast of city hall in that big lot (it would service the PAC, city hall, and Blue Dome Districts and would leave the lot across the street from Joe Momma's for some cooler development), a garage behind brookside, at each end of Cherry Street, on 11th street, in the Brady, and on 6th Street, and maybe one west of Pink at 18th and Boston. I know we have plenty of parking available in many of these places, but that doesn't mean we don't have a parking problem. Creating high density parking lots does some really important things: 1. It deals with a perception issue. Parking garages are seen as safe and as being plentiful and for some reason, people will pay to park in garage when they don't want to pay for a surface lot. 2. They solve a huge problem for developers that pfox alluded to. They create a big chuck of immediate parking in proximity. 3. They make other surface lots worthless as parking lots and suddenly more valuable as a development site. 4. In neighborhood settings, they keep houses from being bulldozed for parking. In some of those areas I mentioned, they would solve a current parking problem (brookside and cherry street), while in others, they would serve as a part of the stimulation of the development process. The Pearl simply has to have parking in order to develop. Right now, there is none. 5. They shrink our spread out city into a navigable network of entertainment clusters. If you can park on Brookside, trolley to Cherry Street and then to downtown and back without driving, you just made all of midtown's entertainment options a one-stop location. That would be huge for all of us.
Champions of walkability and density are going to have to come to the conclusion (at least in Tulsa), that their cause will never happen if we don't solve the car problem. In general, we're not going to get Tulsans to abandon their automobiles, so the next best thing is giving them a place to put them while they walk (or trolley) around.
If smaller sized parking garages existed in those places I just mentioned, with a strong, consistent trolley network, it would do more for Rt. 66, Pearl District, and Blue Dome District development than anything else. I really believe that...than anything else.
As for the theater thing, I don't think a 20 screen humungo-plex is the right fit. I can see two concepts even working down here at the same time. The smaller two or three screen vintage theater with food and booze is a sure-fire success and maybe an 8-12 screen AMC type theater. AMC and Cinemark seem to be the most willing to locate in downtowns or dense areas. I know there's a Cinemark at the Plaza in KC and an AMC at the Power and Light District. Not a ton of parking immediately next to them if I recall. If there is, it's a parking garage....
(http://kcfilmfest.org/files/2008/10/amc_mainstreet_square.jpg)
Quote from: pfox on October 26, 2009, 10:45:03 AM
Exactly...but the garage could also serve as additional parking for other development than the theater, and possibly overflow parking for City of Tulsa employees.
I hope you are wrong, btw, about the "general lack of interest" in mass transit... :)
I hope I'm wrong too about my comment on mass transit, but amongst my contemporaries and comments I see on here, with the exception of very few people, I don't hear much solid interest in people giving up their automobile life-style. The image of mass transit in this town is only people who cannot afford or cannot drive a car are the ones who ride the bus. If gas prices had stayed in the $4.00 to $5.00 range (and I'm sure they will return there at some point) there would be far more interest in less expensive forms of transportation.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 26, 2009, 12:18:14 PM
I hope I'm wrong too about my comment on mass transit, but amongst my contemporaries and comments I see on here, with the exception of very few people, I don't hear much solid interest in people giving up their automobile life-style. The image of mass transit in this town is only people who cannot afford or cannot drive a car are the ones who ride the bus. If gas prices had stayed in the $4.00 to $5.00 range (and I'm sure they will return there at some point) there would be far more interest in less expensive forms of transportation.
Here is the crux of the disconnect regarding transit. As transit systems are planned and expanded across the country, similar questions and trepidations emerge, almost universally, about what an improved transit system will mean for a community, and even more specifically, what kind of communities "justify" transit. For many people, transit tends to be visualized as serving only older, high density communities, where transit is the primary means of travel, aside from walking, and as a subsidized system for economically depressed areas. (All transportation systems are subsidized, some of them, like streets and highways, we have just come to accept.)
The argument for transit isn't "transit will replace your car". What it does is replace
trips, reducing number of a to b destination trips for those that utilize the service, The formula is not A (Transit) = B (No more cars). The formula is A (Transit)= B (our existing road system's LOS (level of service) remains sustainable despite significant growth in population and density), C (reduces the need for roadway expansion), D (reduces long term roadway maintenance issues), E (improvies air quality) and F (creates new, walkable, higher density neighborhoods in core areas like downtown).
Beautiful, pfox. It's like reading poetry.
Quote from: pfox on October 26, 2009, 10:09:10 AM
The more there is to do around the theater, the higher likelihood that people will park once, eat, shop, and go to a movie....it's the mall concept. So, as boring as it sounds, the best thing that the city of tulsa planners can do to stimulate development is to deal with the so-called parking issue. I don't mean more surface lots, (there are plenty of those) but creative parking solutions: strategically located facilities that can be used to pull in those who have trepidation about being downtown.
I'm already a huge fan and regular patron of downtown. It seems the only people who complain about the parking situation, homelessness, security issues, and lack of things to do downtown never go down there, otherwise that would not be their paradigm.
I hate to invoke "Bricktown" but there's a perfect example of "plenty to do within a few blocks" which gets people to park once and go to several places. Case in point: We had a rowing regatta in OKC the first weekend of Oct. I stayed at the Bricktown Hampton. They have an attached parking garage which is for hotel guests and general Bricktown parking. The ballpark was closed for the season but that didn't keep a bunch of us (and others) from dining on the balcony at Coach's overlooking the field. It's still a compelling view and Bricktown has been a better fit for their ball park than the one at the OKC Fairgrounds. It's a feel of critical mass which gets people to a "district".
I honestly do think the Tulsa downtown ball park (controversial as it may be) will spark more development and interest in downtown than 52 years of DTU did. Regular investment and expansion of OSU Tulsa plus the ballpark won't hurt Greenwood, Blue Dome, or the Brady districts either. I don't care if the ballpark is dark 300 nights a year, it's the idea that there is MORE to do in downtown: a very active arena, three other notable live music venues, new hotels opening or under development, more apartments or condos (kudos to the Mayo for a dual concept), and an availabiliy of office space and entrepreneurs like Blake, Eliot Nelson, Mary Beth Babcock and others who have sunk a considerable investment in downtown to make it a destination, not just a place to cater to those who are already there.
Your comments on transit are appreciated, especially the comment about reducing trips. I've never heard it put that way before. I know if my grocery store and a few other necessities were located within four or five blocks of my house, I'd use the truck far less. It's not a matter of being lazy for me, simply time-management.
Quote from: JoeMommaBlake on October 26, 2009, 01:53:28 PM
Beautiful, pfox. It's like reading poetry.
I have my moments.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 26, 2009, 12:18:14 PM
...The image of mass transit in this town is only people who cannot afford or cannot drive a car are the ones who ride the bus...
It's not only Tulsa when transit is a bus. In the 1930s to maybe the 50s, a bus was the better ride in many places. Privately owned rail transit was not often not maintained due to low profit caused by (often unfair) competition from the auto and buses. Most streetcar/trolley/interurban companies went out of business or were converted to bus by the organizations that bought them. Since then, bus transit has the reputation you describe. Light rail and streetcars (real trolley) have a much better acceptance among riders of choice. See my favorite light rail site: www.lightrailnow.org and poke around a bit. Park and ride lots/garages are a good idea and used elsewhere around the US. For Tulsa, the first P&R Lots would probably be near but not in downtown. The cost to park would need to be minimal to free or they won't be used. Consider them to be the equivalent of shopping mall parking lots that should be supported by the city and/or the local businesses in order to attract business rather than another way to milk money out of visitors. Yes, another subsidy to get folks downtown
to spend money. As the Tulsa area got used to transit of choice, the system could be expanded farther towards the suburbs. It won't happen overnight but we don't need nothing but miles of row houses to make transit work.
Pfox is right about all forms of transportation being subsidized. I have only seen about a half dozen people using the new sidewalks along Memorial between 101st and 111th and I don't see any toll gates. Pretty expensive per person-mile. I did see a couple walking through the parking lots on the east side close to 111th on the northbound side. I guess they didn't like the idea of the sidewalk being so close to Memorial traffic with nearly empty connecting parking lots a safer distance away. I think I would feel safer being 30 ft from Memorial rather than 2 feet from 45-50 mph traffic.
Pfox, I like the different way of thinking about transit -- emphasis on trips rather than a total transportation solution/replacement. But I still don't see how that changes some of the basic roadblocks: the need for destination nodes to take trips to, the need for a level of density to guarantee enough trips to make it economically feasible, and a way to make these trips palatable to the average dude or dudette so that it becomes the first choice for getting around.
I'm a skeptic about transit in Tulsa, I have to say. As someone (Conan?) upthread said, people here are totally dedicated to the idea of the car, and not only do decades of our city planning reflect that, but so do decades of Tulsa's culture and biases (away from downtown; towards the cul de sac and the shopping development and the unending parking lots and toll roads and drivethroughs; even the central concept of our flagship local corporation is to change the filling station into a suburban social center -- doing essentially what Starbucks did for urban environments.
The best bet is to make areas you drive to that you can walk in. As Blake says, come up with good parking strategies so that people will go to a destination, leave their cars behind and walk around. If we could all just see it as turning downtown into a more organic sort of mall, I think Tulsan's might understand and get behind the idea.
Its interesting how people get it that you can build say the Gilcrease Expressway, and zone for car oriented development (and zone to not allow mass transit oriented development) to spur new development in that area, but they cant for the life of them fathom how you could build and zone for rail and new mass transit development. Plus, if we ever want it, its no mystery where its going to have to go and start. We have what we have because we: build/pay for it, zone for it, and in many cases, require it and disallow anything else. Downtown is one of the few places that allows it, but doesnt fully zone for it. Its mostly left up to whim and chance.
Wow, we've taken a tangent . . . and I'm ok with that.
If we want anything to happen with mass transit (particularity rail) in Tulsa we need to make several things clear to the public:
1) It will not replace your car, but it will reduce your usage of it.
A family could get away with one car. Or you could get away with having an older car. Or if nothing else, driving less. Teenagers are getting more and more restrictions on getting their license, but with quality public transit they would have other options to get around. And with a little planning a public transit option could significantly cut down on drunk driving issues as an added bonus.
2) It can save money
Cars are expensive. It isn't just gas - it's maintenance and wear and tear. The IRS has set the rate over 50 cents a mile for years now. For teach tank of gas you burn (call it 300 miles) you actually spent closer $250, not the $40 it costs to fill up.
Add to that the costs of infrastructure and ancillary costs: wider roads, road repairs, accidents, tickets, traffic deaths, delays, etc. etc. etc. and the costs are huge. The amount of money spent worshiping the car is crazy.
3) Space management
Car crazy cultures need huge immediate parking lots. This spreads out the structures, destroys walkable areas, and reduces land usage. A parking lot isn't worth nearly as much as 3 story structure. Quality mass transit would enable areas of denser development to take off.
4) IT ISN'T JUST ABOUT DOWNTOWN
If we do a light rail system, it does need to allow commute to downtown simply because that is the most common commute. But it also needs to connect to the malls, to Utica, to Brookside, to TU, EXPO, ORU, the Airport . . . areas that people readily visit. These connections could be by bus from rail stations or from rail themselves. But in addition to the commuter rail people need to be able to go where they want to. Incidentally, that would also increase the service to areas where people live.
Can you imagine how popular a rail line running down 71st would be around Christmas? The ability to gain access to all those shops without waiting 45 minutes on 71st street? Or if convention visitors could head to Utica Square to spend some money? Or Expo visitors, people in town for TU/ORU, or any number of visitors could stay in a different portion of the city and hop a trolley to their destination(s)?
It needs to be made clear that mass transit doesn't mean "shuttle to downtown".
I like the idea of commuter rail from BA, Owasso, and Jenks BUT would rather see an urban streetcar system that connects downtown to uptown, Cherry Street, Brookside, etc. These are our densest neighborhoods that would be best served by rail transit. Building better transit can make these areas even denser.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on October 28, 2009, 10:01:45 AM
Wow, we've taken a tangent . . . and I'm ok with that.
We haven't approached 90° yet so we're OK.
Can you imagine how popular a rail line running down 71st would be around Christmas?
Or pretty much any weekend the weather isn't perfect for doing something else.
The ability to gain access to all those shops without waiting 45 minutes on 71st street?
Several well placed pedestrian bridges would be needed. Park in any of the lots you can get to then hop the (real) trolley. Sounds great.
Or if convention visitors could head to Utica Square to spend some money? Or Expo visitors, people in town for TU/ORU, or any number of visitors could stay in a different portion of the city and hop a (real) trolley to their destination(s)?
It needs to be made clear that mass transit doesn't mean "shuttle to downtown". Just remember that riders of choice prefer rail.
[/color]
Quote from: SXSW on October 28, 2009, 12:41:50 PM
I like the idea of commuter rail from BA, Owasso, and Jenks BUT would rather see an urban streetcar system that connects downtown to uptown, Cherry Street, Brookside, etc. These are our densest neighborhoods that would be best served by rail transit. Building better transit can make these areas even denser.
Commuter rail to those places would help workers get to downtown but there would still need to be a distributor system like what you are calling for.
I'm as pro-transit, anti-driving as anybody. But rail to shop on 71st? That would require some major changes. Changes in attitudes. You'd end up walking miles just to go to two or three stores on 71st by the time you walk across a giant parking lot and around the store, back across the giant lot to the rail station, then on to the next store two blocks down to repeat the process.
I've never seen transit in a suburban area that was much more than a park and ride. How do you connect the stores on 71st to the rail stations and to each other in an inviting way.
Walking across giant parking lots is probably the worst part of being a pedestrian in suburbia. People speeding across the lot in every conceivable direction. They're downright hellish in the summer, what with no shelter, nothing to look at to distract you from the heat, etc. All I can think about when walking across a giant parking lot in the middle of summer is how freaking hot it is and how much I hate parking lots.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on October 28, 2009, 10:01:45 AM
If we want anything to happen with mass transit (particularity rail) in Tulsa we need to make several things clear to the public:
1) It will not replace your car, but it will reduce your usage of it....
4) IT ISN'T JUST ABOUT DOWNTOWN...
...Can you imagine how popular a rail line running down 71st would be around Christmas? The ability to gain access to all those shops without waiting 45 minutes on 71st street?
Two points: Imagine not having to buy a car for every member of your family. Let's say, instead of three, you only need two. You've just saved your family, on average, $7,000 per year. (Based on a federal study on the cost to own and operate a car, including purchase price pro-rated over the lifetime of the vehicle, insurance, maintenance, fuel, etc.) Now imagine if thousands of Tulsans suddenly had an extra $7,000 to plug into the local economy (which relies on sales taxes). Hey, not a bad stimulus program...which also increases quality of life for everyone who can utilize transit.
As for the 71st street issue...unfortunately, the enormous setbacks create a barrier to transit users. If you still have to walk a couple hundred yards in the rain to your destination, and a couple hundred yards between buildings, the geometry doesn't work. (I noticed that in Stillwater, they actually have bus stops IN THE MIDDLE OF THE WALMART PARKING LOT! I guess this is one way to deal with it.)
While all of these are awesome ideas, the fundamental flaw is in the infrastructure of midwestern and most southern cities to begin with.
If you look a towns like San Francisco and New York, they're built practically vertically. San Francisco is home to 3/4 of a million people in an area the size of square that would roughly equal north to south Admiral to 41st, and east to west Yale to Garnett. San Francisco is also very walkable, and the BART makes everything easy. New York, not much more needs to be said there.
Places like DC/NoVA though, are a lot more like Houston/Dallas. More spread out. The reason they work so well is because DC is a government center, and a lot of people work in the government sector. They have park and ride for Metro out the wazoo.
Tulsa is just not currently a mass-transit friendly city. A smaller percentage of us work downtown than did say 30 or 40 years ago. Where I work now is not even really serviced by transit in a way where I wouldn't have to walk 2 miles from the closest bus dropoff point into work. It's not that I mind the walk, but after two miles in our humid summers, who would want to be around me at work...well, for that matter, who does when I don't walk..harhar.
The composition of our city, like so many have said, relies on the automobile. I hate that it does, because I liked being able to pay $10 a week for an unlimited pass on the DC Metro and not have to worry about the hassle of traffic on the Capital Beltway. Or having to navigate the hilly and narrow San Francisco streets, and taking the BART instead.
I'd love the opportunity of spending a half-hour in my morning to read the paper or do other things on my way into work.
Quote from: Hoss on October 28, 2009, 02:30:32 PM
While all of these are awesome ideas, the fundamental flaw is in the infrastructure of midwestern and most southern cities to begin with.
If you look a towns like San Francisco and New York, they're built practically vertically. San Francisco is home to 3/4 of a million people in an area the size of square that would roughly equal north to south Admiral to 41st, and east to west Yale to Garnett. San Francisco is also very walkable, and the BART makes everything easy. New York, not much more needs to be said there.
Places like DC/NoVA though, are a lot more like Houston/Dallas. More spread out. The reason they work so well is because DC is a government center, and a lot of people work in the government sector. They have park and ride for Metro out the wazoo.
Tulsa is just not currently a mass-transit friendly city. A smaller percentage of us work downtown than did say 30 or 40 years ago. Where I work now is not even really serviced by transit in a way where I wouldn't have to walk 2 miles from the closest bus dropoff point into work. It's not that I mind the walk, but after two miles in our humid summers, who would want to be around me at work...well, for that matter, who does when I don't walk..harhar.
The composition of our city, like so many have said, relies on the automobile. I hate that it does, because I liked being able to pay $10 a week for an unlimited pass on the DC Metro and not have to worry about the hassle of traffic on the Capital Beltway. Or having to navigate the hilly and narrow San Francisco streets, and taking the BART instead.
I'd love the opportunity of spending a half-hour in my morning to read the paper or do other things on my way into work.
Not everyone would use the transit. In NYC, San Francisco, etc. not everyone uses it if it's not convenient. But still around 50,000 people work in downtown with the vast majority commuting in from elsewhere in Tulsa or the suburbs. Many people who don't work downtown go there for entertainment. Having a rail system would put provide another option. Basically it comes down to do we spend hundreds of millions of dollars widening the existing roads and expressways or spend that money providing a transportation alternative?
But I digress, this needs to be a separate thread.
Many good points have been made, but one thing overlooked is that getting around Tulsa by car is simply not a sufficient hassle to get people to park the car and hop aboard mass transit. It simply doesn't take that long to get from one place to another in Tulsa and you find plenty of parking when you get there. I live in midtown and can leave my house and be at 169 and 71st in 10 minutes in non rush hour and in under 30 minutes during rush hour. Unless I live next to a station/stop, no mass transit is going to give me that convenience – not to mention everything depends on where the stops are versus where I'm going.
I previously lived in a large city and I took a subway to work downtown. However, I lived a short walk from a stop and had another stop by my office. After a job change, I got free parking and started driving because, even though the driving commute took a bit longer, my hours were not compatible with the rush hour train schedule and my "hassle" factor was lower by driving.
I know a lot of this discussion is about how future development should be planned to open up the possibility of mass transit, and I agree that it should. But we cannot ignore the realities of the city as they exist right now. And right now, retrofitting Tulsa for mass transit outside of a few lines in and around downtown/midtown and the airport is simply not financially viable.
I think most of us would agree that for mass transit to work in Tulsa we will have to take a step by step and multi-pronged (infrastructure and zoning) approach. But I do believe, considering we are a relatively small city, starting to "bend the curve" early would be a good thing.
Growing "until you have density" can be a mess if its car centric density. Look at Los Angeles, lots of density there believe it or not, but not all that pedestrian friendly. Would rather start early and nurture pedestrian friendly/mass transit friendly, development density.
Even downtown is at that nexus point where we can see it going off in one direction or another. Concentrate pedestrian friendly development along the tracks while NOT adding parking within the loop, but shuttling people from parking that already exists or will exist on either end of the tracks. Or add more parking and spread out development within the IDL. Downtown IS going to continue to grow and infill at this point, and that growth can spread outward over the decades, hopefully along the tracks.
As for rail along the 71st corridor.... I would generally poo poo the idea, but people keep putting the idea out there. Perhaps we should change our mindsets a bit and begin to consider it as a second downtown. They both have lots of parking lots lol. They both have room for infill. There are other examples where they have taken successful areas like this and through planning and zoning begin an evolutionary process whereby the area becomes ever denser and more pedestrian friendly. Rather than go into a decline trying to compete with the next new suburban area, it transforms into a different, more classic form. A rail/trolley could be part of that equation. Wouldnt want to think of trying to change things by doing rail by itself, it would have to be part of a larger picture/long range plan,,,,just like downtown. The one big difference with the 71st corridor is that there are far more people traveling through, working and living there :P.
It may very well be that 50-100 years from now the 71st corridor will be the busiest, densest, urban node in the city (as Sam Walton hinted at all those years ago when the area was just fields with a new mall going in) While downtown is a beautiful, bustling but quiet, urban neighborhood, full of arts and entertainment attractions. Who knows...
We are also ignoring the "if you build it" mentality. Downtown Tulsa used to have street cars. It also used to have residence, shops, and a street scape that didn't include vast deserts of open parking.
Currently areas like Brookside, Cherry Street, and downtown could easily benefit from good mass transit. But with a good mass transit system other areas could quickly be brought into the fold (including the apartment blocks in South Tulsa, TU, 71st Street area, downtown Jenks/BA). Add to that the idea that the mass transit and connectivity in one area would FEED other areas and help create the environment many of us desire.
It is a catch 22. Without mass transit the density isn't there to require it. But without the density mass transit isn't really needed. With infinite land and a strong desire to sprawl, I'm guessing the demand will never be there even if we continue to grow. So if we want dense, sustainable, urban spaces - it looks like the mass transit will have to come first.
So what's the deal with the sports bar? ;)
Quote from: PonderInc on October 28, 2009, 02:09:47 PM
If you still have to walk a couple hundred yards in the rain to your destination, and a couple hundred yards between buildings, the geometry doesn't work.
About like walking a city block in downtown Tulsa.
Are there American cities the size (in pop) of Tulsa that have a significantly better or more extensive transit system than we do? I'd love a model to look at that says it can be done.
Quote from: we vs us on October 29, 2009, 12:50:59 PM
Are there American cities the size (in pop) of Tulsa that have a significantly better or more extensive transit system than we do? I'd love a model to look at that says it can be done.
Albuquerque (population ~500,000, metro 840K, density 2800 people per square mile - first hand this is widly successful) & Portland (600K/2.2mil/4300) both have quality buses and some rail service. As does Salt Lake (180K/1.1mil/1700), Charlotte (690K/2.5mil/2500), and New Orleans (300K/1.1mil/2500) kept its trolley cars (limited service) and has a solid bus network.
Most any college town has decent public transportation (Tulsa has many college students all spread out).
Kenosha, Wisconsin installed a light rail street car system recently. (http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_ken_2005-01.htm) Kenosha has all of 90,000 people and can be seen as the northern most suburb of Chicago (not really). The street car connects the central district with the commuter rail lines leading to Chicago/Milwaukee (regional rail). The cost of the street car project was $3,000,000 per mile.
Major cities are putting in light rail more and more. In addition to the long standing lines in New York, Chicago, LA, San Francisco, DC and Seattle there are newer and growing lines in Vegas, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Houston, Dallas, San Jose, Pittsburgh, San Diego, Jacksonville, Orlando, Memphis, Tampa, Detroit, Phoenix, and on and on and on.
Interesting light rail page I found:
http://www.lightrailnow.org/
My guess - no one in Tulsa will give a crap about rail until OKC is connected to Wichita by Amtrak and puts in commuter rail from Edmond through to Norman - maybe with a street trolley system downtown to boot. Then, all of a sudden (about 8 years later), Tulsans will give a damn. Can we be ahead of the curve once?
/mods, split the threat into a transit thread?
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 29, 2009, 12:34:59 PM
About like walking a city block in downtown Tulsa.
Yes, but downtown in that distance you'd likely be able to duck under an awning or into a building out of the rain, and you wouldn't be dodging cars driving willy-nilly across the parking lot. Walking from the transit stop to the front door of a store in a suburban shopping strip you don't have either of those advantages.
FWIW, I tried to point this out in a column about a year ago, and the notion had Kenosha condemning me as a rail hater. Happy to see other people making the same observation. Until every transit user can do all their shopping, doctor's visits, etc., in transit-oriented developments, you have to make the curb-to-front-door distance more tolerable for transit riders.
It's silly to think Tulsa will ever layer a grid of light rail atop the current transportation infrastructure. It's not needed and totally cost-ineffective--even moreso than building new roads.
What's NOT absurd is to seriously consider point-to-point commuter rail transit, as Tulsa Transit and other entities are currently studying. Those a) take advantage of existing infrastructure; b) take the costs down out of the stratosphere; c) have a natural, built-in user base; and d) have the very real ability to relieve traffic congestion.
On the final point, it's very important to understand that incremental increases in traffic load can cause massive spikes in congestion. Conversely, incremental relief in traffic load (taking commuters off the road and onto commuter rail), has the potential to seriously relieve traffic congestion. Read this Freakonomics blog post for more: http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/a-gut-yontif-for-la-drivers/.
Just my $.02. I thought a long time ago that Tulsa Transit needed to implement a grid system for the buses to use instead of the route system. I was looking at the schedules and I see that other than some specfic night routes all the buses seem to go to the garage by 7:30 or 8:00 in the evening. I'm not going to try a comparison between Phoenix and Tulsa directly but I think there are some ideas Tulsa Transit should look at including Sunday service. ( If I missed that there was for give me)
http://www.valleymetro.org/ (http://www.valleymetro.org/)
BOT, I was looking at the BOk schedule from the end of October through mid April and it seems that there is something going on about every 3 to 5 days on various nights of the week, so it seems that a sports bar two blocks away would have a chance to draw business on those nights. I understand there will be nights that there isn't and event at BOk, and they will need to paly on the sports bar idea with good food and drink prices. I'm sure they will get some of the lunch and after work crowd, but do things like $1.00 off pitchers if you are wearing a Thunder jersey on game night, free appy with ticket stub, meet and greet sessions with the teams. I think it would have been nice if they could have put the ball park near the arena. ( I'm sure this has been brought up before) Then you couls have an entertain ment district and a sports district and mixed usage in between.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on October 29, 2009, 02:57:29 PM
Interesting light rail page I found:
http://www.lightrailnow.org/
Maybe more people will look at it now that you have posted it compared to the last year and a half I have been posting it.
Quote from: MichaelBates on October 29, 2009, 04:03:55 PM
Yes, but downtown in that distance you'd likely be able to duck under an awning or into a building out of the rain, and you wouldn't be dodging cars driving willy-nilly across the parking lot. Walking from the transit stop to the front door of a store in a suburban shopping strip you don't have either of those advantages.
FWIW, I tried to point this out in a column about a year ago, and the notion had Kenosha condemning me as a rail hater. Happy to see other people making the same observation. Until every transit user can do all their shopping, doctor's visits, etc., in transit-oriented developments, you have to make the curb-to-front-door distance more tolerable for transit riders.
I haven't seen that many awnings but I don't get downtown that often. Someone, Artist maybe, noted that the awning concept along with interconnected stores make a walk in bad weather more tolerable but that it doesn't exist much in Tulsa.
Depends on the parking lot whether or not there are a bunch of willy-nilly drivers. In a big empty lot - yes. I haven't seen much to grab my attention in crowded areas. I usually park away from door-dinging crowds and have had no problem. Maybe willy-nilly speed demon parking lot drivers are like downtown crime/thugs, lack of parking, stolen cars..... They exist but are not at the head of the list around here.
I have read that most folks are willing to walk about 1/4 mile to transit facilities. From Memorial to the very east end of Woodland Hills mall parking lots, excluding the
Christmas shopping season overflow lot is about 1/2 mile. That's pretty much less than 1/4 from any parking spot to the mall. FWIW, the bus stops by the north entrance to the mall near Sears. The North-South dimension of WHM is less than East-West.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on October 29, 2009, 11:58:20 AM
We are also ignoring the "if you build it" mentality. Downtown Tulsa used to have street cars. It also used to have residence, shops, and a street scape that didn't include vast deserts of open parking.
Currently areas like Brookside, Cherry Street, and downtown could easily benefit from good mass transit. But with a good mass transit system other areas could quickly be brought into the fold (including the apartment blocks in South Tulsa, TU, 71st Street area, downtown Jenks/BA). Add to that the idea that the mass transit and connectivity in one area would FEED other areas and help create the environment many of us desire.
It is a catch 22. Without mass transit the density isn't there to require it. But without the density mass transit isn't really needed. With infinite land and a strong desire to sprawl, I'm guessing the demand will never be there even if we continue to grow. So if we want dense, sustainable, urban spaces - it looks like the mass transit will have to come first.
Exactly. I like to think of a rail based system, or single line for that matter, as an investment in a future Tulsa, one that I would like to live in. The fixed transit line coupled with better land use codes that encouraged dense walkable transit oriented development surrounding could help shape a corridor and can guide re-investment in our City.
A commitment to some sort of fixed transit system and a better urban environment in portions of our city would give us lifestyle options that we can use to promote our city but also give those of us who love urbanism a place to mix... support cultural exchange, promote social equality, mode choices, environmental benefits, yada yada yada too.
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 29, 2009, 06:17:35 PM
I haven't seen that many awnings but I don't get downtown that often. Someone, Artist maybe, noted that the awning concept along with interconnected stores make a walk in bad weather more tolerable but that it doesn't exist much in Tulsa.
Depends on the parking lot whether or not there are a bunch of willy-nilly drivers. In a big empty lot - yes. I haven't seen much to grab my attention in crowded areas. I usually park away from door-dinging crowds and have had no problem. Maybe willy-nilly speed demon parking lot drivers are like downtown crime/thugs, lack of parking, stolen cars..... They exist but are not at the head of the list around here.
I have read that most folks are willing to walk about 1/4 mile to transit facilities. From Memorial to the very east end of Woodland Hills mall parking lots, excluding the Christmas shopping season overflow lot is about 1/2 mile. That's pretty much less than 1/4 from any parking spot to the mall. FWIW, the bus stops by the north entrance to the mall near Sears. The North-South dimension of WHM is less than East-West.
Yes, I really think we do need to start promoting and educating folk downtown about the importance of things like: awnings, interconnected buildings, loggias, etc.
I think its something that has simply been overlooked, their importance forgotten about. Now that we are looking to "go back" to pedestrian friendly streets, details like these truly do matter in the long run. They should be part of the equation along with all the other things we commonly talk about.
I was going to Joe Mommas the other evening when it was raining, for a meeting. I parked not too far away, but couldnt help but wish there were an awning or two to dart under here and there, especially while waiting for traffic so I could cross, or take a moment to shufflle what I was carrying so that I could open the door to some of those places if they were ones I was going to , shake the rain off my jacket and stomp my shoes before I open the door, etc. Joe Mommas itself has a covered area, Dwelling spaces has the front door set back with a covered area and the SW corner has a covered area and those help. But some of the new buildings like the ones just finished being fixed east of Dilly Deli dont have those set backs near the doors, or awnings. That whole swath of street there is nothing but a wall with no protection. Heck, even the strip malls in the suburbs know better and have covered areas along the front. You can look at a lot of the old buildings and see where the attachment places were for awnings, and I even noticed the other day some old, original, roll out awnings on a building on Boston Ave, except that they were rolled back into slots on the building itself and I have never seen them used.
A few of these ideas here and there would make an impact. But again, I think they have become forgotten, but important, details.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on October 29, 2009, 02:57:29 PM
Albuquerque (population ~500,000, metro 840K, density 2800 people per square mile - first hand this is widly successful) & Portland (600K/2.2mil/4300) both have quality buses and some rail service.
Albuquerque rail service consists of the Railrunner and Amtrak. The Railrunner is Albuquerque's North-South commuter rail, similar to what the BA commuter rail would be. These commuters can use the bus system for East-West connections if their destination is on a direct bus line. It has been very well received. The Railrunner was extended from a bit north of Albuquerque to Santa Fe. Amtrak drops and picks up a few passengers but not any significant number of commuters. Commuters from the west have buses that only stop every mile or two. The remainder of the bus system may be better than Tulsa's but it is still lacking in enough routes and run times for non major corridors. Security is OK but there are significant numbers of hygiene deficient passengers. The system works but it may not be as widely successful as it appears to someone with Tulsa as a reference. The new mayor is not as supportive of public transit as the old mayor.
Info is second hand from my sister who lives south of ABQ and uses the Railrunner to commute to work.
http://www.nmrailrunner.com/index.asp
edit: add URL for NM Railrunner
Red Arrow:
Exactly right on Albuquerque's rail. Roundtrip to Santa Fe is like $4 or something. It's heavily subsidized and LOVED. They are starting to use train stops as a shuttle pickup point for the fair, UNM games, the Balloon Festival and other things too.
And yeah, that site DID look familiar. I guess now I know why. ;)
With the One Place project actually turning dirt across the street a sports bar at this location looks more viable than it did in 2009. Anyone have any updates?
Still for sale, packaged with the art deco building to the south
http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/17139470/201-211-S-Cheyenne-Tulsa-OK/ (http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/17139470/201-211-S-Cheyenne-Tulsa-OK/)
(http://www.loopnet.com/xnet/mainsite/HttpHandlers/attachment/ServeAttachment.ashx?FileGuid=7B75E47E-D38C-44DD-AB49-97BF9C69F002&Extension=jpg&Width=0&Height=0&PadImage=True&DisableVisualWatermark=&ClipImage=False)
Price:$1,949,000Building
Size:32,446 SFPrice/SF:$60.07
Property Type:OfficeProperty Sub-type:Office Building
Additional Sub-types:
Institutional/ Governmental
Office-R&D
RestaurantProperty
Use Type:Vacant/Owner-UserNo.
Stories:3Building Class:BLot
Size:21,000 SF