The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

I was reading Blake Ewing Campaign blog and read what was news to me...


http://blakeewing.wordpress.com/

Exciting to see development downtown continuing and moving in more and more directions (first bars and restaurants, then residential, hotels, shops, new office space, and now grocery stores and living amenities).

Way to be Blake (and company, whoever else is involved...).  I can't wait to see the details. 

I think we need to concentrate of more residential life in downtown before we focus on large movie complexes.

Before you can draw those downtown to live you have to provide alternatives to driving out to the suburbs to do their entertainment.  While bars and clubs are fine, those are for the single people.  If you want to draw in families, movie theatres speaks volumes.

Think I'll defer to Blake's judgement here.  He is, after all, VERY successful in his downtown ventures so far.

There was already the Renaissance downtown complex, the Tribune lofts, Philtower, and some here and some there.

In the last 5-6 years we have added:
MAYO Hotel
MAYO Building
The new residential across from Drillers Stadium

Under construction or already announced:
Old YMCA to be converted to lofts
Vandever building has funding to be residential on the top floors
The old Bill White Chevy site has funding to be lofts
Tribune II is under construction (as the Metro at Brady)
First Street Lofts is what it is
New construction is slated next to Hey Mombo.
119 Downtown is still there for someone to pickup and run with
The guys are still trying with 534 S. Boston (Enterprise building)
Ground is broken on a new apartments behind the Double Tree

That's a lot of residential downtown newly formed, under construction, or in the works.  While I agree that I would welcome MORE residential (my idea:  student housing.  Between TCC, OSU Tulsa, Langston, and TU just down the road I think you could work out a neat student housing complex with existing structures or new, a shuttle to and from the various campuses.  Near the Blue Dome?  Students would LOVE it and pay for it with loan or parents money [read: they can pay]), with so many projects underway most developers want to kinda of wait and make sure the market isn't saturated.  You also have the Chicken or the Egg argument - will having MORE things downtown cause more people to want to live there, or will more people living there cause more amenities cause more people to move in?

But I agree "just another movie theater" probably would have low margins facing off against the big commercial chains near 41st and Yale.  But I doubt Blake is going in that direction.  His places are meant to be a destination:  Joe Mommas doesn't really compete with Dominoes, the Max is not the same crowd at McNellie's, and his T-shirt shop isnt fighting with Old Navy for T-Shirt sales.

Disagree.

Adding a large movie theater isn't going to draw people in from the suburbs when they already have that option where they are. That being said, it's not my money and people are more than welcome to spend as they please.

cannon - The more people, the more amenities. There will be a certain breaking point with the entertainment aspect of downtown unless people start moving there in flocks. Concepts die after time, communities grow.

Unless people start using downtown as their entertainment district.  If people from South Tulsa, Bixby, Jenks, Owasso, Broken Arrow... and even friends of mine in Claremore, Skiatook, and Muskogee use downtown Tulsa as an entertainment vanue; and people in town for events and concerts contribute - direct area population can be overcome.    But I agree, to have a true downtown community we need to see continued population growth.  And we are.  I'm happy to see amenities and population grow together.

Fine, and that's your prerogative.  I just disagree with your assessment.  And obviously so does Blake and others.

But my point was that if you are drawing people to live downtown, do you think those people want to drive to the suburbs to go to the movies?  Maybe you didn't understand my counterpoint?

Completely understand it.

I just think something like a large movie theater comes after the population establishes itself. I was also a big opponent of the BOk Center and ONEOK Field, which were successful to at least some extent, because I thought we should spend that money on other things in downtown. In my opinion, I'd like downtown to be more of a business center and residential community...and less of an entertainment center.

BOK was among the ... oh crap.  Earthquake.  Wow not stopping...

Continue.....;D

But that's tantamount to buying a TV after you've moved in the house.  Maybe not the greatest analogy, but you get my point.  If people have to wait for those amenities to move downtown, they likely will hold off on doing so.

Hmm..you wouldn't be David Arnett by any chance...would you?

Nope.

Was cannon really posting during the quake? Ha.

  The amount of housing is "building", and I am sure we will be getting  more.  We will also see more shopping. Plus, once we get several, real, established areas in downtown, those will indeed pull in people from other areas including the suburbs for dining/shopping/entertainment.  Another thing, I am starting to notice what seems to be a "run to be first".  I have had a lot of neat ideas that I would like to see happen downtown for there still wasn't a "this" or "that", which doesn't exist yet and thus presents an opportunity.  There are a lot of people who want downtown to succeed and will support you.  Then of course not long after I have those ideas, well those ideas start to materialize under someone else for they had the idea too (or they read it on here lol).  I only wish I had the money and or the know how to make my idea come true before it all gets done by others. I am excited that the Art Deco Museum is slowly becoming a reality, but at the same time I am working on another project as well (not gonna say what lol lest someone else with more means goes "o that is a good idea" and does it before me). But I suppose that will be a great day for us all when your not moving into downtown, and doing well because your first, (and there are still plenty of opportunities to do that, but many of the obvious options are dwindiling fast) but your moving into downtown with supposedly a better product/service than that first guy to compete with him.   Will be a tougher more competitive environment, but gonna be a fantastic day none the less.

I don't really see a downtown theater as competing with the existing ones.

I assume it's gonna be a modern theater with adult beverages, waiters, food that you'd actually want to eat, etc.

Besides the fact that, considering the 41st and Yale theaters are somewhere between uninspiring and frightening (depending on how many dozens of juveniles are loitering in the lot at the time), this is the closest theater for quite a large number of people.

you all seem to forget that a theater downtown will serve the population beyond the IDL. I live at 11th and Lewis and would go to that theater. There are thousands of homes within a couple miles of downtown. So I say build it and they will come.

And now that I read this again, if you were against both the arena and ballpark, then I'm going to guess you're in that block of Tulsans who want to keep us in the 20th century.  Because as a regular patron, I can tell you for a fact, and I'm pretty sure business owners in downtown will agree, that both the arena AND the ballpark help their businesses, which in turn attracts other business to the area.

My hope is that a downtown theater is located on Elgin, preferably the surface lot at 2nd St (as there would be space behind to the east for a lot or a parking garage that could also serve the rest of the Blue Dome).  It would be a mix between a Warren Theater with the digital cinema, balcony seating with food/drink, and first-run movies and an Alamo Drafthouse with its indie films and special events.  It would also have a huge neon marquee and main entrance at 2nd & Elgin like the Warren in Old Town Wichita:

(http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/files/oldtown_warren.jpg)

Or the AMC in downtown Fort Worth that has a Deco flair:
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/159/419009636_ea4e2965ea.jpg)

1. The arena cost a tremendous amount of money that, in my opinion, could have been used for public infrastructure projects like light rail, more consistent bus routes and bike lanes. We don't have a major professional team, so I have a hard time justifying the size of an arena for a few concerts a month, couple of basketball games and a minor league hockey team.

2. I don't understand the need for another baseball stadium when you already have one fully adequate at the fairgrounds.

I have my own view of what downtown should be, and it isn't copying everything OKC does as a mini-scale version.

+1

I think that the idea that residential first or Amenities first is a wrong way to think about it.  The population and the amenities scaffold each other.  Bars and restaurants were first, now first wave of residential.  After places Like tribune two start filling up, the next wave of amenities can really begin (which to my mind would include a movie theater).

I don't think one can get beyond a drive-in-to-downtown bar scene until you have a residential component that supports it.  But I Dont think one can move past a sertain segment of potential housing customer (i.e. those who are young and want to live downtown or people who work downtown or both)  without offering something like a movie theater (a grocery store and liquor store are important too but they are already spoken for).  The goal is to make it not just possible, but more conveniant for those who live downtown, to never need to go east of peoria (ok I'll throw in the pearl and cherry).

Wow, you just lost all credibility with me if you think we're trying to copy OKC.  Next you're going to say were going to blast out trenches and make a blue river that winds its way around downtown.

And light rail?  Really?  It wasn't until both Dallas and Houston's metro areas reached sizes around 3 million before they started talking about that.  While I think rail is an awesome idea, it doesn't suit Tulsa currently because downtown doesn't hold the densest employment sectors.  While those two don't either, they're much more dense relatively than Tulsa is.

And also, the arena has turned a profit since it opened in 2008.  In these economic times I consider that a win.  I also consider the fact that I don't have to drive to OKC, KC or Dallas to see a decent concert another win.  It may not ascribe to your 'vision', if it could be called that, but the voters voted on it.  I fail to see how complaining about it now is productive.  That was six years ago.

You could always move somewhere that doesn't like change.

The Drillers were done with the fairgrounds. Either Tulsa built them a new stadium downtown or they were moving to Jenks.

Its to bad all the theaters that were downtown are all gone. There's something about an old movie theater (single screen) that puts the multiplexes to shame. How many did Tulsa used to have downtown? 5 or 6?

We are far from copying OKC. Bricktown is a cheesy tourist trap. Their new housing is highly concentrated, outs is more spread out. They have a large park downtown, we have several smaller ones, with more under construction and planned. I think ultimately, in 30 years when both downtowns are almost fully developed, Tulsa's will be the better of the two. Our downtown will be more integrated, with more of a continuous neighborhood and less rigid "districts."

And as a previous poster said, if we didn't build a new stadium, we would no longer have the Drillers.

1. A river has already been talked about in the Pearl District.

2. Light rail would attract density, and I'd like to see it go in more areas than just downtown. I'll stand by this until I'm the last one standing, same with bike lanes and a more efficient busing system.

3. You don't have to travel to see a decent concert. I look at the BOk event calendar and am interested in maybe one or two a year, on the flip side I'm attracted to 20-30 concerts a year at the Cain's or Brady. Also, it only benefits a certain segment of the population. These type of things needed to be funded privately. It may have turned a profit since 2008, but in ten years it will be old and out of date. That's how the game goes with these toys.

4. It's my vision, I don't care if anyone agrees. When I go to vote, I'm not voting for what you or your friends want. I'm voting for the view I see the world in. And I'm one of the few that will openly admit that. At the same time, my view usually sees the big picture for everyone. So in 15 years when we have an ugly roll of duct tape on Denver with a defunct WNBA team no longer playing, a dwindling amount of concerts, a minor league hockey team attracting 2K in a 19K arena and your local politicians are begging for more tax money to put duct tape on the duct tape..I'll still be around wondering why we didn't improve our city's public transportation systems.

Should have let them go then. They aren't the Boston Red Sox or New York Yankees. The days of letting a pro franchise suffocate you with demands are gone.

David, you want a light rail system. I lived in Phoenix while they were building the Metro light rail system at a cost of $1.4 billion and took three years to construct 20 miles of rail as a starter system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Light_Rail_(Phoenix) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Light_Rail_(Phoenix))

The cost doesn't include the businesses that closed because of the construction.

And that starter system has far exceeded expected ridership and in September of this year had its busiest month.

Phoenix metro area: 4.2 million
Tulsa metro area: 900,000

When Tulsa gets to 3 million expect to see talks about light rail.  It's cost counter-productive at this point.

Yes, because downtown Phoenix has several national companies headquartered there, but also because it's a sports and entertainment destination as well. US Airways Center, The Dodge Theater (can't remember what it's called now, just like I refer to Chase Field as BOB from when it was Bank One), The Orpheum, Science Center, Convention Center, Symphony Hall, two museums, and countless dining and drinking establishments. It has taken Phoenix 20 years to get to where they are now.

Back to the light rail for Tulsa, (and this has been discussed adnauseum) where would you run it? Also as for bike lanes (also discussed a ton) most of the streets in Tulsa are not wide enough to add the needed three feet to accomodate them, not to mention trying to retrain Tulsa drivers how to handle them.

(Also, before you think that I'm an outsider, I lived in Tulsa from 1963 when I was born, until 1998)

And really the only light rail destinations would be...where else...downtown.  But wait, I thought David was against developing downtown?

Thanks Hoss. I also forgot to mention that it is coordinated with express bus, regular bus and park and ride locations as well.

It also runs through ASU with a student population of ~ 50,000 students.

And I've lived in a city large enough that I know what mass transit is like.  I lived in Houston before they got their light rail going.  They had an awesome bus system (METRO) and still do.  I just don't see a need for light rail in Tulsa until MTTA/TulsaTransit can get routes squared away.  Right now the transit system is a huge mess.

Would loved to have worked in downtown Phoenix when I lived in Gilbert. Two mile drive to a park and ride, 25 minute bus to the rail line, 25 minute ride to downtown. Never drove to a Dbacks game from there. 15 minutes to rail in Mesa, and $4.00 train ride.

I'm going to date myself, I remember the good ole days around 1963-64, catching a bus on a Saturday with my friend Mike, I think it cost us 10-15 cents.   Going to Renburgs or Clarks and buying some clothes.  Then taking in a movie at the Orpheum, Majestic or Rialto Theatre.  Then one of our parents or Mike's older sister's boyfriend would pick us up after the movies.  What great memories.

Any statement about copying OKC just proves ignorance.

Look outside Oklahoma (and Texas) and get back to me. OKC wasn't the first nor the last to use an arena and a ballpark as part of downtown revitalization. There are dozens of cities.

That's what almost every city with a pro or semi pro team has done. Phoenix did it originally with the then America West Arena and that started the change there. Look at San Diego with Petco Park (albeit thet had a good start on the entertainment district before hand) Minniapolis with Target Field, and several others.

It just amazes me that people seem to think an arena will be detrimental to a downtown district, when in nearly every case, unless it's horribly mismanaged, it's been an anchor for CBD redevelopment and repurposing when  it's been built there.

Buffalo, NY disagrees.

Apples and oranges.

I'd run four lines. Owasso to Downtown, Broken Arrow to Downtown, Downtown/Cherry Street and another city proper line which would be the biggest by far. The first two would be the suburban lines to downtown because they make the most logical sense for business commuters. The third line would be downtown/midtown which would connect the business district, BOk, Brady, OSU-Tulsa, Blue Dome, Pearl, Cherry Street, Hillcrest, St. John's and TU. The last line would be concentrated on the Yale corridor, ORU and Riverside....and connect to the others.

So you all can cite population differences, but if I find an example with almost identical populations, it's apples and oranges?

Houston is the worst possible example to cite.

I think it becomes a financial liability over time when you need to update it, which is why I think an arena should be completely privately financed.

Not in the least bit against downtown development. You all want everything to be entertainment based, and I think it needs to be based more around daily life and residential...which the entertainment being built at a moderate pace.

Right now, you go to downtown and leave. I would like to live and establish myself downtown. A movie theater does not help me in that regard. Though, long term, it would be nice to have if the area has a large community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_%E2%80%93_Niagara_Falls_metropolitan_area (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_%E2%80%93_Niagara_Falls_metropolitan_area)

Not to mention that the Buffalo area has had some form of passenger rail since 1876, and their light rail was built in 1978 when downtown Tulsa was a ghost town.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1876_NYCRR.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1876_NYCRR.jpg)

Lots of good info about light rail here:  http://www.lightrailnow.org/success1.htm

The (real) trolley could take you to the movie theater.

I hope it is one that has drinks and food and such.  Smaller scale, but cooler things.  We live in South Tulsa and still come downtown often, and OMG, we are married and still support the bar life downtown!  lol.   I'm thrilled to see all the development. 

Can't wait to hear more about the theater.

It would need a largish footprint (compared with a restaurant), and I assume Blake'd want it somewhere within the two establish entertainment districts.  That's all I got.  

Downtown was devoid of much entertainment at all other than the Maxwell House, PAC, and the occasional show at the Brady and the Cain's for many years and it floundered as the suburbs grew.  Why was that?  There was nothing else to draw or keep people in downtown before or after shows or after work.  You have to have viable entertainment and shopping options for an area to attract residents and workers or to make workers become residents nearby.  The new arena and ball park have acted as catalysts for more quality development which I doubt would have happened without those being built.

For what it's worth, I was very against the BOK and also shared your view that there was nothing wrong with Driller's Stadium at the Fairgrounds.  However, I truly believe downtown would still be an odd collection of transient night clubs and no major gains in housing if not for those amenities signaling that the city was willing to invest in the CBD as a very livable micro-city.  You can build all the light rail you want, but if there's nothing to do once you are in the hub of that light rail system, there's really no reason to use the light rail other than commuting back and forth to work from the 'burbs.

So a movie theater may not help you and that's fine, but it's a major livability issue to others.

Kudos Blake on this announcement, even if it was kind of concealed in a blog post.

Interesting.

Seems like this exact same gloom and doom scenario was predicted from the moment Vision 2025 was announced.

Except the only difference is the "failure time frame" seems to keep changing.... it's funny how it keeps moving out. I remember predictions like (a) no good concerts will come to BOK (ha!) (b) no good sporting events would come to BOK (NCAA tournament says hi) (c) after a few years, attendance at concerts will drastically fall off. (LOL)

And yet here we are 3+ years since the BOK opened and it just keeps selling out concerts and other events.  We just had a highly successful NCAA Tournament, and the BOK will be in play for future Big 12 basketball tournaments, etc.

And there's a new multi-million-dollar private investment right across the street.  There is no telling how many millions have been invested in downtown specifically because the arena is there.

I thought he mentioned this to the media at the Phoenix groundbreaking last week?

My guess is it will be on the southern end of the Blue Dome.

Well.. there is one theater still open..

No popcorn there.  It shouldn't really count.

I don't understand why people are still debating the merits of the arena and ballpark, whether they will be good for downtown, whether they were wise to build, etc.  You can't change the fact they have been built.  The arena has been profitable and continues to be well managed.  I have no clue why people insist it will decline over the next few years.  As long as it attracts great acts, I don't really foresee people losing their interest in attending concerts or sporting events.  It is undoubtedly a success story.

The ballpark is an anchor on the edge of downtown, it has helped spur development in the area and bookends the Brady district.  David's comment about a perfectly usable stadium at the fairgrounds is asinine.  Sure, the old stadium was a location where baseball could be played - you can play baseball at Johnson Park at 61st & Riverside too.  But that is about it - it was uncomfortable and served as a home for die hard fans only and those who picked up a stack of free tickets when paying for gas at QT.  The new stadium is a destination for families, business outings, and other social events.  You drive there and then disperse throughout downtown after the game and grab a drink, late dinner, etc.  It has rekindled a love for baseball in Tulsa.  People are willing to spend money to catch a game with their kids and have a nice evening at a beautiful park.

Both facilities have been built and have been wildly successful.  They have spurred a tremendous amount of development and interest in the area.  We should have used the money for public transportation?  I don't see how leading with public transportation improvements would have been a catalyst for growth downtown.

The block of 2nd to 3rd and Detroit to Cincinnati would be a good location, or 4th to 5th Frankfort to Kenosha might also work. Also either of the surface lots just north of the Union Depot would be good as well.

And if you do see someone with a bucket of popcorn on their lap, don't help yourself to it.

You clearly don't spend much time in downtown businesses. I don't see any connection between our Downtown and OKC's. Our downtown is uniquely "Tulsa", we have great destinations, a growing number of art galleries and lots of local entrepreneurs opening distinctly Tulsa businesses that you cannot find in OKC.
Blake has discussed this concept before on this forum, IIRC this will be a full service theatre and he was looking at the spot of the old colliseum for ground up construction. Bring it!!

I think Downtown can support more than one Liquor store. There are 4 liquor stores on 15th Street between Peoria and Yale and none of them are struggling.

If you have to travel more than a mile to a liquor store, you are out in the boonies.

Kind of odd considering Oklahoma's "official" reputation for alcohol.

Not that I disagree with you here, just investigating: Doesn't a suburban line just perpetuate the same problem we have now with the IDL? The point is to get people out of downtown as quickly as possible and back to their bedroom communities with the money they made in Tulsa. Adding rail won't bring people downtown after office hours, we need downtown to be a destination so that people will want to get in their cars or on the train to come downtown for purposes other than working.

Personally I don't think I'd want a suburban line.
  
It'd start out only running three trips inbound in the morning and three outbound at night or something like that. Just seems like it'd do little for development.

The Music City Star in Nashville has been running for five years. It's still the same, basically a commuter-only line. They have one Friday evening run, but you better hope you don't want to stay out past 10:30pm.
http://www.musiccitystar.org/ticketsschedules.html#schedules

I'd much rather connect the densest areas of the city with rail/streetcar/whatever. Something like Brookside/Cherry Street/Downtown/TU. Seems like we could get a bus rapid transit line up and running in that area without too much effort. Then transition to rail or some form.

I really think BRT, like the MAX in Kansas City, would be well received. Busses running every 15 minutes so you don't have to plan your trips around a (very poor) schedule, like we have now.

As a frequent visitor to D/FW metro, I feel like their whole system is basically built for commuters. The sprawl factor limits its usefulness greatly. Even if I'm staying downtown adjacent to the rail line, I no longer take it anywhere. Any destination results in crossing 16 lanes of very fast traffic and traversing blocks of surface parking.

Agreed. If you want to ease congestion, and reduce petroleum usage, build a line to the burbs. If you want to boost development, build a small line to seed development on both ends and along the corridor at stops. Example: Fintube to West Bank

A downtown theatre would be modeled after The Alamo Draft House in Austin I would suspect......And to the poster suggesting the Bok and Ball Park were bad ideas "You're an idiot"....

True BRT is not really cheaper over the life of the system than rail when dedicated right-of-way for a bus is considered.  BRT on the streets does have the advantage of relatively inexpensive failure.

http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_brt.htm

At the pace we're moving, I just want something. I just want to be young enough to still be able to walk around by the time we have a great downtown and great transit.

I mostly agree.  A line to the burbs could well be less expensive than trying to increase road capacity.  Increased road capacity typically just moves the congestion farther in or out.  The money saved by not needing to expand the BA Expy might be used for a better downtown circulator transit system, either bus or rail.  Park and ride from BA to Tulsa would have limited appeal without a way to get from the train stop to the destination.  One transfer would probably be acceptable.  Multiple transfers would be a negative for riders of choice.

My sister lives south of Albuquerque, NM and uses the Railrunner commuter train regularly.  She has one transfer to a bus to get to her job.

http://nmrailrunner.com/

I understand.  I want something that will be successful.  Remember, we actually have "something" now.

Great point, I'm borrowing that.

Could a mod Split off the "Visions of Downtown Tulsa" conversation from this post?

People are too attached to their vehicles.  I sincerely doubt a suburban rail from Owasso would be successful, and I am a left leaning person who thought the BOK and Ballpark were great ideas.  Owasso is too spreadout and if you have to drive to a central location and then hop on a rail, which would all take longer than your 20 minute commute.

David:

You say you want things to develop downtown that would allow people to establish themselves downtown - I assume you saw my sizeable list of new residential downtown.  You know there are two grocery stores going in.  There is a tag agency.  Places to work, worship, and watch performance.  Full time restaurants. Events. Hotels. green spaces. Hair places.  Gift shops.  Candy stores.  Art galleries.  Coffee houses.  Bars and a porno shop.  What else are you talking about?

A movie theater is one more amenitiy downtown that anyone living, working, or visiting can utilize.  I gather that you want something else first, but I'm not sure what exactly you are talking about.  Clearly Ewing, nor anyone else, is going to put in light rail - even though most on their board would be excited to see such a thing happen.

Direction please.  How can we help you?

Don't count on it.  They said that about the Dallas-Ft Worth area too.  Give commuters a good option and they will take it.  Whether or not there are enough people in Owasso going to the same places in Tulsa to support any public transit is another question.


Put some cardboard or something in your left shoe to counteract your short left leg and you will see more clearly.   ;D

  Sure, keep future rail in mind while zoning/planning and impementing downtown development plans.  But right now, focus on creating a wonderful, knock out pedestrian experience downtown, and of course keep growing that housing and amenities, like a new theater.  Rail will make a lot more sense when you can get off the train/trolley and do lots of things and spend lots of time downtown, enjoyably. Shop, dine, movie, theater, concert, game, live, work, play, museums, library, parks, church, grocers, relax, sight see, events, run around till your dead tired, etc.  You want to have it so that people can do lots of things on any one trip and enjoyably walk from each of those things and areas to the other. You don't have to have rail to have that.  But having that can make rail more likely.  Transit or no, for a city our size and metro, we have got some fantastic potential in our downtown. 

There is another small housing project underway downtown.  Not sure when it will be, if ever, announced.  Not sure how many units, maybe 20-30.

Saturday night I had dinner in downtown Springfield, MO with friends.   The streets were packed, parking was at a premium, there were people walking everywhere, the restaurant we ate at, Nonna's, was full and people were still arriving at 9pm when we left.   Their downtown has changed dramatically.  There are little restaurants, bistros, shops with clothing and home goods all open late,  Price Chopper has opened a downtown market that looks like a mini-version of Central Market, it was full of people dining, drinking coffees, working on their computers.   And they have a downtown movie theater.  I was very impressed, downtown Springfield looked like a fun place to go hang out.  Plus, the Brown Derby is open till midnight except for Sunday when it closes at 7pm.  

And they do not have rail people movers.   But I can see where they could justify something like that now.   9 years ago it was a dead downtown.   We spent time walking around looking in windows, it was fun.   It has been a long time since I lived anywhere where one could be entertained so easily and cheaply just by walking around.  

I recommend some of you all take a trip up I-44, it is only 2 1/2 hrs.   I think this is something that you all are talking about aiming for.   Oh,  there were several art galleries in the mix of shops as well as some interesting looking clubs.

Having been there, I agree that it's an impressive downtown, especially for the size of Springfield. Visiting there kind of kills my positivity about Tulsa's downtown, as a town a fraction of Tulsa's size has a better downtown.

Keep in mind Springfield has Missouri State University, Drury University, and Ozark Tech Community College all within a mile of downtown. College town's tend to have a better downtown vibe. Granted I haven't been to their downtown in a while, but from what I remember of the city that's pretty much the "spot" for everyone similar to Cherry Street or Brookside. I think if downtown Tulsa had a similar anchor university so close to downtown we would have seen better urban development a long time ago.

My question though back to the actual subject, what is considered a "large theater"? I thought from what I read a couple days ago he had said a three screen theater? Also this is just my opinion but I would love to see something like this go in around the BOk Center on an empty lot right by the YMCA building or directly across from the Central Library. You would get great crowd's (especially if it is a dinner/drinks Alamo Drafthouse type theater) that are going to concerts, convention guests, and other downtown visitors. It would be much more walkable to most of the current residential development and hotels then a location in the Blue Down or the east end of downtown.

Details, please!

Also, I would love to see a theater styled after one of the movie palaces we lost to history.  I realize a single screen like that woulnd't really fly anymore, but if there was ground up construction it wouldn't be hard to at least evoke it.  I know Blake is a fan, look at his dessert menu at Joe's. :)

Like a lot of US cities, Springfield, MO had  electric trolleys at the beginning of the 20th Century.  Judging from the date of 1937, they probably fell victim to buses.   I haven’t been to downtown Springfield, MO, only to the airport and borrowed a crew car to get something to eat nearby.  Do they have any people movers other that feet?


Near the bottom of page 1:
http://www.legendsofamerica.com/mo-springfield.html

Most trolley systems in America were disassembled by the Car companies (Ford, Chevy, etc) because they were viewed as competition to their product. Kind of ironic that we in turn bail them out 80 years later with billions of tax payer dollars.

From what I read it was mostly GM, Firestone, and Standard Oil (I think of California).  They established National City Lines to buy up Traction companies and substitute buses made by GM, using Firestone tires, burning Standard Oil fuel.  GM got a slap on the wrist about mid 1900s.

You are right, I knew it was motor company related (GM) and I feel like Ford was in on it as well but I could be mistaken, and I had forgotten about Firestone's involvement. I could go on a much larger rant about this subject but I won't derail the subject of this thread more than it already is.

Buses with Tulsa type ridership.

The times that I have been in cities with light rail I have loved it, and I think it would be great to have that here, but it won't happen any time soon for a number of reasons.  Population and population density are a big factor (yes the buffalo comparison was apples to oranges because buffalo has a density roughly 3 times greater than Tulsa, is surrounded by other communities with like densities, and has a tourist industry of roughly 12 million a year).  The love affair with cars is also a factor, which is shown by how we have built this city around them, and our huge parking lots and consumer demands of having parking directly in front of their destination.  That in itself also kills the posibility of rail because it makes an area unfriendly to pedestrians.  If rail were to be successful then the destination of the train would require a traveler to be comfortable with walking once they got to the area.  Before rail can be considered, we need to have areas for people to go to that would have amenities available and in such a way that going from one to another by foot is enjoyable instead of a task.  Of course, this means that you have to have the amenities first, and on that list, pretty close to the top, is entertainment.  And that brings us back to the topic of the thread, a movie theater in what we are trying to make a destination district, not just a go to work and get the hell out district.  Of course, it would be even better if we could get our antiquated liquor laws changed so that we could have a more Alamo style theater with food AND beverages.

As far as the bus system goes, they have a lot of problems to deal with beyond just throwing money at it.  It is in serious trouble and needs a complete make over, but that make over needs a plan first.  Show me a viable system to replace what we have and make it attractive to the people in Tulsa and I'll support it.  

One thing we could do for our bus system is quit making it illegal to have one that works and is cost effective. 

You can't have "minimum parking requirements" in most areas of the city and then expect to have decent transit. 
You can't make "mixed use" illegal in most areas of the city and then expect to have decent transit.
etc. etc.

No matter what we do, if we dont allow our transit to be effective and affordable, if we make it illegal to do so.... guess what?  It's not going to be. 

Come on now... DFW is a bit different.  People in Owasso, who work downtown, enjoy the fact that even on a busy day it takes 25 minutes to get to work.  The biggest pain in the trip is getting to hwy 75 (unless you live on 76st).  That portion of my trip is 8-10 minutes of my 20 minute commute.  You would have to put the rail system in a place that has plenty of parking and serves a benefit other than from Owasso to DT, which would be cherokee industrial.  It would take me 12 minutes to get there. 

The benefit of mass transit is that you remove the need of a vehicle payment.  If I still need a vehicle to get there, what is the benefit?  How much is my round trip?  I see no way that this is a feasible investment.  Owasso to BA?  Owasso to the Airport?  Would be a better use of funds.

There are differences to be sure but the exact same thing was said that there would be no way to get commuters out of their cars.


Eliminating a vehicle payment only works in places like NYC designed to live in without a car.  Not using a car as much can result in significant savings.

Going to a park and ride is less miles on your car.  If you are a 2 car family, maybe you could become a 1 car family. Your insurance could be less. My insurance has a lower rate if my daily commute is less than 10 miles each way.  One of my favorites... park and ride lots are frequently free.  When my dad worked in downtown Tulsa, his company provided free parking was a taxable benefit per the IRS.   Rail fare would most likely not be the actual cost of your ride, just as you do not pay your full share of the cost of using the roads in your car.  Owasso to BA and Owasso to the Airport depends on projected ridership. I don't have those numbers.  Reducing the number of cars on the roads from Owasso to Tulsa would reduce the investment in moving the traffic jam expanding the roads.  There were several choices for rail transit to Philadelphia from the town where I grew up.  One of my friend's father got a ride in the family's only car to the train station in the morning and got picked up in the evening.  There were, and still are, several free parking lots next to the trolley stations on SEPTA Route 101 which always had some cars in them during the week.  You need to look at the success of the New Mexico Railrunner.  http://nmrailrunner.com/  My sister uses it regularly but not exclusively to go to work.  It saves gas and wear and tear on the car.  She also doesn't have to put up with the idiots on I-25. 

It all depends on enough people going from the same places to the same places.

So.... this housing/transportation discussion has been interesting and everything....

But does anyone know anything about the topic of the thread?   :)

Will the new theater be in the Blue Dome district?  Any ideas where?  (Hopefully in that big empty lot south of McNellies...)

I'd prefer to see it fronting either Elgin or Detroit somewhere

I don't believe the location is finalized.  I would guess somewhere on the far southern end of Blue Dome.

Last I heard from Blake he was looking at the site of the old Coliseum, 5th and Elgin

Wiki on the old building: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_Coliseum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_Coliseum)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a9/Coliseum1943.jpg/220px-Coliseum1943.jpg)
Google map of the site as it is currently (northeast corner)
(http://cbk1.google.com/cbk?output=thumbnail&cb_client=maps_sv&thumb=2&thumbfov=120&ll=36.153261,-95.985380&cbll=36.153286,-95.985414&thumbpegman=1&w=300&h=118)

They aren't the only ones interested in that area.  As reported by the Tulsa World the Unitarian church is looking at the area in addition to the proposed Land Legacy park.  Land Legacy has a hope the park will become a centerpiece for mixed use development around it.

Isn't there some construction going on in the Eastern half of that lot?  And this would be interesting if the rumors are true and the basement is still there, simply capped off by the lot.

I believe those rumors are true and preliminary site work has proved it.  I recall hearing they've located the old organ or something along those lines.

One of the cool things this thread has uncovered (or made plain) is that there's now some pretty strong competition for downtown property.  Which to me goes to prove that the redevelopment of DT has now shifted out of the pioneering first phase and into a new one, where infill, consolidation, and competition are more prominent. 

So this is between 5th and 6th, Elgin and Frankfurt?

Yes.

I was hoping for something a little closer to the part of Blue Dome that's already more "densely" developed - the 2nd/3rd & Elgin area. 

That monstrous parking lot bound by 1st and 2nd and Elgin and Greenwood just seems perfect for a large development like a movie theater.  Filling that thing in would really make Blue Dome feel like a real destination district, if that makes sense.

But I guess as long as everything stays roughly along Elgin, that's cool too.  I suppose the 5th/6th Elgin site would spur more development to the north and connect to the area that's already developed somewhat?

From what I understand that is owned by Mr. williams himself (I have no confirmation and may well be wrong about that) so don't expect him to sell anytime soon.

Remember also that the old chevy dealership is going to be converted into residential (someday) and that Fassler is right there as well.  The two lots lot I really want to go away around there are the one on the NE corner of 3rd and elgin (right next to dust bowl) and the one on the SE corner of 2nd and detroit.

When I asked "Why not that giant parking lot?"  I was told "That's not going to happen.".

It makes me think that something might be in the works.  It's weird that my optimism and predelection to conspiricy manage to find a subject to hang out at....

Well that's a much more positive way to see it than I had.

I think my biggest irk is the emptiness in the evenings and on the weekend and there's some minion walking around droning "$5 to park here".

Shhhh!  DOn't let anyone know that I'm an optimist.  It ruins my philosophy grad student/manic depressive street cred....

:)

I mean...

 :-\

Forgive my ignorance... but who is Mr. Williams and why would he not be interested in selling the lot?

The last I've heard, the giant parking lot in the Blue Dome, is that the owner does not want to sell it. Most likely waiting to get top dollar for the site as more development goes on.

Like I said I would love to see this go in by the BOk Center to help give that side of downtown a little more life. You would have the Mayo Building Apartment, Mayo Hotel/Residences, YMCA building lofts, the Hyatt, the DoubleTree, Holiday Inn, the new ALoft Hotel, the new One Place development, Central Park Towers, Renaissance Uptown, and so on all with in a very short walking distance. This would help for convention efforts to have amenities like this so close to the Convention Center. Also if it is a nice dining theater then it has the ability to grab people coming in for events at the BOk Center.

While I think it would still do great in the Blue Dome, I think the demographics for something like this would be much better in the west area of downtown around the BOk Center.

Maybe built in one of the surface lots at

(http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/6102/movietheaterp.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/710/movietheaterp.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

3rd and Boulder or one of the lots around 5th and Cheyenne and Denver

There is an interesting mix going on downtown now.  Previously people would raze buildings or let lots sit as parking because nothing else was needed.  NOW... there is a growing demand FOR parking.    Not to raise the "there's plenty of parking" debate - there is.  I'm merely point out that parking lots have value, moreso now than 10 years ago.

The area around the BOk (and the Courthouse) has high value for parking.  Any development in that area will need structured parking to service both IT and to make money off of other parking demands.

But there are lots of options :  BOk area, the established Blue Dome, the BOOMING Brady, the under utilized East End.  Im confident anyone building such a thing will consider locations moreso than I am able... but i HOPE they take into consideration making it downtown friendly.  A movie theater, with lights, signs, placards, and foot traffic, has amazing potential to add life to an area.  Moreso than actual life - the appearance of life in the peak hours.

+1. A big, bright, neon-lit theater there would be really awesome.  That's currently a major dead zone.

What's funny is that it feels so dead, But there IS alot over there. The renaissance uptown, The blair, The mayo, The BOK, The sushi place, The doubltree, etc.  You're right though, it feels so dead on the west side of downtown.

The full build-out of One Place, especially the mixed use and hotel on 3rd,  will really help liven things up in the west end around the BOK.  Just having that high-rise U/C with a big tower crane will be pretty awesome to see over there.

  Having a theater on either the west side of 5th or the east side of fith downtown would be good imo.  That nexus of 5th and Boston is really the heart of downtown where almost everyone, even visitors, at one time or another goes.  Especially as that area starts to "enliven" with more restaurants and shopping over time.  So being able to see a theater at one end or the other as you look down 5th street will work nicely.   Then whether the theater ties in with the stuff where the arena is, or eventually the Blue Dome/East End, is fine too imo.
 
I wish we would change 5th street to 5th Ave, just gives it a nice cache.

We already have a madison ave.  Parts of it are even swanky! :)

That would go against our whole thing of having Avenues going North and South

There was a headline in the World this morning that essentially now it's time for more residential infill for more commercial enterprises to become viable.  If anyone can post the link, please do.  I maxed my paywall already.

That article seemed to be phoning it in to me.  THe picture of the Metro was at least 2-3 weeks old.  They only listed a small number of the projects.  IMO, could have been a much better article.

Just my opinion, but I would rather see a movie theatre in a spot that has plenty of extra space around it that needs to be built/developed rather than squeezed into an already developed area. A movie theatre has potential to kickstart other developmenmt because start and stop times for shows are set, and people need things to do if they are early or when they leave.

I hope it is more like the AMC in KC (power and lights district) or an Alamo draft house type place.  The theater in Bricktown looks forced and out of place... of course so does the bass pro.  So far the constuction in Downtown seems to fit the environment, even the BOK Center (oddly enough).  With Blake now on City Council, does that interfere with any of his developments? 

Smooth it out maybe...I kid, I kid.  He's bigger than me.

The Railrunner has average weekday boardings of 4,500 on a system of 97 miles of track and 13 stations.  Does that really count as a "success" worth emulating?

97 miles?  That would be like having commuter rail between Tulsa and OKC.

It started out as just the southern part from Belen to Albuquerque.  After a few years, it was extended to Santa Fe.  I guess it is enough of a success to warrant the extension.  It's not only about the people on the train.  It's also about the fact that the people on the train are not on the highway.  How much would it cost to add a lane in each direction on the BA Expressway?  Is the BA Expressway a toll road?  I know several members of this forum would like to make it so.

I almost forgot, it also means less parking spaces required downtown.  

Edit 2:
The first leg was actually Albuquerque to Bernalillo followed shortly by the extension to Belen to the south.

The RailRunner current costs the government around $5 per person riding it in subsidies.  The subsidies are, however, a fixed cost of around $10,000,000 per year.  If ridership doubled, the subsidies wouldn't have to go up, practically speaking.

The BA carries 90,000 vehicles a day.  Let's pretend we've drop to 100,000 in a few years just to make the numbers nice.  Of that 100,000, 50% is commuter traffic coming to and from work.  The study commissioned a few years ago indicated a commuter rail service could be utilized by 20% of BA commuters at an operational cost of $3mil per year.  That equates to a cost of $600 per year per commuter (25000 commuters).

So you can sell a resident an unlimited pass on the train from BA to Tulsa for $600 and it pays for itself.   Average distance from BA to downtown is 15 miles, at the IRS rate of $.55 per mile = $16.5 per day to drive it.  x 50 weeks x 5 days per week = $4,125 to drive from BA to downtown Tulsa per working year (your realitor won't explain this to you, nor factor in the 30 minute commute x 200 work days = 100 wasted hours.  Or more hours wasted than most Americans get in vacation time).  That is, of course, ignoring the assumption that you household would have two cars and twice the insurance even if you took the train to work everyday - which woudl result in even MORE savings (mom works in BA, drops dad off at the station...). 

And that's ignoring the impact of having other stations, spur lines, etc. in the future.

Rail is expensive...  but driving is expensive too.  People in the great fly-over zone are simply used to spending THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of dollars driving everywhere and don't consider the costs.  Owning a car is expensive for an individual.  Now consider the roads, parking, traffic enforcement, and all the other expenses that you do not individually pay.  Just for the city of Tulsa the budget is tens of millions of dollars (swollowed in the Transportation/Public Works Budget... maybe 100s of millions?), add in State and Federal funds.  DRIVING IS EXPENSIVE!

Commuter Rail
Cost: $43 million to $49 million
Annual operation expenses: $3.1 million, with up to 12 percent covered by fares.
Potential fare: $2
Ridership growth between 2010 and 2030: 1.4 million to 5 million
Speed: 70 mph
Peak frequency: Every 72 minutes

Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070501_1_A2_Commu05642

Funny seeing our favorite Santa Claus commenting in that four year old article...and the mindset.  Times were a little different back then (the economy was a little bit better).

I think there is still not enough employers downtown to warrant light rail in between BA and downtown.  It's getting better, but the density needs to be higher.

That's possible but we need to be looking at it. 

Sure, we need to be looking at it, but how long will it be before people start bellyaching about 'how much did that study cost'?

How much more will they complain when gridlock approaches in another decade or so?  Rail systems used to be able to pop up in a few years but that was nearly 100 years ago.

Do we even know if the owner of the track down the middle of the BA is willing to share with a commuter line?  Assuming the owner agrees to a lease, it will most likely give priority to frieght trains because that's who owns the track.

What speed will a commuter train be allowed to run?  Freight trains move pretty slow down this stretch.  How many stops?  How long will it take to travel by train from BA to downtown as compared to a car (and that's not counting the drive to the train and the walk from the station to a person's office)?

What is the current usage of the express bus from BA to downtown?  Under most but the worst of traffic days, the bus currently gets from BA to downtown quicker than a train will (and that assumes no train stops in between, which is not realistic).  If large numbers of commuters currently don't take the bus, why would large numbers take a slower option - just because trains are cool?

Why not try a HOV lane on the BA to encourage car pooling before expending huge sums for rail?  It would also allow buses to travel faster.

I think we are a long way from the kind of traffic on the BA that will make a train ride preferably for most commuters over driving their own cars.  Planning for future potential rail is great, but I think we are looking at a long timeline and have a lot of other alternatives to try first.

 

I have attended several of the public presentations for transit study.  I haven't read the final reports yet but found that the expected speed of commuter rail from BA to Tulsa is 70 mph.


http://tulsatransit.org/media/files/StudyPresentation.pdf

http://www.fastforwardplan.org/FinalPlan.aspx

You can't run a freight down those tracks at 70mph.

http://www.avcog.org/documents/Rail%20Terminology.pdf (http://www.avcog.org/documents/Rail%20Terminology.pdf)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States_(rail)#Track_classes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States_(rail)#Track_classes)

That's probably why the 2007 study allowed for $1.88 Million for track improvements.  Plus, your link is talking about some really heavy freight cars rather than commuter cars.

Edit:
Plus another $11.5 million for signal and system costs.

Edit 2:

From page 11 of the final report:

Union Pacific tracks along the study corridor are currently utilized
by as many as three freight trains per day with a combination
of local and through-routed destinations.  The commuter
rail option assessed included four stations and assumed a
speed of 70 miles per hour, operating only during peak hours. 

My point was that even passenger (generic I know) trains that travel at those speeds require Class 5 Track which is the typical open country track much like what parallels I-40 across the western US. I don't think federal law would allow speeds like that in a populated area, specifically along the center line of a highway. (Trying to find more info.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak#Speed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak#Speed)

I guess what I'm try to say is that while it may be able to travel at 70mph I don't think it will average 70mph over the proposed route when you factor in the stops and the number of street crossings along the route.

With street crossings (at least at the suburban stops I saw in dallas) traffic stops for the train not the other way around.  And at 70 MHR, cars dont wait long.

I cannot disagree with that.  It would have to go really fast to average 70 with stops.

I just can't imagine hitting the curve between Harvard and 21st at 70mph. Would be kind of like the last curve on Zingo looking at the houses across the street.

It wouldn't be any worse than 70 mph in your car.  It's radius is between the radii of the inbound and outbound road surfaces on either side.  The train would probably be slowing down for going through the neighborhoods by then anyway.

Hey guys.

Just saw this thread. Carltonplace is right. I've talked about the theater plans before. I'll answer as many of your questions as I can.


Location

With the way some of the property in the Blue Dome is being held, the more reasonable development path is a linear one down Elgin. Several of the key properties are not available for development. The Santa Fe lot (across from Joe Momma's), for example, is owned by a gentlemen named John Williams (not of Williams companies). He does have high hopes for the land. He was in the running for the development currently going up across from the arena. Knowing this, one might understand why his sights are set a little higher than a movie theater right now.

The ideal spot for me right now is the Coliseum lot at 5th and Elgin. It is currently under contract by someone else. My understanding is that they hope to use part of it for parking. The good news is: so do we. I'd love to work out a deal to lease the space, build the development and share structured parking.

It would integrate with the Land Legacy park, bookend the ballpark on Elgin, the civic center on 5th and would be a nice lead in into the Pearl District on 6th. The theater would take up the west part of the lot (roughly 25-30,000 sq feet) and span from 5th to 6th.

So, that cat's out of the bag. That's my favorite spot for it. We're going to try to make that work. There are some backup spots in mind, though the arena area is not one of them.

As someone mentioned, my hope is that this development site spurs new development on Elgin and on 5th and 6th. It will be easy to access right off the 7th street exit.

Concept

The theater will be a 5 screen all digital theater with a large atrium gathering area, a balcony, a Tulsa movie museum, a full bar and a large kitchen. Four of the screens will be stadium seating and will be named The Ritz, Rialto, Orpheum, and Majestic. Each room will be patterned after the historic and tragically bulldozed Tulsa theater. The fifth screen will be in a flat floor banquet hall called The Will Rogers Banquet Hall. It will feature a full performance stage and large banquet seating. Naturally, the banquet room will be available for rent. It will host film festivals, second run movies, live shows, stand-up, etc.

All of the screens will have curtains that go up before the show.

Much like an old school theater experience, guests will gather in the large atrium room (think chandelier and terrazzo floors) up until the time the announcer invites the guests into the theater room. "Ladies and gentelmen, the 7:15 showing of Iron Man 4 is about to begin. Please take your seats in our Orpheum theater." At that time, guests will have a chance to cash out in the bar, wrap up their conversations and take their seats in the theater. I'm hoping for a real community experience before and after the show.

The theater will be 21 and over.

The seats are bigger and more comfortable than typical Tulsa theaters.

Tickets will be a buck or so more than at AMC.

We'll have a full menu of tasty food items as well as our take on traditional movie food.

We'll have a large round bar in the atrium and guests will be able to order drinks.

The whole feel is old school, so expect that type of decor, wardrobe, etc.

Our movies will be first run films in our stadium seating theaters.

We'll be open 365 days a year and will be open until late night on weekends. We'll try to start our movies on the off hour from the traditional movie times. Think 6 and 8 instead of 7 and 9.

Why downtown? Why this concept?

There is no theater within miles. It's easy for me to imagine most people I know in midtown choosing this concept downtown over anything at 41st and Yale.

This concept will appeal to people who...

don't like teenagers at their movies.

like to drink while watching a movie.

like the PAC's type of theater experience. It's about being seen, mingling, having great conversation and enjoying a nice movie.

prefer to eat tasty chef prepared food while watching a movie.

This theater is enough of a destination location to pull people from around the area. There's nothing like it in Tulsa. It's easy for me to imagine people driving a bit further for the full experience. Furthermore, the fact that we're locally owned and set up like we are means we'll be able to do fun promotions, special screenings, etc.

I've visited Alamo Draft House - It will be nicer than that.

I've visited a concept called iPix? - It will not be that nice. $35 tickets, a blanket, free popcorn, la-z-boys.

This will be the nicest movie concept in Tulsa by quite a bit and will be a great addition to a growing downtown scene.


As for how City Council will affect my developments, I don't see any problems or benefits at this time. I'll be building this according to the same set of rules that everyone else has to follow. Developments inside the CBD don't require zoning changes, etc. The only place I can see people calling foul is if I were to buy TDA property for a project....Not that the public needs things like facts to come to conclusions about politicians...or developers for that matter. =)

Sorry to take so long to answer your questions. I've been a little busy. If you have more questions, ask away.

Also, I love that the transit discussion keeps coming up. It's time for Tulsa to start thinking about how we're going to get around in the future. I'm glad to reply to any of that if you have questions there.

Thanks for being a part of the conversation and for caring enough to have opinions about our great city.

How do you plan on having a bar with the law not allowing it in any establishment that functions as a motion picture theater?

I'm not much of a movie goer but that part appeals to me.  I wish you good luck.

Over 21 at all times or just after a certain time?

I've been over 21 all the time for quite some time now.

hahaha, I might be over 21 24/7 but I'm only a part time adult.

Hey!  I resemble that remark.
 
 ;D

Thanks for the update, Blake.

This sounds pretty awesome.  Can't wait to check it out.

Man, he composes a few high profile music pieces and he starts expecting the world...

My wife and I absolutely hate teenagers at movies.  Could you also do the "no cell phone"

ABLE uses the following definition: 

23. “Motion picture theater” means a place where motion pictures are exhibited and to
which the general public is admitted, but does not include a place where meals, as defined by
this section, are served, if only persons over twenty-one (21) years of age are admitted;"

That is how it will work.  I think the Warren Theater in Moore is a similar concept, though on a much larger, suburban scale.  I am an attorney and I have some familiarity with ABLE issues.  The laws and regulations are pretty overwhelming, but there are also lots of exceptions and loopholes.  I think Warren admits children, but I am not familiar with how that works.  They may use different hours for their over 21 drinking patrons and family hours without alcohol.  But that is just a guess.  I'd be interested to look into it.

If it seems like it would be "interesting" to look into doing... it is also probably "interesting" to try and enforce the rule.   ;D

If it's nicer than the Warren in Moore (currently the nicest theater in the state and packed every weekend) and has a local "Tulsa" Alamo Drafthouse-like vibe then this will be a huge success. 

Wish this was closer to the action around 2nd & Elgin but could enhance future development to the south.  The KOTV site will be available soon and there's a great Deco industrial building at 4th that is begging to be renovated.  The only real downside is the ugly AT&T building across the street.  Would the main entrance face Elgin?  And will there be a big neon marquee!?

Thanks for all of the info Blake. Can't wait for Iron Man IV!

Love it!!!  Will definitely be a patron when it opens!!!! 

When you think about other entertainment strips, it's not uncommon to see them go for a few blocks. We're really just talking about three blocks away from the Blue Dome District, two blocks from Fassler Hall. Additionally, I'd expect to see infill between The Pearl District and 6th and Elgin and new retail down 5th street in the future. Elgin can be a strip of activity. Once the traffic circle at 11th and Elgin goes in, we're going to have a nice street from 11th all the way to 244 with lots of different things to do.

The biggest issues/development obstacles on that street are the lots at 2nd and Elgin (The Santa Fe lot) and the Baptist Church lot between 4th and 5th. Channel six won't be available for a couple years. The Baptist Church's lot will not likely become anything other than a flat lot for some time. I'd love to try to convince them to lease it long term to a developer who would put retail facing 5th Streets and Elgin Ave with an integrated structured parking lot that the church would use on Sundays. This would help kick start 5th St (Ave.?) development and would infill Elgin nicely.

As for the AT&T building, check this out. http://www.thecoolist.com/when-buildings-come-alive-10-unreal-urban-projection-videos/

I'd also like to see them put an AT&T store in the bottom floor to add some retail.

As for the theater, it will have a huge marquee. I'm big on signage. I think the main entrance would be at 5th and Elgin if it were to go on that spot.

Also, some things are happening with the Coliseum apartments at 7th and Elgin. Elliot bought that and is renovating the building. My guess is that the next to go will be those old houses next door.

Don't forget to think ahead when you guys are envisioning downtown. In many ways, we still pale in comparison to other cities in terms of our scope. There are still tons of infill opportunities, but we have to put key things in key places in order to facilitate long term, big picture growth. More residential is a key component, grocery stores are important, a pharmacy is important. We have great opportunities for new retail. With this being done the way it's being done (several small developers instead of one big one), it's important that we all understand the value of smart growth and cohesive developments. In the end, it will be better. It will be more original and more organic and will have the finger prints of several very different personalities on it.

Not to over-simplify, but it's kinda like playing Sim-City. You don't just go build all the high rise residential and fill it up with people. It doesn't work like that. You have to build your commercial and residential together...piece by piece. If we're smart, we'll start laying the foundation for rail, but right now, there's a much larger demand for shorter distance transit than for commuter rail. A trolley/cable car/improved bus system around downtown/midtown with lines in from north and east tulsa is in much higher demand than anything connecting Jenks to downtown Tulsa. Folks that live in Jenks/Bixby/B.A. aren't sitting at home with no car wishing they could get to downtown Tulsa.

I'd like to see very small strips of really cool transit (think a trolley that loops 5th from the civic center to 5th and Elgin). This would allow 5th street to start to turn into that retail corridor (like 16th St. in Denver). We'll need a parking garage on each end (behind the YMCA lofts and at 5th and Elgin), but if this was done, Kanbar, Snyder, Hawkins, etc could start using their valuable bottom floors for unique retail...connecting what's happening at 5th and Denver to what's happening in the East Village (the park, the church, the movie theater, the lofts on Bill White's old property, and Elgin Ave entertainment). That loop would cover Bartlett square, 5th and Boston (Mod's and Elote and Courtyard Marriot), The Mayo lofts, Mayo hotel, Vandever lofts, YMCA lofts, Aloft Hotel, and interesting future projects like the notorious Tulsa Club. =)

Anyway, those small little strips of unique transit will start to show people the value of additional fixed rail, cable car, bus service... It can't be jammed down their throats. Tulsans like to think they discovered something, not that their government made them like it.

Keep up the good conversation.

^^^Keep up the great vision, Blake.

I agree that a downtown circulator system is probably the best first step. Bringing people to downtown by public transit with no way to get around while downtown seems backwards.   A choice of cable car would need to consider the occasions when we get ice and snow.  Keeping the cableway clear could present difficulties.

Am I alright in mentioning that I have a man-crush on Blake...   ;D

Short detour here about the Warren in Moore.  Have been there a few times and it is very nice, but very expensive.  Commentary; when I go to a movie, I am not looking for the lights and glitz - I want to see the movie in a clean facility on as big a screen as possible (Warren's is nice - almost a real screen - but not even close to the old Continental theater in Tulsa.)  But if I have to go with the smaller screen and get the dollar movie experience, that is even better.

Now the question at large; do most of you go for the glitz and lights and commotion as a big part of the experience?  Is that stuff as important as watching the movie?

Are you saying that you're not the type of client for this theater?  There are many other theaters you can enjoy if you're not interested in this one.

Nope, not saying that.  I think it would be cool to have the glitz, just don't care about it enough to pay a huge premium.  Like the Warren - if you have to spend $10 in either place, then it is much better to have the glitter.

Not sure I need dinner served at the seat.

Oh, and no, $1 over AMC is not much of a premium, so would be very interested in this concept.

I never go to theaters.  Too comfortable in my house and I can pause it any time to make dinner, pop another beer, etc.  No loud talkers other than my wife and no teens making asses of themselves or uncontrolled kids running around making asses of their parents.

The only thing to get me to a theater is this kind of development.

I go for the big screen only.  And TV's are getting big enough that I can get one of those, sit close and feel like it is the Continental type experience.  THAT - the big screen - is what gets me to a theater more than most things.

  I go for the full experience.
 A.  To get out of the house.
 B. See some place other than the inside of my house and the usual trip to work, etc. Its more of a special "event" than watching TV.
 C. I like walking up to and entering a theater, the lights, the music, seeing the promos for other movies, etc.  
 D.  I like being around the people.
 E. I like the smell of popcorn and sweets.  
 F.  I like the waiting with other people in that large space and that feeling everyone has of expectation and anticipation.
 G.  I like that communal experience of hearing everyone laugh, ghasp, be silent, etc. while watching the movie.  
 H. I like walking out of the theater, back into the real world. I like the feeling of that transition and of talking with friends about the movie and hearing others talk about it.  

I like the idea Blake has of everyone mingling in the lobby area and then there being an announcement that the show is about to begin.  Having dinner and drinks could also be nice, though my thought would be that it might be nice to make it more of a menu where you can order lots of small dishes that everyone can share, and or really nice versions of the usual movie fare, gourmet popcorn "platter"with 5 or 6 flavors to snack on, several types of really good nachos and made that day pretzels, that are given an interesting twist to the toppings, etc.  I like having lots of different quality cheeses, sauces and jellies, crackers and meats that everyone at a table shares.  Its fun when people say "ooh have you tried this one"  or "try this Italian cheese with the pear sauce on one of those crackers".  Then top it off with some fine wines or another drink.  Regardless of the particular set of ideas, its again about enhancing the social experience by having foods that people share not,,, this person having a burger, the other a chicken sandwich or salad, that just seems boring and the food can risk becoming more of a distraction away from others and the movie.  Just my opinion anyway.      

Trying to say he prefers theaters that serve popcorn buckets with a hole in the bottom?

Crazy but you have to make those yourself.

+1

I think the wife and I have been to the theater like once in the past 5-7 years... that was to see The Dark Knight at IMAX.  Before that, I can't even tell you the last movie I saw in the theater... it may have been one of the Star Wars prequels, LOL.

And the #1 thing that keeps us away are the things that have been talked about... blabby teenagers w/ their cellphones, screaming kids, etc.

And yes... I have a nice big screen TV at my house with a Blue-Ray player, nice sound, etc.  So it's just more comfortable there.  Basically I need a reason to go to a movie theater... not just a big screen and big sound.

What Blake is talking about is the exact thing that would get us to the theater again.

Since Blake's theater concept essentially includes dinner/drink with a movie, I think the more glitzy approach is perfect.  $1 more for a ticket to enjoy a movie in a great space with good food and drink options would easily be my first choice over current theaters.

Blake's point about the seeming disjointed nature of our DT development is a good one.  A theater is probably one of those types of businesses than can leap frog south on Elgin and help jump start more development around it.  In time, all of our disparate areas from the BOK to Brady to Blue Dome to East End to Deco will become somewhat seamlessly conncected, but each with its own distinct identiy and appeal.  I think we will end up with a much better and uniquely Tulsa downtown than had we tried to shove everything into one predisignated area.  There will probably be some bumps  and moments of "why is that there" along the way, but worth it in the end.

The theater concept sounds awesome! Is this the coliseum site that Blake is talking about?

(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/598885/downtowntheatersite.png)

Did i miss his workaround somewhere?
Drinks and a movie? Is Blake planning on changing Oklahoma's liquor laws?

Breadburner?....is that you??

It would probably be easier to just make a donation to the correct campaign funds at ABLE and get the correct interpretation of the existing laws.

FIFY

I like what you did there.  Very clever.

I believe Easly is gone and he's been replaced by someone else's pockets.  At least I was pretty sure I read that the other day.

Don't see an Easly, but there is a Fallin on the commission.

To serve alcohol it has to be 21 and up and serve meals that are eaten with a fork... apperently.  Which explains the non stadium theater part.

Giving drinkers a multi-pronged weapon?  Tsk Tsk.

Your personal bucket will be useless to anyone else.....Tic-Tac whales mouth........ ;D

http://parislemon.com/post/14967290447/roger-ebert-on-why-movie-revenue-is-dropping

Ebert's article (included in the link above) is a good read, but it was Siegler's comments that got me thinking about Blake's theater in Tulsa.

I would think this would be an ideal age group, 21+ have money, most of his customers would be young professionals, 25-30+ and serving a meal with the movie, as long as people remembered, just like in a restaurant TURN YOUR PHONES OFF!

Tulsabusiness.com's partial story:

Theater concept to bring wining, dining at silver screen

(http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/tulsabusiness.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/0/05/00542688-84e4-11e2-bf81-001a4bcf6878/5134c63c8237f.preview-300.jpg)

$27 later I can tell you that it's just Blake talking about the idea in his head, nothing concrete.

Good reporting on your part, bad reporting on the TB reporter's part.

Don't be down, you did your part to support print media.

Breaking a two year old story. No wonder they need sgrizzle's support.

Reminds me of this...  http://www.brewview.com/aboutus.html