|
Title: How do you add density...? Post by: PonderInc on August 04, 2008, 02:45:18 pm How do you add density without freaking out the neighborhood?
From attending neighborhood meetings over the years, I've come to the conclusion that people in single-family homes are terrified of apartment buildings and multi-family dwellings. Obviously, we need apartments, condos, lofts, etc, in addition to single-family homes. Because of retiring baby boomers/empty-nesters, an increasing number of young singles, and more single-parent homes, there will be a growing need for alternatives to RM-1 housing. But many people don't want it in their neighborhoods. Is this because there's no way to control the actions of lousy landlords? Or are people just biased against "those people" who don't own their own homes? Title: How do you add density...? Post by: RecycleMichael on August 04, 2008, 02:56:49 pm Mandatory child-bearing means instant density.
Breed or move. Title: How do you add density...? Post by: Hometown on August 04, 2008, 03:01:09 pm Cost and demand will automatically add density. When a whole bunch of people want to live in the same place you get density.
Title: How do you add density...? Post by: carltonplace on August 04, 2008, 03:10:32 pm My neighborhood has a nice eclectic mix of single family homes, condominiums and apartment buildings, duplex and tri-plex and garage apartment rentals. I love it! There is always someone new moving in to liven up the mix in the area and its great to make new friends (and people to have beer with). We get all kinds, cool folks and kooks, open minded and otherwise.
I think the reason it works is that the street is kind of partitioned into "multi-family" areas and "single-family" areas, and most of the structures have front porches or balconies that get people out in front of their houses and meeting people. The partitioning isn't really noticable, the apartments feel like they belong...they enhance the overall neighbor hood feel and they are constructed of materials that familiar to the rest of the structures. The duplex/triplex don't really stand out as such, they resemble single family structures but they never were. Title: How do you add density...? Post by: Red Arrow on August 04, 2008, 04:16:30 pm quote: Or just maybe... we moved out where we are (near 111th & Memorial)because we didn't want to live in a dense area. There are plenty of other places to go. Your reaction to me tearing down several apartment buildings to build a single family dwelling near downtown would be the equivalent of the opposite side of the coin. Title: How do you add density...? Post by: PonderInc on August 04, 2008, 04:28:18 pm I love the old 4-plexes and 6-plexes in older neighborhoods, and love the way they fit into established neighborhoods. Always wanted to live in one of those cool 4-plexes near 14th and Carson...
Next question: Can a developer build a traditional 4 or 6-plex, and expect to make any money? (Why does it seem like developers only want to build huge condos/apartment complexes with hundreds of units?) Title: How do you add density...? Post by: PonderInc on August 04, 2008, 04:31:54 pm quote: In downtown, we only tear down historic apartment buildings to make surface parking lots... Title: How do you add density...? Post by: booWorld on August 04, 2008, 04:58:11 pm quote: Allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs). This has been considered by the TMAPC in the past few years. Some neighborhoods are freaked out by ADUs, but others have many of them already. Title: How do you add density...? Post by: perspicuity85 on August 04, 2008, 06:01:59 pm quote: It really depends on where you live. It's probably easier to convince a single-family-dwelling neighborhood in Midtown that condos are a nice addition than it is in most of South Tulsa or Owasso, etc. It's hard to undo decades of "American Dream" marketing done by real estate developers since the post-World War II economy spiked demand for automobiles and owner-occupied housing. The negative perception about urban life in general seems to be slowly subsiding in the US as cities such as St. Louis have recognized their first population gain in 50 years. But back to your question: how to add density? I think the first place to start is to look for defining geographic or cultural characteristics of a neighborhood and seek to enhance them. Neighborhoods with strong character and unique identity tend to weather the tide of sprawl and changing consumer preferences a lot better than neighborhoods that don't have the aforementioned qualities. Density and strong community ties tend to be highly correlated. Thus, neighborhoods with a strong sense of identity and unique characteristics are prime candidates for hip, urban, dense development. Real estate developers and investors will recognize the marketing value of being associated with a unique neighborhood/lifestyle. Besides that, density is also obviously related to proximity to other dense areas. For instance, some of the neighborhoods around TU are prime locations for increased density in terms of mixed-use development. Proximity to entertainment districts, retail areas, parks, colleges, and offices is another important factor. Bottom line: Density is like a sponge. It makes sense for density to exist when there is something nearby to "soak up." You can't plop a neighborhood in the middle of nowhere and expect there to be a demand for density. You also can't expect a generic, boring, homogeneous space to necessitate sufficient demand for multiple uses of that space, a.k.a. density. Title: How do you add density...? Post by: Double A on August 04, 2008, 09:42:54 pm quote: So were conservation districts and they both went nowhere fast. Did the C.O.R.E. proposals ever make it to the TMAPC only to die a silent death and get buried in the bureaucracy? It's time for Tulsa, especially in regards to infill, to start doing it's own planning and that starts with it's own planning commission. Neighborhood sensitive, appropriate infill that adds density while maintaining the character and quality of life in a neighborhood is possible. The TMAPC and to a greater degree, INCOG staff have a dismal record in this regard. City Planners have come up with some great plans that sit on shelves or get ignored by INCOG staff or the TMAPC. They should stick to regional planning like the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan and let the city of Tulsa and Tulsans be the ones who decide, implement, and enforce the planning process for Tulsa's future. Title: How do you add density...? Post by: Red Arrow on August 04, 2008, 10:08:26 pm quote: Title: How do you add density...? Post by: cdowni on August 05, 2008, 12:51:35 am quote: i couldn't agree with you more. i've always disliked incog. what is the point of it? is there any way the city could get out of it, or disband it or something? Title: How do you add density...? Post by: Double A on August 05, 2008, 01:31:42 am quote: Get rid of INCOG. It's as simple as not renewing their contract. It's just a matter of having a Mayor and Council with the political will to do it. It's like DTU and the disservices they provide through the tax assessment district downtown. Simply not putting ink to paper would rid ourselves of them both. Title: How do you add density...? Post by: booWorld on August 05, 2008, 06:17:27 am quote: I agree on DTU and INCOG land planning services. We would need to be very careful to insist on fairness in how a City Planning Commission would be established and how the commissioners would be elected and/or appointed. Otherwise, you know what would happen. Title: How do you add density...? Post by: carltonplace on August 05, 2008, 07:46:05 am quote: I agree with you. Utilizing regional resources to manage local issues (zoning, economic development) seems to result in the generic "one size fits all" solutions to intricate problems. Title: How do you add density...? Post by: Double A on August 05, 2008, 09:23:02 am quote: I'd like to see a planning commission made up of one representative from each council district, one representative from the Mayor's office, and one representative from the County Commission to mirror the current 11 Commissioner make-up of the TMAPC. I would prefer the Council district representatives be elected by a public vote, but if these positions were to be appointed I hope the nominations for each Council District be made by the Councilor for that district to go before a vote of the full Council for approval, instead of being Mayoral appointments. Futhermore, I would like to see the terms of these appointments to begin and end shortly after Council elections. So new Councilors aren't stuck with appointments made outside of their term. Problem is guys like you, me and CP won't be the ones on the task force to study this issue and make recommendations. We don't have the gold, we don't get to make the rules. The GOB pay to plan rule is strictly enforced in these matters. Title: How do you add density...? Post by: RecycleMichael on August 05, 2008, 10:27:11 am Electing more people by council district is unnecessary. We have a councilor already.
Would these be like councilor-lite(a certain percentage less powerful than a regular councilor)? Councilor wanna-bees? Would the councilor be responsible for the new vice-councilor views and actions? I think having more elections just to have more elected officials sounds like just more government bureacracy. I know, let's decorate their offices with red tape... Title: How do you add density...? Post by: pmcalk on August 05, 2008, 10:44:27 am Actually, if the city decides to move to a City Planning Commission, state law would require that one person be appointed from each district. However, the appointments would still be made by the mayor, not city council, and unlike the current set up, those appointments would not need city council approval. The commissioners would also serve 6 years instead of 3.
Sorry, side topic. Title: How do you add density...? Post by: sauerkraut on August 05, 2008, 04:29:02 pm Apartments mean more crime. I would never buy a home next to Apartments. I also would avoid buying a home next to a school and shopping center.[:O]
Title: How do you add density...? Post by: pmcalk on August 05, 2008, 07:15:59 pm quote: Title 11, Section 47-103 sets the make up of any city planning commission for cities with populations over 200,000. quote: I'll be the first to admit I am no expert, but I do believe this would be the section the city would have to abide by. I don't know the reason why it is required. Title: How do you add density...? Post by: pmcalk on August 05, 2008, 07:25:22 pm So we don't steal Ponderinc's topic, any additional discussion about city planning can go here. (http://"http://www.tulsanow.net/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10916")
Title: How do you add density...? Post by: Double A on August 05, 2008, 08:14:10 pm quote: As a charter city we have the flexibility to tweak this to make it work the way I stated. FYI. Title: How do you add density...? Post by: Double A on August 05, 2008, 08:29:52 pm quote: I think this is on topic, my response to the question of this thread is you let the city do the infill planning for the city, that's the best way to add density. Seems on topic to me. There's a few others who have agreed that INCOG and the TMPAPC should not be doing increased density infill planning and the city should be doing it. Does that make you uncomfortable? You seem to be the only one insinuating this thread has somehow been hijacked. This ain't no PlaniTulsa Partners and Advisors meeting, it's a public forum, you don't control the direction this discussion naturally evolved towards in response to a simple question, nor do I(as much as it hurts my ego to say it). Title: How do you add density...? Post by: PonderInc on August 06, 2008, 03:50:51 pm Allowing Accessory Dwelling Units is a great idea...but again, there's resistance. I think people are simply scared of "change" and uncertainty.
However, I think that density has one major image problem that must be overcome: the associated cars. Think about it: most people's biggest concern with any new development, PUD, or plan for a new apartment/condo boils down to cars: traffic, parking, noise, safety. Here's what you hear: "The parking lot is so big, they want to tear down 4 single-family homes to build it!" "Where are they going to park when someone has a party?" "There are going to be people racing around on our streets!" "We don't want them cutting through our neighborhoods." "It won't be safe for the kids anymore b/c of the additional traffic." "I don't want them parking in front of MY house!" etc, etc, etc. The solution is workable transit. If you eliminate the car/parking problems (by creating workable transit options), then, all of a sudden, density is not a bad thing. (Who's going to complain b/c there are too many people walking around on the sidewalks? ...Or that you're bumping into too many friends at the local coffee shop?) This won't solve the problem of simple prejudice "I don't want those people around here"...but it would certainly solve most of the negative issues associated with density. Now if we can just get some mixed use.... Title: How do you add density...? Post by: USRufnex on August 06, 2008, 08:43:59 pm It's a nice night tonight... okay, a little hot, buy hey...... I'd like to take the bus tonight up Lewis to downtown/east end/brady... or maybe south to the Jenks Riverwalk...
Last bus was a couple of hours ago... and that one I saw had maybe 2-3 people on it. Typical. Title: How do you add density...? Post by: Red Arrow on August 07, 2008, 07:14:30 am quote: Great for downtown. I don't want it in my neighborhood no matter how upscale it would be. We don't have sidewalks and I don't want them. Title: How do you add density...? Post by: carltonplace on August 07, 2008, 07:25:37 am You don't want sidewalks because no one in your neighborhood walks? You prefer that mothers push their strollers in the streets next to traffic? No one in your neighborhood uses a wheel chair? Kids on bikes belong in the streets?
Title: How do you add density...? Post by: Red Arrow on August 07, 2008, 11:50:02 am quote: People walk. They walk their dogs. At least one person I know walks from an adjacent neighborhood. I've seen mothers (and fathers) with strollers. Kids ride in the street. (I thought Tulsa didn't allow bicycles on the sidewalks, we are actually in Bixby.) I don't remember seeing any wheelchairs lately but I have seen some electric scooters with small tires, the size of the ones on the front of a wheelchair. There isn't any reason a wheelchair couldn't be used on the street. I don't have to shovel snow or clear ice from sidewalks in the winter. I also don't have to maintain a ribbon of concrete and probably curbs. (Did that in a previous life, or at least my dad did.) Life isn't quite as hectic out here in suburbia. It's one of the advantages of low density living. There's nothing wrong with the things you want, if that's what you want. All I ask is that some people recognize (not even accept or understand) that not everyone wants to live in a dense place. This ties back to the original post by PonderInc about how to "add density without freaking out the neighborhood". The answer is that if the neighborhood doesn't want density, you can't do it without freaking them out. It doesn't matter how attractive you make it to people that like density. Come out and visit sometime, but drive slow. If you hit one of our kids or mothers with strollers, we'll get you. Title: How do you add density...? Post by: Renaissance on August 07, 2008, 12:11:54 pm Totally understand and appreciate your preference-based argument.
The only real problem is that sprawl, while preferred by many, is not sustainable given new economic realities (price of oil, price of construction). This is why the streets are such a wreck. Someone should do a street mile per capita comparison decade by decade in Tulsa. It would show the increasing cost of supporting the infrastructure of the city. My point, then, is that urban density is not simply an aesthetic preference. It is a fiscal necessity for a thriving metro area that wishes to be able to maintain its infrastructure. So when the question is posed, "how to increase density," it's the equivalent of "how to keep the core infrastructure from becoming decrepit." Title: How do you add density...? Post by: carltonplace on August 07, 2008, 03:57:01 pm Ever read "The Big Sort" by Bill Bishop? He suggests that we place ourselves closer together or further apart based on political affiliations and ideological beliefs: we are creating homogeneous communities where everyone thinks like we do. Its an interesting idea and it has some merit when you compare the types of folks that live in burbs to those that live urban.
Title: How do you add density...? Post by: PonderInc on August 07, 2008, 04:05:29 pm I don't think anyone wants to make every area in the metro region "dense." (Some would argue that Bixby is already far too dense, with all the houses that have been built on some of the most rich, fertile, agricultural land in the region.)
Certainly, my first choice for rebuilding true urban density is downtown where it would be easy to convert parking lots to mixed-use developments. Lofts and apartments over offices, galleries, shops, grocery stores, coffee shops, etc. Offices over bars and restaurants. A fun, vibrant mix, all tumbled together. However, there would be a lot of beneifit to creating dense TODs in other parts of the city. And, of course, there will still be plenty of neighborhoods where everyone gets a house and a lawn of their preferred size/scale. Title: How do you add density...? Post by: Red Arrow on August 07, 2008, 11:54:09 pm Floyd:
Somewhere between rows of brownstones like Commonwealth Ave in Boston (where my cousin lived for a few years) and one farmhouse per square mile is urban/suburban sprawl. We probably all draw the line at a different density. Many areas of BA, Bixby, and Jenks are as dense as Midtown Tulsa and even some areas outside but near the IDL. Many of these areas have local retail for daily needs. Urban activists may not appreciate the shopping strips and bigger centers at major intersections but most of us don't have to travel too far to get what we need. Life is not as sprawling as it was 35 years ago around here. Where is the balance between a chain store and the urban locally owned store? The chain may not have the convenience of the mom and pop store around the corner but the prices will generally be less at the chain. Charm of the area is a nice aesthetic quality but this discussion is presently about economics. Our family had a shopping choice while living in suburban Phila, PA. We bought the odd loaf of bread or quart of milk at the local store but drove a few miles to the Penn Fruit, A&P, or Acme grocery store to get larger quantities. When we moved to near 111th & Memorial we could go about 4 miles to Bud's Thrifty Wise in downtown Bixby or about 10 miles to nearest Warehouse Market or Skaggs in Tulsa. Bud's knew he had a captive market in Bixby and priced his goods accordingly. We mostly contributed our sales tax to Tulsa. High-density living divides the infrastructure among more people. The infrastructure required is more expensive for high density. Sidewalks are required (cost is typically passed on to the individual property owners). Water and sanitary sewer lines need to be larger. Storm sewers are required since a larger portion of the land is not available to absorb rain and snow. Higher capacity is required for electric service. Roads need to be better quality to hold up to increased traffic, private or transit. Public transit will be required for all the reasons discussed in other threads. Both transit and streets end up being subsidized. (Not wrong to do, just a fact.) More local parks and other public recreational areas are required. Larger Police and Fire departments are required. I agree a street mile per capita would be interesting. I don't believe it would be the definitive cost analysis. Everything has gotten expensive and many Americans have less percentage disposable income as they become "rich" and rise into the higher income tax brackets without any increase in spending power. The balance of costs is probably hard to define. To say that the cost of infrastructure is spread among more people is an over simplification. There are some good things about high density. I am thinking mostly of the arts etc. Small towns can rarely support a theater, symphony orchestra, big sports team etc. These are quality of life items that typically only a reasonably dense city and surrounding areas can support. Specialty shops need density to support them. When the family moved here from suburban Phila in 1971 we found we could get anything that we could in Phila, but only the next day from Dallas. Tulsa still has a way to go in some respects. I like living in suburbia but don't want to live in the wilderness. PonderInc: Hopefully most people on the forum don’t want all the metro area in wall-to-wall condos etc. If someone wants that in their lifetime, maybe they should move to New York City or similar city. More power to them. Some of the more vocal members act as though that is their ultimate wish for the area. As I live in north Bixby, I cannot say none of Bixby should have been developed. If it had been done as our addition, we probably wouldn’t have the traffic we do. One house per acre instead of 3 or 4 would cut a LOT of traffic. If people wanted to live densely, they should have bought in Tulsa. I hate to see farmland converted to houses, it never comes back. Farmland and flood plain are easy to build on. Fry ditch may be improved but if we get another 18” or so of rain in the Arkansas watershed like we did in 1986 (1988?) I think a few places near the river will get pretty damp. Then we’ll have to buy them out at some outrageous price. Downtown is a really good place to start rebuilding high density. That’s where it really belongs. Hopefully water, sewer, and electricity are already sufficient. Mixed use is another term that everyone “knows what it is” but no one really defines. It could be pretty much anything next to your apartment. I can think of several things I would consider legitimate but undesirable to live next to, but someone would probably take offense if I listed them. Zoning history in Tulsa almost guarantees something you won’t like. If all you get are quaint mom and pop shops etc, I agree it could be nice for those that like that lifestyle. There is enough open space downtown to do something. Evidently some of those parking acres are sacred. If Tulsa really wanted to, the tax structure could be changed to discourage surface parking in favor of parking garages. A good circulator transit system could make the idea of a few parking garages acceptable to the motoring public. It would also help the parking perception for the BOK center and the proposed ball park. A real (electric/rail) trolley system would encourage TOD downtown. I don’t see any areas of the city getting any meaningful TOD with buses. Not all TOD would necessarily be really dense. Our family lived (before 1971) about 100 yards from a (real) trolley stop in Springfield, PA., on what is now SEPTA route 101. There was about a block of stores with apartments above them. There were also about 6 apartment buildings, 2 story, with 4 units each about a block away. The rest of the immediate area was mostly single-family homes on about ¼ acre lots. There were some duplexes on about the same size lot. The next two outbound stops were similar. There was some open space beyond that on the way to Media, PA., the county seat. Closer to Phila, the housing was typically more dense. I expect the main difference between there and Tulsa is that the trolley was there first. The people that moved in wanted access to the trolley. Title: How do you add density...? Post by: USRufnex on August 08, 2008, 02:22:38 pm Dang RA, you said a mouthful... [^]
I approve of urban density. I want it. I like it...... but most people don't, and that includes the folks who so often argue in favor of it... what's the quote? "Be careful what you wish for?" I am skeptical of TOD because of Tulsa's short commute times... and because most highways and streets in Tulsa are laid out logically..... streets in Boston are highly ineffecient... I don't think TOD is capable of stimulating growth by itself... most METRA stops in Chicago lack much in that catagory, and most L stops don't have a lot of TOD either... or not without additional govt subsidy in the form of TIF districts... Besides, Tulsa is already set up for IOD... "Intersection Oriented Development." The problem I have is with the stupefying areas of Tulsa that don't have sidewalks but should (north of 71st on Lewis)...... and areas that have uninhabited sidewalks -- nothing quite like driving down miles of 71st St and seeing unused sidewalks on both sides of the street/highway.... Was the possibility of sidewalks in areas of urban density actually equated to a crime risk once upon a time in this city? Title: How do you add density...? Post by: chlfan on August 08, 2008, 05:23:24 pm quote: Eat a lot of protein, close doors and windows. Title: How do you add density...? Post by: Red Arrow on August 08, 2008, 09:50:32 pm quote: I spent a lot of time on it. Boy was I sleepy at work today. Although I personally don't want to live in the city, I approve and support density for those who want it. Why should I object until they want to "invade" my neighborhood. "Be careful what you wish for" goes along with Bill Cosby's routine on "Never challenge worse". Just as soon as you declare that things couldn't possibly get worse, they do. TOD: in the case of SEPTA route 101, TOD definately followed the trolley line. That was in the early 1900s. I agree that Tulsa has a lot of IOD. Not necessarily bad if you accept the automobile. Properly chosen light rail routes could take advantage of IOD. Park and ride commuter rail may not cause TOD but could reduce the dependence on automobiles, also a desirable goal. Sidewalks are a tough call. I guess it depends if anything nearby is worth walking to. Title: How do you add density...? Post by: perspicuity85 on August 11, 2008, 03:26:37 pm quote: Many people do have a negative perception of urban life. I was not supposing that everyone that prefers country living has a negative perception of urban life. I was specifically focusing on those who do carry a negative perception of urban life and city-dwelling in general. In the past few decades, many people, including myself, have grown up in secluded suburban neighborhoods with parents teaching them that the city in general was scary and dangerous. From my experience, the choice of living in a low-density area goes way beyond just personal preference-- it has been perceived as a matter of safety. In my opinion these perceptions are often exaggerated and/or completely innaccurate. Next comment: The addition of density doesn't have to change the identity of the community. If a community has a strong sense of identity, there is more likely to exist a demand for the development of businesses that reflect that identity. Of course, there usually has to be something that reflects community identity in the first place, which can really be anything from a park, to a theater, or a statue, whatever the local neighborhood identifies with. It can be especially challenging to add density to isolated low-density neighborhoods, because the isolated conditions can prevent continuity between residential areas and recreation or business. So, without being too confusing, density creates density. It's typically more difficult to add density to younger (post-1950s) neighborhoods because land development styles of the past 50 years have usually been increasingly low-density and auto-dependant. For example, the neighborhoods in the Cherry St. area have a sort of continuity with Cherry St. itself, which features a dense street-front. The continuity between residential areas and recreation, entertainment, or business areas can help create a sense of unique community identity. Unique community identity spurs density, and density spurs unique community identity. Title: How do you add density...? Post by: Red Arrow on August 11, 2008, 11:45:36 pm quote: I re-found a brief history of Cherry Street by Michael Bates. http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A15542 I am sure the local residents wanted local businesses. The development along Cherry St was probably influenced as much by the fact that early on there was nearby service by street car and the fact that part of 15th street was designated as US64 for many years. The houses on 15th were replaced by businesses. I expect that people didn't want their front yard on a major through route and the opportunity existed to sell to a commercial endeavour. Nothing wrong with that. The way the buildings were constructed was a sign of their time. I have to agree, the nostalgic value of Cherry St is better than the car centered strip zones will ever be. Just a little to the north, 11th St was US66. It too developed commercial areas. I would be surprised to see any real business development along the N-S residential streets between 11th and 15th beyond the first or 2nd lot away from 11th or 15th. (Sort of like some of the businesses near Main St. in Jenks.) These areas are more what I had in mind about not wanting to change. The main N-S arterials are of course attractive to businesses. |