The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

A Maria supporter and a democrat, I am now faced with not knowing who to support and vote for in the City Council election.  I'm not inclined to vote for Brune given the way the primary election went and given that some of his supporters have nothing but scorn for transparent local government and would throw neighborhood concerns under the bus if given the choice.  On the other hand, I'm not sure that Blake would choose any better if faced with the choice of nipping away at neighborhoods to attact a "my way or the highway" developer in midtown or preserving neighborhood feel and cohesion even if it means being willing to see a developer abandon his/her midtown project.  If I felt that Blake understood these midtown choices and would act fairly, I would not only vote for him, but would probably encourage other democrats to do so.  Any suggestions? 

I don't like to judge people by their supporters alone, but neither candidate has done a whole lot with midtown development. The closest would be Blake's adaptation of a church building just outside downtown for his office space, and the adaptation of properties at 6th and Peoria.

If you do want to try to extrapolate based on that rather shaky data, then here is what I know:

Every project Blake has done or has planned involves taking an existing building and re-useing it. They have all been local projects and general involve the Navarro's with One Architecture which does plenty adaptation/reuse.

I only know of a couple of Brune supporters and I know they have torn down midtown houses, and also have several projects in limbo or abandoned.

Again, this is nothing Brune has done and he may have no intention of doing so. He lives in an adapted, reused space himself. I personally doubt either one of them has any interest in letting some out-of-state entity pave paradise and put in a parking lot.

It's not the out-of-state entities I'm necessarily worried about.  And my experience in this city has been that a Councilor's supporters definitely influence their decisions, especially those Councilors that don't have a vision for the City to begin with.  I still remember Councilor Baker, for example.

I'm not going to disclose any private details, but from what I know of Blake's supporters, you're safe.

P.S. I was disappointed in Tom Baker, mainly because he wasn't the Tom Baker I was thinking of.
(http://www.therealstevegray.com/wp-content/uploads/504x_tom-baker1.jpg)

From what I've seen and read Mr Ewing has plenty of vision for the city.   You should read his personal campaign blog.

Greetings,

I'm glad to post my thoughts regarding preservation. I'm perfectly fine with going on the record with these statements.

I'm a preservationist. I'm a developer. In midtown, those things have been mutually exclusive for some time, especially in our representatives. I'm excited about working to bridge that gap.

I'm confident that there are creative solutions to some of those problems that will allow developers to do the much appreciated work of infilling and creating the density in midtown and downtown that PlaniTulsa has called for, while also protecting our historic neighborhoods.

Developers and new home builders should not be allowed to destroy historic homes. Also, preservationists should understand that the commercial corridors and the hospitals that they appreciate require some understanding and cooperation. Find me the midtown preservationist who never eats on Cherry St. or who travels to St. Francis Hospital out of protest. They don't exist. We like Cherry St. We like St. Johns and Hillcrest. We just want those things to all play ball with each other. This has been made a black and white issue for so long and all that's done is cause developers to try to break (circumvent) the rules and preservationists to buckle down while pulling out their hair.

The historic neighborhoods are creating the value that the developers are attempting to cash in on. It's not appropriate for a developer to parasite off of the value creators and give minimal or no value back.

I had a conversation about this very thing last night and I came up with an analogy. I don't feel like the government should have the right to tell me what to do with my fists. They're mine. It's not their business, right? I do, however, understand them having a law that prohibits me from using them to hurt someone. The government does have a purpose to protect us from hurting each other, physically or financially.

In midtown's historic neighborhoods, the home values come from a few different places - their location, their history, their architecture, and their relationship to other similarly valuable homes. The midtown homeowners have bought into that value. They then work to maintain that value by keeping up their homes, forming strong home-owners associations, etc. In effect, these homes do a great deal to make midtown developments so financially valuable. From a financial standpoint, it's easy to understand why a developer would want to bulldoze existing structures to make room for new ones. These new structures benefit from their location and relationship to this large number of existing valuable homes. Over time, the neighborhoods lose value as the history is destroyed and replaced by modern day mediocrity.

To take advantage of the value those homes create, but provide no value in return is not acceptable. It's something the government should protect. A developer may be able to purchase that property and call it his own, but if he uses that property to damage the integrity of the very thing that helped make it valuable, an inequity is created that shouldn't be allowed. Simply, it should not be permitted to destroy homes in our historic midtown neighborhoods for the sake of the new development. I will say that I'm not a preservationist to the degree that I want arbitrary boards of opinionated "experts" legislating aesthetics. That's over the top.

Anyway, it is not okay that a home-builder is allowed to demolish a 90 year old home in the middle of Maple Ridge to build multiple new homes on the same lot. It's offensive to the residents of Maple Ridge and our money hungry developers should realize what they're slowly doing to Tulsa's history.

When developers were choosing to destroy our classic downtown theaters one at a time, I'm sure they had some great reasons. Now we'd love to have them back. We need a code that protects our historic neighborhoods while making development easy and accessible.

I think I'm the best candidate District 4 has had regarding preservation, because I'm a preservationist who actually has credibility with the developers. Also, I think I'm the best candidate District 4 has had regarding development, because I understand what's broken at city hall and will work to make development in Tulsa, and especially District 4, a more smooth, appealing and navigable process. I know it doesn't seem likely, but I'm confident that we can have a "win-win" district, despite the unique challenges. They should both support me. I understand development better than my opponent and I will not compromise on my commitment to protect historic homes.

The developers may have to stomach the reality that they can't go into a historic neighborhood and bulldoze homes in the night and build new smaller crappier homes on those lots. Preservationists may have to get comfortable with the idea of a couple of well designed and appropriately placed parking garages around Cherry St.  :)

Please call if you have any questions. 918.991.8252.

And in harmony with the surrounding area. 

The Cherry Street Lofts, or whatever they are calling the mod condos actually do fit a style of architecture I like quite a bit, considering I own an MCM home in Lortondale.   Situating these condos amongst brick apartment buildings and 1920's craftsmen bungalows was a huge black eye to the neighborhood.  It totally did not fit and should have never been allowed.  They could have just as easily done brick buildings with modern touches which wouldn't have looked like such a scar on the neighborhood.

I'm but one voice, but figured it wouldn't hurt to voice it to the future D-4 councilor ;)

The example I'm thinking about is the Arvest Bank on Utica and 15th.  I'm all for this type of development on an arterial; however, the developer insisted on destroying homes and intruding in the historic neighborhood so he could provide additional parking for the building. He could have provided for a garage or some other means of parking closer to the arterial without the intrusion, but it was cheaper for him to destroy and intrude, and the Council went along with him when he insisted that his client would bolt. This cries out for the creative solutions you are espousing, but there was no political will.  Since he and others now own rights to houses in that particular neighborhood, this issue will arise again.

"Joe Momma", I like what you wrote and I support the attitude you bring. The first step in recognizing what the threat is to this area of town is in understanding that there are two different cultures at work. For them to accommodate each other seems almost utopian.

The major player is the suburban culture which has expanded and profited handsomely from cannibalizing the city as it has grown outward. For example, no one much cared when a pond, a farm house and ranch land were gobbled up at 61st & Mingo. That is accepted on all sides as a part of suburban development. It is rooted in 3 or more decades of development. Buy, scrape, build homes, build shopping centers then upgrade arterials. It only worked because of the extreme demand created by the baby boomers after WWII.

The other culture is interurban. It eschewed that mainstream development in favor of following the path of development laid out in the city in the time period previous to and shortly after WWII. I am part of this culture. I was selling real estate in the mid-seventies and chose to live this lifestyle rather than the chaotic existence that sprawl spawned. It cost me more but I have never regretted it. We love the architecture, the design, the topography, the convenience and the robust construction values this area offers. However, the entire block that I live on would have been destroyed had Betsy Horowitz not stood up and made it clear that our cultural values were equal to those of suburbans. We also have profited from our commitment to these neighborhoods.

The suburban developer oriented culture is dominant because of its relationship to the city in providing it revenue from jobs, retail development and a broader ad valorem base. Simply put they have the ear of local government. The moderns that invaded Cherry Street are proof of that. It was the wrong plan for that area and could only have been done at that time, with bully attitudes. The first thing developers do is deem a property a POS (piece of schist) that has been poorly maintained. Often its because they owned the property and allowed it to deteriorate. Then they offer themselves as saviors, ney, revenue enhancers for the city and the neighborhood. Many of those home and apartments were the fabric of Cherry Street as they housed the very customers and employees of restaurants and retailers in the area. To use an analogy, they married a country girl because they loved her quaint attitudes on life and morality, then proceeded to change her into a city girl, then dropped her. Now no one's much happy with the result.

This cross-culturalization is happening all over Maple Ridge and will likely invade the other gentrifying hoods North and West of downtown if not acknowledged. Hardly any homes in this area had huge stucco walls around a small compound of homes when I moved in here 30 years ago.  Its just not what an interurban culture would consider as enticing. I often see them now. Traditionally these inter urban areas are diverse in age, religion, tastes and entertainments........yet, these walls and compounds are coveted in the suburban culture as a way to elevate value by preserving a common defense and exhorting conformist attitudes. Conformity means value enhancement in the suburbs, in the inner city it means boredom.

I think you are smart enough to see this process and popular enough with both cultures to get elected. How would you propose to change the existing governmental framework that has allowed the dominant culture to put a bikini on the country girl?

Where would they have put a parking garage.. and what parking garage is smaller than the Arvest lot?

Ken Brune's campaign manager is Jim Burdge and unfortunately that is all I need to know.  Period.

If that wasn't enough, Ken Brune (as an attorney) has on numerous occasions represented developers that care nothing about midtown preservation. 

As my mamma said and still says, "be careful who you associate yourself with because, whether you like or not, you will be judged by the company you keep."

Needless to say, my support will be going to Mr. Blake "JoMamma" Ewing.

Underneath the bank, as they did on 21st and Utica. 

Blake, I agree with your philosophy (and that of Mr. John Stuart Mill).  Thanks for expressing your views on the historic preservation issue.  These are difficult issues to address case-by-case, which is why it was so critical to finish PlanIt Tulsa and why making concrete zoning changes to provide notice to developers is crucial. 

As a registered Democrat, I will be throwing my vote toward Blake's campaign as well.

I prefer candidates who post on TulsaNow. If Perry or Romney were a regular contributor to our forum, I would probably consider voting for them as well.

Umm...

(http://www.scottmgrizzle.com/2100utica.png)

I believe you might consider it.  I believe the probability of you actually voting for either of them is near zero.
 
 :D

You are probably right. But my vote for President of the United States doesn't mean much in the electoral college system while living in Oklahoma. Heck, I will do it. If Perry or Romney post on TulsaNow, They will get my vote for President of the United States (conditionally on them being on the ballot).

    I think we need to have a process whereby many of these issues are given a good chance to be resolved one way or another.  I am very much a fan of finding creative solutions for compromise in order to create, win win situations.

I went to some preservationist meetings and they were arguing for no change or infill what so ever.  I just couldn't see that that was ever going to be able to fly in the area they were talking about.  My thought was that if you allowed new development, but have it be context sensitive, and there are different levels of that to be negotiated, you would have better success of getting something positive done.  As is, both sides aren't budging, and both sides are losing imo.  

The preservationists I had met with wouldn't even allow homes that already did not fit the over all characte of the neighborhood (and these were not at all historic homes so they werent talking historic preservation but preserving everything as it is right now forever and always) to be "bulldozed" and then allow a new one that would better fit the character of the neighborhood to be built.  Now, you can argue against that change for many valid reasons, BUT your not at all likely to get enought other people to back you in that result and thus, your going to get just the opposite.  Not only will you see some plain, brick home from the 70s with a garage up front,,, in other words, a home that was put into the neighborhood counter to its over all character and forms,,, torn down, you also see older, more historic homes being torn down, and having even more, newer homes that don't fit the prevailing character put in.  

No compromise, no trying to find an acceptable middle ground, you get a status quoe that is basically doing absolutely nothing.

I think it would be great to set up a process to entreat each neighborhood, and or corridor, to choose a level of "Context Sensitive" redevelopment and infill.  This should also go along with an educational program so that people can see various options, the different levels and types of choices that are available out there.

Not all areas have to be the same, nor should we imo want them to be.  A city can add even more character, uniquiness, flexibility and opportunity by having different areas that evolve to have have A. a mixture  B. various degrees of context sensitive, and C. strict historic preservation.


I like the mixture on the north side of Cherry Street.  I like that they have kept the character on the South side of the street.  I think it was a nice compromise.  A compromise that did not have to happen but has been a kind of gentlemans agreement with the various developers and the neighborhoods.  Not everyone is happy, BUT it could have been a lot worse with most being unhappy.  The highway to the north acts as a barrier and constraint to the new types of development.  Imagine if they had gone ahead and also done that new type of development to the south, as they very well could have, with no good definable line.   Developers got some, the neighborhoods got some.  Too bad it wasn't a formal agreement of some sort that either did or did not allow this situation.

I understand the preservationists desires, but I believe the majority of the average people, the average property owners, and they are the ones who are going to be casting votes to make any situation become "law", are not going to be strict preservationists, in all situations.  Each area is going to have to find its own way and if its not the exact way some "no compromise under any situation" preservationist wants, or some "no compromise developer or property owner" wants.  Nothing is going to happen and your going to keep leaving things up to chance.  

I believe you will get a whole lot more by coming at the situation with creative compromise in mind.

One other level removed from the "mixture" level of compromise is... "General Form", which pays attention to general scale/heights-width and wall planes.     The other day I saw a contemporary styled home in a historic neighborhood that was a good example of this. (I will go and get pictures)  It was the same scale and had the same "wall planes" (size of blank wall space and number of fenestrations/window dormers, set backs, etc.) window numbers and sizes as some of the old homes near it.  Had the same pitched roof.  Had the attached drive under porch with a room over it off to the side like you see on the older homes with the garage out back. Even had the graciously large roof overhang that you see on some of the old mansions.  But it was distinctively modern in execution.  It was general in that you could have taken say either Italianate details and placed them around the windows and doors and made it Italian, or say Colonial details and made it Colonial.  The general form was there, but the look was contemporary versus another style.   (contrast this home to the one off of lewis that has the large tower, the two garages out front, large swaths of flat wall with no windows on them, etc.)   The "General Form" allows for a lot more creativity than "Strict Form", but not the total free for all that we have now.  And again, there are still even more levels in between these that can be chosen from.      

There is understructure parking for the bank.  The rest of the complex?  That.

Artist, its a matter of loss of trust by both sides, but particularly by people who have watched the city cave in to builders/developers who have the ear of the powerful. I watch the zoning board meetings and try to keep up with changes in the area, but without the vigilance of "zealous preservationists" we are at the mercy of people whose business it is to exploit our resources and know all the clever ways to ignore our interests.  It just gets to the point where people become entrenched in their views as long as there are abuses.

Your view of being thankful that there was some sort of gentleman's agreement to protect the South side of Cherry Street is kind of like being thankful the abusive husband didn't beat his wife over the weekend. If they had started down that path it would have been all out war between the neighborhoods, preservationists and developers. Left to their own devices, developers would have destroyed the very fabric of that eclectic neighborhood that attracted them in the first place. These areas are not virgins being kept intact till suburbans and developers are ready to make use of them. They are cultural lifestyles that shouldn't have to fear from another culture bent on changing them to fit their desires...just because a developer sees a greater profit in serving prospective buyers who tire of the chaos and inconvenience of their areas and see no problem in transferring them to a different part of town.

Your idea for different levels of protection is not a bad idea, though getting an acceptable level of neighborhood involvement would be difficult. I wonder though, how some of the areas in the suburbs would feel if we proposed a three tier level of protection for them? Do you think we could force them scrape off some POS snout houses to allow <2000sq ft. craftsman style frame homes with detached garages and street parking in the same walled off communities with their McMansions? As long as they used similar setbacks, colors and scale? I doubt that.

Its not just old houses near quaint or quirky shopping areas either. Conan knows that areas like his where a specific style is dominant (mid century modern) may be judged to be POS flat tops that have more value in the land and thus can justifiably be re-developed to fit more current styles. Surprisingly, this is why we don't have some of our more notable historic structures from the past ie. Cosden Mansion, Locust Park, etc. The land became more valuable than the history.

Completely agree, Aqua Man. Brilliant post.

Blake - do you have a stance/opinion on the Cherry Street parking plan proposal?  It will turn the south side of 15th into angled parking and keep the north side parallel while reducing the street to 2 lanes.  I personally do not like angled parking but could live with it on one side.  I really think the city needs to do a streetscape along 15th between Peoria and Utica.  Wider sidewalks, pavers and street trees similar to what they did in Brookside but better. 

SXSW,

I attended the Cherry St. Parking meeting where Mark Brown pitched the new plan. Overall, I think it's okay. It's a short term band-aid on what will likely be a growing problem along Cherry Street. If I recall, it will bring 67 new spaces (don't hold me to that, it's just my shaky memory).

Ultimately, we're going to have to seek out some real parking solutions for the area, which will likely include some structured parking, a change in the parking requirement for new construction or use change, and possibly even a Cherry Street loop trolley or something like it. See where I'm going? We need to start thinking with some creativity as it relates to this issue. The commercial corridor is too important. The neighborhoods are too important.

If we don't do something like that, new businesses will continue to have to scrape and pave and Cherry Street's growth will frustrate its neighbors even more. It's already a growing safety issue, as it's a notable pedestrian area with poor cross-walks and fast moving cars. So, to definitively answer the question: We can do better than the angled parking plan, but it may be a good transition move to provide some much needed short-term relief.

B

Man, you know how to get my vote. ;D The Aquaman thrives on praise.

A very level-headed response, thank you.  The next D4 councilor will hopefully put a larger emphasis on making walkable areas like Cherry Street, Blue Dome, Brady, and the Pearl even better and more pedestrian and bike-friendly.  D4 is the most urban part of Tulsa and as such should be the first to really enhance its assets with innovative streetscape projects.  It also promotes connectivity between the areas i.e. streetscape improvements on Peoria between 15th and 6th connecting Cherry Street to the Pearl; 6th between Delaware and Denver connecting TU to the Pearl and to downtown; Boulder between 21st and I-244 connecting the riverfront with downtown and Brady; and within downtown itself along main corridors like Cincinnati/Detroit, Denver, 3rd/4th, 1st/2nd, etc.  The Brady will soon be seeing streetscaping projects thanks to the GKFF and it would be great to see that extended into other parts of downtown with better sidewalks, street trees and bike lanes.

Couldn't agree more. How cool would that be, right?

We're going to get there. Tulsa has great bones, she just needs a new dress and some make-up.

    Would rather see any city funds go to more regular transit instead of parking garages.   I imagine that in a few areas, new businesses/residential would rather spend some amount to help with better transit rather than spend more on "rape and scrape" or added property for parking and parking.  
 
  I bet that if you were to see wheeled "trolleys" or small busses (The ones we rode in NYC were much smaller than those lumbering behemoths we use here, keep them small and friendly for short routes) every 5-10 minutes in the Brookside, Cherry Street and downtown areas, many many more people would be far more inclined to use them.  City pays a little, the "areas" perhaps pay a little, the riders pay a little.  If developers see that transit is becoming viable, it can free them up from having to put in parking.  That adds density.  And so on.  

  When I go to other cities that have good transit, I use it.  I know its still kind of alien and frightening to Tulsans lol, but if we were to ever put in some transit on even some limited routes, that had VERY regular trips with a MAX wait time of 15 minutes, (preferably between 5 and 10) you would get more people using it.  

Small busses or wheeled trolleys, whichever is cheaper.
Mid-town/Downtown routes only and clearly marked as such   (Brookside,Cherry Street, Deco District, Arena, Blue Dome,Brady Arts, Downtown Parking).
Have the busses have a distinctive look from regular city busses.
Have signs at the bus stops that say "average wait 7 minutes" or something like that, and again note where the vehicle goes on a map.
Have maps posted in the busses.
Have a promotion/education/awareness campaign showing the route, where to park and where the stops are, etc.

Brainstorming for different funding options....

Have the city redirect some funds from regular busses that go in these areas to help with the cost.
Instead of the city paying a few million for new parking garages, go ahead and use those funds to get this going.
You could probably get a little from advertising on these special routes.
If you park and pay in a city parking lot, get a ticket and get on the bus free, if not pay a small amount to ride the bus.
New businesses/construction in these areas can have minimum parking requirements waived if they pay into this transit.  
If you add new parking in these areas, add a parking space tax to help this transit. (helps fund the transit, helps deter             the "automatic" reaction to add new parking)
Redirect some portion of an existing fee or tax to help.  (example; there are easily 3-400 new homes that have, and will be in
   the near future, going in along 5th street in downtown.  The city didn't spend any on building one more street, or widening
   one new intersection, or have yet another street to pay for repairs on and maintenance, snow removal/salting, etc.)  
   Take a portion of the funding that would usually go to those things and add it to downtown/mid-town transit.  Just as if       you were to have to spend more to pay for new roads for new suburban homes/businesses, in these infill areas where your adding new homes and businesses, redirect a portion of that to transit.  

I am sure we can think of a dozen more ways to get this to happen.


I would be all for letting the free market get this to happen if I thought it would.  But what I see is new development, realizing that there isn't any transit in these areas, and trying to figure out ways to get more parking, and spending their money, and or the cities money, to get it.
 
    

Did I miss something Artist? Don't people who live outside the Cherry Street area...drive their vehicles to get here? If so, they need parking. The current setup, even with the stop gap angled solution, still doesn't provide for any growth. There has to be some structured parking that doesn't come at the expense of the convenience of the pedestrian.

Unless you are saying that folks outside the area would park downtown, Brady, Riverside, etc. and take transit to the area. Our past experience with any of those loop type systems has not been good. Urban Trolley tried it, Bill White tried it and they both found it hard to attract support from the entertainment districts or the passengers. Maybe now is different or maybe there are better combinations of vehicles and funding.

My son just returned from Spain where the pedestrian is king, plaza's rule and mass transit is mostly in the form of trains. The photos were very alluring with all the restaurants and clubs having outside service. I know our winters would seriously dent that concept but still, the concentration of these old areas should follow that formula. Large medians, small lanes, large sidewalk service areas and plazas. And yes, small, distinctive people movers.

I'm afraid that right now, Cherry Street is still viewed by many as the arterial to get to the grocery store, drug store and gas stations. Make it easier to use 13th and 14th to do that while you make the change to structured parking and a pedestrian friendly boulevard.

When you're visualizing this, try to remember that the Utica corridor of Hospitals and clinics is a huge consumer driver in this area. By dedicating a people mover vehicle to serving the visitors and employees of these centers you could really decrease traffic and increase productivity for everyone. I could see a lane dedicated to an electric powered vehicle that had the power to over-ride traffic signals, over-ride no left turn intersections and operate on a frequent basis on a short loop. I bet you would have better co-operation and support with that community than with restaurants and bars.

If we had good transit, then Downtown, Brookside, Cherry Street, Blue Dome, Brady Arts, suddenly become one.  Your mental map and thoughts change.  I can park in one place and easily get to all of them and think of spending the day or the evening going from place to place via transit.  Not as it is now, I park along Cherry Street, see a few things there, then drive to the Deco District, see a few things there, then drive to the Brady District or Blue Dome. In one evening out I can easily,,,Go to one place and find a place to park then do a little shopping, then go back to the car, drive to and park in another place. to go to an event or concert, go back to the car, drive to and park at another place to eat dinner, go back to the car, drive to and park at another place to go to a club.  With good transit, I and my friends, could park where we wanted ONCE.  I could park by the ballpark, do a couple things there perhaps, and then go to a gallery crawl on Brookside or Cherry Street via transit, and so on.  


As for Urban Trolley and Bill White, what were the wait times between rides?  You need to see one of those trolleys or busses go by every 5-10 minutes. If you get over 15 minutes between rides, worthless. People need to see those busses or trolleys every few minutes for reassurance and visibility to have that "hey, lookie there, I have seen this go by lots of times now, lets try it".  It has to be part of a promotional/educational campaign as well.  You have to have routes posted.  I have seen those trolleys on occasion, but when I looked at the stops could never find any info.  Was this just for a special occasion?  Where did the trolley go?  What were the times between stops?  When did the trolley stop running? Does it run every day? Where are the other stops? How much does it cost?  

We may not be completely ready for this right now.  But, I think good transit could actually promote downtown/mid-town growth, But, I also wouldn't want to miss any opportunities to lessen new parking.  But, its kind of a tricky toss up at this juncture, wait and watch as these areas add more parking infrastructure, or go ahead and start building up good transit.  But, perhaps we should go ahead and make the plans and lay the funding groundwork to get some of it started.

I was in New Orleans last weekend and I always marvel at their beautiful old homes in mile after mile of neighborhood that has stayed relatively static with all of the activity on the corridor (Like Magazine, or St Charles). Their electric street cars are always overflowing with passengers.

In New Orleans, they appreciate that their housing stock makes them unique, I can't imagine someone tearing down a house in the quarter or in the garden district to replace it with a mcmansion. If a house has to be replaced, its replaced with a similar style but usually the old house is meticulously restored and tear downs (outside of the inundated areas) are rare.

I noticed one 1920's Craftsman bungalow that was in between two victorian shotguns on Esplanade and it stuck out like a sore thumb, just like the snout houses do in Brookside among the bungalows.

There is nothing wrong with Tulsans wanting to preserve the things that make us Tulsa.

That urban trolley thing that was tried by some private businessman a few years ago was worthless to me. No schedule. No website to tell me what was going on. I'm not planning my night on taking a trolley not knowing when it'd be coming, or whether the owner had decided to go out of town.

And as for pedestrian activity, our winters shouldn't be enough to discourage walking. Other than a few snowy/icy days, winters are fairly pleasant here. When it's 30-40 degrees, put your coat, gloves and hat on and you're fine. People in much colder climates walk much more than we do (Madison, Wisconsin; Minneapolis, etc).

The summers are what make walking unpleasant. Especially across our vast parking lots. I get all sweaty walking across a sea of asphalt even when it's only 80 degrees out. When it's 105 (and when it's 105 in Tulsa, it's 110 or more downtown), that's when you're discouraged from walking. The lack of shade is harsh on pedestrians.

Yes, Artist, frequency and visibility are the key to any of these dedicated routes. If I remember correctly the biggest hindrance to increasing those things was vehicle design. It costs a lot of money to hire drivers and pump diesel into 8-12mpg vehicles to make frequent stops 18 hours a day. Seriously, I looked at doing it and was astounded at how fast the expenses mounted up. Insurance is also pretty stout. A municipality can self insure or spread the cost among its routes, but an independent cannot. However, the municipal transit systems, imo, are not flexible and creative enough to fill this niche alone.

And that is the other major obstacle. Tulsa Transit is marginally profitable if at all. They no doubt would want to provide the service, if profitable, but if they can't they wouldn't relish another operation doing so. Especially if it involves decreasing their advertising revenues. And it will.
 
The successful product would be quiet, non polluting, electric drive people movers (not trolleys or buses) that were partially funded with grants and underwritten by PSO and the major players in the area (hospitals, clinics, entertainment associations and schools).  A consortium of operators with experience in, or knowledge of, the consumers for these area could be formed (I bet Blake knows some). We have to look at newer transportation technology to match the demographics of these areas.

I for one, would love to be involved with a project like that.

edit: What if Tulsa University, in association with OSU, TCC and the pre-engineering students at Memorial HS, designed the vehicle used in the loops  that SXSW detailed? I'm betting it could also be manufactured in Tulsa as well. Talk about a project with synergism. A competition for the best design, then its local execution would be great fun and a job creation process.

I think these ideas are interesting, but all rely on large numbers of people driving somewhere, parking and then using a trolley/transportation system for an evening out.  While some percentage of park and ride participation is inevitable and will always be needed in this part of the country, to really work you need a significant percentage of riders who live along the routes that simply catch a ride to a different part of town.  That requires a density level we are no where close to achieving.

The dreams of trolleys also ignore that for many of us, a night out really only includes dinner and maybe drinks/dessert in one area.  If I go to Cherry St., I'm probably not going to also hit Brookside and Blue Dome that same night.  To drive past Cherry St. to downtown in order to park and ride a trolley back to Cherry St. is simply not going to happen.

I get Artist's point that if we keep making the use of cars convenient we'll never get sufficient mass transit demand and use to support a viable system.  I agree.  However, you simply can't wish away a lifetime of conditioning that creates an expectation of driving to and parking at the front door of our destination.  And you can't expect businesses to locate in an area with inadequate parking to serve its customers. 

I think Blake's point is a good one that recognizes our current reality and nudges us towards something better, even if not the ultimate goal.

I found this from an article in today's TW interesting. If we had regular service connecting Brookside, Cherry Street and downtown that extended into the evenings, at least on weekends, I'd be more likely to ride.


The article also mentions standardizing arrival and departure times systemwide to every 30 or 60 minutes. Obviously these are minor changes, but with the current climate it may be the best we can do. At least you don't have to check the schedule constantly like you do now, with service at strange intervals like every 80 minutes.

Dtowner, I suspect its not so much the density of residences throughout the city as it is the density of population at certain time periods in certain areas. For instance, TU, TCC, OSU medical, Shusterman and OSU Tulsa all have high density at particular times. Downtown density swells during the day and then again on evenings and weekends. The hospitals undoubtedly increase the density of the area around 15th & Utica with identifiable shift peaks and seasons. Each of those areas have their own parking too. Actually, the density of the surrounding residential areas shrink daily as the flow of workers and consumers head to these areas.

The density models are also based on the types of routes, the types of high cost vehicles used and the limitations of municipal system operators. IOW, it takes general high density to be successful with their models.

But, I agree that we are behaviorally conditioned to the status quo of cars parked next to destinations. Economically this may be our window to consider another concept in an urban setting. Once the economy rebounds no one thinks it necessary to change. More cars, more parking, more parking lots.

OK, I'll vote for Blake this year.  It's only for one year.

If, however, he manages to bring U2 or even Arcade Fire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qBLnWPKcVI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qBLnWPKcVI)to the BOK Center, I'll be his for the foreseeable future.

I got disenfranchised with bus service years ago. My favorite was when the bus pulled into a Warehouse market parking lot, turned the engine off, and sat there for 15 minutes because "it wasn't time to be at the next stop"

Ha! The bus to the Cherokee Business Park stops before it gets to Whirlpool, Verizon, CapOne, Bama, ONG etc for 15 minute break before it lets off any passengers at their workplace. Shouldn't it stop for break after it gets everyone to work?

Their schedules are based on having to stop for rider pickup at designated locations. When there are no riders to pick up it makes the bus early to the next stop where riders have not arrived yet. So, they have to stop infrequently and get back on schedule. The 15th street bus that I used to take would stop at around Boston and wait when he was too early. If it was a lazy driver and he didn't, then I would miss the bus and have to walk. That unreliability meant I seldom took the bus to a job that was only a mile away.

The bureaucratic restraints that municipal systems face are tremendous. I would like to see them cede out smaller niche routes to independents who could better identify and serve routes like the entertainment districts.

I like your thinking!  They currently operate about 100 vehicles with an expenditure of about $150,000 per vehicle per year ($15 million in yearly expenses).  Each rider costs $22.16 (2009 numbers, higher now).  Each rider reports an average of 30 minutes waiting at or walking to their stop each way.  With transfer and transit times, you can safely estimate that each rider devotes one to two hours a day (round trip) to their commute.

With a round trip expense cost of $44 per rider not calculating cost tied up in loss of productivity you can make some simple generalizations.

Tulsa Transit could pay riders $10,000 every year to take a cab to work, save several million dollars (and stimulate the private transport industry).
They could pay private van services $8 per rider per trip and save $10 Million in operating expenses (and stimulate the private transport industry).
Or Tulsa Transit could purchase each of their riders an $42,000 hybrid automobile every four years! (and GO GREEN).
Or they could establish a combination of these alternatives.

I am looking for someone in District 4 to help us with the Owen Park neighborhood.  We need someone to promote this neighborhood.  

I am glad to read Blake Ewing is the kind of preservationist I like to see around these parts.  I don't want an attorney who represents developers.  No more fat cats for me.  I am a Democrat, but I'm willing and eager to vote for Blake if he helps us rejuvenate Owen Park, in a historical way.  My neighbors and I would like to make this neighborhood one that creative, progressive people will live in. It would really be convenient for people that own businesses in downtown or in the Brady District.

I don't see why we can't be another Maple Ridge eventually.  Right now it's inexpensive to buy in Owen Park.  This is the first planned addition to Tulsa, as far as Tulsa history goes (if my sources are correct).

We need new blood over here in Owen Park, but we need people who will realize the historic importance of this neighborhood, since it's on the National Historic Register.  We don't want "tear downs" or people building modern lofts in this neighborhood.  We'd like to see "time period correct" homes in Owen Park.  In the Park, that encompasses many styles of architecture from about 1910 to about 1935.

I am excited to read Blake's post on here, and will vote for him.  I'm afraid Brune is the "same old, same old" type of politician.

Gas, I would gladly take that money. Check is fine.

One of their constraints is in the type vehicles they are required to put on the streets. I am told that grant money specifically requires certain configurations and since most muni's are already strapped for money they are forced to field buses that don't necessarily make sense. Perhaps the grants are designed by bus manufacturers and for larger cities? Or perhaps the requirements come from claims sensitive insurance companies.

Anyway, it seems this is an industry that begs privatization. As long as their license requires that some routes be "incentivised" to run through low/no profit areas to facilitate low income transportation. I'm sure lots of cab companies are capable operators.

Most of it originally was private.  In many cases, cities saw the streetcar companies as cash cows.  Unfortunately, the cities milked them dry.

Yeah, one of those lobbyists is probably one of our local bus manufacturers. A well funded private operator could avoid that whole process by smartly defining what vehicle would best accomplish our specific needs then finding a mfr. who either already builds it or could build it.

This idea that only a muni can operate transit to effectively serve the needs of all the people is unproven at best. My suspicion is that just like the demise of passenger railroads in the 50's, the growth of muni systems is probably more due to the lobbying of manufacturers (GM) to shift to cheaper cost  bus type vehicles and away from cheaper operating systems like electric trolleys.

Now we need to view transit in terms of the increasing needs of a growing inner city and combustion engine buses aren't as preferable.  Hybrids of propulsion with different designed bodies.

Sorry for the drift. No real dilemma for District 4 in my mind.

A private operator could not operate as an affordable alternative to passengers without the subsidies which already go to Metro Transit.  If we could reduce Metro Transit to nothing but an administration of a few people managing private contractors and funnel the vehicle operational costs to private companies, it's all feasible.

+1

Stay tuned for the "private companies are evil" crowd.

Like who?  Who says "private companies are evil"?

If I understand you correctly, then I disagree.

You see the existing system and opt to strangle its administration and have it only manage private contractors to be competitive. I see the system being subsidized because it doesn't serve the function it was designed for. Remember, this function was brought under government operation because individual companies were perceived to be in-efficient and not serving the growth of the city. Ironically, the subsidies received now are because the system is not an effective one and is not serving the needs of the city. Hence, the MTTA should be eliminated altogether in my estimation. Totally privatized. It will quickly become profitable.

I see contracting as useless in this case as it enables an in-eficient system which will only grow back in time. The only bureaucracy remaining should be regulatory in nature to make sure that operators are not putting passengers at risk or abusing the public by ignoring certain demographics. Like cab companies with the addition that this regulatory body could administer the incentivizing of the un-profitable markets.

I know that sounds draconian, libertarian, or whatever the current labels are, but it is really common sense. In this case business can and should determine routes, vehicles, timing and rates with a regulatory body protecting the interests of the public.

edit: let me add this. There is no provision in the state or federal constitutions that cheap, accessible, public transportation be provided by the government. I find it odd that people seem to think this is a vital function of any modern city government. Mass transit is important but not if operated to the city's detriment.

  Hey, lets do it.  I am aaall for the private sector doing mass transit.  But you have to be serious about that.  No more "muni" or government funding of roads or highways so that private "rail" can compete fairly with private "road".   Also, zone to allow good density and infill or sprawl, let the market decide.  No minimum parking requirements, anywhere.  No city building of parking garages. No banning of high density and or mixed use developments, anywhere. etc.  Open up an level the playing field so that mass transit can fairly compete with the auto, and let what happens happen.  

Its costing them about 100 million dollars a mile to widen that highway behind my house.  It would cost less than one miles worth to do rail, stations and all, all the way from Downtown Broken Arrow to Downtown Tulsa.  And if people were paying for the roads, and for maintaining the roads, and for expanding the roads, that go in front of their houses/businesses/work and were allowed to build more density,,, I bet you would see more density and thus when you got off the rail, or bus, you could actually walk places.   And developers would realize that, hey people are walking, and rather than me build my place, the next development down, past a sea of parking, people will more likely go to it if its the next building down, right next to the building before it.  And so on. 

Someone drowned Aquaman and put this obvious impostor in his place!  

His solution is 100% reason based without bubblegum.  

Aquaman,
Ignore any labels. let the common sense flow, and feel free to cry, cry cry!  Let it out.  You are on the path to smartyness.

The key factor to me in any discussion of these issues is the answer to "who, what, why, when and where". In this case the answers are pretty clear. It started out with the public interest at heart but got corrupted by growing bureaucracy, poor leadership (always a good whipping boy) and self serving industrial behemoths. Artist, if our leaders cannot accurately determine the answer to those questions in regard to the subsidizing of competitors in the transit industry, then no amount of outcry from the public is going to balance the field.

Can you imagine a candidate for Mayor or Counselor running on a platform of eliminating MTTA?! We can't even get our trash pick up system modernized! Neither Blake nor a majority of city leaders could make it happen. Lots of jobs and careers would be put at risk.

Frankly, I think this issue is a microcosm of a lot of state and local lunacies. We have to go back and re-examine why we are doing things the way we do and see if they still make sense in this environment.

I don't know what to say to you Gas, but I'm happy if it makes you happy....

edit: My insights came from actually depending on the bus to get to work about a mile away. It failed me in that simple trip along a straight line. My boss simply could not understand why I couldn't come in at the same time each day. To do that I would have to have caught the earlier bus which would put me to work an hour early. Even to save gasoline, and wear/tear I couldn't make it work. The walk along Cherry Street was too dangerous. Narrow sidewalks too close to the street and crazy drivers with coffee, McMuffins and cell phones who don't even see pedestrians much less care whether they have a Walk Light or not. 108 degrees!! Enough said.

My point is this- Make every counselor, the Mayor and his staff, the heads of Authorities and Boards ALL TAKE MTTA TO WORK AND MEETINGS EVERY DAY FOR A MONTH!! If that doesn't change outlooks on the system, nothing will.

Unfortunately, without subsidy of the system, it's no longer affordable to passengers if you turn it over to private enterprise.  They necessarily would have to charge a higher fare rate in order to pay their bills and turn a modest profit.  Tulsa Transit would have gone broke years back if not for subsidy.  The reason there would still be a shell administration or oversight board in what I originally proposed is someone needs to keep an eye on the subsidy funds going to private contractors.  It's not about dismantling a public system out of spite and strangling it, if that's what you think I was saying.  

Tulsa Transit's primary customers are people who either cannot afford other transportation options, ride the bus to save on fuel expenses, or cannot drive for one reason or another.  I'm willing to bet that the majority of TT's current ridership is lower income, therefore, they have less money to get around.  If you changed the fare structure in such a way that someone's usual fare of $1.60 now becomes $8.00, you've just priced the service out of reach of the largest ridership.  Either that or created a new hardship for them.  The primary (if unstated) purpose of Tulsa Transit is to provide affordable transportation to the citizens of Tulsa.  Of course there are side benefits of less emissions with shared transit and less congestion.

It's a matter of simple economics.  Vehicle costs, maintenance, insurance, fuel, driver's salary and benefits, a storage and maintenance facility with all it's attendant costs, administrative staff, mechanics, etc. add up.  You could use smaller vehicles on shorter routes with lower acquisition cost, but then you cannot split the fares enough ways to keep it affordable and allow for a profit.

If upwardly mobile hipsters want a more efficient type of shared transit, are willing to pay for it, and it's a viable business model, then someone will start such a company and it really won't compete with Tulsa Transit because there's different target groups.

A good point Chicken Little made one time when we were discussing rail is that every form of transportation is subsidized in one way or another.  Whether I ride my bike, row a racing shell, drive my car, fly in an airplane, pilot my own airplane, ride a train, bus, or board a cruise ship, it's all taking advantage of some sort of government subsidy or investment.

  What I am trying to point out is the hypocracy of the "get government out of the transportation business" "let the free market decide" crowd.  They only mean that when its not something THEY want the government to do for them or spend money on. When its something the other guy wants, then its "government intrusion and waste".    

  As another for instance, our "built environment" choices can't be detatched from our "transportation environment" choices, or lack there of.   I still roll my eyes when I think about how that one developer on Cherry Street had to get an "exception" to the minimum parking requirements.  You cant have mass transit friendly density if you have rules against it.  And then they have the gall to say, let the free market decide!?  Really?  Then why are you forcing minimum parking requirements?  In a supposedly pedestrian friendly area ta boot. lol     Then think of all the effort it took to get Form Based Codes "transit friendly codes" in the Pearl District.  One little, tiny, itsy bitsy area of the city.   They are labeling it an "experimental" area.  Its as if they are acting like its some straaaange alien thing that may rape our women and eat our children.  Oh, let the free market decide they say. I cry BS to that statement.  Unless they are willing to change the rules to allow it to happen.  So in this instance, not even talking about financing here.

So if you truly believe that there should be fair and free competition, then you should be with those people fighting for a level playing field.  If not, then your going to have to realize that your gonna have to share some of the "tax dollars" for types of transportation you don't want or think is affordable or cost effective,,, and I too am going to have to share some tax dollars for the type of transportation you want, and that I dont think is affordable or cost effective.   

It's not a problem with the subsidy Conan, it's a problem as to how it is used.  If that same subsidy can be used to fund private industry solutions more efficiently and with a lower cost to the public than WHOO HOO!

Sure all transportation is "subsidized" to some extent through the expense of infrastructure, but that's no reason to dismiss the waste.  You can rent a Limo for $45 an hour, take 6  commuters to work and back, and stock the wet-bar with a dirty-thirty of Natty Light for less than it is costing to transport them on the bus.  They would also get to work faster!

I'm not suggesting we do that, but it does point out the degree of waste associated with the existing system.

I made some edits to my posts above. One of them was that there is no city, state, or federal constitutional provisions for cheap, public transportation. It simply isn't a basic necessity for a good life. Emphasize that last sentence. Its not cold hearted, its that those elderly and low income riders are being shuttled to businesses and services that could have been available in their own areas.

The result of subsidizing a city wide transportation system, especially when it fails operationally to do its function, is that development occurs artificially. Artist touched on that. Suburban growth is artificial development in that it cannot survive without the subsidies of taxpayer funded roads. Without that, the cost of infrastructure would be passed on to the buyers of those properties and would not be competitive with higher density development closer in where infrastructure already exists. Why do cities do that? Because the trade-off is increased tax at a pay as you go basis. And power. And jobs.

That process led to the decline of services to the inner city. The old Greenwood business district was a perfect example of how that artificial development was once blunted. Greenwood was self-sufficient. It employed many Northsiders but was a threat to the economic growth of the near Southside.  It was tolerated through the first two decades of Tulsa but when wealthier folks on the Southside couldn't get good maid service and couldn't make their retail operations profitable without minority purchasers....riots ensued. Partly racial and partly economic. Isn't it odd that the rise of the municipal bus system was concurrent with the riots....

I could see a compromise of sorts by keeping MTTA to operate the unprofitable routes. The problem is that you continue to blunt North and Northwest development when you do that. As long as it is easy to jump on a bus, call a taxi, call a paratransit or drive to the opposite side of town for groceries, medical treatment and supplies...it will never be available where you live.

I agree.  I think we are all on the same page, but are all talking past each other a bit in the process.  The one thing you have to watch for on the private carrier side is if they start cutting out routes because they negatively affect their profitability, then you wind up with un-served areas.


Neither is health insurance.  That didn't even exist for over the first 100 years of this country's existence, FAIK.

Cheap transit does improve the livability factor for the elderly and lower income folk.  There's plenty of other economic realities at work as to why there's not a heavy duplication of certain businesses and services within each area of the city.

West side is self-sufficient. East side is self sufficient. Sand Springs, Owasso, Bixby, Broken Arrow, Jenks, Glenpool...not only self-sufficient but provide no municipal bus service to their residents, poor, elderly or not. Each of those areas have multiples of grocery stores, hospitals, medical clinics, entertainment and services. The MTTA buses and routes to those areas could hardly be profitable.

So what exactly is it that you think keeps downtown, north side, north west, Reservoir Hill, Owen Park and Brady District without a plethora of these life enhancing businesses?

Is there any profitable bus route in Tusla at the current time?  I doubt it.

MTTA's mission far exceeds its resources and has a result offers a lousy product that costs a lot of money for each user.  Would Tulsans be willing to reduce the number of routes by half (to those routes most used) but double the resources on those routes so that service is substantially improved?  
 

I suppose that could be answered.  These services used to exist in these areas, but shut down or moved away.  Why?
 
The answer is simple.  Lets just look at grocery stores.  They operate on razor thin margins and rely on volume to survive.  They are subject to huge losses from liability, shrink, and even moderate loss of volume.  They are also easy targets for crime, and suffer greatly from crime against their customers (walking through a parking lot with groceries lets criminals know that you are carrying money).  Low margin items and subsidy eligible packaged items don't generate enough profit for them.  They have to sell their higher margin products like meat and brand name program items. Aside from all of those logical variables, grocery shopping is an experience that people want to enjoy rather than view as stress.  When you are relaxed you participate more in the shopping experience.

I would assume that one or all of these factors affect their decisions not to locate in those areas.  The same holds true of other business models, but grocery is by far the most fragile and typically the first to shrink out of a market.  When I lived in St. Louis we had Schnuck's stores that had locations all over town (at the time I did loss prevention consulting for them).  I typically drove all the way to Claton to go to the Schnuck's store because the one just up the street (less than a mile) from me was in a "bad" neighborhood, and even though they had 5 or 6 police officers in the store at all times (and an awesome camera system that I specified), I just felt more comfortable shopping in a place where I didn't feel I needed to go in "heavy" to be safe. Eventually that store shut down because many in my neighborhood did the same thing, driving an extra 8 miles to buy the exact same products, but with a better experience.

And people know there's no mass transit when they move to a suburb.  People who rely on public transportation generally don't move to the suburbs.

You can say the west side is self-sufficient, yet there's only one grocery store I can think of, no entertainment district, nothing in the way of big box stores north of 71st St.  They are largely ignored by many fast food chains as well. I'm not even sure if there are physician's offices on the west side if they are not connected to OSU Tulsa off SW Blvd.

Business follows money.

I think you guys are off your usual high level of logic today. I can't disagree with what you've posted, just surprised that we all seem to be swapping each other's positions today.

Grocery stores remain an enigma to me as to how and where they locate. I'm not disagreeing with you Gas, and I have spent some time working with grocers before they changed their advertising programs. One was an IGA at Pine and Harvard that did pretty well for years till IGA and Safeway began to unravel. I am just noting that you can often find three grocery stores adjacent to each other in a solid area like Brookside or farther south even with the razor thin margins. And since there is now only one grocer north of 15th the crime argument starts to weaken as well. Anyone who shops Reasors at 15th or Walmart in Brookside knows that a large % of their shoppers come from North.

I think the perception of crime, theft, unavailable margins keeps them from even trying. Same with a lot of other services. Why take a risk when those customers are going to go to your store farther south anyway? And who cares how they get there? Buses, bikes, hoopties. I always see cabs at Reasors but not at Pyramid or Whole Foods. Probably a third of our business at 15th & Lewis Office Depot was northside business. Church vans. Even with the theft and scare factor we couldn't have survived without them.

Business follows money? There is money on the Hill, in Gilcrease, in Owen Park, especially disposable income because the cost of living is lower there... where is the business? In fact there ought to be a small Petty's type operation. Its more than economics, its laziness, fear and long held mythological perceptions.

As far as MTTA I'll just say again. Anyone who hasn't tried to rely on them before should try it and make your own judgement. But until the Mayor, the heads of Authorities and Boards are required to use the service for a month, I have no interest in their remarks. Same thing with Authority directors who don't use or live near their own operations. If you don't get the same trash service as everyone else then start listening.  I'm just tired of funding things that haven't worked, don't work and probably can't work without questioning them. MTTA is no more special than EMSA and we constantly revisit that kingdom. Just put everything on the table and make them all justify whether their original functions can and are being met and if there are unintended consequences that weren't foreseen. If not re-adjust. That is the kind of process that strong businesses use.

   Transit Friendly and Pedestrian Friendly are the same thing.  


Its odd to build a city that makes transit friendly developments too costly and or illegal, and then turn around and wonder why your transit situation is lousy.  

Its illegal to have mixed use, transit friendly, developments in most areas of the city.  We have absurd minimum parking requirements that negate the creation of transit friendly developments in most areas of the city.  Our housing zoning is such that it encourages car oriented housing developments and discourages transit friendly housing developments.

  One has to trudge out to the edge of your non-transit friendly housing development  (apartment complex or neighborhood) to get to transit, and then get plopped down in a sea of non-transit friendly work or shopping areas.  We make it illegal to do otherwise, and then sigh and bemoan how little people use transit and how much it costs and can't support itself?

We have made it so that transit can't work, so of course,,, it doesn't!

Whether privately run or city run, it won't work, it won't be competitive, it won't be cost effective until we decide we want it to be and make the changes that will allow it to be.

There's more than one grocer north of 15th.  Aside from Los Americas at Pine & Peoria and Lewis & Admiral, there are Warehouse Markets on N. Sheridan between Admiral & Pine,  62nd St. N & Peoria, and just south of 244 on 49th W. Ave.  There's also a WM in the middle of the poveryty pocket at 61st & Peoria.  Scott Smith attempted to get a neighborhood grocery going in Brady Heights and it did not survive.  I have no idea if that was a problem with the owner not understanding the business or if it simply was not well-received in his community.

You've got to have some critical mass to make operations like that survive.  Warehouse Market's business model seems to work in lower income areas, however a model like Albertson's didn't work in a low income area because it's more like the model for Reasor's or Food Pyramid, which ironically now own all the former Albertson's.  Go to their web site and look where their stores are located.  They don't stock near the quality of meat or produce you will find at Food Pyramid or Reasor's and they don't carry premium brands.

Large grocers are more risk averse than smaller entrepreneurs due to the slim margins.  With the exception of their specialty departments like deli or the butcher section, they are selling a commodity, not value, that's one reasons the margins are so thin.  The larger ones rely a lot on consumer science and volume.  Smaller ones can offer more personalized service and cater to niches.  The typical grocery shopper is price-driven rather than value driven when you look at the vast majority of grocery stores in this city.  The two notable exceptions would be Petty's and Whole Paycheck where value is more important than price.

In any case, it looks like with two markets opening in the near future in downtown, that Reservoir Hill, Brady Heights, Owen Park, and downtown will be served with great grocers.  Now so long as consumers are willing to pay a little more for dealing with a smaller scale merchant which does not have the buying power of Homeland, Reasors, Wal-Mart, Target, Food Pyramid, etc. then I think these two downtown groceries should fare well.  It's a bigger risk than I would want to take as parking is yet one more convenience people want when they shop.  I know we all have this model in our own heads of grabbing one bag and being willing to walk for blocks, but most people won't walk a block with a few bags of groceries.

A level playing field experiment would be interesting.  Not only do not favor the automobile but don't favor transit either.  I think both would be winners in obviously separate locations.

I thought there were 2 wheel dollies available for such conditions.  I'm not thinking of a 2 wheeler for moving heavy boxes and appliances into your home but the same function in a very light duty 2 grocery bag size.

If the reception for changes proposed for trash pickup was any indication, then I would say, no. OKC includes their recycling with regular trash pickup and provides users with large wheeled trash cans but pickups are less frequent. We can't get past less frequent pickups. My favorite concept for a big selling bumper sticker in this town is "Vote NO". Could be shortened to just "Hell, NO".

Increasing the resources on routes may not even solve the problem. Other than being unreliable for a rider as demanding as I am, I'm not sure what the other problems are. I mean, in difficult times it ought to be going gangbusters, but I have a feeling that even with high ridership, the breakeven point for the business exceeds what the full bus revenues would be. If it lost advertising the whole thing would collapse. I like the idea of buses and I know there are those who are totally dependent on them. I even understand the need to subsidize some routes. But as a business, the current model isn't working and I'm not sure it could. Artist makes good points that it exists in part of a larger framework of zoning and development that may actually be mass transit hostile.

Wouldn't hurt to start from scratch and look at larger issues like parking, zoning, vehicle design, frequencies and niche routes to create a system we could be proud of. That is what a private firm would do right out of the gate.

There are and they are quite popular in more pedestrian urban areas.  I think it's going to be awhile before Tulsans use them like New Yorkers.

This is going to be a big issue for our new councilors.  I think there is building support for a change to once-a-week service with bins for trash and recycling like most cities. 

This kind of density can support Transit if enough people are going in the same direction.  Note the trolley tracks near Windsor Circle with the blue indicators.  Up and to the right is toward Philadelphia.  Down and to the left is toward Media, the county seat.  This trolley line was put in place in the early 1900s.  A lot of the development was because of the trolley.  Closer in to Philly, it is more dense.  Farther out, not so much so.  There is also regional rail and bus service in the area.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Windsor+Circle,+Springfield,+PA&hl=en&ll=39.935605,-75.338831&spn=0.02978,0.080895&sll=39.940566,-75.298587&sspn=0.007444,0.016136&vpsrc=6&t=h&z=15

Note the little shopping area on Brookside Ave Rd across the tracks from Windsor Circle. It's pretty much as I remember but the stores are not the same and some of the houses have added on.  There used to be trees on School Lane between the curb and sidewalk.

As someone who buys A LOT of meat (buying about 100lbs today) I can vouch for the fact that.  Every now and then I make my way (rolling heavy) into a Whorehouse Market to pick something up and I always swing by the meat counter to browse.  I would rather by the mystery animal hanging at a Tijuana street market than some of the stuff they stock! :P
 

  I went in the other day to one of the small Mexican run markets over by I44 and Peoria.  I was suprised that the prices were comparable to the Reasors by my house.  There are other areas of the city with comparable demographics to the north side, where there are other hispanic or asian grocery stores, some have big chains fairly nearby, some don't.

  What gets me is how if there is this food desert, isn't that opportunity?  And why on earth if there is this opportunity in your community would someone there not step in to take advantage of it vrs letting the cat out of the bag by complaining that someone else from outside hasn't come in and done it?   

I shopped Warehouse Market back in the 90s during my years of financial crunch. And I would never buy their meat. I tried a couple of times but then started to just suck it up and go to B&B when they were open out here in B.A. I gather their meat hasnt gotten any better over time.

+1

Just FYI, there's another Mexican market at 61st & Peoria in an old U-Totem space.  Very tidy and well-run.  They make great bolillos for making tortas or it will even work in a pinch as a stand in for Cuban bread on a Cubano sandwich.

+100

That would be the mentality right there.  A growing mass of people demanding THINGS from others, but unwilling to engage in those actions themselves.  This is decay!

It's the canker that forms in many urban areas as populations of people who have learned to be dependent find themselves unable to supply their dependencies, and unwilling to seize opportunities to fill the growing niches as business moves out. It also happens when people begin to repopulate new urban residential offerings.

It's cyclical  though, and eventually (as I think we are seeing in Tulsa now) an influx of energetic entrepreneurs will move back to those areas and growth will begin again.  Unfortunately, when that happens the same people that complain about driving 5 miles to go to Reasor's will complain about paying $1 extra for a loaf of bread at Cam's or Archer Market, so you have to consider that a large percentage of your demographic will still venture the extra 5 miles to Reasor's unless you are willing to compete on price, and that's a hard thing to do against high-volume operations.

I have to admit, I still don't know what to do tomorrow for D4. I've know the candidates, I respect them, I've listened to them speak in forums and neighborhood meetings. I want to vote for Blake, but I don't want to see Blake's energy and focus diminished by the day to day minutiae of responding to neighbor complaints, city budgets and never ending meetings. I guess I kind of want Blake to keep doing what he already does: grow downtown and promote Tulsa.

Help!

Me too Carlton. I like Blake and I like to see new blood, young blood, bringing their insights to the council. However, and its a big however, this guy Brune has done a really good job of presenting himself to the voters. From a guy I knew nothing about and often complained about that, he has sent mailers detailing his experience, his education and his demeanor to the public. Blake seems to be falling behind in how he is perceived. Indeed, his experience seems a bit narrow and focused on downtown, restaurants and entertainment. The district is larger than just that.

Hard to overlook a guy who served in Viet Nam, has two relevant degrees and years of public service. Toss up.

The Brune campaign seems unaware of their new district boundaries.  I got a mailer from him last week.  Two degrees and a Viet Nam vet describes a lot of crappy politicians as well over the last 20 to 30 years.

All I gleaned from Brune's mailer is that he's run marathons and has been or is a cyclist as well.  I don't recognize him from either circle and not really sure how running a marathon is relevant to how he would represent his district in city business.  I don't get to vote in the D-4 race so I'm just sniping ;)

And he has kids and grandkids.  My God, how can you vote against kids and grandkids!

Like the fellas at Penn State.  Do it for the children.

What I'm saying is the guy followed the rules most folks his age found to be good predictors of competency. College interrupted by draft to military service, law school, private practice, family guy, etc, etc. Even Blake touts his family with a mailer showing them.

I think they are both qualified, but its hard to overlook someone whose experience closely matches the job requirements. Blake should run for mayor under the new city charter proposed. He would be a great salesman for the city. Crunching numbers and mixing it up with city yahoos might not be his best use.

We are getting mailers from Brune and we live in D1!  If I was one of his donors I'd be none too happy about where my dollars were being spent.

Now, I am a donor to Blake for Tulsa so if I could vote in D4 I'd be checking the box for Mr. Ewing.

Postal districts are not laid out the same as council districts. Unless you pay for a mailing list or pay to edit the postal district addresses, you always get bleed over. I have received mailers for people outside of my district for years, republican and democrat. It is prudent use of donations because it can actually be cheaper to mail to every address in a cluster of zip codes than buy a targeted list.

I do live in the district, and I got a different mailer from Brune each day for four days last week.

I too am torn on who to vote for, mainly for the reasons above. Blake can have more of a positive impact on my life by putting all his energy into doing what he's already doing: developing downtown. Anything he would accomplish on the council would pale.

I'm very interested to learn of people not voting for a candidate because they think they can impact the community as a private business person more than they can as a city councilor.

Sounds like a good argument for something I heard Blake say several months ago, city councilors should be community volunteers that spend less time on periphery issues and more time on making the city a great place to live, work and play rather than career compensated councilors that enjoy the power and publicity.

If Blake is my councilor I can't see myself ever reaching out to him for help...I wouldn't want to add to his already full plate. I wouldn't mind calling Brune off of his bike or daily jog to check a zoning violation complaint though.

I don't have a dog in this hunt, but why would you be concerned about one candidate having an outside career and not the other?

Every private practice attorney I know works long hours too.

I think it's the idea or image that Blake owns 7, 9 or how many businesses he owns.  It sounds like he's got a management structure in place much like Eliott Nelson does which helps make it all manageable, but this has been a concern of mine ever since he first announced.  I'm sure he will do a fine job, if elected, I've just hoped he's not biting off more than he can chew.  No pun intended.

A big congratualations to Blake for soundly winning this race and running an upbeat and positive campaign.  I'm new to District 4, but felt we were going to get a significant improvement no matter which candidate won.  Now the hard work begins.

Same here. Glad to see the election was pretty much uneventful and evenhanded. Hope the council is run the same way. I agonized over voting against a democrat, a vet, a guy with three degrees and obviously capable in favor of a grounded, young, entrepreneurial, republican. My wife said, "you think too much. Vote for the pizza guy." So, I did.

Look who missed out on the winning campaign slogan.

Welcome to the dark side. ;D

Where do you guys keep the loose women?

It will take more than one vote to get that access.
 
 ;D

Ask Hermain Cain....Whoops....!!!!

Score!

I wouldn't.  He apparently is a bad judge.

918.991.8252.
blakeewing3232@gmail.com

Call me if you need anything. My plate never stays full for long. Also, you can count on me to avoid filling up my schedule with things like daily jogs and bike rides. =)

Thanks to you all for your support over the years, both in my businesses and in the City Council race. Please feel free to communicate with me, either here, on facebook, or e-mail about issues related to either. I'll keep working on getting better, but it helps to have your input, feedback, and advice.

Blake

Congratulations, Blake.  Still not sure why you would want a thankless job like city councilor, but I'm glad there are people like you who are willing to do it.

Congrats!  Don't let the job change you!

I don't know you personally but I was pulling for you all the way. Now this is how a City Councilor should respond to the people of Tulsa.

Now about those potholes...

Blake, will your ability to blog candidly about the inner goings of the city council change now that you have been elected? Your campaign blog was refreshingly honest and forthright and I hope that doesn't change now that you have been elected. If not, will you continue posting to your blog or will you use another method? Congrats on the win!

Nik,

I plan to keep it up. I'm of the opinion that our city govt. needs to do a much better job of being open, honest, available and real and that lack of communication is one of our largest issues.

I'm not going to change what I've been doing. I wouldn't have done this if I planned to go act like a politician. That's just boring and ineffective. No offense


Thanks again to you all.

Blake

Take the (few) good bits, leave the rest. On second thought no, don't just leave the rest, reject it from city government with prejudice.

The latest on Gomez...

http://www.newson6.com/story/16979594/former-tulsa-city-councilor-arrested-for-domestic-assault-and-battery

You would think judges would get tired of the petty pile-ons like "resisting" and "public drunk", and put their foot down.

You'd think. There are a lot of other things you'd think that would happen in our criminal justice system, but this probably isn't the appropriate time.