The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

From the webpage...

In consideration of the moratorium currently in place to address the teardown of downtown structures and creation of new surface parking lots, City Planning staff reviewed relevant zoning regulations and developed recommendations for the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission to consider during its February 20th work session.

PLANiTULSA and the Downtown Area Master Plan recognize that losing existing structures for the creation of additional parking lots is detrimental to a vital, thriving downtown. A moratorium is currently in place to prevent the teardown of downtown structures, pending development of a longer-term solution.

Click on the photo below that represents your vision of how downtown Tulsa - within the Inner Dispersal Loop (IDL) - should look in future, then add a statement to support your position. One of the photos or options must be selected. The three options are: "More buildings, fewer parking spots", "Fewer buildings, more parking spots" or "Something else".

Go here... http://www.feedbacktulsa.org   

Sign in or "subscribe" if you haven't already, in order to voice your opinion.  Then click on the "Downtown Buildings and Parking policy" link

I wrote a few paragraphs in my opinion/feedback.

I hope the Tulsa World is watching.

You all better stop with the idea that all property downtown belongs to the public good. My guess is TW needs to liquidate property. They are not long for local ownership....

Thanks.  I can't reply for anyone else but I'll file that right down here.

Townie, I really like your new avatar.

Hypnotizing

She looks like a Dancer Toucher..wait, what?

Reminds you of your second home?

Tulsans have spent millions on downtown. We do have a say on whether it has buildings in it or not. We can encourage preservation and we can discourage teardowns. Don't be so short sighted...if a rickety 200 year old blacksmith shop in the French Quarter can still be open for business then any of our relatively newer dowtown structures can be too.

Uh, I'm just standing up to defend the law of the land and the property's owner rights. That reigns supreme over what Dick and Jane think oughta be done.


Yes, all the time.

Hey I am all for property owners rights to do what they want with their property.... problem is we already do not have that.  If we make it illegal in 90% plus of the city to build pedestrian/transit friendly developments, why can't we have less than 10% be required TO have that kind of development?  We are already told you can do this can't do that with our own property.  I would rather us be like Houston and have relatively no zoning, than have the mess we have now, a litany of "can't build this or that, must build like this" regulations.  But fewer people are fighting for that, actually haven't heard of any doing so.  So if that ain't gonna happen, gotta take the alternate route.

Planning commission to consider proposal on new surface parking lots


http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20130220_11_0_Apropo702656 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20130220_11_0_Apropo702656)

So it's okay with you if your next door neighbor tears down their house and erects a church catering to Christian tea-bagging zealots?

There's a visual.

With building up to the property lines.  No allowance for parking is provided.  Don't forget the church bells, especially if you like to sleep in on Sunday mornings.

I had better look into the zoning and the city code before I closed on a property.

If I did have this happen next door I'd probably sell to Muslims or Mormons.

ring them bells....

My feeling is that, while well intentioned, this policy will have the unintended effect of actually ensuring that existing parking lots remain surface parking lots, because this policy will commoditize surface parking. It will be a boon for those operators, and will give all the grandfathered lots an effective monopoly, because it prevents any new lots to the market as competition.  

The true intent is to prevent tear downs, which is an understandable goal, but as I understand it the only limitation on use is parking as a primary use.  In the World's case, it would seem to me that parking lot would be an ancillary use to the rest of their property anyway.  It is also my opinion that the threat of teardowns in downtown has diminished significantly, due to the success of some of the recent rehabilitations of older buildings, and with the growth of jobs and housing the in CBD, property is going to become more and more in demand, so using valuable land for surface parking is not going to be economically viable.

A true solution would be to assess surface lots, and put the money into a fund that is directed towards building and maintaining public garages.  If I owned a lot, I might even donate the land, and let the city build a garage on it in exchange for some of the spaces.

American Parking seems to have the monopoly on "running" the city parking structures already, no reason to think that they wouldn't take over any new structures we might build.

Wish we could come up with some other solutions.  I wonder what other cities have done?

 On one forum, one example they mentioned was that you could raise the assessment on surface lots and surface parking lots while lowering them on buildings.  That way you could possibly even keep the taxes collected as neutral, or even make it an over all slight cut in taxes, as ways of assuaging political, and many downtown property owner, grumblings. Not everyone would be happy, but enough would be to get it done.

 And or the new tax configuration could have a grandfather clause so that in effect, only new surface lots or parking lots would have the much higher tax rates, and new buildings or older buildings that are being renovated (could even go so far as to make it a percentage/number of floors of the building), would be under the new lower rates.  This both incentivises  renovation of older buildings and dis-incetivises new surface lots.  

I am sure there is something we could think of that has more finesse than the moratorium.

What are some other ideas?

NM

But they won't be surface lots.

value surface lots as though they had structures on them.  Or... rather than maintaining a new property value each year, utilize a 3-5 year average.  3 year for existing structures, 5 year for a property where the structure has been removed (no short term return on removing a building).  They could make it waivable based upon an approved construction plan and only at the moment of construction (no long delays based upon BS excuses) and they can waive it if a multistory parking facility is installed.  This will make it more adventagous for a company to sell a building off rather than demo because they don't want to pay property taxes.

Like ^

I should also mention that utilizing a 3-5 year average will also incentivize a business to improve their existing properties since they wont get hit with a brand new huge tax bill the year immediately following the completion of a project. 

Can we sell some of our parking capacity to OKC?

New garage, underground pedestrian tunnel extension planned for Bricktown
Veteran Bricktown property owner Don Karchmer is in talks with city officials about building a 1,200- to 2,200-space garage in Bricktown with the possibility of offices or housing on the top floors.
 By Steve Lackmeyer | Published: May 10, 2013

Veteran Bricktown property owner Don Karchmer is in talks with city officials about building a 1,200- to 2,200-space garage in Bricktown with the possibility of offices or housing on the top floors.
The Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority was preparing to hire architects to design a 1,000-space garage on the city-owned land north of Main Street and west of Walnut Avenue when the privately financed parking was pitched as an alternative.

Karchmer has a long-term lease for the former rail yard and operates a 1,300-space surface parking lot on the site.

“Our designs are for 2,300 spaces, but that may end up being too aggressive,” Karchmer said Thursday. “We are in talks with major downtown property owners and companies about buying blocks of these spaces — and it can be something they can buy and sell.”

Those discussions include Continental Resources, based at 20 N Broadway, the owners of Cotter Ranch Tower (also known as Chase Tower) at 100 N Broadway, BancFirst at 101 N Broadway, and the owners of the Medical Arts Building at 100 Park Ave.

Those talks, Karchmer said, “are very positive,” and he is prepared to buy 500 spaces that he will make available to the public.

Karchmer's plan also calls for the first extension of The Underground pedestrian tunnels in a quarter century. Karchmer said he hopes to know next week whether his project will proceed, and if so, construction is set to start by September.

He hopes to construct the extension of a tunnel under E.K. Gaylord to the closest connection at the Santa Fe Garage while the street is being rebuilt as part of Project 180. The tunnel would then go under Main Street and the BNSF Railway viaduct to the front entrance of the new garage.

Karchmer said the garage is being designed to allow for expansion or development of offices or apartments on the top floors. He said interest to date leans toward development of apartments that would allow tenants to park under their residence and enjoy direct tunnel access to the Central Business District.

Cathy O'Connor, president of The Alliance for Economic Development of Oklahoma City, is assisting in the talks and said a privately built garage will allow the city to focus its resources on providing parking elsewhere downtown.

The city's downtown public parking system was expected to enjoy some vacancy after Devon Energy completed construction of its new headquarters and doubled the size of the former City Center West Garage. Instead, the influx of new headquarters including Continental Resources and Enogex has produced vehicles beyond the parking system's capacity.

The city recently started construction of a new 800-space garage south of City Hall and assisted in the financing of another 350-space garage at NW 10 and Broadway.

“We recognize that we need to develop additional garages downtown,” O'Connor said. “If there is an ability to finance privately, from the city's perspective, that's the preferred course of action — to let the private sector do what it can do. A garage at that location could help to serve the east end of the Central Business District and would help take pressure off of the Santa Fe Garage. And once the garage south of City Hall is open, COTPA (the Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority) hopes to move parking out of the Santa Fe Garage to create more open spaces for the public.”

Ding! Ding! Ding! Correct on all counts.

Anyone who has attempted to work with the company(s) who owns most of our surface parking knows that they view those properties as high-yield investments.  Try and get them to "give back" in any way for a charity festival, or a community event and you might as well talk to a rock.  They will be the first to push for more restrictive parking construction laws. 

In order to change the situation, we need to focus on making the operation of surface lots less attractive.  The best way to do that is through efficient, low cost parking options for the public, financed by the very businesses that benefit from that parking.  If competition makes it so that AP can no longer charge $4-$5 a day for a parking spot, it becomes more attractive for them to sell that land for development.

I went to a meeting in the evening several years ago and the parking lot wanted $5 for just a couple of hours.  Fortunately I can walk and found some free street parking.

I wonder if that concept has anything to do with the success of suburban shopping centers.

Can't blame you, that's a gallon of av-gas!

Right now, barely!

EDIT:  Actually, airnav.com shows 100LL going for $6.26 a gallon! at RVS.

Wow.

Fortunately, if I am just out flying about I can fly to some of the nearby places like Okmulgee, Claremore, Henryetta, and Muskogee and get a gallon of the blue stuff closer to $5.00.  Some places are a few cents cheaper.

Still way too expensive.

How much does AP or CP actually have control over the pricing?  They are the management firms put in place by the TPA.  Only reason I ask is that we have had requests to issue contracts to TPA rather than AP.

I don't know, or really much care, who sets the prices.  $5 for a couple (2 or 3) hours was more than I was willing to pay.