The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

For those of you who are excited that Tulsa has finally recognized the value of the built environment downtown (hey, 50 years too late, but still a good thing...) you might want to review and consider supporting a proposed new ordinance that covers downtown demos and surface lots.

Proposed ordinance
http://www.tmapc.org/Documents/Surface%20Parking%20Lot-Demo%20of%20Bldgs%20Ordinance.pdf (http://www.tmapc.org/Documents/Surface%20Parking%20Lot-Demo%20of%20Bldgs%20Ordinance.pdf)

And here's a memo that talks about the development/background of the proposed ordinance:
http://www.tmapc.org/Documents/Agendas/Building%20Demolition%20and%20Surface%20Parking.pdf (http://www.tmapc.org/Documents/Agendas/Building%20Demolition%20and%20Surface%20Parking.pdf)

TMAPC will consider the ordinance on Sept 18th.  After that, it would go to the City Council.

City of Tulsa is requesting input as well:
http://www.peakdemocracy.com/portals/121/Forum_355/Issue_1429

Great idea.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/Surface_parking_lot_limits_rejected_by_planning_commission/20130919_11_A11_TheTul627793

Surface parking lot limits rejected by planning commission

And Michael Sager crawls out from under his rock....

Favorite Quote:

Uh..historic neighborhoods are generally quite strict in what you can and cannot do to your property.

It's crazy he's bringing up historic neighborhoods considering the bank at 15th and Utica.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIQ1TLvQViY[/youtube]

Isn't he also responsible for the empty field there at the BA and Utica?

That is a Field of Bumgarner.  I'm guessing the high-rise that was said to be its future has been put on permanent hold or was never a real plan.

It would be interesting (sad) to see how many Parking Lots of Bumgarner there are on the south side of downtown. I would be good money it should be called Bumgarner's Crater. There should be a historical plaque erected for it.

So after the TMAPC rolled over on this issue, it goes on to the City Council...

The only way that this ordinance has a chance is if downtown property owners and downtown business owners who support it show up in mass. 
 
Right now, you will have the very loud, angry voices of a handful of property owners who will scream about their property rights being ripped away via the existence of zoning.
 
My experience on this issue has been that if you do not own property downtown, specifically a LOT of property downtown, you have no voice and no right to an opinion.  So if we want people to take this issue seriously, it needs to come from downtown businesses and property owners.  And we need to reach out specifically to small businessmen who do not rely on property that is owned by opponents to this ordinance.  I think there are people out there who agree with all or part of the ordinance, but aren't going to risk losing their lease b/c they fear pissing off their landlord/slumlord.
 
So which property owners and downtown business owners out there support this? Where are the other downtown stakeholders who care about preserving what's left of downtown?
 
This really affects the entrepreneurs in the "outlying" areas.  Ask yourself why the Fur Shop/Plan B/Utopia never made it, and the answer is lack of connectivity/synergy with adjacent buildings.  It's too late for that property b/c the damage is done (until someone has the capital to build something new on the adjacent empty lots), but there are still a lot of places where little guys could get a toehold if nobody tears down any more quality buildings.  (Assuming the slumlords would rent them.)
 
The fact that the TMAPC didn't even split the issue and consider the parking by right/exception and landscaping requirements for surface lots separate from the demolition issue, shows how completely inadequate they are.  They are impotent against the forces protecting the status quo.  Even after all these years, I'm amazed at their timidity and inadequacy for Tulsa's needs.
 
At a minimum  they should have considered a baby step: make surface lots a use by exception, structured parking a use by right and require landscaping of surface lots.  The opponents that I've heard have not even touched on this.  They acted like the entire ordinance was the Communist Manifesto, but aside from saying it represented the End of Western Civilization, I didn't hear a single argument about the parts unrelated to demolitions.  They drowned the baby in the bathwater and threw them out the window without even considering any compromise. 

I get really tired of people screaming about their property rights, when zoning exists everywhere.  Demo reviews of historic buildings are quite common.  And they exist in all the great cities that people love and respect and eagerly visit.

Then there's Tulsa. Which never fails to capitulate to the fear that some developer will "walk away" if the slightest thing is asked of them. 

"You better sleep with them all, honey, and give them everything they want, or you'll never get a date to the prom...."

When they quit stacking the deck at Tampax er TAMPAC with lackies friendly to developers and property hoarders speculating on future property values, this trend will finally come to an end.

Tulsa is only 1/2 a step ahead of Sapulpa or Kellyville when it comes to planning and code enforcement.  In some ways, towns like Sapulpa actually do a better job at managing their historic CBD properties.

Really big players have swung this issue away from the public good. This ordinance would have saved Tulsa's oldest firestation from OSU flattening it and leaving a vacant lot...surrounded by other vacant lots.....because they had plans to build on it in the future. Plans that likely will never materialize.

It takes a village mentality to flatten a city.

With the DCC in pole position on the "Asphalt Jungle 500" it will be hard to rally any contingent of business owners. One of the poster children of downtown property rehab, Libby Auld, was reportedly one of the people against is. Not sure who else.

City council should continue the interim until a suitable solution is available. Here are some options:
1. Set stadium trust assessment rates to be based on the highest square footage of the property in the last 5 years. This way tearing down the building nets no savings for 5 years.
2. Set the stadium trust assessment rate for surface parking to be 10x sqft of surface parking Where surface parking is primary use on that lot.
3. Any buildings that are contributing assets to a historical district (which covers a large part of Boston and Main for example) must have their demolition permit approved by City council.
4. TMAPC term limits
5. Replace TMAPC with TPC
6. Explain to TMAPC/TPC board members that their job is to review and approve the planning decisions made by the staff of their representative municipalities. To contradict what the Tulsa Planning department proposes regularly and often suggests that either the planning department or TMAPC has no idea what they're doing. I've met the people from the planning department, and they aren't idiots.

I'm assuming what you mean by point 2 is that it would raise the assessment on flattops significantly to be a disincentive to tear down a vacant, but savable building?

Here's another option:  Open up your wallets and invest your own money in downtown development instead of telling other people how to invest their money or develop their property. I hate to disagree with the position of TN, but encumbering property rights to fulfill ones self-interested notions of what downtown should look like is not only a "taking" but dictatorial.

It's not vastly different than if your HOA has covenants to prevent you from using your home as commercial property or specifying what type of roofing material is or is not acceptable.

Besides, we are all just dreamers who have no money and have Napoleon complexes. 

I don't think that every building in downtown should be able to be demolished if somebody with enough money decides they don't like downtown Tulsa anymore.  There has to be somewhere in the middle. 

The more restrictions you place on development, the less development you will have. Very simple.

Parking lots are businesses, just like restaurants, bars, and office buildings.  When the demand for one business exceeds the demand for the other, the landscape will change.  Using the sword of government to impede certain types of investment is an easy solution to address the problem without actually solving it.  

Perhaps there are better ways to make the development of existing structures more appealing, encourage investment, and mitigate risk for developers?  It should be the goal to shape a community through the development of demand, instead of restriction of commerce.

We have a growing urban fabric developing downtown.  With a little hard work, perhaps we could devote more energy to promoting this growth, developing demand, and encouraging additional investment.  We have some developers who have taken pockets of downtown and transformed them by building communities and being responsive to the demands created by those communities.  We have some great case studies right in front of us.  Perhaps we should ask them what would make their job (a job they are doing quite well) easier, and encourage others to engage in the same?

If you want create a blueprint for development, building a door is always smarter than building a wall.

I'm just one of those dreamers.  ;)

I basically agree with your post but....
and prostitution, illegal drug deals, automobile chop shops

My point being that some businesses are less desirable than others.   There are a lot of (legal business) opportunities that I most definitely don't want in my neighborhood.
[/quote]

The businesses you mention above are not legal.  What types of legal business do you want to avoid having in your neighborhood?

cemetary, anything loud

That's a crock Gas. Let me rephrase. That's an extreme, unsupportable view, Gas.

Perhaps you could suggest cities that have followed your advice and let property owners develop land and buildings based on those principles? Houston? Oakhurst?

Establishing incentives and disincentives as Grizz described, for the public good, in keeping with a comprehensive plan, keeps the system in balance. Managing growth is a bona fide conservative policy. Managing it to conserve resources and promote sustainable growth is smart. Going back to the 1890's for Baron management? Not so smart.

Councilor Ewing is right on this topic.

Ain't that the truth.

Let me clarify a bit.  Zoning laws are indeed a good thing, but that's not what we are talking about here.  Sure, Red and I probably don't want massage parlors in our neighborhoods, and for the most part our zoning laws keep that from happening.  Parking, however, is a legitimate, legal, and desirable product.  In fact, it is a resource that most other businesses require for viability.  

There seems to be a Walgreens on almost every corner in South Tulsa.  Gas stations, empty lots, and other retail centers are being leveled and converted into Walgreens.  If we were to say ENOUGH! and pose a tax on drug stores and similar developments we may indeed limit their construction, however the demand that drives that development would still exist.  The convenience of the corner Walgreens would be sought elsewhere.  The unintended consequence would be a change in overall development, both commercial and residential.  

The same goes for parking businesses.  The demand exists, therefore we should focus on changing the demand instead of penalizing the developer and ultimatly the consumer by limiting the resource.

I think I can make a very good argument that the demand doesn't exist.  Of course there maybe 1-2 weekends the lot has cars in it between greenwood and elgin.  Most of the time it does not. I am not sure if they still used number spaces but 80% of the spots didn't have numbers on them.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=tulsa,+ok&hl=en&ll=36.156579,-95.985897&spn=0.005561,0.006866&sll=36.156545,-95.98529&sspn=0.002798,0.003433&hnear=Tulsa,+Oklahoma&t=h&z=17 (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=tulsa,+ok&hl=en&ll=36.156579,-95.985897&spn=0.005561,0.006866&sll=36.156545,-95.98529&sspn=0.002798,0.003433&hnear=Tulsa,+Oklahoma&t=h&z=17)

Bumgarner and Sager need to realize that people aren't coming to downtown in ever increasing numbers because of the ample parking. It won't be long before every existing structure in downtown is back in use and contributing, in fact if we hadn't allowed the good ole boy free-for-all over the last three decades we would be even closer to the downtown that Tulsans want when they answer surveys on the topic.  We will soon run out of building stock that can be converted to new use.

Every tax payer in Tulsa does have a stake in spite of what these loud complainers say...we paid for the street improvements, we paid for the arena and (in Sager's case we paid for his building) as consumers we support the businesses in their buildings.

Full disclosure: I own a home in near downtown and the albatross of surface parking does affect me and my neighbors and our property values. The value of every building in downtown is affected as the chasm of surface parking expands.

Side bar: everytime I hop on the Trolley shaped bus it is full. It's clear that a regular circulator that minimizes the need for proximity parking will be used.

Libby's position was that people needed more time to consider/fully understand the ordinance before supporting it.  She said that she could see valid arguments on both sides.  She, like many DCC members, only received the proposed ordinance in a package a day or two before the meeting.  And busy people may not have had time to review it, while others are simply not well-versed in the Tulsa zoning code.  So I think they erred on the side of caution/status quo and deferred to the vocal opponents.  They took sort of a "we shouldn't make any drastic decisions on a moment's notice."  Plus, the opponents (only 2-3 people spoke who flat-out opposed it--most folks just listened) were really aggressive in their opposition.  I would not say it was a fertile environment for inclusive, open-minded debate.

Bumgarner and Saeger "introduced" the topic and presented their own pre-printed statement as the motion to vote on.  The Planning department apparently made a presentation to the DCC Parking Committee (Sager, American Parking, et al) and they presented their opinion to the DCC.  So the entire DCC never got a presentation from the Planning Department, where everyone could make an informed decision.  They just voted on the pre-determined statement that was provided by the opponents as the motion on the floor.  

I think some folks might have been more willing to consider separate portions of the ordinance if it had been introduced in a non-biased way by a professional planner.

I mean, really, who could argue about landscaping requirements for surface lots and making surface lots a use by exception in a downtown area where 40% of the land is already surface lots?  But that was never presented as a separate issue to consider.  (And I think it would have gotten quite a bit more support had it been presented fairly.)

Lets try another analogy.  If I want to invest in an old warehouse downtown and convert it into a series of restaurants and bars, I already have several obstacles to attend to.  I will need to invest a significant amount of money structurally and architecturally to meet current code and ensure the safety of my patrons. I will also need to provide adequate close parking to serve a percentage of my capacity.  Impede my ability to develop that and I am less likely to invest. Impede the ability of others to offer that and I am also less likely to invest.  Threaten my future ability for growth and expansion in a given location and I am less likely to invest in that area.

I am no big fan of surface parking downtown, but I also realize that vacant structures are an economic drain.  Sure, some of them are pretty, and offer some history, but provide limited modern use without significant investment.  If you want to impact the re-development of these structures (and reduce their demolition) you need to reduce the investment necessary to rehabilitate them and therefore incentivize their re-use.  Placing an impediment on investment by limiting a property's use beyond normal zoning laws will ultimately make more vacant buildings.  It's important to know when to use carrots over sticks.

The ordinance as proposed does noting to encourage re-development of the existing lots, and promises to produce scarcity for future development.  In fact, it makes the existing lots even more valuable to their existing owners as parking.  It doesn't' seem very well thought out.  It rewards the current surface lot owners by delivering them with a monopoly, and punishes future development by limiting use beyond typical zoning rules.

Name somebody who put in a restaurant or bar downtown and bulldozed the building next to it for parking?  Nobody has done this to my knowledge. I guess a huge giant chain that wants a 15,000 sqft restaurant might do that.  Even then there is plenty of parking.

Since we are a couple of blocks from Memorial, pretty much any kind of business.  McDonalds, Auto body shop, barber shop/beauty saloon, grocery store, lumber yard, gas station, parking lot, cell phone store, restaurant of any kind, bank, hardware store, condo or apartment building, any home that builds within a few feet of the property line, anything requiring sidewalks (just for you Townsend).   Get the idea?  I don't want to live in "the city" which should be no surprise to anyone here.

The problem with the HOA comparison is that covenants are largely contractual, entered into between like-minded people that live and OWN property together in proximity. In cases where new people move in to an HOA subdivision, they are advised in advance of covenants so they have the chance to walk away. Here, it appears we have a bunch of people living outside the HOA or that do not own property in the HOA trying to impose on those owning property in the proximate area a set of rules through government force. To me that is a third party forcing other persons that have no shared ownership interest a brand new sort of rules. Although hyperbole, to me that is fascist.

It's okay to be a dreamer, and I have a hard time seeing parking lots in favor of buildings. But I am not prepared to have a group of self-interested people telling legitimate and lawful business and property owners they cannot do something with their property. Again, the solution is not imposing unconstitutional taking of property but instead have investors, individuals or collectively if they "have no money and have Napoleon complexes", to do what those that already own property downtown have done, put their money where their mouth is. That should be easy given how opinionated several other posters are in this thread about what it takes to have a successful downtown business model.

I think everyone that lives in the Tulsa Metro has a stake in the success of Tulsa.  I don't always agree with the details presented by the Urbanistas but if Tulsa fails, Bixby is not far behind.  It is highly unlikely that Bixby will return to a farming community. 

Too much of it will choke out other development.

Limiting their growth could actually be in their favor by reducing the overhead associated with too many stores pulling business from their other stores.  Disclosure: Walgreens closed the Drug Mart that my mom had used for years.  Service at Walgreens is not as good as the old Drug Mart.  Her price for medicine has remained about the same.  I have no idea what the insurance company pays in comparison. Pretty much everything I have priced in Walgreens is available at WalMart across the street (111th) for less.  I have no "local business loyalty" to Walgreens as I do for Reasor's.

That is not necessarily a bad thing.

I agree that changing the demand would be preferable.  Even more important that easy access parking is just plain old easy access.  Easy access does not necessarily need to be by personal automobile.

I called to ask about a building for sale near downtown.  They told me there was no price and then "had to go" hung up said they would call back and never did.  1 of the 3 buildings that are owned on that block is already demolished. Obviously they are waiting for a huge store to buy the whole block out and aren't serious about selling. In order for somebody to put their money where their mouth is and save a building it has to be for sale.

Judging from Artist's experience and what I have seen regarding hangar construction at the airport, there are indeed some expensive brother-in-law regulations that don't really provide any benefit to the business or the public.  Get rid of those first.

FIFY

You are still ignoring that many don't seem to want what you want to build, more surface parking.  If you were to build it and no one came, the lot is still a parking lot.  I am not as against a tear down as some here but I think requiring a rebuild of some kind of building or even just making the space a park (trees, grass, benches to sit on...) might be a reasonable compromise to the expense of bringing a derelict building up to code.

This probably won't be too popular here but here goes anyway...

Businesses who think they need close parking should get together and build a parking structure of several stories.  Each story could eliminate a surface lot of nearly equal area.  Put businesses on the ground story as many here have suggested.  Charge for parking but validate for customers patronizing the sponsor businesses.  Perhaps the city could even give a tax break to structured parking compared to surface only parking.

You make some good points.  I hadn't really thought about this being the wishes of those outside the CBD forcing the hand of the planners to enforce rules on property owners who are in the CBD.  If it were only the stake-holders within the stadium assessment district who have say on codes within the district, would that seem more appropriate to you?  I could see where that would seem more fair to some.

I have a hard time with the scattershot planning of downtown that has left us with acres upon acres of bare asphalt.  Then again, that beats the appearance of boarded up windows and graffiti all over abandoned buildings which are obsolete.  I do agree that the free market may eventually dictate that all that parking eventually will become attractive for future development and we may have a few parking garages instead of a sea of crumbling asphalt.

This is where I get hung up, which is why I empathize with your and/or TN's positions. Downtown "belongs" to everyone, with some believing it to be the focal point of the city and for investment. Some people move closer to that area because of that belief. As I do not think that those persons owning property in that area should dictate everything, and I have no solutions (or desire for that matter to get involved with downtown), I kind of feel like a bleacher bum.

It is a perfectly reasonable use of government power to either restrict activities with significant negative externalities outright or tax them commensurate with the damage to everyone else it causes. Like it or not, what we do with our own property affects others. That's why we have zoning.

Do you own real property? If so, tell us how reasonable it would be to purchase property, then sometime down the road the government (because of special interest group lobbying) tells you that you cannot use it for the purpose you intended without compensation. That's not zoning, that's seizing. YOU are the reason why I would fight tooth and nail to prevent ordinances like the one supported by TN from being passed.

Yeah. . .this is not zoning.  Zoning is the practice of establishing permitted uses of land.  Investors and land owners can account for zoning laws and PLAN the development of their property according to them.  Zoning laws occasionally change, but not without public petitioning, and usually for logical reasons.  This makes zoning a fair practice of land planning based on function, form, forecast, and usage.  

So, today, I can go and purchase a piece of land with full understanding of it's potential, and my bank will be willing to back me for the same reason.

This proposed ordinance would create an extra set of conditions and criteria for development of a property contingent on a board approval process, and public hearing prior to any demolition.  This means that there is essentially no way for a developer, investor, or current property owner to have any means of forecasting the value of his/her property or investment as developable.  It also means that banks and other finance entities will be less likely to approve funds for such endeavors early in the process, because there will be less confidence in their viability as a developable property.

Today, I can go downtown and buy an old building, knowing, based on the current zoning, that I can build my new restaurant or officebuilbing.  If this ordinance becomes law, that same building may not be demolish-able.  There's no way of knowing without going through the process.  This means that the cost of my possible investment has increased, and the risk (that I may not be able to develop) has also increased.  I will likely go elsewhere or just hold the property as an investment (the longer I hold it, the more likely it will become demolish-able  ;) ).

So here are some of the results:
1. Property owners in the IDL that have already developed and established a permanent usage for their properties (bars, nightclubs, restaurants, offices, parking lots) will benefit from the restriction placed on competitive development.  They are likely thrilled by this new proposal.

2. Property owners who have undeveloped investments (old buildings that would require demolition to develop) will be less likely to engage in development for a number of reasons related to increased cost and risk associated with navigating the process.  They can just hold tight (or wait for lightning).

3. New investors looking to develop in the IDL will be more likely to look elsewhere.  Risk is too high for cash, and the bank won't help.

There is no doubt that this will curtail the growth of surface lots (VICTORY), but I think the "side-effects" are devastating.  We are not Denver.  We don't have unstoppable demand for property in the city core.   This ordinance is similar to heavy chemotherapy.  Sure, you will likely kill the cancer, but you are going to make the patient very sick.  

Short sighted solution.

Gaspar, thanks for the very solid, well thought out answer.  So honest question here.  Let's assume two givens:  (a) more surface lots are bad, and (b) we don't want historic buildings torn down to build new ones when the original building could be re-purposed/remodeled.  Is there a regulatory method to ensure this objective?  Throwing up our hands and saying "oh well, it's too late to do anything" isn't, I don't think, a reasonable alternative.

Not sure a "regulatory" method is the best direction.  An "incentive" would be more effective because it would create encouragement of appropriate development.  
Perhaps the amount of money that the city would otherwise spend on enforcing the ordinance proposed (building inspections, public hearings, board meetings, exhibits, lawyers, lawyers, lawyers) and all of the documentation and administration that goes with it could be turned around into an incentive (per sf and usage) for developers and current owners.  This could be most effective in the form of a temporary tax waver.  It could be a structured waver offering different levels of of incentive based on usage.

Creating such an incentive would encourage current owners to convert or lease unused properties, and attract additional development in existing inter-IDL structures that would otherwise go to other parts of town.  

As for existing surface parking, if the demand for development property increases, so does the value in healing those scars with new development. There certainly is not an overnight fix for existing lots, but you can make their creation less attractive.

Carrots, not sticks.

Paying developers to develop through literal subsidies will just lead to a bubble. Charging fees or taxes in the amount of the costs people who demo a building and put in a parking lot foist upon the rest of us, on the other hand, actually lets the market work as it should. Or we could do what cities have been doing since the early 1800s..zoning. That is, remove parking as a use by right from CBD zoning, just like I can't pave over my yard here in RS land. Or we could build a whole lot of free structured parking to make surface parking unprofitable.

I would agree, any subsidy has the potential to create a bubble in any market.  That's why you you must have limits, both temporal and structural.  The subsidy would not only expire for each project at a given time (i.e. tax incentive for the first 3 years) but it's expiration would need to be gradual and understood by all parties involved in the finance.  

I assume you would also want the additional proposed restrictive ordinance?  So basically it would mean not only the new burden on development, but you would also want the developer to pay for the cost and administration of the new burden?  I can just imagine the explosion in development and investment that will come from that.  :D

Not sure that would pass, but throw it at the wall and see if it sticks. :D  I am relatively sure this has been proposed or at least raised by someone in the peanut gallery and received a polite chuckle on more than one occasion.  I assume you knew you couldn't pave your yard when you bought your house? 

Yes, we could.  We could use the money we get from selling unicorn glitter, otherwise that just shifts the burden to the taxpayer who would need to fund that parking.  Besides, there are free lots downtown but people still pay a few bucks to avoid walking a block in the rain (or the sun, or the wind, or the moonlight).  Guilty!

I'm not sure what you think would be difficult to administer about requiring that a developer that proposes to tear down a building have a plan and financing for constructing a new building? In what way is that more expensive than redevelopment would be at present? As far as the burden you assert but provide no evidence of, owners of disused buildings downtown have been paying for their upkeep up to now. When did it become a huge burden?



I was in a hurry and misspoke. I intended to say "eliminate surface parking as a use by right". It impacts neighboring property owners just as surely as building a strip mine would.

I believe some of the demolitions were to lower some particular owners' property taxes.  That just raises everyone else's to make up for the loss.  The burden has already been shifted.

You make some good points.  I am not sure whether I agree with the ordinance fully. BUT, I have some questions about some of the above statements as well.

If I am a developer or a business that has a business based on sidewalk traffic... in other words I want to build something urban or shall we say pedestrian/transit friendly, as the zoning stands I have no guarantee at all that the guy next to me might then tear down his building essentially cutting off my lifeline of pedestrian traffic and hurt my business "or it's potential as you called it".  Or, think if you were the guy owning the property facing the south and looking at the spot where Cimarex Towers were to be and thinking you wanted to build an urban, pedestrian friendly development there.  Then saw a blank, deathly boring, parking garage wall go up right in front of you.  Kiss your dreams, your possible "potentials" good by.

How many of you have heard the story of how Mr Phillips built the Philtower then bought the property across the street to build the Philcade.... Why? to protect his investment.  He wanted to control what went in across from his building because he knew it would affect the value of his property, his investment.  Not everyone can afford to do that.   All we can do is cross our fingers and hope that what goes in next to us or across from us does not hurt, but helps our business investments.

Downtowns are supposed to have good urban development.  A city should be able to offer good urban living/lifestyle options alongside it's suburban ones.

Currently our downtown zoning neither advocates for nor against pedestrian friendly urban development.  It says it advocates for "density", but as anyone who has seen a Canadian Suburb or Los Angeles can attest, density and or tall buildings do not, in and of themselves, equal; quality, pedestrian and transit friendly development.  Not by a long shot.

In essence what gets pushed onto downtown, de-facto, is the auto centric zoning in the rest of the city.  Several hundred square miles of auto centric, suburban zoning, versus... approx 1.5 miles of downtown laissez faire zoning... you tell me what's going to happen...auto oriented development and parking lots?  Don't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.   Imho, either get rid of the autocentric zoning in the rest of the city, or zone, for at least some areas of downtown to be pedestrian/transit friendly.

I have actually met people who have looked at property downtown and are hesitant to build on some of those vacant lots precisely because we do not have any zoning in place to regulate for urban or suburban style development.   Well, I would like to build this here... but I have no idea what the guy next to me might build that might destroy everything I am hoping for.  

If you have a business that relies on "people walking by" like I and some others I know do, you realize how important it is that you be as close as possible to other pedestrian friendly buildings and businesses.  If your the lone goose out there, you struggle and lose.  You realize how VERY important it is, and how much easier it is when your in the heart of things.  So again that developer making the first step a little further out, would be much more secure if he could know that on either side of him, the next development would only enhance his, and the next and the next.  You could invest more securely.


Here is what I sent in a letter to others concerning this topic....

Yes, there are a few buildings I am concerned about and would hate to see lost, however, what I think is actually more important, (though it pains me to admit it ) at this point in the game, is guiding future development.   We may spend a large amount of time, energy and capital on winning a battle,,, and end up losing the larger, more important war.  Not saying completely give up on the one, but don't lose sight of the bigger picture.


I do not think anyone should try and zone for all of downtown to have pedestrian/transit friendly development.  

Rule of thumb…  If you try and make all your streets "A" Streets (pedestrian/transit friendly) none of them will be.   Even the greatest walkable cities have "B" auto oriented, streets lined with parking garages, drive thru this and that, ugly blank facades, delivery areas, etc.  What they DO have are long connected, unblemished corridors with superb, wonderful streets you can walk block after block on to enjoy high quality "urbanity" at it's best.  And that's what Tulsa needs.  We offer great suburban living and lifestyles for those that want that, but shouldn't we also be a "City" that offers superb, attractive, highly competitive, urban living and lifestyle for those who want that?

I like what Denver has done.  They looked at the developing districts, the fabric they already have, where transit infrastructure was and is planned to be, then selected a few streets that connected the dots.  Then they put incentives and development guidelines and zoning in place to ensure that those selected streets connecting districts and important points and along transit corridors will become high quality, pedestrian/transit friendly corridors.

Again, I think something like this, that is smaller in scale, and focused on a few critical corridors (with other streets being able to opt in in the future) as a start can go a long way.  I also see it as a way of not stirring up every hornets nest in downtown, only a few lol, and also as a way of focusing our energy to rally support from property owners and businesses in a more manageable way.

If I may be so bold. Starting "A" Streets might be…  (and here again, talk with others, property owners, businesses, etc. to gather input)

Boulder Ave (already designated for investment as a future transit corridor)  
6th Street  (also mentioned as future transit corridor and leading to the Pearl and possibly TU)
5th Street  (already high quality urban/pedestrian friendly along a good stretch, and containing a couple of "endangered" buildings)
Archer and or Brady
Boston Ave
Elgin (as another N-S connector from Blue Dome/Brady/Greenwood to the Core/Deco District and East End)



This would make a great start helping connect large segments of downtown with high quality urban fabric.  It would essentially make a loop all the way around the core area.  You No matter where you were in downtown, you would never be more than a few blocks away from those great pedestrian/transit friendly streets, and those streets never too far away from existing, or future, parking, nearby every major attraction/point of interest, etc.  And if there are other segments in which most of the property/business owners liked the new (Pedestrian/Transit friendly, Zoning and Incentives, Corridors) they could be added as well.  You may find that there will be groups knocking on your door wanting their street or area to be added or linked up to this initial loop in the future.  

If anyone is wondering why all this matters, here's a nice 1 minute video that pretty much sums up what makes a downtown street work.  Retail concentration...which is completely destroyed by surface parking lots.  In fact, a surface parking lot or blank building facade can "prematurely signal the end of a pedestrian district."  Hmmm.  Sound familiar?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_863341&feature=iv&src_vid=o3b7GiaRC78&v=f9shF8_zpAk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_863341&feature=iv&src_vid=o3b7GiaRC78&v=f9shF8_zpAk)

Another fascinating video studies why people like the streets that they like: what draws them to a street and what repels them. (Spoiler alert! Surface parking is bad!) "Insights into a Lively Downtown" breaks down the key elements that people respond to downtown.  You've felt this too, if you've ever crossed the street to avoid an ugly surface lot or monolithic blank wall.  We all prefer to walk down a street with an uninterrupted row of interesting storefronts, shops and restaurants, even if we've never stopped to wonder why.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsrqBHEOT0k (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsrqBHEOT0k)

Remember back in 2008 when the National Trust for Historic Preservation held its national convention in Tulsa?  I just ran across a quote I wrote down from one of the speakers at the opening ceremonies of the conference:

“I’m reminded of Potsdam at the end of WWII…except you did it to yourselves.  It didn’t take Allied bombers to destroy your historic architecture.  You tore it down for parking lots.” 

Sad but true.  Still.

2008 doesn't seem like all that long ago to me.

Your quote is, however, still appropriate.

The ironic thing about this debate is that it really isn't about who loves parking lots or doesn't.  The fact is, save one or two people, nobody for or against the ordinances likes the condition our of CBD in regards to those lots.  Now, there are people who believe that all that parking is a necessary evil, but I don't think anyone thinks that all of that surface parking provides an ideal visual experience.  I am also one of those who believes that downtown is headed in the right direction...that we are going to see fewer and fewer applications for demolition.

I opposed the ordinance for two reasons.  First, it was really two ordinances in one.  Two issues, tied together that should have been separate.  I think the demolition/HP ordinance was actually weakened because of its attachment to the parking component.  (Also, the demo ordinance was actually stricter than the demo ordinance in HP Zoned districts, which makes me wonder why they didn't just use that model.  They could have at least made the argument that the ordinance was already being used in other parts of town.)  Secondly, I think they applied suburban standards to an urban area.  The landscape requirements, for example, were bad standards in my opinion. You can't take that much space from property, when you have such limited pre-existing borders on property (300'x300' blocks).  A simpler solution would be to say that surface parking that takes up x % of a parcel has to be behind the primary structure. It should allow some parking to the side of a structure.  It should encourage structures to be built near or on the property line.  City policy should be to ensure that there is as much on street parking available as possible and accessible to businesses.  City policy should also reward developers who can incorporate structured parking in to their projects... property tax abatement, matching dollars... whatever.  Tie it to density or use.

Not all surface parking is the same, nor is it all bad, and it's foolish to believe that we should or can get rid of it all and grow the district in the manner in which we all want it to grow.

We need a real comprehensive parking plan for downtown, one that provides incentives for landowners and developers to develop their land in efficient and marketable ways, and deals with all the parking types and needs for an urban area; short and long term parking, site-specific, institutional, and revenue-based parking.