The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

There is a construction fence and new gravel for a trailer on the lot on the west side of Greenwood, across the street from the old COT (future Snyder project) building. A friend said this is new office construction, but I think it could just be a staging area for Hartford Commons. Anyone know?

My guess is staging too.

The TDA Executive Report states that construction on the mixed use 64 unit apartment complex is supposed to start in March:

E. Blue Dome Anchor, LLC
110 S. Hartford Avenue/The Hartford Building
Mixed-Use Development - 64 Unit Apartment Building
TDA Land Disposition
• Spoke with Neal Bhow on January 23, 2017 and he will serve as the Project Lead
• Renovation of the existing Hartford Building will start March 2017
• The project is currently in the design phase
o Plans and Specifications should be ready for review by April 2017
• The project has financing
• Total construction time should be approximately eight (8) months to completion
• Mr. Bhow is working with Steve Walman regarding leasing the subject building
• The Redeveloper would like to schedule a meeting with the TDA Chairman after the
Architectural plans are submitted

http://www.tulsadevelopmentauthority.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Executive-Director-Report-10.pdf

This is a story from February...Did the TDA have its April meeting yet?

http://www.newson6.com/story/34618510/renovations-underway-inside-downtown-tulsas-hartford-building (http://www.newson6.com/story/34618510/renovations-underway-inside-downtown-tulsas-hartford-building)


(http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/images/13233096_G.jpg)

Yes, the TDA had its April meeting.  The summary shows:

http://www.tulsadevelopmentauthority.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/April-2017-Executive-Director-Report.pdf  page 3

Interesting to see the fire station at 411 South Frankfort Avenue for sale for a mixed use redevelopment. That will be a fun one to watch with everything going on in that part of downtown.

Also, the update on the Hartford building. Yikes. They're already prepping some floors for paint and carpet but they masonry consultant has told them the brick on the outside is unsuitable and need to be replaced, and they're thinking about adding more windows to the building. That seems like they're doing it all out of order. Someone who knows more about building buildings correct me.

I really wish that Tulsa Opera had been able to get that building.

Or the University of Tulsa.  I think they were looking at it for their School of Community Medicine at one point (which is now in the old BCBS building).  Would have added something different to the area.

Nothing against the current developers, the proposed use will be good for the area too.

TU going where they did is good as south downtown needs more attention and that kind of place won't necessarily enhance the walkability a ton. The new TU location fits with the existing mold of south downtown buildings around there (medical/legal/corporate offices with not a lot of walkability or retail).

I think the new developer's plans fit the blue dome much better.

So I went down to this area this weekend, and drove around downtown. I think if we keep spending more and more money there, and continue focusing our attention on making that place better, it might not suck as much as it did this weekend.

You really should improve your troll game.

What troll? I was down there in early afternoon and was not impressed. Barely any life, save the unfortunate homeless people.

 Go to south Tulsa, and even where I live, and people are everywhere.

But mostly they are clogging up Memorial Drive while they text.

True enough.

Where exactly were you?  Obviously things vary day to day, but I'm up in the East Village area on a regular basis and there always seem to be a lot of people around.   It does seem to start about 2:00 though, so if you were there before that it could have been sparse.   I'm now getting my hair cut in the box yard, and am working it out so that I do that mid-afternoon and then can hang out and finish emails on my laptop and have a beer or two on the deck upstairs. (Or inside at WinWar if it's too windy or hot)  There is a great view from the deck, and I am always amazed at how many people I see walking around. 

Also, just for something different this Saturday morning I jogged up that direction instead of heading down the trails.   I ran 3rd st all across town, from Hodges Bend on the East End all the way over to Cox Center and then back South on Houston.  I have to say, I was amazed at the lack of homeless.  Of course, there were some around the bus station area and the random one here or there, but far fewer than I expected to encounter.  And none of them came anywhere close to messing with me.     

Speaking from past experience, downtown is usually slow on Memorial day weekend.  People go to the lake, their buddy's pool, or out of town.

But to say that it's dead the rest of the time is without evidence or common sense.  I've been going down there all my life and can give you dozens of anecdotes and just plain hard evidence that it has really changed.  For the most part, if I'm going downtown, I take Lyft on Friday or Saturday night because I don't want to deal with parking (or the DUI checkpoints).  I grew up being able to park next to Cain's for shows, but now I need a strategy if I'm driving (and that strategy keeps evolving).  There used to be no bars, then there was Caz's and Snooty Fox, and then later Arnie's.  Eventually, McNellie's opened and that changed everything.  14 years after McNellie's opened, EVERYTHING is different.  There is no other area of the city with more nightlife than downtown.

Following Guido is getting to be almost as much fun as following Saurkraut when he is in town

All over downtown. Had business to attend to and just marveled at what all the attention Tulsa has given to one part of the city and its return.

I am zero fan of developing a downtown for the sake of doing so. Especially this downtown, save the deco and other historical buildings. And we must address the homeless situation, because those souls are the ones using downtown apparently to its full potential.

I do not dispute that if you want to get drunk and act stupid, there are plenty of places to go downtown for that. I just do not see why Tulsa had to spend millions and millions of tax dollars to develop that environment. That's it. And "nightlife" runs roughly 8-2. There are 18 hours of the day to fill, and apparently people are more interested in spending that time out where I live. Where Tulsa (or the county) has not invested millions to prop up. Why is that?

Oh come on man, I think you understand it well enough.  You obviously don't like it, and that's cool, but I think underneath it all you do understand it.  It's not like Tulsa is unique (as has been pointed out on this forum for years),  this re-investment in downtown is going on all over the country.  The threads are all there to read, and a quick internet search will yield even more results.  Every major (and a lot of minor) cities in our general neighborhood (OKC, Dallas, Ft Worth, Little Rock, KC, etc...) have done the same kind of investment, and most are far ahead of us in doing so.  "OKC" is not Yukon, or Edmond, or Moore, and they have invested accordingly.  Tulsa is not Broken Arrow, Jenks, or Owasso, and we must invest likewise, or we wither in comparison.

Oh, and I'm with you on the homeless situation, it is an issue. But it can be managed, and as I noted in my previous post it isn't really all that bad now, save for a couple of small areas.

Was up close and personal with this over the weekend. It is not being managed. It is maddening, shameful, and disgraceful.

And the COT didn’t spend millions and millions in infrastructure to support suburban development?  Who do you think paid for all the streets, water/sewer, right of ways, etc. to make all that happen?  The widening and improvements on Memorial and all the other arterials in your area weren’t funded by private developers or donations.  Are you aware the COT gave Costco a $2mm golden handshake when Costco likely would have built in the Tulsa area regardless?  How much is Tulsa giving away to the developer of the center where REI is trying to locate?  Other than the BOK Center, I’m not aware of any vast fortunes spent on new downtown infrastructure other than in places with established TIF districts.  You need to spend more time on the development topics to learn a little better about how much Tulsa has spent on propping up suburban lifestyles over the last 60 years.

I do find this interesting:  I consider that I spent a good deal of time downtown from the time I was a child until we moved away in March.  I went to Trinity Episcopal (Iron Gate) and have had dealings with the Day Center, John 3:16, and other downtown entities who work with the homeless.  I’ve officed downtown, I’ve lived downtown, done a lot of business downtown, attended and helped promote countless festivals yet I never considered that it is a huge issue. 

I’ve never really considered that Tulsa has a worse homeless issue downtown than anywhere else.  I’ve felt more threatened by panhandlers at QT’s on 11th St. and 31st & Sheridan than I ever did downtown.

Perhaps people who spend more time in an area simply don’t notice or are used to it as a part of the fabric so we are not as in tune or sensitive to it perhaps blissful ignorance is a good term.  Perhaps you have not spent near as much time as myself downtown and that is why homeless people stand out more to you.

I’m not bagging on your perception or saying one is superior than the other.  I’m simply making a point that I don’t think of Tulsa has having a “bad” homeless problem.  There are multiple agencies addressing the issue and there are countless anecdotal stories of people leaving the streets and getting back on their feet.

There is not much you can do to “manage” homelessness.  Our system no longer allows us to incarcerate certain of us in the population who might be better off in a state mental hospital than on the streets.  Please explain how Tulsa could manage its homeless situation if it is something you feel can be managed.  I’ve always been of the belief that for every person you get off the streets there’s another heading there.  We can throw out all sorts of platitudes like we need better education, drug intervention, mental health services, etc. but those all do exist in Tulsa and are nothing but hypotheticals to someone who is living life on the street.

And you miss my ultimate point, and inadvertently proved another. I don't want any of that crap near me. But it went in anyway because that is what "the people" wanted. And that's where they are spending the boatloads of cash on stuff other than drinking beer and some nightlife.

Believe me, I would love for all this crap that turned what was a quiet part of the area into freakin Woodland Hills corridor to not exist. But here it is.

Homelessness is a huge deal with me. It may be worse elsewhere, but that does not make me feel any better. And it's not about the threat they pose, it's about failure, human misery and inability to problem solve. And homelessness is f*cking Exhibit A as to why giving money to government via taxes does not fix this thing. 

Some of those wandering around might be living at the Day Center, Salvation Army, or John 3:16.  I mean they aren’t lockdown facilities.  It probably doesn’t help things that the jail is in that general area and some people fresh out of jail have nowhere else to go than wandering downtown.

I’ll agree the system fails some people but for others, homelessness does boil down to a choice.  There are programs to get clean, get a job, get a roof overhead.  Once someone chooses to go back out and use, they are back to square one.  Addiction is a disease but it is also involves a choice to keep feeding it or not.

And not every homeless person is miserable.  We’ve had welders and day laborers working for us who felt like they were most free when they camped down by the I-44 bridge on the Arkansas River for weeks or months on end. 

The case for homelessness?

We overlap on most things, but I think you and I diverge a some on this particular topic.   I do think we can manage the homeless issue, and we have every right to demand certain behavior.   This does not mean that I am against spending money on programs etc.  Quite the contrary, I think we need to spend more. But, as part of that attention and spending, we can and should demand and enforce certain behaviors.   For example, I do not want people camped out down by the river.  (In a van, or otherwise...)  Nor do I want them sleeping under the bridge by the bike trails, or on the picnic tables near Elwood's.  I don't want them pushing shopping carts down the street, or begging on street corners.   

Provide the infrastructure, give them options for help.  It's then their choice.  While we can't force people to always behave the way we would like, we can tell them follow our rules, or go somewhere else. 

I hope I’m not being misunderstood as advocating for homelessness.  Reading your post, you and I are more in agreement on this issue than not.

JMO, we have as good an infrastructure as any city to serve the homeless through various non-profit entities.  It is simply a matter of individuals choosing to utilize those resources for their benefit and improvement rather than sustaining a status quo.

How do we define homelessness?  There are people who have a job or jobs but don’t own a home and don’t have an apartment, who couch surf at friends and relatives or alternate with sleeping in their car or when they are flush getting a room in a flop house motel out by the Turnpike gate.  That’s an example of homelessness.  But they are not loitering and getting into the conscience of most of us, therefore we don’t think of them as homeless.  I’d be willing to bet there are people on a fixed income who live in a low income apartment around downtown who wander downtown daily screaming crazy sh!t, panhandling, and they dress like a hobo.  Yet they have a fixed place to live so they really don’t meet the definition of homeless.  I’m willing to bet we’ve all been panhandled by multiple people who have a steady place to live, yet the first thought I know I have is “They must be homeless”.

Now we get to the point of how do you strengthen and enforce loitering and panhandling laws?  That seems to be the real issue people are associating with homelessness.  Not everyone standing in line at Iron Gate is homeless just as not everyone who has a job has a home.

The last thing we want to do is increase the jail population.  Do we pay for bus tickets out of town for those not choosing to follow loitering and panhandling laws?  I do believe there are curfews on city parks and parks run by RPA, but again it’s an enforcement issue.  How much money are we willing to spend on LEO’s to enforce loitering and panhandling when they don’t even respond to most property crimes nowadays.  

Going down the list of entities serving the low income and homeless populations in Tulsa, the last thing Tulsa suffers from when it comes to the homeless issue is outreach, in my opinion.

Is the issue that we aren’t controlling the homeless population very well or that our outreach is not the right sort of outreach?

Of course now we’ve drifted way off course from the discussion of 2nd & Greenwood but this is TNF after all.

You don't know what you're talking about.  It's cool.  Downtown has improved demonstrably, due to both public and private efforts, and that has benefited the quality of life.  You can disagree about that, but you are just wrong. 

I've posted the numbers on here before that Tulsa has one of the lowest rates of homelessness for larger cities in the US. We currently donate enough to feed and house all of them. The money just needs to be appropriated (preferably by non-profits) towards the right avenues and we can virtually eliminate this like they did in Utah, the most conservative state in the union.

How did Utah (mostly) fix it? "Housing First" which is what the Denver House in Tulsa is working on with their "Better Box Project".

Article about what Utah did:
http://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chronic-homelessness-by-91-percent-heres-how (http://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chronic-homelessness-by-91-percent-heres-how)

Here is more info on that where you can donate if you want to help end homelessness in Tulsa:
https://mhat.secure.force.com/betterboxproject2014?id=a20A000000BrR84 (https://mhat.secure.force.com/betterboxproject2014?id=a20A000000BrR84)


We can complain, but here is one of many organizations working on an actual solution that has been proven to work. Furthermore, the generous citizens of Tulsa have a history of being exceptionally generous and supporting organizations like John 3:16 and Salvation Army that are helping these people day to day.

And moving away to far south Tulsa does not fix homelessness. It is denial of the issue by avoidance. I am happy to see how it is improving and excited about new programs like the mayor is implementing to hire panhandlers to work in landscaping/cleaning the city. I am more thrilled when private non-profits do it and it is important to give to those that are using the money effectively.

There is so much to do downtown, far more than all of south Tulsa combined: semipro-soccer & baseball, comedy shows, tons of shows/events at Cain's, BOK, and Brady Theatre. There's music and performances at the PAC, art galleries, lots of festivals (MayFest, Blue Dome Arts Fest, Dia de Los Muertos, a huge bbq fest, winterfest, Cinco de Mayo), monthly Art displays (First Friday Brady Art Crawl attended by thousands), free concerts outside at Guthrie Green, sporting events (Tulsa Tough), big concert festivals with 40,000+ attendees.

Then on things you can more actively take part in: art classes/studios you can use, woodworking classes, glass-blowing, music school(s), pottery, several gyms including crossfit, bicycling/running groups, bicycle-build workshops, free yoga/tai chi/kung fu classes at Guthrie Green. Not to mention there's about a dozen churches and all of their activities.

Most all of those things happen during the afternoons and early evenings. I was never able to find anywhere close to all of that in South Tulsa or living in the suburbs. If they do have versions of these things, they're typically sparsely-attended bad knock-offs not worth going to.

You’re wasting your time.  Guido comes to downtown on Saturday afternoon of a holiday weekend and complains there is no one there but the homeless.  Then he complains that he doesn’t like all those cars, people and big box stores in south Tulsa (he doesn’t comment about the homeless at the major south Tulsa intersections, so they must not exist in his world).  While his assertion that downtown was dead on a Saturday afternoon is contrary to everything I’ve witnessed over the past 20 years and seems dubious at best, it doesn’t matter because he is either intentionally trying to provoke people or he is just one of those sad people for whom their only joy comes from complaining about everything. 

Good points. I listed that out more for others who might stumble on this post, so they can see all the stuff there is to do (and I listed just a fraction). Plus, I like to recall all of that and keep it fresh in my mind why I live close to downtown rather than in the sleepy 'burbs.  ;D

You and me both.   I moved from Dallas and lived in Owasso for 10 years.  One-acre lot, three car garage, lots of extra room for stuff, etc.  I have nothing against Owasso.  Nice town, and solid school. Just got tired of being so far away from everything. Moved to midtown 2-3 years ago. I gave up one of the garage doors and most of my yard, but I can walk to the river parks and TGP, and to Brookside, and bike to Cherry street or downtown.  So much to do.  Love it here.  Never going back.

 

I was downtown to HELP the homeless this holiday weekend.  Because, as I have now learned, people are more interested in enjoying themselves last weekend rather than helping others.

That’s to be commended, but your posts criticized how all the money Tulsa invested in downtown was wasted because no one was there on a Saturday except for the homeless.
 
“I think if we keep spending more and more money there, and continue focusing our attention on making that place better, it might not suck as much as it did this weekend. “

“I just do not see why Tulsa had to spend millions and millions of tax dollars to develop that environment. That's it.”

Now you tell us that your day downtown was spent helping the homeless and, surprisingly, during that day you saw a lot of homeless people. Sorry, but when you post on a thread about development at 2nd & Greenwood that downtown Tulsa “sucks” because you saw a lot of homeless people during your Saturday afternoon downtown helping the homeless, you have no credibility.

911... we have a burn victim! ;D

Ah, how about that virtue signaling! We have a real saint on our hands.

I mentioned seeing a lot of homeless because that is all I essentially saw.  That said, since this place is booming, we can stop spending money on it. It can support itself now.

Virtue signaling? Explaining why I was in a place and and that I was helping those some people in here thought I was critiquing is virtue signaling? Someone's got a little "I am a jealous, thoughtless, and uncaring F so I will vent at those that try to help" complex.

Fellas.

I will defend guido on one thing. He is right that we have spent a ton of money on downtown to the detriment of other areas. At some point, downtown should be able to survive without additional government subsidy. If it can't, then we have wasted millions of dollars.
 

And that is really all I am saying. I want money for the homeless, but more for our public schools. But that would be real thread drift.

Come on...don't go RWRE on us, here!!  It's beneath you.


We should never disparage someone's good works!  Even Trump has done some good - he is paying someone to raise and care for his son Barron.

Common cause!!   The gutting of education in Oklahoma over the last 5 years is the biggest disgrace this state has ever done!

Other than the BOK Center, OneOk and re-makes of streets (some in TIF districts) I’m not seeing downtown getting an unfair advantage over other areas.  I believe those were reasonable expenditures and they were done some time back.  I’m not seeing where there’s a disproportionate amount of public money spent in downtown now vs. outlying areas, which is not being done without a TIF to repay it (i.e. Santa Fe Square).  You may have a better view than I do of current expenditures, but it seems that private investment has been outstripping public investment downtown for several years now and it’s backed up by demand.

I do recognize there are streets which should have been widened years ago in south and east Tulsa but this is nothing new.  When I lived at 85th & Toledo 40 years ago, that’s when everything south of 71st to 121st and from Riverside to at least Garnett should have been in the works to widen to accommodate future growth like OKC was doing at the time.  We weren’t spending a ton on downtown back then either.  The biggest infusion of cash in downtown has been literally the last 15 years or so.  In that same time frame we’ve been re-habbing roads which were neglected for years instead of widening projects.

Oh Oklahoma has done far worse than that. Hell, Tulsa has done worse. But our public education system SUCKS and needs priority funding--and this from a guy whose kids went to private school.

BoK Center, OneOk Field, and road projects have equaled over $300 million public dollars into downtown in the last ten years. Add to this almost every new apartment and hotel has been given subsidy or no interest loans and I would say that it is equal to the discretionary funding of all the rest of Tulsa combined.

Tulsa is 192.1 square miles and downtown is three square miles.

I have supported everyone of those dollars spent downtown to date, but at some point they are going to have to grow on their own.

Argument concluded.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/HhTXt43pk1I1W/giphy.gif)

Does the economic impact of those projects matter at all, though? BOK Center alone has peaked that $300M. That's the end game with these projects, right?

Same thing applies to all private developments that get subsidies or abatements or whatever - there's a return that goes back to the city

I am not sure we can prove economic impact of the BoK Center that easily. Ticket sales are money that also leaves with the artist.

Don't get me wrong. I love that Tulsa has such a facility and we go often. I am willing to pay for such an attraction. But I question how much longer we must subsidize every new apartment being built.  

Especially when they generally demand much higher rent/prices. It seems counter intuitive to give someone help for selling something that prices seem to indicate are pretty high in demand. Confusing to say the least.

The help is not for the selling, but the building/converting.    Based on previous discussions on apartments on this site, it is difficult to build from scratch at low price-points.   But, I agree with your basic question.   If we (Tulsa) are going to subsidize building apts, could we stipulate certain constraints regarding rents, etc, for a period of time?

Thank you for taking the time to seriously address my points.  BOK Center, the remake of the Civic Center, and OneOk Field consumed over 2/3 of that investment, IIRC.  Total for those projects should be in the $210 to $220 million range.  That is a 40 or 50 year investment based on how long the Maxwell Convention Center served as our primary performance and convention venue and it still continues as our convention venue today.  Deduct that  from your $300 million figure and that leaves $80-90 million spent in various downtown projects.

If I also recall some projects which we would refer to as subsidized like the Mayo renovation was done with a TDA loan which I believe has been repaid.  Others have been done with TIFs which utilized repayment from realized sales tax revenue like the Brady District TIF which I think has paid out.

Our street package we passed about 10 years ago was to fund about $1 billion in repairs, I believe over ten years.  Based on that package alone, it would pretty well squelch the notion that we’ve spent more on downtown (even including OneOk and BOK) than the rest of Tulsa combined in the last 10 years.  

A city’s civic center is a source of self-esteem and commerce.  It’s been that way throughout recent history around the world (at least for 2-3 millennia).  That is why there is more investment geared in that direction in Tulsa after the real downturn it took as corporations moved to the suburbs in the 1970’s and to other cities in the 1990’s.

You know we don’t measure the impact of a BOK center or OneOk solely in gate receipts though.  By adding about 10,000 or so seats to our single night performance capacity we now book musical acts and sporting events we could never get before.  It’s proven events like that have regional draw which means hotel, dining, and shopping receipts do go up as a result.  I have no idea how much putting the ball field in an urban setting has actually improved sales tax receipts on game days at area businesses from when it was at a suburban setting with zero walkability factor built in to nonexistent area food and beverage venues.  I do think it would be fair to say it has at least increased the likelihood people are spending more money in area businesses than they would have at 15th & Yale.

I know you realize I am a huge skeptic when it comes to “sales taxing” our way to prosperity.  Even with all the investment downtown and elsewhere, our sales tax collections have been flat for 30 plus years now.  There’s been no significant uptick since the BOK and OneOk and all the other venues downtown opened.  It’s entirely possible additional collections there have managed to offset online spending (I’m sure there is data somewhere within OTC we could mine for that) or infrastructure investment is simply a zero sum game no matter what or where you build it.

Real growth happens when you make a city more livable and more attractive for companies and professionals to relocate to the area.  Without all the influx of people looking to move to Austin, their fortunes might look a good deal more like Tulsa’s.  I personally was always thankful Tulsa did not end up with the problems of Austin’s growth.

In terms of ROI in sales tax dollars, we’ve had many discussions on here as to why supporting dense redevelopment is far more cost-effective than supporting sprawl.  I am not ignoring one of one areas of your wife’s suburban council district which does need improvement to support, I believe it is, 3000 apartment units.  That is density.  It’s not the urban density idealized by many on this board, but it is density nonetheless and there is a real problem with bottlenecks in the area.

I was a vocal detractor of the original V-2025 and I voted against it.  But take a look at what all happened downtown as a result and think about what 15 more years of neglect and little public investment on downtown would look like now.

And finally, in the next 10 years I believe we will have exhausted most redevelopment opportunity in downtown- for the time being and as developer’s focus shifts to redeveloping outdated parcels in the suburbs so will public spending.

Tulsa has always been a lot like an alcoholic or drug addict.  It’s never known real balance when it comes to development.  It’s been a ton of focus in one area to the neglect of others then on to the next instead of steady in all directions.

No other part of town was treated with such disdain as downtown had in the 50 years prior to the last decade.  When you destroy more than half of what was built, it takes money to build it back up.  All the while, we've subsidized for decades the ever widening roads and bridges to for the city to sprawl outwards.  The hundreds of miles of roads and infrastructure built over the last 60 years for sprawl far outweights what has been spent on revitalizing the three square miles of downtown in the last ten years.  During that time, the only money being spent downtown was for wrecking balls.  Downtown is the heart of a city, and every major city that allowed their downtowns to crumble while catering to white flight are realizing their mistake and spending what it takes to make their downtowns lively and livable.  There are hundreds of articles on the economics of a strong downtown.  Here is one I found in 30 seconds.

http://plannersweb.com/2013/09/healthy-downtown-key-strong-community/

If Tulsa ignores the trends, we can expect to fall even more behind in competitiveness while young people flock even more than they do now to competitor cities who are doing things right.  And to attract conventions and other forms of tourism, people don't want to rent a car to get around, and don't care to stay chain restaurants on 71st Street, they want to see local restaurants, art, and public spaces in downtown.  Let's also recognize that the private sector, Kaiser especially, has largely matched public investment.  I don't think complaints about downtown investment over the last ten years is justified.  It's a net economic positive for the city.

In addition to what Conan said:

1) It is worth noting that downtown and a few select districts in Tulsa are the only competitive advantage Tulsa has over Broken Arrow, Jenks, Bixby, and Owasso.  They win for cheap land, new subdivisions, and [whatever the current euphemism is for safe from diversity].  Tulsa can't offer that same package, and shouldn't really.  While Tulsa needs nice suburbanneighborhoods to be a successful city of its size in the midwest, we don't have a competitive advantage in that area.

If we are trying to attract the coveted "young professional,"  they tend to move to places with a lively urban core.  Some may filter out to the suburbs when they settle down, some won't. 

Ignoring them, suburban Anytown USA with a Starbucks, Applebees, and strip mall every mile has a place, but it supplies zero in the way of interest, identity, or a draw for people to come to that area (when was the last time someone from Tulsa went to Owasso to go to Applebees?  Or they to South Tulsa for the same?).  Visitors to Austin, Kansas City, Little Rock, Minneapolis or Tulsa don't head for the suburbs to see the sites.   And Jenks can't offer a real urban environment.

If Tulsa focuses on trying to compete for new subdivisions, new strip malls and the latest big box, we will lose. That isn't our competitive advantage.


2) Investments in downtown tends to generate synergy with other developments.  A ballpark in the Brady District attracts hotels, more bars and restaurants, and life in the area because people "go out" to the area and do things.  Generally, when something goes in a car-centric part of the city, its just another stand alone entity.  Going to a ballgame or concert in south Tulsa (or Jenks, Owasso, Bixby, etc.) is just that - you drive to the event, attend, then get in your car and drive home.  If you want dinner or drinks before or after you drive there too.


3) Tulsa's formerly shiny new subdivisions that are getting to the point of needing major street replacements, sewers, and other infrastructure don't pay for themselves.  Over a 40 year timeline, they are cash flow negative for the City - the tax revenue per property is not high enough to pay for the infrastructure cost required to support it.  In the long run, you can't grow your way out of a ponzi scheme.  The result is urban areas have been and will continue to subsidize suburban areas, at some point they are going to have to grow on their own.


Everywhere needs to stand on their own eventually.  I don't think anyone is proposing a vast new spending spree of government money downtown.  So unless the argument is that we squandered our funds thus far, I don't see the contention.  And while quality suburban neighborhoods are essential for a successful Tulsa, a thriving urban core provides a competitive advantage that they cannot provide.

Ok has been worse, but was always improving.  Now, we have been better and are (rapidly) declining.  Huge difference in attitude and approach.

Not to pile on, but I think your point has some merit but ignores a number of issues unique to downtown, some of which were made above.

First, while I don’t think we need any big dollar items in the near future, we cannot stop investing in downtown if we want it to achieve its full potential.  Roads still need to be improved and modified to enhance walkability, one-way streets converted to two-way streets, downtown public transits needs to be developed, affordable housing will likely require some form of subsidy, etc.

Second, focusing on downtown’s geographic size as compared to the metropolitan area as a whole misses the point.  Downtown is the focal point and it the areas single most important asset that drives regional growth in a way no other part of town ever can.

Third, that $300 million was not at the expense of other parts of Tulsa.  If the BOK is not built downtown, it’s not built at all.  The Spirit Bank center gave us a glimpse of how a suburban arena would fare.  Indeed, $300 million over 10 years is really not that big of a number on an annual basis, especially considering the nearly $1 billion in private investment that it has help generate.

Fourth, I think we got and are getting a good return on our investment.  Downtown is changing before our eyes and this has happened during one of the worst recessions in 80 years, a slow recovery and an oil bust.  As noted, be cannot calculate a ROI, but you cannot ignore the apartments, hotels, restaurants, etc. that have been built.  We are going to spend $100+ million to widen Yale between 81st and 91st, which is a huge chunk of the last roads package.  While that will improve the lives of those living in that area, I don’t see it generating anywhere near the private investment or transformation that has happened downtown.

Tulsa needs to invest in all parts of the city, not just any one part.  But it cannot ignore, as it did for so long, the most important part.

It's not really accurate to say that the only money spent downtown over the 50 years prior to 2007 was for wrecking balls.   Just off the top of my head... in that period, Tulsa public investments in downtown included building the convention center and adding on to it, building the "new" city hall, central library and civic center complex, building the PAC, building the Main Mall

True - there was money spent to build - but every one of those started with the wrecking ball to clear the space.

Broken Arrow is having a major 'deja vu' moment like that - all the people who have moved there from Tulsa have brought their 'Tulsa values' of tear-it-down-and-build-something-else to that space.  Much of the new near downtown stuff is just pure ole' bu$$ ugly carp - no character, do design, no thought to keeping/rejuvenating the area.  Gentrification at it's worst.

I was told once much of the rip rap used on the Arkansas River through Tulsa for bank stabilization was from the demolition of the properties where the Williams Center was built.