The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

PAC Trust has selected a developer for the parking lot east of the PAC. Indianapolis-based firm Flaherty and Collins proposed a development that includes parking, apartments and a new downtown Reasor's store.

(http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/images/8986061_G.jpg)
(http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/images/8635527_G.jpg)

http://www.newson6.com/story/30228722/pac-trustees-developer-continue-talks-to-transform-downtown-parking-lot

Wow!
Pretty sweet!

Fantastic - hopefully the final product will actually look something like this picture.

Cool cgi.  Cimarex monstrosity to follow.

one quibble: The grocery looks like every other Reasor's. Why can't we do better and make it multi-story and blend into the urban landscape instead of just floating a big box grocery into downtown. It would also be cool if this development was designed like an extension of the PAC with some additional theater space and some Broadway style lighting and ad space.

Other than that, I'm fully on board with filling in surface parking lots with revenue producing structures, and I will be a regular customer of this grocery.

At least the Reasors is shown in brick with windows along all sides.

The developer has lots of projects displayed on their website (http://flco.com/development/showcase/), both pretty CGI up coming projects, and actually completed projects. I haven't seen any blatant bait-and-switch yet. I'm very hopeful!

Example that is similar to the proposed:

Proposed:
(http://www.ibj.com/ext/resources/blog/propertylines/M/Marsh-Block-400.jpg)

Completed:
(http://flco.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/DSC_9267-980x530.jpg)

Does this hinge on presales or financing or TDA or anything else that could tank it?

Make the reasors structure multi story and I'm sold.

But where will everyone park?



(Sorry, had to)

The Reasors on Brookside is impressive and they are rebuilding the one on Cherry Street to match.  Not a big box grocery feel at all.  And local, so I support them.  I don't care if it's multistory or not as long as it is nice, modern, and carries fresh stuff.  Wanting multistory simply because New York or whatever is cheesy.  If it works based on the space size, then fine.  But don't force it just to feel cool.

Want multi-story to increase density in the foot print.

They'll simply redesign it with a five level above ground parking garage on the bottom with the actual structure on top.  That's what Tulsans want apparently.  (yes I'm still very bitter about the cimarex monstrosity and will be for some time.)

I assume the lower rise of the Reasor's is to provide views from the apartments.  Multi-storied grocery stores also require a lot of specialized features (escalators that work with carts, elevators, etc.) that really add to the cost that is probably not supported by the economics given cheaper land cost in downtown.  What would be really cool is a is roof-top garden on the Reasor’s that provided produce for the store.

Can anyone provide an example of a multi-story grocery store?
I've been to NYC, Tokyo, Europe, Seattle, San Fran...   haven't encountered a multi-level grocery store

Edit:  found this new store HEB store in San Antonio:
http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/2015/01/new-san-antonio-h-e-b-grocery-store-is-on-two-levels.html/

Multi-story Walmart  (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.900203,-77.0122078,3a,75y,41.49h,94.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sm3hcR-wgsBhVL5RDCCnkbw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)on a small footprint in downtown/NoMa DC

What may be more plausible for downtown Tulsa is putting units above the grocery store.

Hard to see but more about 1/3 of this Whole Foods in Foggy Bottom (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9006966,-77.0488269,3a,75y,330.74h,99.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swJwnTofO3xwjatjFiIBiUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) in on the street level, the other 2/3 are a level below that.

All the groceries of this Navy Yard Harris Teeter (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8763055,-77.0005492,3a,75y,121.5h,100.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sl8QbQMnXyKocV6LRxd3uYQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) are on one level but like the Whole Foods in Foggy Bottom it has parking below and apartments above.

Even in an urban area like DC these stores are unusual. There are plenty of big box grocery stores with parking lots next to them nestled into otherwise walkable areas.

We can't tell from the renderings if the store would be multi-level, but the structure housing the store is clearly is two-stories tall.  Notice the second level outdoor space and the skywalk connecting to the PAC.

And, the proposed Reasor's is only 35,000 square feet, so clearly not just a standard suburban big-box plopped down on a downtown lot.

Why does the second story have to be grocery store?
(http://cdn.patch.com/users/86497/2015/08/T800x600/20150855e49841598ff.jpg)

Will renters/buyers get a discount on their units for noise and odor issues with units closest to the loading dock and trash compactor?

Someone has to get the alley view.

One of the PAC Trust requirements was that the project had to replace the existing parking spots and include sufficient parking for the new development.  Therefore, adding more apartments on top of the Reasor's would add to the number of parking spots required.

Also, it would be difficult to add more units and not have half the units with no street view (just an internal breezeway or nothing at all). That would be a hard sell in Tulsa.

Now, if we want to be greedy...

Ground floor Reasors on one side, ground floor retail/office on the others. The center of the block on the ground floor is a limited access alley for Reasors, etc. The next floors are parking garage. Apartments on top of that.  Poor, entire block high density!

Then again, I'm assuming they have the apartment complex and retail scaled to what they think they can make the most money off of. They probably aren't looking to get the "most dense" they can. Just the most dense that pays off the most.

I'm happy with it. A nice single story grocery store will add life and more walk-ability than a lot of other developments could. Plus, it is 10 fold denser than it is now!

I actually think the second story above at least part of Reasor's has to be the new theater for the PAC.

I've been to two multi level Target stores. The first one in Springfield, PA (near Philly by my daughter's college) that is a real two story store with special escalators for the carts. They have food on one floor and all the other items on the other. The other store is in downtown San Francisco by the Moscone Center (convention center), but that store is really a single level store on the second floor with a movie theater and food court below. I've also seen a Safeway in SF where the roof is parking but the store was still ground level.

I like the development. If a small change could be made maybe instead of a few planters the whole roof could be a greenroof/green space?

I am very happy with this as the selection. For awhile I have been a proponent of an urban-style Reasors for downtown. I was surprised when it was included in this proposal and am ecstatic it is this close to becoming a reality!

Side note: What is up with News on 6 covering most of the Tulsa downtown/development stuff recently? Seems like Tulsa World has stepped down as the major news source for developments. I guess they are too busy talking about OU.

The Tulsa World hasn't done a much for local reporting recently other than publish police reports, press releases and talk to Michael Sager.

it looks like the structured parking is below the swimming pool in this concept art

(http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/images/8635527_G.jpg)

Well...it looks like there's a waterfall spilling over the roof of the parking garage also, too, as well.

It’s either an infinity pool or a waterfall spilling out onto the Reasor’s roof to water those trees that have sprouted up.

I wonder if they'll actually do the trees, or if it'll be another GreenArch.

original rendering http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/realestate/greenarch-brings-apartments-retail-to-greenwood/article_04374996-ea94-5034-817b-7940ad3400dc.html?mode=image&photo=1

Here's a multi-story Target in downtown Minneapolis.  It has escalators for carts that run parallel to the escalators for people.
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9750582,-93.2738054,3a,75y,237.27h,97.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1su7UbAVMWZeTTKhwconOy1A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9750582,-93.2738054,3a,75y,237.27h,97.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1su7UbAVMWZeTTKhwconOy1A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)

I've also been to a Safeway in Portland, Oregon that had elevators.  But I think you just used the elevators to access the below-ground parking lot.  Can't remember if the retail part of the store had a second floor or not.

I've been to several urban Walgreen's that were two stories tall in cities throughout the country.  Can't remember exactly where.  Miami and New York City, for sure, but I can't remember where else I've seen them.

We'll see a two story grocery store same time we see a 3 bedroom apartment.

That area of Minneapolis is a density and foot traffic level that few cities in the US have dreamed of. It is blocks from a MLB team, an NBA team, an NFL team and a light rail system that goes to an NHL team as well as 60,000 college kids. Hell, four blocks from there they built a multi story parking garage over the interstate. Great goal, no where near reality outside of ~10 cities in the United States.

Incidentally, the baseball team plays at Target Field, the NBA team plays at the Target Center, and the multi floor store is a flagship Target that sits one block away from the Target Credit Union, which is just off of Target Plaza, which happens to be where the Target Building is. The headquarters of... Target.

My guess is the multistory store doesn't even make financial sense there, rather it is a prestige store.

Actually, I've always thought that Minneapolis is the city that Tulsa could aspire to be if we ever decide to grow up.  Chicago, New York, and San Francisco are obviously out of our league.  Portland, OR could be within our reach if enough old people here die and enough young people stay.  But even then, we're not progressive enough or far-sighted enough to be Portland.

Minneapolis, however, is a nice little city with way too much parking downtown that still manages to be super cool, runs a great transit system, and is (re)building density in its downtown area.  Salt Lake City is another place that's within reach.  What both cities seem to have that we lack is a respect for urban planning and an understanding of the importance of transit.  These are basically the biggest keys to revitalization and economic sustainability that we lack.

Downtown Chicago has them too. Ground level is your standard Walgreens with food and liquor in the basement.

The last few years I've thought it would great to see OKC & Tulsa become "sister cities" like Minneapolis & St Paul.  Make the Turner a free highway, add high speed rail and build a destination in between the two downtowns.

That makes too much sense for both cities. Unfortunately I have it on pretty good authority that the movers and shakers in OKC have directed their attention south to DFW.
 

Thats what I would do if I were them.

Yes. To compete with larger cities, we could combine functional populations. Some big (and unlikely) ideas to do that:

• Build one airport midway between the cities that is accessible by car, bus, and rail.
• Support alternative transit between the cities - rail and bus service [obligatory shoutout to our startup www.motherroadtravel.com that is attempting to do this]
• Encourage driverless car development to make the cost of commuting or going to events/games across the Turnpike lower
• Pie in the sky efforts like hyperloop make connection even shorter

If you buy the "2050: Mega Region" concept, Tulsa and OKC will both be on the outskirts of the Texas mega region. If so, developing connections to Dallas will be even more important than Tulsa-OKC. And things like the hyperloop or other commuter options that go significantly faster than 100 mph will be necessary or we will end up the equivalent of a small town that was bypassed by the interstate highway system.

One cautionary note though, Tulsa and OKC are much further apart than Minneapolis - St. Paul. I think Baltimore - DC is closer to the distance we are.

Not only are Minneapolis and St.Paul merely divided by a river, Tulsa and OKC are really different personalities. That is dictated by our different geographies and labor populations. To put it graphically, they are flat, red dirt, we are hilly, green country. They also are part of a growing chain of cities that spread south towards Dallas meaning the entire southern part of the state is served by OKC and Dallas via the I-35 and I-40 corridors. We do not serve that same function in any direction. The only thing we share with OKC is the extreme red politics and the money making Turner Turnpike.

We are on our own.

I agree that Tulsa should strive to be Minneapolis, that is a great city. I've spent a lot of time there, have family there, and still visit at least once a year. I think we could do it, but it would be a very long term project. Probably two generations out if we went all in - which we will not. So here's my rant...

While the City itself is only slightly larger than Tulsa, Minneapolis is the hub of a metro area that is 3.8 million people. We would need every citizen of Oklahoma to move within 40 miles of Tulsa to compete with their size. Denver, Cleveland, Detroit are in their neighborhood. Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Orlando, Portland are a significant step behind Minneapolis metro for size. Tulsa is a couple of steps behind those cities.

Minneapolis itself has a density of 7300 people per square mile - more than three times Tulsa's density. The city of 400,000 people is in 58 square miles. Tulsa takes up nearly 200 square miles.  Minneapolis is much closer in land area to Skiatook (17 square miles) than to Tulsa. It is actually reasonably close to Broken Arrow in land area.

It has an educational profile we couldn't dream of. They don't have many elements of their society actively fighting against education, denying science, and working towards a theocracy. Just down the rail there are 60,000 college students and most of them stay in the metro area. That attracts employers who need educated workers. This, of course, leads to an income level we don't have.  It also leads to an appreciate for the arts and science that many of our citizens don't have.

They have a legislature that isn't full of idiots. Even Jesse Ventura was a better electoral pick than we have made. They have long term plans and carry them out. Almost like making decisions for whats best for the most citizens was important. Great regional mass transit. One regional airport directly between the two cities. Growing educational opportunities. Good infrastructure (hey! That interstate collapse was Federal!). Simple alcohol laws :)

They also don't have many natural resources (iron range up north, some farming down south). That is very good for most economies as it makes the residents themselves the best commodity and leads to a premium value on education and entrepreneurship. In most instances, those commodities pay off better in the long run than oil in the ground or gold in the hills. (generally, that trend holds nationally too. It is why the  Netherlands, Japan, and Taiwan are rich with few natural resources and Nigeria, Venezuela, and South Africa are generally poor even though loaded with resources)

It is all of these things that allows every professional sports franchise to operate (they added an MLS announcement, they literally have every major league franchise you can have. I'm not a pro sports guy, but it is a sign of a "major" city). That allows home grown companies to thrive. That allows progressive policies to take root and build a great city.

My ambitions for Tulsa is much more reserved. I'm afraid our population as a whole will never embrace education. Our government will always be a reflection of under-educated people. Our population density for the entire city will never reach 7k per square mile (we would be the 5th largest City in the country if we did, overtaking Philadelphia). A large scale mass transit is unlikely. OKC is too far away to be a true sister City (Chicago is closer to Milwaukee, Orlando and Tampa, Baltimore to DC is only 40 miles) unless we did something astounding (~200+ mph high speed rail).



My ambition for Tulsa is to continue to build the core of our City into a dense, urban environment. The development community and many in south Tulsa want Tulsa to be the best Jenks we can be... but Tulsa has no competitive advantage if we compete in suburban development. We can't offer cheap half acre lots like Collinsville, we can't continue to offer sparkling new chain stores like Owasso, and we can't offer endless cookie cutter subdivisions like Broken Arrow. Tulsa loses that fight.

And if we fight that fight, no one from any of those towns would bother coming to Tulsa for anything. Why locate a business in Tulsa, why move here, why drive to Tulsa if we offer the same crap everyone else offers.

Tulsa's competitive advantage is density. It is in an urban environment. Focus on supporting and growing that and we enhance our competitive advantage. And that includes public transit. It includes building codes. But for long term sustained urban growth it also includes education and economics - that's where doubt comes in.

We have made a dang good start since I've been here (2003), and that start now appears to be a self fueling fire. More announcements. More development. More density. More demand. I bring people from all over the country (and world) to Tulsa for visits for a variety of reasons - and if I try to show them the urban side of Tulsa they leave impressed. If all they see is south Tulsa, they like the City just fine... .but it is any town USA.

It really doesn't take much area to make an urban space seem special. The French Quarter isn't that big. Downtown Minneapolis isn't that big. Downtown Austin isn't that big. If our existing downtown areas continue to grow, we have something very nice. If we connect those areas to Brookside, Cherry Street, the Pearl, etc... it could be amazing.

I think we are on the way. The next step is transportation and zoning changes.

For transit - make a system that is practical. The goal should be to make some areas practical to live in car free and to make most areas possible for one car families. Rail is really cool and can lead to amazing economic development... but buses are far cheaper. As a start we should commit to high frequency buses on certain routes. THEN discuss urban rail when those are successful.

The zoning changes have been well articulated on here by DS Jeffries. Kill or reduce parking requirements (at least in certain areas). Encourage form based codes. Discourage suburban development in urban areas. Stop giving in to every "fire code" demand. Consider exceptions, exemptions, and rezoning requests in the context of the long term plan.

Bah! I've rambled enough. Sorry... I don't think Tulsa will be Minneapolis in the near future, probably ever. And I'm fine with that. But I think we can continue to improve what makes us unique and use that as a competitive advantage moving forward. We have assets many places gave up long ago or never had. Lets use them.

No, Baltimore and DC are not only much larger but much closer, the cities are only 38 miles apart, they are more like Tulsa to Claremore than OKC.

GreenArch changed developers and architects IIRC.

This site has one of my favorite skyline views.  I always wanted it to be a park like Guthrie Green before they built Guthrie Green, but a good mixed-use development would work.  Hopefully as the design is finalized a few things get ironed out:
1. Parking - it looks like all of the parking is in the above grade garage below the apartments?  Hopefully that still allows for some retail space along 2nd Street, with entry and exit from the garage on Cincinnati/Detroit.  Does that include the PAC parking, or maybe that could be one level underground?
2. Reasor's - if they indeed are the tenant that would be fantastic.  Hopefully lots of glass along 3rd Street with a coffee shop and deli area with outdoor seating at the Cincinnati corner.  Maybe they could do a green roof and actually grow something they sell, that would be pretty slick.
3. Apartment - hopefully it looks like rendering and at least stays in the 8 story range, or even taller.  

Oh yeah and ditch the skyway bridge!

Is there an update on this project?

There was this story from late January:
 

http://www.newson6.com/story/31059564/development-plans-advance-for-downtown-tulsa-parking-lot

Kansas City is what we should follow...

Why, do they spend a couple of hundred million dollars so bike messengers aren't inconvenienced?

What in the hell are you talking about? I voiced my opinion on urban planning on this forum years before I had my current job. Stick to the discussion and don't be an annoyance.

What? With Oklahoma City-like sprawl?  No thanks.  I’ve lived in KC, great city but not something Tulsa should aspire to be.

I will be in KC again this weekend for kid soccer. I went to college nearby and have a sister in Independence.

Kansas City does some things very well. The major league baseball and football bring in big dollars in tourists and the Plaza shopping area rakes in the dough. I like how they built the Convention Center with tunnels over major downtown roads so traffic gets through. The soccer complex we are going to in Overland Park cost $36 million for 12 artificial turf fields and is touted as one of the most successful youth sports ventures anywhere. Our games this weekend are against teams from Minnesota, Tennessee, and Missouri.

The towns are hard to compare. We boomed with oil money in Tulsa banks and they were the connection of three cattle trails and trains plus a river capable of shipping cows back east.

We do compete with them fairly. We have a better downtown. We have a better zoo. We have lower taxes. 

Soccer got a huge boast in KC with the Kansas City Sporting, wildly successful and now the training site for the US Olympic team.

Kansas City has an interesting downtown area. The WWI Museum and Union Station are amazing assets. They have a neat mall downtown that is often busy. A movie theater. Downtown is mighty dense.

Plaza is cool. Other areas in the older part of town are really dense. But when you get outside of KC, it is the same as Owasso/Jenks/Etc. very quickly.

I had job opportunities in KC that would have paid more to start than I made in Tulsa. I like Tulsa better. Not only because we are a few hundred miles further south...

Years ago Kansas City had the foresight to resist the fad of building round all-purpose sports stadiums. They built separate baseball and football stadiums. They have maintained and improved them over the years, but they are still there being used, while all of the all-purpose stadiums in places like St. Louis, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, etc., are gone, replaced with single-purpose stadiums. Somehow, KC has kept its NFL franchise while St. Louis has lost two. KC has become a destination, a "cool" place for young professionals. The main problem I see is its proximity to Brownbackistan, er, Kansas. I have friends just over the border in Olathe and places like it who are at their wits' end.

Meanwhile, Minneapolis is building yet another stadium to entice the Vikings to stay in town. Someone with a lot of savvy has been navigating KC through the turbulence, a stark contrast to some other places.

Similarly, KC recently built a new performing arts center, the Kauffman Center. Rather than building an all-purpose hall that does everything poorly, they built a center with two major venues, one having a proscenium for opera, ballet, and theater, and one being a single-purpose symphony hall. It is quite impressive, and both are the right size.

https://www.kauffmancenter.org/ (https://www.kauffmancenter.org/)

There are very interesting things happening there.

Sound familiar to how I and other young(ish) Tulsans feel.

My understanding is that Utica Square’s concept was ripped from Country Club Plaza in KC.

Great place, but again, there’s reasons I moved back to Tulsa and choose to visit KC on an as-needed basis.

And not-so-youngish Tulsans

KOTV is reporting that the PAC Trust has approved the project, but has retained the right to still have final say over the design.

As a symptom of our myopic GOB leadership, Bob LaFortune was on the news last night saying he opposed the project as the 250 space surface parking lot was necessary for the PAC and he felt he had a fiduciary duty to the citizens to maintain that status-quo. 

For those not aware, Mr. LaFortune was Tulsa’s mayor in the early 1970’s and he sits on the PAC Trust board.

Wow.

But doesn't the PAC Trust operate for the good of the city?

New renderings available on the project page (http://tulsanow.org/index.php/pac-lot-development/).

How could someone be so out of touch? I thought he was against the 71st and Riverside development (which is good that he opposed it).

He sounds either uninformed or completely wrong. Does he not realize the new development includes a parking garage? Also, it could be home to a new grocery store which would be huge for downtown. I see no real downside to this. Even if it ends up a lot smaller or more plain or Reasor's doesn't move in, it should be a big win for downtown.

And the parking garage would allow those attending events at the PAC to park in a covered lot and take the covered bridge to the PAC during inclement weather. Then before and after shows, they could have restaurants and other shops right there as an option (instead of having to walk a couple blocks). Seems to be a win-win for the PAC and attendees in comparison to the existing lot.

Well, he has a point. Other than the hundreds of street parking lots within a block, the parking garage a block to the southeast, the parking garage a block directly south, the parking garage under ground directly west, the parking garage a block due north, the parking garage a block north-north east, the lot across the street, the lot a block to the south east, and the main mall and new American Parking garage on Boulder that are each ~2 blocks away... there isn't anywhere to park that I can think of within 3 blocks.

Unless they build parking as part of the new development.

Which they are doing...

I didn’t think about the ever-shrinking sea of surface parking, that could be tragic.  Maybe I need to start the Tulsa Surface Parking Coalition now.

Bob Lafortune can be the head of that for you

Anyone know who the 7 voting in favor are and who the 6 opposed are (other than former Mayor Lafortune)?

Just be glad our PAC board was as dumb as Omaha's. They were one of the big reason's HDR pulled it's plans to build it's new HQ downtown - all over parking.

http://www.ketv.com/news/hdr-scraps-plans-for-downtown-omaha-headquarters/38916708

http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/retail/pac-trust-board-to-discuss-plans-for-downtown-reasor-s/article_950a9ecc-fd8b-5d25-b0d6-b6b0460705f0.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/retail/pac-trust-board-to-discuss-plans-for-downtown-reasor-s/article_950a9ecc-fd8b-5d25-b0d6-b6b0460705f0.html)

http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/realestate/tulsa-pac-trust-set-to-vote-monday-on-downtown-grocery/article_cc425e94-63ad-5c3a-a55e-0c1c9ff35067.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/realestate/tulsa-pac-trust-set-to-vote-monday-on-downtown-grocery/article_cc425e94-63ad-5c3a-a55e-0c1c9ff35067.html)

Another TIFF... Would be great for that area though.

I guess if you know the PAC board members, please send them your support!

Does anyone know why they have to sell it? Seems like they would want some ownership in it, especially the parking lot. Or maybe they agree to get a certain number of parking spots in exchange. Anyone know how that might work?

I’d be curious to see how the TIF for Santa Fe Square might affect them being able to obtain one in such close proximity.  Granted, any major multi-use development is a great deal for downtown but why is it developers can’t seem to make them economically feasible without some sort of abatement or hand-out from the city?

They can. They just claim they can't because the hand-out is available. If we abolished TIFFs, you'd see developers suddenly figuring out how to make multipurpose developments economically feasible.

Many times, they are for specific upgrades to the infrastructure (as in the case of TIFFs recently passed for a few Brady developments) so it makes sense to give a discount to cover costs of streetscaping which will be used by the general public.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/realestate/pac-trust-puts-off-decision-on-grocery-store-proposal/article_506100a9-d39d-5fa5-a239-dc3a76c13447.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/realestate/pac-trust-puts-off-decision-on-grocery-store-proposal/article_506100a9-d39d-5fa5-a239-dc3a76c13447.html)

They got everything they asked for, picked the winning proposal and then got cold feet. That developer must be frustrated. You would think they would've gotten an estimate on the parking lot before holding this meeting to vote whether or not to sell it. The vote is pushed back to hopefully get that estimate but surprising they didn't already have one.

I thought they already voted on the best proposal and turned down another proposal which included a mid-sized theater. Seems like poor planning and execution. Better to wait and get good information before making a decision. I wonder what they mean by changing economic circumstances. The oil crash has been going on 2 years now and if they get the 5.5 million payout, they will be good to go and not have any risk. Hopefully they will vote for it and turn one of many unsightly parking lots into a real gem for downtown.

How do these people get leadership positions? Honest question.

I felt like this had a good chance of happening. Not anymore.  >:(

I hope the developers are willing to pick other site downtown.

In this case, they're all appointed by Tulsa's mayor (https://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/boards-and-commissions.aspx#Tulsa_Performing_Arts_Center_Trust_(PAC)).

He's also GT Bynum's grandfather, so there's that.

Walk me through the process of how it gets to that appointment.

The News on 6 story sheds a slightly different light on where the indigestion is coming from.  Apparently there was concern about losing parking spaces for patrons as apparently they would be ceding roughly 600 surface parking spaces for a few more spaces in the new parking garage.  I could see a problem there if you are going to have 240 apartment residents using parking spaces as well as Reasor’s customers using some as well.  As Utopic as it would be that all the residents of the apartments wouldn’t rely on a car and all Reasor’s business would be walk-up, it’s not going to happen.  Neither are patrons of the PAC highly likely to take mass transit for the opera or ballet.  That I see as a reasonable concern.

The story also says some members appeared confused about the development contract terms.  That seems a bit more nebulous to me.  YMMV.

Perhaps they should hand out Geritol before the November meeting and the board won’t be so crotchety. 

http://www.newson6.com/story/33071928/downtown-tulsa-reasors-will-be-put-to-the-vote-monday

GT is good in my book. Can he educate his pops on surface parking though?

I'm not sure how the process has worked with Dewey Bartlett.  As I recall with Kathy Taylor, she asked for people who would like to volunteer to serve on various authorities, boards, and commissions.  Perhaps Mayor Bartlett has done that, too.

When the Mayor nominates someone, the City Council usually rubber-stamps the appointment.  However, the Council has recently decided to stop approving Dewey Bartlett's nominations, according to the Tulsa World.  As far as I know, John Snyder was selected a few weeks ago by Mayor Bartlett to serve on the PAC Trust board, but I don't think the Council has approved that particular nomination.
 

Put me on the board. Regular guy, working class and well-read on urban planning.

Contact G.T. Bynum.  Whether you agree or not, according to the August 31, 2016 Tulsa World article by Jarrel Wade (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/city-council-blocking-dewey-bartlett-s-appointments-as-it-reviews/article_e8c1d181-9160-59df-854b-45db7b34439e.html), Councilor Bynum supports the pause on Dewey Bartlett's appointments.
 

Well, that sucks.  Hopefully they get their act together for the vote in November.

The PAC is a part of Tulsa and the fabric of downtown.  I hope they think about that at the next meeting.

You can also let your city councilor know you are interested in serving on boards.

Recyclemichael is a wealth of knowledge on such things.

That guy is trouble. Be careful.

I haven't looked at this development much, but correct me if I am wrong.

Seven stories each with 5000 square feet. I figure one floor is hotel lobby, restaurant and 1,500 square foot event area.
That leaves six floors of rooms. 106 divided by six means 17 or eighteen rooms per floor.
5,000 square feet divided by 17 is 294 square feet per room. And that is not common area included. 

That is small. Most economy hotels rooms are at least that. Day's Inn chains require rooms to be 288 square feet. Comfort Inn requires rooms to be 288 square feet. Motel 6 two bed rooms must be 276 square feet.

Hilton and Marriott level hotels have larger rooms. They average 324 square feet for the single bed rooms.

Is my math wrong, or is new proposed hotel going to be on level with Day's Inns and Motel 6 hotels?

That would be very disappointing in that location.

Is there a proposed hotel component in addition to the potential Reasor's store, the 636-space parking garage, the ground-floor retail, and the 240 apartments?

https://www.readfrontier.com/investigation/mayoral-appointments/

Districts - 4, 8 and 9 - are home to about 40 percent of the city's registered voters but accounted for nearly 80 percent of new mayoral appointments.

 The city of Tulsa’s authorities, boards and commissions recommend and establish polices that affect all aspects of Tulsans’ lives, from when their trash is picked up to how much they pay for water.


Nearly 80 percent of Mayor Dewey Bartlett’s 164 new appointees serving on authorities, boards and commissions reside in three City Council districts in midtown and south Tulsa, a Frontier analysis of Mayor’s Office records show.

The districts – 4, 8 and 9 – account for approximately 40 percent of registered voters. District 4 in midtown has the most appointments with 51, or 31.1 percent, followed by District 9, also in the midtown/downtown area, with 46, or 28 percent, and District 8 in south Tulsa with 30, or 18.3 percent.

The council districts with the least representation on authorities, boards and commissions are 3, 6 and 7, which combined account for about 30 percent of the city’s registered voters but mustered only 10 appointments, or about 6 percent.

District 3 had just one appointment. It has 7.6 percent of the city’s registered voters.

The remaining districts, 1, 2 and 5 are home to approximately 30 percent of the city’s registered voters but combined account for just 27 appointments, or 16.5 percent of the total.


Ninety-nine of Bartlett’s appointees, or 60.4 percent, were males. Females account for approximately 51 percent of the city’s population, according to the latest U.S. Census figures.
The city of Tulsa typically does not ask applicants to authorities, board and commissions to identify themselves by race.

The city’s authorities, boards and commissions range in power and influence. But many, including the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, the Tulsa Metropolitan Utility Authority, the Tulsa Airport Authority and the Tulsa Authority for the Recovery of Energy, make decisions that affect the day-to-day lives of every Tulsan.

The Planning Commission, for example, plays an important role in establishing and implementing the city’s land-use policies, while TMUA oversees the city’s water and sewer services and sets, with City Council approval, water and sewer rates.

The Tulsa Authority for the Recovery of Energy, better known as the trash board, is charged with overseeing trash pick-up and the Airport Authority runs Tulsa International Airport.

District 7 City Councilor Anna America, one of several councilors pushing for more diversity on city boards, said she does not believe Bartlett purposely appointed people from midtown and south Tulsa.

“But what happens are people look where they are comfortable in the circles around themselves, and if you don’t really make a very deliberate, on-going effort to go beyond that, then what you will get are people who look like you,” she said.

America wasn’t referring just to race.

“They are the three richest districts, they are three of the whitest districts” she said of 4, 8 and 9. “There are many, many people in there who I know are serving well and doing good things for the city, but they don’t represent the city as a whole.”

Bartlett last week made no apologies for the lack of geographical diversity in his appointments, saying other factors weigh more prominently in his decisions.

“It (district) is probably a discussion (point), but it’s not a priority,” Bartlett said. “The top priority is: What is the mission? What is their capacity? And do they have the skills?”

He said he’s not sure why so many of his appointments have come from Districts 4, 8 and 9.

“Other than they might have more experience in the purpose of those particular boards, they might have more time, or they might be retired,” Bartlett said. “I don’t know. They may seem more involved in the community. There is a wide variety of reasons.”

The mayor said every chance he gets, whether at speaking engagements, in conversations with councilors or just out and about, he seeks out individuals willing to volunteer their time to the city.

Sometimes those efforts bear fruit, sometimes they don’t. But the mayor said his intent always is to be inclusive and to promote diversity, which he praised as a admirable goal.

Mayor Dewey Bartlett has declined an invitation to take part in the League of Women Voters' mayoral forum Wednesday night, despite being offered three dates for the event. “But sometimes we only have one (choice), and we’re lucky to have that particular one,” he said. “Sometimes, with the experience that is required, there are not too many of them around, and you look for someone who has the time, the capability and the desire.”

America said that’s not good enough — not for the current administration or any future administration.

“This is what happens when you don’t try harder, frankly,” she said.

Different parts of the city — outside Districts 4, 8 and 9 — have a lot more working-class people and a lot more middle-class people, and they need to have a voice on the city’s authorities, boards and commissions, America said.

“So if you don’t have the soccer moms and the working-class families and the seniors living on a retiree’s income and the young singles, all of those types — the young professionals — with a voice in those decisions, you get decisions that don’t reflect the needs of this community,” she said.

America said she is not proposing that the city establish some kind of quota system for its authorities, boards and commissions. She does believe, however, that the mayor and the City Council should make it a priority to make those entities more diverse, not only as it relates to council districts, but to race, gender and profession.

One way to help accomplish that is to look at the makeup of the authority, board, or commission a person is being nominated for, America said.

“So if there are 15 members on this board, we know about them so we can look at this new person and say, ‘Does this person bring some depth and some missing strength to this board, or is this somebody who is very similar to everybody else on that board,’” America said.

Tulsa’s mayor is responsible for filling 303 positions on 42 boards, according to figures provided by the Mayor’s Office. The 164 appointees reviewed by The Frontier do not include reappointments made by the mayor or individuals appointed by Bartlett who are no longer serving.

Since the mayor does not appoint every member of every authority, board or commission, it is not accurate to assume that the mayor’s appointees reflect the overall make-up of those bodies. However, most authorities, boards and commissions are composed of a significant number of mayoral appointees.

That is, in part, why city councilors have put Bartlett’s appointments on hold. The mayor, who took office in December 2009, was defeated by City Councilor G.T. Bynum in the June 28 mayoral election. The long period of time between Election Day and Bynum’s inauguration has left Bartlett in the unprecedented position of serving more than five months as a lame duck.

Councilor Phil Lakin has been the most direct in making the argument for holding up Bartlett’s nominations until Bynum comes into office, telling The Frontier last month that he and some other councilors have “a difficult time making long-term appointments to authorities, which are well outside of the purview of the power of the council and our oversight as elected representatives, by a mayor who is leaving office.”

Bartlett insisted that he intends to continue making appointments.

“They want the new mayor to make the appointments,” Bartlett said. “It’s not their responsibility. If they want me to do that, they should ask for my resignation. I won’t give it to them.”

He also dismissed the notion, suggested by at least one city councilor, that he is appointing friends and campaign contributors to boards as a way to thank them for their support.

“There are a wide variety of resources (for securing appointees),” Bartlett said. “These are not necessarily my friends and supporters as a particular councilor or two might have stated or insinuated.

“These are people that are very publicly spirited that want to help our city. They use their experience, judgment, capability, their contacts — whatever it is — and we evaluate them from that perspective.”

Mayor Dewey Bartlett listens Thursday as city councilors discuss what economic development projects should be included in the Vision 2025 renewal package. Seated to Bartlett's left is City Councilor G.T. Bynum. Mayor Dewey Bartlett takes part in a City Council discussion earlier this year as Tulsa’s mayor-elect, City Councilor G.T. Bynum, listens on. The makeup of the city’s authorities, boards and commissions has again become a subject of concern for some councilors, who say they want the organizations to better reflect the overall makeup of the city’s population. Bartlett works with staff members David Autry and Pam Rosser to keep the city’s authorities, boards and commissions filled. Rosser said Bartlett considers a number of factors, including the existing makeup of the board, when making his appointments.

“I can say, if anything, he has not looked at his friends, or anyone who supported him,” Rosser said. “And he’s never asked, ‘Does this person support me? Is this person a Democrat or Republican?’

“That is one of the things I admire, he just wants to find the best people to fill the boards.”

Bynum said Friday that his own research into upcoming appointments he will be responsible for filling found the same disparities reflected in The Frontier analysis. Tulsa has a long history of electing mayors from midtown — including himself — and that has obviously had an effect on who ends up on the city’s authorities, boards and commissions, Bynum said.

“I have talked with some people who just say it is really hard to find other people in other parts of town that want to or can serve on these, and I reject that notion,” Bynum said.

The mayor-elect said he has already begun reaching out to his fellow city councilors as well as organizations around the city in search of possible appointees. His immediate goal is to diversify the applicant pool, which he must do to reach his long-term goal: to diversify the overall makeup of the city’s authorities, boards and commissions.

That includes getting more female representation, Bynum said, adding that his limited review of city appointments found twice as many males as females on authorities, boards and commissions.

“Groups throughout the campaign, when I talked to them, whether it was at Rotary Clubs, churches in north Tulsa, I told them if I got elected, I needed their help,” Bynum said. “It wasn’t enough just to win the election. If we want to do great things in the city, we need people to step up and be willing to help. And first and foremost, it is service in this regard.”

Bynum said he does not believe Bartlett intentionally chose people from Districts 4, 8 and 9, nor are his remarks intended to disparage individuals from those districts who are serving on authorities, boards and commissions.

“I don’t want to punish good people who are doing a fantastic job from midtown or south Tulsa by taking them out of a job they are doing really well,” Bynum said. “And so what you have to do is balance the need to diversify these without being overzealous with it.”

Bynum said, at the end of the day, he will make his appointments based on who the best person for the job is.

“But I want to be challenging myself to be looking at a broad range of options before I make up my mind on who that person is,” he said.

It may turn out that the person most responsible for changing the makeup of the city’s authorities, boards and commissions won’t reside in the Mayor’s Office. He or she will be in the city’s IT Department.

The city of Tulsa has no database to track appointments, so it has no easily accessible information from which to compare administrations, for example, or to pull up City Council appointments.

It will be hard, for Bynum, or any mayor, to make changes if he does not have a firm grasp of the numbers. The Frontier had to type in information drawn from appointees’ paper applications to come up with its mayoral appointment figures. And at least one city councilor questioned the appointment figures from his district.

Bynum said his research consisted of going through the list of authorities, boards and commissions posted on the city’s website — a site officials acknowledge is not always up to date.

“I am going to be the mayor of Tulsa in 87 days and I’m having to go through the website and click on each authority, board and commission and look at their member list and when they expire and who the other people are on it to identify what their overall makeup is,” Bynum said. “My hat’s off to whoever is doing that right now because if that wasn’t on there we would really be at a loss.”

Kevin Canfield

I hope they are not in any way basing this delay on a concern about "ceding roughly 600 surface parking spaces".  They don't currently have anywhere near 600 surface parking spaces (more like 300).

Similar thing happens in Bartlesville as well. Unless you are assuming that the applicants from those less represented areas are being shredded/suppressed, it generally works like this:

There are 10 applicants for one opening (2 if it's the library board or something boring  ::)), 9 are from people from well to do areas. They are well to do areas because the people that live their are successful more or less at something, therefore they are naturally going to have the odds in their favor that they appear more qualified. Are they always more qualified no, just better odds that they will be. Everything is a case by case basis. Fair, maybe not. But that just seems to be the way it works. Us poor folk don't have time to volunteer while we are scraping by to put food on the table. The more important spots do involve a considerable amount of time commitment that not just everybody has available.

This whole complaint wreaks of fair play mumbo jumbo. Life isn't fair. Are you ok with selecting people to boards that are half as qualified just so we can meet some arbitrary quota system?

The story claims that the 600 spaces with the new development would be a “few more” than they have now.  I honestly have no idea how much parking inventory the PAC has now.

There are about 295 surface spaces on that block (between 2nd & 3rd & Cincinnati & Detroit) now.

The RFP included a requirement that the proposal include parking to replace the currents spaces and new spaces needed by the new development.  This proposal seems to do that AND WAS CHOSEN BY THESE INDIVIDUALS over other proposals.

Every statement by Trust members leaves me scratching my head at what is really going on.  The nit picking now strikes me as a bunch of people who’ve gotten cold feet searching for cover or they are getting pushback from some connected people for unexplained reasons.  Either way, this outcome casts a pretty dim light on the competence of this group of trustees.

This.

i wonder if Bob LaFortune finally talked the others into changing their mind.

Does he have any connections to American Parking? *adjusts tinfoil*

Ridiculous

http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/realestate/tulsa-pac-board-to-seek-new-appraisals-for-parking-lot/article_0f0a4a2c-d44a-502b-9c03-97844feacfbd.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/realestate/tulsa-pac-board-to-seek-new-appraisals-for-parking-lot/article_0f0a4a2c-d44a-502b-9c03-97844feacfbd.html)

So the developer is paying $5.5 million, which is $2.2 million above what the estimate for that lot is based on the recent sale of the Santa Fe square lot and the PAC trust still wanted to make sure it wasn't undervalued. It is highly unlikely the estimate will come back for anything close to $5 million. I think they are wasting time and most changed their minds or didn't think it through before the meeting. They are probably mostly concerned about parking for the being slightly more inconvenient.

According to the Tulsa World article, Flaherty & Collins have agreed to pay about $2.85 million per acre for the PAC lot, not $5.5 million per acre.  That's about $1.15 million per acre more than the Santa Fe Square property, according to the article.

Edit--  Something I didn't realize until looking at the Tulsa County Assessor's website today:  the north-south alley through the middle of the block appears to be a public right-of-way, not officially owned by the PAC Trust (although it's used as part of their parking lot).

The "truck lot" in the Brady district, 1 acre at the corner of Boulder and Cameron, is listed on LoopNet at $2.49 mil. 

The value of the Santa Fe deal was noted above.

What was the value of the lot for the POP Culture museum?

If the PAC mucks up this deal, I hope the developer realizes there are other empty lots downtown that can be had for $2.85mil an acre. We are getting to the point where filling in any empty lot helps a lot with connectivity. The PAC location helps a ton, but so would the area just south of Fassler, or the empty lots along the tracks for the proposed OK Pop. The under utilized space at 1st and Elgin (boarded up red building, and the old train warehouse building). Empty lots by OK EQ.

Fun side note, it appears the Google maps car took a detour and then hopped a curb:

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1538919,-95.983117,3a,75y,279.03h,72.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3-p4J7iH0iQ2fRXB6bIhtA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Perhaps because Fifth is shown on Google Maps as an open street there, although it hasn't been for years.

A Google car went through some alleys in my neighborhood, which surprised me, but it's nice to have the "street" views of the back yards.

The truck lot in the Brady is being marketed for $2.5m.  Note that it has not sold at that price despite being the #1 premium development spot in all of downtown.

I've been told that the lady who owns the red building across from the First Street Lofts won't sell at any price.  She's apparently part of the old crotchety crowd that thinks the best use of downtown land is lightbulb storage and parking lots, much like a certain other older guy in the Brady. 

I really hope the PAC doesn't scuttle this.  Not only is it a win for Tulsa, but it makes the area around PAC itself that much pleasant to spend time in.   

I see what you did there.

Old crotchety crowd, does that mean she might not have many years left?  Hopefully her heirs have different plans and would be willing to sell it or work with a developer.  That is such a cool building if redeveloped it would change the face of 1st Ave right there.  I've always thought it would be the perfect place for a market hall like you're seeing in other cities with different places to eat and little shops, similar to the Box Yard but in one building.

I meant $5.5 million total, 2.75 million per acre. That is a very great price and they should sell for that. The $2.5 million brady 1-acre lot is a great example.

I'm not sure which lot is better though. Being the "bridge" between Blue Dome and the central business districts could be more valuable (Where you'll likely draw from the business lunch crowd as easily as residents and night/weekend crowds) than a lot where the back half of it is on a dead street going towards the dead part of the Brady (mostly night/weekend crowds). Eventually Boulder could be a better developed place, especially with GKFF developing the corner on Easton, but with no other projects even proposed there and its proximity to the less sightly part of downtown, it looks like it will stay about how it is now for several more years at least, especially with the only lot for sell at $2.5 million.

Is she on the PAC Trust board? Sounds like she would fit in.

I wonder if the real reason the trustees seem to be reconsidering their decision is because this plan does not include any expanded PAC space, which was one of the desired items listed in the RFP?  Realistically, if PAC goes through with this deal they have very few options to expand in the future - and expanding into the Williams Green does not seen like a good option to me.  Of course, that fact was very clear when they selected this proposal over at least one other that included PAC space.  Again, the Trustees are presenting themselves as pretty incompetent in how they’ve gone about this project.

They could expand across 3rd.  That would actually be the most logical place across from the main entrance since they are pretty much hemmed in on all other sides.

It seems like the PAC has already expressed an interest in expanding onto Williams Green. I, personally, wouldn't have a problem with that. Expanding across 3rd would also be great (probably even better) because it would soak up a parking lot. Who owns that space, by the way?

The PAC has been there since the 1970s and still hasn't done the expansion, so I'm not holding my breath that it'll happen anytime soon.

And if it does, downtown is full of vacant lots that a PAC expansion would be great on.  It's kind of a shame they tore down all those grand old movie palaces just a few blocks away during urban renewal - I feel like with a little bit of creativity and elbow grease those could have made awesome PAC performance spaces.  Several of Chicago's coolest Broadway-type venues are former movie palaces from the 1920s that went bust in the 60s/70s and got brought back to life in the 1990s/2000s. 

The PAC Trust does not control all of the vacant lots in downtown Tulsa.

The PAC is coming up on 40 years old.  The venue size serves a good niche and there are plenty of other larger and smaller venues available for various arts performances.  I'm not seeing where an expansion is necessary other than the board wanting to expand the PAC because: "It's what you do."

I was at the City Council meeting when the PAC presented their ask for V-2025 extension money and I did not think they made near as compelling a case for an expansion and funding as Gilcrease did.

They are owned by an out of state real estate investment company from California, which doesn't appear to do anything else in town. They bought it from a Texas company (it's actually multiple lots). The names of the companies, their parent companies, and their presidents/etc. meant nothing to me and I found no Tulsa connections.

I've heard it mentioned they want another performance space similar to the John Williams theater and an even smaller black box theater as well as other rehearsal spaces. 

Then they should start a new campaign to raise enough to build a brand new facility on the existing parking lot.  Tear down the old one and expand the Williams Green including an outdoor performance space.  Build a parking facility if needed.  I'm thinking something akin to the AT&T Center in Dallas on a smaller scale (and smaller price tag).  OSU is building a great facility in Stillwater, you would think Tulsa with it's pride in its arts community could raise the money.

https://osugiving.com/mcknightcenter

Omaha has a fairly new PAC downtown that they are planning to expand.  It looks similar in size to Tulsa's with the expansion nearly doubling the size and includes a mixed-use component.  Since Omaha is a peer city it is relevant to see what they are doing with regard to their main performing arts venue.

Something similar would be a great addition on the lot across the street if they wanted another small theater with a lobby across 3rd from the existing main entrance and then a mixed-use building closer to 3rd & Boston.  There could be additional parking as well either underground or as part of a garage.  Leave the east lot to private development/Reasor's with some PAC parking.

Holland PAC in Omaha
(http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/omaha.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/8/eb/8eb3e40e-81ee-11e5-9ea6-ff7e5366ff91/56384adc48fc2.image.jpg?resize=750%2C649)

According to the proposal they presented to the Vision committee, they want a 1,200 seat theater and a small 200-seat theater.  (John Williams Theater seats 421).

Omaha's Holland Theater: (https://www.omahaperformingarts.org/our-venues/holland)

- 2000 seat main theater
- 300 seat recital hall
- "founders room" which is basically a bar room for donors

Omaha also retained its classic vaudeville Orpheum theater - seats 2600

Jonh Beasley Theater (private) - seats 125

Creighton's Lied Education Center for the Arts - seats 350

All of those are pretty much downtown.


Tulsa has:

The PAC:

-Chapman Music Hall - 2365 seats
-John H. Williams Theater - 421
- Liddy Doenges Theater - 100 to 300
- Charles E. Norman Theater - 100 to 200
- Kathleen P. Westby Pavilion - conference room for 240
- Robert Lafortune Studio - seats up to 200

The University of Tulsa:

- Chapman Theater - 375
- Lorton Performance Center - 635
- Tyrell Hall Auditorium - 108
- Various other facilities listed that aren't really theaters (such as Reynolds center, etc.)

ORU:

- Howard Auditorium - 1000
- (various other facilities, like the Maybe Center)

TCC

- VanTrease Performing Arts Center - 1500
- Studio Theater - seating for 20
- theater space at every campus that holds are least 250 (including downtown)


Tulsa Ballet:

- Studio K - 295 seats
- Studio B, C, D, E, and F... each seating up to 200 (these are open space, not really theater space)


 

A good number of private theaters:

- American Theatre Company, 2 rooms each at 3000 square feet
- Tulsa Little Theater
- Spotlight Theater

Of course there are numerous lecture facilities, meeting rooms, conference facilities (OSU Tulsa, OU Tulsa, Langston, hotels, etc.), the convention center, the Expo Pavillion, churches and dozens of high school facilities too... not counting any of the suburbs (which Omaha doesn't really have).

So... I like the arts. I think art is as important as any other quality of life issue.  But what is the PAC missing that it cannot accommodate without a tens of millions of dollar expansion? Many of the venues I listed are full theaters. Many handle the smaller performances.

If anything, the PAC just needs a bit of a rehab instead of an expansion. It's looking somewhat dated. $5 million would go a long way towards paying for that.

Pretty well sums up my notion that the board wants to expand because it’s just what they want or think they should do.  Tulsa is quite well served with performance space.  Your list gives plenty of credence to this and doesn’t even touch on the Brady Theater, the arena at the Cox Center nor the various smaller areas in it or the PAC’s at all the area high schools, nor the private event venues all over the city.  We don’t need more theater or performance space to sit empty 98% of the year.  The land in that area would be a better service to the city as well as a source of tax revenue being developed as the existing development plan has proposed as mixed use developments.

The old guard of this city can be a real downer at times.  The shame of it is, the younger generations of those clans seem to have the same myopia to a degree.

If Bartlesville can put on a world class series of events that comprise OK Mozart (Dozen + shows a day) with the spaces in town, I can't imagine Tulsa needing more performance space than already available. I get maybe wanting newer or nicer, but more?

Put a small venue in any other commercial building downtown. See post #132 in the Bartlesville thread for an example, Ambler Hall. Won awards and everything.

Parts of this thread starting to sound like my comments a few years ago about the Civic Center - remodel for a few million - versus building a BOK center for a couple hundred million....   Just depends on whose favorite activity is being promoted, I guess.  

Would be nice to see the private theaters get "dedicated" space.

You can debate whether or not the BOK was needed or is a pretty perk. You can discuss if it makes financial sense. An interesting debate can involve if it sucks money out of the economy with traveling shows or brings money in. If run as a stand alone business, would the BOK center pay for itself? These are all interesting points of discussion.

But remodeling an arena that seats less than 9k as a replacement for the proposal to build an arena capable of holding more than twice that number isn't  even a discussion. No NCAA tournaments. No Bass master. Most major concerts. NBA preseason games. Tons of things set the bar for minimum seating well past the capacity of the convention center.  The choice was to have a primary event sized arena, or not. The convention center wasn't a viable replacement for the proposal.

For the PAC, we have a primary event sized theater. In fact, it's larger than what many theater snobs prefer - but that's economics (200 show run in NYC or 10 shows in Tulsa).  We also have many theaters for secondary events. I'm happy for someone to cure my ignorance, but it seems like we have it covered. I'm sure it would be nice if there were more spaces so more practices etc. could go on at the same time. I have no doubt scheduling can be difficult.  But I don't see a venue type that isn't covered.

I freely admit that it is entirely possible that I just don't see the overwhelming need for theater space that isn't being met. There are ton of things going on at the PAC, no way I can keep up with them all. So I'm happy to stand corrected by someone more in the know.

Expanding the PAC is nothing more than a new manifestation of our stupid and expensive sprawl mentality in this town.  Let’s just keep building sh!t  because we can!

Consider me a "repentant sinner" - I did not think the BOK was necessary, but it has been wildly successful.   

It wouldn't surprise me to see new theater stuff do similar.  With more theater space, Tulsa may be able to position itself as the "Broadway of Fly-Over Country".   Get us a little wider space on the left/right coast US maps.   



BA's PAC seems to be busy quite a bit...how many of those activities are things that Tulsa couldn't get because of facility considerations?  (Theirs is new and pretty, etc.)

Broken Arrow PAC seems to average 2 events a month with seating up to 1500:

http://brokenarrowpac.com/

It has 6 events scheduled through May of 2017. It is a very nice facility in an affluent suburb, but it is not well utilized. That isn't exactly a loud shout that we need more theater space.

I count 9 events on their calendar through May of 2017.  But that does not count the usage of the PAC by the Broken Arrow schools -- they have 25 days of events just through December.

Which still doesn’t justify why we need more performance space in the Tulsa PAC.

I wonder if a lot of the events booking at the Broken Arrow PAC are the types of events that used to book at the Van Trease theater at TCC's Southeast campus?

In the end, a lot of this smacks more about who controls the space than whether the space is available.  It seems likely the Tulsa PAC could fill more practice and performance space, but that this demand is currently getting met by other venues around town.  I doubt we are currently missing out on some area of the arts that we would have only if the PAC expanded.

There is a lot of "who controls the space" in BA.  I talked to them several years ago about getting into their Farmer's Market - and was basically told no, you can't.  (Food concessions).  A couple years later, they had a couple of them showing up and operating.  Doesn't seem to have worked well, but the whole thing was very clique-ish/clan-ish.


The whole town is really being run by outsiders that have moved in, taken up residence at either First Baptist or Rhema (who has long had a big shadow), and a close group run a lot of the show.   Kind of like Tulsa on a smaller scale.

They leave Tulsa to experience the "small town feel" - and then bring "Tulsa World" with them - completely changing that small town feel thing.  Like Owasso, Jenks, Bixby, etc...

We visit friends/family out there quite a bit, and it's nice to drive down Main street just to 'see' what's going on.  Their PAC seems to have something going on every time we go by.

I don't know this as a certainty, but there has been discussion for years about Chapman Music Hall being overbooked. Scheduling is done three years in advance and time in the hall is a very hot commodity. If one of the big touring musicals comes in, no other group can use Chapman for anything. Remember Phantom of the Opera back in the 90s? It was here for something like two months. They redid parts of the hall specifically to accommodate that show (e.g. the ceiling had to be reinforced for the chandelier). Pushing other major arts groups out of their primary performance space in the heart of the season (the spring) can cause major economic damage, but there is no way the PAC could sensibly turn down the opportunity to collect rent for eight shows a week for 8 weeks or whatever it was. The downtown location is the sine qua non for all of those groups. Because of their mixed missions, other venues such as the BAPAC and the PACE don't have the time availability or the location to take up the slack.

Phantom, by the way, was entirely self-contained. Unlike most Celebrity Attractions shows, it did not hire local musicians except a couple of subs. All of the money paid for the show left town with the company - except for the fees paid for the hall.

It's not only performances that count. The opera and ballet especially need the hall for extended periods of time for set construction and rehearsal. The ballet ordinarily rents Chapman for more than a week for each non-Nutcracker production. Nutcracker is about 3 weeks. The opera typically uses Chapman for 2-3 weeks for each production. The Symphony uses it for three or four days for each of its performances, though other events such as Tulsa Town Hall can use the front of the stage while the orchestra shell is in place.

Kansas City did it right. The new Kauffman Center has two spaces, a 1,600 seat non-proscenium space for the symphony and an 1,800 seat proscenium space for the opera and ballet. The musicals play in the Music Hall at the convention center, a 2,400 seat hall that works well for that genre.

The smaller theater groups have been pleading for more venues for years. Chapman isn't part of their universe, nor would a 1,200 or 1,500 seat theater. They need 200-300 seats, sometimes less, for reasonable rentals. Tulsa's arts scene has hit a bottleneck, one they'll have to live with for decades to come.

The Brady Theater’s web site claims it has 2800 seats which could accommodate enough guests for a ballet or opera.  If I am not mistaken, that theater was the home for the arts groups prior to the construction of the PAC.  I’m aware it is not as modern as the PAC, but Peter Mayo has done a credible job maintaining the place.  With the resurgence of the Brady District, I can’t imagine the surrounding neighborhood is a negative to drawing arts patrons these days.  Perhaps there’s other issues stage-wise I don’t understand or the rent is too high which would not suit the ballet, opera, or symphony.  I’m simply stating that is a good sized venue which could accommodate crowds of 2800 for the arts quite easily.

Here is some more insight from a Tulsa actor regarding the need for a new theater(s) at the PAC:
http://robertyoung.net/2015/05/28/tulsa-pac-adding-a-new-theater-or-why-adding-a-new-theater-wont-help/ (http://robertyoung.net/2015/05/28/tulsa-pac-adding-a-new-theater-or-why-adding-a-new-theater-wont-help/)

Whatever they decide or not decide to do I hope they move forward with selling the east lot and that we can get a quality mixed-use development there.  IF they want to expand do it on the lots across the street on 3rd and have it also be mixed-use.  Maybe even consolidate the Tulsa Opera and Tulsa Ballet into one location downtown.

At the risk of sounding condescending, "maintaining the place" isn't what the Brady needs for purposes such as the opera and ballet.The Brady doesn't have and never had the backstage facilities needed for large-scale productions. The shows that are staged there are much smaller groups that make up for the acoustic inadequacies of the place by using amplification, anathema to classical performers. The lack of dressing rooms, construction areas, etc. make the Brady totally unfit for those two groups. I was there when the opera and ballet performed at the Municipal Theater. I'm not sure how they pulled it off. They didn't do it very often. Yes, the Brady was the home for all of the major groups before 1977. I don't know if you remember what those groups were back then. None could perform at a level remotely approaching what they do today. For example, the Tulsa Civic Ballet was an amateur company that imported professional soloists from other companies. Today it, under the name Tulsa Ballet Theatre, is a fully professional company with annual revenues of more than $5 million. I wouldn't suggest telling Marcello Angelini that he needs to relocate his performances to the Brady.

Not taken as condescending at all.  I’ve been a contractor at the Brady for 12 years or so and you brought to mind something I’d completely overlooked for productions with large casts, but which stood out immediately when you mentioned it: lack of backstage facilities. 

I was remembering back to when I saw Al Hirt play Tulsa for the final time at the Brady with the Oklahoma Symphonia 20 or so years back and didn’t really think about how tight that stage would be for sets and set changes as well as wardrobe changes, etc. 

You would be hard-pressed to accommodate a good-sized cast for a large production with the way it is laid out these days.  I have no idea if they might have utilized the building behind the Brady now used as a rehearsal space for wardrobe and makeup back in the old days or not.  There is a room off stage right which now has mechanical equipment which may have also been used for dressing rooms at a point in the past. 

I’ll have to ask Peter what he knows about how they did those types of productions prior to the construction of the PAC.

I was 12 when the PAC opened, far as I know, I never attended a show at the Municipal Theater.  I doubt I saw a show at the Brady prior to 1984.  So for me, I’ve always associated the ballet and opera with the PAC.

All that aside, I can see it would be difficult to produce a complex opera or ballet at the Brady but symphony events or simpler stage plays would not be terribly difficult to produce there.  I’m still not buying that the current state of the PAC and other performance spaces is terribly stifling performance arts in Tulsa.

The never achieved the "gold standard" for a stage is to take the stage you see, and then set one of them on top of it, behind it, and one to each side of it. 4 times the room off stage as you actually see. Again, that's never actually achieved, but illustrates how much space they really need. Whenever I've had the chance to go backstage at the PAC for a major show, it is jam packed! Even for a relatively simple show (from a set perspective) like Kinky Boots, the backstage area is crazy.

By the same token, as pointed out by the Actor linked above, not every show wants, needs, can afford, or can comfortably perform in a 1200 seat theater. Seeing Phantom/Rent or other "spectaculars" with 1200 people is fine, seeing more stage oriented performance doesn't always work. Seeing a symphony in a grand hall is ideal, seeing a full symphony in a "black box" auditorium probably wouldn't sound right.

So not every venue can work for every show.

It is also true that for, for many shows, actual performance nights are a minority of the time booked. Stage setup. Dress rehearsals. Tear down. Depending on the show and the length of the run, those can take up way more time than the performances (as opposed to a theater in NYC or London dedicated to one show for months/years). So the schedule gets crowded and difficult.

My concern is want vs. need.  Perhaps I really don't understand the need. But I'd hate to see a "want" suck up a huge part of the arts budget and leave the actual arts struggling for funds because of it. Rumor has it The Arts and Humanities Council stretched their budget with the AHHA. I'm just dubious of cautious of capital expansion.

And, to be honest, I might be biased because the announced project looked really solid.

PAC has approved to move forward with the Reasor's plan.

I'm actually happy to hear this.  Downtown desperately needs these services to attract more full-time residents.

I just hope we either build a nice mid-size theater/venue soon or someone finally pumps some money into the trainwreck that is currently the Brady.  I'm not optimistic that either will happen, but I hate that I can go 2 hours up the road to Springfield, MO and have a much better show experience at the Gilioz than ANYWHERE in Tulsa. 

I wish we had been able to hold on to the Ritz or the Majestic.  So tragic.

Not completely true. They agreed to continue talks.

The Tulsa Performing Arts Center Trust Board decided to continue talks Monday with a developer to sell a downtown parking lot for a mixed-used project that could include a Reasor’s grocery store.

The proposal isn’t a done deal yet. If the developer, Flaherty & Collins, doesn’t get a Tax Increment Financing District approved, it can back out of the project. The board will also have to vote on the final contract. Monday’s action just authorized four members of the board to negotiate terms that were spelled out in the offer sheet approved Monday. Flaherty & Collins would pay the PAC Trust $5.5 million for the parking lot on Cincinnati Avenue and Second and Third streets. Renderings for the proposed project show a 12-story building with ground-floor and some second-floor retail space, as well as 240 apartments and more than 600 parking spaces. It would be called the Annex.

Tulsa PAC Trust Chairman Stanton Doyle said he hopes to have the final contract before the board in December. After Monday’s meeting, Mayor Dewey Bartlett said the decision to continue forward on the path toward a grocery store is good for the continued revitalization of downtown.
Fewer surface parking lots, he said, “really underscores the term ‘revitalization.’”

Board member and former Tulsa Mayor Robert LaFortune said the offer sheet helped to put to rest his worries about losing the parking that the lot across the street from the Performing Arts Center provides as well as having the right of first refusal should Flaherty & Collins sell the property.
The approval Monday brings to an end months of internal discussion among the board members. Their concerns have included whether they want to close the door on expanding on the parking lot in question and whether they were getting a fair price.

Meetings took place at nontraditional venues including the George Kaiser Family Foundation — Doyle works there — and the home of board member and former Tulsa Mayor Rodger Randle last week. Board member Billie Barnett said the meetings have made the group a “much stronger entity.”
Discussions haven’t been restricted to selling the lot. The board has confronted what it plans to do and the proper purpose for the funds it would receive if it sold the parking lot.

The cynical side of me is asking if Bob Lafortune was delaying this to make sure his grandson was mayor when it moves forward so he gets the credit?

I view this latest event as more like a letter of intent - an agreement to try and work out all the details with the TIF approval as a “walk away” condition.  That’s a lot better place to be than where we were a couple of months ago.

Come on, how was LaFortune to know there was parking in a development in which plan provided for a 600 spot parking garage?

Don't get caught.  It's approximately 180 miles per Google Maps.
 
 ;D

Yeah...about that...ya kinda need to slow down just a little bit....

And switch to de-caf.

That's what I was thinking when I saw bacjz00's comment.
 

It's been 8 months since they decided to continue talks with the developer.  Are they still talking or has this project died a quiet death?

Bump - anything new on this one?

Haven't seen much of anything. They still have a committee according to their meeting agendas (on cityoftulsa.org website), but no line items or points underneath from what I've seen.

Due to the politics involved with the PAC trust I bet this one takes awhile to materialize.  I think Santa Fe Square gets built out before we see this one go up, and in fact they may just wait until construction prices go down during the next market correction.  I hope I'm wrong though, this would be a major transformation for this ugly lot and bringing a full-service grocery to downtown would be an absolute game changer for adding more residential density.

So, happening or not happening?

Lawyers working out fine details sounds like the sale is a go ... or they are working on a termination agreement.   :)

Did the article not say they are voting August 24 to decide whether or not to sell it? Also they may vote to "continue the process of selling the parking lot with a later vote on the final details of the contract".

Would they really need a termination agreement, especially at this point? They would first need to vote to not sell it.

Hopefully they will see the value in bringing a grocery store and more housing downtown rather than just a giant parking lot. However, the contract should have teeth and assurances that the developer must actually develop it.

And there needs to be a process to approve final renderings so we don't end up with another Cimarex disappointment.

I wonder how they can maintain control of that after they sell the property. Seems tough to mandate that sort of thing unless you are the owner/developer. Hopefully they can work a contract out to do that.

Maybe a "rent to own" type contract where developer will own the land after completing the project. That would be a neat way to bring PAC revenue and assure there's an escape if things go awry. However, the developer might not like that.

What could stop the developer from buying and reselling (or holding on) rather than building? Maybe a binding agreement assuring they provide a minimum of X number of covered parking spaces for PAC to use by Y date?

They voted this morning and apparently approved.

https://twitter.com/emorybryan/status/900744160373821448

That is good news!  Lets hope this developer pushes forward relatively soon.

While there has been a lot of progress downtown, for the last couple years, things have been a bit held up, especially larger projects like this one, with blame on the oil crash (which really started in mid/late 2014). Now the economy is currently doing really well (even as it has overall for the last couple years besides oil), a lot of developers are holding back because we finally have vacancies downtown.

I foresee even more holding back and it being blamed on an upcoming "market correction". It is a bit disheartening how long this stuff takes. The RFP for the PAC lot was put out in 2014 to early-2015. So 3 years in and they finally will sell the lot. Let's hope it's a carpe diem type developer!

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/pac-trust-close-wrapping-deal-would-bring-grocery-store-downtown#stream/0

Still not final, after all. But the vote today was moving forward on two contract points, and final approval expected at September's meeting, looks like.

(http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kwgs/files/styles/x_large/public/201608/market_square_indianapolis.jpg)

This is the developer's Indianapolis project.

Is that a photo of the finished thing or a preview rendering?

I believe Tulsa's was supposed to be about 13 stories tall

I think the above is a rendering, but looking at the finished project is basically looking at the exact same thing! (https://www.google.com/maps/place/401+N+Senate+Ave,+Indianapolis,+IN+46204/@39.774334,-86.1633215,3a,75y,152.28h,93.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTw1l2b47cRf8Q6iwHgjaKw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x886b50b88790977f:0x4abe879e52cb035!8m2!3d39.7735581!4d-86.1624048)

Wow...That's super close to the rendering.

In Soviet Tulsa we get renderings like:

(http://www.arch2o.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Arch2O-RBblog-01.jpg)

But end up with:

(http://michaelsprecast.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/boring-oregon-precast-concrete-architecture-prologis-park-1-800x500.png)

Was curious if you google'd "boring buildings" to find that.
Yup, here it is (https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=boring+buildings)

(https://media2.giphy.com/media/h4fOt9Ncgd0BO/200.webp#2-grid1)

Nearly eight years ago, in October 2009, the Tulsa World published an early rendering for downtown’s One Place development showing a bird’s-eye view of a vibrant city block filled with shop-front windows, brick facades and roof-top gardens.

You can go to the corner of Second Street and Cheyenne Avenue to see what actually got built instead.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/michael-overall-tulsa-needs-to-avoid-another-bait-and-switch/article_0e97a2c9-5e99-59f9-acca-7b99142873ac.html

I am very glad Michael Overall posted that blog. People need to be aware so we can at least try to keep developers in check (especially the PAC board members in this case).

I wonder if he got some inspiration from the relative frequent complaints about One Place on this board. Very relevant to the latest string of posts lambasting it on here.

Take heart though, there are plenty of positive developments in downtown where the final result was as good or better than the proposals: Guthrie Green, Matthews Warehouse, Archer building, GreenArch (looks like phase 2 is coming soon), The Edge, Boxyard, Elgin Park Brewpub, Fox & Ford Buildings, East Village Lofts

And the latest that looks to be as advertised: First Street Lofts by the Ross Group (supposed to be finished any day now)

Of course none of those are near the scope of the PAC lot, but they are positive moves towards better development showing Tulsans can do it right and support those developments.

None are as important to downtown as the PAC lot though.  That is the missing piece that ties together the CBD with Blue Dome, and the grocery component is absolutely necessary to support more residential downtown.  A close second is Santa Fe Square just because it is so large.  Fill those two holes with quality development and downtown is a different place.

PAC trust gives final approval. Pending a TIF the project could start next summer.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/performing-arts-center-trust-agrees-to-sell-parking-lot-for/article_389b980a-5c3c-568f-9e55-656d3dd89395.html

So who comes in if Reasor's bails?

A lot of coulds

could feature downtown's first grocery store
could be Reasors (probably not)
construction could begin next summer
could hit a snag with the TIF

Of the 3 proposals originally in the mix for this, the one that included the Theater Above Cincinnati, the TAC was my favorite.  This one looks OK, but it's fairly unimaginative and looks like  everything else being built - The Edge, GreenArch, etc.  They're nice, but something with some greater design appeal would be cool.  Remember all the look-a-like Hardesty apartment complexes all over town. They were nice, but... .  Go on the developer website and look at dozens of projects across the country. Kind of like Ford's Model T.  You can get any color you want as long as it's black.

That Cimarex building is horrific.  It looks like it should be in a generic hospital complex.  Hideous.  Cimarex is a good company and Miles Associates is a good firm. But that building is a visual misfire. 

I haven't read this thread over the years, so I don't know if anyone has said the OKPOP should be built next door to the PAC with a sky bridge between the two --- perfect for an OKPOP stage show. Or that modern TAC design proposal for the block. Include a parking garage, a hotel/housing mid-rise and even leave space for a grocery store and other retail.  Maybe a Tulsa POPS store/restaurant to play off OKPOP.  This development doesn't look impressive enough for one of, if not the, premier open blocks in downtown.  By making north of the tracks everything Arts, the PAC is isolated. The BOK Center seems a little different - it is its own galaxy.

       

From the developer's website:

A green roof on top of Reasor's would be a nice touch, that roof is huge

(http://flco.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Tulsa_Rendering-3-1-980x530.jpg)

Not a fan of the sky bridge, hopefully that get's VE'd out

(http://flco.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Tulsa_Rendering-1-2-980x528.png)

Actually prefer the 2nd St frontage to 3rd St, too bad there can't be a couple floors of large open plan office space above Reasor's, it would lease up quickly in this location

(http://flco.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Tulsa_Rendering-2-1-980x530.jpg)

Someone should Photoshop Santa Fe Square in there to see how this fits in with that project.  2nd St will be much improved once both are finished

(https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/7/84/78469b39-db46-5bb1-a55f-ec4a00264edf/57d3135d057ce.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C934)

So obviously Whole Foods will as Amazon builds out the campus downtown.

Amazon tower with whole-foods on the base floor. 
I like it.

The kid in me wants to believe something good will come of this.

The adult in me reads things like



and thinks..."they'll re-stripe it and it'll be a parking lot for quite some time.

At least with Amazon Prime the building materials will be here in 2 days.

So much negativity when the news is good.  This project is not perfect, but it is so much better than what is there (and, in my opinion, much better than the other bids).  And it is the only seriously possible project in downtown to include a full-scale grocery store.  Yes, we are all wise to limit ourselves to cautious optimism until dirt starts turning (or even the project nears completion as something at least close to the renderings), but this is not the downtown of 15 years ago where grandiose mega projects get announced and then are never heard from again.  Cheer up folks, this is good news.

Roof Top Bocci!

I'm just quoting the article

Headline:  "Performing Arts Center Trust agrees to sell parking lot for development with potential downtown grocery store"

Opening sentence:  "The Tulsa Performing Arts Center Trust has agreed to sell its parking lot for a downtown development that could include a grocery store."

The article is full of a lot of maybe.

I'm on the hope-it-happens boat.

Just like articles on the settled science of climate change!  ;D

They have engaged Ross Group to assist with preconstruction and build the project as the GC.  So there's that..

Reasors is out of this project for now.  Maybe now the developer will get someone with more experience with an urban style market and will be a better fit. 

http://www.newson6.com/story/36539092/plans-for-downtown-tulsa-reasors-store-somewhat-on-hold

(http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/images/15095245_G.jpg)

Up-lighting buildings has been out of fashion for some time now (at least for those people getting a big dose of it in their bedroom windows).

Think Sprouts would try an urban store here? They would be my #2 choice after Reasor's.  

(https://media.bizj.us/view/img/7564232/sprouts*1024xx2843-1597-0-199.jpg)

Reasor's found out their closest competing store would be another Reasor's

I don't want a niche grocery store. If I need Mountain Dew and Doritos, then sell me some Mountain Dew and Doritos.

How about an urban QT on one side and Sprouts on the other?

That's just an excuse.   Reasor's be strapped for cash.
Being your closest competitor is generally considered a good thing.  Doesn't leave room for anyone else.  It seems to be QT's philosophy.

And CVS...and Walgreen’s

The new mock-up says City Market, but they should seriously try to get Central Market.  It would be a destination store that would attract foodies from outside downtown.  It's like Whole Foods, but a million times better.

The new rendering also no longer shows the skybridge over Cincinnati.  That is a big win if that has indeed gone away. 

The original proposal also had a performance space for the PAC but it looks like that is gone too, or maybe moved closer to 2nd?  I know the PAC wants additional space, it would be awesome to see the lot across the street on 3rd used for that and keep this development entirely mixed-use with retail/restaurants.

How about a Fresh Market, they have a better selection, although a bit more expensive, than Sprouts. And an excellent meat market. 

Fresh Market is dying. We are lucky our store is still open.

I guess this is going to be called the "Annex".  http://flco.com/company-properties/the-annex/ (http://flco.com/company-properties/the-annex/)

Sprouts is always #1 in a comparison with Reasor's.... actually there is no comparison.

Yeah, well maybe if Reasor's hadn't turned into such a$$hats, they would not be having those problems.


I did notice the gasoline cartel in town has actually started to bring prices down just a tiny bit.  Still 20 cents higher than the $1.96 I filled at on Monday evening in OKC area.

Annex - a subsidiary building or an addition to a building

The name practically spews gooey excitement.

Anyone remember The Annex Mall on 41st?

Annex: a building joined to or associated with a main building, providing additional space or accommodations.

That the definition of annex.  The Wright Building has an annex.  The Courthouse has an annex.  So does the Tulsa Welding school, TCC, and several buildings at the University of Tulsa.   Among many others, of course.  This is a new development - it isn't adding on to or adjoining any building is it?  Will it be the PAC Annex? 

Im confused. 

(https://i.redditmedia.com/R_aFlqGhcsoqciKLRNAXUelAxou9PFZkgR6AIkbwBFc.jpg?w=1023&s=3961ec34311b9c994d6076f5a47cc7df)

Sure do right by Southroads.  I still remember the Southroads Cinema as well.

I remember the Annex 7 also.  I remember seeing the first Star Trek movie there.

I might have to channel Jamie Jamieson and say why does the grocery store need 35,000sqft? Trader Joes is 8k-12k. Braums packs a decent grocery area into about 1k. A store that size offers a lot of variety but that also means a lot of inventory and overhead. A 35,000sqft store has to make a lot more money than one half the size or less.

Since Tulsa basically has little grocery competition, maybe someone can try to get Publix to swing in and take the spot. Here's their contact info: http://ww2.publix.com/realestate/SiteSubmission.do

I agree, if they were doing their math on a $35,000 sq ft store, surely the numbers wouldn't add up.  A 2-3,000 sq ft corner/neighborhood store would do nicely and eventually I could see several of that size downtown.

The numbers likely won't add up now, but that should be growing as more housing is added. Plus, creating a great urban grocery place where people can gather and hang out on rooftop and get a cheap lunch could create a different market (lots of frugal people work downtown, bringing their own lunches, but would be more likely to go to a grocery store for lunch food items and would be convenient stop after work).

Recently, 2 new corner stores opened up downtown: The Goods Bodega in the Brady District at 107 M.L.K. Jr Blvd and First Street Market in the First Street Lofts in Blue Dome. The Goods Bodega is more of a lunch/breakfast carry out place with a few essentials and quick-prepare options. I haven't been to the First Street Market but seems like more of a convenience/corner store with cigs/beer and they plan on adding some hot convenient-store food.

Neither has a large selection that you'd expect from a grocery store but they're both close to 2,000 sq ft or more including back space. I think downtown needs a middle-sized grocery store at least, something like 8-15,000 sq ft (around typical Walgreens). It needs to have enough selection to realistically keep people in the IDL. Smaller stores are infamous for having higher markup (even if that isn't always the case) so if you need anything more than a quick snack or something small, the cost savings of going to an actual grocery store outweigh the inconvenience of just driving. Wherever the first grocery store goes in, it will still be a decent walk for most who live downtown. So it needs to have a legitimate grocery selection with thousands of items.

They might just have that large of an allotment to be able to lure a larger chain with the option of scaling down their space. Sounds like they need to publicize lots of prime real estate available for large grocery store to open the doors for just about any grocery chain then they can modify layout based on who they get. For a project this large, they probably want a locked-down lease before they start moving dirt and end up with a custom size/layout that won't work for some other grocery chain.


I wonder if Walmart Neighborhood market might step in. Seems like an ideal spot for Whole Foods, almost 5 miles from the other location and in a spot right in the middle of their target demographic.

How the Supermarket Has Changed in the Last 30 Years

http://fortune.com/2017/03/15/supermarket-changes-fresh-goods/ (http://fortune.com/2017/03/15/supermarket-changes-fresh-goods/)

Goodness I hope not. If it's not going to be an actual grocery store than I'm most likely going to keep going to Reasors on 15th or Brookside. I'd rather have a CVS than another expensive bodega.

I agree. In my opinion, downtown needs a full-service grocery store and preferably one with enough perks/features that will actually draw in people from outside the IDL. Tulsa is so easy to get around and people are very price-sensitive with shopping at grocery stores (lots of frugal people). Downtown grocery should be a bit like the Reasors on Brookside but with a much better patio area and more hot items.

Central Market is a perfect example of a grocery store that's a destination. Tons of quick ready-to-eat items, huge  bakery, and all the essentials plus formidable wine/beer selection (which will be an option next year). I think Reasors could pull it off if they were committed. I hope they take advantage, but sounds unlikely at this point.

Guess I am thinking about "real" grocery stores that I went to in London and Paris when I stayed there.  Usually there was a nearby small grocer that was smaller than DECOPOLIS but had all the basics I needed, milk, cereal, sandwich stuff, p&j, fruits and vegetables, some snacks (chips, crackers, cookies), soups, rice and noodles, etc. and then some basic toiletries.

In London there were 2 small grocers, each having a different "flavor" and things they seemed to specialize in (one had a lot more fruits and vegetables, loved the outside stands on the sidewalk), within 1-2 blocks of where I lived, then about 4 blocks away (on our downtown scale) was a bigger grocer that I would say was about 8-10,000 sq ft.   All were an easy walk but sometimes I just needed to grab a thing or two so the smaller close ones were perfect.  I guess also the attitude is different here in that I often see people here "stock up" on a lot of grocery items all at once, but there I saw a lot more people getting just a few items perhaps every few days or so as you walk past on the way to and from work or going somewhere. 

I hope downtown doesn't try to be "suburbia with tall buildings" downtown should be urban for downtown people. Trying to squash in suburbia will fight against that imho. If you want a suburban lifestyle go live in the suburban areas! There is pleeeenty of that in this part of the country that you don't need to friggin invade downtown with it too.

I think the overlooked customer base is downtown workers who don’t live downtown.  I would frequently stop by this store on the walk to my car after work and then head home with provisions for dinner.  That would save me the annoying stop at the 15th & Lewis Reasor’s (which will only be more annoying when the QuikTrip opens across the street).  I don’t know what the magic size is to be considered “full-service”, but this really needs to be big enough to offer all the traditional basic groceries and other home goods to be useful.

Sounds much like Market Street which is a brand under United's umbrella in Texas.  Their store in Wichita Falls is the only one I've been to but it still sticks in my mind.  It would pretty much fill the bill as you described it.  It has many ready-to-eat options, as does Whole Foods but I think you are right again that you would attract a broader crowd with a more price-conscious approach.

I also like those corner bodegas common in Europe where they have tons of stuff packed into a small space. That kind of place likely wouldn't do too well in Tulsa, even downtown. It would be cool if it did and I'd be all for one of those, but every "bodega" I've seen in the middle of the US has been either more of a deluxe convenient store or a quaint trendy-looking mini-grocery store. Both options usually have premium prices. Those 2 varieties seem to cater to either convenience (and thus pricey) or organic high-end shoppers (also pricey). Neither seems too practical for normal use as a grocery store. Maybe tons of competition helps keep prices in European bodegas down (or maybe they don't care about prices).

It seems like a lot of Americans are very committed to the brands they like for all sorts of things. So a place with only 1 option for salsa or limited chip brands won't do well for typical American shoppers. In those little corner bodegas in Europe, they typically only have one or maybe 2 brands per type of item. I am going to guess Americans on average buy a much wider range of foods than a European living in an urban area, especially fast/prepared food. I know I currently have probably several hundred food items from dozens of different places. There are many substitutions I am ok with but some where it is either that brand or nothing. I could get 90+% of what I need from a medium sized grocer like Trader Joes and could compromise to get most everything there in exchange for convenience, but those tiny bodegas would not work for me on a regular basis unless I was really desperate.

Another thing is that there's a complex relationship between having customers buying your fresh produce every day and keeping it in stock (which is expensive, especially if it isn't being bought). If I know for sure that place will have tomatoes, onions and avocados every day, I will more likely go there, but if they ever don't I'll stop depending on them and end up going elsewhere. Currently people might not expect that in a tiny corner store. Without the existing culture/expectations like they have in Paris, a small store would have a lot of trouble keeping produce going in Tulsa.

Been talking to some friends about this and most of them are like, "If I lived downtown I would just order my food from Amazon or Reasors and have it delivered."  Heck we already have started using the Reasons app thing.  I personally HATE going grocery shopping, it bores me to death lol.

But anywhoo, some of those Braums stores have a lot of basic options, I could probably get by with that for most of what I need and then order anything else.  Those are probably about 500 sq ft. And then if I imagine DECOPOLIS at about 3,500 sq feet and just using the downstairs space even, I could put a LOT more selection than a Braums.   

True, affordable delivery of groceries changes the game (and maybe that is part of Reasor's hold up in this). However, most people still like to go shop for food and make decisions based on what looks good. Selecting grocery items on websites is more time consuming than grabbing stuff that looks good. But after you find your favorites, reordering is faster. I don't like grocery shopping either but I find the online ordering more of a pain because I don't buy the same things each time and searching by name often doesn't work and they don't seem to have all the same options shown online.

I agree you can get a lot in a small space  but so far no one who owns a Tulsa bodega downtown has done that well. The Goods Bodega is great for what it is but it will never be a place people go for staples. It is a trendy upscale quick-grab place. I am guessing it takes tons of upfront money and a complex supply chain schedule to get the kind of thing those Parisian grocers do, or even just something like what Braum's has.

That is kinda sad!  Part of the fun of cooking is going to the store to look at everything, finding the occasional 'surprise' ingredient, and just be able to walk the aisles thinking about what to make and how to combine the different components/flavors..!!  

Nearly all people in Oklahoma drive to the grocery store nearly all of the time.  Even if it is a few blocks away, most will drive down to the store to get a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread.  Let alone actual grocery shopping. For most people, having a grocery store within 5 miles is the same thing as having one within 5 blocks...they aren't walking either way.

But that behavior is different for people who want to live in an urban space.  If a family can get down to one car.  Or park a car and leave it for the weekend.  To make that happen, having somewhere within walking distance to get the basics is essential.  A QT, a Braums market, a CVS, or the market that opened on Cinci in the Tulsa Arts District (fka Brady Arts District...) all serve that purpose fairly well.   A full grocery store would of course be better, but not a requirement IMHO.

You can order food for delivery if you plan ahead, if you need a gallon of milk or some butter to finish cooking - that isn't an option.

Interesting discussion.  Do you think by seeking/focusing on a full service grocery store we are trying to meet yesterday’s demands that won’t exist tomorrow?  I am not sold on the home delivery of groceries, but I know a lot of people who think it is the greatest thing ever.  In some ways, perhaps a downtown grocery store has come to serve as a proxy for the arrival of downtown’s critical mass as a residential destination.  Until we get one, many believe we have not yet “arrived.”

So far, downtown residents seem to be primarily young singles/childless couples and older empty nesters.  I could see the needs and expectations of these two different groups in this regard varying substantially.

Perhaps a smaller groceries only store would be better downtown, but likely only if we also had an urban Walgreen’s or CVS for toiletries and other personal items to fill the gap.  Indeed, maybe the perfect blend would be to divide this proposed Annex space for both to exist side-by-side.

I spend most of my time downtown as that is where I live and work. A grocery store inside the IDL would be awesome because that is one less time I have to drive my car a week. Places like Goods are cool, but 11-7 doesn't always work for me and I want more selection.

But honestly if I had a choice between a grocery store or a CVS and say, a movie theater going into the ANNEX I would choose the latter.

Reasor's and Walmart online-ordering/pickup seem to be doing well. Having this at the downtown store would be nice because I could place an order, and pick it up on the way home. Or place an order for work and pick it up on the way to the office. Office birthday? Someone hands you a cake, plates and forks while driving to the office.

What would be neat is if they put in a moderate-small sized grocer (say a 5,000 sq ft grocer, be it Reasors, Walmart Neighborhood Market or Whole Foods) and set it up so that you could order online anything they have at a regular store and get a discounted rate/membership or even free delivery to that store, similar to what Home Depot does. So downtown residents can get all the same things at any other store with the convenience of walking to the store plus options to buy any necessities last-minute.

That would be perfect for me. I like the idea of delivery as an option but am not sold on the cost of membership plus leaving a tip (If you get 20 deliveries a year, thats $4/delivery plus if you do, what, 10% on the tip, that could be $7 extra for a $30 order or $14 extra for a  $100 order which is about what we typically do per trip). If I could just do pickup for a smaller fee (or free if I lived downtown), I would absolutely do that more often.

Long time lurker, first time poster to this forum here.

 I found this post rather funny/interesting, and it reminded me of what we had out at the University of Arkansas that opened up a couple years ago, that we nicknamed "Small-Mart", as it was coined "the world's smallest Wal-Mart". It was a great little store that was incredibly convenient for all the students to just walk right over and grab what you needed for a few days. It was built in a corner at the ground floor of a new parking garage.

https://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/2011/01/14/now-open-walmart-on-campus/

Given that this model was obviously geared toward college students (snack food and school supplies), I can see something similar working in downtown Tulsa, where it's more of a get in-get out, yet is always stocked up, AND doesn't feel too constricting space-wise. I agree Tulsa does need a grocery store downtown, though I also know that grocery stores in Tulsa have historically disintegrated any urban conditions in their surroundings. This opens up a huge opportunity for a building type Tulsa has yet to truly see built downtown. I am very interested in seeing how people will react to something like this downtown.

Welcome, Lurker!!  You waited way too long to join the fray...



There is kind of a semi-fancy hotel in Milwaukee (The Pfister) - at least according to their pricing - that used to have a small grocery/deli/quiktrip type place right across the street for many years.  Was open very long hours and while not having a massive number of SKU's, it did have enough selection to serve a good part of their downtown area.  When in town, it was the "go to" place for downtown people.  It appears they are now gone, probably due to rent increases and the overall upward economic activity going on there - there was a for lease sign in their window last time I was there.  It will be missed I am sure.

Do we have a place for a small grocery that won't be overburdened, and unable to succeed, by escalating rents??    (My guess is no...)

Thanks for the welcome! I have actually followed this forum since my high school days at BTW and have just now (7 years later) decided I wanted to add some input...

When I graduated college I had the opportunity to work out in San Francisco (You want to talk escalating rent!) for two years for a big architecture firm (That I am currently still working for in our Dallas office). It's interesting reading all these comments about corner stores/ mom&pop type places and having to often rely solely on these types of stores for food and whatnot. Being from Oklahoma I was so used to loading up my jeep with groceries and being set for weeks!

My first eye opener out in SF was when I loaded up a shopping cart, while not even considering the fact I didn't have a car to take it all home in, and then having to maker a couple trips up this insanely steep small "mountain" I lived on . I'm sure most Tulsans have the same mentality when it comes to grocery shopping in that we need to load up on everything so we wont have to come back for awhile, and it would be tough for something to change that. We enjoy convenience and quantity over the "experience".  My point being that the store would have to have some familiarity to Tulsa and not be too gimmicky and shoehorned into its context. We cant just build a grocery store downtown for the sake of having one, as it almost requires a shift in mindset to make it truly be successful.

I'm by no means advocating that SF was doing it better, as the prices, shelf life and keeping things in stock would often scare me to order my groceries with all these start-ups' fancy apps in the delivery realm, which just felt odd. But hey, I had to get the full silicon valley experience!

Anything going on with this project?  Is it dead? The sale contract requires the developer to include a "first class" grocery store (whatever that means) and they only had 180 days to get one signed up. I think that 180 day period should have expired about a month ago.  The developer is allowed to extend the deadline for 30 days by paying $25,000 to the PAC Trust and they are allowed 4 extensions.  Does anyone have any idea if they have paid to extend the contract? (They would have to be making their second $25,000 payment this week.)

I haven't heard anything but hope this is still moving along in the background.  Like Santa Fe Square it's a massive hole to fill and probably has a lot of moving parts to get it off the ground, hence the delay.  It's still listed on Flaherty & Collins' website: http://flco.com/company-properties/the-annex/ (http://flco.com/company-properties/the-annex/)

I've seen a couple different renderings but like this one the best:
(http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/images/8986062_G.jpg)

This project makes 100 times more sense than REI at 71st & Riverside.  This needs to happen and would serve an actual need in Tulsa's retail market along with so many other needs it would provide for Downtown.

Anyone know if this is still in motion?

Should be. It's a constant line item on the Agendas they post. Whether or not there is legit progress is another thing entirely

I would think they would need a letter of intent from a grocery operator in order to proceed, and not sure if they have that or not.  Anyone know the terms of their agreement with the PAC?

Not sure on terms, but I recall a grocer being a requisite for the development. Pretty sure Bynum made some reference to that when people were freaking out because Reasor's was removed from the renderings

Where are agendas posted?

The City of Tulsa website. The Agendas aren't typically too revealing, and since Minutes recorded aren't apparently stored there, it's just a bit of a guessing game unless you're there at the meeting:

https://www.cityoftulsa.org/government/meeting-agendas/

Some interesting new renderings up on the Flaherty & Collins website:

(https://uniim1.shutterfly.com/ng/services/mediarender/THISLIFE/022046773943/media/124338601051/medium/1544746468/enhance)

(https://uniim1.shutterfly.com/ng/services/mediarender/THISLIFE/022046773943/media/124338601050/medium/1544746468/enhance)

Looks good. Looks like a hotel and condos.

Question though, is the First Place Tower melting in the second photo?

Was this tower always in the plan? Renderings are almost always sexier than the real thing, but if this is actually what they are planning to build that would be awesome.

That tower is new. The rendering shows 21 stories. With average apartment floor plates of 10-15 ft it would likely be in the 200-300ft range (the Philtower is 323 ft.) Lets not get our hopes up too high but Flaherty & Collins has completed at least one similar development in Indianapolis. 360 Market Square includes a 27 story 290 ft. tower, 40,000 sqft. Whole Foods, 2,000 sqft. Starbucks and 525 place parking garage.

I can't help but hope this and to a lesser extent the Valley National HQ means our drought of major building construction is coming to an end.

The photo posted here cuts off what appears to be a 3 or 4 story parking garage at the base of the tower and behind it (you can see some of it in the first photo). I don't recall their website mentioning anything about a hotel that you see in the renderings, but you really couldn't get a better location for downtown condos/apartments, hotel, grocery store, etc.

Since there are no good details provided via the City website I went ahead and sent in a "request info" email through the Flaherty & Collins website. I give it a 1/10 chance I actually hear anything useful back, but it's worth a try.

Agree this is one of the best sites in downtown and hopefully we get a quality project like this.  I'm still skeptical about the grocery concept working if you can't get a local company like Reasor's to operate it.  It may be too much of a risk for a national player, but maybe not.  As was mentioned F&C has done similar projects in Indianapolis. 

Wow, this is hugely exciting. Rarely do we see the renderings improve this dramatically, especially this late in the process. It seems like a wildly bullish gamble on downtown housing, but I assume the tide is really starting to turn in that favor.

(https://uniim1.shutterfly.com/ng/services/mediarender/THISLIFE/022046773943/media/124338601051/medium/1544746468/enhance)

(https://uniim1.shutterfly.com/ng/services/mediarender/THISLIFE/022046773943/media/124338601050/medium/1544746468/enhance)

Awesome, this will be a great get for Tulsa. Glad to see development in both of Oklahoma's two largest cities.  An exciting time for Tulsa, my son lives in T-town, I plan to send him these pics.

Looks like someone wasn't paying attention when using the Photoshop "magic eraser" tool.   But yea, will be amazed if this development actually happens.

That's pretty funny.  And in the first photo, the residential tower seems to be floating in midair.

I'm all for ambitious developments like this but hope this is not simply a placeholder for something that isn't actually feasible.  I agree this site deserves a high quality project with some height and density but if it's a 12 story apartment tower and starts next year I'd take that over a 21 story tower that doesn't start for several years or ever.  I remember the last time Tulsa had a 20+ story residential tower proposed at 21st & Main in the early 2000's..

And I do hope a grocery can still be part of this development, that is absolutely key to creating more residential density in the area.  3rd St needs retail activation, less so on Cincinnati, Detroit and 2nd but there should be something at the corner of 2nd & Detroit.

This F&C project in Cincinnati looks great: http://flco.com/company-properties/4thandrace/ (http://flco.com/company-properties/4thandrace/)

Did anyone get a response from Flaherty & Collins?

I saw this pic on FB from St Paddy's Day taken from the rooftop bar at the Indigo.  Made me think how much better this view would be with this development taking over that huge parking lot.  Fingers crossed this one can get off the ground, and hopefully will still include a full service grocery store.

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/53970393_583011872175976_2406141937368170496_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=ec99c75f1b9a3aa856c89927d7f003ad&oe=5D5019D8)

Cosentino's in KC's Power & Light District would be a nice grocery store addition.

Soooo... is this officially dead, or what?

^What, just because nothing has been mentioned in a few months? Some of these projects drag on for years before they get off the ground.

Last I heard, there was some infrastructure planning and relocation going on in relation to this, so the wheels are turning. I don't know if any actual work has started, but someone was requesting some information that passed through my office, so someone is out there working on at least getting it ready.

I feel like Tulsa likes to check things off one at a time rather than having too much going on at once, both on the city side and in terms of individual developers. There are still a lot of outstanding proposals that need to get off the ground, and slowly but surely they are getting started. The infrastructure work that has been going on down Archer is a big deal, and I'm sure the city wants that wrapped up before starting on any other big nearby projects that will require ripping up the street. The hoteliers that rushed in all at once to announce new projects years ago seem to have been letting them go up one at a time so that demand is not overwhelmed.

The continued slow and steady pace of downtown development is pretty good in light of the flat to slightly negative population growth in Tulsa proper the past few years.  We are simply not growing in population sufficiently to support a large number of residential/commercial developments at once.  Better to build at the absorption rate than create a saturated market leading to failed projects, bankruptcies and foreclosures. 

The PAC project seems like just another in a list of projects that are slow walking to inconclusive outcomes in hopes of not getting too far in front of the market.

It is frustrating to me, however, that all of the positive development and momentum of the past decade have not yet resulted in jump starting a period of significant population growth and attendant development.  Maybe it’s coming, but for now we seem stuck in first gear.

I think the city has laid a good foundation for future growth, and obviously has had some major support from local philanthropic organizations like GKFF.  Downtown looks better than it has in 40+ years.  Now it's really up to the private sector to provide the type of job growth that allows the city to grow at a faster rate.  Tulsa has always had a robust small business economy in all kinds of sectors, that is where the growth will be going forward hopefully with a continued increase in technology and research/engineering type jobs.  Oil and gas will remain a big part of the local economy and will ebb and flow with that sector, similar to how it also affects OKC and Houston (Midland is way more dependent).

Well, yes, that and the fact there has been no official word in over a year, and the fact that it has not been on the PAC Trust's agenda since January (after having been on the agenda for every meeting since mid-2017). Oh, and the fact that by its own terms the contract with Flaherty & Collins expired some time ago.  An amendment was on the agenda once during 2018, but to my knowledge, the result of that meeting has never been reported.  So... it seemed pretty fair to ask if the project is dead.

I don't know if this has any significance with regards to this project, but when scrolling through Facebook this morning I saw Bynum post that the PAC Trust officially begins operations of the PAC today.

I would imagine that was a part of the holdup in the lot development - the PAC has been working on that transition for quite a while

I just heard the deal is officially dead. This would have been an amazing project!! Big loss for downtown!

Big opportunity for another development group to take the torch.  This is one project where the PAC/city should demand high quality even if it takes a few more years to make it happen.

Unless another recession hits and then it could be a few decades.

Decades?  Highly unlikely.  A few years? Possibly. I was skeptical both SFS and this could go at the same time so late in the cycle but downtown overall still has all of the momentum.  And this is one of the best sites within the IDL.

Huge bummer if this deal really is dead. Having any sort of grocery store would've been an incredible addition to downtown. I would strongly considered moving downtown if I didn't have to leave for basic things like groceries... hopefully someone will notice the potential.

Urban grocery stores can be a tough sell with their already-thin margins.  Downtown Denver, which has a significantly larger residential population and 3x as many daytime office workers than Tulsa, has only had a downtown grocery store for 3 years.  I agree though that having such a store would be a game changer for people wanting to live downtown but not have to drive to 15th & Lewis. 

Why is that the deal breaker? How many people don't have to leave their neighborhood to get groceries? Now that Riverside is open getting to Brookside is a breeze. Not to mention the numerous delivery services available now.

I used to be on the downtown grocery train but putting it right by the PAC is a waste of that space IMO. Have it on the outskirts of downtown or just get an urban CVS down here.

Really?   Anyone outside of downtown and large areas of the north side have groceries "in" their neighborhood.  I consider that to be less than a 2 mile drive, just for starters.  I suspect it is much shorter for very large sections of town.  Could be off here, but there seem to be many reasonable opportunities for most of town.

15th and Lewis Reasor's is less than 3 miles from Downtown and Brookside is less than 4. Again, it would be nice to have if it was an urban grocery store but not right by the PAC.

The PAC spot does seem to be a decent spot for a small downtown grocery, especially if it were on a transit loop around downtown.  It would be close to some potential residential concentration in the Deco District and Blue Dome area.  But even then, there is not enough residential in just those areas to support even a small grocer.  A regular transit loop could help connect more residential spots scattered around downtown.  Otherwise if people are going to pop into their cars to go somewhere... its really just as convenient and attractive to go over to the Reasors.  But even this would be "faking it", making a half arsed, quasi real, space.


Our downtown is still so dead.  Still so few people walking around.  Still not a lively pedestrian area.  Few nights a week in a couple of spots, yes. But that is not "real".

Lunchtime rush downtown. When the average Tulsan might think "Oh, look, lots of people out and about."  Bet you just about every other day during that time I get a tourist or visitor from out of town coming into the store asking "Whats wrong with your downtown?" "Where is everyone?"  That during the time we would consider busy!

Its not busy.

Even during those few nights a week when the Blue Dome or Arts District have people out and about its often just around a few blocks in each area, and likely because of an event, special occasion, or people coming in from outside downtown to go clubbing/drinking/dining.  


I think back on when I have stayed in urban neighborhoods in other cities and they all have similar designs, infrastructure and patterns.  No matter where in the world they are.   And we DO NOT have those patterns, infrastructure, and designs in place.  Its like we are ignorant children playing at wanting an urban area but are completely oblivious to what it takes and making stupid mistakes while we do it.

What we are doing reminds me of the old saying "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing... after they have tried everything else first."

That is what we are doing with our downtown lol.  

3 miles is starting to be a little bit long-ish.  (Said by a guy whose family has 2 Walmarts, Braum's, Reasor's, and several convenience stores within two miles...)

I definitely agree that downtown could use a huge increase in foot traffic. I walk through downtown just about every morning for work. When I first moved here a couple months ago, it felt like some weird set in the twilight zone. I couldn't get over how few people I saw, it genuinely weirded me out.  That being said, as the weather is turning there's definitely an increased amount of people from what I can see. Still much quieter than any city I've lived in however. 

Some new additions make me hopeful, there's a new ice cream shop by the Meridia, and a new brewery coming soon around the corner. The Reunion building is a large project that has a lot of potential.  It seems like there are quite a few abandoned buildings that could be used for residential uses. Until there's more public transportation around downtown it'll be hard, but revitalizing the dead buildings would certainly help. 

It seems like there's an effort to make downtown more attractive for residents/people in general. I hope Tulsa embraces it... it'll be much more exciting to live in Tulsa if the downtown is bustling like other cities our size.  Minneapolis is a good example ( currently 100 Tulsa political/business leaders are visiting) that I think we could learn from.   

If I were king and had his money, I'd burn the Philcade lobby back into an upscale shopping area. Anything to diversify from office fronts and bars and restaurants.

The downtown grocery store doesn't have to be on this site but it's a good location for a few reasons, as long as it's part of a larger residential development like what Flaherty & Collins had proposed:
1.  It's in between new and future residential in the East Village as well as the CBD for office workers getting lunch/picking up groceries after work, etc
2.  The way the site is sloped you could put a level of parking underneath the store with direct access up one level that is separate from the residential/PAC uses which would likely be in a garage along 2nd
3.  It activates 3rd St which is a main pedestrian connector through downtown but has very little retail, this could lead to other developments with ground floor activation on the other PAC lot between Cincinnati and Boston and across the street.  

Denver's downtown Whole Foods with apartments above would be a good model where the grocery parking is underground and tenant parking is in a garage
(https://davispartnership.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Union-Denver_Frank-Ooms_Ext-01.jpg)

With Tulsa's growth at only about 2 to 2.2% on average, I'm not sure where everyone seems to think all these new projects will find residents or new commercial tenants right now.  I'd be playing it safe too if I were a developer.  If Tulsa could simply latch on to something that would drive more new high paying jobs to town, it might experience 4-8% growth which would justify more of these developments.

Downtown is a different market though, it's the only concentrated urban district in the metro capable of building high density residential and commercial projects.  So even while demand is relatively low it is pretty much concentrated downtown.  I see it somewhat similar to the situation in Chicago where the overall city has been losing population for years if not decades but downtown and surrounding neighborhoods are healthy and attracting new residents and commercial projects.  Agree though we would likely see a lot more projects if there were more better-paying jobs which is what initiatives like GKFF bringing the Holbertson School and TU developing the Cyber District are aiming to achieve.

I just left a much longer post on the Downtown Development thread.  I've wondered if Tulsa was just too far behind others in reinvesting in downtown, but that's really not an entirely true statement since the Williams Center and PAC were built in the mid-1970's.  I think the failure then was there were so many other derelict properties in the Brady and Blue Dome and other parts of downtown and little other investment that's what stifled Tulsa's overall growth.  Tulsa was also building a lot of Class A space out south at a rapid pace in those days and that did help spur suburban growth, I'm sure.

Perhaps if more new housing and entertainment venues had followed those developments and more renovation for downtown Class A office space, Tulsa could be in a different position these days.  The Williams Center and PAC in the mid '70's should have helped spur the kind of secondary investment that the BOK Center seems to have helped catalyze.  No idea if it was indifferent land owners holding out for major gains in the distant future or what happened with the lack of spark there for secondary investment or at least renovation.  Peter Mayo's acquisition of the Brady Theater (nee: Tulsa Municipal Theater) was right in that time frame and I think David Sharp may have been quietly buying up property in the area at that time but it was at least another five to ten years before anyone seemed interested in trying to get some businesses going in the near area, in those properties.

Where are you seeing that kind of growth for Tulsa?  From 2010-2018, the metro population grew:

2010-2011:    0.64%
2011-2012:   0 .74%
2012-2013:   1.00%
2013-2014:   0.78%
2014-2015:   1.2%
2015-2016:   0.78%
2016-2017:   0.24%
2017-2018:   0.22%

So recent growth  (the last two years) is about 1/10th of the amount stated.

Even worse than I thought.

Downturn in energy combined with Trump's immigration policies. Most of our net inbound immigration has been international for some time.

The people I know who work in oil and gas are definitely not doing as well as they once were and some have left the industry for good.  It’s not the growth engine it once was.

I found the second sentence of your quote curious then realized what it meant and tuned in.  I recall in the early 1980's before Oklahoma's S & L and energy crash seeing so many car tags from other states on a regular basis as recent transplants to Tulsa due to a blazing oil industry for which Tulsa was a major hub at the time.  Along with that, American Airlines brought quite a few managerial and operations employees from White Plains in the 1970's.  The oil business attracted many people from all over the country in those days.  Tulsa sort of pre-dated Austin when it came to an industry or a few industries causing thousands to flock to a metro every year.  The sh1tty economy all over the U.S. in the early '80's that Tulsa had managed to avoid until the Penn Square collapse in 1982 and finally oil plummeting to $9-10/bbl in 1986 drove people to our doorstep until 1984 or 1985.  I think Tulsa would be seeing better growth had the oil industry not decided making Houston the center pivot of petroleum was essential.

As to the first sentence:  Trump's immigration policies probably have less to do with any impact on the Tulsa area than OK HB 1804 from 2007 did.  I distinctly remember after HB 1804 passed, documented Mexicans that worked for us ended up leaving the state as they were afraid of being rounded up even though they had the proper visa and documentation. 

I've not studied immigration trends since Trump took office but I'd be surprised if we have a much better handle on illegal southern border crossings than we did 20 years ago.  He talks tough because he knows his power-base wants to hear him talk about how successful we are at keeping illegal crossings to a minimum but there's plenty of anecdotal evidence out there that it's still pretty easy to slip into the southern U.S. from Mexico.

City looking for state's help to move downtown grocery store project forward

City officials are finalizing a $12 million state matching funds application they hope will help Tulsa secure a downtown grocery store.

Not much has been said publicly in the past year about a proposal from an Indianapolis company to construct a mixed-use development with a grocery store across the street from the Tulsa Performing Arts Center.

Kian Kamas, the city’s chief of economic development, said there is a reason for that — and it’s complicated.

“Big projects like this, they are complex, and making sure we can get them financed is complex,” Kamas said.

With that in mind, the city is working with the developer, Flaherty & Collins, to apply for matching funds under the state’s Local Development and Enterprise Zone Incentive Leverage Act. If the city’s application is accepted, it would receive an estimated $12 million in state sales tax funding over 25 years — the same amount the proposed project is estimated to generate in city sales tax revenue.

Ryan Cronk, a partner in Flaherty & Collins, said he’s been working on the project for five years and hopes to have construction underway by the first quarter of 2021.

“Candidly, to no one’s fault, everybody has been working on this very hard and for a very long time,” he said. “It’s just one of those things where it took a while for all of the pieces of the puzzle to fit.

“I think everybody is excited now, and I think hopefully now this process with the state will get done and we’ll be moving this thing forward.”

Looks like it's still alive!


https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/government-and-politics/city-looking-for-state-s-help-to-move-downtown-grocery/article_770ee321-aed0-578f-84e9-774fabd2c10e.html

Yes it looks like it's still happening.

https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/government-and-politics/city-looking-for-state-s-help-to-move-downtown-grocery/article_770ee321-aed0-578f-84e9-774fabd2c10e.amp.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=user-share&__twitter_impression=true

Glad it's still on the table. Not happy that an out of state developer will "receive an estimated $12 million in state sales tax funding over 25 years — the same amount the proposed project is estimated to generate in city sales tax revenue". So basically city sales tax revenue that would otherwise be going to the city via Reasors, QT or the new DGX, will instead be going to the developer for 25 years!

I would rather it be delayed even further and have either no break or a much smaller tax break. Ideally a local developer would be prefered but that's not been an option. It's one thing to give out tax breaks to renovate old treasures like the Mayo Hotel or Tulsa Club Building to local developers like the Ross Group. It's a damn shame if struggling families buying groceries are sending their tax dollars to a big corporation in Indianapolis.

It's also one thing to reduce the property tax increase like they typically do rather than from sales tax. Those are actually related ($ increase in property value tax is directly dependent on improvements while tax revenue is most likely poached from other existing grocery stores).

This is an interesting turn of events.  Meanwhile, the Price family is going to put a grocery store in the ground floor of the 111 Lofts building at 5th & Boulder.  Additionally, DGX should be open in a matter of weeks. 

It will be interesting to see how these two smaller operations play out over the next 2 years before the development on the PAC lot even breaks ground.

Heard through the grapevine that the Tax funds allocation had been approved recently. The person I was talking to thought construction work could even start this year. Not sure how reliable that information is, but thought I'd pass it along.