|
PonderInc
|
 |
« on: September 15, 2008, 08:27:30 am » |
|
For those of you who believe that preservation of unique and historic areas of town is vital to Tulsa's future...
Be sure to sign up for PLANiTULSA workshops and get your ideas down on paper.
One of the first steps citizens will take at the PLANiTULSA workshops will be to identify areas of "no change." These are places that need to be preserved. You'll be instructed to circle these areas with markers and label them as such.
You'll do this before you start placing "game pieces" on the map to indicate types of development/infill that's desired throughout the city.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TheArtist
|
|
« Reply #1 on: September 15, 2008, 11:51:35 am » |
|
Define "preserved".
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"When you only have two pennies left in the world, buy a loaf of bread with one, and a lily with the other."-Chinese proverb. "Arts a staple. Like bread or wine or a warm coat in winter. Those who think it is a luxury have only a fragment of a mind. Mans spirit grows hungry for art in the same way h
|
|
|
|
pmcalk
|
|
« Reply #2 on: September 15, 2008, 12:09:35 pm » |
|
^^My understanding (someone correct me if I am wrong) is that "areas of stability" simply mean areas don't need large scale redevelopment. It doesn't mean that they need to be frozen in time, but that the development patterns in that area should remain stable (perhaps simply preserving the character of the neighborhood). Areas that contain sticker pieces symbolize a need to redevelop that area. So if you place a TOD piece on single family homes, you are indicating that those homes should be replaced with a different development. If you place single family home sticker in a neighborhood, you are saying that all (or the majority) of those houses need to be replaced.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
carltonplace
|
|
« Reply #3 on: September 15, 2008, 02:03:18 pm » |
|
How granular does this go?
The street you live on should be stable but the next street needs development?
-or-
This entire neighborhood (Swan Lake for example) should be stable.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
PonderInc
|
|
« Reply #4 on: September 16, 2008, 02:21:41 pm » |
|
It's my understanding that the initial public workshops will be "big picture" views of Tulsa. In the coming months, there will be "neighborhood" level workshops that will allow you to zoom in much more closely.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Breadburner
|
|
« Reply #5 on: September 16, 2008, 08:53:21 pm » |
|
I would like to put a stop to the McMansion.....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
pmcalk
|
|
« Reply #6 on: September 16, 2008, 10:06:46 pm » |
|
Part of the process will also include forming "guiding principals" like sustainable development, preserving neighborhood character, increasing density, etc.... If you cannot figure out a way to get a point across through the pieces, you can always include it as a guiding principal.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Double A
|
|
« Reply #7 on: September 17, 2008, 01:01:29 pm » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Part of the process will also include forming "guiding principals" like sustainable development, preserving neighborhood character, increasing density, etc.... If you cannot figure out a way to get a point across through the pieces, you can always include it as a guiding principal.
I am relieved to hear that. I thought the game pieces alone were too constrictive and would not address more abstract ideas that would not fit into those molds. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
<center>  </center> The clash of ideas is the sound of freedom. Ars Longa, Vita Brevis! |
|
|
|
cmoreno
Guest
|
|
« Reply #8 on: September 24, 2008, 06:25:14 am » |
|
quote:
Part of the process will also include forming "guiding principals" like sustainable development, preserving neighborhood character, increasing density, etc.... If you cannot figure out a way to get a point across through the pieces, you can always include it as a guiding principal.
maybe this is in a different part of the process than what we worked on at the workshops, or maybe i fell asleep when they were talking about this, but i didn't get a clear understanding of the whole, "guiding principals" thing. i really would have liked to. 'seemed to me...and this may, again, have been due to the facilitator that we had, or something that my group kinda missed...that the emphasis was, "get your game pieces on the board", and not, "write down a strong, strategic list of guiding principals that solves the issues that tulsa faces in the future and addresses how to plan for future growth". i mean, we did some of that. for about 5 minutes. i certainly would have been all about including guiding principals which addressed land use, historic preservation, density vs. sprawl, zoning vs. form-based codes, sustainability and all that jazz. @ our group we really only had time to talk about transportation and education. it'd have been nice to get down in to the nitty-gritty of infrastructure, use of resources and what factors guide development (and what factors guide preservation for that matter). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Double A
|
|
« Reply #9 on: September 24, 2008, 04:00:47 pm » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by cmoreno
quote:
Part of the process will also include forming "guiding principals" like sustainable development, preserving neighborhood character, increasing density, etc.... If you cannot figure out a way to get a point across through the pieces, you can always include it as a guiding principal.
maybe this is in a different part of the process than what we worked on at the workshops, or maybe i fell asleep when they were talking about this, but i didn't get a clear understanding of the whole, "guiding principals" thing. i really would have liked to.
'seemed to me...and this may, again, have been due to the facilitator that we had, or something that my group kinda missed...that the emphasis was, "get your game pieces on the board", and not, "write down a strong, strategic list of guiding principals that solves the issues that tulsa faces in the future and addresses how to plan for future growth".
i mean, we did some of that. for about 5 minutes. i certainly would have been all about including guiding principals which addressed land use, historic preservation, density vs. sprawl, zoning vs. form-based codes, sustainability and all that jazz. @ our group we really only had time to talk about transportation and education. it'd have been nice to get down in to the nitty-gritty of infrastructure, use of resources and what factors guide development (and what factors guide preservation for that matter).
I felt the same way, that's why I concentrated my efforts on the comments sections at the bottom of the map. I mainly stickered the areas where the refineries are currently. Getting rid of the the refineries and redeveloping that land was really popular at our table. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
<center> </center> The clash of ideas is the sound of freedom. Ars Longa, Vita Brevis! |
|
|
|
cmoreno
Guest
|
|
« Reply #10 on: September 24, 2008, 04:08:25 pm » |
|
there was another table that had killed those as well and put in their place hydro, wind, and solar power (from what i could tell of their drawing) generation as well as what looked like business parks and light industrial for what i was assuming to be development of green / renewable / sustainable energy resources. ...looked like a really cool idea.
i still maintain that tulsa has the potential to be the, "green energy" capital as it once was the oil capital. several oil execs agreed w/ me when we had a discussion about that @ one of the small group meetings of 'step up tulsa'.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sgrizzle
|
|
« Reply #11 on: September 24, 2008, 05:48:49 pm » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
I mainly stickered the areas where the refineries are currently. Getting rid of the the refineries and redeveloping that land was really popular at our table.
Complete fiction, but popular. I seem to remember you being generally anti government spending for capital projects but your plan is to spend all the efforts buying and redeveloping an area in the middle of 2 Billion (with a B) upgrades that serves a market that is more profitable than ever in history? Yeah, I bet that'll be cheap. That land is likely worth, per acre, more than most of Tulsa combined. Our table concentrated on far east Tulsa, North Tulsa and some in west Tulsa on places that need it and in ways that are physically possible. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
PonderInc
|
|
« Reply #12 on: September 24, 2008, 05:50:46 pm » |
|
We basically included in our guiding principles that historic buildings and neighborhoods should be preserved. That way, we didn't have to stress out about circling every neighborhood we wanted to "preserve."
Fregonese said in the intro that putting a sticker down doesn't mean destroying what lies beneath. They understand you mean infill, not demolition and rebuilding in places that are healthy.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Double A
|
|
« Reply #13 on: September 24, 2008, 06:06:02 pm » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
I mainly stickered the areas where the refineries are currently. Getting rid of the the refineries and redeveloping that land was really popular at our table.
Complete fiction, but popular. I seem to remember you being generally anti government spending for capital projects but your plan is to spend all the efforts buying and redeveloping an area in the middle of 2 Billion (with a B) upgrades that serves a market that is more profitable than ever in history?
Yeah, I bet that'll be cheap. That land is likely worth, per acre, more than most of Tulsa combined.
Our table concentrated on far east Tulsa, North Tulsa and some in west Tulsa on places that need it and in ways that are physically possible.
Boy, that sure got your panties in a wad. I walked around and looked at some other tables and was happy to see the trend of redeveloping the refineries wasn't just happening at our table. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 24, 2008, 06:09:07 pm by Double A »
|
Logged
|
<center> </center> The clash of ideas is the sound of freedom. Ars Longa, Vita Brevis! |
|
|
|
sgrizzle
|
|
« Reply #14 on: September 24, 2008, 07:45:32 pm » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
I mainly stickered the areas where the refineries are currently. Getting rid of the the refineries and redeveloping that land was really popular at our table.
Complete fiction, but popular. I seem to remember you being generally anti government spending for capital projects but your plan is to spend all the efforts buying and redeveloping an area in the middle of 2 Billion (with a B) upgrades that serves a market that is more profitable than ever in history?
Yeah, I bet that'll be cheap. That land is likely worth, per acre, more than most of Tulsa combined.
Our table concentrated on far east Tulsa, North Tulsa and some in west Tulsa on places that need it and in ways that are physically possible.
Boy, that sure got your panties in a wad. I walked around and looked at some other tables and was happy to see the trend of redeveloping the refineries wasn't just happening at our table.
Another little FYI from the map, the refineries aren't in the city limits and were actually excluded from the project. Check the dotted lines. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
