My trip to NYC

[TheArtist]

I don't think every area needs to be zoned or coded to be pedestrian friendly.  Its going to be tough enough to get areas in and near downtown to be that way.  

We currently have NO plans that will get downtown to have high quality pedestrian friendly areas.  

Diversity and "not putting all your eggs in one basket" can be a good thing imo.  Some areas in town can be car oriented, heck most obviously will be, but surely a few, here and there can be pedestrian friendly.  If there is any spot in town that should have some super good pedestrian friendly areas, downtown seems to be a no brainer to me.  Wouldn't you agree?  You can't assume that the market will know that or will care.  All you have to do is look around downtown to see that it doesn't.  We have cared plenty about other parts of town being car friendly, but haven't put even a modicum of real effort into downtown being pedestrian friendly.  Why is that?  It just seems so odd to me?  Putting in place some guiding principals for how we would like areas in downtown to develop, aka which ones we want to grow in a pedestrian friendly manner, and then letting the market do its thing would be my vote.  

Then too, the new comprehensive plan shows where the people think other pedestrian friendly areas should be and how they can connect via mass transit.  But yes, right now you can look in those very areas and see new development that doesn't at all lead us in that direction.

Also, if we are ever, ever, going to have good mass transit in this city.  If we are ever going to want to add a little diversity to our transportation options and not put all our eggs in the automobile basket... Pedestrian friendly and Mass Transit friendly are the same thing.  They go hand in hand.  The better the pedestrian frienly areas, the more efficient, higher the ridership, less costly, and better your mass transit options can become.    

[rdj]

Do you think Utica Square is pedestrian friendly in its design?  Or, is it because of its age, trees, shops, meticulous maintenance and because we are told it is?  

Is it design or the sense of place that signals to your brain it is okay to walk?

It was designed as a suburban shopping center just as urban sprawl was hitting its stride.  It has massive stretches without sidewalks, is not stroller/handicap friendly in many areas, but it lacks the sea of parking lot that these nouveau shopping centers have.

We visited OKC this last weekend and went to RePUBlic at Classen Curve.  It was dark and I didn't walk or drive thru the entire center, but it seems to have been laid out in a very walkable fashion.

[erfalf]

Property rights....  I get what your saying, but no matter what part of town or city your in, they still have some rules of some sort on development.  In south Tulsa you have to have a certain number of parking places, a certain amount of greenery, etc. for instance.  Why not exchange those types of rules for a different set of ones that say, build up to the sidewalk and have entrances/windows on your "A" pedestrian friendly streets?  New suburban neighborhoods often have rules, just make a different set of ones for new urban infill ones.

I understand your point, but it is a little unfair to make that comparison between suburband and urban rules. Suburban rules were established when the neighborhood was established. If I don't agree with them, I don't buy in the neighborhood. Plus, a neighborhood organization decides when and if to change certain rules. It is far more representative because everyone in the group has an interest.

Now, with regard to downtown property rights.

The problem I have is that people want to change the rules all of a sudden. I’m not going to argue that the new rules wouldn’t necessarily be effective in creating a more pedestrian friendly environment that anyone that appreciates the history of the area would enjoy. That’s not the point. I just believe that property owners don’t deserve to have the rules changed on them. If they want to build a drive thru bank at 7th and Main and it is within the bounds of the current law, then so be it. I’m not gonna say that I like the development but they can do what they please with their own property.

In my humble opinion… If rules and regulations should be changed, they should be changed by some private organization, like a home owners association. I’m not certain, but I believe some of the historic districts in town have created such groups after the fact. Let’s say we get a Blue Dome District Owners Association. Get all the property owners to come together and set their own standards. Government intervention in this matter is going to lead to a one size fits all solution that will never work (in particular in this city where dysfunctional government is the norm). The neighborhoods in this city are so unique and I for one don’t want to sacrifice that so some developers get what they want in a completely different part of town.

This discussion has uncovered my localism hope. I think everything, including government, should be as localized as possible. The closer the people are to their representatives the more effective and efficient the response will be for government, school, neighborhoods.

I don’t disagree to disagree. I just want to further this discussion, because I believe that in almost every facet of life, the answer is somewhere in the middle.

[TheArtist]

Do you think Utica Square is pedestrian friendly in its design?  Or, is it because of its age, trees, shops, meticulous maintenance and because we are told it is?  

Is it design or the sense of place that signals to your brain it is okay to walk?

It was designed as a suburban shopping center just as urban sprawl was hitting its stride.  It has massive stretches without sidewalks, is not stroller/handicap friendly in many areas, but it lacks the sea of parking lot that these nouveau shopping centers have.

We visited OKC this last weekend and went to RePUBlic at Classen Curve.  It was dark and I didn't walk or drive thru the entire center, but it seems to have been laid out in a very walkable fashion.

Utica Square is passable.  But its also a tiny, disconnected island.  If you like Utica Square, you would fall over in joy if you ever got to experience a really good pedestrian friendly environment.


Some of the pedestrian friendly design rules it has going for it are...

It does have sidewalks in front of the shops and restaurants.  
The businesses for the most part have windows and doors open to those sidewalks creating interest and flow.
Lots of trees and interspersed parklike spaces.

Some lucky or favorable circumstances that also help it thrive...

Its in a beautiful, nice part of town and has some very nice shops.
Is accessible from all sides.  
Has small parking lots between the shops which helps give it a more intimate feel.

Some things that can or could have been done better...

Be better connected to other pedestrian friendly areas on the main thoroughfairs 21st and Utica Ave. The tiny "island" thing I was talking about.  There are a few things that are nearby like Utica Place and the hospital, but its still very limited in scope. You will rarely find people walking more than a few blocks away from Utica Square.  If the area were to infill in a pedestrian friendly manner that could change.  Wouldn't it be great if Utica going north would connect to Cherry Street in a fun, interesting, pedestrian friendly manner.  


  I don't know anything about Classen Curve, have never heard of it so can not comment, except to say context, where something is, is important.    

[Conan71]

Unfortunately, I cannot find a good photo of the complex exterior layout, but here's the Curve.  It's very modern.

http://www.classencurve.com/siteplan

[OurTulsa]

NYC has so much to loathe and love.  If you missed the chunky suburbany looking folks then I guess you didn't get to Times Sq.  You won't find many kids in Manhattan but get out to the boroughs and there are kids abound and kid friendly places.  I found NYC relatively kid friendly outside of the touristy/crazy Midtown nodes.  NYC also provides some diversity in their fabric.  You can get out to Forrest Hills (Queens) or Boerum Hill (Brklyn) and find absolute peace and quiet inside 'the city'.  At 42nd/Bdwy you can't get away from people and the side streets can feel cavernous.

My observation of Ny is that Manhattan, other than pub. housing, has become the Country's version of the City.  You'll find Ny's NY out in the borroughs and on the other side of the Hudson.

I was in the best shape of my life when I lived in the City.  It was nothing to walk miles without really thinking about the distance (weather notwithstanding) and I worked out on top of that.  There is so much personal engagement enriching the pedestrian experience to focus on the distance and the space within which to walk at worst is accommodating - space is often measured in time there.  While I think there are too many personal vehicles in the City people have their place as opposed to here where the City's designed for the 35-40 mph experience and the pedestrian environment is mostly non-existent.  Walking against 5 or more lanes of fast traffic on one side and a 40 or more space parking lot on the other side is worst than unpleasant it's antagonizing to the senses.  It's no wonder that walking a block in most of Tulsa is unpleasant and unthinkable.

Tulsa would do well to replicate some of the built environment of NYC.  I am particularly fond of recent projects spearheaded by their superstar Streets Commish JSK to redistribute street space.  Closing parts of Bdwy to vehicle traffic through the busiest parts was brilliant!  I would never want to live, work, or particularly play in most of Midtown Manhattan but there are other parts of Ny that are downright pleasant!  Downtown Tulsa doesn't have to be chock full of 40 story towers - there's a density threshold that when crossed can become uppleasant for most.  And unfortunately we have to create rules otherwise we, as a community don't get a consistency of application adn investors/developers/home buyers don't get the assurances necessary to help them take the jump - nothing to stop the next guy from coming in and completely undermining and taking from the whole experience and quality of life anticipated.  Think of our City as a much bigger Neighborhood Association - I guess if you don't want to play by the established rules you can choose another city.

There's alot of benefit to density - one: peopel are attracted to people (not in cars), but a community that's dense and is comprised of a lot of diversity in their building stock seems to have far more to offer in teh way of services and shops.  Dense/ diverse places seem to also inspire creativity and risk vying for that concentration of resources (human/social/capital).  Again, not every part of Tulsa needs to look like Brooklyn but some of it certainly can.   - quick random thoughts...

[TheArtist]

I understand your point, but it is a little unfair to make that comparison between suburband and urban rules. Suburban rules were established when the neighborhood was established. If I don't agree with them, I don't buy in the neighborhood. Plus, a neighborhood organization decides when and if to change certain rules. It is far more representative because everyone in the group has an interest.

Now, with regard to downtown property rights.

The problem I have is that people want to change the rules all of a sudden. I’m not going to argue that the new rules wouldn’t necessarily be effective in creating a more pedestrian friendly environment that anyone that appreciates the history of the area would enjoy. That’s not the point. I just believe that property owners don’t deserve to have the rules changed on them. If they want to build a drive thru bank at 7th and Main and it is within the bounds of the current law, then so be it. I’m not gonna say that I like the development but they can do what they please with their own property.

In my humble opinion… If rules and regulations should be changed, they should be changed by some private organization, like a home owners association. I’m not certain, but I believe some of the historic districts in town have created such groups after the fact. Let’s say we get a Blue Dome District Owners Association. Get all the property owners to come together and set their own standards. Government intervention in this matter is going to lead to a one size fits all solution that will never work (in particular in this city where dysfunctional government is the norm). The neighborhoods in this city are so unique and I for one don’t want to sacrifice that so some developers get what they want in a completely different part of town.

This discussion has uncovered my localism hope. I think everything, including government, should be as localized as possible. The closer the people are to their representatives the more effective and efficient the response will be for government, school, neighborhoods.

I don’t disagree to disagree. I just want to further this discussion, because I believe that in almost every facet of life, the answer is somewhere in the middle.

I think we do agree more than we disagree lol.  

Couple of possible small disagreements first.  I think downtown is unique in that its "condensed".  First off there are parts of the city where they have said "ok, this is where we want the neighborhood, this is where we want the shopping, the industry, etc.".  They zoned for those things AFTER someone owned the property.  Whenever they design a highway like 169, they then say we want higher density near the exits for instance.   There are parts of downtown that are essentially empty fields.   Why cant we zone some of those areas to say, this is where we want pedestrian friendly neighborhoods?  

We only have one downtown.  We have invested a LOT in and around it as a community.  I think the community has a little more of a right to be concerned with what happens there.  Our downtown is small, a couple of bad developments can ruin a lot more than they could elsewhere. That condensed thing again.

Lets say I build a building in one of the undeveloped areas and have it be pedestrian friendly. Then someone on either side of me builds something that is not. You may very well have ruined me.  

Another point with the "condensed" thing.  One building can equal part of an entire suburban neighborhood.  It could have 50 or 100 homes in it. I buy into this budding neighborhood and the guy next to me builds something completely different that essentially ruins my neigborhood.  

Frankly if I am a developer, or a property owner in downtown, I think I would like to know whats going to happen on this block.  If I build a pedestrian friendly building, I would love to feel that the person next to me would also, thus through synergy and critical mass improving the property values of both of us.  Knowing what street or block is going to be what increases confidence and thus property values. Whether your property is on a pedestrian friendly designated street or not, you now have an additional, positive, marketable selling point.

 Transportation.  Again, because a downtown is a "condensed" version of a suburban area, its important to know where the arterial roads/highways/neighborhood roads, etc should be.  It would be wise to know where your going to want to have your mass transit options be for instance.  If the public puts in rail and then all you get is suburban, non-pedestrian friendly development around it, you have blown a lot of money.  On the flip side, if you do not zone for pedestrian/mass transit friendly areas or streets and let the market do as it will... you will likely end up with a scattershot mess (a pedestrian friendly block or two here, then another way over there, etc.) that can't be economically and efficiently connected, and to which people will not walk from one area to the next, and your screwed again.  We have done this large scale for the city with the New Comprehensive Plan, but we haven't done it on the "condensed" scale for downtown.  

 If we were in a larger city, perhaps I wouldn't have these concerns.  But because Tulsa is a small city, its downtown is still struggling to turn around, and I don't see that Tulsa will ever be a fast growing city again that can easily erase mistakes, each and every development at this point looms larger in its importance.   At this point in the game, a few individuals could really screw up current and future public investments, and the private investments of a lot of people.


However, I do agree that any zoning of blocks and or streets should come from the ground up.  But I do believe it should happen, even if just the most critical parts of downtown like where we want transit to be or where we have public investments like the ballpark and possibly the new museums, and possibly even the few streets that connect already growing pedestrian friendly areas to each other.  The rest, let whatever happen happen, but there are some areas that I feel should be "A" pedestrian/mass transit friendly streets.

One final point.  As many here have attested, great, pedestrian friendly streets are an absolute joy.  Tulsans, including the property owners downtown, are missing out.  And for many reasons, we are not likely to get them by happy accident. 

[OurTulsa]

Utica Sq. is the best we've got in Tulsa.  It's horribly disconnected from it's surroundings unless you're in a car.  Walking through is pleasant if you're up against a building or in the *$'s area but otherwise you're dodging cars - some going much faster than reasonable in the parking lots.  

Don't get me wrong, I like Utica Sq., relatively speaking...but if 6th St. or Boston Av. or 11th St. ever developes out in a pleasant urban manner: generously wide tree lined sidewalks with ample easy street crossings Utica Sq. will be just another shopping center though with nice mature trees.

What Utica Sq. can do to improve is start with some infill.  Build some new multi-story buildings in the complex, add some residential inside the complex, add a green/park right where they have hold the Christmas Lights ceremony, present a better face or in some cases put a presence on Utica and/or 21st and/or Yorktown Av.  A multi-lane drive-through bank at Utica and 21st?  Really?  Partner with the City to build better (or some cases some) walks along the periphery - if I lived in any of the nicer neighborhoods to the southeast/west I have to walk in the street or the grass to get there and while we're at it the crossings on 21st St. could be alot friendlier.  That whole span of 21st will need a lot of work to overcome the BIG GIANT F.U. statement St. John's created on the opposite side.

[rdj]

Utica Square will not change as long as Walt Helmerich is alive.  I have discussed the items you mentioned with one of the sons.  He is agreement on most, but they can't do anything as long as their father is calling the shots.

[Teatownclown]

When Valt dies, der family will sell it to Simon, or Glimcher, or GGP. There's no way stockholders would put up with the risk of redeveloping a retail center when the main business is rigs and such. Besides, the dynamics of der remaining family makes it a cluster buster foe sure.

BTW, Woodland Hills has the best demographics and tenant structure. It may have higher per square foot sales than Utica.

[TheArtist]

Unfortunately, I cannot find a good photo of the complex exterior layout, but here's the Curve.  It's very modern.

http://www.classencurve.com/siteplan

I can't see what the front side facing the street looks like.  All you can see is the back side where the parking is.  But its not urban and appears to be in the middle of no where with a lot of fencing blocking it off from the neighborhood to boot. There is no density at this point.  It would be worthless mass transit wise. If they were to put it in an empty spot downtown I probably wouldn't complain, but would hope that it was oriented to fit in with existing streets and that more dense stuff would fill in around whats there and would hope that it itself would densify over time, unless you wanted it to be a park like, open space for downtown.  Otherwise, if it were in an urban area it would have a lot of wasted space for what it is.  If all those buildings were mixed use and 4 or 5 stories, fine.  Wouldn't like all the surface parking if it were downtown one way or the other. 

You know my mantra for downtown. NO more parking, period.  I know I am not going to get that at this time lol, but at least hope it causes people to think for a moment.

 People will complain about a boring walk (likely past a parking garage) or about the cost of mass transit like a trolley.  But then will pay millions of dollars for parking garages.  Parking garages also steal density so that you end up with areas like in Dallas that at first glance look urban, but are really "Faux Urban".  The pedestrian experience isnt up to snuff in those areas, the areas are limited in scope, pedestrian traffic is light most of the time cause most of the block is the hollowed out added cost and wasted space of the parking, and its lack of density makes your mass transit not as effective.  You don't need to try and pay for both, pick one or the other lol.  And we have pleeenty of parking lots and parking garages already. If you do downtown right, it will be desirable enough that people will walk a mile just to get to it. 

But I think we are comparing apples to oranges with this example.  I am mainly talking about downtown and perhaps surrounding areas, and the optimal type of pedestrian friendly environments those could have.

[Red Arrow]

If you do downtown right, it will be desirable enough that people will walk a mile just to get to it. 

Numbers I've seen (probably at Light Rail Now) have been that people are willing to walk 1/4 mile to public transportation.  I think you may be pushing it at a mile for an average but your principle is correct, especially if downtown is auto-unfriendly.

[TheArtist]

Numbers I've seen (probably at Light Rail Now) have been that people are willing to walk 1/4 mile to public transportation.  I think you may be pushing it at a mile for an average but your principle is correct, especially if downtown is auto-unfriendly.

Yea, I was being a little facetious with that.  But ya get the point.