"The Pearl" an area that will go down in History as a turning point in Tulsa
TheArtist:
If not here, then where?
Tulsa has a lot of great suburban neighborhoods and areas that can match the best of those in many a city even twice our size. We can be proud of that. But what we DON'T have are good urban neighborhoods and areas for those people who like that lifestyle. Just as some couldn't imagine living in a highrise, or walking and taking transit every day, many wouldn't dream of living in a single family, detached house with a yard to mow and a highway commute. I know of many who would be appaled at the thought of it. I have friends and family who have left Tulsa because it doesn't offer any good urban living options. I have heard many a story of people who have either left or chosen not to move here because we don't as a city offer good urban living. I have also met people who might have moved here, IF they could have found a place to live. Just as some of you would never dream of living in Manhattan, there are a lot of people who would never want to live in a suburban style neighborhood. Now we are not going to create Manhattan here, but in the Pearl District and in Downtown, we can start re-creating great "Urban Village" and "urban neighborhood" lifestyle options for the region. We had it once, we can do it again.
And, you must realize it's not enough to simply live in a "tall building" or a particular style of apartment, when you're an urbanite there are certain things you absolutely expect to go along with that lifestyle. For example, often your apartment is smaller than a traditional home, but it doesn't matter to the urbanite for the sidewalks become your hallways, the nearby coffee shop your "breakfast nook or study", no need for a home theater for you have a real theater down the way, parks are your yard, the local pub your den, and so on. It's a different way of living and enjoying the world. Something we do not offer here, and we lose out as a city because we do not.
Surveys and statistics are showing that ever more people are wanting that urban lifestyle. And if we are not going to create good ones in areas like the Pearl District and Downtown, Brookside and Cherry Street, then where? Those areas by the way, combined, represent a mere ONE percent of the city, surely we can manage it in ONE percent of the city? Or are we going to say, No, Tulsa is not going to offer that?
Are we content to continue watching so many young and talented people, and businesses by the way, move to other cities that do offer that lifestyle? If not here, then where?
Urban neighborhoods.
Just as you wouldn't want certain things in your suburban style neighborhood next to your home, so too there are things that the urbanite does not want in his neighborhood. Also, many a business, farm or other enterprise has been pushed out of some rural areas of our city as suburban neigborhoods and developments begin to grow into them,,, so too a similar thing might also happen in an urban neighborhood. This scenario actually HAS happened before in this area when the zoning laws were changed from what were once "naturally occuring Form Based Codes" with streets built that way because that was the norm, but then things were changed forcing minimum parking requirements, outlawing mixed use developments, etc. Basically since times have changed again, what your doing with Form Based Codes is helping to reset the area back to something like the form it once enjoyed.
The urbanite and urban business need the sidewalk to be active and pedestrian friendly. A business that doesn't fit in to that "form" can be just as awkward or even harmful as many a thing I could think of going in next to your suburban style home in your neighborhood. Different neighborhoods with different needs and "forms". Do we only want suburban neighborhoods in Tulsa, or do we also want at least some small areas to have good urban neighborhoods?
If not here, then where?
Form Based Codes are a way to help pedestrian friendly fabric become established in a car oriented area.
Once a "form", urban pedestrian friendly, or suburban car oriented, establishes itself, it wants to grow, IF it's allowed, and ONCE it establishes itself. Otherwise in our situation with some 200 square miles of suburban car oriented development, and urban forms made illegal, the urban form is obviously going to have a rough time of it. Think about what QT did in Brookside recently as one small example. The people and many businesses of Brookside came together, worked long and hard, did some difficult give and take negotiatiating, to come up with the "Brookside Plan" which also wanted any new buildings built up to the sidewalk, wanted to protect existing buildings whenever possible, etc. But QT basically said F-you and tore down old buildings, and expanded their car oriented design creating an even larger gap in the pedestrian friendly fabric. Contiguous pedestrian friendly fabric is important. Go downtown and walk from Boston Ave along 5th to the Mayo Hotel. It's a wonderful walk that is slowly coming back to life again. But once you get to the end of that little stretch of street, you look each way and decide to turn back because the pedestrian friendly nature in the area ends. Go north or south on Boston Ave from around 5th, again, good pedestrian friendly fabric that suddenly comes to an end within short order. There are great things to see and visit just a little ways away like the Blue Dome District, or the Boston Ave Church, but nobody wants to walk to those places because of the gaps in the pedestrian friendly fabric. Just as thats true in downtown, its also true in other areas like the Pearl District, Cherry Street and Brookside. Those gaps and "car oriented forms" hurt pedestrian friendly businesses and keep us from being able to create good urban neighborhoods.
If not in places like the Pearl District, then where?
Transit. "Pedestrian Friendly" and "Transit Friendly" are the same thing.
Currently good transit is illegal in Tulsa. In most parts of the city by far, we have minimum parking requirements, mixed use is illegal, accessory dwelling units are illegal, etc. Transit friendly and Pedestrian friendly are the same thing. If you make pedestrian friendly spaces difficult, or downright impossible and illegal to build, then any hopes you have for good transit go down the drain which again hurts any effort we may have towards creating good urban living.
If you have any concern for transit and having it be the most efficient and cost effective it can be, one has to realize that your transit is only as good as your pedestrian friendly areas. Otherwise it's going to cost you a fortune and you will still have people compaining about lousy, ineffective, cumbersome transit. Downtown can't be a sole island of "urbanity" with say a trolley or bus making a little circle within the IDL, though that would certainly help our current so called "parking situation". There needs to be other pedestrian friendly places to go to, and to come from, for transit to really work and to create a viable, urban living experience. The nearby Pearl District is a perfectly logical place to do just that.
If we want it, and help to get it established with Form Based Codes, even in this tiny part of the city, we CAN again have superb urban living right here in Tulsa. We have great suburban living options we can brag about and be proud of, lets work to create great urban living options that we can be proud of as well. The old pedestrian friendly form and businesses here lost out when the times and zoning laws changed, and over the decades we have created some really fine suburban areas. But times are changing again, now is the time for us to decide if we want to begin to re-offer really good urban areas for the ever growing number of people who want that.
If not here, then where? Woodland Hills? Not likely happen there. It would be absurd to try this there if we couldn't do it here in a far more obvious part of the city. Here in this neighborhood, near downtown, where all this work to create these Form Based Codes, get them up here to TMAPC, and so on, has happened,,, this is the logical place.
Do we as a city, as a region, want to be able to offer good, competitive, attractive, urban living options?
If not here in this, comparably speaking, easy and obvious area, then where?
Red Arrow:
Quote from: TheArtist on April 03, 2012, 07:36:54 pm
It's a different way of living and enjoying the world.
That's putting it mildly. I'm not against it for those that want it but I have to admit it's foreign to me.
Moving on....
You have talked about nodes connected by transit before. At least I think it was you. How much traffic do you think there could be among Cherry Street, Brady/Blue Dome, and Brookside? I lumped Brady/Blue Dome since they are actually pretty close to each other regarding walking. If the wasteland was eliminated the whole Brady/Blue Dome area would really only be defined by north or south of the RR. I have never really been a bar hopper or trinket shopper so the concept of dinner on Cherry St and then going to Brookside for drinks just for something to do is also foreign to me.
TheArtist:
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 03, 2012, 08:33:25 pm
That's putting it mildly. I'm not against it for those that want it but I have to admit it's foreign to me.
Moving on....
You have talked about nodes connected by transit before. At least I think it was you. How much traffic do you think there could be among Cherry Street, Brady/Blue Dome, and Brookside? I lumped Brady/Blue Dome since they are actually pretty close to each other regarding walking. If the wasteland was eliminated the whole Brady/Blue Dome area would really only be defined by north or south of the RR. I have never really been a bar hopper or trinket shopper so the concept of dinner on Cherry St and then going to Brookside for drinks just for something to do is also foreign to me.
I think the "nodes" idea would be a longer term sort of thing. The first steps would be start transit downtown which A. Alleviates the need for more parking downtown by better using what exists and also allows developers to cut costs by adding less or no parking to their developments. and B. Instead of spending money on new parking garages the city instead spend it on transit. C. You start developing a robust, dense, very pedestrian friendly core and urban habits. The other thing you do is zone for those node areas to develop as pedestrian friendly ones so that when you get to "step 2" extending transit out to the nodes, those nodes are bigger and denser areas to go to than they are now. So essentially your either going to be spending money dowtown on parking for the Brady/Blue Dome or transit. Your "traffic" is either going to be the number of people looking for parking in the Blue Dome/Brady districts, or those same people parking elsewhere and using transit. Your going to have to accommodate them one way or another, it's HOW we want our downtown to develop, the path we take, car oriented, or transit oriented, that is the key.
All of this is not just about people going downtown bar hopping or trinket shopping. Its also about the growing population of people living downtown and hopefully around those "nodes" as well, and the growing number of businesses and visitors/tourists. Again, rather than spending millions on new parking garages, spend it instead on transit to better use the ample parking that already exists in and nearby downtown. Also, in time as you get more people living and visiting downtown and if they are already on foot, transit to those other nodes really helps expand and greatly enhance the urban living experience. For example, If I live downtown and don't have, or want to have, a car, or two, being able to easily go to other areas of the city to shop, work, have a meeting, dine, entertainment options, etc. makes it all that much more realistic for me to not have that car. Downtown all by itself, might feel constraining and limiting. If we want true urban living in Tulsa, it will be very desirable to have a little more than just downtown. We alread have some decent starts with nearby Cherry Street and hopefully the Pearl District, and even Brookside. Then add to that biking, or having a scooter, renting a car whenever you want to take other trips etc. Your options open up and it becomes more realistic to have that true urban lifestyle. Then, the reverse is also true in that as those nodes develop and infill, people living near them or visiting them can then easily transit to downtown or the other areas. Step by step "pardon the pun" you build up your high quality, enjoyable, pedestrian friendly infrastructure and also slowly alleviate the necessity to have multiple cars per couple or family, or even one. And too, all of this really helps your regular transit throughout the city for once people get to downtown or one of those nodes, they are good to go with lots of options. This would imo, increase ridership there, which would increase ridership on your downtown/node transit.
carltonplace:
Jeez, that article illustrates why changing the status quo is so hard in this town. People see things in stark black and white and automatically jump to fear in the face of change. The code change is for new construction, not existing and the opt out/exclusion process will be exactly the same as it is to day (TPA approval process).
Form based code -vs- status quo can be summed up in a few pictures
Form based
Status Quo
cannon_fodder:
I was wondering the same thing (why do people not get the grandfather clause?). If a form-based-code is adopted, Sonic will close that store? That makes no sense at all.
When the time comes for a rebuild (20 year spec?) - THEN I might understand the decision. But by then there will either be a urban development such that Sonic can find a workaround - OR, it will be stalled out and variances will be handed out to "spur development." Of course, if development does take off in that area Sonic could always sell the land for a massive profit.
Really though - WIlliam hits the nail on the head. Tulsa has TONS of options for suburban sprawl development with single family homes, large front lawns, and strip malls. We have very few areas that can be marketed as urban living. Urban areas draw a premium, which is a good thing for land owners and tax collectors, as well as others who want to havea vibrant and diverse community.
Someone needs to point out that OKC is developing urban neighborhoods around downtown and will soon implement a trolley system. Once we figure out, five years later, that they have done so successfully we'll be all about it but probably still stuck in our ways. But what does Sacramento, Nashville, Miami, Baltimore, Denver, OVerland Park, Gulf Port, Flagstaff, Peoria, Ft. Myers, Arlingoton, Cincinatti, NYC, San Francisco, New Orleans, etc. etc. etc. know about development. What we need is MORE PARKING LOTS. None of them fangled things with green space, partial walls, or other elements to them. Hell no! An open canvas of asphalt is what we need. And Jenks/Brokwn Arrow/Owasso style subdivisions. Here, I'll throw out a few random names for the next three: Timber Mills, Redbud Estates, and Parkside Villas. Now come up with a few strip malls, 4 archetectual styles, and another 100 miles or roads to maintain.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page