So, today, I can go and purchase a piece of land with full understanding of it's potential, and my bank will be willing to back me for the same reason.
This proposed ordinance would create an extra set of conditions and criteria for development of a property contingent on a board approval process, and public hearing prior to any demolition. This means that there is essentially no way for a developer, investor, or current property owner to have any means of forecasting the value of his/her property or investment as developable. It also means that banks and other finance entities will be less likely to approve funds for such endeavors early in the process, because there will be less confidence in their viability as a developable property.
Today, I can go downtown and buy an old building, knowing, based on the current zoning, that I can build my new restaurant or officebuilbing...
You make some good points. I am not sure whether I agree with the ordinance fully. BUT, I have some questions about some of the above statements as well.
If I am a developer or a business that has a business based on sidewalk traffic... in other words I want to build something urban or shall we say pedestrian/transit friendly, as the zoning stands I have no guarantee at all that the guy next to me might then tear down his building essentially cutting off my lifeline of pedestrian traffic and hurt my business "or it's potential as you called it". Or, think if you were the guy owning the property facing the south and looking at the spot where Cimarex Towers were to be and thinking you wanted to build an urban, pedestrian friendly development there. Then saw a blank, deathly boring, parking garage wall go up right in front of you. Kiss your dreams, your possible "potentials" good by.
How many of you have heard the story of how Mr Phillips built the Philtower then bought the property across the street to build the Philcade.... Why? to protect his investment. He wanted to control what went in across from his building because he knew it would affect the value of his property, his investment. Not everyone can afford to do that. All we can do is cross our fingers and hope that what goes in next to us or across from us does not hurt, but helps our business investments.
Downtowns are supposed to have good urban development. A city should be able to offer good urban living/lifestyle options alongside it's suburban ones.
Currently our downtown zoning neither advocates for nor against pedestrian friendly urban development. It says it advocates for "density", but as anyone who has seen a Canadian Suburb or Los Angeles can attest, density and or tall buildings do not, in and of themselves, equal; quality, pedestrian and transit friendly development. Not by a long shot.
In essence what gets pushed onto downtown, de-facto, is the auto centric zoning in the rest of the city. Several hundred square miles of auto centric, suburban zoning, versus... approx 1.5 miles of downtown laissez faire zoning... you tell me what's going to happen...auto oriented development and parking lots? Don't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. Imho, either get rid of the autocentric zoning in the rest of the city, or zone, for at least some areas of downtown to be pedestrian/transit friendly.
I have actually met people who have looked at property downtown and are hesitant to build on some of those vacant lots precisely because we do not have any zoning in place to regulate for urban or suburban style development. Well, I would like to build this here... but I have no idea what the guy next to me might build that might destroy everything I am hoping for.
If you have a business that relies on "people walking by" like I and some others I know do, you realize how important it is that you be as close as possible to other pedestrian friendly buildings and businesses. If your the lone goose out there, you struggle and lose. You realize how VERY important it is, and how much easier it is when your in the heart of things. So again that developer making the first step a little further out, would be much more secure if he could know that on either side of him, the next development would only enhance his, and the next and the next. You could invest more securely.
Here is what I sent in a letter to others concerning this topic....
Yes, there are a few buildings I am concerned about and would hate to see lost, however, what I think is actually more important, (though it pains me to admit it ) at this point in the game, is guiding future development. We may spend a large amount of time, energy and capital on winning a battle,,, and end up losing the larger, more important war. Not saying completely give up on the one, but don't lose sight of the bigger picture.
I do not think anyone should try and zone for all of downtown to have pedestrian/transit friendly development.
Rule of thumb… If you try and make all your streets "A" Streets (pedestrian/transit friendly) none of them will be. Even the greatest walkable cities have "B" auto oriented, streets lined with parking garages, drive thru this and that, ugly blank facades, delivery areas, etc. What they DO have are long connected, unblemished corridors with superb, wonderful streets you can walk block after block on to enjoy high quality "urbanity" at it's best. And that's what Tulsa needs. We offer great suburban living and lifestyles for those that want that, but shouldn't we also be a "City" that offers superb, attractive, highly competitive, urban living and lifestyle for those who want that?
I like what Denver has done. They looked at the developing districts, the fabric they already have, where transit infrastructure was and is planned to be, then selected a few streets that connected the dots. Then they put incentives and development guidelines and zoning in place to ensure that those selected streets connecting districts and important points and along transit corridors will become high quality, pedestrian/transit friendly corridors.
Again, I think something like this, that is smaller in scale, and focused on a few critical corridors (with other streets being able to opt in in the future) as a start can go a long way. I also see it as a way of not stirring up every hornets nest in downtown, only a few lol, and also as a way of focusing our energy to rally support from property owners and businesses in a more manageable way.
If I may be so bold. Starting "A" Streets might be… (and here again, talk with others, property owners, businesses, etc. to gather input)
Boulder Ave (already designated for investment as a future transit corridor)
6th Street (also mentioned as future transit corridor and leading to the Pearl and possibly TU)
5th Street (already high quality urban/pedestrian friendly along a good stretch, and containing a couple of "endangered" buildings)
Archer and or Brady
Boston Ave
Elgin (as another N-S connector from Blue Dome/Brady/Greenwood to the Core/Deco District and East End)
This would make a great start helping connect large segments of downtown with high quality urban fabric. It would essentially make a loop all the way around the core area. You No matter where you were in downtown, you would never be more than a few blocks away from those great pedestrian/transit friendly streets, and those streets never too far away from existing, or future, parking, nearby every major attraction/point of interest, etc. And if there are other segments in which most of the property/business owners liked the new (Pedestrian/Transit friendly, Zoning and Incentives, Corridors) they could be added as well. You may find that there will be groups knocking on your door wanting their street or area to be added or linked up to this initial loop in the future.