1551 Cherry St Buildling

[AquaMan]

No. Talking to.the guy that wants to eliminate parking requirements for businesses and dump the cars into surrounding  neighbor hoods.

[LandArchPoke]

So sad. It seems in spite of education, without first hand experience, we keep making the same mistakes. Go ahead and kill Cherry Street if you want. I liked it better before it became trendy anyway.

Some truth to what you said, but not accurate. We do own the street, the curbs, the street signs and the landscaping through years of shared taxes, levies and maintenance. That gives us the right to lobby for its thoughtful, appropriate usage with zoning, parking restrictions and (heavens above..) asking a business to provide some parking for its employees and customers. Even those that don't ascribe to the same lifestyle preferences as yours.

You may argue about the amount required but you'll play hell opening up the neighborhoods for indiscriminate parking for the sake of businesses who merely rent space nearby. It creates rental properties, it diminishes home values, and is equivalent to shoving into the lunch line because you're bigger than the guy ahead of you. Check with a realtor@ about how much longer it takes to sell a house near a busy public school site or by one of the cut through streets. Less value.

Reducing the value of the surrounding neighborhood by funneling those cars into them reduces ad valorem revenue, and eventually kills off the goose you were trying to gold plate. Before it was Cherry Street it was simply an old neighborhood full of eclectic, bohemian residents, bars, not much parking and parallel parking at that (young gen just can't handle that). The result was congestion, crime and rentals. Good place to find drugs.

I notice you didn't mention cities like Minneapolis/St Paul where multi level parking is a given for streets that were redeveloped like Cherry Street. My wife is from there and they followed that practice 30 years ago.

Funny you bring up ad valorem revenue - so the surface parking that's been required to be built behind all the new retail - where did it come from? It came from tearing down existing structures that were creating tax revenue before and are now gone. When they could have been saved and people could have just parking on the surrounding streets. It works in every major city.

If no parking requirements kills urban neighborhoods how is NYC so successful? I guess they missed the memo that you need to have parking for all that retail on 5th ave. How is Georgetown in DC so successful? I guess they missed that memo too for all that retail on M Street and Wisconsin Avenue.

I'll clarify too - when I said you don't own the street I meant you don't personally own that entire section outside your house. It's public infrastructure meaning everyone paid for it, not just you - which gives you no rights to say someone else can't park there or businesses can't have their employees park there if they need to. You're essentially advocating for gated communities - you better not drive, walk, or park near me. Which there is nothing wrong with that, that thinking just doesn't belong in designing an urban corridor.

The surface parking lots that are slowing creeping further away from the retail areas and taking up more and more existing structures is what will kill Cherry Street - not having people parking a few blocks away on the street and walking to 15th.

Also, those business you want to force to provide parking pay for way more of that street than you do through sales taxes on their products.

I have yet to go to Minneapolis so I can't speak to what you are saying, but structured parking would be nice on Cherry Street and Brookside. The empty lot that faces Utica north of 15th would be ideal to turn into a 300-400 space garage with retail and residential. If that was built - then get rid of any parking requirements and infill the surface parking lots that have been created. Better yet, lets connect Utica Square - Cherry Street - Downtown together with a street car and get rid of all the parking requirements along the corridor. People could park in one of the parking garages downtown or surface lots and get on the streetcar and go to Utica Square, Cherry Street or the Brady.

[Red Arrow]

People in Tulsa seem to think they own the street and sidewalk outside their homes. Guess what? You did not pay for them - you DO NOT OWN THEM.

Really?  Does the city pay to install and maintain the sidewalks?  Homeowners were required to maintain sidewalks in front of their houses in the town where I spent my younger years.  We had to replace several sections that had been lifted by tree roots.

In a new development does the city pay to install sidewalks or is the cost of the initial installation included in the price of the house?

I'll agree that the city maintains the streets, somewhat.

[TheArtist]

Talked to a friend just this last week whose partner is moving here from London.  He got a laugh as he was telling me that his partner was now having to learn how to drive and get a drivers license, and had originally thought he could just get around using the bus.

Heck if I could easily get from Downtown to Brookside to Utica Square to Cherry Street via transit, I would get rid of my car and move to one of those areas.  Car payment, insurance, gas, maintenance, parking... money just thrown out the window and I keep thinking what advertising I could have done with that this month, or product I could have bought, or extra employee/hours my shop could be open.

We have got to work on making that transition.

Went last week to a pre-cocktail, cocktail party at the Summit Club.  We walked there from DECOPOLIS to meet a group of people.  Then afterwards we headed to a fundraiser at the Cox Event Center.  Chris and I were like "lets just walk", the rest of them looked at us like we were crazy.  I was like "Dudes, its just right there, I can see it from this window".  But didn't want to  be a Debby Downer and ruin the festive mood so let it go.  Chris and I walked and got to the front door at exactly the same time those that drove did.  I thought "soon as the downtown streets get a little more busy, even they will see that walking will be the better option."  I mean, they parked twice, within just a few blocks. And if we had been like that we would have had to have found 3 parking spots.

The other day, I kid you not, this lady was in the shop and I mentioned that there were other shops in the Philcade building one block over.  She wanted to know if she could drive there.  I was like "Its one block over, and on the same side of the street, you don't need to drive you can just walk".  She still paused and stood there for a moment like she was trying to make a decision while in my head I was screaming "It's only ONE BLOCK OVER LADDY! OMG COME ON SEEEERIOUSLY!"

Ugh.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Talked to a friend just this last week whose partner is moving here from London.  He got a laugh as he was telling me that his partner was now having to learn how to drive and get a drivers license, and had originally thought he could just get around using the bus.

Heck if I could easily get from Downtown to Brookside to Utica Square to Cherry Street via transit, I would get rid of my car and move to one of those areas.  Car payment, insurance, gas, maintenance, parking... money just thrown out the window and I keep thinking what advertising I could have done with that this month, or product I could have bought, or extra employee/hours my shop could be open.

We have got to work on making that transition.

Went last week to a pre-cocktail, cocktail party at the Summit Club.  We walked there from DECOPOLIS to meet a group of people.  Then afterwards we headed to a fundraiser at the Cox Event Center.  Chris and I were like "lets just walk", the rest of them looked at us like we were crazy.  I was like "Dudes, its just right there, I can see it from this window".  But didn't want to  be a Debby Downer and ruin the festive mood so let it go.  Chris and I walked and got to the front door at exactly the same time those that drove did.  I thought "soon as the downtown streets get a little more busy, even they will see that walking will be the better option."  I mean, they parked twice, within just a few blocks. And if we had been like that we would have had to have found 3 parking spots.

The other day, I kid you not, this lady was in the shop and I mentioned that there were other shops in the Philcade building one block over.  She wanted to know if she could drive there.  I was like "Its one block over, and on the same side of the street, you don't need to drive you can just walk".  She still paused and stood there for a moment like she was trying to make a decision while in my head I was screaming "It's only ONE BLOCK OVER LADDY! OMG COME ON SEEEERIOUSLY!"

Ugh.

Well, I have walked from your shop up to the Philcade building before (couple of times) , so that kinda makes up for one person driving there!

[AquaMan]

Funny you bring up ad valorem revenue - so the surface parking that's been required to be built behind all the new retail - where did it come from? It came from tearing down existing structures that were creating tax revenue before and are now gone. When they could have been saved and people could have just parking on the surrounding streets. It works in every major city.

Let's take Cherry Street (or Whittier Square). Not likely any houses were razed since those hoods were built in the twenties at about the same time. When people actually did walk to the school, grocery, church, meat market, bakery, laundramat etc. Also, we had a pretty good trolley system, buses and taxis.  No lost revenue. So, your argument fails when those conditions exist. Just like um...major cities like NYC, Chicago, San Francisco.

Let's take a more modern example. Ranch Acres? It was built in the fifties/sixties. Served by one decently planned shopping center and tons of badly designed strip centers. None of them displaced housing. None of them required raiding the surrounding neighborhoods for parking.  Utica Square, late fifties? No displaced housing. Southland, Southroads, ca. 1965? No displaced housing, no neighborhood infringement. In fact I can't think of a neighborhood razed for parking for shopping. I'm sure there are some, its just not common around here. So, the only lost ad valorem is "potential" ad valorem.

Let's take Maple Ridge, Sunset Terrace, Morningside, Brookside, Riverview etc. All have fought to protect their borders from what you are proposing to do. They have prospered because folks can buy real estate and expect it to maintain or increase in value because businesses aren't using them for parking. That is a fact.

If no parking requirements kills urban neighborhoods how is NYC so successful? I guess they missed the memo that you need to have parking for all that retail on 5th ave. How is Georgetown in DC so successful? I guess they missed that memo too for all that retail on M Street and Wisconsin Avenue.

Honestly, you're comparing us to NYC? Georgetown? Well, we should be proud I guess. They have the conditions I listed above, namely mass transit that works. They have extremely high real estate values that preclude the type of housing we enjoy. They have higher costs of fuel, food, ...everything! They have a completely different tax structure as well. When you pay sales taxes here, it goes to the state. OKC decides how much you get back. Ad valorem is local and pays for schools, services etc. That alone argues against favoring sales tax producing properties over ad valorem producing properties. Who owns a car in NYC? Who doesn't own at least one car in Tulsa?

I'll clarify too - when I said you don't own the street I meant you don't personally own that entire section outside your house. It's public infrastructure meaning everyone paid for it, not just you - which gives you no rights to say someone else can't park there or businesses can't have their employees park there if they need to. You're essentially advocating for gated communities - you better not drive, walk, or park near me. Which there is nothing wrong with that, that thinking just doesn't belong in designing an urban corridor.


I knew what you meant. But, alas it isn't true that I have no right to say someone else can't park there or businesses can't have their employees use my easement to dump their trash, cigarettes and beer bottles on if they need to. Their rights don't exceed mine. In fact they want to walk on the lawn I seed, fertilize and mow as per city regs, park under the shade trees I planted and nurtured for 30 years, walk the sidewalk the city makes me maintain and the leaves I rake and blow. Homeowners lobby the city for protection from bullies who want to drag their trucks through our trees, break our curbs and driveways with their excess weight, block our driveways and urinate publicly. We call the police, we call tow trucks, we have signs installed to regulate them. Just like retailer lobby for preferential treatment of landscaping rules, lighting rules, and zoning. We are not gated, we simply aren't open for business. That is what our view of an urban corridor consists of. Where did your view emanate?

The surface parking lots that are slowing creeping further away from the retail areas and taking up more and more existing structures is what will kill Cherry Street - not having people parking a few blocks away on the street and walking to 15th.

Also, those business you want to force to provide parking pay for way more of that street than you do through sales taxes on their products.

Are you a developer? Is that where this stuff comes from? I agree with your assessment that creeping parking is damaging to Cherry Street. So why not follow a more prudent approach like multi-parking with trolleys and linked mass transit? Why take the easy way out by land grabbing the existing home owners and fowling the bed you sleep in?

I don't want to force anyone to do what is right. I also don't accept what we called "puffing" in the sales business. Show me over time where sales taxes have produced more locally usable tax dollars than ad valorem does. Hard sell. Include all the empty spaces that contributed zero while homes steadily contributed at exponential increases since the 1950's. 1979, I paid $750 in real estate tax. 2014 I paid $2700.

 ...but structured parking would be nice on Cherry Street and Brookside. The empty lot that faces Utica north of 15th would be ideal to turn into a 300-400 space garage with retail and residential. If that was built - then get rid of any parking requirements and infill the surface parking lots that have been created. Better yet, lets connect Utica Square - Cherry Street - Downtown together with a street car and get rid of all the parking requirements along the corridor. People could park in one of the parking garages downtown or surface lots and get on the streetcar and go to Utica Square, Cherry Street or the Brady.

Finally! Something we can agree on. And it doesn't require destroying the integrity of nearby neighborhoods.

[LandArchPoke]

*I am not a developer, I'm a commercial real estate economist*

1. So you are staying all the parking lots that exist now on Cherry Street were just empty lots forever? They went from grass fields to surface parking correct? No. At some point they were houses or commercial properties that were demolished and are now surface parking lots. That means ad valorem taxes have been lost. For example - this development will be building surface parking on 3 different lots that were once houses. Tell me how that makes financial sense to the city or residents when someone could park on the street instead and walk a little further to get to Chipotle, Noodles Co., Panera, etc.

Your Ranch Acres example is not applicable. Not sure where you are going with that. New suburban developments vs. infill developments are not the same thing so this makes no point.

Your conspiracy theory that people parking and walk by your front yard to nearby retail degrades your property values is laughable. In every city in the United States the most valuable real estate is next to urban retail corridors like Cherry Street. Since the DC and NYC examples didn't sink in with you (and no I wasn't comparing us to them - I was just trying to show you that urban retail corridors that don't provide any parking for workers or shoppers next to residential exist, and they don't degrade property values. Georgetown is the most expensive and desirable neighborhood in the Mid-Atlantic). Here's another example in a city and area that has no mass transit. Montana Avenue in Santa Monica - which actually reminds me a lot of Cherry Street - this area of LA is one of the most expansive and most desirable areas. The people who park on residential streets and walk to Montana Avenue definitely don't degrade property values.

I will say I think this is probably an agree to disagree. People are entitled to their opinions and if you live close to Cherry Street and don't want people to park by your house you can voice that opinion - it's your right. I don't agree with you. I would suggest you live somewhere in a gated community where you can wall out any "vagrants" like pedestrians and shoppers.

2. So you pay $2,400 in ad valorem huh? Here's a comparison. 2,000 sq. ft. of retail (using the regional sales per sq. ft. average of $350) nets the City of Tulsa alone @ 3.167% $22,169 per year (the rest of the 8.517% goes to the State and County). So yes - that commercial business pays for approximately 9 x more than you do, not even counting the portion the State of Oklahoma gives back to the city in projects and funding. They also pay ad valorem too on their structure, so they pay even more than that.

3. In order to build an environment that is suitable for transportation that will get people out of their cars is to not provide parking. Calgary is a good example of this. They have the second highest parking cost in North America outside of NYC. Why? Because they've restricted parking in urban areas and built light rail. They also now have one of the most used light rail systems in North America. If no more parking was built on Cherry Street and some of the surface lots were infilled with development where parking did become difficult on even the surrounding areas - it would make a streetcar through the area connecting places like Utica Square or Downtown feasible.

However, we are slowly turning Cherry Street into suburbia but flipping the development were it faces the street with huge surface parking lots behind it cutting off the retail and street from houses. This is not how you build a successful, desirable urban neighborhood.

[Red Arrow]

1979, I paid $750 in real estate tax. 2014 I paid $2700.

That's only slightly more than the inflation calculator value of $2446.

http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

[AquaMan]

LandArch. Your arrogance is a bit stifling. Yeah, we're just dumb okies who don't know them big city ways. We just love Green Acres.  I don't know what to say to people who don't address issues but merely dote on their own as though repeating them over and over makes them true. Is there religion or politics here I've missed?

Go to the Beryl Ford archives. You didn't specify infill vs new construction. I responded to your posts. Whittier Square (Tulsa's first suburban shopping center), Cherry Street not long after, Utica Square, Promenade, Southland, Southroads, Ranch Acres were not at the expense of housing. You think they were. I lived here when most of them were built. The city was growing fast and they were planned as amenities for the nearby new housing. Note that the apartments, the store fronts, and housing in all those areas have the same architecture rather than having been hodge podged over several decades.

Imagine Utica Square by your rules. Just as bad as what has happened to Cherry Street by today's rules.

There is a middle ground. I have long been on record that Cherry Street was raped by stupid rules made in "one size fits all" mode. Then the developers took out the character by flattening the period walk ups and homey craftsman bungaloes. Mostly to take it from the trendy, bohemian strip it was to the new and improved franchise attractive, inner city version of suburbia themed restaurants. That's something corporates can buy into. I agree it is now being finished off by stupid parking rules. But your answer is just as stupid and damaging.

Adjust the parking rules and develop waivers for entertainment areas like Cherry, Pearl and Brady. Encourage multiparking and trolleys rather than using force and hyperbole. That kind of proposal doesn't slap the existing powers in the face and keeps neighborhoods from stiffening their resolve. You'll never get anywhere touting NYC, Georgetown, London and how stupid we are at cocktail parties.

[AquaMan]

That's only slightly more than the inflation calculator value of $2446.

http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

It was actually $300 when I bought the house and doubled a year later. They're still too high!

I suspect when you factor in vacancies like the huge empty WalMarts, the acres of non taxable properties left vacant downtown for years, the cheats who underpay and the cyclical failures due to oil fluctuations we make more usable money from ad valorem over the long run. Retail taxation has been discussed at length in some of these threads and conclusion is always the same. Sales tax alone is a poor way to fund a city.

[Red Arrow]

*I am not a developer, I'm a commercial real estate economist*

3. In order to build an environment that is suitable for transportation that will get people out of their cars is to not provide parking. Calgary is a good example of this. They have the second highest parking cost in North America outside of NYC. Why? Because they've restricted parking in urban areas and built light rail. They also now have one of the most used light rail systems in North America. If no more parking was built on Cherry Street and some of the surface lots were infilled with development where parking did become difficult on even the surrounding areas - it would make a streetcar through the area connecting places like Utica Square or Downtown feasible.

I agree that usable transit could take the place of parking. 

As a "commercial real estate economist", what would be your plan to implement heavily restricted parking and add a trolley line without having the transition time kill the businesses currently on Cherry St?  Where would the money come from?  I am a trolley (steel wheels and rails, overhead power) fan but I know the up front money is not trivial.  I am not being a smarta$$ about this.  Someone with a plan might make it work.

[LandArchPoke]

LandArch. Your arrogance is a bit stifling. Yeah, we're just dumb okies who don't know them big city ways. We just love Green Acres.  I don't know what to say to people who don't address issues but merely dote on their own as though repeating them over and over makes them true. Is there religion or politics here I've missed?

Go to the Beryl Ford archives. You didn't specify infill vs new construction. I responded to your posts. Whittier Square (Tulsa's first suburban shopping center), Cherry Street not long after, Utica Square, Promenade, Southland, Southroads, Ranch Acres were not at the expense of housing. You think they were. I lived here when most of them were built. The city was growing fast and they were planned as amenities for the nearby new housing. Note that the apartments, the store fronts, and housing in all those areas have the same architecture rather than having been hodge podged over several decades.

Imagine Utica Square by your rules. Just as bad as what has happened to Cherry Street by today's rules.

There is a middle ground. I have long been on record that Cherry Street was raped by stupid rules made in "one size fits all" mode. Then the developers took out the character by flattening the period walk ups and homey craftsman bungaloes. Mostly to take it from the trendy, bohemian strip it was to the new and improved franchise attractive, inner city version of suburbia themed restaurants. That's something corporates can buy into. I agree it is now being finished off by stupid parking rules. But your answer is just as stupid and damaging.

Adjust the parking rules and develop waivers for entertainment areas like Cherry, Pearl and Brady. Encourage multiparking and trolleys rather than using force and hyperbole. That kind of proposal doesn't slap the existing powers in the face and keeps neighborhoods from stiffening their resolve. You'll never get anywhere touting NYC, Georgetown, London and how stupid we are at cocktail parties.

Arrogant? Come on now, just because I have an opinion and back it up with facts and real world examples (something you have yet to do) that doesn't agree with you does not mean you need to resort to name calling and trying to deflect from what i've showed you. I encourage you to keep an open mind, you might learn a few things. I use examples from cities we should strive to be (DC isn't a bad example). For the record Georgetown has no rail transit access either, only way there is a bus, car, walk or bike. If we don't strive to learn from exceptional examples and set goals to make Tulsa exceptional we will always be a stale, stagnant, mediocre Midwest city. I happen to want a whole lot more for Tulsa which is why I don't live in NYC, Chicago, Seattle or somewhere else right now and I'm in Tulsa.   

Here's a map of Cherry Street. The blue lots are existing. The Red is this developments new parking lot. Ironic that you can see one of the houses still in this picture that will be surface parking.



No tell me that these have been there since Cherry Street was developed? The parking requirements we have are eroding our tax base when we could lessen them and shift some and or most of it on to existing infrastructure (our streets).

Please, give me some real world examples on how urban retail corridors not providing surface parking lots for their customers which caused them to park in surrounding neighborhoods destroyed any of them. That example doesn't exist. So just because you say it will, doesn't make it true.

 

[LandArchPoke]

I agree that usable transit could take the place of parking. 

As a "commercial real estate economist", what would be your plan to implement heavily restricted parking and add a trolley line without having the transition time kill the businesses currently on Cherry St?  Where would the money come from?  I am a trolley (steel wheels and rails, overhead power) fan but I know the up front money is not trivial.  I am not being a smarta$$ about this.  Someone with a plan might make it work.

What I would do is build a large parking structure (400-500 spaces) on the orange highlighted parcel below. This would be part of a mixed-use development with retail and multifamily (hotel would be great here too). Capture the Sales and Ad valorem taxes to pay for the structured parking. Once you do this, get rid of any parking requirement on Cherry Street. Work with the owners of the existing surface lots and pair them with commercial brokers in town. Pre-lease and infill the holes (blue/red highlighted areas). Build small multifamily units as well between the retail along 15th and the houses to the north and south to transition between the two.

When the infill starts to happen, use value capture mechanisms. Essentially freeze the rate of taxes we get now from there and use the extra infill sales taxes and ad valorem taxes to pay for the streetcar through the area.



Transition time is the kicker. Especially as narrow as Cherry Street is now. What you'd probably have to do is build one direction at a time. As you are putting in the rails for the westbound trains get rid of the westbound on street parking temporarily to keep from cutting off traffic flow. Once the westbound tracks are in, do the same for the eastbound tracks.

If we could connect Utica Square to downtown via Cherry Street, there is no reason we couldn't see infill in Utica Square is either. Build a few more structure parking garages on the south end of Utica Square behind Flemmings and P.F. Chang's and fill in a few of the surface spaces towards 21st Street and make the center more urban.

[heironymouspasparagus]

We have an opportunity right now to start doing some transit development in a limited, but very effective manner.  While light rail would be nice, a small, concentrated shuttle system that connects just the downtown/Cherry street zones could be a good starting point.  There is a lot of parking downtown at the edges of the action - 11th and Boston, south of TCC has a lot of available space.  Nothing new, the idea is to keep the scope small to start.

I'm thinking 2 'zones' to start, with strong interaction/connection between them.  This would be a very small, limited space version of the larger city bus system - routes go out from the hub and return, people ride to the center, then get on another bus to go out another branch.  Centered around the parking area, with regular loops such that one could catch a tram/trolley/bus - and if miss that one, the next one comes along in 10 to 15 minutes.  Several vehicles per loop?   Run through the work day, then late enough in the evening to cover events.

Two zones;  Loop through downtown.  Loop through Cherry Street.  Loop out to each successive concentrated area of people gathering for work, recreation, dining, lodging.  Have a very reasonable fee - probably a day pass type thing?  Shuttle to dinner...get on another to go to theater/brewpub/arena/ball park, etc.  Connection between the two zones - take the ride out to Cherry Street, then come back for downtown event.

Start with a small concentrated system to prove the concept, get people used to using it....like the parking and shuttle for the state fair!  Took a while to "warm up" to that, but for many years that has seemed to be wildly successful.

And put up some covered areas in the parking areas for waiting.   Would love to be able to park, then take a short ride to get to the areas of interest.  Start with modest goals, then expand as concept is proven.  Similar modular routes may work with other areas of town.  How about Woodland Hills area?  Tulsa Hills.  !01st and Memorial.  Utica Square.  Jenks?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Or we can continue in this direction....

https://www.facebook.com/370154939804743/photos/a.370383493115221.1073741828.370154939804743/463443913809178/?type=1&theater