A grassroots organization focused on the intelligent and sustainable development, preservation and revitalization of Tulsa.
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 10, 2021, 01:20:50 pm
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Development at 31st/Peoria?  (Read 10308 times)
ELG4America
Activist
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


« Reply #75 on: August 27, 2020, 04:56:24 pm »

Let me say up front that I support this project in principle and broadly in the presented form. Here are some bulleted points:

1. The character of the neighborhood will not be detrimentally affected. This area is one of the oldest disconnected neighborhoods in Tulsa. What do I mean by this? Look at the streets on a map, all curves and random intersections. This is fine from an aesthetic standpoint, especially if you’re primarily traversing by car. However, much like newer housing developments in South Tulsa, chunks of land are disconnected (a result of being privately developed) from one another and have little interaction with the “neighborhood.” This particular plot is completely cut off from the surrounding area. It’s actually almost exactly like the estate where the Gathering Place now is. Therefore replacing it with almost anything won’t really affect the character of the surrounding neighborhoods because they’re disconnected now and will remain largely disconnected. The area that this plot is most visually connected to is already Brookside.

2. Mixed use neighborhoods are just better. Go to your favorite part of your favorite city in the world in your mind. Was it the Champs Elysee in Paris? San Marco in Venice? Maybe Brooklyn Heights in New York or even Rodeo Drive in Los Angeles. What do all these places have in common despite hugely different aesthetics? Mixed use. Where residential, retail, commercial, dining and public space interact on a human (read: pedestrian) scale, you have an interesting and vibrant place. So even if you’re not convinced by my argument in the first section, consider whether the changes might just make the whole area much better.

3. The area residents should work to make sure this is the best possible version of itself rather than being NIMBY obstructionists. The concerns around the trees is totally reasonable, so work to include rules about maintaining the maximum practicable portion of the existing canopy. They’re worried about traffic so work on rules regarding the ingress and egress from the development (I’d suggest considering completely reworking the intersection as a 5-way traffic circle.)

4. Change needs to come for the whole city to improve. Brookside is one of our best areas, we need it to be even better. We’ll never be the next Austin or Portland if we stay exactly the same. So work to make sure the change is positive change rather than opposing it by default.
Logged
Red Arrow
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 10381


WWW
« Reply #76 on: August 27, 2020, 11:16:58 pm »

Something like this, around the corner from where I grew up, might be less offensive than a 5 story mega complex:


https://goo.gl/maps/H1iQYxF4UbD4v5LNA


This was mixed use with living quarters above the stores.  The stores are different than I remember from the '60s but the concept is the same.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2020, 11:22:18 pm by Red Arrow » Logged

 
DowntownDan
Philanthropist
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 934


« Reply #77 on: August 28, 2020, 10:13:09 am »

Definitely not a fan of plowing through the trees, and I'm not a fan of the parking and auto orientation, considering it is at the north end of what should be a developing pedestrian and public transit district. Also I do see reasonable objections about the height considering the surrounding area.

I like the density, the housing element, the overall style (assuming it stays that way or improves). Objections about "the neighborhood" are unwarranted. It is on the corner of an intersection of two main streets. The townhome element abuts the existing homes. I'll also never be persuaded by the "too much added traffic" argument. This entire city has developed the last 80 years as a traffic city. That's why we spend billions upon billions of dollars building, widening, and maintaining streets. Don't complain about the conditions of "the streets" then complain about developments that use those streets. We should be complaining about the lack of decent transit and that this city is still built for car dependence. That's the real issue. But those who object to development because of "traffic" are the very people who will also throw a fit if there isn't an ocean of parking in any given place.
Logged
TulsaGoldenHurriCAN
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1266



« Reply #78 on: August 28, 2020, 02:16:57 pm »

Let me say up front that I support this project in principle and broadly in the presented form. Here are some bulleted points:

1. The character of the neighborhood will not be detrimentally affected. This area is one of the oldest disconnected neighborhoods in Tulsa. What do I mean by this? Look at the streets on a map, all curves and random intersections. This is fine from an aesthetic standpoint, especially if you’re primarily traversing by car. However, much like newer housing developments in South Tulsa, chunks of land are disconnected (a result of being privately developed) from one another and have little interaction with the “neighborhood.” This particular plot is completely cut off from the surrounding area. It’s actually almost exactly like the estate where the Gathering Place now is. Therefore replacing it with almost anything won’t really affect the character of the surrounding neighborhoods because they’re disconnected now and will remain largely disconnected. The area that this plot is most visually connected to is already Brookside.

2. Mixed use neighborhoods are just better. Go to your favorite part of your favorite city in the world in your mind. Was it the Champs Elysee in Paris? San Marco in Venice? Maybe Brooklyn Heights in New York or even Rodeo Drive in Los Angeles. What do all these places have in common despite hugely different aesthetics? Mixed use. Where residential, retail, commercial, dining and public space interact on a human (read: pedestrian) scale, you have an interesting and vibrant place. So even if you’re not convinced by my argument in the first section, consider whether the changes might just make the whole area much better.

3. The area residents should work to make sure this is the best possible version of itself rather than being NIMBY obstructionists. The concerns around the trees is totally reasonable, so work to include rules about maintaining the maximum practicable portion of the existing canopy. They’re worried about traffic so work on rules regarding the ingress and egress from the development (I’d suggest considering completely reworking the intersection as a 5-way traffic circle.)

4. Change needs to come for the whole city to improve. Brookside is one of our best areas, we need it to be even better. We’ll never be the next Austin or Portland if we stay exactly the same. So work to make sure the change is positive change rather than opposing it by default.

Very well said!

Anyone who thinks Brookside can't improve, hasn't looked at walkability maps and hasn't spent much time in a place with extremely high walkability. It changes your whole existence knowing you don't need a car to get anything, that you can just walk out the door and do everything you'd like for the day. Brookside gets in the 80's on their score. Cherry Street has had Brookside beat in that regard for some time, but Brookside has made strides. It is however a very thin strip of real walkable area surrounded by those winding neighborhood streets with mansions and big lots taking up a lot of area so the convenience of all of Brookside's main strip is relatively isolated without a car. This development would add some much-needed density and extend the commercial and retail component in an urban format as opposed to the sub-urban format which has infiltrated the area south of Brookside.

[url]https://www.walkscore.com/apartments/search/OK/Tulsa[/url

Logged
TulsaGoldenHurriCAN
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1266



« Reply #79 on: August 28, 2020, 02:18:21 pm »

Something like this, around the corner from where I grew up, might be less offensive than a 5 story mega complex:


https://goo.gl/maps/H1iQYxF4UbD4v5LNA


This was mixed use with living quarters above the stores.  The stores are different than I remember from the '60s but the concept is the same.

That would be an excellent design, but 3 stories would be much better. I think they'd have much less blow back with something like that fronting Peoria and keeping only residential townhomes behind it. A courtyard behind it, maybe open to Peoria with restaurants would be ideal also.
Logged
Red Arrow
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 10381


WWW
« Reply #80 on: August 28, 2020, 06:07:01 pm »

That would be an excellent design, but 3 stories would be much better. I think they'd have much less blow back with something like that fronting Peoria and keeping only residential townhomes behind it. A courtyard behind it, maybe open to Peoria with restaurants would be ideal also.

If I lived in the area, I don't believe I would complain about an attractive 3 story design.  4 stories I think I might not be so enthusiastic about. 

Some of the reasons my parents bought their first house around the corner was they only had one car, the trolley line was available for dad to go to work if mom needed the car and there was a grocery store, a barber shop, a beauty salon, a pharmacy (originally with a soda fountain), a variety store, a shoe store, a Hallmark card store, a deli store, and (this is Pennsylvania) a "beverage" (beer and soda) store.  By the time I was a late teen, mom and dad were ready to move to a more rural area but dad got transferred here.  We had dogs (several) so mom and dad wanted a bigger lot.  So here I am many years later SE of 111th and Memorial.  The convenience of grocery shopping and the Lowes etc is OK but the traffic is horrible at certain times of day.  I really don't know where all those people are coming from and going to.
Logged

 
LandArchPoke
Civic Leader
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 489



« Reply #81 on: August 28, 2020, 10:29:16 pm »

If I lived in the area, I don't believe I would complain about an attractive 3 story design.  4 stories I think I might not be so enthusiastic about. 

Some of the reasons my parents bought their first house around the corner was they only had one car, the trolley line was available for dad to go to work if mom needed the car and there was a grocery store, a barber shop, a beauty salon, a pharmacy (originally with a soda fountain), a variety store, a shoe store, a Hallmark card store, a deli store, and (this is Pennsylvania) a "beverage" (beer and soda) store.  By the time I was a late teen, mom and dad were ready to move to a more rural area but dad got transferred here.  We had dogs (several) so mom and dad wanted a bigger lot.  So here I am many years later SE of 111th and Memorial.  The convenience of grocery shopping and the Lowes etc is OK but the traffic is horrible at certain times of day.  I really don't know where all those people are coming from and going to.

Frankly that's been one of my biggest surprises to me, I figured the height would be the biggest concern. It seems to be mostly focused on the retail space.

To me if I lived next door, I'd probably ask the developer to work with the city to figure out a solution for them to build the parking structure underground (wether it's through TIF funds or some other incentive) to reduce the height to 5 stories. The garage is what is adding several stories in the back based on the concept they've shown. Frankly I'd still think that'd be a good solution and the scale would fit in better overall with surrounding 1 or 2 stories homes.
Logged
SXSW
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4310


WWW
« Reply #82 on: September 02, 2020, 09:11:45 am »

This goes before the planning commission tonight. 





Logged

 
TulsaGoldenHurriCAN
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1266



« Reply #83 on: September 03, 2020, 12:43:11 pm »

This goes before the planning commission tonight.  



Any updates on this? Looks like they got the 30-day continuance to hold until the October 7th meeting.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2020, 12:45:37 pm by TulsaGoldenHurriCAN » Logged
SXSW
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4310


WWW
« Reply #84 on: September 21, 2020, 07:38:22 pm »

Interesting..hopefully they can reach a compromise with the neighborhood.  I think if they could figure out a way to keep the site entirely residential and preserve more of the existing trees that would be fine. 

https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/applicant-withdraws-application-for-brookside-31-development-at-31st-and-peoria/article_38489ee2-fc65-11ea-ab8b-778ae3e03736.html#tracking-source=home-breaking

« Last Edit: September 22, 2020, 03:07:53 pm by SXSW » Logged

 
ELG4America
Activist
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


« Reply #85 on: September 23, 2020, 04:50:20 pm »

Interesting..hopefully they can reach a compromise with the neighborhood.  I think if they could figure out a way to keep the site entirely residential and preserve more of the existing trees that would be fine. 

https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/applicant-withdraws-application-for-brookside-31-development-at-31st-and-peoria/article_38489ee2-fc65-11ea-ab8b-778ae3e03736.html#tracking-source=home-breaking



Keeping the site entirely residential undermines the whole point of a mixed use gateway development. God, I’m tired of good ideas getting so much pushback in this town while the same old garbage gets the red carpet treatment. It makes me want to follow so many others and just give up and leave.
Logged
SXSW
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4310


WWW
« Reply #86 on: September 23, 2020, 09:14:02 pm »

Keeping the site entirely residential undermines the whole point of a mixed use gateway development. God, I’m tired of good ideas getting so much pushback in this town while the same old garbage gets the red carpet treatment. It makes me want to follow so many others and just give up and leave.


I’m all for new mixed-use development but this wasn’t the right plan for that site.  You can still do a dense residential development and preserve many of the existing trees. 
Logged

 
TheArtist
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6746



WWW
« Reply #87 on: September 24, 2020, 07:17:11 am »

Interesting..hopefully they can reach a compromise with the neighborhood.  I think if they could figure out a way to keep the site entirely residential and preserve more of the existing trees that would be fine. 

https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/applicant-withdraws-application-for-brookside-31-development-at-31st-and-peoria/article_38489ee2-fc65-11ea-ab8b-778ae3e03736.html#tracking-source=home-breaking



This is Tulsa's first rapid transit corridor.  As much as possible it needs to have retail/business on the ground floor facing the corridor then it can have residential above and behind that. The fact that this is a large plot of land that can connect to the core of Brookside makes it all the more important to be developed with density and transit in mind as there are spots along the corridor that are not as well positioned.
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
shavethewhales
Civic Leader
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 292


« Reply #88 on: September 24, 2020, 07:22:00 am »

I had a feeling that the main building wasn't going to make it. I wouldn't be surprised to see the whole lot covered in townhomes by the end of this. Won't make anyone happy, but I guess it at least adds some density?

Alternative is getting rid of retail, coming down a couple floors? Doubt that would sway any of those opposed.

I just don't know what their strategy could be here. Maybe wait it out until the ill feelings die down a bit so they can talk rationally?
Logged
SXSW
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4310


WWW
« Reply #89 on: September 24, 2020, 07:24:19 am »

This is Tulsa's first rapid transit corridor.  As much as possible it needs to have retail/business on the ground floor facing the corridor then it can have residential above and behind that. The fact that this is a large plot of land that can connect to the core of Brookside makes it all the more important to be developed with density and transit in mind as there are spots along the corridor that are not as well positioned.

I don’t disagree with that premise and want to see more density along the corridor but would rather see commercial space concentrated in existing commercial districts like Brookside south of Crow Creek (plenty of room for increased density along that corridor), Cherry St around 15th and the Pearl from the BA north to 244 (LOTS of opportunity along that corridor).  

I do think you could integrate commercial space into a development at this corner but the proposal they put forward wasn’t the way to do it.  If you’re going to urbanize that corner build up to the sidewalk, no plazas unless it’s for a large outdoor seating area.  If you concentrate the density along the street where it belongs you could lower the density on the neighborhood side and preserve more of the big trees on that site.
Logged

 
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

 
  Hosted by TulsaConnect and Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
 

Mission

 

"TulsaNow's Mission is to help Tulsa become the most vibrant, diverse, sustainable and prosperous city of our size. We achieve this by focusing on the development of Tulsa's distinctive identity and economic growth around a dynamic, urban core, complemented by a constellation of livable, thriving communities."
more...

 

Contact

 

2210 S Main St.
Tulsa, OK 74114
(918) 409-2669
info@tulsanow.org