http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/06/16/suburb.city/index.html
Is America's suburban dream collapsing into a nightmare?
(CNN) -- When Shaun Yandell proposed to his longtime girlfriend Gina Marasco on the doorstep of their new home in the sunny suburb of Elk Grove, California, four years ago, he never imagined things would get this bad. But they did, and it happened almost overnight.
art.jpg
Suburban neighborhoods are becoming refuges for those outpriced in gentrifying inner-cities.
"It is going to be heartbreak," Yandell told CNN. "But we are hanging on."
Yandell's marriage isn't falling apart: his neighborhood is.
Devastated by the subprime mortgage crisis, hundreds of homes have been foreclosed and thousands of residents have been forced to move, leaving in their wake a not-so-pleasant path of empty houses, unkempt lawns, vacant strip malls, graffiti-sprayed desolate sidewalks and even increased crime.
In Elk Grove, some homeowners not only cut their own grass but also trim the yards of vacant homes on their streets, hoping to deter gangs and criminals from moving in.
Other residents discovered that with some of the empty houses, it wasn't what was growing outside that was the problem. Susan McDonald, president of a local neighborhood association aimed at saving the lost suburban paradise, told CNN that around her cul-de-sac, federal agents recently busted several pot homes with vast crops of marijuana growing from floor to ceiling.
And only a couple of weeks ago, Yandell said he overheard a group of teenagers gathered on the street outside his back patio, talking about a robbery they had just committed.
When they lit a street sign on fire, Yandell called the cops.
"This is not like a rare thing anymore," he said. "I get big congregations of people cussing -- stuff I can't even fathom doing when I was a kid."
Don't Miss
* Just Imagine: 2020
* Slums: Tomorrow's cities
* Eco-chic: Greening cities
* Interview: Jaime Lerner
For Yandell, his wife and many other residents trying to stick it out, the white picket fence of an American dream has faded into a seemingly hopeless suburban nightmare. "The forecast is gloomy," he told CNN.
While the foreclosure epidemic has left communities across the United States overrun with unoccupied houses and overgrown grass, underneath the chaos another trend is quietly emerging that, over the next several decades, could change the face of suburban American life as we know it.
This trend, according to Christopher Leinberger, an urban planning professor at the University of Michigan and visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, stems not only from changing demographics but also from a major shift in the way an increasing number of Americans -- especially younger generations -- want to live and work.
"The American dream is absolutely changing," he told CNN.
This change can be witnessed in places like Atlanta, Georgia, Detroit, Michigan, and Dallas, Texas, said Leinberger, where once rundown downtowns are being revitalized by well-educated, young professionals who have no desire to live in a detached single family home typical of a suburbia where life is often centered around long commutes and cars.
Instead, they are looking for what Leinberger calls "walkable urbanism" -- both small communities and big cities characterized by efficient mass transit systems and high density developments enabling residents to walk virtually everywhere for everything -- from home to work to restaurants to movie theaters.
The so-called New Urbanism movement emerged in the mid-90s and has been steadily gaining momentum, especially with rising energy costs, environmental concerns and health problems associated with what Leinberger calls "drivable suburbanism" -- a low-density built environment plan that emerged around the end of the World War II and has been the dominant design in the U.S. ever since.
Thirty-five percent of the nation's wealth, according to Leinberger, has been invested in constructing this drivable suburban landscape.
But now, Leinberger told CNN, it appears the pendulum is beginning to swing back in favor of the type of walkable community that existed long before the advent of the once fashionable suburbs in the 1940s. He says it is being driven by generations molded by television shows like "Seinfeld" and "Friends," where city life is shown as being cool again -- a thing to flock to, rather than flee.
"The image of the city was once something to be left behind," said Leinberger.
Changing demographics are also fueling new demands as the number of households with children continues to decline. By the end of the next decade, the number of single-person households in the United States will almost equal those with kids, Leinberger said.
And aging baby boomers are looking for a more urban lifestyle as they downsize from large homes in the suburbs to more compact town houses in more densely built locations.
Recent market research indicates that up to 40 percent of households surveyed in selected metropolitan areas want to live in walkable urban areas, said Leinberger. The desire is also substantiated by real estate prices for urban residential space, which are 40 to 200 percent higher than in traditional suburban neighborhoods -- this price variation can be found both in cities and small communities equipped with walkable infrastructure, he said.
The result is an oversupply of depreciating suburban housing and a pent-up demand for walkable urban space, which is unlikely to be met for a number of years. That's mainly, according to Leinberger, because the built environment changes very slowly; and also because governmental policies and zoning laws are largely prohibitive to the construction of complicated high-density developments.
But as the market catches up to the demand for more mixed use communities, the United States could see a notable structural transformation in the way its population lives -- Arthur C. Nelson, director of Virginia Tech's Metropolitan Institute, estimates, for example, that half of the real-estate development built by 2025 will not have existed in 2000.
Yet Nelson also estimates that in 2025 there will be a surplus of 22 million large-lot homes that will not be left vacant in a suburban wasteland but instead occupied by lower classes who have been driven out of their once affordable inner-city apartments and houses.
The so-called McMansion, he said, will become the new multi-family home for the poor.
"What is going to happen is lower and lower-middle income families squeezed out of downtown and glamorous suburban locations are going to be pushed economically into these McMansions at the suburban fringe," said Nelson. "There will probably be 10 people living in one house."
In Shaun Yandell's neighborhood, this has already started to happen. Houses once filled with single families are now rented out by low-income tenants. Yandell speculates that they're coming from nearby Sacramento, where the downtown is undergoing substantial gentrification, or perhaps from some other area where prices have gotten too high. He isn't really sure.
But one thing Yandell is sure about is that he isn't going to leave his sunny suburban neighborhood unless he has to, and if that happens, he says he would only want to move to another one just like it.
"It's the American dream, you know," he said. "The American dream."
Not really happening here. Our suburbs are not that far out and the economy is still doing fairly well.
However if we had some decent sized walkable districts that people could see as good examples of that type of lifestlye, I think that alone would start to change peoples attitudes. Most people around here only know suburban living, its all they understand, its the automatic default mode. I think that once Brookside begins to flesh out more and people see what its like to live in such an area, they will change their attitudes and notions about where they live.
A lot of people that move to Tulsa and the Tulsa area end up in a suburban type neighborhood simply because there isnt anything else to choose from. What few beginning, urban areas we do have just dont feel right, not everyone wants to be a "pioneer". They want an established neighborhood, one that is a certainty, not a... "well in the future this could be". Brookside is starting to get that, walkable, urban district feel to it. But its very small and doesnt have a whole lot to choose from living wise yet either. It will get there. However the anti development/ anti change crowd seem to want to stifle that area from changing too much. The real key is to get something going in and immediately by the downtown area. Brookside and Cherry Street can only grow so much with the way things are zoned there. None of your basic, midrise, apartments or condos for instance can go in those areas.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
However the anti development/ anti change crowd seem to want to stifle [Brookside] from changing too much.
Can you blame them? It's a healthy neighborhood as it is, with a range of housing types within walking distance of a business district. Why would they want it transformed into something completely different?
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
However the anti development/ anti change crowd seem to want to stifle [Brookside] from changing too much.
Can you blame them? It's a healthy neighborhood as it is, with a range of housing types within walking distance of a business district. Why would they want it transformed into something completely different?
Progress?
Here's another article on the same subject:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/subprime
quote:
Originally posted by midtownnewbie
Progress?
All progress is change.
Not all change is progress.
Sidewalks in midtown? Progress.
Thriving independently-owned and community-minded businesses? Progess.
Rehabilitating decrepit houses or replacing them with new homes that have similar lot lines and complement the Brookside cottage asthetic? Progress.
Street projects that have zero or negative impact on pedestrian traffic? Change, not progress.
Empty storefronts and national chains? Change, not progress.
Plopping a Tuscan-style McMansion next door, with its exterior walls two feet from my bedroom window? Change, not progress.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
quote:
Originally posted by midtownnewbie
Progress?
All progress is change.
Not all change is progress.
If we want our city to be thriving 25 years from now, I'd say it is progress.
With no change, there can be no progress.
the scenario described in the initial story has been forecast for years but no one listened.
quote:
Originally posted by midtownnewbie
Here's another article on the same subject:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/subprime
Very interesting. I do believe the pendulum is beginning to swing the other way. It's about time. The current energy crisis is forcing people to think rationally in many ways.
the scenario described in the initial story has been forecast for years but no one listened.
quote:
Originally posted by midtownnewbie
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
quote:
Originally posted by midtownnewbie
Progress?
All progress is change.
Not all change is progress.
If we want our city to be thriving 25 years from now, I'd say it is progress.
With no change, there can be no progress.
Ahhhh! Nothing quite like the refreshing smell of a summer shower on hot concrete or an oily asphalt road. We don't need no stinking fresh mown lawns or trees or flowers, except in the 1/4 acre park shared by thousands, with trash and cigarette butts all over. Water run-off: No problem, just build more storm sewers. Concrete jungle too hot? Just turn down the airconditioner a bit.
Why pick on Brookside? How about taking some of the huge surface parking lots downtown and building the mid rise condos that "everyone" wants. They would be right next to the real action. If public transit cannot keep up with development, build some high rise parking garages for a few years. Aerial views of downtown show a lot of misused space.
Progress is in the eye of the beholder. I am not against the high rises. Just put them where they are wanted without forcing them on a still viable neighborhood that doesn't. All I see in attempting to change Brookside to rows of highrises is that downtown is hopeless (Or maybe too expensive? Sound like the excuse for suburban sprawl?) so let's make a new inner core downtown somewhere else. Seems like highrise sprawl to me. Downtown would still be empty.
I don't live anywhere near Brookside, nor do I have any finacial interest there. I see a neighborhood that needs a little fixing in some spots. It doesn't need a wholesale makeover when there is plenty of room elsewhere.
Go ahead - shoot. I just put on my body armor.
I see Uptown, the area south of downtown, northwest of midtown, and just east of the river as a potential place where dense residential could be built. There are already highrise condo and apartment towers there and that area could be very desirable because of its location in between Tulsa's three greatest assets: downtown, midtown (which includes Brookside/Cherry Street/Utica Square), and the river. If only Coury would've built that 20 story tower back in 2001 that could've started a boom there. Oh well, better late than never...
Another potential reason to be picky about where to build high density housing is the infrastructure. Not roads but sewers, water supply, and electricity. I can see it now, signals in rows of mid rise apartments: "Flush / Don't Flush". It would be the "road widening" issue of the future.
quote:
Originally posted by SXSW
I see Uptown, the area south of downtown, northwest of midtown, and just east of the river as a potential place where dense residential could be built. There are already highrise condo and apartment towers there and that area could be very desirable because of its location in between Tulsa's three greatest assets: downtown, midtown (which includes Brookside/Cherry Street/Utica Square), and the river. If only Coury would've built that 20 story tower back in 2001 that could've started a boom there. Oh well, better late than never...
I can't figure out where you're describing. Not being snarky, but these references to downtown, midtown, uptown being mixed in with shopping areas is confusing. Especially since there is no definitive boundaries for them. Everyone just assumes they know where they are cause they live in them but really they are still pretty judgemental in nature.
Is it too late to research and note these neighborhoods by their given names or major street boundaries then group them? Its makes more sense when you refer to Tracy Park, Morningside, Hillcrest, Lewiston, Riverview, Swan Lake etc. I shudder every time I hear someone tell me they live in Maple Ridge but their home is really in Terwilliger or Sunset. Each of those areas was developed during different phases of Tulsa growth and reflect those times with different styles.
I think you are describing the area between 21st to 26th just east of Riverside or perhaps Riverview but not sure. Each of those areas went through a similar process in the sixties of teardown/rebuild with higher density housing replacing them that we are seeing now.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
However the anti development/ anti change crowd seem to want to stifle [Brookside] from changing too much.
Can you blame them? It's a healthy neighborhood as it is, with a range of housing types within walking distance of a business district. Why would they want it transformed into something completely different?
It can be even better. It indeed is nice now,,, for Tulsa. But just because it is relatively nice, doesnt mean it cant be much better. As a matter of fact, its already muuuch nicer now, and different, than it was even 10 years ago. These types of areas naturally evolve in many cities to become larger and better. Especially if you work to keep the walkable, pedestrian friendly nature. As for the price range, sure it may indeed go more upscale, but what happens is the same thing that happens in other cities, another area, usually one thats run down and partly vacant, becomes the next "Brookside" and the cycle starts over again. Dont tell me there arent plenty of other areas in this city that can take on the mantle of the "next Brookside"... 6th and Peoria, Whittier Square, etc.
However, part of my previous post was to point out that basically IF you want to take some of the infill pressure off of Brookside, help create a different area. Get a different area started, especially downtown. Once you have an active, bustling little street down there, people and developers will turn their attention to that area.
I suppose my choice of the words ...change "too much"... is where one could definitely have some arguments. What I would consider "too much" seems to be a very different "too much" for many of the anti-infill crowd in mid-town and Brookside. You cant build midrise or highrise in Brookside anyway, and I dont want it to either. I would prefer downtown grow to boot. But if all we have is Brookside and Cherry Street as attractive, walkable areas to build in and live in, thats where the development pressures are going to be. If you stifle it there without having an outlet somewhere else, your really going to be holding Tulsa back. You can either allow those areas to evolve more as they want to, or try and get another area started.
Hopefully if the Baseball Stadium goes down in the Greenwood/Brady Arts district and we get the museum and some more living in that area as well, then it will begin to take off. The Pearl District would also be a great area to have this kind of infill. But at the moment 6th street east of Peoria is run down and stagnant. If those little buildings had one or two sidewalk cafes and some shops, I guarantee you it could easily become the next Brookside type area and be able to develope larger urban living options leaving Brookside to grow a bit slower with more smaller apartments and such.
A good chunk of developers for urban living often want to cater to a more "upscale" crowd. They need to have a nice area to build in and prefer to have their developments be a certain size in order to make the price points work, especially here in Tulsa. It cant all be small Metro Loft type developments. Until there is another place to put some of the larger developments "larger in the sense for Brookside", we are either not as likely to get them, or the pressure will be to try and squeeze them into areas like Brookside and Cherry Street.
Brookside is going to completely change anyway. No matter which scenario happens. Its all zoned to have 3 story buildings even now isnt it? So thats what your gonna see. We can of course guide that change, keep larger developments out, try and maintain the walkable character. But it is going to change. But it would be nice to try and get some other areas started that would welcome the larger developments and take some of that development pressure off of Brookside.
Artist, your cavalier attitude toward the integrity of Brookside is not likely to go over well with the people who own homes and businesses there.
Before you presume to redesign Brookside to your liking, I would urge you to read the Brookside infill plan (//%22http://www.cityoftulsa.org/Community/Revitalization/Brookside.asp%22), which represents years of work and negotiation by city planners, homeowners, and business owners. It was incorporated into the comprehensive plan, and it is supposed to guide zoning decisions and public infrastructure in the district.
Most of Brookside is zoned for single family homes, not for apartment buildings or townhouses. The infill plan allows for higher-density residential development within the "business area" -- the strip along Peoria that is now mostly zoned CH.
I know you mean well, and I agree with you that we need more walkable neighborhoods. I disagree that it's somehow my responsibility to get something new going to take the pressure off of Brookside. There has already been considerable public investment downtown, in Whittier Square, and around 6th & Peoria. Some private investment has followed, but the big developers are holding back.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
QuoteOriginally posted by MichaelBates
Dont tell me there arent plenty of other areas in this city that can take on the mantle of the "next Brookside"... 6th and Peoria, Whittier Square, etc.
However, part of my previous post was to point out that basically IF you want to take some of the infill pressure off of Brookside, help create a different area. Get a different area started, especially downtown. Once you have an active, bustling little street down there, people and developers will turn their attention to that area.
I suppose my choice of the words ...change "too much"... is where one could definitely have some arguments. What I would consider "too much" seems to be a very different "too much" for many of the anti-infill crowd in mid-town and Brookside. You cant build midrise or highrise in Brookside anyway, and I dont want it to either. I would prefer downtown grow to boot. But if all we have is Brookside and Cherry Street as attractive, walkable areas to build in and live in, thats where the development pressures are going to be. If you stifle it there without having an outlet somewhere else, your really going to be holding Tulsa back. You can either allow those areas to evolve more as they want to, or try and get another area started.
Hopefully if the Baseball Stadium goes down in the Greenwood/Brady Arts district and we get the museum and some more living in that area as well, then it will begin to take off. The Pearl District would also be a great area to have this kind of infill. But at the moment 6th street east of Peoria is run down and stagnant. If those little buildings had one or two sidewalk cafes and some shops, I guarantee you it could easily become the next Brookside type area and be able to develope larger urban living options leaving Brookside to grow a bit slower with more smaller apartments and such.
A good chunk of developers for urban living often want to cater to a more "upscale" crowd. They need to have a nice area to build in and prefer to have their developments be a certain size in order to make the price points work, especially here in Tulsa. It cant all be small Metro Loft type developments. Until there is another place to put some of the larger developments "larger in the sense for Brookside", we are either not as likely to get them, or the pressure will be to try and squeeze them into areas like Brookside and Cherry Street.
Brookside is going to completely change anyway. No matter which scenario happens. Its all zoned to have 3 story buildings even now isnt it? So thats what your gonna see. We can of course guide that change, keep larger developments out, try and maintain the walkable character. But it is going to change. But it would be nice to try and get some other areas started that would welcome the larger developments and take some of that development pressure off of Brookside.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
Why pick on Brookside? How about taking some of the huge surface parking lots downtown and building the mid rise condos that "everyone" wants. They would be right next to the real action. If public transit cannot keep up with development, build some high rise parking garages for a few years. Aerial views of downtown show a lot of misused space.
Progress is in the eye of the beholder. I am not against the high rises. Just put them where they are wanted without forcing them on a still viable neighborhood that doesn't. All I see in attempting to change Brookside to rows of highrises is that downtown is hopeless (Or maybe too expensive? Sound like the excuse for suburban sprawl?) so let's make a new inner core downtown somewhere else. Seems like highrise sprawl to me. Downtown would still be empty.
I don't live anywhere near Brookside, nor do I have any finacial interest there. I see a neighborhood that needs a little fixing in some spots. It doesn't need a wholesale makeover when there is plenty of room elsewhere.
Go ahead - shoot. I just put on my body armor.
Keen observation, Red Arrow. There's nearly one million people in the metro; trying to cram all the potential "urbanites" into Brookside and Cherry Street is unrealistic, and it'll certainly end up being unaffordable. Why try to shoehorn it all into these places?
Why not create TEN NEW Brooksides?
As a soon-to-be-ex-Brooksider surrounded by rentals, direlect properties, and overbuilt McMansions, increasing the density vis-a-vis apartments and condos would not be that big a deal and may even help the hood. The NIMBY folk with their stupid 'perversemidtown.com' signs can take a leap.
I could have gotten frustrated and sold my lot to a developer and basically made no money on the investment, but did not. We hung on for the right buyer for a year and finally found one who thought it was a great deal.
If that dude thought suburban punks are bad, wait until he moves into a neighborhood that is marginally blighted but affordable. Great price, but he is gonna be cowering in his dumpy tear-down and still may not make any money when he goes to sell.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
Artist, your cavalier attitude toward the integrity of Brookside is not likely to go over well with the people who own homes and businesses there.
Before you presume to redesign Brookside to your liking, I would urge you to read the Brookside infill plan (//%22http://www.cityoftulsa.org/Community/Revitalization/Brookside.asp%22), which represents years of work and negotiation by city planners, homeowners, and business owners. It was incorporated into the comprehensive plan, and it is supposed to guide zoning decisions and public infrastructure in the district.
Most of Brookside is zoned for single family homes, not for apartment buildings or townhouses. The infill plan allows for higher-density residential development within the "business area" -- the strip along Peoria that is now mostly zoned CH.
I know you mean well, and I agree with you that we need more walkable neighborhoods. I disagree that it's somehow my responsibility to get something new going to take the pressure off of Brookside. There has already been considerable public investment downtown, in Whittier Square, and around 6th & Peoria. Some private investment has followed, but the big developers are holding back.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
QuoteOriginally posted by MichaelBates
Dont tell me there arent plenty of other areas in this city that can take on the mantle of the "next Brookside"... 6th and Peoria, Whittier Square, etc.
However, part of my previous post was to point out that basically IF you want to take some of the infill pressure off of Brookside, help create a different area. Get a different area started, especially downtown. Once you have an active, bustling little street down there, people and developers will turn their attention to that area.
I suppose my choice of the words ...change "too much"... is where one could definitely have some arguments. What I would consider "too much" seems to be a very different "too much" for many of the anti-infill crowd in mid-town and Brookside. You cant build midrise or highrise in Brookside anyway, and I dont want it to either. I would prefer downtown grow to boot. But if all we have is Brookside and Cherry Street as attractive, walkable areas to build in and live in, thats where the development pressures are going to be. If you stifle it there without having an outlet somewhere else, your really going to be holding Tulsa back. You can either allow those areas to evolve more as they want to, or try and get another area started.
Hopefully if the Baseball Stadium goes down in the Greenwood/Brady Arts district and we get the museum and some more living in that area as well, then it will begin to take off. The Pearl District would also be a great area to have this kind of infill. But at the moment 6th street east of Peoria is run down and stagnant. If those little buildings had one or two sidewalk cafes and some shops, I guarantee you it could easily become the next Brookside type area and be able to develope larger urban living options leaving Brookside to grow a bit slower with more smaller apartments and such.
A good chunk of developers for urban living often want to cater to a more "upscale" crowd. They need to have a nice area to build in and prefer to have their developments be a certain size in order to make the price points work, especially here in Tulsa. It cant all be small Metro Loft type developments. Until there is another place to put some of the larger developments "larger in the sense for Brookside", we are either not as likely to get them, or the pressure will be to try and squeeze them into areas like Brookside and Cherry Street.
Brookside is going to completely change anyway. No matter which scenario happens. Its all zoned to have 3 story buildings even now isnt it? So thats what your gonna see. We can of course guide that change, keep larger developments out, try and maintain the walkable character. But it is going to change. But it would be nice to try and get some other areas started that would welcome the larger developments and take some of that development pressure off of Brookside.
I have heard about the Brookside infill plan and was basically repeating what some of the people on Brookside have told me about what was acceptable. I was also going on what one would assume would be the logical pattern of infill for such an area.
My "redesign" if you will, of Brookside would, with some exceptions be... The area along Peoria and the major intersections would allow for 3 story buildings with similar set backs. Most of them mixed use. Then right behind that row perhaps some more of the same here and there, an extra couple shops, restaurants, small businesses to add depth, and also 3 story living.
Primarily businesses along Peoria and the main streets with some darting in here and there, but mainly behind the businesses about a blocks worth of 3 story apartments and such. This would add enough density to make the area more sustainable and enable more people to live in the area to take advantage of its walkable nature. You want to enable as many people as possible to live in pedestrian friendly areas as you can and it would still keep the cozy feel of Brookside. The higher density block of apartment homes would also act as a buffer to the more noisy and busier main street.
The Brookside plan appears to be quite close to this scenario, except that it doesnt appear to allow for an adequate row of higher density, 3 story apartments behind the main strip.
They also seem to contradict themselves to an extent. On the one hand they say 3 story is ok, but on the other they want to preserve a lot of the existing buildings there. They want to pick and choose which buildings stay and which is ok to redevelope. Certainly one could agree that redoing the Blockbuster site with a 2 or 3 story building right up to the sidewalk would be nice, but I also think that the little strip on the east side across from the cleaners would be great to redevelop as 2 or 3 stories,,, not to mention the cleaners and the old Delta Cafe would be much nicer if they were all redone as nice little brick buildings with cafes, shops, etc on the first floors and perhaps offices on the second or living on the second and third.
It may not be anyones responsibility to take the pressure off of Brookside... But it would help. I think we will have done just about as much as we can do to spur infill and development in those other areas and ultimately it will have to happen of its own accord otherwise you end up with fake "Bricktown" type areas like in OKC that may or may not really make it.
Plus we do want to see Tulsa thrive and grow, but on the one hand we say,,, well this area will grow if the market wants it to we shouldnt try to regulate and force things to be where they dont want to be "downtown, Whittier Square, 6th st, etc." Stay out of the way and let the market decide. But then we constrain what the market wants to do in the areas where it does want to grow.
It seems reasonable that if you want to constrain market driven growth in one area it shouldnt be too much to ask that there be at least some continued effort to encourage that type of growth to go to another area in the city. We do want the type of growth that is beginning to push to happen in Brookside. Once it takes off in those other areas it will really be able to go gangbusters. Its just that horribly tricky part of getting it started.
One way or the other we are manipulating the market. One way or the other we do want continued growth in the city.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
Artist, your cavalier attitude toward the integrity of Brookside is not likely to go over well with the people who own homes and businesses there.
Before you presume to redesign Brookside to your liking, I would urge you to read the Brookside infill plan (//%22http://www.cityoftulsa.org/Community/Revitalization/Brookside.asp%22), which represents years of work and negotiation by city planners, homeowners, and business owners. It was incorporated into the comprehensive plan, and it is supposed to guide zoning decisions and public infrastructure in the district.
I have heard about the Brookside infill plan and was basically repeating what some of the people on Brookside have told me about what was acceptable...
Primarily businesses along Peoria and the main streets with some darting in here and there, but mainly behind the businesses about a blocks worth of 3 story apartments and such. This would add enough density to make the area more sustainable and enable more people to live in the area to take advantage of its walkable nature. You want to enable as many people as possible to live in pedestrian friendly areas as you can and it would still keep the cozy feel of Brookside.
I notice that bricks and textured paving are recommended for sidewalks and crosswalks in the Brookside Plan. That's a bad idea. Those types of pavements are relatively expensive when compared to traditional concrete and asphalt pavement.
Bricks and brick-like concrete pavers have failed downtown, they have failed at OSU-Tulsa along Greenwood Avenue, and they have failed in the crosswalks along Peoria in Brookside. Rough pavements create an environment which is less pedestrian friendly, not more so. Those types of rough walking surfaces are a waste of precious tax dollars. They don't help to create a positive character for Brookside.
I don't know if there is a certain someone to whom we can assign responsibility to develop new areas of town, but I'd like to suggest something.
11th Street is a potential gem. It is formerly route 66 and has some great buildings. It has a great residential area to the south of it and provides a great sandwich effect to the residential area that walks cherry street.
Furthermore, the previously mentioned 6th street is awesome. The houses in that neighborhood can be bought for cheap right now and have great potential as well. The commercial spaces on 6th street are also ripe for development.
There are several factors that make 6th and 11th appealing development opportunities.
A homogeneous midtown and downtown area could be amazing and the core of Tulsa's future. I like to imagine a time where brookside flows to the Woodward park area, which flows to the Utica square area, which flows to Cherry Street, which flows to 18th and Boston and to 11th street, which connects to the Pearl District, which connects TU to Downtown...
Public transit that flows constantly and regularly between these largely sustainable and walkable areas could become an appealing destination for suburbanites and an appealing place to live for those who want to be in the middle of the action.
I drive up 6th street all the time and dream about what it can be. The Pearl District has so much going for it and can become a great place to live and shop and hang out. I for one will take on the responsibility of developing new areas.
If people who are looking to buy new houses and who think that they might one day want to live in a neighborhood close to downtown will simply invest 100k in to a home right now in the Pearl district, (even if it's only as a rental for now) they may someday have a house worth 200k in a neighborhood they can feel good about living in.
It's just going to take some time and some people willing to part with some cash.
You can buy nice big houses in the Pearl District right now for around 50k...If you put 30-40k in to them, you'll have great, remodeled homes in a neighborhood that skirts a growing downtown....and you'll be doing your part to make Tulsa better.
So...there was a guy on another thread looking for a place to buy a house - I say buy one in the Pearl District and buy another one in a place you can stand to live for a few years.
...then in a few years, when 6th Street is developed and the neighborhood has turned around..move in.
Regular people can do a great deal towards making Tulsa better, they just have to want to...and they have to feel a little bit of the responsibility to do it.