Well, just got back from my first trip to NYC. Though lived upstate in NY for a few years while in the Army, never got down to the City. Was there for about a week and absolutely, totally enjoyed every day there. Now I have been to big cities before; London, Paris, Cairo,,,, but hadn't been to one since coming on here, learning about urban design, and working with folks to try and get Tulsa to be more pedestrian/mass transit friendly (have been to Houston recently which is a big city but not at all like NYC especially when it comes to being pedestrian friendly).
First off want to note that being pedestrian/transit friendly isn't the sole pervue of BIG cities. One of my favorite, pedestrian friendly, places to visit is little Santa Fe for instance.
But here is my take on having gotten to visit NYC and having walked aaaaall over the place. LOVED IT!
Couple little things I noticed....
Distances change, as in after a while I suprisingly found myself saying things like "Oh, its only about a mile away, lets walk." You would, for the most part, simply not do that here.
You will pass by more interesting stuff in just a few blocks there than you will driving for miles here. More places to shop, eat, work, live, etc. There is SO much to see.
You enjoy walking. Let me reiterate. You ENJOY walking. You ENJOY... exercise lol. Going some places was fun. Far more fun than driving places here. One thing I noticed when I got back was how lonely and desolate it seemed here. You drive around and don't see people. Its kind of sad and depressing actually in comparison to all the life and the people you see there.
Speaking of people, we found them to be quite nice and friendly. They would often go out of the way to help you. Now granted, I got the feeling that if you were on the street headed some where and you try to ask directions or something of someone else who is also obviously heading some where, well, its hit and miss. But as soon as people were stopped and were at some place, on the train, in a store, etc. they were just as chatty and friendly as people here, perhaps more so. Also, I am old enough to remember hearing about how "bad" NYC was. But I have heard a lot about how NYC has cleaned itself up, cracked down on petty things like jaywalking etc. The bad was what I was still expecting, even though I have heard that things are different now. What I found during my brief stay was the clean, friendly, safe feeling NYC.
Weather... It did get kind of hot there a few days and is definitely humid. But even here I found some pedestrian friendly things to take note of as we try to make parts of our city more pedestrian friendly and encourage more people to walk.
The shady side of the street was cooler, and with decently sized buildings, there was always a shady side of the street lol. Obvious, but to many "suburban/sprawl city" dwellers, not always something some seem to be aware of. Trees really helped, a lot. Narrower streets were MUCH cooler than wider streets. There were a few areas in the city where there were some buildings that were obviously built in the 70's or 80's that were not pedestrian friendly, were set back, had large, blank walls and that had some wider roads... You would walk from a wonderful street and look out onto such spaces and immediately look for an alternate route. Fortunately there werent many of those bad spots and there were always plenty of interesting, alternate routes.
Now for a couple of non-urban design comments.
The food was WONDERFUL. I did not eat one single thing the entire time I was there that I had ever had here. Close, like I did have pizza one day, but it wasn't like any pizza here. Tooo Diiiie For. Canolies... O M G. We had dinner and drinks at an Italian place that was basically shared appetizers of different cheeses, I have GOT to find some of those cheeses here, meats, jams and sauces you put on the meats and cheeses, and breads and bruschetta. Delectable. Had dumpling soup in Chinatown. The soup was IN the dumplings. Very interesting to try and eat. Ate breakfast at one place and had Eggs Benedict. Perfectly done, you could tell the egg was opened and drop boiled and swirled in the water, not the typical lump you find here, the side of fruit was even perfect. Every bite of fruit was not a bit sour or too old, but perfectly sweet and ripened. And this appeared to be an average place, nothing special. I could go on and on but will spare you.
Shopping... What can I say. Clothing, ran the entire gamut from super expensive $15,000 and up, sweaters and jackets, to very affordable. H&M was one of the less expensive discoveries, they had very stylish and very cheap stuff, cheaper than Wal-Mart, but trendy and stylish. Plus, my favorite thing... they had pants that FIT ME! 29 x 34 pants, no problem. Euro/Athletic cut shirts and jackets, were the usual.
Anywhoo,,, nough of all of that. Here are just a few of the pics I took. Mostly Art Deco of course lol. There are more Art Deco Buildings in NYC than there are buldings in Tulsa. Not exaggerating. Sorry bout the quality of the pics, only had a little pocket camera.
View from where we were staying in Weehawkin. Shows about a third of the skyline. Off to the far right, not in the photo, was were the financial district started.
(http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/6539/nycspring2011097a.jpg)
Looking down to the financial district which would be on the far top of the photo. The bright building near the top right is the new Freedom Tower.
(http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/6503/nycspring2011114a.jpg)
Looking the opposite direction.
(http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/7871/nycspring2011123a.jpg)
Sure you have all seen pics of the Empire lobby, but I had never seen this neat skybridge in one of the hallways.
(http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4271/nycspring2011014a.jpg)
Front of a deco skyscraper
(http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/3493/nycspring2011106.jpg)
Neat grate in another building.
(http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/8933/nycspring2011075b.jpg)
(http://img860.imageshack.us/img860/7904/nycspring2011038b.jpg)
(http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/8091/nycspring2011019a.jpg)
(http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/3125/nycspring2011154a.jpg)
(http://img862.imageshack.us/img862/5343/nycspring2011053a.jpg)
(http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/9058/nycspring2011022a.jpg)
(http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/5705/nycspring2011085a.jpg)
NYC is definitely going to be one of those places I visit regularly.
Artist,
Have you been to Boston?
I visited NYC in 2001.. And I visited Boston last year. I found Boston to be a much neater and more pedestrian-friendly city. Of the large US cities I've visited (NYC, LA, Boston, SF, Seattle, and Houston), Boston is at the top of my list. The architecture can't compete with NYC though
Quote from: TheArtist on June 01, 2011, 06:58:13 PM
Though lived upstate in NY for a few years while in the Army, never got down to the City.
I can relate to that. I used to live in suburban Philadelphia, PA (no secret to anyone here). One time I went to the Customs house to get some nautical charts of the Intracoastal Waterway. I walked right past Independence Hall and thought I need to stop in sometime and see the Liberty Bell sometime. Never did do it and now I live here.
H&M is on my list of dream stores for Tulsa to get, as well as CB2.
Was actually thinking that some place like Boston or Philadelphia might be one of my next US trips to take.
Either way, one of the points that I would like to make is that good, pedestrian friendly areas are an absolute delight and I think they could be a big asset to Tulsa. And they aren't just for "young people" who want to live downtown as many people here often say are the ones who may want to live in downtown Tulsa. NYC was full of aaaall kinds of people and of all ages.
What I don't want to see for Tulsa is for it to have a downtown like say Dallas. You can grow a lot and it not turn out to be pedestrian friendly. The Tulsa area can indeed still have the potential to have all the sprawl and growth it wants, but infill wise for the heart of Tulsa itself, I would really like to see good, superb, high quality, pedestrian friendly/transit friendly growth. And its not going to happen naturally. Its not going to happen naturally in the middle of our car oriented culture.
I want the best for Tulsa. I think we can do better and make ourselves very attractive and competitive. We are at the point in our development where we can make a few changes and descisions that can evolve our city into one thats absolutely wonderful.... or not. Plain and simple, its a choice. You either make the descision to do it, or you do not.
Are we going to choose to have our little downtown be high quality, pedestrian friendly, or not?
Quote from: hello on June 01, 2011, 10:12:39 PM
H&M is on my list of dream stores for Tulsa to get, as well as CB2.
One of our friends commented that H&M is kind of like the Ikea of clothing. What a coup if we could get either in Tulsa lol. Would definitely help Tulsa become one of the regional draws as "the place to shop". We get the museum/entertainment district going along with that. Then you will get peoples attention. Of course I am a fan of locally/organically grown shopping too. But would love to see that happen in the middle of a really good pedestrian friendly downtown area.
One of my favorite finds in NYC was Efor. http://www.eformen.com/eformen/default.asp It was their only store in the US. They had stuff that fit tall skinny people like me. You know how you go into a store around here and see something on a mannequin in the window or on a photo of a model that looks like it will fit? Then you go into the store and they don't and look at the back of the mannequin and see that the shirt is actually pulled back and clamped in the back lol? Not so much in NYC. The stuff actually fit the way it looked in most of the stores there. Efor you would pick the shirt or jacket up and it was V shaped, and there were no clamps on the back of the mannequins either lol.
Btw, the people walking the streets in NYC compared to the ones walking the Wal-Marts here.... night and day. You could probably find as many over weight people in one Wal-Mart check out line here as I saw the entire time I was in NYC. Walking apparently keeps you slim. Who da thought? Wouldn't it be nice to have places here where you could get out and really, really enjoy a good long walk? Not for a moment be bored? I think I actually toned up a bit and lost some weight the week I was there. And it wasn't work, it was enjoyable. You wanted to get out and walk there. Kind of like here where I like to go and take a drive lol. But the walks were far more enjoyable than the drives here. So much more to see. And good pedestrian streets are designed to be interesting. They don't have big blank walls. There are windows and doors at street level. There is interesting architecture at street level, even on contemporary buildings. And of course you can't beat the people watching.
Deco? What is that?
Wow! Some great examples you provided. Sounds like it was a great trip!
Quote from: BKDotCom on June 01, 2011, 08:02:13 PM
Artist,
Have you been to Boston?
I visited NYC in 2001.. And I visited Boston last year. I found Boston to be a much neater and more pedestrian-friendly city. Of the large US cities I've visited (NYC, LA, Boston, SF, Seattle, and Houston), Boston is at the top of my list. The architecture can't compete with NYC though
I'll be heading to Boston in less than two weeks, would love any insight as to where to go while there. I only have one free day to actually do anything, though the freedom trail is being covered another day.
Just got back from Seattle a couple of months ago and that place is all about pedestrian friendly as well. I was thoroughly empressed with their public transportation system, but I was able to get even the most overweight of our group to walk to the convention center from the hotel, even though it was just under a mile away. It's amazing how much of a difference the streetscape can make.
Artist, you didn't mention Soho or the galleries on 57th Street or the art auctions or the Museums. Is the East Village still bustling with little cutting edge galleries with emerging artists?
There really is nothing else like New York City. It sets the standard. I lived there for a few years in the early 80s on 34th Street between 1st and 2nd Avenues. New York was and still is the center of the world. And it is the place to make your mark if you want it to count in a worldly sort of way. One could go on citing all its many virtues but here's a short list of what New Yorkers would have to come to Tulsa to find:
-A place to rest and let down their hair
-An old fashioned state fair
-A roadside stand with ripe tomatoes and Porter Peaches
-Room to stretch out
-Kid friendly environment
I spent a couple of months interning in New York in 2005. I was also extremely impressed with the cleanliness of the city. That perception was totally inaccurate. I also found myself saying "It's only 25 blocks". The other perception that was completely blown out of the water was the neighborhood like feeling. I rented a place on the eastside in midtown. Everyone that goes to New York goes to 5th and Madison Ave and those areas are crazy busy. My neighborhood, however, was filled with local restaurants, tiny markets, dog walkers and baby mamas with strollers. It was a total shock. It was not a 24/7 environment everywhere, it was predominantly a residential area, where people want to live not party. The weekends were nice and quit.
I'm no expert in creating a great downtown, but I know that Tulsa will never be like New York. Being land locked created much of what is New York. Also, New York was build predominantly when people lived in really little apartments and cars weren't even a dream yet. Plus the amount of poor people that were housed in that city created thousands of tiny little apartments for them to live in. Gentrification has turned that New York into its current form.
Building a city like this in today's economy is near impossible. It doesn't hurt that every other Fortune 500 company is headquartered in New York. Tulsa on the other hand isn't even the primary location for companies in our top sector of energy, or aerospace either.
I am a huge property rights advocate; so much of this downtown planning is hard for me to get on board with. But if you could just show/convince people that including commercial space at street level would be a huge benefit for the company. It is long term thinking, but it would help more than anything else to get an area active all day.
When my office was downtown it was no thing to walk the 5-6 blocks to the Blue Dome District for lunch or park in my garage and walk the 6-7 blocks to the BOK center for an event. For some reason now that my office is out south walking a block to the closest restaurant is a chore! And, its only been 90 days! Funny how perception changes when cars are zooming by, you don't have a parking lane to protect you, your car is an easy out/easy in and you don't have a building wall along the way. To paraphrase Jack Crowley, downtown gives you the sense of place you don't have in a suburban area and encourages you to get out and explore.
Quote from: erfalf on June 02, 2011, 08:46:37 AM
I spent a couple of months interning in New York in 2005. I was also extremely impressed with the cleanliness of the city. That perception was totally inaccurate. I also found myself saying "It's only 25 blocks". The other perception that was completely blown out of the water was the neighborhood like feeling. I rented a place on the eastside in midtown. Everyone that goes to New York goes to 5th and Madison Ave and those areas are crazy busy. My neighborhood, however, was filled with local restaurants, tiny markets, dog walkers and baby mamas with strollers. It was a total shock. It was not a 24/7 environment everywhere, it was predominantly a residential area, where people want to live not party. The weekends were nice and quit.
I'm no expert in creating a great downtown, but I know that Tulsa will never be like New York. Being land locked created much of what is New York. Also, New York was build predominantly when people lived in really little apartments and cars weren't even a dream yet. Plus the amount of poor people that were housed in that city created thousands of tiny little apartments for them to live in. Gentrification has turned that New York into its current form.
Building a city like this in today's economy is near impossible. It doesn't hurt that every other Fortune 500 company is headquartered in New York. Tulsa on the other hand isn't even the primary location for companies in our top sector of energy, or aerospace either.
I am a huge property rights advocate; so much of this downtown planning is hard for me to get on board with. But if you could just show/convince people that including commercial space at street level would be a huge benefit for the company. It is long term thinking, but it would help more than anything else to get an area active all day.
Property rights.... I get what your saying, but no matter what part of town or city your in, they still have some rules of some sort on development. In south Tulsa you have to have a certain number of parking places, a certain amount of greenery, etc. for instance. Why not exchange those types of rules for a different set of ones that say, build up to the sidewalk and have entrances/windows on your "A" pedestrian friendly streets? New suburban neighborhoods often have rules, just make a different set of ones for new urban infill ones.
True we can't be like NYC, and I wouldn't want us to be. But we can be better than we are. One of the things a poster mentioned above was "Kid friendly environments". Someone once told me that if you can make an urban area thats both pedestrian friendly, and kid friendly, you will have a place that everyone will enjoy. If you keep children in mind when designing your urban areas it will steer you in the right direction. One thing that I think NYC was missing compared to say Paris was lots of small parks. Now would be a good time for Tulsa to lay out where in downtown its parks could be. It would then be nice to have midrise living around some of them for they then become "eyes on the street" or park. All those windows with people looking out on the park day and night help create a safer environment. Put in retail and a bustling sidewalk on the lower levels adds a little more. Thus you have a safer park for the kids, for everyone.
We say where living, parks, highways, residential streets, retail, industry etc. can be in other parts of the city. Basically a downtown area is an entire city in microcosm so everything is on a condensed scale. In a downtown, some streets we may want to be our "A" pedestrian friendly streets. These others can be "B" streets with parking garages along it or large structures like a convention center, have perhaps one way streets leading to highways, even drive throughs. These other areas can be for living, have parks, etc. All of the areas we can have mixed use, like retail below and living above (where as they are illegal in most other parts of the city). We are ok with what seems to be the norm, the usual set of rules for suburban living, but when it comes to making a set of rules that helps an urban environment work well, we then wonder about property rights. You could say that the number of "property rights infringements" may be exactly the same, or even less in an urban area, just different set than what we are used to in the suburban areas.
I think its probably illegal for me to put in a shop or art gallery in my home in the neighborhood where I live. I don't even think its legal for me to put in another house or apartment behind mine, though there is plenty of room.
Quote from: TheArtist on June 02, 2011, 07:46:08 AM
I want the best for Tulsa. I think we can do better and make ourselves very attractive and competitive. We are at the point in our development where we can make a few changes and descisions that can evolve our city into one thats absolutely wonderful.... or not. Plain and simple, its a choice. You either make the descision to do it, or you do not.
Are we going to choose to have our little downtown be high quality, pedestrian friendly, or not?
Right now we are choosing not to be. Case in point the new CVS at 21st & Harvard, the Blockbuster at 36th & Peoria, the auto-oriented design of Tulsa Hills, and others. It will take more weight on the small areas plans and zoning code in general before that changes.
Quote from: SXSW on June 02, 2011, 02:30:08 PM
... the auto-oriented design of Tulsa Hills,
Tulsa Hills requires an auto but is at the same time auto un-friendly in the parking lot and traffic flow layout.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 02, 2011, 02:45:42 PM
Tulsa Hills requires an auto but is at the same time auto un-friendly in the parking lot and traffic flow layout.
You got that right. I have only been out there twice and have no desire to return unless absolutly necessary.
I don't think every area needs to be zoned or coded to be pedestrian friendly. Its going to be tough enough to get areas in and near downtown to be that way.
We currently have NO plans that will get downtown to have high quality pedestrian friendly areas.
Diversity and "not putting all your eggs in one basket" can be a good thing imo. Some areas in town can be car oriented, heck most obviously will be, but surely a few, here and there can be pedestrian friendly. If there is any spot in town that should have some super good pedestrian friendly areas, downtown seems to be a no brainer to me. Wouldn't you agree? You can't assume that the market will know that or will care. All you have to do is look around downtown to see that it doesn't. We have cared plenty about other parts of town being car friendly, but haven't put even a modicum of real effort into downtown being pedestrian friendly. Why is that? It just seems so odd to me? Putting in place some guiding principals for how we would like areas in downtown to develop, aka which ones we want to grow in a pedestrian friendly manner, and then letting the market do its thing would be my vote.
Then too, the new comprehensive plan shows where the people think other pedestrian friendly areas should be and how they can connect via mass transit. But yes, right now you can look in those very areas and see new development that doesn't at all lead us in that direction.
Also, if we are ever, ever, going to have good mass transit in this city. If we are ever going to want to add a little diversity to our transportation options and not put all our eggs in the automobile basket... Pedestrian friendly and Mass Transit friendly are the same thing. They go hand in hand. The better the pedestrian frienly areas, the more efficient, higher the ridership, less costly, and better your mass transit options can become.
Do you think Utica Square is pedestrian friendly in its design? Or, is it because of its age, trees, shops, meticulous maintenance and because we are told it is?
Is it design or the sense of place that signals to your brain it is okay to walk?
It was designed as a suburban shopping center just as urban sprawl was hitting its stride. It has massive stretches without sidewalks, is not stroller/handicap friendly in many areas, but it lacks the sea of parking lot that these nouveau shopping centers have.
We visited OKC this last weekend and went to RePUBlic at Classen Curve. It was dark and I didn't walk or drive thru the entire center, but it seems to have been laid out in a very walkable fashion.
Quote from: TheArtist on June 02, 2011, 01:27:34 PM
Property rights.... I get what your saying, but no matter what part of town or city your in, they still have some rules of some sort on development. In south Tulsa you have to have a certain number of parking places, a certain amount of greenery, etc. for instance. Why not exchange those types of rules for a different set of ones that say, build up to the sidewalk and have entrances/windows on your "A" pedestrian friendly streets? New suburban neighborhoods often have rules, just make a different set of ones for new urban infill ones.
I understand your point, but it is a little unfair to make that comparison between suburband and urban rules. Suburban rules were established when the neighborhood was established. If I don't agree with them, I don't buy in the neighborhood. Plus, a neighborhood organization decides when and if to change certain rules. It is far more representative because everyone in the group has an interest.
Now, with regard to downtown property rights.
The problem I have is that people want to change the rules all of a sudden. I'm not going to argue that the new rules wouldn't necessarily be effective in creating a more pedestrian friendly environment that anyone that appreciates the history of the area would enjoy. That's not the point. I just believe that property owners don't deserve to have the rules changed on them. If they want to build a drive thru bank at 7th and Main and it is within the bounds of the current law, then so be it. I'm not gonna say that I like the development but they can do what they please with their own property.
In my humble opinion... If rules and regulations should be changed, they should be changed by some private organization, like a home owners association. I'm not certain, but I believe some of the historic districts in town have created such groups after the fact. Let's say we get a Blue Dome District Owners Association. Get all the property owners to come together and set their own standards. Government intervention in this matter is going to lead to a one size fits all solution that will never work (in particular in this city where dysfunctional government is the norm). The neighborhoods in this city are so unique and I for one don't want to sacrifice that so some developers get what they want in a completely different part of town.
This discussion has uncovered my localism hope. I think everything, including government, should be as localized as possible. The closer the people are to their representatives the more effective and efficient the response will be for government, school, neighborhoods.
I don't disagree to disagree. I just want to further this discussion, because I believe that in almost every facet of life, the answer is somewhere in the middle.
Quote from: rdj on June 03, 2011, 08:52:30 AM
Do you think Utica Square is pedestrian friendly in its design? Or, is it because of its age, trees, shops, meticulous maintenance and because we are told it is?
Is it design or the sense of place that signals to your brain it is okay to walk?
It was designed as a suburban shopping center just as urban sprawl was hitting its stride. It has massive stretches without sidewalks, is not stroller/handicap friendly in many areas, but it lacks the sea of parking lot that these nouveau shopping centers have.
We visited OKC this last weekend and went to RePUBlic at Classen Curve. It was dark and I didn't walk or drive thru the entire center, but it seems to have been laid out in a very walkable fashion.
Utica Square is passable. But its also a tiny, disconnected island. If you like Utica Square, you would fall over in joy if you ever got to experience a really good pedestrian friendly environment.
Some of the pedestrian friendly design rules it has going for it are...
It does have sidewalks in front of the shops and restaurants.
The businesses for the most part have windows and doors open to those sidewalks creating interest and flow.
Lots of trees and interspersed parklike spaces.
Some lucky or favorable circumstances that also help it thrive...
Its in a beautiful, nice part of town and has some very nice shops.
Is accessible from all sides.
Has small parking lots between the shops which helps give it a more intimate feel.
Some things that can or could have been done better...
Be better connected to other pedestrian friendly areas on the main thoroughfairs 21st and Utica Ave. The tiny "island" thing I was talking about. There are a few things that are nearby like Utica Place and the hospital, but its still very limited in scope. You will rarely find people walking more than a few blocks away from Utica Square. If the area were to infill in a pedestrian friendly manner that could change. Wouldn't it be great if Utica going north would connect to Cherry Street in a fun, interesting, pedestrian friendly manner.
I don't know anything about Classen Curve, have never heard of it so can not comment, except to say context, where something is, is important.
Unfortunately, I cannot find a good photo of the complex exterior layout, but here's the Curve. It's very modern.
http://www.classencurve.com/siteplan
NYC has so much to loathe and love. If you missed the chunky suburbany looking folks then I guess you didn't get to Times Sq. You won't find many kids in Manhattan but get out to the boroughs and there are kids abound and kid friendly places. I found NYC relatively kid friendly outside of the touristy/crazy Midtown nodes. NYC also provides some diversity in their fabric. You can get out to Forrest Hills (Queens) or Boerum Hill (Brklyn) and find absolute peace and quiet inside 'the city'. At 42nd/Bdwy you can't get away from people and the side streets can feel cavernous.
My observation of Ny is that Manhattan, other than pub. housing, has become the Country's version of the City. You'll find Ny's NY out in the borroughs and on the other side of the Hudson.
I was in the best shape of my life when I lived in the City. It was nothing to walk miles without really thinking about the distance (weather notwithstanding) and I worked out on top of that. There is so much personal engagement enriching the pedestrian experience to focus on the distance and the space within which to walk at worst is accommodating - space is often measured in time there. While I think there are too many personal vehicles in the City people have their place as opposed to here where the City's designed for the 35-40 mph experience and the pedestrian environment is mostly non-existent. Walking against 5 or more lanes of fast traffic on one side and a 40 or more space parking lot on the other side is worst than unpleasant it's antagonizing to the senses. It's no wonder that walking a block in most of Tulsa is unpleasant and unthinkable.
Tulsa would do well to replicate some of the built environment of NYC. I am particularly fond of recent projects spearheaded by their superstar Streets Commish JSK to redistribute street space. Closing parts of Bdwy to vehicle traffic through the busiest parts was brilliant! I would never want to live, work, or particularly play in most of Midtown Manhattan but there are other parts of Ny that are downright pleasant! Downtown Tulsa doesn't have to be chock full of 40 story towers - there's a density threshold that when crossed can become uppleasant for most. And unfortunately we have to create rules otherwise we, as a community don't get a consistency of application adn investors/developers/home buyers don't get the assurances necessary to help them take the jump - nothing to stop the next guy from coming in and completely undermining and taking from the whole experience and quality of life anticipated. Think of our City as a much bigger Neighborhood Association - I guess if you don't want to play by the established rules you can choose another city.
There's alot of benefit to density - one: peopel are attracted to people (not in cars), but a community that's dense and is comprised of a lot of diversity in their building stock seems to have far more to offer in teh way of services and shops. Dense/ diverse places seem to also inspire creativity and risk vying for that concentration of resources (human/social/capital). Again, not every part of Tulsa needs to look like Brooklyn but some of it certainly can. - quick random thoughts...
Quote from: erfalf on June 03, 2011, 09:00:26 AM
I understand your point, but it is a little unfair to make that comparison between suburband and urban rules. Suburban rules were established when the neighborhood was established. If I don't agree with them, I don't buy in the neighborhood. Plus, a neighborhood organization decides when and if to change certain rules. It is far more representative because everyone in the group has an interest.
Now, with regard to downtown property rights.
The problem I have is that people want to change the rules all of a sudden. I'm not going to argue that the new rules wouldn't necessarily be effective in creating a more pedestrian friendly environment that anyone that appreciates the history of the area would enjoy. That's not the point. I just believe that property owners don't deserve to have the rules changed on them. If they want to build a drive thru bank at 7th and Main and it is within the bounds of the current law, then so be it. I'm not gonna say that I like the development but they can do what they please with their own property.
In my humble opinion... If rules and regulations should be changed, they should be changed by some private organization, like a home owners association. I'm not certain, but I believe some of the historic districts in town have created such groups after the fact. Let's say we get a Blue Dome District Owners Association. Get all the property owners to come together and set their own standards. Government intervention in this matter is going to lead to a one size fits all solution that will never work (in particular in this city where dysfunctional government is the norm). The neighborhoods in this city are so unique and I for one don't want to sacrifice that so some developers get what they want in a completely different part of town.
This discussion has uncovered my localism hope. I think everything, including government, should be as localized as possible. The closer the people are to their representatives the more effective and efficient the response will be for government, school, neighborhoods.
I don't disagree to disagree. I just want to further this discussion, because I believe that in almost every facet of life, the answer is somewhere in the middle.
I think we do agree more than we disagree lol.
Couple of possible small disagreements first. I think downtown is unique in that its "condensed". First off there are parts of the city where they have said "ok, this is where we want the neighborhood, this is where we want the shopping, the industry, etc.". They zoned for those things AFTER someone owned the property. Whenever they design a highway like 169, they then say we want higher density near the exits for instance. There are parts of downtown that are essentially empty fields. Why cant we zone some of those areas to say, this is where we want pedestrian friendly neighborhoods?
We only have one downtown. We have invested a LOT in and around it as a community. I think the community has a little more of a right to be concerned with what happens there. Our downtown is small, a couple of bad developments can ruin a lot more than they could elsewhere. That condensed thing again.
Lets say I build a building in one of the undeveloped areas and have it be pedestrian friendly. Then someone on either side of me builds something that is not. You may very well have ruined me.
Another point with the "condensed" thing. One building can equal part of an entire suburban neighborhood. It could have 50 or 100 homes in it. I buy into this budding neighborhood and the guy next to me builds something completely different that essentially ruins my neigborhood.
Frankly if I am a developer, or a property owner in downtown, I think I would like to know whats going to happen on this block. If I build a pedestrian friendly building, I would love to feel that the person next to me would also, thus through synergy and critical mass improving the property values of both of us. Knowing what street or block is going to be what increases confidence and thus property values. Whether your property is on a pedestrian friendly designated street or not, you now have an additional, positive, marketable selling point.
Transportation. Again, because a downtown is a "condensed" version of a suburban area, its important to know where the arterial roads/highways/neighborhood roads, etc should be. It would be wise to know where your going to want to have your mass transit options be for instance. If the public puts in rail and then all you get is suburban, non-pedestrian friendly development around it, you have blown a lot of money. On the flip side, if you do not zone for pedestrian/mass transit friendly areas or streets and let the market do as it will... you will likely end up with a scattershot mess (a pedestrian friendly block or two here, then another way over there, etc.) that can't be economically and efficiently connected, and to which people will not walk from one area to the next, and your screwed again. We have done this large scale for the city with the New Comprehensive Plan, but we haven't done it on the "condensed" scale for downtown.
If we were in a larger city, perhaps I wouldn't have these concerns. But because Tulsa is a small city, its downtown is still struggling to turn around, and I don't see that Tulsa will ever be a fast growing city again that can easily erase mistakes, each and every development at this point looms larger in its importance. At this point in the game, a few individuals could really screw up current and future public investments, and the private investments of a lot of people.
However, I do agree that any zoning of blocks and or streets should come from the ground up. But I do believe it should happen, even if just the most critical parts of downtown like where we want transit to be or where we have public investments like the ballpark and possibly the new museums, and possibly even the few streets that connect already growing pedestrian friendly areas to each other. The rest, let whatever happen happen, but there are some areas that I feel should be "A" pedestrian/mass transit friendly streets.
One final point. As many here have attested, great, pedestrian friendly streets are an absolute joy. Tulsans, including the property owners downtown, are missing out. And for many reasons, we are not likely to get them by happy accident.
Utica Sq. is the best we've got in Tulsa. It's horribly disconnected from it's surroundings unless you're in a car. Walking through is pleasant if you're up against a building or in the *$'s area but otherwise you're dodging cars - some going much faster than reasonable in the parking lots.
Don't get me wrong, I like Utica Sq., relatively speaking...but if 6th St. or Boston Av. or 11th St. ever developes out in a pleasant urban manner: generously wide tree lined sidewalks with ample easy street crossings Utica Sq. will be just another shopping center though with nice mature trees.
What Utica Sq. can do to improve is start with some infill. Build some new multi-story buildings in the complex, add some residential inside the complex, add a green/park right where they have hold the Christmas Lights ceremony, present a better face or in some cases put a presence on Utica and/or 21st and/or Yorktown Av. A multi-lane drive-through bank at Utica and 21st? Really? Partner with the City to build better (or some cases some) walks along the periphery - if I lived in any of the nicer neighborhoods to the southeast/west I have to walk in the street or the grass to get there and while we're at it the crossings on 21st St. could be alot friendlier. That whole span of 21st will need a lot of work to overcome the BIG GIANT F.U. statement St. John's created on the opposite side.
Utica Square will not change as long as Walt Helmerich is alive. I have discussed the items you mentioned with one of the sons. He is agreement on most, but they can't do anything as long as their father is calling the shots.
When Valt dies, der family will sell it to Simon, or Glimcher, or GGP. There's no way stockholders would put up with the risk of redeveloping a retail center when the main business is rigs and such. Besides, the dynamics of der remaining family makes it a cluster buster foe sure.
BTW, Woodland Hills has the best demographics and tenant structure. It may have higher per square foot sales than Utica.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 03, 2011, 01:45:09 PM
Unfortunately, I cannot find a good photo of the complex exterior layout, but here's the Curve. It's very modern.
http://www.classencurve.com/siteplan
I can't see what the front side facing the street looks like. All you can see is the back side where the parking is. But its not urban and appears to be in the middle of no where with a lot of fencing blocking it off from the neighborhood to boot. There is no density at this point. It would be worthless mass transit wise. If they were to put it in an empty spot downtown I probably wouldn't complain, but would hope that it was oriented to fit in with existing streets and that more dense stuff would fill in around whats there and would hope that it itself would densify over time, unless you wanted it to be a park like, open space for downtown. Otherwise, if it were in an urban area it would have a lot of wasted space for what it is. If all those buildings were mixed use and 4 or 5 stories, fine. Wouldn't like all the surface parking if it were downtown one way or the other.
You know my mantra for downtown. NO more parking, period. I know I am not going to get that at this time lol, but at least hope it causes people to think for a moment.
People will complain about a boring walk (likely past a parking garage) or about the cost of mass transit like a trolley. But then will pay millions of dollars for parking garages. Parking garages also steal density so that you end up with areas like in Dallas that at first glance look urban, but are really "Faux Urban". The pedestrian experience isnt up to snuff in those areas, the areas are limited in scope, pedestrian traffic is light most of the time cause most of the block is the hollowed out added cost and wasted space of the parking, and its lack of density makes your mass transit not as effective. You don't need to try and pay for both, pick one or the other lol. And we have pleeenty of parking lots and parking garages already. If you do downtown right, it will be desirable enough that people will walk a mile just to get to it.
But I think we are comparing apples to oranges with this example. I am mainly talking about downtown and perhaps surrounding areas, and the optimal type of pedestrian friendly environments those could have.
Quote from: TheArtist on June 03, 2011, 06:25:53 PM
If you do downtown right, it will be desirable enough that people will walk a mile just to get to it.
Numbers I've seen (probably at Light Rail Now) have been that people are willing to walk 1/4 mile to public transportation. I think you may be pushing it at a mile for an average but your principle is correct, especially if downtown is auto-unfriendly.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 03, 2011, 06:38:24 PM
Numbers I've seen (probably at Light Rail Now) have been that people are willing to walk 1/4 mile to public transportation. I think you may be pushing it at a mile for an average but your principle is correct, especially if downtown is auto-unfriendly.
Yea, I was being a little facetious with that. But ya get the point.