That was the subject of a thread I started last month. I'm not sure it was received too well though. It goes back to what the real purpose downtown is going to serve. Just because a decade ago we had a plan, doesn't mean we have to now ignore reality. Reality is that the middle class is shrinking and migrating downwards. We need to adjust to the fact that most housing downtown is not affordable to the young hipsters, lacking in the elements required for young families (school system, nest feathering, three car garages), and still lacking in amenities for empty nesters. That leaves retirees, pensioners, outliers, and wealthy young mover/shakers.
To justify more resources to the area means there needs to be an identifier that attracts non residents in a big way to something other than baseball and the arena.
Quote from: AquaMan on February 14, 2012, 10:05:36 AM
That was the subject of a thread I started last month. I'm not sure it was received too well though. It goes back to what the real purpose downtown is going to serve. Just because a decade ago we had a plan, doesn't mean we have to now ignore reality. Reality is that the middle class is shrinking and migrating downwards. We need to adjust to the fact that most housing downtown is not affordable to the young hipsters, lacking in the elements required for young families (school system, nest feathering, three car garages), and still lacking in amenities for empty nesters. That leaves retirees, pensioners, outliers, and wealthy young mover/shakers.
To justify more resources to the area means there needs to be an identifier that attracts non residents in a big way to something other than baseball and the arena.
Higher learning
Public Transportation
Jobs
Quality of Living Amenities
Most of the hipsters that I know that are living in and around downtown are there because they like to get to and from without a car. They ride their bikes almost everywhere they go. They aren't that concerned with swanky apartments either, they live in places like the Blair, or above the storage building at Cheyenne Ave and the RR tracks, or above office buildings.
But developers don't make enough (or any) profit on the smaller, standard type abodes. They seem to believe that everyone wants what the 'burbans want and I too haven't found that to be true. Maybe I am too far removed from that age and from the needs of developers. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if someone announced a new casino opening downtown. That would be a recognition of its true emerging personality and an opportunity to draw more crowds from outside the city boundaries.
My gut feeling is that the very thing that attracted young people downtown (cheap, unique, avant garde) is going to be destroyed in the process of developing. When that happens downtown may bust. We should constantly be adapting it to attract outside visitors who drop some cash in the area just to see how the Bohemians live. When in fact, the Bohemians are gone.
Quote from: AquaMan on February 14, 2012, 10:05:36 AM
That was the subject of a thread I started last month. I'm not sure it was received too well though. It goes back to what the real purpose downtown is going to serve. Just because a decade ago we had a plan, doesn't mean we have to now ignore reality. Reality is that the middle class is shrinking and migrating downwards. We need to adjust to the fact that most housing downtown is not affordable to the young hipsters, lacking in the elements required for young families (school system, nest feathering, three car garages), and still lacking in amenities for empty nesters. That leaves retirees, pensioners, outliers, and wealthy young mover/shakers.
To justify more resources to the area means there needs to be an identifier that attracts non residents in a big way to something other than baseball and the arena.
I disagree the middle class is shrinking or trending downward in Tulsa. Might be a national trend, but our income has been trending upward in recent years.
Its just a gut feeling and I only have observation to back it up. Many in the middle class may be finding themselves more secure and at a higher level than the median before 2008, but I am guessing the median of the middle class here has to have skewed downward. We lost a lot of oil execs and gained a lot of phone center execs.
Quote from: AquaMan on February 14, 2012, 11:00:04 AM
Its just a gut feeling and I only have observation to back it up. Many in the middle class may be finding themselves more secure and at a higher level than the median before 2008, but I am guessing the median of the middle class here has to have skewed downward. We lost a lot of oil execs and gained a lot of phone center execs.
Take a spin or jog through Maple Ridge, Florence Park, Brookside, or even out south. The homes those oil execs and middle management used to occupy aren't empty. Even though we may not have Citgo, Texaco, Occidental, etc. here anymore, Tulsa is every bit a huge player in the oil & gas business with all sorts of engineering and manufacturing that's bringing a ton of money into town. I need to get you out, have a few Marshall's and adjust your paradigm set a little ;)
Quote from: Conan71 on February 14, 2012, 11:06:48 AM
Take a spin or jog through Maple Ridge, Florence Park, Brookside, or even out south. The homes those oil execs and middle management used to occupy aren't empty. Even though we may not have Citgo, Texaco, Occidental, etc. here anymore, Tulsa is every bit a huge player in the oil & gas business with all sorts of engineering and manufacturing that's bringing a ton of money into town. I need to get you out, have a few Marshall's and adjust your paradigm set a little ;)
One of these days I may take you up on those offers. My paradigm hasn't been adjusted in so, so, long.
Quote from: AquaMan on February 14, 2012, 11:00:04 AM
Its just a gut feeling and I only have observation to back it up. Many in the middle class may be finding themselves more secure and at a higher level than the median before 2008, but I am guessing the median of the middle class here has to have skewed downward. We lost a lot of oil execs and gained a lot of phone center execs.
The call centers are mostly gone, moved to India.
Quote from: AquaMan on February 14, 2012, 11:13:12 AM
One of these days I may take you up on those offers. My paradigm hasn't been adjusted in so, so, long.
Every comment I have is gross.
Quote from: AquaMan on February 14, 2012, 10:34:29 AM
But developers don't make enough (or any) profit on the smaller, standard type abodes. They seem to believe that everyone wants what the 'burbans want and I too haven't found that to be true. Maybe I am too far removed from that age and from the needs of developers. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if someone announced a new casino opening downtown. That would be a recognition of its true emerging personality and an opportunity to draw more crowds from outside the city boundaries.
My gut feeling is that the very thing that attracted young people downtown (cheap, unique, avant garde) is going to be destroyed in the process of developing. When that happens downtown may bust. We should constantly be adapting it to attract outside visitors who drop some cash in the area just to see how the Bohemians live. When in fact, the Bohemians are gone.
Isn't that what the hipsers always say when the masses discover their urbanly hip neighborhoods and the next thing you know, a GAP store opens up? This has played out in very unTulsa-like places all over the country, such as when gentrification rolled over the previously edgy areas like SoHo, the lower East Side and the Meat Packing District in New York. The hipsters move on to the next undiscovered locale, but the neighborhoods they leave behind ultimately come to a sort of accommodation between the hip and mass cultural that distinguishes them from other areas but also offer a sense of familiarity.
Downtown cannot be a zoo where inquisitive folks come and observe the interactions of these strange creatures known as "hipsters." It is very hard, probably impossible, for a neighborhood much less an entire downtown to stand pat. It's either growing or its dying, the only question is the speed at which either is happening.
Yeah, I agree with your assessment. It took me a few posts to remember that its the logical progression and repeated everywhere. The only thing I want to point out is that once those people have moved on, I'm not sure there is enough downtown to justify so much attention and investment. It won't be a neighborhood. It won't be a gathering place for the avant garde forever. At that point it has to mature and change. Like TT says, its real demographic is different than what people think it is. I am surprised that so many people don't seem to understand that "fame", such as it is, is fleeting and you must constantly adjust to fit new realities. Think Las Vegas. It has adjusted its image to keep up, stay relevant and attractive to outsiders. It could never just depend on its own residents.
Quote from: AquaMan on February 14, 2012, 08:02:10 PM
Yeah, I agree with your assessment. It took me a few posts to remember that its the logical progression and repeated everywhere. The only thing I want to point out is that once those people have moved on, I'm not sure there is enough downtown to justify so much attention and investment. It won't be a neighborhood. It won't be a gathering place for the avant garde forever. At that point it has to mature and change. Like TT says, its real demographic is different than what people think it is. I am surprised that so many people don't seem to understand that "fame", such as it is, is fleeting and you must constantly adjust to fit new realities. Think Las Vegas. It has adjusted its image to keep up, stay relevant and attractive to outsiders. It could never just depend on its own residents.
Revisit your statement in ten years, I think you will be surprised. The amount of growth in the last ten years has been truly dynamic. In 2002, I would have agreed with your assessment. If we maintain the downtown area and private investment maintains existing buildings or develops current surface parking lots into more high-rise office or residential density, I predict you will be wrong. The trend toward people moving back to geographic centers isn't a fad. Only time will convince you of this. The American trend toward suburbs is completely counter to 5000 or so years of civilized development which either favors dense urban centers or rural areas with much smaller hubs of commerce.
Fad as long as the car remains king...w t f is with the price of gasoline? They're saying $5 a gallon this summer....
If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong. :-\
Quote from: Teatownclown on February 15, 2012, 12:24:27 AM
Fad as long as the car remains king...w t f is with the price of gasoline? They're saying $5 a gallon this summer....
If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong. :-\
They've said $5 a gallon now for the past three summers...
QuoteThe American trend toward suburbs is completely counter to 5000 or so years of civilized development which either favors dense urban centers or rural areas with much smaller hubs of commerce.
Bravo. This is something that is one my mind all the time. There is an endemic inefficiency in living 10-15 miles from where one works. We don't all deserve our own country manner houses.
Quote from: jacobi on February 15, 2012, 08:08:24 AM
Bravo. This is something that is one my mind all the time. There is an endemic inefficiency in living 10-15 miles from where one works. We don't all deserve our own country manner houses.
Whaa??
It's the American dream!
QuoteWhaa??
It's the American dream!
Since when? 1950? Even then the suburbanism one saw was far denser and more 'urban' than the sprawling diaspora of housing tracts out in east jesus (owasso). It seems that the McMainsion fad starts in the mid 70's or so. It has only been for the last 40 years or so that people have lived this way. That's long enough though to make people think "well, it's just always been this way. Why would or how could you live without a car?" Unfortunately we have sunk ALOT of our resources into developing an infrastructure around this life style, which can only be supported by the finite resource of petroleum.
Quote from: jacobi on February 15, 2012, 08:51:24 AM
Since when? 1950? Even then the suburbanism one saw was far denser and more 'urban' than the sprawling diaspora of housing tracts out in east jesus (owasso). It seems that the McMainsion fad starts in the mid 70's or so. It has only been for the last 40 years or so that people have lived this way. That's long enough though to make people think "well, it's just always been this way. Why would or how could you live without a car?" Unfortunately we have sunk ALOT of our resources into developing an infrastructure around this life style, which can only be supported by the finite resource of petroleum.
I think BK was being facetious.
QuoteWhaa??
It's the American dream!
I know. :)
I've had alot of arguments with people (mostly those younger than I) who seem to think that one of the reasons why America is evil is because we have a dream of suburbia. I tell them that is not the american dream. It is a charature of the american dream.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 15, 2012, 12:04:13 AM
Revisit your statement in ten years, I think you will be surprised. The amount of growth in the last ten years has been truly dynamic. In 2002, I would have agreed with your assessment. If we maintain the downtown area and private investment maintains existing buildings or develops current surface parking lots into more high-rise office or residential density, I predict you will be wrong. The trend toward people moving back to geographic centers isn't a fad. Only time will convince you of this. The American trend toward suburbs is completely counter to 5000 or so years of civilized development which either favors dense urban centers or rural areas with much smaller hubs of commerce.
If I'm wrong then that's okay. The city will recreate itself downtown and we can be a mini-NYC. If I'm right, thats okay too because downtown will still survive, just not what we each want to see there. What dampens my faith in your future vision stems from the reasons that the burbs are so popular in spite of the logic that argues against them. It is the lack of a solidly respected school system in the inner city. It is the lack of support for effective mass transit. It is the fear of non-conformity. These are the powerful elements that fuel suburbanism.
$5 dollar a gallon gasoline could overcome a lot of those elements. ;)
Quote from: AquaMan on February 15, 2012, 10:26:22 AM
If I'm wrong then that's okay. The city will recreate itself downtown and we can be a mini-NYC. If I'm right, thats okay too because downtown will still survive, just not what we each want to see there. What dampens my faith in your future vision stems from the reasons that the burbs are so popular in spite of the logic that argues against them. It is the lack of a solidly respected school system in the inner city. It is the lack of support for effective mass transit. It is the fear of non-conformity. These are the powerful elements that fuel suburbanism.
$5 dollar a gallon gasoline could overcome a lot of those elements. ;)
Tulsa will never have the sort of density you find in NYC, LA, San Francisco, etc. and I'm good with that. Tulsa doesn't need to be like every other city, as not everyone has the dream of living in a fast-paced, dense urban environment. Those that do want that have moved to an area like that. I don't consider that a loss for Tulsa either. That's simply someone who has a different idea of how they want to live, work, commute, and spend their down time that doesn't jibe with Tulsa.
I've certainly made no secret that my ideal living situation will be in a smaller mountain community far from a major population center or an island somewhere out in the Atlantic. I don't expect Tulsa to change to accommodate my ideal lifestyle, in fact it would be downright impossible.
I think Tulsa is on track to offer something of a good compromise for those who prefer suburban living and those who want an urban lifestyle. I think we are better suited for that than most other cities our size and even ones larger than us.
Here is where I disagree a bit. Tulsa once had NYC type, high quality "urbanness". I think it still can have some of that again. I also don't think that lots of other US cities do have that kind of high quality urban space other than "Portland, Chicago, San Diego, Boston, and some up and coming cities like Salt Lake City.
I do see a lot of cities that are trying to become better, trying to emulate the good qualities of those very desirable cities, but have failed at it. Look at Dallas for instance and it's "fake" urbanity. Many of these cities, that are often smaller than Dallas and that are our "competitor cities" are following this "fake" urbanity model. What happens is that mish-mash of growth that is neither truly urban nor suburban keeps growing. It doesn't "transition" as many of these cities keep hoping it will to the high quality urban spaces they say they are actually wanting.
Tulsa is at the point in its development where it needs to decide how it wants it's core to grow. Does it want high quality, pedestrian friendly/transit friendly growth? Or does it want to follow the "half-arsed" phoney model thats not really urban or suburban, thats still car oriented, where the sidewalks in the core are busy on "occasions", where the transit is in place but not really functioning cost effectively, thats paying for oodles of garages and transit at the same time, etc.
They put in a new parking garage by the arena and left...some space to have retail built later around the base.
They are thinking of building a new parking garage for the Brady District and.... oh it will be ok because it will have retail space along the base
They may someday put a parking garage near the PAC and... oh, it will be ok because it too will have retail at ground level.
They just spent 8 mill to expand a parking garage downtown
They figure it will cost around $600,000 to fix the parking meter situation downtown
etc.
etc.
etc.
You see where we are going here. We are already headed down the "fake urban" road like most every other small and midsized city. Rather than make our selves exceptional and have really desirable urban spaces that would give us an edge up against our competitor cities. Rather than being something special, we are aspiring to be average. And we are a slow growing city, that's already decades behind. Apparently heck bent on staying that way.
Zone to create great urban spaces, simply allow developers to be able to build those spaces.
Quit spending money on parking. We could build a nice starter transit system in our core for the cost they have and will spend on parking,,, and then use that transit to get people from the plentiful parking we already have to the pedestrian friendly spaces we want to grow. Heck I am all for street level retail, build it please, just leave out the garage behind it and instead have a trolley or special downtown bus go by it. There is already plenty of parking in and around downtown. Do we really want to keep trying to build parking garages in every section that "needs" it as downtown grows? Or will we take that money and instead put in transit in the areas that "need" it?
What growth model do we want to persue and get started? Average, slow growing and forever behind, or exceptional. Once you choose your path, your likely to be stuck with it for a looong time for it will keep wanting to replicate itself and fight against the other models.
Quote from: AquaMan on February 15, 2012, 10:26:22 AM
It is the lack of support for effective mass transit.
Readily available public transportation is what made suburban Philadelphia, PA possible. I will agree that many of the east coast suburbs are more dense than many of Tulsa's. Looking at new housing developments in the Tulsa area, with houses 5 feet from each other, will show a density rivaling many eastern suburbs. The push to suburbia in the USA is as old as economical transit to live there.
Quote from: TheArtist on February 15, 2012, 12:30:09 PM
Here is where I disagree a bit. Tulsa once had NYC type, high quality "urbanness". I think it still can have some of that again. I also don't think that lots of other US cities do have that kind of high quality urban space other than "Portland, Chicago, San Diego, Boston, and some up and coming cities like Salt Lake City.
I do see a lot of cities that are trying to become better, trying to emulate the good qualities of those very desirable cities, but have failed at it. Look at Dallas for instance and it's "fake" urbanity. Many of these cities, that are often smaller than Dallas and that are our "competitor cities" are following this "fake" urbanity model. What happens is that mish-mash of growth that is neither truly urban nor suburban keeps growing. It doesn't "transition" as many of these cities keep hoping it will to the high quality urban spaces they say they are actually wanting.
Tulsa is at the point in its development where it needs to decide how it wants it's core to grow. Does it want high quality, pedestrian friendly/transit friendly growth? Or does it want to follow the "half-arsed" phoney model thats not really urban or suburban, thats still car oriented, where the sidewalks in the core are busy on "occasions", where the transit is in place but not really functioning cost effectively, thats paying for oodles of garages and transit at the same time, etc.
They put in a new parking garage by the arena and left...some space to have retail built later around the base.
They are thinking of building a new parking garage for the Brady District and.... oh it will be ok because it will have retail space along the base
They may someday put a parking garage near the PAC and... oh, it will be ok because it too will have retail at ground level.
They just spent 8 mill to expand a parking garage downtown
They figure it will cost around $600,000 to fix the parking meter situation downtown
etc.
etc.
etc.
You see where we are going here. We are already headed down the "fake urban" road like most every other small and midsized city. Rather than make our selves exceptional and have really desirable urban spaces that would give us an edge up against our competitor cities. Rather than being something special, we are aspiring to be average. And we are a slow growing city, that's already decades behind. Apparently heck bent on staying that way.
Zone to create great urban spaces, simply allow developers to be able to build those spaces.
Quit spending money on parking. We could build a nice starter transit system in our core for the cost they have and will spend on parking,,, and then use that transit to get people from the plentiful parking we already have to the pedestrian friendly spaces we want to grow. Heck I am all for street level retail, build it please, just leave out the garage behind it and instead have a trolley or special downtown bus go by it. There is already plenty of parking in and around downtown. Do we really want to keep trying to build parking garages in every section that "needs" it as downtown grows? Or will we take that money and instead put in transit in the areas that "need" it?
What growth model do we want to persue and get started? Average, slow growing and forever behind, or exceptional. Once you choose your path, your likely to be stuck with it for a looong time for it will keep wanting to replicate itself and fight against the other models.
Very interesting. I think we missed a great opportunity to differentiate Tulsa by proceeding with the reuilding and expansion of I-40. There is plenty of capacity on 240. We could have replaced I-40 with a lovely parkway , rather than expanding and amplifying the gash that cuts through the middle of Tulsa.
My only quibble with your thoughts is that I think you underestimate the cost of a starter transit system. For light rail, I think you can assume at the very least, $50 Million per mile. Street cars probably at least $15 Million per mile.
Quote from: Oil Capital on February 15, 2012, 01:14:47 PM
Very interesting. I think we missed a great opportunity to differentiate Tulsa by proceeding with the reuilding and expansion of I-40. There is plenty of capacity on 240. We could have replaced I-40 with a lovely parkway , rather than expanding and amplifying the gash that cuts through the middle of Tulsa.
My only quibble with your thoughts is that I think you underestimate the cost of a starter transit system. For light rail, I think you can assume at the very least, $50 Million per mile. Street cars probably at least $15 Million per mile.
Indeed, but to be a little more clear, what I am talking about isn't light rail at this point, or perhaps even Street Cars. Also I am talking about routes that are only long enough, starting off, to circulate within downtown itself. There is a need to get people into areas like the Brady Arts district, but rather than build more parking, have say a small, sharp looking bus or two that goes by each stop every 5-10 minutes in a loop around downtown that passes areas plentiful in parking and goes through the areas where the people want to go. Then in time add perhaps another bus, or perhaps a streetcar line that intersects that route, or two lines, etc. Start small and build that transit model up. Free up places where you would otherwise put in more parking garages to have them instead be used for businesses, entertainment and living (not to mention freeing up developers of places like living from having to add as much or even any parking and thus allowing them to make their living more affordable). Then as the parking spaces get used up and you still need parking... keep inching your transit routes outward. Make the transit go across the river to the west bank where there is parking there or to the Fin Tube site, use park and ride into the core from other parts of the city and suburbs, etc. Keep densifying the core and making it super high quality and attractive and as you need "parking" push your transit out to parking, or other "nodes" like Cherry Street, that exist further away. And remember, as you make the lines longer, your not just adding parking at either end, but potentially streetside parking all along the way. The parking already exists, just need transit of some sort to get people from those spots to where they want to go.
I see all kinds of empty parking spaces all over downtown while some areas are packed with cars on different occasions. Boston Ave around 5th is often packed with cars in those spaces, but go two blocks south or east and there is plenty of parking. Put in transit that goes past those available spaces and while your doing that you allow more density to happen, incentivise development that doesn't feel that it has to have or pay for it's own parking and so forth. That model grows versus the "parking garage/fake density" model. You end up with sidewalks that are actually busy and attractive most of the time, which spurs more growth, versus the parking garage/fake density model that has your sidewalks often still empty and transit if you want it, that doesnt work as well because you don't have enough people using it. (aka Uptown Dallas).
Quote from: TheArtist on February 15, 2012, 01:38:49 PM
Indeed, but to be a little more clear, what I am talking about isn't light rail at this point, or perhaps even Street Cars. Also I am talking about routes that are only long enough, starting off, to circulate within downtown itself. There is a need to get people into areas like the Brady Arts district, but rather than build more parking, have say a small, sharp looking bus or two that goes by each stop every 5-10 minutes in a loop around downtown that passes areas plentiful in parking and goes through the areas where the people want to go. Then in time add perhaps another bus, or perhaps a streetcar line that intersects that route, or two lines, etc. Start small and build that transit model up. Free up places where you would otherwise put in more parking garages to have them instead be used for businesses, entertainment and living (not to mention freeing up developers of places like living from having to add as much or even any parking and thus allowing them to make their living more affordable). Then as the parking spaces get used up and you still need parking... keep inching your transit routes outward. Make the transit go across the river to the west bank where there is parking there or to the Fin Tube site, use park and ride into the core from other parts of the city and suburbs, etc. Keep densifying the core and making it super high quality and attractive and as you need "parking" push your transit out to parking, or other "nodes" like Cherry Street, that exist further away. And remember, as you make the lines longer, your not just adding parking at either end, but potentially streetside parking all along the way. The parking already exists, just need transit of some sort to get people from those spots to where they want to go.
Didn't we have a discussion recently about those routes? Several good ideas of route layouts were offered but I don't remember the thread.
Quote from: AquaMan on February 15, 2012, 01:44:01 PM
Didn't we have a discussion recently about those routes? Several good ideas of route layouts were offered but I don't remember the thread.
Yes, we have had these discussions and come up with some nice route ideas... but "those in power" think parking garages with retail at ground level is the way to go. Saw a birds eye view of an area like that in another city. Looked urban at ground level, but then looking down you could see that it was really just suburbia done a different way. Stripmalls with parking behind and above. Block after block of buildings with nothing but a thin veneer of retail or living around the outside and no density on the inside of the block. Mostly empty sidewalks and "fake transit" that too "looked nice" but wasn't carrying many people. SOOOO expensive and wasteful and ultimately BORING.
Will, your idea simply makes too much sense to pass the filter of some of those in power in our city. I very strongly agree with your idea and would love to see it implemented.
William, just to clear up your point, do you mean more like parking areas on the perimeter of the CBD with transit routes rather than parking garages in the middle of all the activity? Interesting concept, and I like it but you've got a couple of pitfalls:
During a sold out concert at the BOK, you have to figure out how to move 18,000 people in and out of the BOK in a matter of a 1/2 hour to an hour. If average bus capacity is 50 or 60... well you see where I'm going with that.
At peak commute times, I suspect the system could get overwhelmed, again due to not enough seats.
No matter what we do, Tulsa grew up with a sense of independence via the automobile and we will always have that identity. That doesn't make what we do downtown a faux urbanism at all. I've met people from NYC and London who have never owned a car and don't know how to drive one. Those cities grew up with mass transit though and it's woven into their fabric. Our attempts at mass transit simply were too clumsy to keep up.
Quote from: Oil Capital on February 15, 2012, 01:14:47 PM
Very interesting. I think we missed a great opportunity to differentiate Tulsa by proceeding with the reuilding and expansion of I-40. There is plenty of capacity on 240. We could have replaced I-40 with a lovely parkway , rather than expanding and amplifying the gash that cuts through the middle of Tulsa.
Replace I-40 with a parkway in OKC rather than widen I-44 through Tulsa. That won't get you too many "gee thanks" on this forum.
Quote
My only quibble with your thoughts is that I think you underestimate the cost of a starter transit system. For light rail, I think you can assume at the very least, $50 Million per mile. Street cars probably at least $15 Million per mile.
How much per mile to re-route I-40 in OKC and widen I-44 in Tulsa?
Quote from: TheArtist on February 15, 2012, 01:38:49 PM
Indeed, but to be a little more clear, what I am talking about isn't light rail at this point, or perhaps even Street Cars. Also I am talking about routes that are only long enough, starting off, to circulate within downtown itself. There is a need to get people into areas like the Brady Arts district, but rather than build more parking, have say a small, sharp looking bus or two that goes by each stop every 5-10 minutes in a loop around downtown that passes areas plentiful in parking and goes through the areas where the people want to go. Then in time add perhaps another bus, or perhaps a streetcar line that intersects that route, or two lines, etc. Start small and build that transit model up. Free up places where you would otherwise put in more parking garages to have them instead be used for businesses, entertainment and living (not to mention freeing up developers of places like living from having to add as much or even any parking and thus allowing them to make their living more affordable). Then as the parking spaces get used up and you still need parking... keep inching your transit routes outward. Make the transit go across the river to the west bank where there is parking there or to the Fin Tube site, use park and ride into the core from other parts of the city and suburbs, etc. Keep densifying the core and making it super high quality and attractive and as you need "parking" push your transit out to parking, or other "nodes" like Cherry Street, that exist further away. And remember, as you make the lines longer, your not just adding parking at either end, but potentially streetside parking all along the way. The parking already exists, just need transit of some sort to get people from those spots to where they want to go.
I see all kinds of empty parking spaces all over downtown while some areas are packed with cars on different occasions. Boston Ave around 5th is often packed with cars in those spaces, but go two blocks south or east and there is plenty of parking. Put in transit that goes past those available spaces and while your doing that you allow more density to happen, incentivise development that doesn't feel that it has to have or pay for it's own parking and so forth. That model grows versus the "parking garage/fake density" model. You end up with sidewalks that are actually busy and attractive most of the time, which spurs more growth, versus the parking garage/fake density model that has your sidewalks often still empty and transit if you want it, that doesnt work as well because you don't have enough people using it. (aka Uptown Dallas).
Artist, I could not agree with you more about what some of the leadership thinks about the parking situation. The fake urbanity of uptown Dallas just makes me sad every time I'm there. Another example I might add to this fake urbanity would be 16th Street in Denver. It is in a sense a strip mall with parking garages above it. I applaud Blake's forward thinking in retail downtown but a lot of people tend to gravel over him on this board. Not trying to attack him what so ever because he is doing A LOT of great things for this city. The 5th street plan he has in mind just sounds to me like a glorified strip mall. The parking situation downtown is fine and can support plenty of retail growth. There is MORE then 1 large parking structure with in block of 5th Street downtown. If they really want to cater to suburban people to come downtown and shop, add valet parking (cheap valet parking). Bam you've solved the problem of them having to walk. I can bet you people walk more from their parking spot at Woodland Hills and through the mall then they would parking in a garage near 5th and walking around that area to shop at ground floor retail stores. If we keep adding parking garage the need to build a streetcar route or improve our transit situation will never happen. You'll see more traffic problem like you see in Los Angeles (not to the extreme) but they are a very auto dependant city that has grown very urban. The Brady District does not need a parking garage either. Adding more street parking and allowing the William's garage to serve the district on nights and weekends will do just fine. Again if some of the business owners keep the valet system going there everything will be alright.
People seem hell bent on trying to cater to people that are worried about parking, but I can assure you the people bitching about it now are the one's there never patronize these area's and never will because of it. We need to build downtown into a neighborhood while finding a middle ground of keeping it accessible to residents outside the core. I am afraid that some of the leaders in our city are focusing on the wrong issues. We should focus on how to utilize the parking structures we have now and how we can make them service area's like the Brady and Blue Dome as some of the more convenient parking downtown goes away.
This was my idea for starter routes downtown and to outer core areas.
I would probably start with the connection of OSU Tulsa - TCC - TU, followed by the BOk/ Convention Center - Pearl District - Cherry St - Brookside Route. You could really interchange these and I think both routes would be very successful.
As downtown grows you then add some smaller routes like the circular route around downtown I've shown. Once the core has grown and parking has become more of an issue is when you start thinking about Light Rail/ Commuter Rail options to outlying areas. If we continue this focus on adding more and more parking downtown we will never get away from an auto dependency core.
(http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/4455/downtownwishlistpage2.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/209/downtownwishlistpage2.jpg/)
Quote from: LandArchPoke on February 15, 2012, 08:13:08 PM
I can bet you people walk more from their parking spot at Woodland Hills and through the mall than they would parking in a garage near 5th and walking around that area to shop at ground floor retail stores.
That's something a lot of people conveniently forget or ignore.
Quote from: LandArchPoke on February 15, 2012, 08:19:36 PM
This was my idea for starter routes downtown and to outer core areas.
I would probably start with the connection of OSU Tulsa - TCC - TU, followed by the BOk/ Convention Center - Pearl District - Cherry St - Brookside Route. You could really interchange these and I think both routes would be very successful.
As downtown grows you then add some smaller routes like the circular route around downtown I've shown. Once the core has grown and parking has become more of an issue is when you start thinking about Light Rail/ Commuter Rail options to outlying areas. If we continue this focus on adding more and more parking downtown we will never get away from an auto dependency core.
I have read (probably on Light Rail Now) that studies on transit show that people are willing to walk about 1/4 mile to get to or from a transit stop. A downtown circulator is going to be important to break the chicken/egg situation with parking. We will have to accept that it will be a money loser for a while until the parking lots are turned into something better. A half way commitment such as buses running on a long headway (time between buses) is bound to fail and prove that Tulsa cannot support transit. If you have to study the system to learn how to use it, forget it.
For comparison:
Red: 2,982 ft. Potential full retail area if it went from Denver to Frankfurt
Pink: 1,688 ft. 5th Street's area of existing buildings with ground floor retail opportunities
Light Blue: 1,362 ft. Main Street's area of existing buildings with ground floor retail opportunities
Green: 201 ft. Parking (walking distance to 5th)
Yellow: 1,471 ft. Boston Ave's area of existing buildings with ground floor retail opportunities
Orange: 556 ft. Parking (walking distance to 5th)
Dark Blue: 417 ft. Parking (walking distance to 5th)
Purple: 393 ft. Parking (walking distance to 5th)
(http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/8317/downtownk.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/811/downtownk.jpg/)
(http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/4031/woodlandhills.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/713/woodlandhills.jpg/)
Red: 1,045 ft. Woodland Hills retail core length
Pink: 308 ft. (Walking distance to core)
Light Blue: 370 ft. " "
Green: 484 ft. " "
Yellow: 300 ft. " "
Orange: 265 ft. " "
Dark Blue: 400 ft " "
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 15, 2012, 09:03:54 PM
I have read (probably on Light Rail Now) that studies on transit show that people are willing to walk about 1/4 mile to get to or from a transit stop. A downtown circulator is going to be important to break the chicken/egg situation with parking. We will have to accept that it will be a money loser for a while until the parking lots are turned into something better. A half way commitment such as buses running on a long headway (time between buses) is bound to fail and prove that Tulsa cannot support transit. If you have to study the system to learn how to use it, forget it.
A lot of people cry foul on the fact that any type of mass transit on figures alone tends to be a money loser. In comparison on what we on highway and street construction and the dollar we get back on that mass transit tends to be more effective. Investment follows infrastructure period. Mass transit allows the city that constructs it to get developers to build more mixed use development which in turn provides much greater sales and property tax returns. So while in costs to government operations, mass transit tends to be in the red when look at costs, you have to weigh it with the added population base, tax income, and being able to provide more efficient services to your population. A transit friendly mixed use core will pay for the offset in costs it takes to run the system. People tend to over look that as well.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 15, 2012, 09:03:54 PM
I have read (probably on Light Rail Now) that studies on transit show that people are willing to walk about 1/4 mile to get to or from a transit stop. A downtown circulator is going to be important to break the chicken/egg situation with parking. We will have to accept that it will be a money loser for a while until the parking lots are turned into something better. A half way commitment such as buses running on a long headway (time between buses) is bound to fail and prove that Tulsa cannot support transit. If you have to study the system to learn how to use it, forget it.
What do you consider an acceptable headway. 20minutes?
Quote from: AquaMan on February 16, 2012, 09:52:52 AM
What do you consider an acceptable headway. 20minutes?
Depends on the time of day. The (real) trolley that ran close to my house where I grew up ran about 7 minutes during rush hours, 15 minutes most of the day, an a little longer other times. Check the SEPTA route 101 schedule for current times.
Edit: Link to SEPTA Route 101 Schedule
http://www.septa.org/schedules/trolley/pdf/101.pdf
QuoteA lot of people cry foul on the fact that any type of mass transit on figures alone tends to be a money loser. In comparison on what we on highway and street construction and the dollar we get back on that mass transit tends to be more effective. Investment follows infrastructure period. Mass transit allows the city that constructs it to get developers to build more mixed use development which in turn provides much greater sales and property tax returns. So while in costs to government operations, mass transit tends to be in the red when look at costs, you have to weigh it with the added population base, tax income, and being able to provide more efficient services to your population. A transit friendly mixed use core will pay for the offset in costs it takes to run the system. People tend to over look that as well.
Bravo!
Quote from: LandArchPoke on February 15, 2012, 09:20:03 PM
A lot of people cry foul on the fact that any type of mass transit on figures alone tends to be a money loser. In comparison on what we on highway and street construction and the dollar we get back on that mass transit tends to be more effective. Investment follows infrastructure period. Mass transit allows the city that constructs it to get developers to build more mixed use development which in turn provides much greater sales and property tax returns. So while in costs to government operations, mass transit tends to be in the red when look at costs, you have to weigh it with the added population base, tax income, and being able to provide more efficient services to your population. A transit friendly mixed use core will pay for the offset in costs it takes to run the system. People tend to over look that as well.
Great post LandArch. It really is much like an arena or ballpark. The real value is a "civic" value, which is much greater than a monetary value.
QuoteGreat post LandArch. It really is much like an arena or ballpark. The real value is a "civic" value, which is much greater than a monetary value.
Well it is more than that. I think what he meant was that if you look at the financials of mass transit (cost over revenue) it's a lemon. When you concider the tax base value added by new constructiona of denser properties, it's a winner in the end.
Quote from: jacobi on February 16, 2012, 02:25:32 PM
Well it is more than that. I think what he meant was that if you look at the financials of mass transit (cost over revenue) it's a lemon. When you concider the tax base value added by new constructiona of denser properties, it's a winner in the end.
And just like mass transit, arenas and stadiums are financial lemons, but take a look at the private investment they have spurred not only in our downtown but many others around the country.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 16, 2012, 02:41:45 PM
And just like mass transit, arenas and stadiums are financial lemons, but take a look at the private investment they have spurred not only in our downtown but many others around the country.
Well, you're never too old to learn something stupid. :o
Let me get this straight. You don't like the budget deficit but you're all for white elephants?
Quote from: LandArchPoke on February 15, 2012, 09:11:29 PM
For comparison:
Red: 2,982 ft. Potential full retail area if it went from Denver to Frankfurt
Pink: 1,688 ft. 5th Street's area of existing buildings with ground floor retail opportunities
Light Blue: 1,362 ft. Main Street's area of existing buildings with ground floor retail opportunities
Green: 201 ft. Parking (walking distance to 5th)
Yellow: 1,471 ft. Boston Ave's area of existing buildings with ground floor retail opportunities
Orange: 556 ft. Parking (walking distance to 5th)
Dark Blue: 417 ft. Parking (walking distance to 5th)
Purple: 393 ft. Parking (walking distance to 5th)
(http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/8317/downtownk.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/811/downtownk.jpg/)
(http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/4031/woodlandhills.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/713/woodlandhills.jpg/)
Red: 1,045 ft. Woodland Hills retail core length
Pink: 308 ft. (Walking distance to core)
Light Blue: 370 ft. " "
Green: 484 ft. " "
Yellow: 300 ft. " "
Orange: 265 ft. " "
Dark Blue: 400 ft " "
^ This is awesome, I humbly nominate this for post of the month.
Yes, Landy....I got to say keep 'em coming. I like your work.
Be very patient....
Quote from: Teatownclown on February 16, 2012, 03:45:50 PM
Well, you're never too old to learn something stupid. :o
Let me get this straight. You don't like the budget deficit but you're all for white elephants?
I don't recall the federal gubmint going into hock to fund BOK Arena or OneOk Field. Different check books.
Where would downtown development be today without either of these two elements? What's the civic value in being able to have Sir Paul, Eric Clapton, Elton John, Bruce Springsteen, and the NCAA play in our city? It's a livability issue. Not everything has to have an ROI in terms of money spent and money returned, though the BOK seems to be doing better than most arenas financially.
Private development doesn't happen without some sort of coinciding public development like roads, community centers, or fair grounds.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 16, 2012, 04:04:12 PM
I don't recall the federal gubmint going into hock to fund BOK Arena or OneOk Field. Different check books.
Where would downtown development be today without either of these two elements? What's the civic value in being able to have Sir Paul, Eric Clapton, Elton John, Bruce Springsteen, and the NCAA play in our city?
::)
OK, what? Tulsa Downtown needs a big event....the arena and the ball park help, but not enough. Sorry. Fail.
Quote from: Teatownclown on February 16, 2012, 04:22:59 PM
::)
OK, what? Tulsa Downtown needs a big event....the arena and the ball park help, but not enough. Sorry. Fail.
You need to quit reading Batesline.
Is he still doing that? I actually think he's got better reasoning than some here...but, if you think "livability" is driving your car downtown for an evening 5 nights a year from the suburbs well then we have different takes on the definition....
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 15, 2012, 06:37:44 PM
Replace I-40 with a parkway in OKC rather than widen I-44 through Tulsa. That won't get you too many "gee thanks" on this forum.
How much per mile to re-route I-40 in OKC and widen I-44 in Tulsa?
oops. Of course I meant to type I-44 and 244.
Quote from: Oil Capital on February 16, 2012, 05:14:42 PM
oops. Of course I meant to type I-44 and 244.
Imagine I-44 through the middle of midtown removed and replaced with a beautiful parkway, rather than widening the gash across the middle of Tulsa. What's done is done, of course, but I think Tulsa missed an opportunity to add to its beauty and liveability.
Quote from: carltonplace on February 16, 2012, 03:46:18 PM
^ This is awesome, I humbly nominate this for post of the month.
Figures. I don't understand it.
Quote from: Oil Capital on February 16, 2012, 05:18:16 PM
Imagine I-44 through the middle of midtown removed and replaced with a beautiful parkway, rather than widening the gash across the middle of Tulsa. What's done is done, of course, but I think Tulsa missed an opportunity to add to its beauty and liveability.
I believe the Skelly Bypass was originally built to keep traffic congestion by thru traffic away from downtown. I doubt that I-244 and the Creek Tpk have the capacity to absorb removing traffic from I-44.
Quote from: Teatownclown on February 16, 2012, 04:28:54 PM
Is he still doing that? I actually think he's got better reasoning than some here...but, if you think "livability" is driving your car downtown for an evening 5 nights a year from the suburbs well then we have different takes on the definition....
Livability is in the eye of the beholder.
I like a dark sky at night, unless it's being lit by sunlight reflected by the moon. I like hearing tree frogs and crickets. I like smelling lawns of organic matter rather than hot concrete or asphalt. I like having room for the dogs to play in the back yard. I like that the nearest main road noise is about 1/4 mile away. Mostly I don't hear it.
I like to visit the city once in a while but feel no need to be there a lot. I spent a few years in the Navy (on shore duty) and did the "go to the bar every night" thing. I met some nice people but felt no need to continue that pattern when I got out of the Navy in my mid 20s. Besides, I doubt my liver would have put up with it long term. I don't particularly enjoy going out to eat in restaurants. I like to see a museum a few times but don't want to spend all my spare time there. I might like to hear the symphony occasionally but not enough to get dressed up for it, even if it were next door. I've been to the theater a few times. Yawn. I am not a sports fan.
I have lived in small, energy efficient living quarters with a commons area. The University of Delaware called them Dormitories. The Navy called them barracks. Except for boot camp and some temporary duty, I was in a 4 man room. (Two man at the UofD.) The guys next door would play their music loud. One set of "neighbors" played their music loud and then left for their shift with the music on and the door locked. The commons areas usually consisted of guys watching something on TV that I didn't care to watch. There were beer machines in the Navy though. Like a soda/pop machine except with beer for 50 cents a can. (A while ago.) I did all that stuff in my 20s. I don't want that now. I didn't want it in my late 20s.
Many on TNF are struggling for the right to live like a sardine. I think all that stuff should be available for those who want it. Just don't expect everyone to want the same thing. Don't condemn me for wanting something different any more than you want to be condemned for wanting the life style you want.
I thought he was referring to that very fact Red. Maybe I misunderstood, but the point you both seem to be making is that downtown cannot be an area whose growth and success is dependent on those who live like you in the suburbs or outlying towns. Its not likely large numbers of suburban will jump ship and live there. The surrounding hoods? Yes. The interior? Maybe some retirees, some widowers, some empty nesters, but that's yet to be determined. And that's fine because even if they only visit 5 times a year, that's about 500,000 people visiting times 5 = 2.5 million visits to the area. Not shabby.
It is heavily oriented towards the arts, youth, entertainment and culture, yet not really oriented to 28 to 60yr old demos for living space. My assertion is that once the shallow depth of its attractiveness for living quarters becomes known, it will adapt. That adaptation may take the form of more modest living spaces and more reality based urban living as Artist notes, a determined effort to identify the area as something worth travelling over two hours to visit, or...lowered expectations. I'm hoping the latter does not happen.
Quote from: AquaMan on February 16, 2012, 08:02:07 PM
I thought he was referring to that very fact Red. Maybe I misunderstood, but the point you both seem to be making is that downtown cannot be an area whose growth and success is dependent on those who live like you in the suburbs or outlying towns.
The overall point is similar but the implication that the burbs are not livable is not true for everyone.
QuoteIt is heavily oriented towards the arts, youth, entertainment and culture, yet not really oriented to 28 to 60yr old demos for living space. My assertion is that once the shallow depth of its attractiveness for living quarters becomes known, it will adapt. That adaptation may take the form of more modest living spaces and more reality based urban living as Artist notes, a determined effort to identify the area as something worth travelling over two hours to visit, or...lowered expectations. I'm hoping the latter does not happen.
One of my cousins lived in Boston in the mid 70s to early 80s at Commonwealth and Berkley in an apartment on the 5th floor. I got to visit a few times (on company trips) and had a grand time visiting. She had a car which mostly she could park on the street but she had a reserved parking space in a parking garage nearby in case there was no room on the street or there was a snow storm on the way. She kept her windsurfer there. We did go out to dinner at least once. We took the car to somewhere across the Charles River (I think). We were going to eat in a Greek restaurant but before we ordered she sensed something was not quite right so we left. We went to a place near the Fisherman's Wharf (or similar) where the boat crews ate. My cousin was involved in a whale watching project. The place was picnic tables with oilcloth covers. Bring your own wine. I had Swordfish steak. Yummy and reasonably priced. I walked the Freedom Trail. We went to the Aquarium and Boston
Brewing Beer Co.(before I was a beer geek). Drove to both of those places too. We did not go to the real Cheers as only tourists went there. We did walk to the Esplanade for the Boston Pops 4th of July show. Awesome. When I asked her about everyday life, it didn't seem that much different than anywhere else. She went to school/work, came home, cooked dinner, watched TV, read a book..... Of course there were city things to do but the point is that after the newness wore off, going shopping, out for drinks or coffee wasn't an everyday occurrence. She didn't live within walking distance of school or work but she did have the option of effective public transit.
I hope that long term Tulsa can provide something memorable for visitors and that the urbanites will support it. Eventually, every night is not going to be a night on the town but for some the convenience of it being nearby will be worth it. If there is enough density, not everyone will need to go out every night to keep the businesses viable. It will take some early determined folks to make it happen. Anything extra from the burbs will icing. Things like the BOK Center, the Ball Park etc will draw visitors from the burbs in spite of my lack of enthusiasm. I did vote for the BOK (2025) as being good for the area even though most of what I want to see shows at the fairgrounds.
Time to make lunch for tomorrow. I'm too cheap to buy lunch out and also prefer to spend part of my lunch break on a walk rather than sitting in a restaurant waiting for lunch.
Edit: Checked a bottle of Sam Adams for the proper brewery name.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 16, 2012, 06:39:03 PM
I believe the Skelly Bypass was originally built to keep traffic congestion by thru traffic away from downtown. I doubt that I-244 and the Creek Tpk have the capacity to absorb removing traffic from I-44.
It seems to me that they probably could handle the traffic. I have never seen 244 running anywhere near capacity, and keep in mind that we would not be removing all of the traffic . . . The local traffic would use the parkway.
Quote from: Oil Capital on February 17, 2012, 08:10:59 AM
It seems to me that they probably could handle the traffic. I have never seen 244 running anywhere near capacity, and keep in mind that we would not be removing all of the traffic . . . The local traffic would use the parkway.
244 was built that way in anticipation of what they perceived as a traffic influx to the Port of Catoosa (and the eventual boom of the city of Catoosa...ha) when it was built in the early 70s. It was never conceived that the suburb to boom would be Broken Arrow.
I was listening to sports radio yesterday when they had John Klein on and he said something that baffled my mind. During one of his nights out this past summer he went to a drillers game. It was also a night where a major concert [Katy Perry?] was going on at the BOK and the Brady had another concert... all three venues were basically sold out. In 1 night you had approximately 30,000 people downtown for 3 different entertainment choices. How many times prior to the BOK and OneOK was that even a possibility? During the baseball season, and with each entertainment venue (BOK, Brady, Cains, PAC, OneOK) having something to attend, you could have upwards of 50,000 people downtown. Toss in Mayfest and the Blue Dome arts festival during other times in the year and whether some of you want to believe it or just chose to ignore it, downtown is becoming... or dare I say "Has Become" an entertainment center. I will be honest and say that I didn't think it would happen during my youth.
You have removed the fragmented entertainment environment of Tulsa, you now have a one stop shop for having dinner and a show/sporting event. You can park your car and have a good evening.
Quote from: JCnOwasso on February 17, 2012, 10:16:27 AM
I was listening to sports radio yesterday when they had John Klein on and he said something that baffled my mind. During one of his nights out this past summer he went to a drillers game. It was also a night where a major concert [Katy Perry?] was going on at the BOK and the Brady had another concert... all three venues were basically sold out. In 1 night you had approximately 30,000 people downtown for 3 different entertainment choices. How many times prior to the BOK and OneOK was that even a possibility? During the baseball season, and with each entertainment venue (BOK, Brady, Cains, PAC, OneOK) having something to attend, you could have upwards of 50,000 people downtown. Toss in Mayfest and the Blue Dome arts festival during other times in the year and whether some of you want to believe it or just chose to ignore it, downtown is becoming... or dare I say "Has Become" an entertainment center. I will be honest and say that I didn't think it would happen during my youth.
You have removed the fragmented entertainment environment of Tulsa, you now have a one stop shop for having dinner and a show/sporting event. You can park your car and have a good evening.
That's all fine and good but the arena and the ball field are still a complete bust ::)
What's neat is when the Drillers have a game during Tulsa Tough and seeing the fireworks during the Cat I/Pro race on Friday night. Remember that Townsend?
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 16, 2012, 07:45:19 PM
Livability is in the eye of the beholder.
I like a dark sky at night, unless it's being lit by sunlight reflected by the moon. I like hearing tree frogs and crickets. I like smelling lawns of organic matter rather than hot concrete or asphalt. I like having room for the dogs to play in the back yard. I like that the nearest main road noise is about 1/4 mile away. Mostly I don't hear it.
I like to visit the city once in a while but feel no need to be there a lot. I spent a few years in the Navy (on shore duty) and did the "go to the bar every night" thing. I met some nice people but felt no need to continue that pattern when I got out of the Navy in my mid 20s. Besides, I doubt my liver would have put up with it long term. I don't particularly enjoy going out to eat in restaurants. I like to see a museum a few times but don't want to spend all my spare time there. I might like to hear the symphony occasionally but not enough to get dressed up for it, even if it were next door. I've been to the theater a few times. Yawn. I am not a sports fan.
Many on TNF are struggling for the right to live like a sardine. I think all that stuff should be available for those who want it. Just don't expect everyone to want the same thing. Don't condemn me for wanting something different any more than you want to be condemned for wanting the life style you want.
I love a good dark sky at night as well but our development over the past 5 or so decades is simply not sustainable. I'm not saying everyone needs or should desire to live in an urban core, but we must re-develop the way we operate as cities. The number one problem is infrastructure costs (roads, sewer, water, transportation, public services (fire, police, etc)) and their escalating maintenance costs as we expand out into suburbia as cities. Unfortunately, we have gotten comfortable with oversize houses 10-20 miles from the city center and it will be harder for some to go back to urban lifestyles. However, a good chunk of the population will support and embrace it and enjoy the financial and environmental sustainability of the urban lifestyle.
I hope Tulsa continues to encourage development of the city's core and more and more people desire to live closer to the city center. I'm proud of the progress we've made so far.
Quote from: Teatownclown on February 16, 2012, 04:22:59 PM
::)
OK, what? Tulsa Downtown needs a big event....the arena and the ball park help, but not enough. Sorry. Fail.
Stop being coy and tell us what you think this "big event" entails.
I look at downtown (where I have lived since 2004) and I see a place that is much changed from what it was, I see cranes in the air from 3rd Street north, I see demolished bridges being rebuilt, the destruction of old buildings has slowed, the revitalization of old buildings is nearly at critical mass. New residential spaces are everywhere. Weekends downtown are filled with pedestrians where it used to be isolation.
Yes we need more, I want to see retail for everyday (basic needs) and retail that is singular to downtown to create a regional draw. I want to see increasing entertainment options, increasing numbers of occupied living spaces, more parks and fewer ground level parking lots. I want a circulator and bike lanes. We need more employment options across the spectrum.
But I couldn't have imagined the change from 2004 to now when I moved downtown. Even without a big event the changes make me excited about the future of one of my favorite places.
Quote from: carltonplace on February 17, 2012, 11:03:07 AM
I look at downtown (where I have lived since 2004) and I see a place that is much changed from what it was, I see cranes in the air from 3rd Street north, I see demolished bridges being rebuilt, the destruction of old buildings has slowed, the revitalization of old buildings is nearly at critical mass. New residential spaces are everywhere. Weekends downtown are filled with pedestrians where it used to be isolation.
Yes we need more, I want to see retail for everyday (basic needs) and retail that is singular to downtown to create a regional draw. I want to see increasing entertainment options, increasing numbers of occupied living spaces, more parks and fewer ground level parking lots. I want a circulator and bike lanes. We need more employment options across the spectrum.
But I couldn't have imagined the change from 2004 to now when I moved downtown. Even without a big event the changes make me excited about the future of one of my favorite places.
That's a great point. It's easy to get so caught up in the what's wrong and what we could/should be doing next, that we lose sight of how far we've come.
Quote from: DTowner on February 17, 2012, 12:12:34 PM
That's a great point. It's easy to get so caught up in the what's wrong and what we could/should be doing next, that we lose sight of how far we've come.
In feb 2005 I came back to Tulsa after a 5 year stay in the military. My wife (girlfriend at the time) and I would go downtown for a couple things here and there, but nothing much. There were a couple places to eat but not much else. Things have changed tremendously in the 7 years I have been back, and there is so much more to go. I look forward to the next 5 years of downtown development and to see what is going to happen. Things were never going to change over night, but it seems like it has been pretty close to that.
Everyday I drive through downtown and am amazed at what has happened.
Quote from: carltonplace on February 17, 2012, 11:03:07 AM
Stop being coy and tell us what you think this "big event" entails.
I look at downtown (where I have lived since 2004) and I see a place that is much changed from what it was, I see cranes in the air from 3rd Street north, I see demolished bridges being rebuilt, the destruction of old buildings has slowed, the revitalization of old buildings is nearly at critical mass. New residential spaces are everywhere. Weekends downtown are filled with pedestrians where it used to be isolation.
Yes we need more, I want to see retail for everyday (basic needs) and retail that is singular to downtown to create a regional draw. I want to see increasing entertainment options, increasing numbers of occupied living spaces, more parks and fewer ground level parking lots. I want a circulator and bike lanes. We need more employment options across the spectrum.
But I couldn't have imagined the change from 2004 to now when I moved downtown. Even without a big event the changes make me excited about the future of one of my favorite places.
Awesome post is awesome.
People who don't think downtown has been almost completely transformed in the past 6-7 years just aren't paying attention.
Or they are too blinded by their own prejudices that they can't see what's right in front of them.
I'm hoping that with Missouri leaving the Big 12, that Tulsa will get a significant opportunity to host a Big 12 basketball tournament. The main competition is Kansas City, which still has a strong hold on it because of nearby KU, but there may be some backlash at providing an economic benefit to Kansas City, which will be mostly beneficial on the Missouri side, with the University of Missouri having left the conference. Oklahoma City is a strong competitor because they have already hosted it successfully. I would hope Dallas would be out of the picture. I lived in Dallas the last time it was there. It received very little coverage. The early rounds had attrocious attendance. The sports talk radio were more interested in the Mavericks and the Cowboys off season moves. It is a pro sports town through and through.
With the convention center arena nearby, it could host both mens and womens. Hopefully the First place tower and surrounding retail would be completed by the time the tourney showed up in Tulsa. It would receive top billing in this town. It would attract pretty much every KU fan from the north. Both KU and Texas drew very well to Tulsa when they were seeded in the NCAA tournament in town. Add in OU and OSU fans (hopefully both teams will improve by then) and it should be a massive success. Would that be a big enough event?
Quote from: DowntownDan on February 17, 2012, 01:26:04 PM
I'm hoping that with Missouri leaving the Big 12, that Tulsa will get a significant opportunity to host a Big 12 basketball tournament. The main competition is Kansas City, which still has a strong hold on it because of nearby KU, but there may be some backlash at providing an economic benefit to Kansas City, which will be mostly beneficial on the Missouri side, with the University of Missouri having left the conference. Oklahoma City is a strong competitor because they have already hosted it successfully. I would hope Dallas would be out of the picture. I lived in Dallas the last time it was there. It received very little coverage. The early rounds had attrocious attendance. The sports talk radio were more interested in the Mavericks and the Cowboys off season moves. It is a pro sports town through and through.
With the convention center arena nearby, it could host both mens and womens. Hopefully the First place tower and surrounding retail would be completed by the time the tourney showed up in Tulsa. It would receive top billing in this town. It would attract pretty much every KU fan from the north. Both KU and Texas drew very well to Tulsa when they were seeded in the NCAA tournament in town. Add in OU and OSU fans (hopefully both teams will improve by then) and it should be a massive success. Would that be a big enough event?
Wasn't this possibility/hope the primary reason for the design change to the convention center remodel? Originally the arena was to be replaced by the new ballroom, but it became apparent that having a second arena to contemporaneously hold the mens and woman's conference tournaments was a requirement to host the Big XII.
Missouri's departure probably helps us (although KC has more KU grads than anywhere else, so I wouldn't count it out completely), but I suspect we are still behind OKC because of its past success. I don't see how we really distinguish ourselves from OKC and, with the Thunder, OKC has proven itself a better sports town generally than Tulsa. Tulsa's crowds for last year's NCAA were ok, but not great compared to other first round sites. If anything hurts OKC now, it's scheduling conflicts with Thunder games.
I would be happy if Tulsa could get in a regular rotation for the Big XII and NCAA first two rounds (technically, I guess, second and third rounds assuming they keep the current play-in games). That would probably get us a major basketball event in March every few years that is guaranteed to draw a lot of visitors.
Yes DT, we needed to have a venue that could host the womens portion of the tournament. You will most likely see a rotation between KC, OKC, Dallas... and possibly Tulsa.
Maybe the new Conference USA-Mountain West Conference merged league would look to Tulsa for their bball tournament. Smack dab in the middle of the new coast-to-coast conference. I attended some C-USA tournament games when it was here and it was run well. Attendance at the end suffered because TU lost early, and Memphis, which brought a lot of fans, was upset early. Not many UTEP or Houston fans made the trip because they weren't reallly expected to make it to the finals. The league, outside of Memphis, also suffers from a lack of basketball fans. The new league won't be much better. It is more football centric than basketball.
Quote from: TulsaGuy on February 17, 2012, 10:33:55 AM
I love a good dark sky at night as well but our development over the past 5 or so decades is simply not sustainable. I'm not saying everyone needs or should desire to live in an urban core, but we must re-develop the way we operate as cities. The number one problem is infrastructure costs (roads, sewer, water, transportation, public services (fire, police, etc)) and their escalating maintenance costs as we expand out into suburbia as cities. Unfortunately, we have gotten comfortable with oversize houses 10-20 miles from the city center and it will be harder for some to go back to urban lifestyles. However, a good chunk of the population will support and embrace it and enjoy the financial and environmental sustainability of the urban lifestyle.
Ahhhh... the old "sustainable" argument.
"However, a good chunk of the population will support and embrace it and enjoy the financial and environmental sustainability of the urban lifestyle." You must be a .00001%er if you think the price of urban housing is sustainable. Concrete, asphalt, bricks, tar roofs... that's the environment I want. I don't want no stinkin' trees and lawns. The sustainability of urbania depends on things like Lake Spavinaw and landfills out of the urban core, just like suburbia. No money from outside the local government is needed either. Federal grants for transit? Don't make me laugh. We don't need that either. Oversize houses? The apartment my cousin lived in while in Boston was originally a 5 story single family home in the brownstone area along Commonwealth. It was divided into at least 10 apartments.
Lets see, in just the last few years in the area around the Mayo Hotel and Boston Ave on 5th st we have seen either put in, being worked on now, or in the works easily around 400 plus homes, several hotels, new shops, new restaurants, couple salons, etc. With lots more on the way.
Not one new street was put in or widened. Not one more new street needs to be maintained, snow plowed off it, patrolled, lighted, etc.
You know, I do get to south Tulsa on occasion and see the new "bigger better" intersections going in and read about how much those cost. How much it costs to widen this or that road, move and or put in new lighting, etc. I see how much parking is needed for those new businesses, how much concrete and asphalt is laid for an equivalent number of new homes in those suburban neighborhoods, and so on.
If urbanity is done right, not the "mutated fake form", it can be quite cost effective and efficient (not to mention healthy). Especially in a situation like ours where a lot of the infrastructure is already there. And I don't know where some on here get off thinking that it's only a few people that want to live in a good urban environment when statistics and demographics are showing thats the main trend at the moment and one that only seems to be building steam. That the younger generations that grew up in suburbia, and I would say that includes me at the age of 45 lol, more and more want to live in an urban area over a suburban one. We don't see it as much here, simply because we don't have it to offer! And if we don't do things right, we will not be a city that will be competitive in offering good urban lifestyle options.
Back to transit... IMO, our transit should evolve, starting small and growing, while all the time thinking and planning about where the needs might be in the future. As we grow our housing and other offerings downtown, we should build up our transit (starting with small city busses running only in the core with dedicated stops, etc.) to serve that, just like they add, widen and improve roads in suburbia as more housing and such goes in there. We don't need to add new roads downtown, and we don't need to pay big bucks to add new parking, take those funds and istead put it towards starting transit.
Quote from: TheArtist on February 18, 2012, 07:29:46 AM
Lets see, in just the last few years in the area around the Mayo Hotel and Boston Ave on 5th st we have seen either put in, being worked on now, or in the works easily around 400 plus homes, several hotels, new shops, new restaurants, couple salons, etc. With lots more on the way.
Not one new street was put in or widened. Not one more new street needs to be maintained, snow plowed off it, patrolled, lighted, etc.
Maybe in 100 or more years, the areas of SE Tulsa will have the same transformation. At one time, those roads downtown were dirt paths at best. Maybe in 30 or so years, Tulsa will need a subway (transit type, not the sandwich shop). During one of my visits to Boston, they were extending the subway. They were doing it by digging a trench from the top. That was a BIG hole, but not as much as the "Big Dig". Tulsa's utilities may be enough for now but when they do need an increase in capacity, it's going to be expensive. Even the per person price gets big when you start digging up streets 30 feet deep. Bixby doesn't plow snow in the residential areas. I missed a couple of days of work last year. I grumbled but realized that's one cost of living here. The kid across the street ran up and down the street in his Jeep to pack the snow for the rest of us (and because it was fun). I gave him some gas money. I believe Bixby has enough police and firemen but I rarely see them just cruising the neighborhoods. Lights? After the 2007 ice storm we lost a local street light. I was disappointed when "they" fixed it. Our neighborhood does not need to be lit up well enough to read a newspaper while walking down the street at midnight.
Quote
You know, I do get to south Tulsa on occasion and see the new "bigger better" intersections going in and read about how much those cost. How much it costs to widen this or that road, move and or put in new lighting, etc. I see how much parking is needed for those new businesses, how much concrete and asphalt is laid for an equivalent number of new homes in those suburban neighborhoods, and so on.
There sure is a preponderance of 2 lane (1 in each direction, not two in each direction) roads in downtown. http://g.co/maps/g9h3d
Well, maybe not. The roads don't need to be widened because they are already 4 or 6 lanes. They don't need new lighting because they have old lighting. Patric would probably like to see most of it replaced with better, more efficient, dark sky friendly lighting. Why do we need so much lighting out here in suburbia anyway?
My neighborhood: http://g.co/maps/nd9uk
I make no claim to being "efficient" use with regards to maximizing people per square mile. This "Bud" is
not for you. Our house was built in 1968. I expect the developer put in the roads and Bixby water. Except in the low areas by the creek, septic tanks work fine on 1+ acre lots. Sanitary sewers were added a few years ago, mostly to accommodate the houses in the lower areas. The neighborhood streets here have been resurfaced once since we moved here in 1971 and are in fine shape. There is not enough traffic to warrant sidewalks. It's safe to walk in the street.
This is why we need 6 lanes on Memorial, fake suburbanism: http://g.co/maps/v2763
I don't know why these families couldn't be happy closer to downtown if other (perceived) conditions like schools were equal. Some people just want a new (not newer) house. I know that some of the older areas just outside downtown have grandfathered electric wiring, floor furnaces, probably window airconditioning.... The cost of bringing these structures up to present day code and convenience is overwhelming to many folks. I don't want our historic areas razed but we need to recognize that the average 30 yr old isn't going to renovate those old houses.
Quote
If urbanity is done right, not the "mutated fake form", it can be quite cost effective and efficient (not to mention healthy).
Are you implying that suburbia is inherently unhealthy? You are probably too young to remember "healthy" cities like Pittsburgh, PA in early to mid 20th Century. They started cleaning up by the 60s. (By closing the steel mills.) One of my cousins, (the one who later moved to Boston) went to college in Pittsburgh in the late 60s and early 70s. A friend and I visited for a weekend (only a 6 hr drive across the PA Tpk) in spring of 72. Most of the buildings were still covered in soot. I believe most major epidemics like cholera were in densely populated areas like London, England. NYC tenements were not a particularly nice place to live in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. I don't know about now. I believe the idea of healthy living in a densely populated urban environment is a recent phenomenon. Maybe it's a side benefit of all of our manufacturing going to China.
QuoteEspecially in a situation like ours where a lot of the infrastructure is already there. And I don't know where some on here get off thinking that it's only a few people that want to live in a good urban environment when statistics and demographics are showing thats the main trend at the moment and one that only seems to be building steam. That the younger generations that grew up in suburbia, and I would say that includes me at the age of 45 lol, more and more want to live in an urban area over a suburban one. We don't see it as much here, simply because we don't have it to offer! And if we don't do things right, we will not be a city that will be competitive in offering good urban lifestyle options.
I believe I have been consistent in saying that the urban lifestyle should be available, even in Tulsa, for those who want it. The more of "you" that want to live downtown and have a place to be, the better for me to not have to fight traffic, put up with urban lighting, Lowes and WalMart in place of horse pastures...
QuoteBack to transit... IMO, our transit should evolve, starting small and growing, while all the time thinking and planning about where the needs might be in the future. As we grow our housing and other offerings downtown, we should build up our transit (starting with small city busses running only in the core with dedicated stops, etc.) to serve that, just like they add, widen and improve roads in suburbia as more housing and such goes in there. We don't need to add new roads downtown, and we don't need to pay big bucks to add new parking, take those funds and istead put it towards starting transit.
I agree, transit will be key to getting a really urban environment to the core of Tulsa. Getting population density up to support the specialty shops that cannot exist in suburbia will be good for the whole area. What I want in a specialty shop may be different than what you want but with enough density, we can both get what we want. I know I have stated before that while I don't personally want to live "downtown" I want to live near a city.
In the late 80s, I wanted a printer for my home computer. None of the suburban computer stores had quite what I wanted. There was a store downtown (I forget the name) that had the Epson LQ series (24 pin dot matrix rather than the more common 9 pin) in stock. I wanted to see how good the print looked. I drove downtown, grumbled about the parking meters, saw the printer, decided to get the wide body rather than the regular one, spent $1000., and took home a printer. Yep, that's what it cost. One thousand dollars, not a typo. (OK, maybe it was $950. but I'm not going to look for the receipt.)
Back to transit. I am willing to help support a regional transit system. In return I will want a street widened occasionally. Maybe in 100 years this place will look like:
http://g.co/maps/m5unj
http://www.septa.org/maps/system/
Arrow, I don't think anyone is denying your right (or anyone's) to live where you prefer. To me the point is that more people would choose to live downtown if there were options for them to do so. People that would prefer to live downtown can't live there because demand exceeds supply and most of the existing housing stock in downtown is spendy.
Transportation options are another matter: in Tulsa auto ownership is a necessity. Combustion engines are known to cause pollution that is not healthy for us, petroleum will become an ever rarer commodity, and car ownership is expensive with payments, insurance premiums, repair and maintenance, fuel. On the average car ownership costs the owner $598 per month (when I had car payments mine was more like $798 per month). Providing reliable public transportation could alleviate this cost and most people could spend this money elsewhere (health care, college tuition, retirement, paying off a mortgage) and reduce the amount of emissions that all of us agree to breathe as a trade off to our dependence on cars. Additional savings are there when you consider the need to continually widen and improve streets (something that both you and the Artist touched on).
Are you implying that suburbia is inherently unhealthy?
Absolutely yes. Suburbia is inherently unhealthy.
I wouldn't mind living downtown, but I'm actually in a pretty ideal location living near 31st & Yale. 90% of anything I need can be found within just over a mile radius, including legs & eggs and pin striping on my car or bikes if I were so inclined ;) It's literally sort of a micro city.
Quote from: carltonplace on February 20, 2012, 08:58:01 AM
Arrow, I don't think anyone is denying your right (or anyone's) to live where you prefer.
Some, not all, urban lifestyle promoters start their spiel with the attitude that my choice of living in suburbia is going to destroy the earth within my lifetime. I don't buy it.
Quote
To me the point is that more people would choose to live downtown if there were options for them to do so. People that would prefer to live downtown can't live there because demand exceeds supply and most of the existing housing stock in downtown is spendy.
I agree that more would like to live downtown but don't see it as a majority. I've been known to object to pushy marketing schemes on other subjects too.
Quote
Transportation options are another matter: in Tulsa auto ownership is a necessity. Combustion engines are known to cause pollution that is not healthy for us, petroleum will become an ever rarer commodity, and car ownership is expensive with payments, insurance premiums, repair and maintenance, fuel. On the average car ownership costs the owner $598 per month (when I had car payments mine was more like $798 per month). Providing reliable public transportation could alleviate this cost and most people could spend this money elsewhere (health care, college tuition, retirement, paying off a mortgage) and reduce the amount of emissions that all of us agree to breathe as a trade off to our dependence on cars. Additional savings are there when you consider the need to continually widen and improve streets (something that both you and the Artist touched on).
I mostly agree with the above. I knew a guy in the Navy that grew up in NYC and didn't learn to drive until he was in the Navy. Being able to live without a car in a city and choosing to do so are not necessarily the same. As I mentioned in one of my other posts, my cousin chose to have a car when living in Boston with readily available public transportation.
Quote from: we vs us on February 20, 2012, 09:02:20 AM
Are you implying that suburbia is inherently unhealthy?
Absolutely yes. Suburbia is inherently unhealthy.
I disagree, obviously.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 20, 2012, 09:16:20 AM
I wouldn't mind living downtown, but I'm actually in a pretty ideal location living near 31st & Yale. 90% of anything I need can be found within just over a mile radius, including legs & eggs and pin striping on my car or bikes if I were so inclined ;) It's literally sort of a micro city.
You need sidewalks.
Quote from: Townsend on February 20, 2012, 11:58:41 AM
You need sidewalks.
Who needs sidewalks when you have a mountain bike?
Quote from: Conan71 on February 20, 2012, 12:12:32 PM
Who needs sidewalks when you have a mountain bike?
Ride your bike up Yale to the grocery much?
Quote from: Townsend on February 20, 2012, 12:13:56 PM
Ride your bike up Yale to the grocery much?
Stick it, Southie!
;D ;)
Quote from: Townsend on February 20, 2012, 12:13:56 PM
Ride your bike up Yale to the grocery much?
Actually I haven't yet since I didn't have a good way to get things back home without plastic bags slinging around the handlebars. Not wise!
Quote from: Conan71 on February 20, 2012, 02:05:26 PM
Actually I haven't yet since I didn't have a good way to get things back home without plastic bags slinging around the handlebars. Not wise!
Time to buy some Paniers...or get a child carrier from someone that doesnt use it any more and you can take Butch with you.
Quote from: carltonplace on February 20, 2012, 02:52:09 PM
Time to buy some Paniers...or get a child carrier from someone that doesnt use it any more and you can take Butch with you.
Then the bike friendly drivers in there old Chevy pickups can shout encouragement to Conan and Butch as they drive by.
I've actually seen a few scary scenes with people on bikes on Yale between 31st & 21st recently. Neither were well-lighted, one was actually riding in the left lane southbound after dark. Actually, if you ride to 21st & Braden, via the 'hood, you can transit 21st & Yale safely.
Butch is welcome in Lowe's but they don't cotton to him in WMM or Reasor's.
I hear everyone saying we don't want any "faux" urbanity sans Uptown Dallas. However, the project at Greenwood and Archer is EXACTLY like every other project in Uptown Dallas, and everyone is stoked about it. What gives? Not that I have heard all that much "raving" but The Metro is the same thing. Apartments around a parking garage. So is it that we just don't want Dallas, and we don't want to look like copy cats or is it that we are jealous? Or is it both and it just pisses us off so we curse Dallas' faux urbanity.
Everyone on here says one of the keys to downtown is to make it a destination. Something that distinguishes downtown from the rest of the city. Mostly because the population can't support the type of development people would like to see, so a majority of the patrons will have to "commute". So there must be something to make them commute past all the other similar offerings on the way and not stop before they get downtown. I get it. BOK is that destination. Nowhere else in town are people going to be able to get the experience, period (concert wise anyways).
While I don't particularly jive with the clientele of Uptown ($30K millionaires with no souls /morals or personalities, I can't say that it is all bad. I worked right next to West Village for a bit and was pretty impressed. It created the destination for the entire neighborhood. I think they have anchors that include Banana Republic, Brooks Brothers, Gap and at one point a Borders Book Store (we all know how that went). It also includes a small five screen theater. Thousands of apartments are within a few blocks in addition to the natural amenities that just boost the desirability of that particular local. I wasn't sure which came first, but I believe that transit stops were planned/completed before West Village opened. I assume that the transit stop helped spur the development, something our city leaders should be focusing on instead of arenas and ballparks (although they are nice to have, but not near the bang for the buck).
While I don't think that we need to replicate what other cities do, we do need to see what works and try to figure out why. Second, stop spreading the cities resources around. Be fair, but eventually you have to draw the line and say "look we can't maintain an ever expanding (geographically not population) city". Kind of pull a Portland with the fence line thing or something.
I think the conclusion that everyone should be reaching is that mass transit is the ONLY thing that will spur the type of development you all on this forum seem to want to see. I used to not believe it. I was a denier. But think when a new development is proposed, and one of the first issues is parking. Every space in downtown represents at least 300 square feet that could be used for something else. But, people around here will not lose their autos, justifiably so, until they are given a real alternative. What is the alternative now? Busses that are so few and far between that getting anywhere is a real time drain, considering you could have just hopped in your car and gotten there in half the time and not had to wait at the bus stop to boot.
Alright, that's my rant for the day. Cheers!
It's not just the artist. I hated that place. It's as phoney as a shopping mall.
Quote from: jacobi on February 20, 2012, 06:15:10 PM
It's not just the artist. I hated that place. It's as phoney as a shopping mall.
Dallas is a big place. Give me a couple of road intersections so I can look on Google Maps please.
I've been through Dallas on US75/I-35E and the wacky transition many times but I don't stop except for traffic in front of me.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 17, 2012, 10:21:11 AM
That's all fine and good but the arena and the ball field are still a complete bust ::)
What's neat is when the Drillers have a game during Tulsa Tough and seeing the fireworks during the Cat I/Pro race on Friday night. Remember that Townsend?
I was there and it was a goose bump moment as I enjoyed a Miller High Life in a plastic cup outside Joe Momma's.
Quote from: rdj on February 21, 2012, 09:03:14 AM
I was there and it was a goose bump moment as I enjoyed a Miller High Life in a plastic cup outside Joe Momma's.
From a racer's perspective, that's an exciting venue but they only have Cat 1 through Cat 3 on Fridays and I'm just a lowly Cat 5.
Quote from: Floyd on February 20, 2012, 07:56:26 PM
What people in Dallas call Uptown is centered on McKinney Ave. on the 1.5-mile stretch from Pearl to Blackburn, and stretches east-west between US-75 and Turtle Creek. It basically includes the old State Thomas neighborhood as well as east Oaklawn. In the last 10-12 years since DART opened at Cityplace (US-75 and Blackburn) there have been a couple thousand new apartments built. If you want urban density built out of parking lots and vacant lots in 2012, flyover-state style, look no further than the corner of State St. and Allen, Dallas, Texas. Sorry if that makes you sad. It's not Plano... people walk. I swear, I lived there.
EDIT: Read the wikipedia page and then tell me, especially in the context of this thread, that Downtown Tulsa becoming like Uptown Dallas would be a failure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uptown_Dallas Here's a hint: if you think that, your expectations are wildly unrealistic.
I just looked at it on Google Maps. I don't see much "faux" about it. Just looks like a nicer, more accessible version of Cherry Street or Brookside to me.
Quote from: bacjz00 on February 21, 2012, 05:00:18 PM
I just looked at it on Google Maps. I don't see much "faux" about it. Just looks like a nicer, more accessible version of Cherry Street or Brookside to me.
If what you really want is (Greenwich Village, NYC):
http://g.co/maps/m69h6
I can understand how this (Dallas) would be disappointing:
http://g.co/maps/9gtuf
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 21, 2012, 08:49:17 PM
If what you really want is (Greenwich Village, NYC):
http://g.co/maps/m69h6
I can understand how this (Dallas) would be disappointing:
http://g.co/maps/9gtuf
Oooooh look at the vibrancy of those streets in Dallas! The sidewalks bustling with life just so makes you want to be right there in the mix of it all. What a thrill! I can't WAIT to go back to Dallas and visit again someday. Had SOOO much fun the last time I was there. Oh, wait, I meant Greenwich Village.
Look at the birds eye view of that area in Dallas... parking garages taking up more space than the living and retail. Costs money (makes living there more expensive than it needs to be), takes away property that could otherwise be used for more living and retail/dining, etc. (which also decreases the tax base and jobs), and it takes vibrancy off the streets. Plus, can you imagine how well transit would work in such an area?
Quote from: Floyd on February 20, 2012, 07:56:26 PM
What people in Dallas call Uptown is centered on McKinney Ave. on the 1.5-mile stretch from Pearl to Blackburn, and stretches east-west between US-75 and Turtle Creek. It basically includes the old State Thomas neighborhood as well as east Oaklawn. In the last 10-12 years since DART opened at Cityplace (US-75 and Blackburn) there have been a couple thousand new apartments built. If you want urban density built out of parking lots and vacant lots in 2012, flyover-state style, look no further than the corner of State St. and Allen, Dallas, Texas. Sorry if that makes you sad. It's not Plano... people walk. I swear, I lived there.
EDIT: Read the wikipedia page and then tell me, especially in the context of this thread, that Downtown Tulsa becoming like Uptown Dallas would be a failure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uptown_Dallas Here's a hint: if you think that, your expectations are wildly unrealistic.
Its not a matter of the amount of development, its the type and quality of end result. No, I don't think we are going to be able to get the amount, Tulsa is a slow growing city. But imo thats all the MORE reason to go with higher quality type of development model, that could actually cost about the same.... or less.... for better results! Whats not to like? It just requires thinking outside the usual of what we typically find, these days, in this region of the country. And I know thats hard, especially when looking at the proliferation of other cities in the area whose downtown streets, indeed "appear" better than what we got, but if you have experienced the real deal...you know its sh!t. Which then goes back to "Giving Tulsa that competitive edge." "Let us stand out from the crowd and become one of those talked about places thats attractive to young people and businesses, etc. because, though we are small, we still have high quality, big city, vibrant, fun, living." better than Dallas, KC, OKC, Denver, etc. Its our choice. We can be different and not continue to "follow" the average at our usual slow pace. We could make a few descisions that imo, will change the direction of our future for the better and not be a smaller, slower version of everyone else around us. How competitive and attractive is that?
Quote from: TheArtist on February 22, 2012, 07:31:08 AM
Oooooh look at the vibrancy of those streets in Dallas! The sidewalks bustling with life just so makes you want to be right there in the mix of it all. What a thrill! I can't WAIT to go back to Dallas and visit again someday. Had SOOO much fun the last time I was there. Oh, wait, I meant Greenwich Village.
Plus, can you imagine how well transit would work in such an area?
No question that for a place to visit, Greenwich Village wins.
If you rotate the Street View left or right about 90 degrees, you will see the McKinney Ave Trolley tracks in the street. That trolley helped restart rail transit in the area. It may not be the NYC Subway but it has been accepted enough to undergo several expansions.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 22, 2012, 07:50:58 AM
No question that for a place to visit, Greenwich Village wins.
If you rotate the Street View left or right about 90 degrees, you will see the McKinney Ave Trolley tracks in the street. That trolley helped restart rail transit in the area. It may not be the NYC Subway but it has been accepted enough to undergo several expansions.
I have seen that trolley. Its quite pretty. Dallas can afford pretty nice stuff. Really love their fancy bridges and overpasses with all the nice artwork, fancy railings, artistic lighting features, etc. Dallas has money and can spend it in a way that Tulsa can not, or will not. Oh, and I even think I saw someone on that Trolley in Dallas once, course I think it was a holiday weekend when there were more people in the area. ;)
Quote from: TheArtist on February 22, 2012, 08:03:16 AM
I have seen that trolley. Its quite pretty. Dallas can afford pretty nice stuff. Really love their fancy bridges and overpasses with all the nice artwork, fancy railings, artistic lighting features, etc. Dallas has money and can spend it in a way that Tulsa can not, or will not. Oh, and I even think I saw someone on that Trolley in Dallas once, course I think it was a holiday weekend when there were more people in the area. ;)
http://www.mata.org/
Quote from: TheArtist on February 22, 2012, 07:46:00 AM
Its not a matter of the amount of development, its the type and quality of end result. No, I don't think we are going to be able to get the amount, Tulsa is a slow growing city. But imo thats all the MORE reason to go with higher quality type of development model, that could actually cost about the same.... or less.... for better results! Whats not to like? It just requires thinking outside the usual of what we typically find, these days, in this region of the country. And I know thats hard, especially when looking at the proliferation of other cities in the area whose downtown streets, indeed "appear" better than what we got, but if you have experienced the real deal...you know its sh!t. Which then goes back to "Giving Tulsa that competitive edge." "Let us stand out from the crowd and become one of those talked about places thats attractive to young people and businesses, etc. because, though we are small, we still have high quality, big city, vibrant, fun, living." better than Dallas, KC, OKC, Denver, etc. Its our choice. We can be different and not continue to "follow" the average at our usual slow pace. We could make a few descisions that imo, will change the direction of our future for the better and not be a smaller, slower version of everyone else around us. How competitive and attractive is that?
I would like to agree with you, in that I would like to see "quality" development to distinguish Tulsa, however, I have a feeling we will see little of it until land prices dictate it (like New York/San Francisco/Boston). We are a long way off. More than likely to see the type of development that you see anywhere in Manhatten, it will be after they tear down one of those "faux" buildings. So in that respect I would be pleased with a lot less than perfect if it moves us in that direction. Plus is it even legal to construct a building with no parking anymore? If not why? Every successful redevelopment has zero parking. What's the difference. I don't know this for a fact, but it seems that the Dallas donut must be a relatively inexpensive compared to the alternative. Course I'm just guessing.
Quote from: erfalf on February 22, 2012, 08:22:08 AM
I would like to agree with you, in that I would like to see "quality" development to distinguish Tulsa, however, I have a feeling we will see little of it until land prices dictate it (like New York/San Francisco/Boston). We are a long way off. More than likely to see the type of development that you see anywhere in Manhatten, it will be after they tear down one of those "faux" buildings. So in that respect I would be pleased with a lot less than perfect if it moves us in that direction. Plus is it even legal to construct a building with no parking anymore? If not why? Every successful redevelopment has zero parking. What's the difference. I don't know this for a fact, but it seems that the Dallas donut must be a relatively inexpensive compared to the alternative. Course I'm just guessing.
It's not just a Dallas thing...it's a Texas thing...and it has a lot to do with using property taxes instead of sales taxes as your primary funding mechanism for government.
What do you expect in a state like Oklahoma? We're some of the most fiscally conservative people in the country!!! We like to save our money not spend it! We're the last outpost for many national retailers. And yet.....AND YET....we tie a huge chunk of our state and local budgets to sales tax instead of property taxes. All so that every man, woman and child with or even without a job can afford a double-wide on an acre of land like its some god-given right.
We're so backwards it's not even remotely funny.
Sorry, I was in a ranting mood this morning.
I don't think land prices will ever dictate the need for Tulsans to live like New Yorkers or Chicagoans or Parisians. There is simply no need to live like that here, there's no need to conserve anything, and while it will remain a nice idea and certain pioneers (ahem, Artist) will be early adopters, by and large the market is going to continue dictating what we see. Until there is sufficient demand for Greenwich Village, there will be no Greenwich Village. And it's worth noting that, to date, there's no Greenwich Village anywhere near here. And even more worth noting is the lack of Greenwich village even in places that might be more suitable for it to occur, like Dallas, or Denver, or St. Louis, or Houston or Nashville or choose your own metro.
1.5+ million people live on the 23 square mile island of Manhatten. That number probably doubles every work day with commuters and visitors. No other city in the United States compares for density. Let's use a more realistic yard stick.
It's possible because I see it happening in small, new, suburban towns in Europe. It's possible because Tulsa itself once had high density, pedestrian/transit friendly areas. In neither of those instances does it, or did it, require huge populations and or high property values.
Portland did it and now Salt Lake City is doing it. Yes both of those cities have constrained boundaries, part by choice, part by geographic circumstances. But they learned lessons that can be very applicable to Tulsa. Tulsa's city boundaries aren't going to change much and we know where the areas of future growth are and where we would want them to be. Our comprehensive plan lays out many of those hoped for, higher density/pedestrian/transit friendly areas. So much like SLC knows where their growth is going to be and where they want it, so do we. We will ever more be playing the "infill" game here in Tulsa. How we play that game is key. I have been interested in Salt Lake Cities experiences in this matter because they are a conservative city somewhat like Tulsa.
Here is an excerpt from an article I recently ran across.... my bold
....In the course of solving that problem, the city ended up answering several other head-scratchers, like: How do you get buy-in for smart-growth policies from conservatives wary of urbanism? And, how do you make new greenfield development both sustainable and wildly popular?
At the Rail~Volution conference last week, Andrew Gruber, executive director of the Wasatch Front Regional Council, showcased the transit-centered solution that's now propelling development in Utah's capital city.
If official projections are right, the high quality of life and thriving economy of the Wasatch Front could invite population growth of more than 65 percent by 2040.
If the region continued along current growth trends, Gruber explained, it would add more than 300 square miles of development to meet the housing and commercial demand by 2040. Vehicle miles traveled would nearly double, from 49 million to more than 90 million per day, by 2030. By 2020, the cost of new infrastructure could balloon to more than $26 billion.
In just a few decades, a region known for its open space and outdoor lifestyle would be a mighty congested and costly place to call home......
Now, Salt Lake City is investing more, per capita, in new public transit than any other metro area in the country, and exporting ideas to the rest of the country.......
Starting in 2005, citizens and planners in the Wasatch Front evaluated different scenarios for growth, looking at the long-term consequences of each development pattern. Perhaps surprising for such a conservative state, the consensus that emerged included a set of progressive growth principles focused on efficient infrastructure, transportation and housing choice, and coordinated planning.
By following those guidelines, Wasatch Front residents could look forward to benefits like an 18 percent reduction in congestion (compared to the baseline projections).
......One model of this approach is the new Daybreak development, just southwest of Salt Lake City. "This community was planned with transportation choices in mind from the very beginning," Gruber explained. A rail line extending from downtown has two stops in the mixed-use development. The community design prioritized sidewalks and walkability, organizing the streets in a connected grid that makes it easy to get from Point A to Point B without having to navigate a maddening maze of cul-de-sacs that seem to go in circles.
Those simple principles have had a dramatic impact on how residents get around the mixed-use neighborhoods. For instance, in Daybreak, an incredible 88 percent of kids walk or bike to school, compared to just 17 percent in other neighborhoods in the region.
And folks are lining up to live there. In 2010, the National Homebuilders Association named it Community of the Year, and this year, real estate consulting firm Robert Charles Lessor recognized the development as the 11th best-selling community in the country. "Daybreak is the most successful housing development in the region, and one of most successful in the country," Gruber said. "It's not that everybody wants to live in this type of development, but there's a demand out there that's not being met... This is a model for greenfield development done in smart, sustainable way."
The work in Salt Lake could also benefit cities around the country. As part of its HUD grant, the Wasatch Front Regional Council is using its experience to help other governments and citizens overcome two major barriers to sustainable development: lack of information and antiquated zoning requirements.
On the zoning front, the council is working on a form-based code that doesn't splinter development into commercial areas and residential areas. "It focuses on the form of the building, instead," Gruber said. "So, in a particular area you might want two- to three-story buildings with a certain set back from the streets, and whatever the market will bear is OK, as long as it fits the character of the neighborhood... That model will be available to folks across the country."
http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/10/24/how-salt-lake-city-became-a-leader-in-transit-oriented-development/
Quote from: DTowner on February 22, 2012, 11:44:58 AM
1.5+ million people live on the 23 square mile island of Manhatten. That number probably doubles every work day with commuters and visitors. No other city in the United States compares for density. Let's use a more realistic yard stick.
I'm going to an island week after next which is the same size but only has 200 residents and maybe 50 or so guests at any time. Needless to say, it's quite walkable ;)
Go back to the first two posts in this thread. Then compare what SLC did and you see that the new development they tout has as its centerpiece, a school. It attracts young people because it is not only convenient but offers entertainment for young adults, education for their kids, common sense zoning and convenient mass trans. IOW, you can grow with this neighborhood as your interests change and not have to move out because some new club or shopping center moved nearby or because your family dynamics changed.
I like the thought process involved but I think its more than conservative views of urbanism that is at play in Tulsa. Its a paradigm shift that is necessary here because we are not hemmed in by geography but by political negativism and class distinctions.
For instance, even when we do infill its in a suburban manner. We tear out homes on a grid pattern, create a cul-de-sac, wall it off and restrict entry with a gate. That is because of the fears of common folk that drove people to the burbs in the first place AND the builders who only see a grid layout as meaning fewer lots to sell. Then the residents all send their kids to private schools to avoid the...you know...problems the public school systems have.
I do see your point though. Mass transit and forms zoning actually can be the impetus. I would simply add that a unique public school system is necessary as well.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 22, 2012, 12:55:51 PM
I'm going to an island week after next which is the same size but only has 200 residents and maybe 50 or so guests at any time. Needless to say, it's quite walkable ;)
Are you sure the pictures are correct? Are you sure it's not a snake, insect, and other varmit infested overgrown jungle island?
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 22, 2012, 01:10:58 PM
Are you sure the pictures are correct? Are you sure it's not a snake, insect, and other varmit infested overgrown jungle island?
The 20 foot pythons and malaria keep the population thinned out.
Quote from: TheArtist on February 22, 2012, 12:38:43 PM
It's possible because I see it happening in small, new, suburban towns in Europe. It's possible because Tulsa itself once had high density, pedestrian/transit friendly areas. In neither of those instances does it, or did it, require huge populations and or high property values.
Portland did it and now Salt Lake City is doing it. Yes both of those cities have constrained boundaries, part by choice, part by geographic circumstances. But they learned lessons that can be very applicable to Tulsa. Tulsa's city boundaries aren't going to change much and we know where the areas of future growth are and where we would want them to be. Our comprehensive plan lays out many of those hoped for, higher density/pedestrian/transit friendly areas. So much like SLC knows where their growth is going to be and where they want it, so do we. We will ever more be playing the "infill" game here in Tulsa. How we play that game is key. I have been interested in Salt Lake Cities experiences in this matter because they are a conservative city somewhat like Tulsa.
Here is an excerpt from an article I recently ran across.... my bold
....In the course of solving that problem, the city ended up answering several other head-scratchers, like: How do you get buy-in for smart-growth policies from conservatives wary of urbanism? And, how do you make new greenfield development both sustainable and wildly popular?
At the Rail~Volution conference last week, Andrew Gruber, executive director of the Wasatch Front Regional Council, showcased the transit-centered solution that's now propelling development in Utah's capital city.
If official projections are right, the high quality of life and thriving economy of the Wasatch Front could invite population growth of more than 65 percent by 2040.
If the region continued along current growth trends, Gruber explained, it would add more than 300 square miles of development to meet the housing and commercial demand by 2040. Vehicle miles traveled would nearly double, from 49 million to more than 90 million per day, by 2030. By 2020, the cost of new infrastructure could balloon to more than $26 billion.
In just a few decades, a region known for its open space and outdoor lifestyle would be a mighty congested and costly place to call home......
Now, Salt Lake City is investing more, per capita, in new public transit than any other metro area in the country, and exporting ideas to the rest of the country.......
Starting in 2005, citizens and planners in the Wasatch Front evaluated different scenarios for growth, looking at the long-term consequences of each development pattern. Perhaps surprising for such a conservative state, the consensus that emerged included a set of progressive growth principles focused on efficient infrastructure, transportation and housing choice, and coordinated planning.
By following those guidelines, Wasatch Front residents could look forward to benefits like an 18 percent reduction in congestion (compared to the baseline projections).
......One model of this approach is the new Daybreak development, just southwest of Salt Lake City. "This community was planned with transportation choices in mind from the very beginning," Gruber explained. A rail line extending from downtown has two stops in the mixed-use development. The community design prioritized sidewalks and walkability, organizing the streets in a connected grid that makes it easy to get from Point A to Point B without having to navigate a maddening maze of cul-de-sacs that seem to go in circles.
Those simple principles have had a dramatic impact on how residents get around the mixed-use neighborhoods. For instance, in Daybreak, an incredible 88 percent of kids walk or bike to school, compared to just 17 percent in other neighborhoods in the region.
And folks are lining up to live there. In 2010, the National Homebuilders Association named it Community of the Year, and this year, real estate consulting firm Robert Charles Lessor recognized the development as the 11th best-selling community in the country. "Daybreak is the most successful housing development in the region, and one of most successful in the country," Gruber said. "It's not that everybody wants to live in this type of development, but there's a demand out there that's not being met... This is a model for greenfield development done in smart, sustainable way."
The work in Salt Lake could also benefit cities around the country. As part of its HUD grant, the Wasatch Front Regional Council is using its experience to help other governments and citizens overcome two major barriers to sustainable development: lack of information and antiquated zoning requirements.
On the zoning front, the council is working on a form-based code that doesn't splinter development into commercial areas and residential areas. "It focuses on the form of the building, instead," Gruber said. "So, in a particular area you might want two- to three-story buildings with a certain set back from the streets, and whatever the market will bear is OK, as long as it fits the character of the neighborhood... That model will be available to folks across the country."
http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/10/24/how-salt-lake-city-became-a-leader-in-transit-oriented-development/
Sorry William I wsa only really referring to the quality of development, not necessarily the relative density of the development.
Quote from: AquaMan on February 22, 2012, 01:00:18 PM
Go back to the first two posts in this thread. Then compare what SLC did and you see that the new development they tout has as its centerpiece, a school. It attracts young people because it is not only convenient but offers entertainment for young adults, education for their kids, common sense zoning and convenient mass trans. IOW, you can grow with this neighborhood as your interests change and not have to move out because some new club or shopping center moved nearby or because your family dynamics changed.
I like the thought process involved but I think its more than conservative views of urbanism that is at play in Tulsa. Its a paradigm shift that is necessary here because we are not hemmed in by geography but by political negativism and class distinctions.
For instance, even when we do infill its in a suburban manner. We tear out homes on a grid pattern, create a cul-de-sac, wall it off and restrict entry with a gate. That is because of the fears of common folk that drove people to the burbs in the first place AND the builders who only see a grid layout as meaning fewer lots to sell. Then the residents all send their kids to private schools to avoid the...you know...problems the public school systems have.
I do see your point though. Mass transit and forms zoning actually can be the impetus. I would simply add that a unique public school system is necessary as well.
I absolutely get what your saying about the schools and such. Was really hoping the FinTube site could have been a magnet arts/sciences school and the school thing is something we should also work on. But the city just spent what 8mill to expand another parking garage and they are talking about more of them (something for the Brady, something for by the PAC? And then other developers because there isn't any transit nearby have to also build more parking, etc. I think part of my frustration stems from, well, notice in that article they said SLC opted for a "transit-centered" solution. Our downtown is growing, but we have opted for a "parking garage" centered solution. Rather than having a starter, circulator route with a dedicated downtown bus, for instance, getting people from the parking we already have to each budding new area, and building on that system of development,,, we have opted to spend that money instead on a parking garage here, another there, then another, and another, etc. The city IS spending money on this particular issue, and will spend more to take care of the "parking problems", my concern here focuses on what they are spending it on "parking instead of transit" and the path that is inevitably leading us down.
Pull together a group of downtown businesses who stand to benefit from a dedicated circulator route and would help subsidize it and I'll operate it and provide the drivers.
edit: I have a CDL. I'll even drive the route. Every 20 minutes on evenings wed-sat to start. Bill White sort of did that for years.