Best news ever. Make it permanent.
Mayor Dewey Bartlett signs off on downtown Tulsa parking lot moratorium
http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/local_news/mayor-dewey-bartlett-signs-off-on-downtown-tulsa-parking-lot-moratorium
TULSA - The city of Tulsa has moved to stop buildings in downtown Tulsa from being torn down to make way for parking lots.
Mayor Dewey Bartlett had until Tuesday to sign off on a moratorium on the development of surface parking lots in the downtown area.
City Councilor Blake Ewing said block after block of parking lots diminishes the vibrancy of downtown.
The moratorium lasts until Jan. 31, 2013.
Quote from: swake on July 10, 2012, 04:11:58 PM
Best news ever. Make it permanent.
Mayor Dewey Bartlett signs off on downtown Tulsa parking lot moratorium
http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/local_news/mayor-dewey-bartlett-signs-off-on-downtown-tulsa-parking-lot-moratorium
TULSA - The city of Tulsa has moved to stop buildings in downtown Tulsa from being torn down to make way for parking lots.
Mayor Dewey Bartlett had until Tuesday to sign off on a moratorium on the development of surface parking lots in the downtown area.
City Councilor Blake Ewing said block after block of parking lots diminishes the vibrancy of downtown.
The moratorium lasts until Jan. 31, 2013.
Happy to see it. Needs to be longer.
Quote from: swake on July 10, 2012, 04:11:58 PM
Best news ever. Make it permanent.
Mayor Dewey Bartlett signs off on downtown Tulsa parking lot moratorium
http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/local_news/mayor-dewey-bartlett-signs-off-on-downtown-tulsa-parking-lot-moratorium
TULSA - The city of Tulsa has moved to stop buildings in downtown Tulsa from being torn down to make way for parking lots.
Mayor Dewey Bartlett had until Tuesday to sign off on a moratorium on the development of surface parking lots in the downtown area.
City Councilor Blake Ewing said block after block of parking lots diminishes the vibrancy of downtown.
The moratorium lasts until Jan. 31, 2013.
Holy cow, Dooey does something I agree with!
Wow. Didn't actually think I would ever see that happen. ;D
6 months is a bit short. It takes a couple of months to tear down a building and pave one.
Also, nothing saying you can't tear it down and then just wait 6 months to pave it.
Glad to see, but needs to be longer to hold any weight.
And only 40 years late!!! Wow...I may have to re-evaluate my opinion of Dewey... not.
Agree with everything said above.
Hey guys.
I'm also appreciative of Mayor Bartlett for signing. The current moratorium is in place to allow the downtown parking study to be completed. I agree that it should be longer, but if we're going to discourage downtown parking lots in the future, it will have to be through a different means. While there was support for a short-term moratorium, there was no enthusiasm for a longer term ban. City Legal also challenged that idea. I'm optimistic that updates to PlaniTulsa, the zoning code, the downtown parking plan, etc. will lead us to the desired outcomes for downtown, which we all agree is an increase in density, both in our population and in our building stock.
The short term moratorium primarily draws attention to the issue and hopefully causes people to think twice before trying to solve "the parking problem" with new surface lots. If The City had done a better job of parking planning in the downtown area, we wouldn't have these same issues. I'm hopeful that your representatives will value planning (and thoughtful implementation) in the future much more than it's been valued in Tulsa's history.
Quote from: JoeMommaBlake on July 11, 2012, 08:36:33 AM
If The City had done a better job of parking planning in the downtown area, we wouldn't have these same issues.
I'm hopeful that your representatives will value planning (and thoughtful implementation) in the future much more than it's been valued in Tulsa's history.
True.
And - ain't ever gonna happen (planning and thoughtful implementation). Sadly.
Can we change our city motto to the, "Land of Studies"? Consultants must flock to Tulsa to get in on the studies we do.
I really like the message that this sends. We've spent the last 20 years turning downtown into an office park with churches and TCC and making sure there was ample surface parking for said office park, churches and TCC. As a result we destroyed what was once a fairly dense downtown fabric for a smattering of buildings and lots. The lost building stock represented places that people like Blake could have used to build the type of downtown that we want.
We make it too easy to build surface parking, we make it too attractive.
Because we have no circulator or transit system there is a ready market for close at hand parking
We have limited structured parking and therefore encourage proximity surface parking
We haven't had a master plan for downtown and even the one we have now is not widely circulated or understood
There is no minimum standard for what a downtown surface lot should look like; no code to enforce.
Quote from: carltonplace on July 11, 2012, 09:49:05 AM
Because we have no circulator or transit system there is a ready market for close at hand parking
We have limited structured parking and therefore encourage proximity surface parking
We haven't had a master plan for downtown and even the one we have now is not widely circulated or understood
There is no minimum standard for what a downtown surface lot should look like; no code to enforce.
Part way through reading, I was thinking about what to post, and then finished reading and found you had already said it perfectly....
Quote from: carltonplace on July 11, 2012, 09:49:05 AM
There is no minimum standard for what a downtown surface lot should look like; no code to enforce.
I thought it was cracked uneven asphalt, no greenery except weeds, abandoned buildings if available, faded markers, pot holes and an angry American Parking fee troll.
Quote from: Townsend on July 11, 2012, 10:11:02 AM
I thought it was cracked uneven asphalt, no greenery except weeds, abandoned buildings if available, faded markers, pot holes and an angry American Parking fee troll.
You forgot the barriers to make sure pedestrians can't take a diaganol shortcut, and a big sign completely blocking the sidewalk.
Quote from: TheTed on July 11, 2012, 10:15:11 AM
You forgot the barriers to make sure pedestrians can't take a diaganol shortcut, and a big sign completely blocking the sidewalk.
American Parking needs to be booted from downtown.
Quote from: Weatherdemon on July 11, 2012, 11:05:27 AM
American Parking needs to be booted from downtown.
Seconded
First I like the approach they are taking in that they use property rights from the point of view that new parking lots hurt their property value.
Secondly, what can be done long term to fight this? Do building codes downtown still dictate a certain number of parking spaces be constructed for all types of development? If it does, we need to start to address the problem there. If we have way to much parking, then downtown can absorb quit a bit more development without adding any more parking. Of course I understand the vacancy rate downtown to be pretty high but still.
Why should developers be required to provide parking. If they want to that's fine. But why force them too?
From what I understand parking requirements began to fight the problem of downtown workers taking up all the open spaces, leaving no room for patrons of businesses to park. That was then, this is now. Times have changed and the parameters have changed, therefore the rules should change as well. Just because something was a good idea in the past doesn't mean it always will be.
That's my piece for now I guess.
I don't believe developments within CBD zoning have parking requirements.
Quote from: Townsend on July 11, 2012, 11:06:17 AM
Seconded
I vote to ouster every downtown lot owner that does no maintenance, and don't darken the doorstep of their lots except on event day or night to charge jacked-up rates.
Quote from: Townsend on July 11, 2012, 10:11:02 AM
I thought it was cracked uneven asphalt, no greenery except weeds, abandoned buildings if available, faded markers, pot holes and an angry American Parking fee troll.
I have had huge issues with AP and their employees. Stop acting like I am the one that is at fault everytime the pass issued to me by AP does not work. I don't need your attitude.
Quote from: erfalf on July 11, 2012, 12:16:47 PM
First I like the approach they are taking in that they use property rights from the point of view that new parking lots hurt their property value.
Secondly, what can be done long term to fight this? Do building codes downtown still dictate a certain number of parking spaces be constructed for all types of development? If it does, we need to start to address the problem there. If we have way to much parking, then downtown can absorb quit a bit more development without adding any more parking. Of course I understand the vacancy rate downtown to be pretty high but still.
Why should developers be required to provide parking. If they want to that's fine. But why force them too?
From what I understand parking requirements began to fight the problem of downtown workers taking up all the open spaces, leaving no room for patrons of businesses to park. That was then, this is now. Times have changed and the parameters have changed, therefore the rules should change as well. Just because something was a good idea in the past doesn't mean it always will be.
That's my piece for now I guess.
Believe it or not, many cities downtowns have "maximum parking requirements". In other words you CANT have over a certain amount of parking for say a new condo tower. The max might be say 1.3 parking spaces per unit, or less.
I'm fairly certain that there are no set parking restrictions in the CBD.
Quote from: TheArtist on July 11, 2012, 09:49:54 PM
Believe it or not, many cities downtowns have "maximum parking requirements". In other words you CANT have over a certain amount of parking for say a new condo tower. The max might be say 1.3 parking spaces per unit, or less.
While I like the idea and think it is a step Tulsa could and should take, what cities have this policy. Just wondering what the results have been.
Also, thought it was interesting that Steve Lackmayer down in OKC took notice of Tulsa's new temporary parking policy.
http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2012/07/12/can-or-should-okc-follow-tulsas-lead/
While I agree that we have too much parking and I hate seeing buildings being town down to make way for new asphalt, I also understand that parking is a business, and keeping new entrants out helps the current group of parking owners. However, right now we not only make it easy for surface parking operators, we incentivize them (see Lackmayer's piece). In downtown Tulsa I believe the ballpark assessment in addition to another one (can't remember the name) are based on square footage. Well, surface lot's have the least amount of square footage on any given lot. I doubt the ballpark assessment can be changed until it expires. But we could just add an assessment on surface parking because it really does cost downtown. The money could be used for beautification projects or something of that sort, more trees, bike lanes, whatever. Just thinking out load.
On top of that, it would seem that surface parking is more valuable than some structures. Maybe the county should re-assess their valuation techniques for surface parking because it would seem that they may be off.
That and figure out how to get TCC to build a parking garage so we can do something with those acres of surface parking that isn't taxes one thin dime. I wonder how many square footage of surface parking downtown is not taxed at all.
Just some larger cities that have Maximum Parking Requirements... San Antonio, San Francisco, Portland,,, some smaller cities Redmond Washington, Concord North Carolina, Cambridge Mass, etc. A LOT of cities in Canada also have maximum parking requirements. The UK recently enacted a policy requiring every municipality to implement maximum parking requirements for retail stores, office buildings, stadiums etc. that reach sizes above certain thresholds.
Some interesting stuff here...
http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/archives/agendas/ca020918/Attachment%204%20-%20Final%20Parking%20Paper%208-12-02.htm
some exerpts...
"Parking has been described as a "fertility drug for cars"... As more parking is provided, more cars take advantage of it... As the number of cars increase, so does road congestion and traffic jams.... The amount of parking also affects public transportation. As parking availability increases, fewer people use public transportation. Several reports even indicate that mass transit improvements will not increase ridership unless parking supply is reduced..... Failing to address the oversupply of parking creates many of the same problems that minimum parking requirements were supposed to solve (e.g. poor economic environment, loss of investment).
Another interesting note... " The business community in Portland would not accept maximum parking requirements until Portland made a greater commitment to mass transit."
"A municipality can also hedge against creating an undersupply of parking with maximum parking requirements by using Transportation Demand Management (TDM). TDM is the term used to describe strategies that result in the, Efficient use of transportation infrastructure, and Incentives for drivers to seek other methods of transportation. Some strategies include in-lieu parking fees, shared parking, centralized parking, parking freezes, subsidies for transit, transit improvements, pedestrian and bicycle amenties, parking pricing, etc.
Paraphrasing from another site.... Cities with successful parking freezes generally have.. well developed transit systems, and are attractive to tenants, customers and visitors. Such cities can attract businesses because the benefits/attractiveness of the quality urban location outweigh the potential drawbacks of limited parking, and because transit offers a viable alternative to automobile use. The quality pedestrian/transit friendly environment also alleviates the burden (for developers) of providing parking for their developments which increases infill opportunities (lessens costs for the developer) in the urban environment.
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/334155_3488943907506_1799797640_o.jpg)
It's just outside the IDL, but BCBSOK has taken out a parking lot and is turning it into a green space.
EDIT: Sorry the pic is gigantic. :/
Quote from: TheArtist on July 12, 2012, 09:49:10 AM
Another interesting note... " The business community in Portland would not accept maximum parking requirements until Portland made a greater commitment to mass transit."
Such cities can attract businesses because the benefits/attractiveness of the quality urban location outweigh the potential drawbacks of limited parking, and because transit offers a viable alternative to automobile use. The quality pedestrian/transit friendly environment also alleviates the burden (for developers) of providing parking for their developments which increases infill opportunities (lessens costs for the developer) in the urban environment.
This is a very important concept. Just getting rid of parking will not work. There needs to be an alternative to the automobile.
Quote from: TheArtist on July 12, 2012, 09:49:10 AM
"Parking has been described as a "fertility drug for cars"... As more parking is provided, more cars take advantage of it... As the number of cars increase, so does road congestion and traffic jams.... The amount of parking also affects public transportation. As parking availability increases, fewer people use public transportation. Several reports even indicate that mass transit improvements will not increase ridership unless parking supply is reduced..... Failing to address the oversupply of parking creates many of the same problems that minimum parking requirements were supposed to solve (e.g. poor economic environment, loss of investment).
This is along the lines of what I've heard about adding highway lanes. It rarely actually reduces congestion. Adding lanes usually just adds more traffic which then ends up right back with congestion. Plus it takes away from city streets that generally have businesses fronting them. Traffic counts are still an important part of commercial development.
Quote from: TheArtist on July 12, 2012, 09:49:10 AM
Another interesting note... " The business community in Portland would not accept maximum parking requirements until Portland made a greater commitment to mass transit."
"A municipality can also hedge against creating an undersupply of parking with maximum parking requirements by using Transportation Demand Management (TDM). TDM is the term used to describe strategies that result in the, Efficient use of transportation infrastructure, and Incentives for drivers to seek other methods of transportation. Some strategies include in-lieu parking fees, shared parking, centralized parking, parking freezes, subsidies for transit, transit improvements, pedestrian and bicycle amenties, parking pricing, etc.
All the more reason for Tulsa to get off its butt and get serious about public transportation.
Just wondering your all's opinion. Do you think Tulsa should focus on a regional rail plan (think Dallas DART) or a local rail (urban trams/streetcars). Or neither I guess.
Quote from: TheArtist on July 12, 2012, 09:49:10 AM
Paraphrasing from another site.... Cities with successful parking freezes generally have.. well developed transit systems, and are attractive to tenants, customers and visitors. Such cities can attract businesses because the benefits/attractiveness of the quality urban location outweigh the potential drawbacks of limited parking, and because transit offers a viable alternative to automobile use. The quality pedestrian/transit friendly environment also alleviates the burden (for developers) of providing parking for their developments which increases infill opportunities (lessens costs for the developer) in the urban environment.
Transportation planners need to consider convenience. Automobiles offer a lot of convenience. Right now Tulsa doesn't offer anything that will ever remotely compete with the auto in terms of convenience. I don't think people inherently want to drive, they view it as more of a necessity. At least I do anyways. I would gladly take an alternate form of transportation if offered one, but as it sits, I live roughly three miles from my office. 2 of those miles have virtually no sidewalks and it is incredibly dangerous to ride a bike in traffic on the main streets. Not having a car when I was in New York was fantastic. I walked all over the place, and took the train from time to time. I honestly never took a bus, not once. The trains always took me within walking distance of where I was going. Now, I understand that we will never has a system as sophisticated as New York, however, we could get started. People that enjoy that type of living will move closer to transit, then we expand from there.
Quote from: AngieBrumley on July 12, 2012, 12:25:38 PM
It's just outside the IDL, but BCBSOK has taken out a parking lot and is turning it into a green space.
EDIT: Sorry the pic is gigantic. :/
This is 14th and Boston.
I'm glad they are doing this...they've created so much surface parking over the years that is now not needed any longer.
For example: 11th and Cheyenne, 14th and Main.
Quote from: carltonplace on July 12, 2012, 02:41:55 PM
This is 14th and Boston.
I'm glad they are doing this...they've created so much surface parking over the years that is now not needed any longer.
For example: 11th and Cheyenne, 14th and Main.
Goes to the point that I make that we have plenty of parking, but not a way to get people from the parking to where they want to go.
Now if I were to put on my conservative hat I would say the market could fix that situation with entrepreneurs starting more pedicabs, jitneys, scooter or bike rentals, etc. But you it would be good to be "fully" conservative and also not build city parking garages and gov.funded road widening, highways(that helped gut the core), getting rid of minimum parking requirements and allowing for mixed use in the rest of the city, etc. So since that won't happen I guess I am forced to holler for transit spending.
Interesting we can tell people what to build (more parking) and what they can't build (mixed use as one example) in order to create a particular type of suburban environment. But try to tell people what they have to build and can't build downtown in order to create a particular type of urban environment,,, well thats the government telling people what to do with their private property and thats wrong? Iiiinteresting.
Downtown Portland has a parking challenge that is eased by the free rail trolley service that operates there. Once you're in the area, getting around is easy. The light rail service between downtown and outlying areas helps as well.
TA, I totally agree with you on that last post. It's ridiculous that it's not seen as government interference when it enforces sprawl, but when it comes to merely even
allowing urban development it's the dirty hippie liberals trying to force everybody into a 9th floor walkup studio apartment.
Quote from: erfalf on July 12, 2012, 01:01:53 PM
Just wondering your all's opinion. Do you think Tulsa should focus on a regional rail plan (think Dallas DART) or a local rail (urban trams/streetcars).
Personally, I'd like to see the trolley first, followed by some commuter rail and intercity rail. Having a circulator downtown with a line running down Peoria to 41st or so would provide an excellent link between DT, Cherry Street, and Brookside. With that in place, you can easily expand the system to the east and hopefully get some of the midtown folks who work downtown used to the idea of commuting other than in their car. If it's all about me, I want the old line to the fairgrounds put back in. ;)
I agree with circulator trolley first. It could connect with parking away from the prime downtown real estate. An Interurban service with no way to get around at the destination will probably fail.
QuoteBut we could just add an assessment on surface parking because it really does cost downtown.
(sorry I'm just now catching up on this thread)
Amen! And we should use those assement funds to pay for the trolly service!
Quote from: erfalf on July 12, 2012, 01:01:53 PM
This is along the lines of what I've heard about adding highway lanes. It rarely actually reduces congestion.
It generally moves congestion closer to the destination. If the dispersal of traffic at the destination is insufficient, traffic will back up as before.