Will every single sidewalk in downtown Tulsa be paved in brick? I thought they stopped using bricks to pave in 1913. There is probably a reason for that.
What happens when one of those bricks come up?
I could show you 500 examples right now of missing, cracked, disrepaired brick surfaces downtown already.
Are we going to have illegals walking around downtown replacing bricks?
I'd bet someone "special" owns the brick market in Tulsa.
So many questions....
What's wrong with concrete sidewalks?
I think they spec them only becuase they have a character that people like. But you're right, they quit using them in the first half of the 1900's for a reason.
They require extra maintenance. And in 20 years when they need to be replaced in an area, they won't match. What's wrong with plain old concrete, scored in some kind of grid pattern?
Look at the bricks on the crosswalks in Brookside, already crumbling. The bricks on 5th street between Denver and Boulder - crumbling.
They aren't using bricks anymore downtown. They are using Pavestone concrete pavers.
I like the concrete bricks better than just plain concrete. Kind of wished they had formulated something uniqe it probably wouldnt have cost too much more. Remember the sidewalks that shimmered like they had diamonds in them. There was some story that they actually were real diamonds. IT was actually mica that they simply mixed into the cement. I think with only a bit of extra thought and effort and a tiny bit more expense they could have made these bricks more unique and beautiful and made Tulsas sidewalks stand out.
Perhaps on the next overhaul we can start doing granit slabs or cobblestones. They always look immaculate and last forever. If you have been to cities where they use them for their sidewalks and streets they look as new as the day they put them in even if it was a hundred years ago.
I was suprised to see they weren't at least using granite curbing.
http://www.americangranitecurb.org/economiccomparison.htm
One thing I have fount interesting is the movement to get rid of curbs all together. Many cities in Europe are moving to "psychological traffic regulation" versus using signs and such. Cobblestones can slow people down, roundabouts slow people down and move them more efficiently, eliminating curbs slows people down and even enhances safety. Not to mention eliminating stop lights, speed limit signs etc. improves the appearances of an area.
http://rs.resalliance.org/2006/12/03/traffic-safety-regulation-vs-self-organization
I've wanted more brickwork for streets and sidewalks ever since I went to Europe last year. Freakin' parking lots for grocery store, century old town squares, urban thoroughfares, and most sidewalks are brick. Many of them are hundreds of years old. Many of them are new.
The character of a brick roadway and connecting sidewalk is much more appealing than bland concrete sidewalks.
And quit being afraid of illegals, they won't be taking your job, unless you wash dishes, and then they will probably do it better than you.
quote:
Originally posted by tulsascoot
I've wanted more brickwork for streets and sidewalks ever since I went to Europe last year. Freakin' parking lots for grocery store, century old town squares, urban thoroughfares, and most sidewalks are brick. Many of them are hundreds of years old. Many of them are new.
The character of a brick roadway and connecting sidewalk is much more appealing than bland concrete sidewalks.
And quit being afraid of illegals, they won't be taking your job, unless you wash dishes, and then they will probably do it better than you.
One great thing about using brick or stone is that, like in Germany, you use a light-colored stone and a darker stone, there's no need to re-paint stripes on roads, to mark lanes, parking spaces, crosswalks, etc.
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/111/250988244_afd3663ca2.jpg?v=0)
I just wish they would lay them right. If you don't come back and put more sand in the cracks, the bricks come loose and pop out over time. I've noticed that they lay them and put the sand on, but after a few weeks, the sand settles, and there are lots of gaps to fill...which nobody comes back to do. After a while the bricks pop up, and people like me who walk around town looking at architectural details trip on them.
Not sure what's going on in Brookside either, but the bricks have been buckling in the streets ever since they were installed. I've heard of "traffic calming" but this is ridiculous! The potholes were more gentle on my car.
I prefer the relatively smooth concrete sidewalks to the relatively rough and uneven unit paver (brick) sidewalks. If unit pavers are to be used, I'd rather see them in the vehicular traffic lanes than on the sidewalks and in the crosswalks where most of the pedestrians are.
They look so much nicer.
quote:
Originally posted by OKC_Shane
They look so much nicer.
They look like a cheap weekend warrior project to me. They're not as easy for women in heels to walk on, the bricks settle unevenly over time, the colors fade... just good old concrete sidewalks are far superior. Add a little brick ribbon at the curb if you need to fluff it up.
And there's nothing old-timey about brick sidewalks in Tulsa. We never had them. We went from wooden boardwalks to concrete sidewalks when we paved the dirt roads. Our streets used to be brick, but never our sidewalks.
I remember a few brick sidewalks in Tulsa, on the west side of the 900 block of South Cheyenne, for example. But I think the City has gone overboard lately with the unit pavers downtown. Until recently, Boston had fairly good and smooth sidewalks from 3rd to 7th. There were a few rough spots, especially the sidewalk along the Thompson Building which was actually concrete stamped to look like brick. So much good concrete has been removed this year and is now being SLOWLY, SLOWLY, SLOWLY replaced with rough, uneven unit pavers. Some of the sidewalks seem to slope down toward the buildings instead of toward to curbs, such as near the Philcade Building at the corner of 5th. This is a bad design because most of the buildings along that portion of Boston have basements, and many of those basements extend beyond the property lines and below the sidewalks. It's not a good idea to channel surface runoff toward buildings and basements.
Meanwhile, there are some areas with horrible sidewalks in dire need of replacement (with smooth concrete), such as the west side of Cheyenne between 5th and 6th. It doesn't make much sense to me to remove relatively good sidewalks and to replace them with inferior work while other sidewalks downtown go untouched a few blocks away. Priorities are mixed up.
The City needs to avoid these brick-like pavers.
They have failed to perform well in Brookside (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=071022_1_A1_spanc14012%22).
Someone told me (maybe it was RecycleMichael) that because of clean air regulations, they can't make bricks nowadays as tough as the ones that were used for streets in the early 20th Century. Something about not being able to bake the bricks at a high enough temperature.
Didn't we learn our lesson from all the problems with the bricks on west 5th St.? How many more blocks of sidewalks could we fix downtown for the same money if we used concrete (with sparkly stuff mixed in for that diamond effect) instead of pavers?
Between the badly designed lighting and the overindulgence in brick, downtown streetscaping isn't working out as well as it should have.
Bricks are clay...Pavers are concrete.....The pavers are failing on Brookside because of the base not being properly prepped....
The pavers do not look like they are being crushed, just pushed down below the edge of the concrete. Seemed weird to put those on an arterial (sp?) street.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
Someone told me (maybe it was RecycleMichael) that because of clean air regulations, they can't make bricks nowadays as tough as the ones that were used for streets in the early 20th Century. Something about not being able to bake the bricks at a high enough temperature.
Didn't we learn our lesson from all the problems with the bricks on west 5th St.? How many more blocks of sidewalks could we fix downtown for the same money if we used concrete (with sparkly stuff mixed in for that diamond effect) instead of pavers?
Between the badly designed lighting and the overindulgence in brick, downtown streetscaping isn't working out as well as it should have.
Yes, it was me who told you that. I have a friend in Iowa who collects bricks (he has over 10,000 in his collection).
The firing process for bricks is very regulated now and more expensive. The EPA has standards for the ovens that make it very difficult to make a good paving brick and the industry nows makes mostly architectural bricks.
Clay vitrifies (melts) gradually under rising temperatures. If done properly, the resulting product becomes a solid mass with very low absorption. I am not an civil engineer, but my guess is that the base on which the bricks were placed allowed excess moisture from our wet summer to be absorbed by the bricks.
I would want to test bricks from both projects for compressive strength and do an analysis of heavy vehicle traffic differences before I jumped to further conclusions.
There was an article in the World the other day that mentioned the pavers in Brookside being replaced, but why don't they just do what they did to Delaware between 3rd & 11th??? They poured colored concrete crosswalks then stamped them to look like brick... Takes care of the crumbling paver problem, and lasts much longer... They're already set into a concrete base, so what's the problem with pouring concrete in there instead??
I agree with whomever said that the downtown brickwork better be superior to the brookside mess. They had half of brookside closed off for a whole summer for that sh*t, and it is still rough as a cobb, maybe even worse than before. I felt sorry for the businesses in the area, as some of them were probably forced to close as a result of the roadwork.
Worse than the fact that its falling apart imo lol, is that the crosswalks they came up with looked crappy. Whats with the mix of "bricks" with cement designs anyway? It looks rinky dink and cluttery.
All of that work, hassle, money and time for something that looks like crap and is falling apart to boot.
Honestly, Who designed this whole debacle? On the one hand its a minor concern for the city. But on the other, those poor businesses, and people driving through there, that had to suffer through all of that hassle for so long deserved better.
What is worse are the failing bricks injuring Tulsa Runners. I saw two hit the deck, one bounced up, the other was injured and required EMSA.
(http://www.thetulsan.com/images/run.gif)
QuoteOriginally posted by tim huntzinger
What is worse are the failing bricks injuring Tulsa Runners. I saw two hit the deck, one bounced up, the other was injured and required EMSA.
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/229/501169262_153101f269.jpg)
In many cities brick and stone pavers work very well and require relativly little mantanance. In some cities, St. Louis is an excelent example, the brick pavers and cobble stone installed 100+ years ago are still performing well and require minimal mantance.
The problem comes from the installation specifications given by the city. A layer of compacted decomposed granite at least 3 inches deep must be laid on an already compacted aggregate base. Sand is not a viable option as it will shift and flow. The Brookside applications were very poorly done, both in the brick and in the textured concrete applied. Our climate requires a better expansion joint system than was used. With a good winter, we should see nearly all of the outer brick work out of the ground.
The city would be better to choose cobble stone as a barrier between the brick walkway and the existing pavement/asphalt. The extruded round top of the granite works very well to slow traffic and provides a space for the joint to expand without losing joint fill. most cobble has a shape and depth that, as a border, can help prevent the settling of surrounding brick.
I would propose a visit to the Central West end of St. Louis to look at the cobble stone and brick work that has existed under heavy traffic for over 100 years. They also use granite slabs for curb and gutter. It's fascinating to see them do utility work, because they just lift the curb, pull the pavers, do the job and then replace. No concrete/asphalt, and the repair is ready to drive on immediately! NO ORANGE CONES!
In fact, I would think the savings in ORANGE CONES would pay for the added expense in materials. I wonder how much an orange cone costs? I'll find out!
(http://www.findstone.com/img/e22355a.JPG)
(http://brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/8cobblestone.jpg)
In fact, I would think the savings in ORANGE CONES would pay for the added expense in materials. I wonder how much an orange cone costs? I'll find out!
Wow!!!! Orange cone with blinking light $82.80. I'm in the wrong business. Anyone want to start a manufacturing company?
I thought orange cones were begat from orange barrels.
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
The city would be better to choose cobble stone as a barrier between the brick walkway and the existing pavement/asphalt. The extruded round top of the granite works very well to slow traffic and provides a space for the joint to expand without losing joint fill...
I agree. The places where people actually walk would be better if they were paved with relatively smooth concrete or asphalt.
quote:
I would propose a visit to the Central West end of St. Louis to look at the cobble stone and brick work that has existed under heavy traffic for over 100 years. They also use granite slabs for curb and gutter. It's fascinating to see them do utility work, because they just lift the curb, pull the pavers, do the job and then replace. No concrete/asphalt, and the repair is ready to drive on immediately! NO ORANGE CONES!
(http://brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/8cobblestone.jpg)
The photo appears to be granite settes. Was the photo taken in St Louis? I've seen granite settes in Europe, but not in this part of the United States.
quote:
Originally posted by ttown_jeff
Will every single sidewalk in downtown Tulsa be paved in brick?...
...What's wrong with concrete sidewalks?
Yesterday, to my surprise, I walked on a new
concrete sidewalk at the southwest corner of 3rd and Boston (next to the 320 Boston Building). The new concrete is relatively smooth but not slick, and the surface appears to be sloped properly to direct water from the building toward the curb. I was thrilled to see this level of quality in new sidewalk construction downtown, because the unit pavers are failing in dozens if not hundreds of locations. I hope that the City and DTU will switch from unit pavers to concrete sidewalks, because the concrete is much more pedestrian-friendly. Also, from the moment they are installed, the unit pavers are a maintenance nightmare.
Here's an article about sidewalks in Arlington, Virginia (//%22http://www.commuterpage.com/walk/walkable/concretewalk.html%22): http://www.commuterpage.com/walk/walkable/concretewalk.html (//%22http://www.commuterpage.com/walk/walkable/concretewalk.html%22)
I still prefer granite slab sidewalks. They last forever and when you need to repair something underneath, just lift em up, then put em back. They cost more short term but make up that extra cost at the time concrete or brick pavers need their first replacing, because they do not cost double. I remember the granite sidewalks in Paris. Aaaabsolutely flawless. 100 years from now... they will look, exactly, perfectly, the same. Even the best cement in our climate will start to go bad in only a few years. We could have done at least one street with them, Boston Ave for starters. Then each time other areas needed replacing, gradually add a bit more.
Btw, I wonder if a rubber substrate would have worked better than sand for the brick pavers? The large brick area behind the Crowne Plaza is on a rubber substrate (over a parking garage, I know because I kept getting my car chased off of it while painting the Mayfest mural last year [:D]) and has been there for years.
Strangely enough I noticed the new Centennial Green was putting in stamped concrete walkways leading to the DTU concrete pavers. Let's see if direct comparisons work.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I still prefer granite slab sidewalks. They last forever and when you need to repair something underneath, just lift em up, then put em back. They cost more short term but make up that extra cost at the time concrete or brick pavers need their first replacing, because they do not cost double. I remember the granite sidewalks in Paris. Aaaabsolutely flawless. 100 years from now... they will look, exactly, perfectly, the same. Even the best cement in our climate will start to go bad in only a few years. We could have done at least one street with them, Boston Ave for starters. Then each time other areas needed replacing, gradually add a bit more.
Btw, I wonder if a rubber substrate would have worked better than sand for the brick pavers? The large brick area behind the Crowne Plaza is on a rubber substrate (over a parking garage, I know because I kept getting my car chased off of it while painting the Mayfest mural last year [:D]) and has been there for years.
I agree! I used to live up in St. Louis and they use only Granite. Looks great and they can do street repairs easily!
Good concrete can last for many decades. There are some 90-year-old concrete sidewalks in my neighborhood in good condition -- no need to rip them out.
Until recently, Boston had relatively smooth concrete sidewalks compared to the new rough and expensive unit paver sidewalks.
Granite slabs deserve serious consideration. Stamped concrete can be a good walking surface as long as the pattern is low relief. The rough simulated brick patterns are not good pedestrian surfaces. The plans for the streets and sidewalks downtown have been altered significantly. The previous design was better because it had fewer unit pavers, and pavers were not used for the primary walking surfaces or for crosswalks.