Anything new with this project?
http://www.globaldevelopmentpartners.com/EastEnd.html
GDP said they can't get the ballpark space (nordam property I believe) which last I heard had a tentative contract with the developer from catoosa. Both parties own some of the land. GDP did add a new drawing to their brochure a little while ago but no major announcements or progress.
I would wildly speculate that GDP is waiting to see how the river deal shakes out before proceeding. A "Tulsa Landing" on the West Bank seems like something that would threaten the viability of an "East End."
I hate waiting and seeing.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
I would wildly speculate that GDP is waiting to see how the river deal shakes out before proceeding. A "Tulsa Landing" on the West Bank seems like something that would threaten the viability of an "East End."
I hate waiting and seeing.
Most of GDP's plans were for multi-story buildings. The west bank likely wouldn't handle much over 3 stories.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
I would wildly speculate that GDP is waiting to see how the river deal shakes out before proceeding. A "Tulsa Landing" on the West Bank seems like something that would threaten the viability of an "East End."
I hate waiting and seeing.
Most of GDP's plans were for multi-story buildings. The west bank likely wouldn't handle much over 3 stories.
If Tulsa Landing is anything like Branson Landing then Tulsa Landing and the East End projects will have nothing in common. Think more Tulsa Hills on the river with some apartments. We are not really talking about urban dwellings in a Tulsa Landing like you would be in the East End. I don't think that young urban professionals are going to be clamoring to live above Belk's and Sunglasses Hut with exciting and walkable eating venues like Chili's. I'm thinking more along the lines of bored retirees.
Oh I hear what you're saying. Still, the two developments will directly compete as far as being new-construction, "upscale" condos and rentals. This is a part of the housing market that's higher risk, higher reward, which is why it draws the attention of developers. My guess is they're waiting to see what happens in those segment markets in Tulsa before proceeding, given that the centerpiece of the development - a new ballpark next door - has apparently fallen through.
Again, all wild speculation.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Oh I hear what you're saying. Still, the two developments will directly compete as far as being new-construction, "upscale" condos and rentals. This is a part of the housing market that's higher risk, higher reward, which is why it draws the attention of developers. My guess is they're waiting to see what happens in those segment markets in Tulsa before proceeding, given that the centerpiece of the development - a new ballpark next door - has apparently fallen through.
Again, all wild speculation.
The last word has been that the city is looking into having the ballpark site moved a few blocks north from the Nordam site to where the Hartford building is on 2nd. It's another part of the deal with moving city hall. The city already owns that building and it's workers would be moved to One Technology.
That would still place the ballpark next to the East End and really even closer to The Blue Dome area it's a better site but it would cut second street in half coming into downtown from I-244.
I've never been a fan of the 1st/2nd street-pair. Those train tracks are a scourge. I'd just as soon lose that pair altogether. Cincinnati/Detroit and 7th/8th are plenty for me.
Closing streets downtown is a bad idea. Superblocks destroy the relatively fine-grained patterns of an urban place. Second Street connects to the neighborhood east of Highway 75, and we need to preserve as many of those types of connections as we can. Downtown Tulsa is isolated too much from the surrounding neighborhoods. We need more connections, not fewer.
2nd is cut down on the west side, so why not?
Second Street connects to the east, and superblocks don't belong downtown.
IN my short stay in Tulsa, I have learned to ignore all developers claims and accolades until ground I broken. Even then, I remain skeptical.
How's that naked Indian doing?
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
IN my short stay in Tulsa, I have learned to ignore all developers claims and accolades until ground I broken. Even then, I remain skeptical.
How's that naked Indian doing?
I hear ya. Its doing as well as the Portofino, the second phase of the Riverwalk, new Helmerich and Payne headquarters, South Towne Square....
http://www.amsted.com/news2.asp?news_id=20
This was another of those "High Paying Jobs" places that was built and never opened.
Go out east on Pine or I-44 and look north. When you see that white building (elephant) refer to the above website.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
How's that naked Indian doing?
The American project will not open until 2011, according to an e-mail their staff sent me.
"Mr. Adwon to the white courtesy phone, please... Mr. Adwon to the white courtesy phone..."
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
"Mr. Adwon to the white courtesy phone, please... Mr. Adwon to the white courtesy phone..."
^
I wouldn't say you need to reach Mister Adwon for an update on all of this.... There are several registered forum users that have every bit of the inside knowledge..
Funny... in an evil sort of way....
[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
Second Street connects to the east, and superblocks don't belong downtown.
parking lots with trees don't belong downtown either, but there they stand...
oh, and rico... I'll guess Recyclemichael did it in the kitchen with a lead pipe... am I close?
And now, the rest of the story..... if the link below doesn't work, go to theonion.com and type in the word "developer" to search...
http://www.theonion.com/content/search/onion/advanced?search=developer&restrict=.site:onion
***Please send your tax-deductible donations to
The Save Carney Neighborhood Foundation... [}:)]
shhhh........ I think they heard you.
New Downtown Plan Includes Urban Wal-Mart
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/NordamWally.jpg)
An Arkansas real estate developer plans a mixed-use project, including an urban Wal-Mart, on the east side of downtown that he believes has the potential to kick-start the redevelopment of the heart of Tulsa, the Tulsa Business Journal learned today.
Read More (//%22http://www.tulsabusiness.com/article.asp?aID=45620%22)
So of a 9+ block development GDP planned, they bought 1. And it's smack in the middle.
Hopefully they will both be able to start within 2 years.
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7251
Out the government from messin' with real estate. They screw up too often.
I'm not so sure about this Wal-Mart deal (not the point of having Wal-Mart downtown, but the actual development itself)... It sounds
okay but there are HUGE details missing...
quote:
"We are working closely with American Residential Group to put in apartments," he said. "We are looking at somewhere around 150 apartments that will be like four stories high with a parking deck."
Seay said there will be some surface parking, "but we are going to try to screen that to the extent that we possibly can with landscaping and with a fence that is brick or rock with metal fencing."
SCREENING, LANDSCAPING and putting a fence around a parking lot does not change the fact that it is SURFACE parking. How does a screened-in parking lot encourage any future
positive use of the land? I want to know just how much surface parking we're talking about here. I know it's an impossibility to have zero surface parking, but I don't like that he chose the word 'screen' the parking instead of
minimize.
I'm glad the plan includes apartments, though.
quote:
He said the Wal-Mart will reflect a new urban look for the retailer.
"It will be brick on all four sides, with maybe some stucco, too – so it looks like an urban store," he said. "I think that would be fantastic for down there. It will be dynamite for downtown."
I don't care if it has an urban
look--if it's suburban-type development with an urban facade, it's still suburban development. Just because it's wrapped in brick doesn't make it urban... And I don't remember stucco ever being the 'urban' thing to use, either. Multi-level, multi-use buildings are urban whether they're made of mud, steel, brick or recycled tires. A single level, single-use building is just another store, regardless of the material used.
quote:
The Seayco Group has primarily developed "big box" retail centers in the 400,000 to 650,000-SF range, including five major centers in Tulsa and Owasso, but in the past year cut its teeth on a downtown development project when it purchased and started renovation of a 34,000-SF historical structure in Conway, Ark.
Being an self-proclaimed big box developer, I don't think a rather small building in Conway, Arkansas counts as "cutting its teeth" on a "downtown" project.
On GDP, this:
quote:
"We have acquired one full city block, and we are working on other attractive land," Kissler said. "We intend to do a project – and it will be a big project. When we are in a better position to talk about it, we will."
I want to see more of GDP's plans now that Arkansas has butted in...
I'm hoping for the best, and have my fingers, eyes, toes, arms and legs crossed, but I can't help but think it's going to be a suburban store with an urban front...only, the parking would be on the side instead of in front. What joy.
I've been to Arkansas, and let me tell you that there is NOTHING there that Tulsa should emulate. [:P]
Except maybe Eureka Springs' downtown. That was kinda cool. [8D]
quote:
Originally posted by DScott28604
I'm not so sure about this Wal-Mart deal (not the point of having Wal-Mart downtown, but the actual development itself)... It sounds okay but there are HUGE details missing...
quote:
"We are working closely with American Residential Group to put in apartments," he said. "We are looking at somewhere around 150 apartments that will be like four stories high with a parking deck."
Seay said there will be some surface parking, "but we are going to try to screen that to the extent that we possibly can with landscaping and with a fence that is brick or rock with metal fencing."
SCREENING, LANDSCAPING and putting a fence around a parking lot does not change the fact that it is SURFACE parking. How does a screened-in parking lot encourage any future positive use of the land? I want to know just how much surface parking we're talking about here. I know it's an impossibility to have zero surface parking, but I don't like that he chose the word 'screen' the parking instead of minimize.
I'm glad the plan includes apartments, though.
quote:
He said the Wal-Mart will reflect a new urban look for the retailer.
"It will be brick on all four sides, with maybe some stucco, too – so it looks like an urban store," he said. "I think that would be fantastic for down there. It will be dynamite for downtown."
I don't care if it has an urban look--if it's suburban-type development with an urban facade, it's still suburban development. Just because it's wrapped in brick doesn't make it urban... And I don't remember stucco ever being the 'urban' thing to use, either. Multi-level, multi-use buildings are urban whether they're made of mud, steel, brick or recycled tires. A single level, single-use building is just another store, regardless of the material used.
quote:
The Seayco Group has primarily developed "big box" retail centers in the 400,000 to 650,000-SF range, including five major centers in Tulsa and Owasso, but in the past year cut its teeth on a downtown development project when it purchased and started renovation of a 34,000-SF historical structure in Conway, Ark.
Being an self-proclaimed big box developer, I don't think a rather small building in Conway, Arkansas counts as "cutting its teeth" on a "downtown" project.
On GDP, this:
quote:
"We have acquired one full city block, and we are working on other attractive land," Kissler said. "We intend to do a project – and it will be a big project. When we are in a better position to talk about it, we will."
I want to see more of GDP's plans now that Arkansas has butted in...
I'm hoping for the best, and have my fingers, eyes, toes, arms and legs crossed, but I can't help but think it's going to be a suburban store with an urban front...only, the parking would be on the side instead of in front. What joy.
Great post, DScott. I'll add my major disappointment in the half-donkey idea to throw up a fence to screen the surface parking. Walking down a row of fence doesn't add urban vibrancy. It says "keep out. move along, nothing to see here."
As for the apartments, if living in a Wal-Mart parking lot was so attractive why aren't there apartments built on Wal-Mart pad sites all over town? I see lots of fast food restaurants out front, but never rowhouses or loft apartments. Now factor in that a person choosing to live downtown is obviously seeking out an urban environment, and a Wal-Mart parking lot ain't it.
The GDP plan is light years better.
I dont mind the wal mart being in downtown. If downtown actually takes off it can be redeveloped. It can be seen as just an interim "means to an end". As for the wall idea. now that sucks. If they insist on having a parking lot I would rather them use the same amount of money to have an unwalled parking lot but with nice landscaping around it with lots of trees interspersed throughout the parking lot. Not a dead wall to drive or walk around. A wall is not a good idea at all. If anything a nice wrought iron fence, that would also help deter car break-ins, and around that some nice landscaping with a sidewalk and trees. Hopefully, oh hopefully the main part of the Wal-Mart and the other retail along with it will have the front right up next to the street.
I have seen some wal-mart designs that have an urban street facade that looks like many different store fronts on one side of a block with a row of parking in front. other shops going down parts of the sides of the block with a row of parking, then parking behind and in the center of the block. It wouldnt cost hardly any more, if any more, to do an alignment like that.
This may be something TN should try to contact them about and see if we can have some influence on. If designed and laid out right, even if the Wal-Mart didnt succeed, it would leave a decent looking and operating building in the area to be used for other things.
Looks like I was right, after all...suburban development wrapped in brick.
Tulsa World reported this morning that "this single-story store will have a brick facade..." and that it will be about 150,000 square feet. [B)]
That's a LOT of surface space to occupy, when it'd only be half that with even a 2-level store.
I had kept hopes up that Seay actually knew what 'urban' meant, because he kept throwing the word out in his interview(s), but it appears that does not.
I, too would like to see if TN could approach them with suggestions for design improvements. Maybe with some facts about urbanism, walkability, scale and proportion, surface parking and mixed use facilities, it could help alter the plans...
Honestly, this Urban Wal-Mart has been in the works for 4 years now. I was told about it in 2003 by someone that had worked in real-estate for Wal-Mart. I'm surprised it too so long to become official.
/havent read the entire article yet. Will comment more later.
Let's Seay....The guy owns over $50,000,000 in Wal Mart stock....he ran Wal Mart real estate for 25 years and walks in here and makes this happen.
I can't help but wonder what it was that got Seay's attention in downtown. I'm just guessing when I say there's more to this announcement than meets the streets.
Discount city! Beats not having any stores within walking distance of OSU/Tulsa. Maybe an adjacent movie complex ?
I want to see renderings and a site plan but this is not exciting at all.
My guess is that a TIFF will be attached to the Wal-Mart to pay for a baseball stadium on 2nd where the Hartford building is.
quote:
Originally posted by DScott28604
Looks like I was right, after all...suburban development wrapped in brick.
Tulsa World reported this morning that "this single-story store will have a brick facade..." and that it will be about 150,000 square feet. [B)]
That's a LOT of surface space to occupy, when it'd only be half that with even a 2-level store.
I had kept hopes up that Seay actually knew what 'urban' meant, because he kept throwing the word out in his interview(s), but it appears that does not.
I, too would like to see if TN could approach them with suggestions for design improvements. Maybe with some facts about urbanism, walkability, scale and proportion, surface parking and mixed use facilities, it could help alter the plans...
Oh come now DScott! Of COURSE he knows what it means. Pshaw!
Well, my decision to move has just been made that much easier. I swear, I am shaking as I type this.
Wal-Mart will be the flagship of our downtown. And if you think the so-called "urban" design will be any different than any other Wal-Mart, you are kidding yourself. A fence around the parking lot? Whoopee! Simply having a Wal-Mart supercenter sized parking lot will completely negate ANY "urban" design they tack onto this pig. It, like pretty much any other Wal-Mart, will be a magnet for trash.
This is an embarrassment to our city. Hopefully, oh hopefully, they will demand something that will allow public to fight it.
From Oil Capital of the world to "Wal-Mart, the shining (you know it will be well lit!) symbol of our city.
OK, I'm gonna go count to ten now.....
the 64 million dollar question is will it be a super walmart? (re: groceries)
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
the 64 million dollar question is will it be a super walmart? (re: groceries)
Yes, 150,000 square foot Supercenter
Not the end of the world. Not perfect, but not the end of the world.
The key will be constant pressure and an open design process. I wouldn't count on the latter, but I'll keep an open mind until I see renderings.
Well, thank goodness we don't have a Bass Pro Shops spoiling our downtown. Those type of stores just don't belong in a downtown. [:)]
just make it look urban, that is all i ask...
make it look urban...
build a parking garage, on the back...
don't put a parking lot between the street and the front door...
do something like this
(http://recenter.tamu.edu/TGrande/vol12-4/img%5C1747.jpg)
or this...
(http://recenter.tamu.edu/TGrande/vol12-4/img%5C1747a.jpg)
but for the love of god do NOT do this...
(http://www.livelyomaha.org/inthemedia/Wal-MartDesign.jpg)
don't pull a bass pro and dump a standard big box in the middle of town...
below is a link and design that sounds like what they plan to do here (150k sqft, apartments, parking deck)...
and as long as the design were right on the street without a sea of asphalt between the building and sidewalk, i got no issues...
they build any of that suburban crap and i'll go ape**** crazy if they try and get a TIF... it has to have decked, hidden parking... that is a deal breaker...
urban walmart village with apartments... (//%22http://olyblog.net/blog/crenshaw-sepulveda/wal-mart-village%22)
(http://www.mississippirenewal.com/images/Ideas06.jpg)
article on urban big boxes (//%22http://recenter.tamu.edu/TGrande/vol12-4/1747.html%22)
as a bonus, you could make the interior more urban like they did in atlanta and provide some more unusual merchandise choices...
article on urban walmart in ATL (//%22http://www.governing.com/notebook.aspx?id=2904%22)
another story on the atl walmart (//%22http://www.nique.net/issues/2006-10-27/news/4%22)
I'd love to see Walmart look less Walmarty for Tulsa DT. I'm pleased for the development.
Any idea which development is taking over the old KOTV space? I saw that Griffin was looking to Brady for a new KOTV location.
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
below is a link and design that sounds like what they plan to do here (150k sqft, apartments, parking deck)...
and as long as the design were right on the street without a sea of asphalt between the building and sidewalk, i got no issues...
urban walmart village with apartments... (//%22http://olyblog.net/blog/crenshaw-sepulveda/wal-mart-village%22)
(http://www.mississippirenewal.com/images/Ideas06.jpg)
article on urban walmart in ATL (//%22http://www.governing.com/notebook.aspx?id=2904%22)
article on urban big boxes (//%22http://recenter.tamu.edu/TGrande/vol12-4/1747.html%22)
another story on the atl walmart (//%22http://www.nique.net/issues/2006-10-27/news/4%22)
Those renderings look great! Can we hope for something like that?
bruno, that would make me happy.
This one, espcially, is what we should be striving for:
(http://www.mississippirenewal.com/images/Ideas06.jpg)
I hope they learned their lesson in Atlanta, and I hope some kind of neighborhood association/community association (IS there one in downtown right now, ASIDE from the joke that is DTU?) steps up and demands it. Perhaps it's a job for SuperTulsaNow! [:P]
I've tried to find contact info for the company, Seayco, but haven't found any yet. We need to write, call, and e-mail this guy (and the unnamed Claremore guy) all we can and get something done about this.
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
just make it look urban, that is all i ask...
make it look urban...
build a parking garage, on the back...
don't put a parking lot between the street and the front door...
do something like this
(http://recenter.tamu.edu/TGrande/vol12-4/img%5C1747.jpg)
or this...
(http://recenter.tamu.edu/TGrande/vol12-4/img%5C1747a.jpg)
but for the love of god do NOT do this...
(http://www.livelyomaha.org/inthemedia/Wal-MartDesign.jpg)
don't pull a bass pro and dump a standard big box in the middle of town...
below is a link and design that sounds like what they plan to do here (150k sqft, apartments, parking deck)...
and as long as the design were right on the street without a sea of asphalt between the building and sidewalk, i got no issues...
they build any of that suburban crap and i'll go ape**** crazy if they try and get a TIF... it has to have decked, hidden parking... that is a deal breaker...
urban walmart village with apartments... (//%22http://olyblog.net/blog/crenshaw-sepulveda/wal-mart-village%22)
(http://www.mississippirenewal.com/images/Ideas06.jpg)
article on urban big boxes (//%22http://recenter.tamu.edu/TGrande/vol12-4/1747.html%22)
as a bonus, you could make the interior more urban like they did in atlanta and provide some more unusual merchandise choices...
article on urban walmart in ATL (//%22http://www.governing.com/notebook.aspx?id=2904%22)
another story on the atl walmart (//%22http://www.nique.net/issues/2006-10-27/news/4%22)
Bruno, I hope you're design is what they go with, but I can't help being skeptical. We're talking about a company that prides itself on being cheap. Their corporate headquarters are in a bunch of ugly warehouses and military-style bunker.
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
shhhh........ I think they heard you.
New Downtown Plan Includes Urban Wal-Mart
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/NordamWally.jpg)
An Arkansas real estate developer plans a mixed-use project, including an urban Wal-Mart, on the east side of downtown that he believes has the potential to kick-start the redevelopment of the heart of Tulsa, the Tulsa Business Journal learned today.
Read More (//%22http://www.tulsabusiness.com/article.asp?aID=45620%22)
"Global Development still plans a mixed-use project, according to Tom Kissler, partner.
"We have acquired one full city block, and we are working on other attractive land," Kissler said. "We intend to do a project – and it will be a big project. When we are in a better position to talk about it, we will.""Sure it'll be big, punkin'... just like you told us before... [B)] LOL.
Oh God, I wish this idiot would just shut up. He's now claiming it's "totally urban"....
From KOTV:
quote:
...The land purchased for the shopping center is bordered by Sixth Street on the south and Fourth Street on the north. The shopping center will be next to the Inner Dispersal Loop and the Wal-Mart will back up to it, facing downtown.
The developer says the land is under contract and the next step is seeking permits from the city to build the development.
The land to be redeveloped covers 15 acres, and besides the Wal-Mart, it will include 65,000 square feet of other shops, a four story, 150 unit apartment complex and a four story parking garage.
The developer told us Friday the Wal-Mart would be smaller than most suburban stores being built now, with a totally urban design to reflect it's location. He would not reveal how much he paid for the land to build it.
Not to mention that the "it's" should be "its"... I'm starting to think this guy is dumber than a box of hair (not that he wrote the article and misspelled 'its'--that's KOTV's fault--but by his statements).
If there's going to be a four story parking garage, would there really be need AT ALL for surface parking? Perhaps he's ditched the whole 'box in the parking lot with fences and bushes' idea? And, correct me if I'm wrong, but the proper next step is NOT to apply for building permits, but to seek citizen input. District 4 Councilwoman Barnes wasn't even approached At All, and isn't happy about it.
From KTUL:
quote:
The land is in Councilor Maria Barnes' district. And, she's concerned because she hasn't been a part of any discussion about the big development...
Councilor Barnes says it could be a good thing, if only she could see it.
"I don't like to get up in the morning and read the paper and say 'oh, this is what's going on in District Four'," Barnes says. "I think it makes for good practice just to keep the councilors, the mayor, everybody on board, on the same page so we know what's going on."
This really has me ticked.
For the love of God, don't tout urban unless it actually is!
White Plains = Urban Transformation:
Before:
(http://www.whiteplainscnr.com/images/articles/2004916-sears.jpg)
After:
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1223/1003496917_0faff376bf_o.jpg)
Does this mean the guy with the resume doesn't have the money...... and the guy with the money doesn't have the resume?!?
Also, here's a freakishly similar downtown situation in Tacoma, Washington. Oh, and they apparently are called T-Town, too.. Who knew Tulsa had so much in common with Tacoma? One blogger was upset that Wal-Mart would even consider downtown Tacoma: "whether Wal-Mart would work or not, you do NOT put a Wal-Mart smack in the middle of T-Town."
From the News Tribune (http://dwb.thenewstribune.com/business/columnists/voelpel/story/6442298p-5739911c.html):
quote:
Downtown and Wal-Mart: A perfect match?
DAN VOELPEL; THE NEWS TRIBUNE
Published: April 1st, 2007 01:00 AM
Ask folks to identify two things downtown Tacoma needs and you'll usually get the same answers – some big-name retail and a grocery store. What if both came in one big box?
A box called Wal-Mart.
Imagine the barbs from those uppity Seattle pundits.
But what if I told you scouts for the world's largest retailer have requested traffic counts at multiple downtown sites for Wal-Mart's newest format – a multi-story, inner-city supercenter, with its own parking, woven into the urban landscape?
Jennifer Holder, Wal-Mart's Seattle-based public affairs manager, declined to discuss specific plans, potential sites or demographic conditions that precipitate location decisions, but ...
"We definitely have an interest in Tacoma," Holder confirmed.
Does the prospect of a Wal-Mart in downtown Tacoma strike terror in your heart, tick you off, make you salivate at the opportunity or cause you to yawn?
Let's look at White Plains, N.Y. – the best real-life example of what could happen in Tacoma.
Sears abandoned its hulking department store next door to historic White Plains City Hall for a shopping mall and its concrete shell sat vacant for years at Second and Main streets, the heart of downtown. A downtown that had started to undergo a bit of a renaissance with a new hotel, some luxury condominiums and apartments, but no grocery store. Sound familiar?
A New Jersey developer, Ivy Equities, partnered with an investment company, Barrow Street Capital, to buy the shell and an adjacent parking garage in 2003.
A year later, in a news release, came this revelation:
"(New York, N.Y-based) Staubach Retail announces that Wal-Mart Stores Inc., has leased 186,000 square feet at Shoppes on Main, a new retail center being developed at 275 Main St. in White Plains, New York."
"When they were first proposing it, there was a lot of opposition," said Richard Liebson, a reporter for The Journal News in White Plains. "People were skeptical and cynical."
At City Hall and in the entrenched downtown merchant community, the first conversations started with, "How can we stop Wal-Mart?"
"People were concerned about what it would do to our businesses," said Melissa Lopez, coordinator of economic development for the mayor's office. "I mean it's right next to City Hall, and we're right smack in the middle of downtown."
A Wal-Mart in a downtown core didn't compute in minds of White Plainsians. Wasn't Wal-Mart a more suburban conqueror?
Yes, but downtown White Plains gave Wal-Mart executives the chance to show off its latest brainstorm, a new configuration that had potential to expand the retailer's domain to inner-cities. They called it, perhaps sardonically, "a stacked deck."
In White Plains that meant: groceries on the ground floor, general merchandise on the second floor, levels of parking above that, a newfangled escalator that carries shopping carts and a downtown-looking exterior in a shared building with other retailers and restaurants.
And yet.
Even in the days before Wal-Mart opened last July 19, some locals railed against it with picket signs and protest lines.
And then.
"It's always crowded, and it's been very well received," reporter Liebson said.
What about the merchants' collective fear that Wal-Mart's discount smiley-face pricing would suck away customers?
The opposite happened.
"We've actually received very good feedback from our merchants," Lopez said. "Our downtown business improvement district says Wal-Mart has brought a lot of foot traffic downtown.
What Wal-Mart may or may not do in downtown Tacoma remains undisclosed – for now.
The "stacked decks are looked at as an option in each individual market" and could include underground parking with office space and condominiums above the store and a mix of other retailers, Wal-Mart's Holder said.
"How we pick any of our store markets is confidential, and we don't disclose any of it," she said.
Downtown Tacoma and Wal-Mart. The White Plains experience would foreshadow a match made in heaven. But my gut says it would face a heckuva battle. Except from the Seattle pundits.
A little something to put in the mix regarding the EastEnd..............KOTV (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070804_1_A9_hGrif68627%22)
quote:
Originally posted by DScott28604
Oh God, I wish this idiot would just shut up. He's now claiming it's "totally urban"....
From KOTV: quote:
...The land purchased for the shopping center is bordered by Sixth Street on the south and Fourth Street on the north. The shopping center will be next to the Inner Dispersal Loop and the Wal-Mart will back up to it, facing downtown.
The developer says the land is under contract and the next step is seeking permits from the city to build the development.
The land to be redeveloped covers 15 acres, and besides the Wal-Mart, it will include 65,000 square feet of other shops, a four story, 150 unit apartment complex and a four story parking garage.
The developer told us Friday the Wal-Mart would be smaller than most suburban stores being built now, with a totally urban design to reflect it's location. He would not reveal how much he paid for the land to build it.
Not to mention that the "it's" should be "its"... I'm starting to think this guy is dumber than a box of hair (not that he wrote the article and misspelled 'its'--that's KOTV's fault--but by his statements).
If there's going to be a four story parking garage, would there really be need AT ALL for surface parking? Perhaps he's ditched the whole 'box in the parking lot with fences and bushes' idea? And, correct me if I'm wrong, but the proper next step is NOT to apply for building permits, but to seek citizen input. District 4 Councilwoman Barnes wasn't even approached At All, and isn't happy about it.
From KTUL: quote:
The land is in Councilor Maria Barnes' district. And, she's concerned because she hasn't been a part of any discussion about the big development...
Councilor Barnes says it could be a good thing, if only she could see it.
"I don't like to get up in the morning and read the paper and say 'oh, this is what's going on in District Four'," Barnes says. "I think it makes for good practice just to keep the councilors, the mayor, everybody on board, on the same page so we know what's going on."
This really has me ticked.
For the love of God, don't tout urban unless it actually is!
My reading of the news stories tells me that the parking garage is for the apartment complex, not for the Wal-Mart.
Unless the developers are expecting a TIF district or some sort of public involvement, why would they need to have Maria Barnes review their plans? If the developers need the City Council's approval on something, then they'll need to get a majority vote, but not necessarily her vote.
Kenosha and Lansing Avenues between 4th and 6th Streets are private property. What remains of 5th Street between Frankfort and Lansing Avenues is private. 5th Place between Kenosha and Lansing is private. That's what happens when the City decides to close and vacate public streets. I imagine there are some existing utilities below the formally public streets and alleys on the site, and there is an overhead power line along the east side of Kenosha. If there are existing easements through the property, then the developers will need to respect them or request that the easements be revised. Otherwise, why should the developers jump through any extra hoops? What additional requirements would stand in their way of obtaining demolition and building permits? The property has CBD zoning, which is extremely flexible. If the developers change their plans and decide to convert the entire site to surface parking, then there isn't much Maria Barnes or anyone else can do about it.
Here is what I've been able to glean from various news links:
Developers are planning:
a. An urban Wal-Mart store backing up to Lansing Avenue with brick and stucco on its exterior
b. Some additional retail space other than Wal-Mart
c. Some surface parking
d. Approximately 150 residential units -- probably about four stories tall and probably along Fourth and Fifth Streets
e. A four-story parking garage
The proposal is vague so far. KOTV showed the block between Elgin and Frankfort and 4th and 5th as part of the site. I'm willing to give the developers some slack at this point because I haven't seen any design drawings yet. If the project turns out to be ugly and anti-urban, then I most likely will go out of my way to boycott it. But the East End grocery store will be the closest to where I live and work. If I want to be bull-headed about boycotting it, then I'll be forced to go to Petty's or to an even more distant ugly and anti-urban development.
The developers will try to put a project together which they think will appeal to their targeted market. Unfortunately, there is very little demand for excellent urban design and dense development in Tulsa -- especially in that particular area of downtown.
so long as it doesn't look like all the other wal-marts in town, especially the ones they have abandoned.
In the Tulsanow planning meeting back in January I felt that a grocery store, any grocery store is the cornerstone of development downtown. Until it is convenient to live there only the most stalwart will live in such a draconian atmosphere. In time this WalMart will be cause the germination of many stores that will coat-tail onto their store. The site selection process for big retailers is not done haphazardly or to satisfy anything but the need to succeed. Human nature tends to balance things. The WalMart grocery will be balanced off with a Petty's type store. Each category of retail is likely to spawn a contrasting competitor. We will look back and wonder why we weren't more excited at their entrance.
I am surprised the developers didn't give Maria Barnes the respect a councilor deserves. They didn't need her approval but they certainly didn't need her as a potential adversary. Kind of arrogant.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
We will look back and wonder why we weren't more excited at their entrance.
I'm very excited to see them coming into downtown, but I think we need to scrutinize their 'urban' plans. Other cities have accomplished truly urban Wal-Marts, and if they can do it for others, they can certainly do the same here in Tulsa. There's no reason they shouldn't build a store downtown that actually is urban.
I don't have any problems with the store itself coming downtown--I think it's going to be a wonderful asset for all downtown and North side residents. That's fantastic.
The design, though, isn't.
Amazing how many people gullibly accept that it'll be an "urban" designed Wal-Mart purely at face value.
Tell me again how a 150,000 square foot single-story building fronted by surface parking is an urban design?
The White Plains, NY Wal-Mart pictured above is an urban design -- built to the sidewalk within the street grid, parking garage integrated into the building, vertical development, etc.
Hokey facadism does not equal an urban design.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
In time this WalMart will be cause the germination of many stores that will coat-tail onto their store.
You are right. I have never seen a Wal-Mart without a McDonalds nearby.
Great. Just what we need downtown.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
Unless the developers are expecting a TIF district or some sort of public involvement, why would they need to have Maria Barnes review their plans? If the developers need the City Council's approval on something, then they'll need to get a majority vote, but not necessarily her vote.
It's an issue of respect for the area they're trying to enter. If a company completely ignores the surrounding community's input, the more they're likely to resist the development all together.
quote:
Kenosha and Lansing Avenues between 4th and 6th Streets are private property. What remains of 5th Street between Frankfort and Lansing Avenues is private. 5th Place between Kenosha and Lansing is private. That's what happens when the City decides to close and vacate public streets...
...Otherwise, why should the developers jump through any extra hoops? What additional requirements would stand in their way of obtaining demolition and building permits? The property has CBD zoning, which is extremely flexible.
Yes, all the land is private, but that does not mean that the public should have no form of input--as potential future customers, we
are after all, entitled to question and criticize the development.
No, they don't HAVE to have Barnes's approval, per se, nor do they HAVE to have the community's input, but it is only respectful that they do at least work with the neighborhood, including Councilwoman Barnes, to make the development appropriate for downtown.
quote:
If the developers change their plans and decide to convert the entire site to surface parking, then there isn't much Maria Barnes or anyone else can do about it.
You're wrong about that--there is a lot that we can do to prevent things like that coming to fruition.
I guess what goes around comes around.
Back in the 1950's when Tulsa was riding high on a wave of oil $'s, I can remember my father referring to the folks in the state just east as "Arkansawyers" – a put down on their supposed hillbilly origins.
Sixty years later, Arkansas WalMart has all the bucks and Tulsa is slobbering over one of their stores for downtown that symbolizes "cheap-cheap-cheap" – you can wrap a WalMart in brick but it is like putting lipstick on a pig. Talk about a disgrace for downtown.
Wonder who looks like a hillbilly now?
quote:
Originally posted by DScott28604
I'm very excited to see them coming into downtown, but I think we need to scrutinize their 'urban' plans. Other cities have accomplished truly urban Wal-Marts, and if they can do it for others, they can certainly do the same here in Tulsa.
If the developers are expecting some type of public financing supported by tax dollars, then I agree, their plans ought to be subjected to public scrutiny. I'd rather see it happen with no public funding. The process seems a bit perverted for taxpayers to be forced to help foot the bill for the construction of a Wal-Mart store, whether it's 'urban' or not.
quote:
Originally posted by DScott28604
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
If the developers change their plans and decide to convert the entire site to surface parking, then there isn't much Maria Barnes or anyone else can do about it.
You're wrong about that--there is a lot that we can do to prevent things like that coming to fruition.
What can we do to prevent property owners from building surface parking downtown? In the CBD, surface parking is allowed. If the owner of a building wants to tear it down for a parking lot, then it's legal to do so. I can think of several recent examples. It didn't matter to the property owners whether or not the public was opposed to their desire to create more surface parking lots, or at least it did not matter enough for them to change their actions.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
What can we do to prevent property owners from building surface parking downtown? In the CBD, surface parking is allowed. If the owner of a building wants to tear it down for a parking lot, then it's legal to do so. I can think of several recent examples. It didn't matter to the property owners whether or not the public was opposed to their desire to create more surface parking lots, or at least it did not matter enough for them to change their actions.
Plans have to be submitted for review and approval, and if there's a large enough public voice against it, there is more of a chance that the plans won't just automatically be approved. Permits, building apps... any number of things could be denied to the developers if their plans aren't sufficient or appropriate.
quote:
Originally posted by DScott28604
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
What can we do to prevent property owners from building surface parking downtown? In the CBD, surface parking is allowed. If the owner of a building wants to tear it down for a parking lot, then it's legal to do so. I can think of several recent examples. It didn't matter to the property owners whether or not the public was opposed to their desire to create more surface parking lots, or at least it did not matter enough for them to change their actions.
Plans have to be submitted for review and approval, and if there's a large enough public voice against it, there is more of a chance that the plans won't just automatically be approved. Permits, building apps... any number of things could be denied to the developers if their plans aren't sufficient or appropriate.
I'd like to know of an instance of a public outcry preventing the construction of a surface parking lot in downtown Tulsa.
I really don't think plans for surface parking in the CBD would be rejected. Surface parking is a legal land use downtown. Building demolition permits are also approved routinely.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
I'd like to know of an instance of a public outcry preventing the construction of a surface parking lot in downtown Tulsa.
I really don't think plans for surface parking in the CBD would be rejected. Surface parking is a legal land use downtown. Building demolition permits are also approved routinely.
It is legal, but that doesn't mean that it
has to be approved, and it shouldn't mean that it will be automatically.
And there have been a few outcries concerning the demolition of historic buildings for surface parking--granted, none too large--but a development as large as this automatically generates more public interest. A lot of people don't even know that buildings used to be in downtown instead of parking lots... This development, however, has the ability to draw large public attention to the asphalting of downtown, and it also has the ability to change that and make the East End a walkable, urban environment.
At least its on the edge of downtown next to a highway and not in the middle of it. Its really hard to make any good comments though without knowing how the apartments, parking garage and other stores are going to be placed relative to each other. The possibilities are numerous. I have seen where they have the front of the Wal-mart look like a row of shops then the sides of the wal-mart have other smaller stores built around it forming kind of an old time "city block" look.
The parking in front concerned me for a moment. then I realized that one compromise could be to put a 2way street right in front of the store between the parking lot. If you have stores that eventually develop on the other side of the streets all around that parking lot you end up with kind of a central square layout.
(http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/3694/walmartuz8.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
If you have stores that eventually develop on the other side of the streets all around that parking lot you end up with kind of a central square layout.
A central square would be nice, but this would be a parking lot... not a green with fountain, plaza, etc.--a parking lot.
quote:
Originally posted by DScott28604
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
I'd like to know of an instance of a public outcry preventing the construction of a surface parking lot in downtown Tulsa.
I really don't think plans for surface parking in the CBD would be rejected. Surface parking is a legal land use downtown. Building demolition permits are also approved routinely.
It is legal, but that doesn't mean that it has to be approved, and it shouldn't mean that it will be automatically.
And there have been a few outcries concerning the demolition of historic buildings for surface parking--granted, none too large--but a development as large as this automatically generates more public interest. A lot of people don't even know that buildings used to be in downtown instead of parking lots... This development, however, has the ability to draw large public attention to the asphalting of downtown, and it also has the ability to change that and make the East End a walkable, urban environment.
A significant portion of the site is paved with asphalt already -- I estimate about 50% of the area from looking at aerial photos. I suppose that plans for surface parking lots wouldn't necessarily
have to be approved, but I think that the City would have no valid basis to deny or delay any permits to build parking lots. Such obstruction by the City would be legal fodder for the developer since there are recent precedents of the City issuing demolition permits to clear the way for more surface parking lots downtown.
What should happen isn't necessarily what will happen. Much of this is a result of our City government deciding to close and vacate streets. Tulsa has encouraged large assemblages of land and superblocks downtown for decades. If Wal-Mart wanted to build a 150,000 square foot store on typical downtown block with an alley, then they would be forced to build at least four stories tall, because they would be limited to a 42,000 square foot parcel. If they had a typical block with a vacated alley, then a 150,000 store would need to be a minimum of two stories tall.
This is what happens when we allow public streets to be privatized. I don't think anyone should be shocked if and when the developers decide to build some multi-story residential buildings where there are few or none now, some multi-level parking where there is little or none now, and some single-story retail buildings where there are vacant, mostly single-story buildings or asphalt parking lots now. In the current real estate market, there is no particular reason to build tall and dense, especially in that part of downtown.
quote:
Originally posted by DScott28604
A lot of people don't even know that buildings used to be in downtown instead of parking lots...
I agree that there is a great amount of ignorance about the history of downtown Tulsa. Some prime examples are posted here on the TN forum.
I also contend that many (and probably most) people simply do not care whether or not a Wal-Mart is 'urban' or not. Most people look for convenience, not high quality urban design. And convenience for many people means being able to park their gas-guzzling SUVs as close to the entrance of the grocery store as possible so they can load up on high-calorie, low-nutrient 'convenience' foods before roaring back to their homes miles away from the downtown.
I can't think of one case where public outrage prevented a surface parking lot from being constructed in downtown Tulsa. There may be an example or two, but since I moved here 18 years ago, I've seen mostly tear-downs for more surface parking downtown.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
What should happen isn't necessarily what will happen. Much of this is a result of our City government deciding to close and vacate streets. Tulsa has encouraged large assemblages of land and superblocks downtown for decades. If Wal-Mart wanted to build a 150,000 square foot store on typical downtown block with an alley, then they would be forced to build at least four stories tall, because they would be limited to a 42,000 square foot parcel. If they had a typical block with a vacated alley, then a 150,000 store would need to be a minimum of two stories tall.
Actually, with 300-foot city blocks, wouldn't a single square block consist of 90,000 square feet, resulting in the possibility of a single-story store occupying two square blocks?
And if the store were two levels, a single block could accommodate 180,000 square feet?? Oh wait, I think I get what you're saying...
I fully understand that what
should be are what
are are two different things. But things can change. And, if the developer, Tom Seay, had come in and just said, "We're building a typical Wal-Mart", instead of throwing the word "urban" out at every opportunity, saying that
of course it would have to fit into downtown and that it couldn't and shouldn't be a typical suburban-like store, I wouldn't be quite so upset...
I'd still be upset that it would be a typical big box planted in downtown. But it seems that he's trying to fool Tulsans into thinking this Wal-Mart is going to be a hip, urban store, when it's completely not. And
that really bothers me.
quote:
Originally posted by DScott28604
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
What should happen isn't necessarily what will happen. Much of this is a result of our City government deciding to close and vacate streets. Tulsa has encouraged large assemblages of land and superblocks downtown for decades. If Wal-Mart wanted to build a 150,000 square foot store on typical downtown block with an alley, then they would be forced to build at least four stories tall, because they would be limited to a 42,000 square foot parcel. If they had a typical block with a vacated alley, then a 150,000 store would need to be a minimum of two stories tall.
Actually, with 300-foot city blocks, wouldn't a single square block consist of 90,000 square feet, resulting in the possibility of a single-story store occupying two square blocks?
And if the store were two levels, it could accomodate 180,000 square feet??
The typical block in downtown Tulsa is 300 feet by 300 feet with a 20 foot wide alley bisecting it surrounded by 80 foot wide streets and avenues. So the typical block in downtown Tulsa has two 42,000 square foot parcels separated by a 20 foot wide alley. There are exceptions, but that was the general pattern when Tulsa was laid out.
A typical block with a vacated alley is a 90,000 square foot parcel. 150,000 divided by 90,000 is 1.67. A single-story building would not be possible on a single block. A 150,000 square foot building on 90,000 square foot parcel would need to be at least two stories tall.
Building height also depends on the occupancy and type of construction. The building code adopted by Tulsa limits the size of buildings according to the area per floor in Table 503.
Provided all other code requirements were met and there were no projections above streets and alleys, a 180,000 square foot building two stories tall could be constructed on a typical block in downtown Tulsa (with a vacated alley). Otherwise, on a typical block with an alley, a 150,000 square foot building would need to be at least four stories tall, because 150,000 divided by 42,000 is 3.57.
Wal-Mart would not be able to build a 150,000 square foot single-story building on a typical block in downtown Tulsa, not even on a block without an alley. The City's deliberate choice to close and vacate public streets and alleys is what allows a single-story 150,000 square foot store to be built. This is one reason I am opposed to the creation of more superblocks downtown. Superblocks are urban destroyers.
quote:
Originally posted by DScott28604
...But things can change. And, if the developer, Tom Seay, had come in and just said, "We're building a typical Wal-Mart", instead of throwing the word "urban" out at every opportunity, saying that of course it would have to fit into downtown and that it couldn't and shouldn't be a typical suburban-like store, I wouldn't be quite so upset...
I'd still be upset that it would be a typical big box planted in downtown. But it seems that he's trying to fool Tulsans into thinking this Wal-Mart is going to be a hip, urban store, when it's completely not. And that really bothers me.
If it is built as a typical suburban type of Wal-Mart development, then I doubt if Tulsans will be foolish enough to perceive it as hip and urban.
At this point, I'm not really very upset about the proposal because I haven't seen design drawings. I know what's there now: mostly single-story, unattractive, vacant buildings and
lots of asphalt paving. I know what I've read and heard about the proposal:
a. Demolition of all existing buildings on the site
b. Construction of a 150,000 square foot Wal-Mart store backing up to Lansing with brick and stucco on its exterior
c. Construction of approximately 65,000 square feet of commercial space (in addition to the Wal-Mart store)
d. Construction of some surface parking
e. Construction of some multi-level parking
f. Construction of multi-story residential (150 units)
Offhand, without seeing the proposed arrangement, the development seems as though it will be more vibrant and denser than what's there now. That's only my perception. And I will not be surprised if it pans out to be the typical suburban or anti-urban style of development which is so common in Tulsa. I do care about good urban design, but I don't think most Tulsans think about it much at all.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
In time this WalMart will be cause the germination of many stores that will coat-tail onto their store.
You are right. I have never seen a Wal-Mart without a McDonalds nearby.
Great. Just what we need downtown.
We didn't want McDonalds at 15th & Utica either. But they did a respectable job, its quite busy and diagonally from it, an upscale restaurant opened called The Palace. Besides, McDonald's always has nice things to say about you.[;)]
I just drove by the area. How anyone could express disapointment or embarrassment is beyond me. Those two words describe its current state.
quote:
Originally posted by potomac13
I guess what goes around comes around.
Back in the 1950's when Tulsa was riding high on a wave of oil $'s, I can remember my father referring to the folks in the state just east as "Arkansawyers" – a put down on their supposed hillbilly origins.
Sixty years later, Arkansas WalMart has all the bucks and Tulsa is slobbering over one of their stores for downtown that symbolizes "cheap-cheap-cheap" – you can wrap a WalMart in brick but it is like putting lipstick on a pig. Talk about a disgrace for downtown.
Wonder who looks like a hillbilly now?
I wonder what took Sam Walton, who was born in Kingfisher, worked in- and met his wife in Tulsa, to end up starting the World's Biggest Company in Bentonville, Arkansas? Imagine how different Tulsa would be today if it, or Claremore, were the HQ of Wal-Mart.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
quote:
Originally posted by potomac13
I guess what goes around comes around.
Back in the 1950's when Tulsa was riding high on a wave of oil $'s, I can remember my father referring to the folks in the state just east as "Arkansawyers" – a put down on their supposed hillbilly origins.
Sixty years later, Arkansas WalMart has all the bucks and Tulsa is slobbering over one of their stores for downtown that symbolizes "cheap-cheap-cheap" – you can wrap a WalMart in brick but it is like putting lipstick on a pig. Talk about a disgrace for downtown.
Wonder who looks like a hillbilly now?
I wonder what took Sam Walton, who was born in Kingfisher, worked in- and met his wife in Tulsa, to end up starting the World's Biggest Company in Bentonville, Arkansas? Imagine how different Tulsa would be today if it, or Claremore, were the HQ of Wal-Mart.
He probably couldn't find any investors here and the commissioners probably ran him off.