The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

From Tulsa World (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070803_1_A1_hASup47180%22)

quote:

---

A Supercenter will anchor an east-end redevelopment project.


An urban-designed Wal-Mart Supercenter is coming downtown as the anchor tenant to a proposed East Village mixed-use redevelopment project, developers confirmed Thursday.

Real estate developers John Williams of Claremore and Tom Seay of Arkansas have teamed on the project.

Williams, sole principal of Downtown Tulsa Developers LLC, has purchase options on about 15 acres of land owned by Bill White, owner of a former car dealership, and the Nordam Group, an aerospace component manufacturer.

The property sits roughly between Frankfort Avenue and U.S. 75 between Fourth and Sixth streets.

"Once the public understands the project and what it will do to the whole east end, I can't possibly imagine why they wouldn't come on board," Williams said.

Seay, a former Wal-Mart executive vice president for real estate construction, now owns the Seayco Group, which has developed many "big box" retail centers, including several in Tulsa and one in Owasso.

In addition to Wal-Mart, the tenants that Seay works closely with include Target or Super Target, Kohls, Belk, Lowe's
and Home Depot.

"Not only is Wal-Mart going to bring the goods and the services and all the low prices they're known for, they also are going to build a quality product so that they have something to be proud of," Seay said.

"This is very exciting for downtown," he said. "It represents the first step toward redeveloping downtown by taking what is a blighted area and transforming it into a place where people can shop and live in an urban environment."

Williams said the development will be the first in nearly 50 years to occur in east downtown.

The project also includes about 150 apartments "that fit into the streetscape fronting on Fourth and Fifth streets with a parking deck," Seay said.

Surface parking also would be screened with landscaping and metal fencing, he said.

Seay said the Supercenter would be slightly smaller, at 150,000 square feet, to fit the downtown site, and will have a different exterior.

"It will be urbanized," he said.

The single-story store will have a red brick facade with some stucco and will back up to Lansing Avenue near U.S. 75.

Seay said the final design plans are not complete for the project.

Both men acknowledge they still have a lot of bridges to cross and they are working closely with the city.

"We also know we need to go meet with various downtown groups that are interested in downtown redevelopment and the City Council," he said.

Williams said another positive for the project is that a downtown Wal-Mart "would create a great service to north Tulsa because it's so close."

Seay said any effort by the city's administration to get a Wal-Mart into the vacant Albertsons store at 1601 N. Peoria Ave. will not affect the downtown project.

"We have a commitment," he said about Wal-Mart going downtown.

Wal-Mart officials plan to join Seay and Williams when they begin the public education process.

Seay and Williams said they hope to have some activity on the project within the next year to 18 months.

---

Without seeing the site plan or any design drawings yet, some points sound interesting:

- 150 apartments

- a parking deck

-an attempt to blend with existing streetscapes along 4th and 5th

I'd like to see the existing street grid preserved.  Also, it would be nice if 5th was opened between Frankfort and Kenosha.

Sounds about right.  And it would be nice for them to maintain the current grid.

I can put my general hatred for everything Wal-Mart aside, if the developer does something positive for the area.  Even if the WM isn't perfect, if it's surrounded by better designed residential, I probably won't complain too much.

If the store doesn't front the street, I don't see how it can be called "urban."  Will this supercenter also have one of those awful 30-foot tall signs?  That will really kill the view from the east side of the IDL if that horrible blue and yellow Wal-Mart sign blocks the view of the skyline.  Are there currently any restrictions regarding tall signs in downtown?  I'm guessing probably not.....

You can call them snobs if you want, but those young professionals, every city's favorite target market, will ultimately think a Wal-Mart cheapens downtown's image.

Hi all; there's good reason to think that Wal-Mart may actually be turning over a new leaf with its urban store prototype.  Consider this gem, revealed to an absolutely BITTER public in Austin a few months back:

(http://marvinmoss.com/wmaustin.jpg)

(http://marvinmoss.com/wmaustin3.jpg)

Downtown Tulsa could certainly herald this type of development.

BF posted some concept drawings of a similar development. on the other thread:
https://tulsanow.org/wp/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7227&whichpage=2

Finger's crossed...

"minimal surface parking, minimal surface parking"

If everything is as it appears, I think it is a good step.  I would prefer 10 small entrepreneurs opening up quality shops, but that isnt happening.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle

BF posted some concept drawings of a similar development. on the other thread:
https://tulsanow.org/wp/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7227&whichpage=2

---

Wonder if enough pollution abatement
CAN be done to the Nordam site that is part of this "East Village" development?

One of the apparent reasons that the influential Siegfried Family has been trying to unload this property on to the City of Tulsa at least as far back as the defeated 1997 The Tulsa Project $0.005 sales tax increase, was because if Nordam ever abandoned the site, then they would have to CLEAN UP THE POLLUTION.

So, they attempted to "clean" the property by transferring it over to a government entity to "WASH" the transaction, so to speak, and absolve themselves of the onerous pollution abatement.

[xx(]

Don't care how you dress it up, it's still a WalMart. Can't we do better? How about a Reasor's instead? Larry, are you out there???

More details regarding this project from Tulsa Business Journal:  http://www.tulsabusinessjournal.com/article.asp?aID=45620

quote:

---

Originally posted by NellieBly

Don't care how you dress it up, it's still a WalMart. Can't we do better? How about a Reasor's instead? Larry, are you out there???

---

In 50 years, the fact is we HAVEN'T done better.  The way the TBJ article talks it doesnt sound all bad.  I'm glad someone is willing to step up.

Are we to wait another 50 years for development in that area?

I'm intrigued by the idea of living at walmart...

I'll make you some curtains out of the plastic bags they give out.

Just remembered, the Wal-Mart episode of South Park was on last night.  Remember:  the Wal-Mart is in all of us.

(translation, dont shop there and it will go away)

quote:

---

Originally posted by emersonbiggins

Hi all; there's good reason to think that Wal-Mart may actually be turning over a new leaf with its urban store prototype.  Consider this gem, revealed to an absolutely BITTER public in Austin a few months back:

(http://marvinmoss.com/wmaustin.jpg)

(http://marvinmoss.com/wmaustin3.jpg)

Downtown Tulsa could certainly herald this type of development.

---

dude....if downtown gets something like that I'm buying lofts downtown and moving in with all the other smuggites down there.

I get the sinking feeling we are not going to get something like that. They mentioned brick and stuccoe in the article. However, having something downtown that could pull more people and development there will help. There is a lot of empty space down there, plenty of room for other things to go in as well. This is good news in my book. If we can induce them to make any improvements that will make it better,,, all the better.  

Sounds like they are going to have the typical parking in front structure which I do not like. That is not urban at all. At least they could fake it and put the store front close to the street with perhaps a row or two of parking in front and on the sides then the rest in back. Not the best for loading and unloading the trucks but I bet they could arrange to make it work.

A compromise solution could be to make a "street" that runs from 4th to 6th right in front of the Wal-Mart with parking across that street. Basically faking it, the front of the Wal-Mart would be right on the street with the parking in the lot across from it. Have it just 2 lanes with traffic calming elements. Then have some trees, lamp posts, park benches between the street and parking lot. Then they can still have landscaping and a wrought iron fencing around the parking lot for added safety etc.

Some more from the Tulsa World:

quote:

---

Wal-Mart officials plan to join Seay and Williams when they begin the public education process.

Seay and Williams said they hope to have some activity on the project within the next year to 18 months.

---

I think we need to give THEM some kind of "education process" as they called it.  It is THEY who apparently don't know or don't Care what 'urban' means.
To them, Urban = Bricks.
To me, Their Intelligence = Bricks.

12-18 months isn't a long time, people... We've gotta get crackin'!

Also, to add another example proving that Wal-Mart actually can building something urban, with structured parking, and above the store, even!!!!  (And look, no brick... [;)])
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1223/1003496917_0faff376bf_o.jpg)

Remember this:  Wal-Mart is capable of doing whatever a community demands of them... Without that force, though, here comes another suburban big box...

quote:

---

Originally posted by DScott28604

To them, Urban = Bricks.
To me, Their Intelligence = Bricks.

---

[}:)]

http://www.argtulsa.com/

Interesting they want to get tax dollars involved in the building of a WalMart --

"The Seayco Group is developing the project. They say the development will have private as well as a pubic partnership. That means your tax dollars could support the new addition."
http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=d044505b-4132-4415-8966-da1e08af4202

On the positive side, I think the artist's rendering posted here of the rooftop parking is worth serious consideration.

I'm not enthused about the idea of tax dollars supporting the private development.

I wonder how much the public investment will be.  I hope none of it goes toward building illegal and dangerous curb ramps such as those in the Blue Dome district.  I hope none of the public investment goes toward cutting down established shade trees as has been the case along Third and Fourth Streets near Cincinnati recently.  I hope none of the public investment goes toward replacing relatively smooth sidewalks with rough and uneven unit pavers as is happening with the current project on Boston between 3rd and 7th.  I hope the tax dollars will not be funding the installation of any more glaring acorn lights, as has been the recent trend in several areas downtown.

quote:

---

Originally posted by patric

Interesting they want to get tax dollars involved in the building of a WalMart --

"The Seayco Group is developing the project. They say the development will have private as well as a pubic partnership. That means your tax dollars could support the new addition."
http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=d044505b-4132-4415-8966-da1e08af4202

---

Seems to me that if the Mayor or Himelfarb isn't quoted in the piece, and Councilor Barnes is on record as not having even seen the plans, then they're grossly overstating the public partnership. Might be something they want or need to make the project happen, but if the City leadership isn't saying anything about it publicly, then it's not a done deal.

I don't think hardly anybody wants this development. Pissing off a bunch of people is not the way to get this thing done.

I could live with a very different type of Urban Wal-Mart, but who is kidding whom? These guys have no intention of doing that.

I say we refuse them any public support and fight them on every detail we can.

quote:

---

Originally posted by recyclemichael

Pissing off a bunch of people is not the way to get this thing done...

I say we refuse them any public support and fight them on every detail we can.

---

If the developers expect public support, then they ought to be prepared to face public scrutiny.  However, I imagine they have done their market study, and I imagine that they could build almost anything on that site without upsetting very many people.  As far as urban design standards go, most Tulsans are not particularly demanding.

I'm not saying that's the way things ought to be.  I'm saying that's the ways things are.  I won't be surprised if the developers get a bunch of public support and then proceed to build whatever they want to build, whether it be urban, suburban, or anti-urban.  Sadly, that's the way things work in Tulsa.

I think you will definitely hear some hollering if they give a tif to wal-mart. So many people dont like wal-mart as it is. Couple that with the people who wouldnt want a tif for anything and you have got a recipe for a lot of hollering. lol Could even spill over and further hurt chances of the river tax passing.  

But perhaps instead of singling out wal-mart and giving a tif for one thing then another, they could open an "East End tif window" intended to get the development ball rolling in that part of downtown. Any developer that wants to develop something in that area, shows they have financing and meets certain design stipulations will get a tif if its done within a certain time window. Say 2-3 years. After that time, close the tif window and have the city pick 1 other location to move it to, like the river or northside, east side, west. Kind of a rolling tif zone. Could incentivise developers to do something when it was in a particular location and would somewhat limit its use from being for just anyone who asks anywhere in the city at any time. Dont know if you could find a way to really make that work, but just a thought.

Embarrassing.

That's an interesting idea, Artist.  I wonder, have other cities have ever done something like that?

I should re-phrase:

I won't be surprised if the developers get a bunch of public financial support in terms of a TIF district or whatever.  If so, I expect there to be some opposition to the development.  But I won't be surprised if the developers end up building what they want to build, regardless of any amount of public support or opposition.

Not very many people live within walking distance of the East End.  Most potential shoppers will be driving to that grocery store.  Most of them will want convenient parking, whether it be on a surface lot or within some type of structure.  Most potential shoppers will not care whether the development is 'urban' or not.

so why doesn't someone come up with a nice art deco looking facade and post the drawing here.  Hell if Home Depot can save the front of the old warehouse market, I think Wal-Mart could throw up something that blends in with the rest of the surrounding area.

I was thinking something either along the lines of how the old Brown Dunkin(hope I spelled that right) or McBirney building looked like. Maybe use the terra cotta tile on the facade, while using an attractive brick surround the rest of the building. You could make the facade look like an interesting mix of those buildings. Maybe do the middle of the building with a pretty glass entrance, to make it look like someone added a new entrance to an old building..

The other idea I was thinking about was making the front look like the old Akdar shrine building. It would look really interesting in that part of downtown.

I have no opinion either way about Wal-Mart going downtown. The Home Depot DT seems to be doing great. If they can make it look cool and maybe pay homage to our once glorious past, it could be good development.

Let's pray it doesn't look like the one near 71st and Memorial!

[:)]

I know how to stop this Wal-Mart dead in it's tracks. Stop the city hall move and the city property will not be freed up for this development to take place. I hope this makes you happy you supported the city hall move. Good work. Make life bitter.

Personal attack removed

I just got back from looking at the area. I dont think there is a more desolate and blighted looking spot in all of downtown. Even a regular looking wal-mart would be an improvement. Add 150 decent apartments, putting close to 200 more people living downtown, and a 4 story parking garage along with other shops along with it could only improve that corner.

There is pleeeenty of other property available for development.

I am anxious to see the over all design and layout however. But its really hard to actually drive around that spot and think of complaining about something new of any kind going in there.

it needs to have a ziggurat at least.  And I think it needs art deco motifs of wal-mart workser doing various forms of labor, kinda like the old fire alarm building.

I'd really like to see it reflect an art deco design, given Tulsa's affinity for it.  Streamline would be really cool, but so would zig-zag.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

I just got back from looking at the area. I dont think there is a more desolate and blighted looking spot in all of downtown. Even a regular looking wal-mart would be an improvement. Add 150 decent apartments, putting close to 200 more people living downtown, and a 4 story parking garage along with other shops along with it could only improve that corner.

There is pleeeenty of other property available for development.

I am anxious to see the over all design and layout however. But its really hard to actually drive around that spot and think of complaining about something new of any kind going in there.

---

While I agree that what's there now is pretty crappy, and that anything would look better, we should shoot for something that's more than mediocre.  If they're gonna do it, they should do it right.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

I just got back from looking at the area. I dont think there is a more desolate and blighted looking spot in all of downtown...

There is pleeeenty of other property available for development.

I am anxious to see the over all design and layout however. But its really hard to actually drive around that spot and think of complaining about something new of any kind going in there.

---

I've spent time looking around the site, especially since another topic about a proposed baseball stadium was posted two or three years ago.  I think Nordam security must be tired of seeing me lurking around the place.

It's not the gloomiest corner of downtown IMO.  I see tremendous potential for some of the buildings.  I think it could be a great residential district.  Many of the existing buildings are non-descript, but the brick facade facing Lansing between 5th Place and 5th Street has a nice art deco feel to it with its rhythm of vertical piers.  Two or three of the buildings on Kenosha between 5th and 6th are attractive also.

Over the past decade, I've seen a worse area in downtown Portland tranformed into an attractive urban neighborhood.  Whether or not something like that will happen in the east portion of downtown Tulsa remains to be seen.  But I know it could happen.

quote:

---

Originally posted by booWorld

 Most potential shoppers will not care whether the development is 'urban' or not.

---

Most potential Wal-Mart shoppers are complete idiots though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by deinstein

quote:

---

Originally posted by booWorld

 Most potential shoppers will not care whether the development is 'urban' or not.

---

Most potential Wal-Mart shoppers are complete idiots though.

---

Would a customer base of apathetic eggheads who don't give a flip about urban design be any better?  Most potential shoppers, regardless of intelligence level, will not care whether this development is 'urban' or not.

I don't think a typical Wal-mart shopper would be indifferent to whether it was "Urban" or "suburban".  The typical Wal-mart shopper would actually be DISCOURAGED by "Urban".  When you have people saying "we have to minimize surface parking" and what not, that makes the store more of a pain to the average auto-commuter who wants all the convenient parking they can find.  Places with parking in the rear also make it to where people need to plan their route, rather than driving down the street to a big sign and big inviting parking lot, and going "OO Dere go a walmart!!" and cutting across 2 lanes of traffic in a split second decision to go buy some junk.  :D  The city would have to change dramatically before developers are not going to prefer to build big inviting parking lots and giant signage.  Why would they want to hurt business?  I do hate the fact that they are lying and saying they are building an "Urban" Wal-mart when they are most likely not, however.

Also, I wonder if they'll get a Penguin.

quote:

---

Originally posted by YoungTulsan

I don't think a typical Wal-mart shopper would be indifferent to whether it was "Urban" or "suburban".  The typical Wal-mart shopper would actually be DISCOURAGED by "Urban".  When you have people saying "we have to minimize surface parking" and what not, that makes the store more of a pain to the average auto-commuter who wants all the convenient parking they can find...

---

I think you have a valid point.  I stand corrected.

Surface parking is fairly easy to understand.  Many drivers are confused by multi-level and especially by underground parking structures.

quote:

---

Originally posted by booWorld

quote:

---

Originally posted by YoungTulsan

I don't think a typical Wal-mart shopper would be indifferent to whether it was "Urban" or "suburban".  The typical Wal-mart shopper would actually be DISCOURAGED by "Urban".  When you have people saying "we have to minimize surface parking" and what not, that makes the store more of a pain to the average auto-commuter who wants all the convenient parking they can find...

---

I think you have a valid point.  I stand corrected.

Surface parking is fairly easy to understand.  Many drivers are confused by multi-level and especially by underground parking structures.

---

I agree.

I live and work downtown and I constantly hear people complaining about downtown parking when parking is incredibly easy, especially if you're willing to walk two blocks or pay a very minimal fee. People are A-OK with walking several blocks distance across a concrete wasteland at woodland hills, but walking two blocks downtown is apparently far more difficult for many people.

I guess it confuses many Tulsans when there's not a big surface lot in front of every building.

quote:

---

Originally posted by recyclemichael

I don't think hardly anybody wants this development. Pissing off a bunch of people is not the way to get this thing done.

I could live with a very different type of Urban Wal-Mart, but who is kidding whom? These guys have no intention of doing that.

I say we refuse them any public support and fight them on every detail we can.

---

I agree with Michael.  This mornings paper states that a TIF District will be necessary for the project to go forward.  

See: http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070805_1_A1_hApar20631
Tulsa World

JUST SAY NO TO A DOWNTOWN WAL-MART!!!!!  

I do not shop at Wal-Mart because of their many politically incorrect positions.  

See http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/press/
Wake-Up Wal-Mart Press Center

Downtown is not necessary for their business model. In fact, as has been pointed out, an "Urban" Wal-Mart is a myth.  Wal-Mart and YUPPIE does not compute.  A downtown Wal-Mart will be a cold shower for any other downtown retail.  If a Wal-Mart had gone into downtown OKC most of their retail development would have been scared off.  Those good business Republicans over there understand this and OKC would have never permitted a downtown Wal-Mart.

Before we put City support behind Wal-Mart we need to find an anchor tenant for the vacated Albertson's at Pine and Peoria.

Contact the Mayor and Councilors and JUST SAY NO TO A DOWNTOWN WAL-MART!!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by booWorld
[br  Many drivers are confused by multi-level and especially by underground parking structures.

---

people like this are typically the same ones that go to wal-mart.

there is nothing hard about a parking garage.  If you can't figure that out then you should just shoot yourself since even mice can figure out how to navigate a maze.

quote:

---

Originally posted by inteller

quote:

---

Originally posted by booWorld
[br  Many drivers are confused by multi-level and especially by underground parking structures.

---

people like this are typically the same ones that go to wal-mart.

there is nothing hard about a parking garage.  If you can't figure that out then you should just shoot yourself since even mice can figure out how to navigate a maze.

---

Mice?  How about lemmings?

Surface parking is ugly, but it's the simplest type of parking for drivers to understand.  Underground parking structures are the most difficult for drivers to understand because they are not visible at a glance.

I'm opposed to TIF or any other type of public funding for this project.

quote:

---

Originally posted by booWorld

quote:

---

Originally posted by inteller

quote:

---

Originally posted by booWorld
[br  Many drivers are confused by multi-level and especially by underground parking structures.

---

people like this are typically the same ones that go to wal-mart.

there is nothing hard about a parking garage.  If you can't figure that out then you should just shoot yourself since even mice can figure out how to navigate a maze.

---

Mice?  How about lemmings?

Surface parking is ugly, but it's the simplest type of parking for drivers to understand.  Underground parking structures are the most difficult for drivers to understand because they are not visible at a glance.

I'm opposed to TIF or any other type of public funding for this project.

---

The only positive about a TIFF is that it would give the city an element of control of the design and quality of the project. If a TIFF is rejected you can be quite sure what we will end up with is a Wal-Mart that is a duplicate of the new one at 66th and Memorial. As it is now with the current zoning, the city has no say in anything.

My guess is that the developers will get TIF or some type of public financial assistance.  I imagine that the City will be very lax with any 'urban' design requirements.  And, ultimately, I won't be a bit surprised if the developers build what they want to build anyway.

I have very little hope for this to become an 'urban' project.  I hope that I'm wrong.

What has been proposed sounds more 'urban' than what's there now.  However, I don't think it warrants TI financing.

Honestly, its not that much of the downtown area and one that's currently blighted. If you believe in the free market system, that consumers drive the choices for shopping, then you have to believe that Tulsa may not be the sophisticated, urbane market you guys would like to think.

We ate downtown last nite at Caz's then ambled around the area. Drove to surrounding neighborhoods east of the site, Kendall/Whittier, 6th street, 11th street and near southeast of it. Of course WalMart wants to be there. That market is their bread and butter. If they can spiff it up a bit and draw in Gilcrease Hills, Reservoir Hill and even a little of the Cherry Street crowd they will do well. If they are refused this site, they'll find another.

Sometimes, I think people on this forum lose track of what an "average" Tulsan looks like.

quote:

---

Originally posted by booWorld

My guess is that the developers will get TIF or some type of public financial assistance.  I imagine that the City will be very lax with any 'urban' design requirements.  And, ultimately, I won't be a bit surprised if the developers build what they want to build anyway.

I have very little hope for this to become an 'urban' project.  I hope that I'm wrong.

What has been proposed sounds more 'urban' than what's there now.  However, I don't think it warrants TI financing.

---

If the developers need a TIF to make this project happen, then they'll have an uphill battle.

You are correct, boo. The chance of this being an "urban" project are slim and none. One 3-4 story apartment building fronting Elgin? A few strip centers fronting 5th? All that in front of a SuperCenter with a giant surface parking lot? That's hardly mixed-use or urban.

Simple solution. Put the SuperCenter one mile north at Pine and Peoria, where the north side desperately needs services and where there's already a big surface parking lot, small commercial pad development, major infrastructure improvements, highway access, and an existing TIF district ready to reinvest in north Tulsa.

I would speculate that downtown residents would be willing to drive 1 mile up to Pine to get their Wal-Mart fix. It would seem SuperCenter shopping (stocking up) would best involve a car anyway. The Bill White/Nordam land could be developed in a manner that's truly urban and include a smaller grocery store/market that's more condusive to quick trips by pedestrians carrying 1-2 small bags of groceries.

I just threw up my lunch.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE

quote:

---

Originally posted by booWorld

My guess is that the developers will get TIF or some type of public financial assistance.  I imagine that the City will be very lax with any 'urban' design requirements.  And, ultimately, I won't be a bit surprised if the developers build what they want to build anyway.

I have very little hope for this to become an 'urban' project.  I hope that I'm wrong.

What has been proposed sounds more 'urban' than what's there now.  However, I don't think it warrants TI financing.

---

If the developers need a TIF to make this project happen, then they'll have an uphill battle.

You are correct, boo. The chance of this being an "urban" project are slim and none. One 3-4 story apartment building fronting Elgin? A few strip centers fronting 5th? All that in front of a SuperCenter with a giant surface parking lot? That's hardly mixed-use or urban.

Simple solution. Put the SuperCenter one mile north at Pine and Peoria, where the north side desperately needs services and where there's already a big surface parking lot, small commercial pad development, major infrastructure improvements, highway access, and an existing TIF district ready to reinvest in north Tulsa.

I would speculate that downtown residents would be willing to drive 1 mile up to Pine to get their Wal-Mart fix. It would seem SuperCenter shopping (stocking up) would best involve a car anyway. The Bill White/Nordam land could be developed in a manner that's truly urban and include a smaller grocery store/market that's more condusive to quick trips by pedestrians carrying 1-2 small bags of groceries.

---

                                              Brilliant. I think this is the plan the city should encourage. I will cheer lead for that. This plan would be a benefit to Tulsa instead of a detriment to downtown.

Anyone willing to help fight the Wal-Mart? Something along the lines of the "Stop the Chop" campaign, which was apparently successful? We live in Tribune lofts and have surveyed the building... we know of a few others that would be willing to put some time/effort/money into it. But signs/banners/flyers/bumper stickers/postcards are expensive and it takes more than just a couple of us to pull off. If we could get a group of at least 10 together, it would be more than possible. Anyone with us?

:-D

quote:

---

Originally posted by CassieMDM

Anyone willing to help fight the Wal-Mart? Something along the lines of the "Stop the Chop" campaign, which was apparently successful? We live in Tribune lofts and have surveyed the building... we know of a few others that would be willing to put some time/effort/money into it. But signs/banners/flyers/bumper stickers/postcards are expensive and it takes more than just a couple of us to pull off. If we could get a group of at least 10 together, it would be more than possible. Anyone with us?

:-D

---

                                            You have friends in the Local Unions in Tulsa should you choose to accept them(some of them have their own print shops that might be willing to help). I am willing to personally donate to this cause.

From the Tulsa Business Journal.

TBJ Downtown Article (//%22http://www.tulsabusinessjournal.com/article.asp?aID=45620%22)

quote:

---

New Downtown Plan Includes Urban Wal-Mart
Tulsa Business Staff
8/2/2007

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.
Tom Seay, owner of Seayco Group of Bentonville, Ark., holds contracts for the purchase of "a little more than 15 acres" that previously made up the core of a Washington, D.C. group's plans to build a mixed-use development called the East End.

Although Seay said it was premature to discuss a timeline, he said the development is planned around an urban Wal-Mart that would reflect a design complementary to downtown.

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.

"We think our plans, once we are able to really talk about them, will start the revitalization of downtown," Seay said. "We think it would be sensational for Tulsa."

"I know a number of developers have tried to do stuff in downtown for a number of years and have never been able to do it," he said. "I feel quite confident that we will be able to pull this off."

A former long-time executive in Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s real estate division, Seay started Seayco Group eight years ago after his retirement from Wal-Mart.

Since then, the company has developed 10-11 shopping centers in Arkansas and the Tulsa area.

"Most of our centers are large," Seay said. "Our tenants are basically Target or Super Target, Wal-Mart or Wal-Mart Supercenters. Kohls, Lowe's, Home Depot, Belks and Federated Department Stores – things like that."

Locally, Seayco has developed the Owasso Market at 96th Street North and Mingo Valley Expressway; the Riverside Market at Parkway, Delaware Avenue and 95th Street South; the Eastside Market on 71st Street between Garnett Drive and US 169; the Peoria Market at Peoria Avenue and 46th Street, and, across Riverside Drive, Riverside Market II, which includes the Red Robin and Johnny Carino's restaurants.

Seay said his company's developments are typically large, but "that is not what we have in mind for downtown." He said a downtown development has to have an urban, not suburban, design.

"It can't look like Eastside Market or Riverside Market," he said. "But it has to have some of those characteristics. We see an opportunity to put in a large retailer that would have groceries in it and some small shops that would have local restaurants, plus maybe a national chain restaurant."

In addition to other national and local tenants, Seay plans on including residential housing.

"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."

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."

The property under contract by Seayco Group, operating under the name Downtown Tulsa Development LLC, is roughly bounded by Fourth and Sixth streets and Elgin and Lansing avenues. The property is currently owned by Nordam Group Inc. and long-time Tulsa auto dealer Bill White.
It represents the largest portion of property once targeted by Washington, D.C- based Global Development Partners LLC for the group's planned East End development. Global's plan, complete with a new Tulsa Drillers stadium, 450,000 SF of retail and dining outlets, 800 residential units, three high-quality hotels, and 150,000 SF of office space, has shrunk to a one-city block of "vertical" development.

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."

Kissler said Global's development, currently bounded by Fifth and Sixth streets and Elgin and Frankfort avenues, will include retail, residential, hotel and entertainment elements.

Seay said that, due to the higher costs of buying and developing property in an urban setting, Seayco Group will ask the City of Tulsa for a Tax Increment Financing District designation for the project to help finance improvements.

He said the TIF would be repaid out of increased sales tax and ad valorem revenues generated by the development.

He said he expects to see the same surge in development that the Seayco Group has experienced in its suburban projects. Citing the Owasso Market, he said when Seayco started the project, "there was nothing there – just basically wide open fields – and we put in the Lowes, WalMart Supercenter and the Kohls and then everybody wanted to come up there."

"This is exactly what I think will happen in downtown," he said. "Not immediately. Just like in Owasso, it took like three years for things to start changing, but once they start changing, they started changing dramatically."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE

quote:

---

Originally posted by booWorld

My guess is that the developers will get TIF or some type of public financial assistance.  I imagine that the City will be very lax with any 'urban' design requirements.  And, ultimately, I won't be a bit surprised if the developers build what they want to build anyway.

I have very little hope for this to become an 'urban' project.  I hope that I'm wrong.

What has been proposed sounds more 'urban' than what's there now.  However, I don't think it warrants TI financing.

---

If the developers need a TIF to make this project happen, then they'll have an uphill battle.

You are correct, boo. The chance of this being an "urban" project are slim and none. One 3-4 story apartment building fronting Elgin? A few strip centers fronting 5th? All that in front of a SuperCenter with a giant surface parking lot? That's hardly mixed-use or urban.

Simple solution. Put the SuperCenter one mile north at Pine and Peoria, where the north side desperately needs services and where there's already a big surface parking lot, small commercial pad development, major infrastructure improvements, highway access, and an existing TIF district ready to reinvest in north Tulsa.

I would speculate that downtown residents would be willing to drive 1 mile up to Pine to get their Wal-Mart fix. It would seem SuperCenter shopping (stocking up) would best involve a car anyway. The Bill White/Nordam land could be developed in a manner that's truly urban and include a smaller grocery store/market that's more condusive to quick trips by pedestrians carrying 1-2 small bags of groceries.

---

Mister Seay's logic, in choosing the Nordam location, is contrary to the current mantra of the Goliath Corporation.........

Joe's suggestion^

Could have been taken from the current(WalMart) CEO's playbook....

I am curious to know if Mister Seay has the full endorsement of WalMart.....?
Or,..... is acting as a middle man with hopes of making $$$$ from both sides of the street....?

The article, regarding the development, refers to Mister Seay as having the "land under contract"

it does not say he has bought the Nordam property....

I guess; it may be worth a phone call or a plane trip to Arkansas to ask if WalMart has shifted gears....????
and lessons learned in Chicago and Los Angeles   have been stripped from their playbook...?

or.............? are we dealing with a former employee that is trying to sell a revised "Corporate Mission Doctrine" to the folks of Tulsa..?

Tom Seay is an ex vice-president and executive committee member of Wal-Mart itself. And don't hold me to it, but I'm 99 percent sure that his wife is a Walton. I don't think we have to worry about Tom Seay and Wal-Mart being on the same page. Seems like one in the same to me.

Last post from me tonight, I swear.... :-)

Let me put aside for a moment all of the issues I have with Wal-Mart being Wal-Mart. Let me just deal with the issues of Wal-Mart in a downtown location.

My husband put it best today... development in downtown should serve two purposes. It should 1) be something that is needed by the area residents and 2) be something that will pull in people from outside of the area (the rest of Tulsa, or even other cities). Wal-Mart doesn't pull in business from outside of the loop.

We believe that Downtown Tulsa should be something new and different. No chain restaurants. No chain stores. No big boxes with a sea of parking.

Downtown shouldn't look like just another strip-mall. It should be distinctive. It should offer retail, restaurants, and accommodations that no other city has (OR AT LEAST NO OTHER PART OF THIS CITY!).

The type of development we allow into the area defines what Downtown Tulsa becomes. We deserve a Unique Urban Tulsa.

if they want a tiff, you might have a shot...

beyond that, it's a freemarket baby... they can build where they want, if they can get they land and it is zoned accordingly...

your best option may be to push for a decent looking project... since we don't use a smartcode, it'll be tough to do...

all i know is, home depot is pretty freaking convenient and one of the busiest stores in the country... i just wish it was not some craptastic suburban bigbox design at least it is hidden, sorta, behind the market...

and i grow weary of driving to 18th and yale to replace a pair of black socks before my son's 10 AM soccer game...

and the 15th and lewis reasors sucks, it sucked when it was albertson's and it sucks more now...

careful you don't protest yourself right out of a liveable downtown...

I agree that downtown chain stores should be something that is not offered anywhere else in town like a whole foods, trader joes, costco, ikea, cabelas, or urban outfitters etc. to draw people from outside downtown to downtown. People would flock to a development with those stores(I know I would) making downtown a true shopping destination again.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CassieMDM

Last post from me tonight, I swear.... :-)

Let me put aside for a moment all of the issues I have with Wal-Mart being Wal-Mart. Let me just deal with the issues of Wal-Mart in a downtown location.

My husband put it best today... development in downtown should serve two purposes. It should 1) be something that is needed by the area residents and 2) be something that will pull in people from outside of the area (the rest of Tulsa, or even other cities). Wal-Mart doesn't pull in business from outside of the loop.

We believe that Downtown Tulsa should be something new and different. No chain restaurants. No chain stores. No big boxes with a sea of parking.

Downtown shouldn't look like just another strip-mall. It should be distinctive. It should offer retail, restaurants, and accommodations that no other city has (OR AT LEAST NO OTHER PART OF THIS CITY!).

The type of development we allow into the area defines what Downtown Tulsa becomes. We deserve a Unique Urban Tulsa.

---

Thats a lot of shouldn'ts. But ya know its not as though people have been trying to stop those things from happening. And this development won't do that either. There is still plenty of available property. I would certainly prefer something unique with this development, but I think its an improvement. I see this as possibly being one more small stepping stone to bringing downtown back to life.

We know we need a grocery store downtown. This isnt perfect, but its a start. If this wal-mart and the development around it is sucessful that will spur more life back into the area. If downtown grows enough, then there may be a good enough market for a small specialty food store. If this wal-mart fails it will be either because the market is only wanting a specialty food store or the area market isnt strong enough to support a grocery store at all.

This may not be the "class or type" of development you want. It will pull from a varaiety of demographics. But the "trendy" downtowner types can still use it, it will be an improvement from nothing, until downtown grows enough to support a more specialized grocery store.

I actually think this will help bring more  people downtown to live. One of the things about downtown that has imo deterred people from considering living there, even the urban dwelling types, is that it does not look like a place to live. It doesnt look like a neighborhood of any type, urban or suburban. This will help make it look like a place to live and not just a bunch of half vacant office towers and empty streets. A store that is open late, other stores that will come around it, the 200 or so added people living there will help.

Even though we have all those skyscrapers giving the illusion of a city. Its almost as though downtown is having to regrow and repopulate itself starting from a suburban stage. If we could go downtown any evening and magically make the buildings that didnt have anyone living in them disappear, there wouldnt be much there. Our downtown will still naturally attract more urban dwellers and urban type stores and restaurants so don't let this bit make you feel disheartened. Its just one more small step in regrowing a living downtown.

IMHO if they do not get a TIF they will not come--too expensive for the infrastructure for the business plan to work.

On the other hand--Pine and Peoria already has the infrastructure and the site.  It is my understanding the Mayor has put together a fast-track task force to find a savior for this corner.  The other businesses have already exercised the drop down rent clauses because the major tenant has left.  The owner of the center will surly face bankruptcy unless help comes soon.

Look for two different Wal-Mart plans to be on the Bentonville table.  I hope they pick Pine and Peoria--it sure fits their business plan better and will save downtown retail and this site to live for another day.

Looking at the zoning, and looking at the idea that the streets on the site are private there's nothing anyone can do to stop another Home Depot from happening, the site is large enough and such a store would conform to zoning rules. The city has no pull if they want to build a suburban store. That is all bad news and a complete failure of the current zoning code.

The good news is that the developers don't seem to want to do that. They want to build something else and want some contribution to help in the form of a TIFF. The request for a TIFF is leverage for the city to ensure that what the developers build fits with what is good for downtown.

I'm emotionally against Wal-Mart downtown, I don't shop there. But the reality is that you can't stop it and no other grocers have any interest, nor have they for a very long time. And downtown needs a grocery store.

This area is inside the loop, but it's been far from Urban for decades and nothing has been built there for decades. The area is a scar that separates midtown from downtown. Healing that scar and filling it in will go a long, long way to reintegrating downtown into the city. Don't just protest, force the developer to build something good, even if it is a Wal-Mart.

Wishing for stores that aren't coming and wanting there be no chain stores or restaurants, that's, that's not realistic. What downtown is like that? Wal-Mart is going downtown in Austin, the main grocer in downtown Chicago is Walgreen's and DC has crappy Safeway's. Let's make the best of this opportunity.

Just brainstorming here, but were I doing the urban design and programming for this development, I would include the following criteria, in addition to the brick/"urban" facade:

1) 2 Story, Half the footprint. Allows for more flexibility for adaptive reuse of the building should it go dark.  Also more efficient, compact land use in our soon to be limited amount of developable land in the CBD. The Target at Northgate Mall in Seattle uses these escalators that carry your shopping cart from one level to the other in order to navigate the multiple levels.

2) Traditional Downtown Setbacks. Sidewalks. Proper urban streetscaping. Good lighting, trees, benches.  Pedestrian oriented approach to the building.
3) Transit Considered in Design. (6th St. is a huge transit corridor.)
4) Structured Parking adjacent to the two story building, and angled on street parking. Another benefit of the two story building is that you can more efficiently utilize your land.  What would have been 75,000 square feet of single story building becomes the parking for the facility, with the first level essentially being surface parking, and with access to the second floor from the upper levels of the parking structure.
5) Must at least attempt to gain LEED certification.  Green Roof, Rainwater catchment systems, structured parking. Before you laugh me off of the forum, read this: Wal-Mart and Eco-Accountability (//%22http://outside.away.com/outside/culture/200612/code-green-wal-mart.html%22)

I think we, The City of Tulsa, TulsaNow as good planning advocates, and Wal-Mart have an amazing opportunity to play a role in changing the perception about our city and about the 'evil' Wal-Mart.  If they implemented the above criteria, I believe that Wal-Mart would 1) be recognized in a positive way from a public relations standpoint and 2)would create something unique enough that people might actually come to shop there just to see the "two story Wal-Mart".  It might even be a point of pride for Tulsa.  Something to brag about...*shrugs*.

I also believe that having a downtown grocery store is critical to attracting rooftops. So that element of the project is a very good thing.

Hey...just trying to be positive folks.

quote:

---

Code Green: News From the Eco-Frontier
Always Low Prices—and Now Eco-Accountability
Wipe that smirk off your face: When America's largest retailer embraces environmentalism, we all benefit

By Amanda Griscom Little




From a distance, the Wal-Mart in Aurora, Colorado, looks like any of the thousands of big-box behemoths operated by the world's second-largest company. But a closer inspection reveals more than a few incongruous details: The parking lot contains recycled asphalt from a local airport runway. The heating fuel is a mixture of fry grease from the store's deli and motor oil salvaged from its lube center. Electricity is supplied by solar panels and a windmill. In fact, nearly every component of this shopping mecca, which opened late last year, represents the cutting edge of sustainable design, from the waterless urinals to the ultra-efficient lighting system.

To hear Wal-Mart CEO H. Lee Scott tell it, the Aurora store is the retail outlet of the future, a pilot project and a model for development. And, as you've likely heard, that's just the beginning of his grand green plan, which includes goals that border on the fantastical: Wal-Mart's empire, he says, will eventually run on 100 percent renewable fuels, create zero waste, and sell an increasing number of sustainable products.

Bogus, you say? I was one of many who struggled to suppress a gag reflex at the coupling of green and Wal-Mart in the same sentence. Catalyst of suburban sprawl, king of the 5,000-mile supply chain, and employer of 1.8 million (many with gripes about schedules, pay, and benefits), Wal-Mart personifies the corporate consolidation that has hurt local farms, businesses, and sustainable small-town living. It's the biggest private consumer of electricity in the United States, with a carbon footprint (when you include its supply chain) the size of Texas.

Which is why I was shocked to discover, when I took a good, long look at Wal-Mart's plan, that it's not only serious but seriously ambitious. Sure, it's common knowledge that Wal-Mart is now the world's biggest distributor of organic milk and purchaser of organic cotton. But over the past year, the company has been introducing other green commitments, vowing to cut its greenhouse-gas emissions 20 percent by 2012 (on par with Kyoto Protocol targets), double the fuel efficiency of its truck fleet within a decade, make stores 30 percent more energy efficient, and cut 25 percent of its solid waste in the next three years. The chain has declared that all of its wild-caught fish will be sustainably harvested, and some stores are already beginning to source produce locally. Scott is committing $500 million annually to make it all happen, and he's urging the 60,000-plus suppliers that sell products in his stores to adopt similar goals.

The seed for Wal-Mart's green dream was planted during a series of adventures that company chairman Rob Walton (son of founder Sam Walton) took with Conservation International CEO Peter Seligmann. They went diving in the Galápagos, hiking in Madagascar, and birding in Brazil's wetlands. "Rob wants to understand nature as well as he understands business," Seligmann says. When talk turned to the role of the marketplace in protecting the environment, Seligmann made the case that changing Wal-Mart's corporate actions could have a dramatically more powerful impact than Walton's personal quest to conserve wilderness.

If Wal-Mart were to go green, Seligmann told Walton (and, later, CEO Scott), it could attract new customers, boost employee morale, and burnish its public image (which has floundered in light of dubious labor and environmental practices), while saving big on energy bills. Blue-chip brands like GE and Starbucks, he pointed out, have already joined the sustainability bandwagon, not so much out of do-gooder spirit but because they've realized that smart environmental practices can fatten their bottom lines.

Walton and Scott acted quickly, running extensive cost-benefit analyses in 2004 and then developing a companywide eco-strategy. In Scott's words, they're out to "democratize sustainability" by making everything from clean power to pesticide-free foods—currently enjoyed mostly by affluent people who can pay premium prices—affordable for the masses. Wal-Mart, with its economies of scale, has the power to do that: The greater the demand for green products, the cheaper it is to produce them and the lower the retail price tags. Already, Wal-Mart has introduced a five-year program designed to help its suppliers shrink packaging and, in turn, cut energy and waste costs by $3.4 billion. "I've never seen any company embrace environmental strategy like Wal-Mart has," Seligmann says.

Reactions from the environmental community have been predictably mixed. Jeffrey Hollender, CEO of eco-safe-household-products company Seventh Generation, has refused to sell at Wal-Mart. "It's too early to conclude that they are fully committed to their plan," he says. "If I were a supplier, I couldn't play the objective, critical role needed to help ensure they live up to it." Michael Pollan, whose bestseller The Omnivore's Dilemma examines the American food chain, challenged the superstore's decision to mainstream pesticide-free groceries in a June essay for The New York Times Magazine. Organic food, he wrote, "is about to go the way of sneakers and MP3 players, becoming yet another rootless commodity circulating in the global economy."

But Greenpeace USA director John Passacantando—never shy about fingering corporate giants—calls Wal-Mart's commitments "remarkable" and "hopeful, even if they're just goals at this point." "What's hard to believe," he told me, "is that America's political leadership is lagging behind Wal-Mart on this issue." Last summer, former Sierra Club president Adam Werbach signed on as a Wal-Mart consultant. And the Environmental Defense Fund has opened an office near Wal-Mart's Arkansas headquarters to work pro bono on the company's sustainability strategy.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mass-market solutions involve trade-offs, but corporate America has more power to solve climate problems than Washington does

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While Wal-Mart deserves big props for helping to spearhead the corporate green movement, the retail Goliath needs to do plenty more before it gets a gold star. Things like matching its environmental goals with equally ambitious labor standards; making future and existing stores green and siting them in mixed-use downtown areas, to stop encouraging sprawl; requiring—not just urging—its suppliers to meet green standards; and sourcing regional food and merchandise at all its stores, to keep local farms and businesses alive.

Environmental advocates have work to do, too. They need to accept that mass-market solutions will inevitably involve trade-offs. They need to continue building stronger partnerships with corporate America, which today has more power and inclination to solve the climate crisis than Washington does. They need everyone—Republicans and Democrats, communities of all colors and income brackets, corporations and consumers—on board to reverse the potentially catastrophic ecological trends of our day. If sustainability is truly going to go mainstream, no person, party, product, or polluter can be left behind.

---

From Tulsa World (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070805_1_A1_hApar20631%22)

quote:

---

American Residential Group of Tulsa will construct high-quality apartments for the East Village, a proposed mixed-use development downtown that will feature an urban-designed Wal-Mart Supercenter.

"We're excited about this," said developer Jay Helm, president of American Residential Group.

Helm has been approached by some of the previous groups that wanted to redevelop the east end of downtown, but he declined to participate because he didn't think their plans could be executed.

"But with this one, we know they can execute, and obviously we think we can do our side of it," he said.

Real estate developers John Williams of Claremore and Tom Seay of Arkansas have teamed up on the project to redevelop 15 acres in east downtown.

The project will have an urban-designed Wal-Mart Supercenter as an anchor to attract other smaller retailers and commercial businesses to the area that is roughly bounded by Frankfort Avenue and U.S. 75 between Fourth and Sixth streets.

Seay said a mixed-use,
urban design doesn't work without all of the elements -- an anchor tenant to draw the traffic and smaller retailers and the residents to feed the retail.

Seay said a portion of the plan includes construction of 150 apartments, which American Residential Group will build.

Helm and his partner, Steve Ganzkow, pioneered the resurgence of residential housing downtown in 1998 by constructing the Renaissance Uptown Apartments at 11th Street and Denver Avenue, which at the time were the first downtown residences built in 27 years.

Shortly after, the men transformed the Tribune Building at 20 E. Archer St. into lofts.

Helm said the apartments slated for the East Village project will sit above small retail spaces, "like you see in major cities."

"We're not building apartments over Wal-Mart," he said.

The Wal-Mart Supercenter will back up to U.S. 75. On Fifth Street along Elgin Avenue over to Fourth Street and both sides of Fifth Street will be small retailers and the apartments, Helm said.

He said the apartments will be three to four stories high, with 10- to 12-foot ceiling heights. They will start out as rental space, but be built so that they can eventually be converted into individually owned condos.

"We think having a retail anchor to spur quality, smaller retailers will make the residential work, helping to create that critical mass needed to spur a true revitalization," he said.

Seay said the Wal-Mart Supercenter will play an important role.

"Quality retail won't come without the big draw, and Wal-Mart will be the big draw" Seay said.

He said he has already talked to some local restaurants and a national restaurant chain about the development.

Having the residents there, Seay said, will spur other small businesses like hair salons, cleaners and coffee houses.

"There is going to be 65,000 square feet of retail shops in the area," he said.

Seay said there are still issues that have to be worked out with the city on the project, including the creation of a tax increment financing district.

In a TIF district, some of the property and sales tax revenues generated from a development can be used to fund infrastructure improvements that normally would be the responsibility of the developer.

A retailer such as Wal-Mart could be a tremendous engine for a TIF district, city officials have said.

Seay and Helm said TIFs are essential to make large developments work in developed areas like a downtown because of the cost to deal with infrastructure issues.

"It is much cheaper to build on raw land," Helm said.

The city has several TIF districts downtown. Its newest one is in southwest Tulsa, where the Tulsa Hills shopping center is being built.

Another asset with Wal-Mart is the boost it will create to the city's sales tax revenue, the developers said.

Helm and Seay also pointed out that once the TIF dissolves there would be an increase in property tax revenue that would benefit the city and county.

---

ok, i'm an optimist, so sue me... i had hoped this time it'd be different...

but the word on the street is that this is a  crap screen and seay is going to move forward with a bull**** big-box suburban design...

he's been asked to do a design similar to those i posted here http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7227&whichpage=2 and he declined...
seay's even gone as far as implying no one should expect more because "it's just tulsa"...

**** him and feed him beans...

if it is all his money, he can do whatever he wants but it won't be, he'll need a tiff... i'm betting that seay has yet to officially ask the mayor about getting a tiff...

now, the questions are:
needing a tiff, is the city willing to require a really urban design?
are we so desperate we'll take some ****ty suburban big-box dolled up with bricks and stucco, separated from the street by an asphalt ocean?

with a tiff in play, this fight needs to be about the building, the design and the land use and NOT the tenant... walmart will probably bail on the locale in 10 years, so it better be a good design...

this should all be about the developer... consider that walmart is trying hard to get into urban areas and might be willing to make many merchandise, design and  operational concessions to the vocal locals (just as they did in ATL)... seay however is trying to dupe us...

the mayor needs to know that we won't stand for seay's crappy suburban design in downtown...

everyone here needs to contact the mayor and let her know what you think...

I think I'm on board with you Brunno.

I think a Wal-Mart downtown is better than the vacant lots it will replace.  Cute mom and pop shops would be better, but its not happening.

However, if they want public money I want an "urban" design.  I do not, NOT want to see a 15 acre parking lot in front of the development.

Agreed.  This store MUST NOT have a generic, cheap design.  It is imperative that we get the Mayor and City Council's attention.  I am going to commence writing emails next week, after the PGA is gone.  It's going to be important to make noise now, even with the distraction of the upcoming river vote.  It can't wait till the drawings are finished and the writing is on the wall.  

Got to make this a mainstream concern . . .

For several years now, small busniesses have come and gone in the downtown area.  Most of these that have persihed have done so because of a lack of patronage.  It seems as though we all want to have locally-owned small businesses to revitalize downtown, but nobody (I'm included) seems to step up to the plate when they try.  
Then, when a big corporation comes along, we all cry about how it will ruin the urban landscape, the environment, vibe, etc.  However, most of this moaning about the corporate giant is done as we drive home from our corporate job after we make a quick stop at the area mega store.  
In the end, downtown is going to change one way or the other.  If we locals don't do it, some corporation will.  And I don't blame them for jumping on the opportunity.  
So I say: C'mon down Wal-Mart.  Build your shiny new store and fill it with your cheap and cheaply-made Chinese goods.  We will buy them as fast as you can stock them.  
And just think, the businesses and residences nearby won't have to paint anymore.  They will forever have a nice teal covering from all the plastic sacks blown from the parking lot.  Well, at least until Wal-Mart decides to move a few blocks away and leave behind its cavernous carcass.

Thank you, Bruno... I thought for a while I was one of the few upset by the design, not the tenant...  

In fact, I came up with a design of my own for the store.  It's a basic, two-floor building that has the ability to be converted into smaller storefronts later on, with inspiration from the Gillette-Tyrrell Building.  
Just think...The only art deco Wal-Mart in the world... in Tulsa:

(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1042/1031084891_7f47058f15_b.jpg)

You can't see most of the details with the picture that small, so go to http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1042/1031084891_ad635aeb3b_o.jpg (//%22http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1042/1031084891_ad635aeb3b_o.jpg%22) or my Flickr (//%22http://www.flickr.com/photos/dscott28604%22) to see it in better detail.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DScott28604

Thank you, Bruno... I thought for a while I was one of the few upset by the design, not the tenant...  

In fact, I came up with a design of my own for the store.  It's a basic, two-floor building that has the ability to be converted into smaller storefronts later on, with inspiration from the Gillette-Tyrrell Building.  
Just think...The only art deco Wal-Mart in the world... in Tulsa:

(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1042/1031084891_f92978764e_b.jpg)

You can't see most of the details with the picture that small, so go to http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1042/1031084891_8c362f4f5f_o.jpg (//%22http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1042/1031084891_8c362f4f5f_o.jpg%22) or my Flickr (//%22http://www.flickr.com/photos/dscott28604%22) to see it in better detail.

---

Very interesting.  Such a design would help later on down the road when they leave the neighborhood.  And they almost always leave.

I am just afraid that their Deco would not be like your Deco.  Although just about any design can be done inexpensively with stucco.

I, for one, have not walked into a Walmart for at least year and have not missed it one bit.

I don't know how it will be an anchor to a multi-use "village". What stores will be able to survive next to a Walmart? They already have everything from nail shops to medical centers.
What we really need downtown is more mass transit and locally owned shops and restaurants.

I'll echo Brunoflipper and Swake.  This could be good but it must be done right.  There's a Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market serving the upscale State-Thomas area of Uptown Dallas, and it fits right in.  There's nothing inherently wrong with Wal-Mart as a grocer or a retailer, considering the grocery/retail vacuum in the area.  

But there is something inherently wrong with traditional big box retailing middle of any given downtown.  Tulsa can't expect radical redesign coming out of Bentonville, so forget all about multistory retail, a la Target in downtown Minneapolis or Chicago.  Big Box is coming to downtown.  

All voices concerned with downtown Tulsa can, and must, loudly demand major formatting changes in the presentment of that box.  My own list of requirements:

1.  Aesthetically unique design.  Not just a brick exterior, but major architectural elements lending to a sense of originality of place.  In other words, you look at the building and think, Tulsa, Oklahoma; NOT Anytown, USA.

2.  Urban-friendly parking.  There are at least three elements involved in functional urban parking.  First, integrated structured parking.  Don't just build a parking deck off to the side - integrate it into the building.  Second, break the surface lots up into pieces around the building in order to avoid swaths that are intimidating to the pedestrian.  Finally, these lots must be landscaped and fenced.  

3.  All buildings must address the street and have proper setbacks.  Structures must be close to the street to create a dense, lively feel, not segregatatd with swaths of concrete.  At the same time, there must not be solid brick walls abutting the sidewalk; rather, windows, entryways, and green spaces should abound.  

4.  The apartments, especially, should turn outward and address the neighborhood, with wide patios and windows that open.   Don't fence it off like the Rennaissance, or your street level retail won't flourish.  

5.  Infrastructure will include broad sidewalks for cafe seating and ease of pedestrian movement; traffic calming; pocket green space; and public art.

You want the TIF?  Follow the instructions.  

I am far more willing to put the effort into fighting for a better wal-mart design than no wal-mart. Still want to see this developers over all plan though.

Someone mentioned using current set backs. I would like to see new development have wider sidewalks between the buildings and the roads. More conducive to walking, strollers, wheelchairs, sidewalk cafe's, benches, trees, lights etc. Most of the current sidewalk space we have is too small.

My views are not against Wal-Mart, but believe that downtown should strive to have different things and different stores than the rest of the town. I just always hoped that downtown looked differently and Wal-Mart seems very content with doing the same thing over and over again.

I don't shop at Wal-Mart for a multitude of reasons, but mostly because my wife doesn't trust me to go shopping.

Wal-Mart does have an impressive environmental record. Because they are now the largest buyer of organic cotton and organic produce in the world, thousands of farmers are now succeeding without the use of pesticides. They have also built very good green buildings, including a new one last year in McKinney, Texas that I would put up against any other retail store in America.

They have always supported recycling, even giving The M.e.t. most of our large containers used to recycle paper and glass. They have given us free rent and paid our electric bill for over a dozen years at the 81st and Lewis store. I have been doing "green shopping" training for their employees (my next is scheduled Monday at 10pm at the Admiral location for the third shift workers).

They are soon to announce a new pilot program for the Tulsa area stores to compost food waste from their stores. The landfill west of town has been working out the details in a separate area and if it proves successful, will be incorporated into all their operations. It will also mean that area restaurants and grocers will be able to also dramatically reduce the tonnage going for disposal  

Make the Downtown Wal-Mart unique, green, and attractive and I am ok.

They aren't my first choice for redevelopment, but the area they have selected ain't doing much for us right now either.

To me, making a Wal-Mart 'unique to Tulsa' means making it art deco.  I've added color to my design  to show just how cool a Wal-Mart could actually be in downtown...  Like others have said, the design of this building will drive the future buildings in that part of downtown, so it needs to be done right, with style, and has to be unique.  Who knows, if they do decide to 1)take design suggestions and 2)make it art deco, Tulsa's favorite architectural style might just see another boom... I think it'd be great to see a large number of new art deco buildings in downtown.

(Click to enlarge)
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1337/1032716897_2f063cece9_b.jpg)

i dig it, keep em coming.

someone add some PWA style worker motifs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DScott28604

To me, making a Wal-Mart 'unique to Tulsa' means making it art deco.  I've added color to my design  to show just how cool a Wal-Mart could actually be in downtown...  Like others have said, the design of this building will drive the future buildings in that part of downtown, so it needs to be done right, with style, and has to be unique.  Who knows, if they do decide to 1)take design suggestions and 2)make it art deco, Tulsa's favorite architectural style might just see another boom... I think it'd be great to see a large number of new art deco buildings in downtown.

(Click to enlarge)
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1337/1032716897_2f063cece9_b.jpg)

---

Keep in mind, a store that size will have an entrance at each end. If they would turn the front storefronts facing out, you might have a shot.

quote:

---

Originally posted by brunoflipper

ok, i'm an optimist, so sue me... i had hoped this time it'd be different...

but the word on the street is that this is a  crap screen and seay is going to move forward with a bull**** big-box suburban design...

he's been asked to do a design similar to those i posted here http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7227&whichpage=2 and he declined...
seay's even gone as far as implying no one should expect more because "it's just tulsa"...

**** him and feed him beans...

if it is all his money, he can do whatever he wants but it won't be, he'll need a tiff... i'm betting that seay has yet to officially ask the mayor about getting a tiff...

now, the questions are:
needing a tiff, is the city willing to require a really urban design?
are we so desperate we'll take some ****ty suburban big-box dolled up with bricks and stucco, separated from the street by an asphalt ocean?

with a tiff in play, this fight needs to be about the building, the design and the land use and NOT the tenant... walmart will probably bail on the locale in 10 years, so it better be a good design...

this should all be about the developer... consider that walmart is trying hard to get into urban areas and might be willing to make many merchandise, design and  operational concessions to the vocal locals (just as they did in ATL)... seay however is trying to dupe us...

the mayor needs to know that we won't stand for seay's crappy suburban design in downtown...

everyone here needs to contact the mayor and let her know what you think...

---

Si Commandante..........!

eef this does not take care of the problem....there is always the negotiator Doctor Pablo...........

(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/Batista.jpg)

[}:)]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle


(Click to enlarge)
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1337/1032716897_2f063cece9_b.jpg)

Keep in mind, a store that size will have an entrance at each end. If they would turn the front storefronts facing out, you might have a shot.

---

True.  The image is so large though, that I just stopped adding to the building.  I wanted to give an idea of what it would look like--but it would be larger and would have another entrance.

The drawing took me all of a couple hours to come up with, which I think speaks volumes of how much thought Tom Seay put into this store: None.  It's a regular SuperCenter, subsituting brick for concrete blocks.

If I was able to come up with that in such a short amount of time (and in Microsoft Paint of all programs), I'm going to be very disappointed with anything less.  Less unique, less actual design, less community-appropriate......

Here is an additional benefit of having a two-level store as opposed to a single-level one:
The Wal-Mart store is supposed to be 150,000 sq. ft.  A two-level building occupying a 300' city block with vacated alley would give this store 180,000 sq. ft..... which means the additional 30,000 sq. ft. could be designated for those talked-about storefronts on the first level.

If Seay's plans include 65,000 sq. ft. of other retail and restaurants, up to 30,000 sq. ft. of that could be included in this one building.

It would save money for these stores to be included, maybe enough to bump the 65,000 sq. ft. of additional retail to 80,000...

AND, it would give the building tenants BEFORE Wal-Mart decides to move out (if and when), so the possibility of the building sitting vacant is reduced.

Ok.... just for you Art Deco fans... here is a small sliver of irony regarding this whole Art Deco concept for the DT WalMart..
An architect from Tulsa that has designed for WalMart published the following calendar last year.........

Who knows...? maybe Mister Seay will like the idea...?
She did work on the Chicago "Urban WalMart"..

Deco Tulsa (//%22http://www.kellcalendars.com/index_files/Page294.htm%22)

About 15 years ago, I attended a presentation at Harwelden by William McDonough on his ideas for a green Wal-Mart (or "Eco-Mart") to be built in Lawrence, Kansas.  The prototype had many interesting concepts, and it was constructed there in 1993.  Does anyone know the current status of the Lawrence Wal-Mart?  I've read news sources from Lawrence which claim that several of the building's environmentally-friendly aspects/programs have been altered or discontinued.

I remember one of McDonough's comments about Wal-Mart stores was that they are typically designed for relatively short life spans before they are abandoned.  The Lawrence Wal-Mart was designed with taller walls so it could be converted into two levels of residential use in the future.

I don't think that this proposed East End development deserves TIF, and I will email my Councilor (Maria Barnes) if TIF becomes an issue.  Ordinary taxpayers in Tulsa certainly shouldn't be expected to help finance the construction of a Wal-Mart.  I will be disappointed, but not surprised, if the finished product is a typical suburban type of big box.  If there is no public financial assistance involved, then I will view it as a short-term place holder until something more urban can be built on its site.  If the finished product is a typical suburban type of Wal-Mart which is part of TIF district, then I will be EXTREMELY disappointed, but again not surprised.  Tulsa does not have a good track record of quality urban design.  One only needs to look a few blocks to the west (to Boston and Main) to see that.

OK, i've had the weekend to cool off...get drunk....and re-evaluate my opinion on this.  I'm trying to envision a downtown with Wal-mart, and overall, this will probably be positive, architecture notwithstanding.  It will definitely bring traffic downtown, and it might possibly introduce some people to downtown who otherwise would have no reason to go there.  It will bring groceries and household items that people DO need to the residents, making it a much more feasible place to live.  It will likely be very successful - they rarely close a Wal-mart for poor performance.  

I do fear that the store will have a reputation of being "ghetto", but then again, i can't think of one in the city of Tulsa that doesn't have that reputation.

My first reaction was that the urban trendy types we are trying to draw downtown don't shop at WalMart.  But then again, my brother lives an urban trendy lifestyle in Houston, makes a ton of money, and he STILL shops for groceries at WalMart.  It's just something that is ingrained in people, I suppose.

Architecturally, I'd rather see them do something contemporary and cutting edge rather than a cheesy fake stucco imitation of art deco.  I hold little hope for either.  I wish they would do underground parking rather than a huge lot.  

Honestly, I'd rather it be a Neighborhood Market store.  I will await preliminary site plans and concepts before I go off the deep end in opposing this thing.

As a minimum requirement for the creation of a TIF district, 5th Street between Frankfort and Lansing Avenues ought to be dedicated to the City of Tulsa as a public street.  Kenosha and Lansing Avenues between 4th and 6th Streets ought to be re-dedicated as public streets, also.

The right-of-way widths should be increased a bit to allow for generous sidewalks and for angled parking on each side of each street.  That would help to break up any proposed sea of parking, and it would give the City some control over streetscaping within the development on the public streets.  If 5th Place between Kenosha and Lansing remained private and any easements were vacanted, then Seayco would have a 198,000 sqare foot parcel for a single-story Wal-Mart store, although I think a two-story store on a single block would be far superior.  

I'd rather not see 5th Place built over, but this might be a compromise in return for the creation of a TIF district.

if walmart is just a tenant in seay's development, then it's possible that walmart is just as much in the dark about development plans in downtown tulsa as everybody else...

based on other cities, walmart will build urban stores when the community demands it...and by that i mean that more than a big-box with a few courses of brick on it...

would it hurt to relay concerns about how this thing is unfolding to Lee Scott and walmart corporate? it might result in some additional pressure on seay...

http://www.walmartstores.com/GlobalWMStoresWeb/navigate.do?catg=221

quote:

---

Originally posted by tulsa1603

Architecturally, I'd rather see them do something contemporary and cutting edge rather than a cheesy fake stucco imitation of art deco.  I hold little hope for either.  I wish they would do underground parking rather than a huge lot.  

---

I wouldn't want something that was merely a cheap, stucco imitation, either.  Anything that's built should be built to last... and if it's art deco, terra cotta would be a must--not stucco (yuck-o).

Art deco, contemporary, futuristic, art nouveau, Georgian, Gothic revival... as long as the building is architecturally significant (significant meaning unique, not necessarily a masterpiece.. this is Wal-Mart, after all) to Tulsa, it'd be okay.

I threw out the art deco design because it's something Tulsa is known for.  Because it's something we're known for, the building would already have a more pronounced presence and would further develop the art deco identity.
It would also be the first significant art deco (revival or otherwise) development in a very long time, aside from the MTTA station.

Look at all the positives people.

1. Another reason for people to come downtown and then get the heck out. Why would we want people to mill around and shop at boutiques, or walk to downtown restaurants or bars or "shudder" live there. I hope they bring their cars!

2. A huge box building that will have no use once WalMart is done with it. In 10 years we can talk about what we want to see in our downtown again.

3. This anchor store could attract other awesome suburban standards like Super Target, Lowes and Belks! We won't have to walk from store to store, we can drive! Lets put the parking in front so its not too confusing.

4. This shouldn't leave any room for a baseball or soccer stadium so that long running argument (soccer! baseball! SOCCER! BASEBALL!) is dead.

5. They will finaly buldoze all of those nasty old brick buildings and apartments.

6. It fits downtown perfectly. Too bad we told Bass Pro shop no, they'd be cozy next to Walmart.

7. We can send the homeless to work there.
8. We can send the grifters to grift there

9 There is just too much land downtown. It needs to be filled up quick.

10. We might get to help one of the largest corporation on the planet get bigger with a few of our tax dollars.

Win-Win-Win

Gee Carlton is that sarcasm I detect?

quote:

---

Originally posted by brunoflipper

if walmart is just a tenant in seay's development, then it's possible that walmart is just as much in the dark about development plans in downtown tulsa as everybody else...

based on other cities, walmart will build urban stores when the community demands it...and by that i mean that more than a big-box with a few courses of brick on it...

would it hurt to relay concerns about how this thing is unfolding to Lee Scott and walmart corporate? it might result in some additional pressure on seay...

http://www.walmartstores.com/GlobalWMStoresWeb/navigate.do?catg=221

---

Exactly......!!

I don't think Lee Scott would bring this sort of negative P.R. and animosity to the WalMart Corp...

He has been all about trying to correct the image of the Corporation....

Gentlemen I would like to ask just 10 minutes of your time to read the following Time Magazine cover story....

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1098936-1,00.html

In reading this a few thing seem strange about Seay's proposal...

Seay is ignoring the needs of the City(Pine and Peoria)....

Seay said "his target area that he feels to be under served by WalMart is the Northern portion of Tulsa...?"

He...."Needs a TIF to get others involved and to help cover the start up costs..?"

Seay will be creating a very large stink in WalMart's own backyard....!

Something I do not feel Lee Scott or WalMart wants at the present.

So.... If Bruno is correct,They need to be made very aware of the CRAP that is soon to be hitting the fan..!
My own opinion... They have No F%#ing idea the mess that this Seay is dragging them into.

quote:

---

Originally posted by booWorld

About 15 years ago, I attended a presentation at Harwelden by William McDonough on his ideas for a green Wal-Mart (or "Eco-Mart") to be built in Lawrence, Kansas.  The prototype had many interesting concepts, and it was constructed there in 1993.  Does anyone know the current status of the Lawrence Wal-Mart?  I've read news sources from Lawrence which claim that several of the building's environmentally-friendly aspects/programs have been altered or discontinued.

---

They also built one in Moore.  My company had a contract with them on an innovative heat pump heating/cooling design they used.  The condenser for their cooling system was designed as a water fall feature.  Tres cool idea on paper, major PITA in reality.  Paper cups and paper in a cooling system are not good.  I have no clue if most of the green ideas are still in operation there.  It's been at least seven years since I've been on that property.

On to the DT Wal-Mart:

So far I've not heard of Saks or Neiman Marcus being interested in sparking the development.

I really don't have an issue with the concept of Wal-Mart commerce coming to Downtown.  I, like Bruno and a few others, though don't want the suburban dreck look.  Wal-Mart spurs development and re-development in many places they go.  The new Neighborhood Market was a vast improvement over the delapitated Bel-Aire Shopping Center, and the one on Peoria is a nicer addition than what was there before.

Wal-Mart doesn't look for a lot of hand-outs like speculative developers do who have never even built a hotel before seem to need to make something happen in downtown.  Wal-Mart has the cash and the clout to make something happen.

quote:

---

Originally posted by brunoflipper

if walmart is just a tenant in seay's development, then it's possible that walmart is just as much in the dark about development plans in downtown tulsa as everybody else...

based on other cities, walmart will build urban stores when the community demands it...and by that i mean that more than a big-box with a few courses of brick on it...

would it hurt to relay concerns about how this thing is unfolding to Lee Scott and walmart corporate? it might result in some additional pressure on seay...

http://www.walmartstores.com/GlobalWMStoresWeb/navigate.do?catg=221

---

Thanks for the link, Bruno... I sent a specifically-worded email earlier this afternoon.  We all should.

I still think that adding grocery Downtown (in this case, the DT Wal-mart), in addition to shopping in West Tulsa (Tulsa Hills and potentially a Town West Wal-mart) has the potential to suck a LOT of life out of Brookside.  As it is, Brookside doesn't thrive, it just gets by.  Businesses open and close pretty often.  But a lot of the business on Brookside consists of people coming from underserved markets nearby, due to the fact that Brookside is the closest place to go for many of those underserved markets.

Not that those markets deserve to be underserved.  I am moreso just reminding the Brookside area how important it will be to increase population density through good infill in order for it to even maintain the level of business that exists today.  Most people want to see Brookside THRIVE (since they have a lot of the "Urban" "dense" "trendy" building styles somewhat covered).  Brookside already needs more people, and after Tulsa Hills, Town West, and the Downtown markets get served, Brookside will need a LOT more people in order to sustain or grow business.

quote:

---

Originally posted by YoungTulsan

I still think that adding grocery Downtown (in this case, the DT Wal-mart), in addition to shopping in West Tulsa (Tulsa Hills and potentially a Town West Wal-mart) has the potential to suck a LOT of life out of Brookside.  As it is, Brookside doesn't thrive, it just gets by.  Businesses open and close pretty often.  But a lot of the business on Brookside consists of people coming from underserved markets nearby, due to the fact that Brookside is the closest place to go for many of those underserved markets.

Not that those markets deserve to be underserved.  I am moreso just reminding the Brookside area how important it will be to increase population density through good infill in order for it to even maintain the level of business that exists today.  Most people want to see Brookside THRIVE (since they have a lot of the "Urban" "dense" "trendy" building styles somewhat covered).  Brookside already needs more people, and after Tulsa Hills, Town West, and the Downtown markets get served, Brookside will need a LOT more people in order to sustain or grow business.

---

YT- Which section of Brookside are you referring to that is "just getting by"?  There are quite a few businesses who have been there for years.  People don't stay with a business that is "just getting by" for ten years or longer.

Maybe if you are talking about south of I-44 I'd agree, but I really don't think that development downtown and out west is going to cause a great sucking sound on Brookside between 33rd St. & I-44.

quote:

---

Originally posted by YoungTulsan

I still think that adding grocery Downtown (in this case, the DT Wal-mart), in addition to shopping in West Tulsa (Tulsa Hills and potentially a Town West Wal-mart) has the potential to suck a LOT of life out of Brookside.  As it is, Brookside doesn't thrive, it just gets by.  Businesses open and close pretty often.  But a lot of the business on Brookside consists of people coming from underserved markets nearby, due to the fact that Brookside is the closest place to go for many of those underserved markets.

Not that those markets deserve to be underserved.  I am moreso just reminding the Brookside area how important it will be to increase population density through good infill in order for it to even maintain the level of business that exists today.  Most people want to see Brookside THRIVE (since they have a lot of the "Urban" "dense" "trendy" building styles somewhat covered).  Brookside already needs more people, and after Tulsa Hills, Town West, and the Downtown markets get served, Brookside will need a LOT more people in order to sustain or grow business.

---

There's nothing on Brookside that a downtown Wal-Mart is going to hurt.  Any business on Peoria has already successfully contended with the presence of a downtown Home Depot as well as the Brookside Neighborhood Market.

quote:

---

Originally posted by YoungTulsan

I still think that adding grocery Downtown (in this case, the DT Wal-mart), in addition to shopping in West Tulsa (Tulsa Hills and potentially a Town West Wal-mart) has the potential to suck a LOT of life out of Brookside.  As it is, Brookside doesn't thrive, it just gets by.  Businesses open and close pretty often.  But a lot of the business on Brookside consists of people coming from underserved markets nearby, due to the fact that Brookside is the closest place to go for many of those underserved markets.

Not that those markets deserve to be underserved.  I am moreso just reminding the Brookside area how important it will be to increase population density through good infill in order for it to even maintain the level of business that exists today.  Most people want to see Brookside THRIVE (since they have a lot of the "Urban" "dense" "trendy" building styles somewhat covered).  Brookside already needs more people, and after Tulsa Hills, Town West, and the Downtown markets get served, Brookside will need a LOT more people in order to sustain or grow business.

---

"young" indeed... i'd have to disagree with your logic, completely disagree.

I wasnt speaking of just the Downtown Wal-mart, but a multitude of things.  I have no problem with you rebutting my ideas though.  Bruno, are you saying that people right now do not travel to Brookside from other underserved markets, or are you saying that business as a whole will be increased to where there is not a negative effect on Brookside?  I say it is "just getting by" because lots of businesses tend to come and go.  To the businesses that come and go, I think the area is built up to a lot more than it actually is, and they start a businesses thinking Brookside is the "hot" area.  It does not always translate to that business having enough support 6 months after it opens.  It is mainly bars and restraunts that I see come and go though.  The local shops have a strong following.  You do not have to go as far down as I-44 to find blight though, there is plenty between 41st and I-44.

Also, Brookside right now is a cute little microcosm of a walkable area.  The vision that the pro-Urban people on here have of a sustainable walkable dense community would be magnitudes larger than the little strip from 39th to 33rd that exists now.  It needs more customers, and more residents to take it in an urban direction, not less.

Floyd, the Homeland on Peoria successfully contended with the Walmart Neighborhood market?  And the Albertsons?  Oh yeah, I mean Food Pyramid...

The Home Depot downtown didn't pull away hardware business because the hardware market has exploded.  People in Maple Ridge have rising equity with which to borrow against to buy home improvement supplies.  Labor is el cheapo right now.  Lending is generous to anyone who wants to build right now.

Sorry for the thread derail.  I like Brookside :D

quote:

---

Originally posted by YoungTulsan

I wasnt speaking of just the Downtown Wal-mart, but a multitude of things.  I have no problem with you rebutting my ideas though.  Bruno, are you saying that people right now do not travel to Brookside from other underserved markets, or are you saying that business as a whole will be increased to where there is not a negative effect on Brookside?  I say it is "just getting by" because lots of businesses tend to come and go.  To the businesses that come and go, I think the area is built up to a lot more than it actually is, and they start a businesses thinking Brookside is the "hot" area.  It does not always translate to that business having enough support 6 months after it opens.  It is mainly bars and restraunts that I see come and go though.  The local shops have a strong following.  You do not have to go as far down as I-44 to find blight though, there is plenty between 41st and I-44.

Also, Brookside right now is a cute little microcosm of a walkable area.  The vision that the pro-Urban people on here have of a sustainable walkable dense community would be magnitudes larger than the little strip from 39th to 33rd that exists now.  It needs more customers, and more residents to take it in an urban direction, not less.

Floyd, the Homeland on Peoria successfully contended with the Walmart Neighborhood market?  And the Albertsons?  Oh yeah, I mean Food Pyramid...

The Home Depot downtown didn't pull away hardware business because the hardware market has exploded.  People in Maple Ridge have rising equity with which to borrow against to buy home improvement supplies.  Labor is el cheapo right now.  Lending is generous to anyone who wants to build right now.

Sorry for the thread derail.  I like Brookside :D

---

i'm saying that no one who currently goes to brookside, from any of the neighboring hoods, will find their needs better met at a downtown walmart... i'm saying that a downtown walmart will not have a negative effect on brookside... i'm saying quite the opposite... i'm saying that a downtown grocery store will have a net positive effect on housing in downtown... i'm saying that some of those people, future downtown residents, will have some of their needs better met in brookside vs. a downtown walmart... what i'm not saying is that "adding grocery Downtown (in this case, the DT Wal-mart), in addition to shopping in West Tulsa (Tulsa Hills and potentially a Town West Wal-mart) has the potential to suck a LOT of life out of Brookside."... suck some "ilfe" out of the walmart market on peoria? maybe, but who cares anyway? that is as far as i'm willing to concede on a negative brookside impact for a downtown walmart...

no one who shops at dwelling spaces is going to opt out for a walmart product and last i checked, except for lyons, home depot and the midtown art theater, that is all the retail we really have down there... unless harrington's is still open...

Perhaps they will not find their needs better met.  But if they are similarly met, and the store is closer, people will choose to go there instead of Brookside.  And perhaps the Downtown Walmart will only steal business from other Walmarts, but this plan also calls for other retail stores.  There will eventually be some local businesses, and small specialty shops in that development.  Again, I am not using this as a reason to kill the downtown Wal-mart, only as a reason to encourage more population density in the Brookside area.

But I see your point.  That businesses as a whole will increase by bringing more people to the area.  Thats the same thing I am argueing for, but I am saying that Brookside needs some more people too.  In my personal opinion, it would take a lot of people downtown to have a positive effect on Brookside.  A Wal-mart supercenter, if you calculate the total sales one of those behomoths does, will take a lot more sales from the area than just the planned 150 apartment dwellers worth that this plan calls for.  If Downtown were to take off into a lively place, like I hope it will, then this will be a success.  If all we get is a Suburban Wal-mart, and Downtown continues along the same path that it has been following for the last couple of decades, then that Wal-mart will only be detracting from the Brookside customer base.  But I was not only talking about Downtown, but also West Tulsa.  I have known people from both West Tulsa, as well as residents of the OTHER side of downtown from Brookside, that come to Brookside for goods and services.  I mean, honestly, where else would they go?  Sand Springs has recently added a few new LIGHTS and a CHICKEN RESTRAUNT?  West Tulsa has a Warehouse Market.  I can positively think of nothing else substancial in West Tulsa right now.  Tulsa Hills is very much needed to serve them.
If you are anti-sprawl, you have probably argued that big developments in Broken Arrow, Bixby, Jenks, and Owasso take away from Tulsa's tax base.  How does this differ?  (Same Tax base, so switch from Tax Base to Customer Base)

I still didn't see you cite any specific prime examples of high business turn-over in Brookside.

A Town West Wal-Mart will have ZERO impact on shopping or eating along Brookside for two reasons: geography- Town West will pull business from north Creek County and some from the west side.  Neither this nor a DT Wal-Mart will pull business out of the Brookside area as Brookside is mainly comprised of specialty stores with either high-quality or specialty goods which are not available at Wal-Mart, galleries, and restaurants/bars.  Sorry, I just don't get the correlation.

Some of the long-term tennants I can think of in the volatile food/beverage market:

BBD
In The Raw
Brookside Bar
Crow Creek
The Brook
Webers
Claud's
The Grapevine (or whatever it's being called these days)
El Fuego/Ford's, et.al.  Change in concept ideas.  Ford's wasn't a good concept.

Some of the bars or restaurants which have come and gone were either the wrong concept, poorly run, service sucked, or the food sucked.  You can't blame poor management on anything other than poor management.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DScott28604
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1337/1032716897_2f063cece9_b.jpg)

---

I'm on board!  I think the idea of having commerce downtown is good, I've stated this opinion repeatedly.  Small unique shops = good, but it hasnt happened so I'll take what we can get.

NOT, if they made it unique and actually urban I would welcome them.  Lets hope they read over this debate.  I'm proud it has stayed constructive.

Likely that businesses that come and go in Brookside are those started by starry-eyed hippies with fun, goofy notions but no idea how to start or run a business.

How much more dense can the residences around Brookside get?  Is somebody proposing knocking down sections of houses to build multi-story multiple dwellings?  The area is nothing but houses with a thin strip of commercial stuff along Peoria.  I'm not sure what you're getting at here either, youngtulsan...

Then again, I view Brookside as starting at 31st and continuing south until you see the ghetto start (approximately 44th street).  South of that, the area has other problems that increased population density will not fix...quite the opposite, in fact.  The neighborhoods down there apparently can't or won't support much of anything.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

I still didn't see you cite any specific prime examples of high business turn-over in Brookside.

A Town West Wal-Mart will have ZERO impact on shopping or eating along Brookside for two reasons: geography- Town West will pull business from north Creek County and some from the west side.  Neither this nor a DT Wal-Mart will pull business out of the Brookside area as Brookside is mainly comprised of specialty stores with either high-quality or specialty goods which are not available at Wal-Mart, galleries, and restaurants/bars.  Sorry, I just don't get the correlation.

---

Even a downtown Wal-Mart would have no effect on Brookside.  All it's going to do is shift money that would normally go to Reasor's, Warehouse Market, maybe some of Home Depot, that little convenience store downtown, maybe some of your office supply stores in the area.

Can't really expect Wal-Mart to hurt some of the downtown businesses, some it will, but Wal-Mart isn't an attraction either.  It isn't likely to bring much business to the rest of downtown.  Maybe I'm wrong, maybe Wal-Mart will mean more business for El Guapo or Caz's or (insert company name here), but I doubt it.

Barring a miracle from the developer, I see no reason for a TIF.

I never thought I would say this, but I think I might be FOR the Walmart.  If it looks like the pics with parking and apartments, it may be our best option for starting commerce that supports downtown residential.  As long as the city isn't doling out ridiculous incentives, this is practically freebie for downtown livability.  I think it can only help - and if they leave, at least there won't be an empty box left in its wake.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jne

I never thought I would say this, but I think I might be FOR the Walmart.  If it looks like the pics with parking and apartments, it may be our best option for starting commerce that supports downtown residential.  As long as the city isn't doling out ridiculous incentives, this is practically freebie for downtown livability.  I think it can only help - and if they leave, at least there won't be an empty box left in its wake.

---

I can verify that if Seay goes looking for a TIF.. He will be greeted by the City of Tulsa Planning Department...

It will not be a "Big Blue and Yellow Box"........
[}:)]

You want dwelling units downtown? well then, you better support this.

Seay can afford the development. If he's planning on TIF,
he best think again.

Next up to make it all come together.....school for the kids and within walking distance.

quote:

---

Originally posted by aoxamaxoa

Seay can afford the development. If he's planning on TIF,
he best think again.

---

You and Rico are more optimistic than I that the Planning Commission and the City won't cave on the TIF issue.  I'm remembering what I read in the Tulsa World (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=060202_Ne_A1_Commi29820%22) less than two years ago when Charles Norman warned the TMAPC to not experiment with new policies and procedures on the Tulsa Hills development.  I know someone who attended those meetings, and, according to her, the TMAPC was asking about turn out lanes for bus stops, the size of proposed signage, curbs, and sidewalks.  The end result was that the TIF district was approved.

I'm not sure about the signage requirements, but curb and sidewalk standards are in Tulsa's ordinances, and have been for decades.  It's the TMAPC's and the City's obligation to look into such issues, especially when a TIF district is being considered.

We'll see what happens with the Seayco development, but it won't surprise me if the City approves a TIF district with little or no urban design standards.

quote:

---

Originally posted by inteller

quote:

---

Originally posted by emersonbiggins

Hi all; there's good reason to think that Wal-Mart may actually be turning over a new leaf with its urban store prototype.  Consider this gem, revealed to an absolutely BITTER public in Austin a few months back:

(http://marvinmoss.com/wmaustin.jpg)

(http://marvinmoss.com/wmaustin3.jpg)

Downtown Tulsa could certainly herald this type of development.

---

dude....if downtown gets something like that I'm buying lofts downtown and moving in with all the other smuggites down there.

---

So is this a done deal?

It is by no means a done deal.  There are still too many details to be worked out.  But it does have an air of inevitability about it--seems like we're getting a downtown Wal-Mart, and it's just a matter of how.

As a co-founder and board member of Tulsa Foundation for Architecture, and as a downtown resident and longtime advocate for downtown redevelopment, I would offer the following thoughts on the subject of a mixed-use development downtown:
a.  I concur that the idea of a traditional big-box retail development is not what we want or need.  I would say that it appears that this is not what the developer appears to propose.... so we need to hear them out before we pass judgement.
b.  Please, PLEASE, PLEASE, gentlemen, do not try to pander to us by coming up with some crappy art deco scheme; it is time for something new and fresh.  I am sure that it would be well-intentioned and even viewed by many as a wonderful idea to play off the whole art deco thing.  However, it misses the point entirely.  The reason art deco is so prevalent (well, whatever is left anyway) and so important is that it was built by really creative architects and visionary owners at the time those ideas were flourishing; they were be best of that time.  Today, almost 90 years later, there are new ideas flourishing.  We need for the developer and their architects to create a really visionary urban design with really smart, creative "today" design that does not copy some long-ago style.  Maybe winking at it is ok, but let's treasure the great architecture we have, create some new great architecture that represents now and today, that we can talk about preserving 100 years from now.
c.  As to the whole topic of Wal-Mart.... well, they are a fact of life.  People vote with their pocketbooks and last time I checked Wal-Mart gets lots of votes.  But we as citizens can influence what the developer and Wal-Mart do by getting pro-actively involved in the entitlement process and demanding of our community that the best possible solutions are developed for this area of downtown.  We can use it as a catalyst for even more development.  Let us use this as an opportunity to get what our city wants and needs and deserves, while letting them get what they want.
d.  I think now would be a good time for the City (for instance, the MAYOR) to surface with a statement of vision for how this project might fit in with the context of our city and what our city's expectations are for the developer (and by extension, Wal-Mart).  The real question that I would have of the Mayor is:  Do you know what you should want or expect of this development and what tools you have at your disposal to "guide" them?  How can we use this development as a catalyst for other aspirations (baseball park downtown or a big public farmers market or more residential development or a new library or......) Maybe now is the time to get a vision developed that this project can fit into.

So, let's first ask in the strongest possible way, that the Mayor take a crack at forming a vision statement that elevates the expectations and possibilities.  We DO NOT WANT OR NEED a traditional strip center with huge fields of parking in front.  NOPE.  We DO want and need retail, groceries, housing, entertainment downtown.  Wal-Mart is not THE issue.  THE issue is WHAT and HOW.

quote:

---

Originally posted by elm

I think now would be a good time for the City (for instance, the MAYOR) to surface with a statement of vision for how this project might fit in with the context of our city and what our city's expectations are for the developer (and by extension, Wal-Mart).  The real question that I would have of the Mayor is:  Do you know what you should want or expect of this development and what tools you have at your disposal to "guide" them?....

So, let's first ask in the strongest possible way, that the Mayor take a crack at forming a vision statement that elevates the expectations and possibilities.  We DO NOT WANT OR NEED a traditional strip center with huge fields of parking in front.  NOPE.  We DO want and need retail, groceries, housing, entertainment downtown....

---

Welcome to the discussion, elm.  I agree.  

But read through all the pages of posts on this topic.  If tax increment financing is allowed, then I think the City has some leverage if officials don't cave as they did on the Tulsa Hills TIF district.  Otherwise, it's a private development on private property.  The City has allowed for a situation such as this one by vacating public streets and alleys for decades.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Floyd

It is by no means a done deal.  There are still too many details to be worked out.  But it does have an air of inevitability about it--seems like we're getting a downtown Wal-Mart, and it's just a matter of how.

---

What kind of time frame are we looking at? I'm making some plans on getting moved back to the Tulsa area no later than 2009-is it going to break ground before or after I return?

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr.jaynes
What kind of time frame are we looking at? I'm making some plans on getting moved back to the Tulsa area no later than 2009-is it going to break ground before or after I return?

---

Seay, the developer, said he expects it to be open within 12 to 18 months.

Are you planning on moving in to one of those apartments?
_____________________________________

I think Seay said his expectation was to start work in 12 to 18 months, actually, not finish.  Given all the planning and politics involved, that makes sense.  If I were you, I would expect to see projects coming online by the end of 2009.  Obviously it depends on many, many things.  I'll look for the quote . . .

I dunno, they throw up Wal-marts really damn fast.  At least the cheap big box suburban ones.  Watching a Wal-mart go up in a couple of weeks vs. how long some other construction projects take, is impressive.

Quote from: elm...do not try to pander to us by coming up with some crappy art deco scheme...

So wait a minute, we have bad taste?!  Or you just don't like art deco?  ;)

I understand your reluctance to recreate old ideas, most all creative people feel that way.  Most of my exposure and feelings about modern architecture is echoed by James Howard Kuntsler's 'Eyesore of the Month'.  Here is July's:

http://www.kunstler.com/eyesore_200707.html

The new law building at Case Western Reserve is another:

http://www.kunstler.com/eyesore_200510.html

I attended CIM while this building was going up.  It replaced a small greenspace with public art and pissed off the occupants of the nearby law building something fierce.  Kuntsler's picture actually looks better than the building does in person from the sidewalk.  Sure it's new, unusual, creative and so forth, but gawd it's ugly up close and is hilariously incongruous with the surrounding buildings.  Of course, the CIM building is the same way!  It won a major award in 1961...starting about ten years later, it just looked pitifully dated and unattractive.  New construction (new recital hall and such) does a bit to mitigate the horror.

The old (again, looking better as a picture):
http://www.case.edu/pix/buildings/cim.jpg

The addition (scroll down):
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=97396

It would be nice if the architecture of the new WallyWorld paid homage or at least played nicely with the art deco already here.

If they proposed bulding the modern Wal Mart design shown in the pics above, I would be all over it and I would even SHOP there, which says a lot, since I haven't set foot in a Wal-Mart in nearly two years.

I wonder if that's what they're proposing for us?  It will be interesting to see if that one in Austin gets built.
Austin WalMart debate (//%22http://austin.about.com/od/malls/p/northcross.htm%22)

I believe the townhomes at central park got a tif and met design standards to go with the area. Several other new buildings in the area, like the new Central Center also met those design guidelines. This Wal-Mart will be less than a block away and on the same street. It would only seem reasonable, if they also want a tif, to have them meet some sort of design standards as well.

Tulsa and Tulsans have invested a looot of money downtown. Streets, sidewalks, parks, turning old buildings into living, new Arena, etc. Part of that investment is to make downtown into a liveable, walkable environment. Yes we want a grocery store. I personally dont care if it is a Wal-Mart or whatever. But whatever goes there should not go against our investments and what we are trying to do with downtown.

quote:

---

Originally posted by carltonplace


4. This shouldn't leave any room for a baseball or soccer stadium so that long running argument (soccer! baseball! SOCCER! BASEBALL!) is dead.

---

Gee.  Ain't payback a bee-atch... enjoy your new SuperWalMart, suckuhzzzzzz....

This should never have been primarily about the sports stadium... should have been about the forty acres...... oh, wait... twenty acres and a mule... oh, wait... one square block of mixed-use new urbanism that's gonna be big... no, I mean it... really big... I heard it from Michael Eisner... no, Tim Kissler... c'mon... trust me...

The guys from DC who bought MLS's DC United who were going to bring pro soccer back to Tulsa didn't tell the whole truth... to anyone.  This includes MLS and the city of Tulsa.  It's a shame, really.

Instead of arguing over the merits of the 40 acres of walkable urbanity part of GDP's proposal, I was stuck arguing over the less-important part of the project... oh, gee, Average Joe... yes, indeedley doodley... a double-A baseball park is soooooooo much more important to downtown Tulsa than attracting MLS, a league that had been actively  recruiting this city despite its small size... I'm still angry over the naysayers who decided a new minor league ballpark is preferable to Major League Soccer... the soccer part of this  goes back not only to former mayor LaFortune but to Susan Savage as well.... but we can't git-r-done for soccer fans here, who just need to take a backseat... yet again.

LaFortune is still the only person in the last decade who spoke common sense when it came to ideas for downtown development... Taylor ain't saying nothing, probably because she saw the political damage it did to her predecesor... too bad political partisans on both sides have poisoned the well for at least the last 20 years and evidently aim for the next 20 years as well...

quote:

---

Originally posted by USRufnex

quote:

---

Originally posted by carltonplace


4. This shouldn't leave any room for a baseball or soccer stadium so that long running argument (soccer! baseball! SOCCER! BASEBALL!) is dead.

---

Gee.  Ain't payback a bee-atch... enjoy your new SuperWalMart, suckuhzzzzzz....

This should never have been primarily about the sports stadium... should have been about the forty acres...... oh, wait... twenty acres and a mule... oh, wait... one square block of mixed-use new urbanism that's gonna be big... no, I mean it... really big... I heard it from Michael Eisner... no, Tim Kissler... c'mon... trust me...

The guys from DC who bought MLS's DC United who were going to bring pro soccer back to Tulsa didn't tell the whole truth... to anyone.  This includes MLS and the city of Tulsa.  It's a shame, really.

Instead of arguing over the merits of the 40 acres of walkable urbanity part of GDP's proposal, I was stuck arguing over the less-important part of the project... oh, gee, Average Joe... yes, indeedley doodley... a double-A baseball park is soooooooo much more important to downtown Tulsa than attracting MLS, a league that had been actively  recruiting this city despite its small size... I'm still angry over the naysayers who decided a new minor league ballpark is preferable to Major League Soccer... the soccer part of this  goes back not only to former mayor LaFortune but to Susan Savage as well.... but we can't git-r-done for soccer fans here, who just need to take a backseat... yet again.

LaFortune is still the only person in the last decade who spoke common sense when it came to ideas for downtown development... Taylor ain't saying nothing, probably because she saw the political damage it did to her predecesor... too bad political partisans on both sides have poisoned the well for at least the last 20 years and evidently aim for the next 20 years as well...

---

Cool off Ruf! Its like making sausage, not too many people will eat it if they ever see the process up close. Stand back a little let our little burg wrestle with itself. Good stuff happens in spite of our best efforts. You have pithy comments and argue tenaciously but I think you lack the faith that others like yourself and the more erudite on this forum will prevail. It wasn't evil that destroyed downtown, it was apathy and economics. And it won't be "good" that rebuilds it, but passion and greed. Ya gotta have the faith. More often than not stupid wins, but that makes the successes all the more sweet. Enough Oprah think...damn I gotta block that channel.

Soccer is an inevitability. The investment made with our kids back in the late 70's-80's has yet to flower but the seeds were planted. We will have to meet that demand as those generations take the reins. Maybe the river bank is the best place for a soccer stadium. Certainly a better investment than 30million for useless pedestrian bridges.

Now thats a trade I would support. Soccer stadium instead of pedestrian bridges. BTW there is still room for a soccer stadium or baseball stadium downtown.

quote:

---

Originally posted by USRufnex

quote:

---

Originally posted by carltonplace


4. This shouldn't leave any room for a baseball or soccer stadium so that long running argument (soccer! baseball! SOCCER! BASEBALL!) is dead.

---

Gee.  Ain't payback a bee-atch... enjoy your new SuperWalMart, suckuhzzzzzz....

This should never have been primarily about the sports stadium... should have been about the forty acres...... oh, wait... twenty acres and a mule... oh, wait... one square block of mixed-use new urbanism that's gonna be big... no, I mean it... really big... I heard it from Michael Eisner... no, Tim Kissler... c'mon... trust me...

The guys from DC who bought MLS's DC United who were going to bring pro soccer back to Tulsa didn't tell the whole truth... to anyone.  This includes MLS and the city of Tulsa.  It's a shame, really.

Instead of arguing over the merits of the 40 acres of walkable urbanity part of GDP's proposal, I was stuck arguing over the less-important part of the project... oh, gee, Average Joe... yes, indeedley doodley... a double-A baseball park is soooooooo much more important to downtown Tulsa than attracting MLS, a league that had been actively  recruiting this city despite its small size... I'm still angry over the naysayers who decided a new minor league ballpark is preferable to Major League Soccer... the soccer part of this  goes back not only to former mayor LaFortune but to Susan Savage as well.... but we can't git-r-done for soccer fans here, who just need to take a backseat... yet again.

LaFortune is still the only person in the last decade who spoke common sense when it came to ideas for downtown development... Taylor ain't saying nothing, probably because she saw the political damage it did to her predecesor... too bad political partisans on both sides have poisoned the well for at least the last 20 years and evidently aim for the next 20 years as well...

---

Your obsession with me is bordering on fanboy. It's cute, really.

Hugs and kisses,
AJ

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

quote:

---

Originally posted by USRufnex

quote:

---

Originally posted by carltonplace


4. This shouldn't leave any room for a baseball or soccer stadium so that long running argument (soccer! baseball! SOCCER! BASEBALL!) is dead.

---

Gee.  Ain't payback a bee-atch... enjoy your new SuperWalMart, suckuhzzzzzz....

This should never have been primarily about the sports stadium... should have been about the forty acres...... oh, wait... twenty acres and a mule... oh, wait... one square block of mixed-use new urbanism that's gonna be big... no, I mean it... really big... I heard it from Michael Eisner... no, Tim Kissler... c'mon... trust me...

The guys from DC who bought MLS's DC United who were going to bring pro soccer back to Tulsa didn't tell the whole truth... to anyone.  This includes MLS and the city of Tulsa.  It's a shame, really.

Instead of arguing over the merits of the 40 acres of walkable urbanity part of GDP's proposal, I was stuck arguing over the less-important part of the project... oh, gee, Average Joe... yes, indeedley doodley... a double-A baseball park is soooooooo much more important to downtown Tulsa than attracting MLS, a league that had been actively  recruiting this city despite its small size... I'm still angry over the naysayers who decided a new minor league ballpark is preferable to Major League Soccer... the soccer part of this  goes back not only to former mayor LaFortune but to Susan Savage as well.... but we can't git-r-done for soccer fans here, who just need to take a backseat... yet again.

LaFortune is still the only person in the last decade who spoke common sense when it came to ideas for downtown development... Taylor ain't saying nothing, probably because she saw the political damage it did to her predecesor... too bad political partisans on both sides have poisoned the well for at least the last 20 years and evidently aim for the next 20 years as well...

---

Cool off Ruf! Its like making sausage, not too many people will eat it if they ever see the process up close. Stand back a little let our little burg wrestle with itself. Good stuff happens in spite of our best efforts. You have pithy comments and argue tenaciously but I think you lack the faith that others like yourself and the more erudite on this forum will prevail. It wasn't evil that destroyed downtown, it was apathy and economics. And it won't be "good" that rebuilds it, but passion and greed. Ya gotta have the faith. More often than not stupid wins, but that makes the successes all the more sweet. Enough Oprah think...damn I gotta block that channel.

Soccer is an inevitability. The investment made with our kids back in the late 70's-80's has yet to flower but the seeds were planted. We will have to meet that demand as those generations take the reins. Maybe the river bank is the best place for a soccer stadium. Certainly a better investment than 30million for useless pedestrian bridges.

---

How about a soccer stadium on the west bank near the proposed 41st Street bridge? Isn't there a big soccer complex already going in over there? Could be a beautiful location with river views, two miles from Brookside, could potentially be integrated with River Parks and also give a boost to the Red Fork area.

"LaFortune is still the only person in the last decade who spoke common sense when it came to ideas for downtown development..."

^^^^
Say Rufie whatever you smokin put me down for a kilo....

I should have a more detailed response, Rico.... but the cliffnotes version involves former mayor LaFortune's successful Vision 2025 effort that passed with 60% of the vote... the former mayor who openly discussed Tulsa's inability to retain many of its own citizens... discussed attracting young couples, 20-somethings and "empty-nesters" to a rejuvenated downtown...

A sad story of political partisanship on both sides, hypocrisy, Great Plains Airlines, DESCO, Boeing, MLS, CS&L, GDP, "confidentiality agreements," TIF's, starbonds, Maurice Kanbar, Winnercomm, Express Sports, craziness from The Tulsa Beacon and KFAQ, and republicans who eat-their-own... then, after chewing him up and spitting him out, still endorse him in the general election...

Oh, and about the former mayor who wanted to turn downtown Tulsa into a "sports complex"???

I'll give you a hint... her name wasn't "LaFortune."  [:D]

quote:

---

Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE


How about a soccer stadium on the west bank near the proposed 41st Street bridge? Isn't there a big soccer complex already going in over there? Could be a beautiful location with river views, two miles from Brookside, could potentially be integrated with River Parks and also give a boost to the Red Fork area.

---

Yes, there are soccer fields there now and plenty of fairly cheap land that could be redeveloped. Making the 41st bridge pedestrian-only is a mistake in my book but I'd rather have pedestrian than nothing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rico

"LaFortune is still the only person in the last decade who spoke common sense when it came to ideas for downtown development..."

^^^^
Say Rufie whatever you smokin put me down for a kilo....

---

I talked to Lafortune for about an hour on it. I would say that he wasn't the best informed.

Major League Soccer?

In an unscientific poll of soccer fans I know (one), the idea was received well.

Best hold off on this one until the immigrants have disposable cash.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

quote:

---

Originally posted by USRufnex

quote:

---

Originally posted by carltonplace


4. This shouldn't leave any room for a baseball or soccer stadium so that long running argument (soccer! baseball! SOCCER! BASEBALL!) is dead.

---

Gee.  Ain't payback a bee-atch... enjoy your new SuperWalMart, suckuhzzzzzz....

This should never have been primarily about the sports stadium... should have been about the forty acres...... oh, wait... twenty acres and a mule... oh, wait... one square block of mixed-use new urbanism that's gonna be big... no, I mean it... really big... I heard it from Michael Eisner... no, Tim Kissler... c'mon... trust me...

The guys from DC who bought MLS's DC United who were going to bring pro soccer back to Tulsa didn't tell the whole truth... to anyone.  This includes MLS and the city of Tulsa.  It's a shame, really.

Instead of arguing over the merits of the 40 acres of walkable urbanity part of GDP's proposal, I was stuck arguing over the less-important part of the project... oh, gee, Average Joe... yes, indeedley doodley... a double-A baseball park is soooooooo much more important to downtown Tulsa than attracting MLS, a league that had been actively  recruiting this city despite its small size... I'm still angry over the naysayers who decided a new minor league ballpark is preferable to Major League Soccer... the soccer part of this  goes back not only to former mayor LaFortune but to Susan Savage as well.... but we can't git-r-done for soccer fans here, who just need to take a backseat... yet again.

LaFortune is still the only person in the last decade who spoke common sense when it came to ideas for downtown development... Taylor ain't saying nothing, probably because she saw the political damage it did to her predecesor... too bad political partisans on both sides have poisoned the well for at least the last 20 years and evidently aim for the next 20 years as well...

---

Cool off Ruf! Its like making sausage, not too many people will eat it if they ever see the process up close. Stand back a little let our little burg wrestle with itself. Good stuff happens in spite of our best efforts. You have pithy comments and argue tenaciously but I think you lack the faith that others like yourself and the more erudite on this forum will prevail. It wasn't evil that destroyed downtown, it was apathy and economics. And it won't be "good" that rebuilds it, but passion and greed. Ya gotta have the faith. More often than not stupid wins, but that makes the successes all the more sweet. Enough Oprah think...damn I gotta block that channel.

Soccer is an inevitability. The investment made with our kids back in the late 70's-80's has yet to flower but the seeds were planted. We will have to meet that demand as those generations take the reins. Maybe the river bank is the best place for a soccer stadium. Certainly a better investment than 30million for useless pedestrian bridges.

---

How about a soccer stadium on the west bank near the proposed 41st Street bridge? Isn't there a big soccer complex already going in over there? Could be a beautiful location with river views, two miles from Brookside, could potentially be integrated with River Parks and also give a boost to the Red Fork area.

---

One of the commercial property companies (Brandt, I think) has a few parcels of open land for sale roughly west of that park.  There's more which could be acquired for such a development.

Since I don't have kids in soccer, I don't have the slightest clue what the demand is for a pro soccer stadium these days.  Anyone got an idea?  Is it like it used to be when Green Country Soccer first came in and then the Roughnecks?  Is there as much amateur participation in soccer as there used to be? More?

quote:

---

Originally posted by buckeye

Major League Soccer?

In an unscientific poll of soccer fans I know (one), the idea was received well.

Best hold off on this one until the immigrants have disposable cash.

---

^
Senor..... The idea in Tulsa is to dispose of the immigrants before they have disposable $cash$......

Haven't you heard... The contractors now get the job done and then sell their liabilities to the Immigration....

Boom Town!

[}:)]

quote:

---

Originally posted by booWorld

quote:

---

Originally posted by elm

I think now would be a good time for the City (for instance, the MAYOR) to surface with a statement of vision for how this project might fit in with the context of our city and what our city's expectations are for the developer (and by extension, Wal-Mart).  The real question that I would have of the Mayor is:  Do you know what you should want or expect of this development and what tools you have at your disposal to "guide" them?....

So, let's first ask in the strongest possible way, that the Mayor take a crack at forming a vision statement that elevates the expectations and possibilities.  We DO NOT WANT OR NEED a traditional strip center with huge fields of parking in front.  NOPE.  We DO want and need retail, groceries, housing, entertainment downtown....

---

Welcome to the discussion, elm.  I agree.  

But read through all the pages of posts on this topic.  If tax increment financing is allowed, then I think the City has some leverage if officials don't cave as they did on the Tulsa Hills TIF district.  Otherwise, it's a private development on private property.  The City has allowed for a situation such as this one by vacating public streets and alleys for decades.

---

I did not attend those Tulsa Hills meetings and hearings.  I spoke with someone today who did, and she said that the Planning Commission was able to work something out with the developer to provide bus stops, curbs, and sidewalks.  Looks like I was wrong.  

If Seayco pursues TIF, then I hope the City will demand very high quality urban design standards.

If Seayco pursues TIF, I hope the city grants a TIF on the basis of funding the ballpark... after all, why should a TIF be used for a business that will not be a regional attraction?... or as former mayor LaFortune put it... a "destination"...?!?

oh, and conan, you can find a response to your question here...
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7028

Mayor Kathy Taylor
200, Civic Center, 11th Floor
Tulsa, OK 74103

August 30, 2007

Dear Mayor Taylor,
RE.: DOWNTOWN WAL-MART

First, I want to congratulate you on the purposeful approach you and your team have taken in addressing a wide range of issues, especially on the upcoming City Hall move.  The purpose of this letter is to help you turn Downtown Tulsa into the vital, dynamic, funky, walkable place it has to be, to compete for business in the 21st Century.  

I am therefore writing to express my strong objections to the City's funding of anything resembling a suburban Wal-Mart in Downtown Tulsa's 'East End'.

For several years my company has worked collaboratively with the City and with the Pearl District Association, to help create a walkable, downtown neighborhood that embraces the new century's opportunities and imperatives.  It has taken six, long years so far, and our early successes are very evident.

Wal-Mart's fundamentally suburban design concept conflicts with every lesson we've learned about downtown design; and it would be right on our door-step.  It conflicts in scale (a 150,000sf store is far too big), it conflicts in land-use principles, architectural design, parking layout, street-presence, window placement and signage.  It conflicts with Tulsa's long-term economic, demographic and environmental interests.  It even conflicts with Wal-Mart's own, up-to-the-minute thinking about smaller, city-center stores.  In short, it's a Neanderthal.

Yes, of course we want a grocery store in Downtown.  But it must enhance Downtown's distinctiveness, the scale must be appropriate, and it must promote the development of viable stores, businesses, homes and other amenities nearby.  It must be truly pedestrian-friendly.  It should be multi-story.  It should front directly onto a sidewalk, have windows onto pedestrian streets, be street-scaped for an urban setting, and its parking should be structured, attractive, shared and at the rear (or underneath).

Downtown Drillers
This Wal-Mart proposal comes at a crucial time.  We have a huge opportunity to bring the Tulsa Drillers to Downtown Tulsa.  Ball-parks thrive in pedestrian-friendly, downtown settings.  (Check out the Rockies' 'Coors Field' in Denver.)  So we must seize this opportunity to raise the bar, - not lower it.  Let's help the Drillers design for a Downtown context, and insist that a Downtown grocery partner collaborate fully with the city to provide a truly compatible, urban' design within walking distance.  Other good ideas are ready and waiting too - notably from the Pearl District Association - that will add value to a 'Downtown Drillers' concept.  

It would be a huge, strategic mistake if, in our eagerness to attract the Drillers we tolerate a big-box behemoth of a Downtown grocery store, set back from the street, with desolate, toxic, surface parking.

There's a no-brainer solution here for Wal-Mart: Invite them to put an urgently-needed, neighborhood grocery store where customer demand, infrastructure, public funding structure - and even the building itself – are primed and ready: at Pine & Peoria.

Let's insist on distinctive, world-class solutions for Tulsa.  Let's not dumb-down Downtown.

And let me know how we can help.

With Best Wishes,


Jamie Jamieson
Manager, The Village At Central Park, LLC

"There�s a no-brainer solution here for Wal-Mart: Invite them to put an urgently-needed, neighborhood grocery store where customer demand, infrastructure, public funding structure - and even the building itself � are primed and ready: at Pine & Peoria."

---

Very Good Letter Jamie.

I pulled this paragraph from the entire text as this is exactly what other Cities are doing.

They place guidelines by which the corporate members of the community can participate as a true partner of the City.  

The above statement also is reflective of the current
"Corporate Mission Statement" being espoused by WalMart.

Make them live up to their words.

We need to get out of the trend of bribing? corporations to become part of Tulsa.

Get off your knees Tulsa and respect yourself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamie


It would be a huge, strategic mistake if, in our eagerness to attract the Drillers we tolerate a big-box behemoth of a Downtown grocery store, set back from the street, with desolate, toxic, surface parking.

There's a no-brainer solution here for Wal-Mart: Invite them to put an urgently-needed, neighborhood grocery store where customer demand, infrastructure, public funding structure - and even the building itself – are primed and ready: at Pine & Peoria.

Let's insist on distinctive, world-class solutions for Tulsa.

---

Good letter, Jamie.  Please post Mayor Taylor's response the instant you receive it.

It also would be a huge, strategic mistake if, in our overly-eager desperation to attract the Drillers, we tolerate the closing of more public streets downtown.  We need to maintain the fine-grained pattern of streets and blocks as much as we can.  A new Drillers stadium might fit on the site northeast of Archer and Elgin.  But otherwise, there are not good locations for a baseball stadium downtown without disrupting the street grid.  

For an area that is no doubt the last bastion of bootstraps capitalism, it always amazes me that we admire small businessmen who make it on their own but we beg the Drillers, who don't need the help, and offer them a variety of perks including a new free stadium if they'll just play ball with us. Meanwhile, a small businessman has to beg, plead and sell his soul just to serve the city.

I agree Rico. No self-esteem.

Yes, for decades I've had the dream of working like the dickens so I can fork over my tax dollars in order to finance the construction of a private ballpark so that grown men can have a nice place to be paid to play games.  

Priorities, priorities...

Shame on Maria Barnes for supporting this downtown Wal-mart.                                                   "Maria Barnes, city councilor for District 4 where the proposed store would stand, said a downtown Wal-Mart is beneficial."          http://www.tulsaworld.com/community/article.aspx?articleID=070822_9_ZE4_spanc15863

quote:

---

Originally posted by Double A

Shame on Maria Barnes for supporting this downtown Wal-mart.                                                   "Maria Barnes, city councilor for District 4 where the proposed store would stand, said a downtown Wal-Mart is beneficial."          http://www.tulsaworld.com/community/article.aspx?articleID=070822_9_ZE4_spanc15863

---

Gotta do better than that AA. She represents an entire district, not just the Cherry Street folks, many of whom would benefit from a grocery downtown. It may not be the brand of grocery we all admire but she said nothing wrong.

If downtown can be rebuilt in the image of a more sophisticated East coast city that would never invite a WalMart, then it would already have been done. That said, if public funds in any way are used to attract a grocery, it better not be a WalMart.

Thanks for the constructive comments on the letter I emailed to the Mayor Aug 30.  I particularly agree with the point regarding the urban grid.  Re.our Councilor: I don't think Maria has thought much about the way successful downtowns 'work' for human beings/pedestrians and I'm sure she has no sense of the importance of Design in creating a vital urban core: it's not her day job after all; and she has spent most of her civic life concerned about Kendall-Whittier, which is still where her heart is (she retains the title of President of the KW Nhd Assn., which seems odd).  And there are relatively few Downtown residents to whom she has to answer as Councilor.  

I sent Maria a 3-page, bullet-pointy evaluation of the Wal-Mart project - which I also sent the Mayor a week or so ago.  (Incidentally I have never got a reply from the Mayor on anything, not even to requests for meetings; Don Himelfarb on the other hand has always been receptive, a good listener, straightforward and constructive).  Anyway, this is by way of warning that I'll post the 3-pager in a subsequent posting and would welcome comments.  

I'm very concerned at the limpness of the response from various quarters at the prospect of a suburban retail monster on the east side of Downtown.  I see this issue as a decisive one for Tulsa: we either drift along complacently with a development policy of bumbling mediocrity in terms of design and development standards, or we determine to make Tulsa a vital, competitive city for the 21st century that lifts our spirits and makes us proud.  This latter is what Susan Neal announced as the City's intention at the recent briefing of candidate consultants for the Comprehensive Plan. Does plonking a huge Wal-Mart in Downtown help us along in this direction?

I was therefore heartened to some degree by today's (Sunday's) World which announced the forthcoming appointment of a consultancy to help with integrating Downtown's development. I make no secret of my opinion that Downtown should be the city's No. 1. priority and that the River is a side-show so far as economic development is concerned.  (As an aside London ignored its river for two thousand years except as a port; and began to 'develop' the river's banks only when it made the strategic decision to place boundaries on its outward growth, and to grow by increasing walkable density. So there was a deliberate, strategic context to the Thames's river-bank development that has been very successful in delivering a very livable and enjoyable, very dense urban environment.  But despite all the activity on the Thames, the center of activity remains in the streets, cafes , restaurants, pubs, galleries etc. in the rest of London.  Even in London the river development is secondary.  

Forgive the digression.

EVALUATION OF 'EAST END' RETAIL PROJECT

1.   THE WRONG DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY?
a.   Competitor cities are delivering vital, distinctive, pedestrian-focused Downtowns. The present proposal is a suburban design that damages the City's distinctiveness and reduces reasons to visit Downtown.
b.   A 'Big Box' strategy sends a counter-productive message about Downtown Tulsa revitalization.
c.   It sharply reduces the potential for a diverse mix of distinctive, local businesses.
d.   It limits subsequent retail profile to generic, superstore 'complementers' - the opposite of what is sought by urban dwellers.
e.   Destruction of some of the existing urban buildings in the area damages Tulsa's Downtown identity and potential: some of those buildings are good 're-hab' candidates.
QUESTIONS:
•   How does a very 'big box' retail strategy stack up against competitor cities' Downtown strategies?
•   Have demographic changes, environment impact, health, gas prices, and long-term strategic imperatives been considered by the City's planners and economists in evaluating the proposal?
•   What other strategic approaches have been carefully evaluated, if any? For what reasons were these discarded?


2.    THE WRONG LAND-USE STRATEGY?
a.   This proposal is an auto-centric, suburban template, not an 'urban' one.
b.   It is grossly out of scale:
i.   A 150,000sf, multi-product-sector 'supercenter' eclipses and dwarfs all other retailers and buildings.
ii.   Wasteful, surface parking lots are proposed, to fit a mis-placed, suburban strategy.
c.   It is insensitive to Downtown's urban design needs.  It should be multi-story; with structured, shared parking; with no blank walls along pedestrian streets; with a pedestrian frontage onto the street; urban architectural design (modern or traditional); pedestrian-oriented street-scaping; and small-scale retailer units 'wrapping' the store.
d.   It involves the removal of 'urban grid' elements – such as streets, alleys, sidewalks - that are pedestrian-friendly, cost-efficient and deliver economic flexibility.
e.   It requires demolition of older buildings, some of which lend themselves to re-habbing.
f.   It will bring permanent traffic congestion.
g.   It is an asphalt-led, backward step away from a sustainable city.
h.   Big Box 'solutions' do not deliver a successful urban environment.
i.   Based on past performance the store is vulnerable to going 'dark' after a few years.
QUESTIONS
•   Does the City consider that a low-density, large-scale store is an appropriate use of urban land?
•   Does the City believe that such a strategy will deliver a vital, urban environment?
•   How many, and which existing buildings would be demolished?



3.   WRONG RETAIL STRATEGY?
a.   The scale and breadth of product-range of a 'Supercenter' prevents other retailers from competing effectively.
b.   An urbanized version of Wal-Mart's 'neighborhood market' at c. 35,000sf would be better- suited in size and range...but better yet:
i.   12,000sf. (e.g. Tesco 'Metro' stores in urban settings).
ii.   30,000sf (e.g. Whole Foods)
iii.   31,000sf. (e.g. Tesco superstores - world's 4th largest retailer).
c.   A Wal-Mart Supercenter will impact other businesses within the trading area – its own too.
d.   Increasing local predominance of Wal-Mart makes Tulsa vulnerable (i) to food security if the company closes stores, and (ii) to price-hikes when other serious competitors have departed (such as Homeland, Albertsons).
QUESTIONS
•   Is the City aware that Wal-Mart is currently actively evaluating much smaller stores for urban environments?
•   Does the City know that three times as much money stays in the local economy when we buy from local businesses vs. large chain stores?


4.   THE WRONG NEIGHBORHOOD?
a.   Pine & Peoria neighborhood, recently abandoned by Albertsons, is very under-served in terms of grocery stores: it's virtually a 'food desert'.  That site is a much better location for a conventional, suburban store than Downtown, since all the infrastructure is in place and a TIF district is already established for the purpose.
b.   A Downtown superstore location prejudices the very hard-won and on-going achievements and strategy of the adjacent 'Pearl District':
i.   Additional policing costs may well be incurred nearby, including the Pearl District;
ii.   There will be an increase in pollution and noise arising from traffic arising from an auto-centric store;
c.   The Pearl is beginning to make real progress on a sustainable, imaginative, progressive, but under-funded plan.  
QUESTIONS
•   Since Wal-Mart has the opportunity to locate a store at Pine/Peoria on an ideal site with few design restrictions, where the consumer need is greatest, and where a TIF district is already in place, why not go there?  
•   Given that Wal-Mart has this option, why should the City provide funding and accede to anything less than full cooperation with its urban design requirements?

5.   THE WRONG RETAILER?
a.   Wal-mart has a reputation for playing hardball and not responding to municipalities' design needs.
b.   Crime:  Wal-Mart reportedly brings higher crime-levels than comparable stores.
c.   Wal-Mart's comparatively low contribution to employee healthcare resulting in the local community picking up the rest of the tab.
d.   Wal-Mart often insists on a 'non-compete' clause when it eventually closes the store, thus blighting an area.  We cannot afford this in Downtown.  
e.   'Sales per square foot' is key to a tax-increment financing district's business model, and to the productive use of scarce, urban land.  Other retailers deliver higher sales psf than Wal-Mart (eg. CostCo).  
QUESTIONS
•   What does the Tulsa Police Department think?
•   Has the City evaluated the policies of those municipalities that have actively sought to keep Wal-Mart out?

6.   A BETTER DOWNTOWN STRATEGY?
a.   Goals
i.   Commit to the concept of proactive strategy development, to avoid piecemeal reaction to ill-conceived projects.
ii.   Keep profits in the Tulsa area: Focus on stimulating local businesses.
iii.   Seek economic diversity of businesses.
iv.   Deliver a truly urban environment that addresses the needs of the 21st Century.  

b.   Strategy: Infrastructure
i.   Invest relevantly in civic amenities that foster a distinctive, pedestrian-oriented environment, that benefit everyone and attract public and private-sector investment; for example ...
1.   A magnet elementary school;
2.   Pedestrian-oriented 'Grand Central Library' in the East End;
3.   Centennial Walk;
4.   'The Tulsa Pearls' (an imaginative, connective, Downtown waterway system and tourism generator);
5.   Pocket Parks; and sidewalk shade trees;
6.   Bike trails and bike lanes;
7.   'Parking' for bicycles, motorbikes, scooters;
8.   Mass transit choices and facilities;
9.   Invest in and integrate with the adjacent 'Pearl District' Plan - already approved by the Council - to leverage the scale and impact of the above strategy.

ii.   Protect the grid system (including alleys), because ...
1.   It delivers greater flexibility,
2.   It is pedestrian-friendly,
3.   Is safer,
4.   Is more 'human' ('super-blocks' and big boxes destroy walkable urbanity).

c.   Strategy: Retail
i.   Formalize urban design guidelines for Downtown
ii.   Collaborate with the Tulsa Drillers.
iii.   Seek out collaborative, enlightened and/or local, urban grocers (eg. Reasors, Whole Foods, Tesco, Target...
iv.   Seek out collaborative and genuinely urban developers.
1.   Global Development Partners plans for 6th/Elgin sound promising in this respect.  

d.   Strategy: Urban Design Management
i.   Make Urban Planning & Development responsible for managing Downtown's urban design strategy.
ii.   Consider setting up an Urban Design Studio under Urban Planning & Development (as Vancouver).
iii.   Adopt a 'form'-based code to foster walkable, vital, sustainable urbanity.


7.   STRATEGY: TIF FUNDING
a.   On no account should the City fund the degradation of our urban fabric.
i.   The urban grid system (alleys, sidewalks, streets, etc.) is proven to function effectively and efficiently.
ii.   'Super-blocks' in an urban setting are counter-productive to 'walkable urbanity'.
b.   The City should not fund:
i.   new infrastructure when suitable infrastructure exists elsewhere in the trading area;
ii.   a suburban design that is predicated on a 7-10 year lifespan and an out-dated, auto-focused environment;
c.   It is impossible to justify a new, grocery-led TIF when a TIF district is already in place at a location – Pine & Peoria - where both an urgent need and the business opportunity exist.

Jamie, I am very pleased to hear this level of interest on your behalf.

I must admit being somewhat puzzled by the lack of response from others that have an equal interest in the type of Downtown that you refer to.

If I could make a suggestion...
This type of threat, to the integrity of the "Downtown" so many of us hope will be achieved, deserves a response equal to or greater than any WalMart can afford to dish out.

IMHO,from the research I have been able to do, there is a limit at which WalMart will sit down at a table and talk. (i.e. there relatively  recent encounter with a Chicago that would not budge.)

This needs to be an organized response.The City Hall residents need to experience the threat that this development poses. They need to know this is unacceptable....Absolutely unacceptable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamie

STRATEGY: TIF FUNDING
a.   On no account should the City fund the degradation of our urban fabric.
i.   The urban grid system (alleys, sidewalks, streets, etc.) is proven to function effectively and efficiently.
ii.   'Super-blocks' in an urban setting are counter-productive to 'walkable urbanity'.
b.   The City should not fund:
i.   new infrastructure when suitable infrastructure exists elsewhere in the trading area;
ii.   a suburban design that is predicated on a 7-10 year lifespan and an out-dated, auto-focused environment;
c.   It is impossible to justify a new, grocery-led TIF when a TIF district is already in place at a location – Pine & Peoria - where both an urgent need and the business opportunity exist.

---

I certainly agree with these points.  At one time, the Seayco site had public streets and alleys dividing the current super-block into relatively small urban parcels.  As platted, the largest block on the site was Block 143 of the Tulsa Townsite, which was bordered by Frankfort, Kenosha, 5th, and 6th.  Block 143 had an east-west alley creating a north portion of the block and a south portion.  The north portion of Block 143 was approximately 70,000 square feet (surrounded by a public alley on the south and by public streets -- Frankfort, 5th, and Kenosha -- on the west, north, and east).  The north portion of Block 143 (at approximately 70,000 sq ft) was at one time the largest chunk of private land on the entire site.

If the City of Tulsa had not tinkered with the public streets and alleys downtown (and assuming Seayco was proposing the same mix of uses for the same tract), then we'd be looking at a Wal-Mart at least 3 stories high with a maximum footprint of approximately 70,000 square feet.

The City has created the possibility of a single-story retail monster to be built downtown by creating super-blocks.  It's really as simple as that.  That we would even consider a TIF district without requiring the re-dedication of those public ways makes no sense to me.  But I don't have much hope that the City will demand quality urban planning and design.  I hope I'm wrong about this.

I'm very disappointed to read about Maria Barnes's position on the downtown Wal-Mart.  This indicates a continued erosion of the urban grid downtown which I've observed during the 18 years since I moved to Tulsa.  Although the Wal-Mart as proposed at 6th & Lansing would be within walking distance of my home, I most likely will boycott it on principle.  I doubt also if I'll be voting for Maria Barnes's re-election unless she changes her stance on this issue.

Maria needs to clean up her act and be the Councilor she campaigned to be or we need to clean house. The Mayor is desecrating our charter while she turns a blind eye, that is unacceptable any way you cut it. As a supposed friend of the TPD, she has turned her back on our police force by her silence on the police chief issue and as a supposed friend of labor by supporting the cancer that is Wal-Mart in the heart of downtown Tulsa. My brothers and sisters in labor are talking about this and are not pleased. With the deadline to file coming up in December, this has the makings of a very interesting primary season in District 4.

I'll take a do-able NW Ark WalMart over Target and the Jamie Jamison agenda.

Entitlements, special rights, pork barrel spending and TIF's...  

Yours is a brick facade with government incentives that achieves no more urban density than my apt in east Tulsa...

Ok, I understand the gist of your argument.  A Wal-Mart is not a unique urban cool thing to brag about to other people.  I get that.  But when something like that was put in (Williams Forum) it quickly folded and no new retail has developed downtown in the last decade.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamie


reduces reasons to visit Downtown.

---

At the moment, why would anyone go the vacant buildings and empty lots that occupy the proposed location?  Of course, they wouldnt. How does adding a retail destination DECREASE reasons to go downtown?

quote:

---

b.   A 'Big Box' strategy sends a counter-productive message about Downtown Tulsa revitalization.
c.   It sharply reduces the potential for a diverse mix of distinctive, local businesses.
d.   It limits subsequent retail profile to generic, superstore 'complementers' - the opposite of what is sought by urban dwellers.
e.   Destruction of some of the existing urban buildings in the area damages Tulsa's Downtown identity and potential: some of those buildings are good 're-hab' candidates.

---

All very good points and superb alternatives.  Also all things that are not on the drawing board, are unfunded, and have failed to come to fruition to date.  I would greatly prefer downtown Tulsa resemble Manhattan, but given the choice between abandoned street or big box...

quote:

---

2.    THE WRONG LAND-USE STRATEGY?

---

I agree with nearly all these points.  I wish they would put in a multi story design with a parking ramp.  But back to my main point - what they are proposing is still better than anyone what anyone else has actually offered to pay for and build.

quote:

---

f.   It will bring permanent traffic congestion.

---

Won't any successful downtown revitalization effort?  In fact, couldn't that be seen as an indication of success downtown.  When congestion becomes a problem downtown, we'll deal with it... for now it is a far flung fear as I drive blindfolded without fear of hitting anyone or anything after 5pm.

quote:

---

i.   Based on past performance the store is vulnerable to going 'dark' after a few years.

---

If by a "few years" you mean a couple decades, then yes... it is a possibility.  A refusal to allow a non-compete clause would be needed IMHO to avoid a large empty box downtown in the future.

quote:

---

3.   WRONG RETAIL STRATEGY?
a.   The scale and breadth of product-range of a 'Supercenter' prevents other retailers from competing effectively.

---

So because the proposed development meets consumers needs too well we should not allow them?  This argument stinks of elitism, sentimentality, and a loathing for Wal-Mart.  Other retailers are free to come in and do a better job if they are able to.  With how much people seem to hate Wal-Mart, one would not think it a tall order to do so.

quote:

---

•   Does the City know that three times as much money stays in the local economy when we buy from local businesses vs. large chain stores?

---

Does the poster know that the city can not show preference to local business in zoning decisions without being sued for Antitrust violations?

quote:

---

4.   THE WRONG NEIGHBORHOOD?

---

I generally disagree with all of your comments here.  NIMBY.  Wal-Mart feels that there is a strong customer base for its product at this location.  They have done well in the past identifying markets and placing their stores there... in fact, its actually what they do.  I'm willing to bet they have actual data on the market and have studied it.

And what effect will this have on the pearl?  What businesses in the Pearl will be detrimentally effected by this Wal-Mart?  The people who live or shop in the pearl district are not likely to be lured away by a Wal-Mart... that would be like arguing the Tulsa Ballet is in jeopardy because "You Got Served 2" is coming out this summer.

quote:

---

i.   Additional policing costs may well be incurred nearby, including the Pearl District;
ii.   There will be an increase in pollution and noise arising from traffic arising from an auto-centric store;

---

Again, this would be true of any and all developmental successes downtown.  Tulsa is a car centric town, without some DRASTIC change in that regard, any development (including townhouses) causes more congestion and pollution in a given area.  Higher population density or just more foot traffic creates a need for more policing.    

It doesnt really matter if it is a Wal-Mart or a
Neiman Marcus that is going in - you will have an increase in traffic, pollution, and the need for police presence.  

quote:

---

c.   The Pearl is beginning to make real progress on a sustainable, imaginative, progressive, but under-funded plan.  

---

I dont know about the funding, but the district is making a good run and becoming very interesting; if only there was somewhere nearby to get casual items like toiletries, groceries and a cold beer to go.  

Really, why would a Wal-Mart damage the Pearl District, I dont get it.  If you think it would be better served by a Petty's and a half dozen specialty stores - build them and show Wal-Mart they are not wanted by drawing all their potential customers away.  That's how capitalism works, not by having the government decide whats best for its citizens who are apparently too stupid to know for themselves.

quote:

---

•   Given that Wal-Mart has this option, why should the City provide funding and accede to anything less than full cooperation with its urban design requirements?

---

I hope the city stands tall on the issue and offers a carrot and a stick to get Wal-Mart to go urban.  Not because they are Wal-Mart, but because it is best for the image and development of downtown.

quote:

---

5.   THE WRONG RETAILER?
a.   Wal-mart has a reputation for playing hardball and not responding to municipalities' design needs.

---

In this instance, the city has some cards to play and can play hardball right back.  Hopefully, it does not come to that and we are able to negotiate something.  Perhaps add the Wal-Mart to the bus route in exchange for less surface parking and offering TIFF financing to cover the additional expense of making it multilevel.  Dictating a design and offering nothing does not seem fair, considering their are no existing alternative uses for that land.

quote:

---

b.   Crime:  Wal-Mart reportedly brings higher crime-levels than comparable stores.

---

That's because Wal-Mart attracts more poor people and poor people commit more crimes.  No one likes to say it, but that is a core issue here.  If you truly want a diverse and livable downtown, it is going to have to include poor people.  Wal-Mart or not.

quote:

---

c.   Wal-Mart's comparatively low contribution to employee healthcare resulting in the local community picking up the rest of the tab.

---

Mom and pop shops are not terribly well known for their excellent benefits nor job security.  If good benefits is a requirement of doing business in this town we had better shove off a large portion of specialty stores...

quote:

---

d.   Wal-Mart often insists on a 'non-compete' clause when it eventually closes the store, thus blighting an area.  We cannot afford this in Downtown.  

---

agreed.
- - - - - - - -  

I agree with most of your vision for downtown and how we have to get there.  But we have to remember that it is not your nor my downtown... it should be allowed to grow and not dictated on how or for whom it will grow.  In its heyday downtown was the shopping destination for everybody, not just preppy professionals or housewives looking for rare items at specialty stores.

Anyway, I felt the need to point out the flaws I saw above.   I hope Wal-Mart or some other retail development does it right downtown and the city works WITH THEM to ensure a strong urban presence.  Downtown has been long neglected, I don't think heavy handed government will turn it around.  Good planning by the government creating opportunity coupled with private development is the only way.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Double A

Shame on Maria Barnes for supporting this downtown Wal-mart.                                                   "Maria Barnes, city councilor for District 4 where the proposed store would stand, said a downtown Wal-Mart is beneficial."          http://www.tulsaworld.com/community/article.aspx?articleID=070822_9_ZE4_spanc15863

---

"Downtown needs a grocery store to become a vibrant area again with both pedestrian and auto traffic, especially after 5:00 when business closes . . . ."

Which part of that do you disagree with?  The reporter, not Maria Barnes, made the statement about supporting Wal-Mart.  I don't read this statement to indicate support for Wal Mart, generally, or the Seayco proposal, specifically.

Don't contradict doubleA with the facts.

He hates the establishment and attacks anyone who is reasonable.

I think councilor Barnes is trying to help her district. He wants her to agree with his view on every topic and if she doesn't...he yells at her at public events and posts lies about her.

quote:

---

Originally posted by USRufnex

I'll take a do-able NW Ark WalMart over Target and the Jamie Jamison agenda.

Entitlements, special rights, pork barrel spending and TIF's...  

Yours is a brick facade with government incentives that achieves no more urban density than my apt in east Tulsa...

---

Rufnex.... Quit with the edit already...!

Everyone here is more or less an adult. Critique
is good for everyone... Even when it comes from one of those "Soccer Hooligans".... [;)]

Just needed to edit on the basis that I'd follow up with something that explains some of my anger... once again, the urban density achieved by the Village Park condos isn't any different than what I see in my east Tulsa apt complex... maybe something with this kind of urban density in Phase II...???

(http://www.rpphomes.com/images/townhome_illustration.jpg)

CF seems to have already beaten me to most of my critique...

My unedited post stated that Jamieson's condos were overpriced... and included a few choice words to describe my feelings about that... especially when we're talking about a TIF district development.  The more I read about the Home Depot/Village Condos TIF district, the more disappointed I was that there weren't a few condos that could have been made available at more affordable prices comparable to the markets in other areas of Tulsa that haven't had to resort to TIF designations... or that maybe a Children's Museum or other regional attraction could have been part of the proposal instead of a glorified drainage ditch...

The pricing on these condos can be higher than brand new homes in other parts of the Tulsa area...
http://www.southcountytulsa.com/pdfs/the_map.pdf

I find much of Mr. Jamieson's rhetoric to be highly ironic...

Home Despot = BIG BOX.
Target = big box.
Albertson's = grocery big box.
Reasor's = local grocery big box.
Tesco = proper English big box.
Wal Mart = our big box.

Seems odd that Tulsa's most financially successful TIF district to date... a TIF that gets some big $$$ due to the presence of a non-local big box inside the IDL... is so resistant to the idea of another company attracted to downtown?...  A company that's based only a couple of hours east of Tulsa in NW Arkansas?

For someone to cite Tesco and not think any of us would notice that Tesco happens to be the British version of WalMart is puzzling... Tesco controls over 30% of the grocery market in Britain, and is the fourth largest retailer in the world, behind WalMart and Home Depot...

WalMart had stores in Vinita, Pryor, Claremore and Wagoner back when other discount retailers wouldn't touch those towns with a 10-foot pole...

And Whole Foods?  Well, most of their locations are in affluent suburban areas... an upscale grocery store will NOT be coming to the east end anytime soon, the residential density is  clearly not there yet... WF's Dallas locations are in affluent suburbs and affluent north Dallas.  Their only KC location is in affluent Overland Park, KS... Their new urban Chicago locations are in areas that were already highly developed and gentrified years ago and are now PRIMED for development..... Whole Foods will come to downtown AFTER its renaissance, not before...

When a North Peoria location for WalMart is suggested, it reminds me of the forum sticky post by Admin and TulsaNow from Nov 2005 that suggested Global Developments' soccer stadium should be moved to Mohawk Park... in other words, a classic red herring.  Maybe a smaller scale store that caters to the working poor would be better for North Peoria and Pine, anyway... Aldi.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_2_what_does_the_war.html

quote:

---

When Hartford, Connecticut, tore down a blighted housing project, city officials hatched an innovative plan to redevelop the land: lure Wal-Mart there, entice other retailers with the promise of being near the discount giant, and then use the development's revenues to build new housing. Wal-Mart, after some convincing, agreed, and city officials and neighborhood residents celebrated a big win—better shopping, more jobs, and new housing in one of America's poorest cities.

But then, out of nowhere, outsiders claiming to represent the local community began protesting. Astonished city leaders and local residents quickly discovered the forces fueling the campaign: a Connecticut chapter of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union; and ACORN, the radical community group. Outraged residents fought back, denouncing outside interference, but opponents persisted, filing three separate lawsuits that have delayed construction, including a ludicrous suit claiming that the development would destroy unique vegetation that has sprouted since the housing project came down. "These people looked for every possible reason to stop a project that the community wants," says Jackie Fongemie, a frustrated community activist who has fought for the store. "Where were the environmentalists when rats were running wild around this place?"

Though Wal-Mart has encountered opposition for years from anti-sprawl activists or small-town merchants worried about the competition, the Hartford drama exemplifies a brand-new kind of opposition, a coordinated effort of the Left, in which unions, activist groups like ACORN and the National Organization for Women, environmentalist groups, even plaintiffs' attorneys work together in effective alliances. They are fighting the giant retailer not only store by store, but in statehouses, city halls, and courts. They have already managed to make Wal-Mart an issue in the presidential campaign: several Democratic hopefuls indicted the American shopper's favorite store as unfriendly to working people.

------------------------------------------------

The stores themselves still reflect Sam Walton's values, and draw fire for it. In light of its vast market power, Wal-Mart has infuriated the media with its long-standing refusal to stock obscene CDs and racy magazines. BusinessWeek branded the company a cultural gatekeeper that has "served to narrow the mainstream for entertainment offerings while imparting to it a rightward tilt." Playboy magazine, which Wal-Mart has refused to sell, was more blunt in its recent, lengthy anti-Wal-Mart diatribe, which called Bentonville "the epicenter of retailing's Evil Empire." So striking have the attacks been that a Kansas City business columnist recently suggested that the national press is "angry that average Americans don't share their perceptions of Wal-Mart as the bad guys" and that Wal-Mart "has come to represent the defining cultural divide between the elites and the common folk." In other words, the press doesn't like the fact that most Americans share the company's values.

---

http://www.macleans.ca/business/companies/article.jsp?content=20050725_109503_109503

quote:

---

It's a divisive political standoff that's been mirrored in communities throughout North America over the past few years. To the project's advocates in City Hall, this is just the kind of development Cleveland so desperately needs. Aside from precious jobs, the mall will spin off US$3 million in property taxes annually, US$1.8 million of which will go to the city's struggling school system, plus US$700,000 in local payroll tax. It will also give city residents a place to shop near home, rather than travelling to the suburbs.

Officials estimate local residents spend US$4 billion a year in retail shops, a third of which currently goes outside the city. If ever there was a Wal-Mart that deserves support, they say, this is it.

But that's just the point: Wal-Mart isn't engaged in a series of messy local zoning disputes. It's at war with a well-financed, well-organized opposition, determined to fight it on every front. From Los Angeles to the Saguenay, from Hartford, Conn., to Vancouver, a broad array of activist groups and unions have launched protests, lawsuits and ad campaigns, all aimed at discrediting Wal-Mart, halting its growth, and unionizing its workforce.

Like most wars, it's about money and power, and the first casualty is truth. Because even after all the scrutiny and analysis of the Wal-Mart phenomenon, most of what we've been told -- about worker abuse, destroyed small-town economies, crushed suppliers and greedy management -- is wrong.

---

Lets not forget this deal is also going to take up a lot of space with a very spread out, unwalkabale, low density, apartment complex. If you dont like whats been done downtown in that respect so far, you will hate what this development will do.  
That right next to this large unwalkable wal-mart and its large parking lot. Its kind of a double whammy on the time, effort and money we as citizens have put into trying to develop a walkable downtown.

We have spent a lot of money and effort in recent years to, not just bring downtown to life. But to creat a specific type of downtown. A walkable urban district. Refurbishing buildings like the Mayo into multi use with living, creating parks downtown, turning the streets back to 2 way, redoing and improving the sidewalks, laying out plans for the Brady and the Pearl so that they can grow in that direction and connect with the rest of downtown in a walkable manner, trying to save old buildings, etc.

There is still room for this to happen. But I just wish this developer, and some in the city, could get on the same game plan the rest of us have been pushing for.

I know its too cost prohibitive in our current environment to ask a Wal-Mart or any other large store to build 2 stories with parking unerneath or a parking garage. Those examples you see of that type of developments are usually underneath gleaming new pricey condo towers on busy streets. Not what we have in that area of downtown.

However there could have been some easy and inexpensive design changes made. Why not have the apartments fronting streets with parking hidden in the middle versus a typical apartment complex layout with row after row of one and 2 story buildings in a large block with fencing around it? Why just one story and possibly a few 2 story apartments? Even suburban apartments often have parking underneath and 2 floors of living above. This development is even more suburban than most suburban ones. Yuck

Why couldn't this Wal-Mart have its front on a street? Have the parking lot across that street. Put some traffic calming features in and you will have no more trouble with crossing that than you would have getting to any other wal-mart from the parking lot. Is that such a major request? No its not totally urban, but it would have made a positive difference and helped maintain some of the street grid and at least a semblance of walkability. Especially if you have the "row of shops" facade facing the street. But they dont even want to do that. This is a completely urban set up. No concessions to urban walkability whatsoever.

These developers do not want to make even the most basic adjustments, that wouldnt really cost anything. They dont care about all the effort and money that the citizens of Tulsa have been putting into downtown. To not just have downtown develop in any old way, but to create a walkable urban environment.

I was leaning for this development because I thought it at least had some urban components to it, but then I saw the layout of the apartments. I had thought there were going to be 4 story apartments with some structured parking. That is not the case.

Did I miss something?  Would someone recap for me?  Do we have knowledge of the plans for this project?  We know what the buildings will look like?  Walmart has knowledge that it is building in that area?

Last I saw, the developer was the one speaking for Walmart.

I apologize if I'm behind the curve.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Townsend

Did I miss something?  Would someone recap for me?  Do we have knowledge of the plans for this project?  We know what the buildings will look like?  Walmart has knowledge that it is building in that area?

Last I saw, the developer was the one speaking for Walmart.

I apologize if I'm behind the curve.

---

I'm wondering the same thing...

Who has seen plans, what, where, when, why...??
I want to see them

That's the problem.  People can act like they have insider info, but anybody who really knows what's going on likely signed a "confidentiality agreement" weeks/months ago... and alot of interested parties both pro and con are left in the dark...

Then the Tulsa World will sit on the story for months until it senses a politically opportune time to print it....

So, we ain't gonna hear nothing until after the River Tax vote...

I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt these people would want to turn downtown into a suburb...

http://www.argtulsa.com/

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist


We have spent a lot of money and effort in recent years to, not just bring downtown to life. But to creat a specific type of downtown. A walkable urban district. Refurbishing buildings like the Mayo into multi use with living, creating parks downtown, turning the streets back to 2 way, redoing and improving the sidewalks, laying out plans for the Brady and the Pearl so that they can grow in that direction and connect with the rest of downtown in a walkable manner, trying to save old buildings, etc.

However there could have been some easy and inexpensive design changes made. Why not have the apartments fronting streets with parking hidden in the middle versus a typical apartment complex layout with row after row of one and 2 story buildings in a large block with fencing around it? Why just one story and possibly a few 2 story apartments? Even suburban apartments often have parking underneath and 2 floors of living above. This development is even more suburban than most suburban ones. Yuck

I was leaning for this development because I thought it at least had some urban components to it, but then I saw the layout of the apartments. I had thought there were going to be 4 story apartments with some structured parking. That is not the case.

---

I too am wondering what you are basing this critique on.  Where did you learn that the apartments will be less than 4 stories?  Where did you get the idea the apartments will not front the streets?  In the initial story on this development, it was stated that it would include "about 150 apartments 'that fit into the streetscape fronting on Fourth and Fifth streets'" with an parking deck, which makes it sound like the parking deck would be concealed behind the apartments.

As to destroying the street grid, well, there is not much street grid in that part of downtown to destroy.  In looking at a map the only street that currently goes through the development area is Kenosha, and it ends two blocks south at the back side of Home Depot anyway.  Not much loss to the street grid there.  As to connecting with the Pearl District; again, this development causes no interruption in the street grid connection to the Pearl District.  The streets that go across the freeway are 4th and 6th and they presumably will still do so.  The streets within the development (5th st and 5th Pl) do not go across the freeway, so they would never provide connectivity to the Pearl District no matter what is developed on this site.  

Also, had a baseball stadium been built on this site, it would have had at least as much negative impact on the street grid.  (But would clearly be a better development in other ways)

quote:

---

Originally posted by DScott28604

quote:

---

Originally posted by Townsend

Did I miss something?  Would someone recap for me?  Do we have knowledge of the plans for this project?  We know what the buildings will look like?  Walmart has knowledge that it is building in that area?

Last I saw, the developer was the one speaking for Walmart.

I apologize if I'm behind the curve.

---

I'm wondering the same thing...

Who has seen plans, what, where, when, why...??
I want to see them

---

In case you missed it the developers had a meeting with the YP people and brought their plans and "showed them off" at that meeting. Sorry I just assumed everyone knew and had gotten word of what they presented and what it looked like. Trust me I was expecting something different because of what I had read in the paper and was quite baffled by what I was told as well.

One thing I can say for certain.... This project will be the proverbial "straw that broke the Mayor's back"...

She may as well give her staff the heads up...

All the Chamber's Horses and all the Chamber's Men will not be able to put Katy back together again...

[}:)]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

In case you missed it the developers had a meeting with the YP people and brought their plans and "showed them off" at that meeting. Sorry I just assumed everyone knew and had gotten word of what they presented and what it looked like. Trust me I was expecting something different because of what I had read in the paper and was quite baffled by what I was told as well.

---

That sounds disappointing.  Now can the creation of a TIF district and the City Council's rubber-stamp approval be far behind?

quote:

---

In this instance, the city has some cards to play and can play hardball right back.  Hopefully, it does not come to that and we are able to negotiate something.  Perhaps add the Wal-Mart to the bus route in exchange for less surface parking and offering TIFF financing to cover the additional expense of making it multilevel.  Dictating a design and offering nothing does not seem fair, considering their are no existing alternative uses for that land.

I agree with most of your vision for downtown and how we have to get there.  But we have to remember that it is not your nor my downtown... it should be allowed to grow and not dictated on how or for whom it will grow.  In its heyday downtown was the shopping destination for everybody, not just preppy professionals or housewives looking for rare items at specialty stores.

Anyway, I felt the need to point out the flaws I saw above.   I hope Wal-Mart or some other retail development does it right downtown and the city works WITH THEM to ensure a strong urban presence.  Downtown has been long neglected, I don't think heavy handed government will turn it around.  Good planning by the government creating opportunity coupled with private development is the only way.

---

Jamie does a great job laying out the reasons to oppose a Walmart at this location, and Cannon Fodder does an equally good job addressing them from a sense of practicality.  Many of us don't like the idea of a Walmart downtown because of the things Jamie points out, but lots of people also think that we need a grocery store and other development there.  These are not mutually-exclusive sentiments.  A Walmart in and of itself is not an awful thing if it is done correctly.  What is "correctly"?

First, there seems to be a potential that Walmart's development downtown could deter investment by other groups that might be considering commerce and design that are more urban-friendly than Walmart's.  If Walmart's entry precluded this beneficial investment, then all the arguments that Walmart is "better than nothing" don't hold water.  At the very least, Walmart's footprint (geographic and commercial) in downtown should be limited to allow for additional, potentially-competitive entry.  

Second, if there is going to be a Walmart downtown, it should be urban/pedestrian-friendly.  That means that there should be no parking lots between the front of the store itself and the sidewalks leading to the rest of downtown.  And, to be clear, there must be sidewalks leading to the rest of downtown, at least on the South, West and North sides of the store.  Any parking should be below or on top of the store, or in a multi-story garage that (again) does not block pedestrian access to or views of the store. I also like Cannon Fodder's idea about access to bus routes.

Third, the Walmart appearance should fit in with downtown.

Fourth, Walmart should take additional steps to protect Tulsa's very sensitive environment.  Walmart has taken steps recently to improve its energy efficiency, but if Walmart is going to enter downtown with a business plan that relies on automobile traffic for a large part of its business, it needs to offset that footprint somehow.  Tulsa doesn't want to lose any benefit Walmart brings by incurring federal fines, further increasing the heat and ruining the health of its people.  

I don't agree with Cannon Fodder that government has no role in the design or planning of this or other developments.  Those of us in and around downtown have a strong public policy interest in seeing sustainable, livable growth in infill areas.  We live here because we don't want to live in suburbia.  We are ready to spend lots of time and money in downtown (and remain in the area) if it is going to be a good experience.  Government is the only thing that can protect this interest.  (Unfortunately, Oklahoma's laws could have a say in how much government is able to protect us against unwanted development.  This is why Cannon Fodder's suggestion about use of a TIF is worth considering.  But let's not agree to a TIF or any other benefit for Walmart without meeting all of our concerns.)

Finally, I don't disagree with DoubleA regarding the impact on labor.  That is an important issue, and Walmart is not the best in terms of treatment of employees.  To some extent, this is a more national and worldwide project that is having some limited success as Walmart seeks to improve its public image.  I don't know that I would oppose otherwise-favorable development in downtown, since it would be difficult to gain this type of concession in just one store.  However, I could see someone like DoubleA using this as an opportunity to highlight the important issue, and I'm sure he will.

The denial of TIF is about the only leverage the City has in this project.  The land is zoned CBD, which allows the developer to build just about anything, suburban or otherwise.

The City has closed and vacated public streets and alleys to make a super-block site.  In so doing, they created a situation in which an enormous Wal-Mart (or Drillers Stadium, or parking lot, or whatever) could be built there.  There is not much the City can do now to encourage the developer to cooperate except for rejecting a TIF district and enforcing any remaining utility easements.

This is how super-blocks destroy a downtown.  

Ah, shucks....

Quote ..... "" Second, if there is going to be a Walmart downtown, it should be urban/pedestrian friendly. That means that there should be no parking lots between the front of the store itself and the sidewalks leading to the rest of downtown. And, to be clear, there must be sidewalks leading to the rest of downtown, at least on the South, West and North sides of the store. Any parking should be below or on top of the store, or in a multi-story garage that (again) does not block pedestrian access to or views of the store. I also like Cannon Fodder's idea about access to bus routes.""

There is no way any large store is going to put in parking below or above in this area. The demographics aren't there to support it. The places where you see such things are in places where there is already a large concentration of wealthy people or the urban density demands it simply because you cant afford surface parking. Or its zoned so that you cant. And I am all for some kind of zoning for downtown, but until someone does that... well here we are.

Here is the area before and what I would propose doing if the Wal-Mart was of normal size. I am just assuming it will be slightly larger than the Home Depot and its Garden Center seen at the bottom of the map. I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong lol.

I know its not perfect or what many would like but I dont see it as being too horrible. Especially compared to what we could be getting. If my scales are somewhat reasonable I dont see that a layout similar to this would be too unreasonable to ask them to do. I dont think it would really be more expensive. The apartments could front the streets. I added a street in front of them facing the Wal-Mart and they could have their parking in between or on the ground floor with 2 floors of living above. The shops opposite Wal-Mart and the green space could use that strip of parking. Some of the stores could have living above as well. I am just giving a general layout. In general appearance the area would appear to be a Square with shops and buildings all around it. And heck when and if the Wal-Mart left it could be turned into a real "town square".  

Again, it would be great if any large store that went in there had parking above or below. But thats expensive to do and the demographics and price points would make it unreasonable in this area.

If it were tweaked a bit and the architecture of the Wal-Mart and the buildings around it were nice I think something along these lines could be a decent compromise. Urban perfection it is not. Just trying to think of a doable, workable compromise, if we could get it.

As is...

(http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/4257/walmartlocationwebvm6.jpg)

Perhaps something like this?...

(http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/2635/walmartlocation3webxa5.jpg)

(http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/3694/walmartuz8.jpg)

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

Here is the area before and what I would propose doing if the Wal-Mart was of normal size. I am just assuming it will be slightly larger than the Home Depot and its Garden Center seen at the bottom of the map. I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong lol.

I know its not perfect or what many would like but I dont see it as being too horrible. Especially compared to what we could be getting. If my scales are somewhat reasonable I dont see that a layout similar to this would be too unreasonable to ask them to do. I dont think it would really be more expensive. The apartments could front the streets. I added a street in front of them facing the Wal-Mart and they could have their parking in between or on the ground floor with 2 floors of living above. The shops opposite Wal-Mart and the green space could use that strip of parking. Some of the stores could have living above as well. I am just giving a general layout. In general appearance the area would appear to be a Square with shops and buildings all around it. And heck when and if the Wal-Mart left it could be turned into a real "town square".  

Again, it would be great if any large store that went in there had parking above or below. But thats expensive to do and the demographics and price points would make it unreasonable in this area.

If it were tweaked a bit and the architecture of the Wal-Mart and the buildings around it were nice I think something along these lines could be a decent compromise. Urban perfection it is not. Just trying to think of a doable, workable compromise, if we could get it.

As is...

(http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/4257/walmartlocationwebvm6.jpg)

Perhaps something like this?...

(http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/2635/walmartlocation3webxa5.jpg)

(http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/3694/walmartuz8.jpg)

---

Since we're apparently not going to get a peak at it in The Whirled, could you take a stab at showing us the plan they presented at the YP meeting?

I will see what I can do. I know someone who drew out on a piece of paper what they were presenting at the meeting.

Just so people don't get the wrong idea, I do not want to see a typical sprawling Wal-Mart with surface parking and suburban style apartments downtown.  I would greatly prefer an urban styled Wal-Mart and a density to the housing and stores.  Maybe even housing ABOVE the other stores.

However, I understand the economics in what has become low-density downtown does not justify a super cool multi story Wal-Mart on top of a parking garage.  I'm sure Wal-Mart looked into going into one of the abandoned buildings downtown... if it would make them money they would do it for sure.

I hope for a compromise and would be willing to pay for it with a TIFF.  Things as simply as what Artist have described or placing the parking lot in the back of the store or designing all sides of the Wal-Mart to look interesting/Not like the side of a Wal-Mart.  SOMETHING.  I will be very disappointed if this Wal-Mart + apartment complex mirrors the one near Woodland Hills mall.

That said, I do not think I'm willing to deny them the ability to build in that location without at least some commitment from another developer.

The one ache for me on a Wal-Mart downtown is a building with long walls and no windows.

Downtowns have pedestrians and long, blank walls where nobody is looking seem like magnets for street crime such as muggings, drug dealing, etc.

If there were windows looking out, then people would be witness and the illegal activities would probably go elsewhere.

What is our chance at getting a downtown Wal-Mart with windows on three sides?

I can't imagine why you couldn't skin the building on three sides plus a 2nd floor of apartments and retail.

quote:

---

Originally posted by recyclemichael

The one ache for me on a Wal-Mart downtown is a building with long walls and no windows.

Downtowns have pedestrians and long, blank walls where nobody is looking seem like magnets for street crime such as muggings, drug dealing, etc.

If there were windows looking out, then people would be witness and the illegal activities would probably go elsewhere.

What is our chance at getting a downtown Wal-Mart with windows on three sides?

---

Windows are more expensive and from my observations, Wal-Mart is in it for the cash, not to bow to community astetics.  I do not have trouble with a wal-mart downtown, but I sure hope you guys can make that 800lb gorilla bcome more community friendly.  I think an Art Deco design would be great.  I saw what they did in New Orleans to make the store front fit into that community.  Still a wal-mart but at least they put effort into the design.

In my "compromise proposal" I had the front of the Wal-Mart look like a row of shops and the South side of the building on 6th street have an actual row of shops on it. The north side can have more fake facade or a Garden Center and car repair if they have those on this one.

Artist, I've come to the conclusion that I can back whatever plan you come with on this.  You consistently post ideas on this issue that make sense for both Wal-Mart and the community.  I hope they listen.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Artist, I've come to the conclusion that I can back whatever plan you come with on this.  You consistently post ideas on this issue that make sense for both Wal-Mart and the community.  I hope they listen.

---

+1

(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/KatrinaWalMart.jpg)





In this "Street Artist" reactionary statement , to a Downtown WalMart, one can plainly see that  WalMart was made for areas such as New Orleans....

Tulsa will be far more receptive...?

Crime should go way down and give Convention and Arena goers that subtle feeling of calm and tranquility....

[}:)]

So, what your saying, is that those against a Wal-Mart downtown are comparable to people who live in a total ghetto, strip nice cars in their areas, allow their property to become totally decrepit, and threaten any business that considers constructing in the area?  While i disagree with their position, that comparison is a bit exaggerated.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cannon_fodder

So, what your saying, is that those against a Wal-Mart downtown are comparable to people who live in a total ghetto, strip nice cars in their areas, allow their property to become totally decrepit, and threaten any business that considers constructing in the area?  While i disagree with their position, that comparison is a bit exaggerated.

---

Not at all... This was a post Katrina pic.

I think they were actually for the WalMart..
The Limo had seen better days.. Granted.

But just as this fellow
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/DevintheDude.jpg) they are very much looking forward to a new "stomping ground"... and the $money$...

Any new business downtown, or along Cherry Street as we have seen, will have to contend with "being a new stomping ground".

Wal-Mart did open a store in New Orleans.  It is uptown, not in the ninth ward.  It replaced a part of the St Thomas housing project.  And the rest of that project has also been replaced with new townhomes.  The area looks so much better than it did.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

Any new business downtown, or along Cherry Street as we have seen, will have to contend with "being a new stomping ground".

---

Artist you never are at a loss for an opinion are you..?

Tell me how many little stores on Cherry St have indoor retail area of 180 thousand sq ft and a parking lot of approx 3 acres..?

Quite a large area to "stomp in" ...?
and a nice parking lot for the commuters....

Sounds great...! "If you can't find a mark at the Arena... try down the street at Wally's"

For the "newbie" that says the Wally World Corp helped replace a "project" with upscale condo's...
I assure you this was a coincidence not an example of the WalMart planning to help the community.  

So? If they are a pain for the Wal-Mart, so what? If they run off the shoppers. They run off the Wal-Mart. I cant quite tell if your for Wal-Mart or against them with this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

So? If they are a pain for the Wal-Mart, so what? If they run off the shoppers. They run off the Wal-Mart. I cant quite tell if your for Wal-Mart or against them with this.

---

Drive out to the "big box" at Admiral and Memorial at say 8:30 on a Friday evening.......

Park your fine automobile rigt in the light abd tell me the sensations you experience during your trip to the store and getting back to your car.

That is the same panorama the people that visit Downtown Wally will have. The proximity to the "strip joint" will of course be different..
Ours will be the "Newly remodeled Bookstore and Movie Arcade"

Oh Yeah... I'm for Wally...

Bring on the Slingers and their twenty Pee Wees.........

[}:)]

It was already mentioned in a TW article a few months back, that the design plan will be ugly, and suburban.  Their solution to drifters and hobos is to surround the giant surface parking lot with black fencing.  Also the plan for the apartments.  Look at the housing for TU along 11th street they just built (complete with black metal fence) and you have a pretty good idea of what kind of housing they probably want to put in the Walmart development.

I would imagine the fencing would be in the spirit of anti-pedestrian design, because people without cars must be up to no good.

Go back through the articles, they detailed the "surface parking surrounded by black metal fence" plan a while back.

quote:

---

Originally posted by YoungTulsan

It was already mentioned in a TW article a few months back, that the design plan will be ugly, and suburban.  Their solution to drifters and hobos is to surround the giant surface parking lot with black fencing.  Also the plan for the apartments.  Look at the housing for TU along 11th street they just built (complete with black metal fence) and you have a pretty good idea of what kind of housing they probably want to put in the Walmart development.

I would imagine the fencing would be in the spirit of anti-pedestrian design, because people without cars must be up to no good.

Go back through the articles, they detailed the "surface parking surrounded by black metal fence" plan a while back.

---

That takes care of the hobos.... they are overlooking the fact that the fence will work only for the undesirables on foot....
What the heck Seay and Company will be long gone by the time this is an issue..


The fence will work both ways... It may keep things in or out.

Yes.... apartments... a true Fort in the middle of Downtown...


Slingers will be lined up a block long for their piece of this action.


[}:)]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rico

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

So? If they are a pain for the Wal-Mart, so what? If they run off the shoppers. They run off the Wal-Mart. I cant quite tell if your for Wal-Mart or against them with this.

---

Drive out to the "big box" at Admiral and Memorial at say 8:30 on a Friday evening.......

Park your fine automobile rigt in the light abd tell me the sensations you experience during your trip to the store and getting back to your car.

That is the same panorama the people that visit Downtown Wally will have. The proximity to the "strip joint" will of course be different..
Ours will be the "Newly remodeled Bookstore and Movie Arcade"

Oh Yeah... I'm for Wally...

Bring on the Slingers and their twenty Pee Wees.........

[}:)]

---

I have been to that Wal-Mart. Dont know what "sensations" you are talking about other than the sinking feeling that occasionally my thoughts and attitudes are that of a spoiled, extremely fortunate, donkey and that I should use more of my time to help people and help the world become a better place. Is that the feeling you are talking about?

quote:

---

Originally posted by YoungTulsan

It was already mentioned in a TW article a few months back, that the design plan will be ugly, and suburban.  Their solution to drifters and hobos is to surround the giant surface parking lot with black fencing.  Also the plan for the apartments.  Look at the housing for TU along 11th street they just built (complete with black metal fence) and you have a pretty good idea of what kind of housing they probably want to put in the Walmart development.

I would imagine the fencing would be in the spirit of anti-pedestrian design, because people without cars must be up to no good.

Go back through the articles, they detailed the "surface parking surrounded by black metal fence" plan a while back.

---

Yes it is a shame. They could have arranged and designed the proposed development to be a loooot better.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rico

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

So? If they are a pain for the Wal-Mart, so what? If they run off the shoppers. They run off the Wal-Mart. I cant quite tell if your for Wal-Mart or against them with this.

---

Drive out to the "big box" at Admiral and Memorial at say 8:30 on a Friday evening.......

Park your fine automobile rigt in the light abd tell me the sensations you experience during your trip to the store and getting back to your car.

That is the same panorama the people that visit Downtown Wally will have. The proximity to the "strip joint" will of course be different..
Ours will be the "Newly remodeled Bookstore and Movie Arcade"

Oh Yeah... I'm for Wally...

Bring on the Slingers and their twenty Pee Wees.........

[}:)]

---

I have been to that Wal-Mart. Dont know what "sensations" you are talking about other than the sinking feeling that occasionally my thoughts and attitudes are that of a spoiled, extremely fortunate, donkey and that I should use more of my time to help people and help the world become a better place. Is that the feeling you are talking about?

---

Well Mister Artist get ready to feel oh so fortunate every time you drive be the "Ghetto" that Mister Seay is creating...

(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/WalMart.jpg)

Maria Barnes is selling the soul of Tulsa and the Arvest Council Oak park bribe doesn't make it alright. Don Walker's greasy fingerprints are all over this deal.

Where do you get that Maria is for this development? I've spoken to her and she is for a downtown grocery store, but not in favor of this development as proposed.

This is her written response to me:

Good to hear from you and thank you for contacting me about the proposed downtown Wal-Mart located between Frankfort Avenue and U.S. 75 between Fourth and Sixth Streets.



First, let me start by stating that the article in the Tulsa World dated August 22, 2007, and titled "Some voice concerns about downtown Wal-Mart," inferred that I thought a downtown Wal-Mart would be beneficial to the area.  The actual quotes that I provided the reporter were as follows:



"Downtown needs a grocery store to become a vibrant area again with both pedestrian and auto traffic, especially after 5:00 when business closes."



"As soon as I know something about the development, I'll make every effort to inform my constituents on this development."



With that being said, I would like to reiterate that I have not and will not support a proposed Wal-Mart downtown, but I do support a grocery store.  As I have always stated, I respect and support the wishes of the constituents within Council District 4.



Again, thank you for contacting me regarding the proposed Wal-Mart.  I will make every effort to keep you informed regarding this development.



Sincerely,

Councilor Maria Barnes

Council District 4

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

So? If they are a pain for the Wal-Mart, so what? If they run off the shoppers. They run off the Wal-Mart. I cant quite tell if your for Wal-Mart or against them with this.

---

I don't think they'll run off the shoppers or the Wal-Mart, as the Admiral and Memorial location should prove to you.  I think the point Rico is making is that we will be creating an undesirable magnet downtown...one that probably won't go away, only feed off itself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by tulsa1603

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

So? If they are a pain for the Wal-Mart, so what? If they run off the shoppers. They run off the Wal-Mart. I cant quite tell if your for Wal-Mart or against them with this.

---

I don't think they'll run off the shoppers or the Wal-Mart, as the Admiral and Memorial location should prove to you.  I think the point Rico is making is that we will be creating an undesirable magnet downtown...one that probably won't go away, only feed off itself.

---

Exactly... It will be the first "domino" of an overall path to undesirable development... Once it begins IMHO it will have a negative effect on all.

For sure we need to keep the string of positive developments downtown.  Like then... wait, no one has built a new building downtown in a decade.  Syaing that Wal-Marts attract trash is ridiculous.  Any large scale development downtown will draw all kinds of people.  If a Neiman Marcus went in there would be bums in the parking lot...

quote:

---

Originally posted by tulsa1603


I don't think they'll run off the shoppers or the Wal-Mart, as the Admiral and Memorial location should prove to you.  I think the point Rico is making is that we will be creating an undesirable magnet downtown...one that probably won't go away, only feed off itself.

---

I shop at the Admiral and Memorial location approx 2-3 times per month, usually later at night because it's open 24 hrs and more convenient traffic-wise than the WalMart around 71st and Memorial.

It's a SHAME when someone uses a tragic crime to stereotype WalMart shoppers and an entire area of town as "ghetto" (those robbers asked for assistance with their car as a ruse to lure their victims).  I've NEVER felt unsafe in that parking lot.  But yes, I'll think twice next time if somebody asks me to help give 'em a jump start late at night...

There's also a WalMart in Claremore... if a WalMart is opened in downtown Tulsa, will it turn that area into another Claremore?!?  I don't think so.  Will the so-called "undesirables" shopping at the WalMart at Admiral and Memorial start shopping at a WalMart if one is opened inside the IDL?  Why should they?

Oh, and since its become imperative we build a brand new downtown Tulsa ballpark because we can't allow the Drillers to move to Jenks, let's take a closer look at the cities in Tulsa's division of the Texas League next year... Springfield, MO has a 100% privately funded stadium... Little Rock has a new stadium for the Arkansas Travelers located across the river in North Little Rock).... and, drumroll please...... the new NW Arkansas Naturals will play their first season next year in a new ballpark in Springdale, Arkansas, home of Tyson and down the road from the home of Walmart's "evil empire," Bentonville.... they'll play at the brand new Arvest Ballpark....

http://www.arkansasbusiness.com/article.aspx?aid=99512.54928.111641

I mean, it could be worse... at least it's not a movie studio or a mixed-use soccer stadium development or a Home Depot we're talking about here.... oh, wait... [:)]

Downtown Tulsa needs a grocery store.  However, the most inappropriate development I could imagine for downtown would be a suburban-sized superwalmart.

Asking for an urban grocery store and getting a superwalmart is like asking for a glass of water and getting Hurricane Katrina.  The scale is not just wrong, it would be devestating...a major setback to everyone working towards a cool, human-scaled, walkable, urban environment.

Downtown Tulsa will succeed (unless we destroy it first) because it's unique.  It has something found nowhere else in the region.  Cool old buildings, a sense of history, and world-famoous art deco architecture.  There is no such beast in Owasso, or BA, or Springfield, MO, or Wichita, KS or Plano, TX.  (All of these places have superwalmarts, however...)

Tulsa needs to do two things: 1) stop tearing down old buildings.  2) Find a way to encourage and support (with real financial incentives and by cutting red tape) those people who are doing the right kind of development downtown.  (Think Blue Dome, Brady, and the "little guys" in the East End.)

This will bring in more people, more residents, and more shoppers to sustain an urban grocery store.  And all the other stores that could operate alongside an urban store.  

A superwalmart is a place people drive to...and then drive away from.  It's not going to support/enhance dozens of nearby shops/merchants...partly because nothing but asphalt (surface parking) will be nearby.

Let's leave the walmarts to the burbs, where they belong.

ditto

quote:

---

Originally posted by PonderInc

Tulsa needs to do two things: 1) stop tearing down old buildings.  2) Find a way to encourage and support (with real financial incentives and by cutting red tape) those people who are doing the right kind of development downtown.  (Think Blue Dome, Brady, and the "little guys" in the East End.)

---

I'll add a third:

3)  Stop closing and vacating public streets and alleys.

Superblocks create the opportunities for these types of suburban developments.  They don't belong downtown.

quote:

---

Originally posted by USRufnex
.... the new NW Arkansas Naturals will play their first season next year in a new ballpark in Springdale, Arkansas,

---

That is the team that Wichita lost when city and county leaders failed to step forward. I am afraid that Tulsa could also lose their team just as easily.

There are only 30 major league teams and thus only 30 AAA and 30 AA (what Tulsa is) teams allowed. Some cities like Chicago, LA and New York have more than one team which leaves the remaining markets competing which each other. Springdale and Springfield neither had a team three years ago and both went out and put together packages to attract owners.  

I am afraid of the Drillers moving to Jenks, but I am just as afraid of them moving completely away from here.

Half of downtown Tulsa is surface parking.  A WalMart would be an improvement...

NOBODY WOULD HAVE RATHER HAD GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT'S INITIAL PLANS SUCCEED THAN ME.

But the people whining and moaning over the evils of superblocks consistently demonize  everything they don't like aesthetically...

It will be perfectly appropriate to have a Walmart down the street from the Home Depot in downtown Tulsa and a mixed-use development anchored by a Walmart will be a huge improvement over what is there now...

quote:

---

Originally posted by recyclemichael

quote:

---

Originally posted by USRufnex
.... the new NW Arkansas Naturals will play their first season next year in a new ballpark in Springdale, Arkansas,

---

That is the team that Wichita lost when city and county leaders failed to step forward. I am afraid that Tulsa could also lose their team just as easily.

There are only 30 major league teams and thus only 30 AAA and 30 AA (what Tulsa is) teams allowed. Some cities like Chicago, LA and New York have more than one team which leaves the remaining markets competing which each other. Springdale and Springfield neither had a team three years ago and both went out and put together packages to attract owners.  

I am afraid of the Drillers moving to Jenks, but I am just as afraid of them moving completely away from here.

---

The Wichita Wranglers played at a ballpark that is nearly fifty years older than Driller Park.... their facility had one of the worst fields in baseball (artificial turf infield/grass outfield).  Wichita also had very little fan support because most of the city's baseball fans are more interested in paying to watch Wichita State's contending college baseball team.

The people I talk to don't seem to understand why the Drillers can't just stay at the fairgrounds... a downtown ballpark would be nice, but if the only choice is between a publicly funded ballpark downtown, and a privately financed ballpark in Jenks, guess which is going to be more popular?

quote:

---

Originally posted by cannon_fodder

For sure we need to keep the string of positive developments downtown.  Like then... wait, no one has built a new building downtown in a decade.  Syaing that Wal-Marts attract trash is ridiculous.  Any large scale development downtown will draw all kinds of people.  If a Neiman Marcus went in there would be bums in the parking lot...

---

You know, CF, "positive developments" do not have to include "new buildings" or "parking lots".  There have been blocks and blocks of rehabilitations...dozens of businesses.

The differences between the 'Plains Commercial' revitalization and suburban big box development are more than just "aesthetic", as Rufnex asserts.  

These kinds of development are fundamentally opposite and incompatible with one another. Big box development is designed for cars, not people.  Crossing the entire length of an ocean-sized parking lot is a barrier:  long, hot, windy, and boring hikes interrupted by the occasional terror of an Expedition barreling down on you; no sidewalks; no shade.  Developers don't provide meaningful and attractive pedestrian routes, and nobody wants to compete with the cars for longer than we have to, so we drive from one end of the strip mall to the other.  Crazy.

Also, suburban commercial is built cheaply.  In the last five decades, commercial real estate has been commoditized and packaged so that it can compete with other investments, like GE stock and pork bellies.  No investor wants to be bogged down in a real estate deal that doesn't break even for twenty years.  And nobody wants to commit to a geographic location for that long; sprawl moves too rapidly.  So, the "solution" is to build a throwaway structure that cashes out in less than a decade.  After that, who give a crap; let it "go dark".

Despite rumors, downtown is not dead.  Downtown is more "permanent" than any property in the region.  And so, historically and today, people are willing to invest more, adopt a long-term business plan, and think generationally.  If you are going after the long dollar, then allowing throwaway structures in the area is tantamount to cheating.

It's two different models.  The physical, economic, and psychological differences between traditional downtown development and suburban, big box, are real, and significant.  They don't mix well on many levels.  To say that this is about "aesthetics" is pretty unfair to the people that come downtown for something different, or the guy that sticks his neck out in order to provide it.

Damn CL, I've never heard it stated any better than that. Thank you.

It honks me off when people try to say that smart growth is superficial snobbery.  It's not.  There are fundamental differences in the way these places are built and used, and they lead to entirely different lifestyles.  

Suburbia requires it's own dogmatic assumptions:  that people won't walk more than 300 feet; that people have to see empty parking spaces from the main road or they won't stop and shop; that "place" doesn't matter.  Car-culture is mainstream, but that doesn't make it smart.  Drowning witches was mainstream at one time, so was swimming in petticoats, fighting in rows, and leeching.

If you ask me, it's the "pragmatic" car people that are being a little smug.

quote:

---

Originally posted by carltonplace

Damn CL, I've never heard it stated any better than that. Thank you.

---

Yeah, it may have been the fact that Rufnex's Hypnotoad was on the screen at the same time, but CL put it in quite a convincing fashion.

I've heard it spun in the opposite way though.  People saying "Don't worry about permanently changing downtown, because these cheap structures will be gone 10 or 20 years from now, no biggie"

Problem being, Ive never seen an old empty Walmart shell turn into anything useful OR be demolished.  Its those pesky no-compete contracts and the fact that no one needs a 180,000 square foot barber shop.

quote:

---

Originally posted by YoungTulsan

quote:

---

Originally posted by carltonplace

Damn CL, I've never heard it stated any better than that. Thank you.

---

Yeah, it may have been the fact that Rufnex's Hypnotoad was on the screen at the same time, but CL put it in quite a convincing fashion.

I've heard it spun in the opposite way though.  People saying "Don't worry about permanently changing downtown, because these cheap structures will be gone 10 or 20 years from now, no biggie"

Problem being, Ive never seen an old empty Walmart shell turn into anything useful OR be demolished.  Its those pesky no-compete contracts and the fact that no one needs a 180,000 square foot barber shop.

---

Some cities actually require big boxes to be torn down a few months after they go dark.  Tulsa is not one of those cities. We're at the opposite end of the spectrum.  Wal-Mart retains control of their empty stores even though they don't technically own them.  Wal-Mart creates blight in order to manipulate the retail landscape.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:

---

Originally posted by YoungTulsan

quote:

---

Originally posted by carltonplace

Damn CL, I've never heard it stated any better than that. Thank you.

---

Yeah, it may have been the fact that Rufnex's Hypnotoad was on the screen at the same time, but CL put it in quite a convincing fashion.

I've heard it spun in the opposite way though.  People saying "Don't worry about permanently changing downtown, because these cheap structures will be gone 10 or 20 years from now, no biggie"

Problem being, Ive never seen an old empty Walmart shell turn into anything useful OR be demolished.  Its those pesky no-compete contracts and the fact that no one needs a 180,000 square foot barber shop.

---

Some cities actually require big boxes to be torn down a few months after they go dark.  Tulsa is not one of those cities. We're at the opposite end of the spectrum.  Wal-Mart retains control of their empty stores even though they don't technically own them.  Wal-Mart creates blight in order to manipulate the retail landscape.

---

And what kind of drastic revolution would we have to go through here to get such a law passed?  I'm not an anti-walmart guy, but the particular practice of building a store, and then abandoning it to ensure that intersection is dead for retail really annoys me.  And I'm pretty sure the Tulsa market is like some sort of testing grounds for Wal-mart, and they are currently testing the "Complete and utter market takeover" strategy to see how it works here.  21st & Yale NH Market, 66th & Memorial, 111th & Memorial, the one coming soon in Glenpool, this downtown one, rumors of one in the Town West center at 49th W. Ave. (That and the Glenpool one are aimed at sucking the life out of Tulsa Hills no doubt) - They're probably thinking of other places to cram more Neighborhood markets in midtown somewhere.  We are being conquered.

We could let the Wal*Mart go in and then wait it out 10 years until it becomes "Heavenly Pizza", or becomes the home base for some cult of goat fanatics or sits empty until it is condmened and demolished.

- Or

We could do the right thing and demand long term development that has potential beyond its currently proposed use. The buildings on Cherry Street, SOBO and in BrookSide are great examples. Grocery Store becomes Music Store becomes coffee shop and Bistro and on and on. Wal*Mart doesn't have to be out of the question, they just need to "build to suit".

What sucks is that from my vantage point, this is already a done deal.  Unless someone takes a decisive stand, it looks as if the deal has already been inked.  The design is already complete.  We get a suburban walmart with a red brick/ stucco facade to BS about being "Urban".  We get a giant surface lot surrounded by black metal fence.  Who will have the balls to stand up to the developer and say we are not going to allow this to proceed as planned?

That would be the City Council when the developer comes asking for TIF support.

Tulsans have allowed for this type of big-box super-block situation by electing and re-electing officials who cede public streets and alleys to private owners.

The City Council will have almost no say except for the consideration of a TIF district.  I think the Council will whimp out and approve the developer's every request.  I hope they prove me wrong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by booWorld

Tulsans have allowed for this type of big-box super-block situation by electing and re-electing officials who cede public streets and alleys to private owners.

The City Council will have almost no say except for the consideration of a TIF district.  I think the Council will whimp out and approve the developer's every request.  I hope they prove me wrong.

---

Boo... Is there even a remote chance that the City, by whatever means, could impose "eminent domain" over the streets portion of this property...?

A very good argument could be made for this...IMO

With the Arena and other development... There will be a greater need for the common use of these streets.

What do you think..?

^ Possibly, but I'm not sure.  Perhaps a real estate attorney could comment here.

There most likely are utility easments in place.  If so, the City could enforce those, I imagine.

IMO, any consideration of TIF ought to require re-dedication of the streets to the public for public use.

quote:

---

Originally posted by booWorld

^ Possibly, but I'm not sure.  Perhaps a real estate attorney could comment here.

There most likely are utility easments in place.  If so, the City could enforce those, I imagine.

IMO, any consideration of TIF ought to require re-dedication of the streets to the public for public use.

---

Agreed... I read an article the other day... Rather long.

"Shopping for Subsidies:
How WalMart uses Taxpayer Money to
Finance its Never Ending Growth"

I was amazed that they had been so successful in
making Cities believe they are the cure all for economies..
They received a 2.8 Million TIF in Sand Springs for the "Supercenter" on Hwy. 97...

I still feel that if WalMart is set on having a TIF in Tulsa... They should be directed to take up residence at Pine and Peoria.

^ Perhaps at least five of the Councilors will have the guts to turn down a request for TIF.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chicken Little

It honks me off when people try to say that smart growth is superficial snobbery.  It's not.  There are fundamental differences in the way these places are built and used, and they lead to entirely different lifestyles.  

Suburbia requires it's own dogmatic assumptions:  that people won't walk more than 300 feet; that people have to see empty parking spaces from the main road or they won't stop and shop; that "place" doesn't matter.  Car-culture is mainstream, but that doesn't make it smart.  Drowning witches was mainstream at one time, so was swimming in petticoats, fighting in rows, and leeching.

If you ask me, it's the "pragmatic" car people that are being a little smug.

---

I believe there will be walkable urbanity in Jenks before there is walkable urbanity in downtown Tulsa.

Per usual, you've resorted to suburban stereotypes.  My area of east Tulsa has more urban density than downtown.

Maybe if downtown-centric Tulsans tore down their "Tower of Babel" (aka the BOk Tower) there'd be enough demand in downtown Tulsa for the mixed-use walkable urban density you all claim to seek...

^ So your point would be that Just as big box spread out sprawl is bad for the creation of a walkable community that serves everyones needs, a 52-story tower that consolidate everything into one address is equally harmful to the balance of a walkable community?

It requires some consideration...

That is actually a good point. Unless you can be like NY City or Chicago its harder to build a walkable community with a large tower like that and its parking garages. Versus having a street lined with buildings that are around 6 stories with retail on the ground floors. Doesnt have to be that way, the Philtower is a great example of a taller mixed use building but the BOK and the things around it were built with a different ethos. No use in crying over spilt milk in this case though. It certainly adds to the skyline and completes our biggest skyscraper canyon lol. lets just hope for and push for new development in downtown to be more liveable, mixed use and pedestrian friendly. I actually like the location of the arena for instance. It has its back towards a lot of other un-pedestrian friendly buildings. Nobody wants to walk past the prison, large parking garages, convention center, post office, etc. Yet the arenas main entrance and exit are facing towards the more walkable areas of downtown. Especially if properties like the Towerview are redeveloped properly to link that side to the pedestrian areas of downtown.  Too bad the wal-mart couldnt be in that other corner of downtown with the other "pedestrian unfriendly" buildings instead of in a potentially pedestrian friendly area. Better to have all the pedestrian unfriendly buildings off in one corner rather than having them create huge gaps all over downtown.

That particular 52-story was made possible by the closing and vacating of Boston Avenue for yet another super-block downtown.

Superblocks are urban destroyers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

That is actually a good point. Unless you can be like NY City or Chicago its harder to build a walkable community with a large tower like that and its parking garages. Versus having a street lined with buildings that are around 6 stories with retail on the ground floors. Doesnt have to be that way, the Philtower is a great example of a taller mixed use building but the BOK and the things around it were built with a different ethos. No use in crying over spilt milk in this case though. It certainly adds to the skyline and completes our biggest skyscraper canyon lol. lets just hope for and push for new development in downtown to be more liveable, mixed use and pedestrian friendly. I actually like the location of the arena for instance. It has its back towards a lot of other un-pedestrian friendly buildings. Nobody wants to walk past the prison, large parking garages, convention center, post office, etc. Yet the arenas main entrance and exit are facing towards the more walkable areas of downtown. Especially if properties like the Towerview are redeveloped properly to link that side to the pedestrian areas of downtown.  Too bad the wal-mart couldnt be in that other corner of downtown with the other "pedestrian unfriendly" buildings instead of in a potentially pedestrian friendly area. Better to have all the pedestrian unfriendly buildings off in one corner rather than having them create huge gaps all over downtown.

---

Yep, the six stories thing, that there would be the Greenwich Village "ideal" neighborhood described by Jane Jacobs (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Jacobs%22).  I'm pretty flexible.  I know Greenwich Village, and I actually think the East Village is better.  The buildings are four to six stories, but the streets and sidewalks are narrower and crowded with trashcans, trees, dogs, people, and parked cars.  It seems less sterile and more alive.  I'm not into the "picture perfect" feel that some streets in the Village convey, I like the jammed-up, untidy, stuff.

quote:

---

Originally posted by carltonplace

Where do you get that Maria is for this development? I've spoken to her and she is for a downtown grocery store, but not in favor of this development as proposed.

This is her written response to me:

Good to hear from you and thank you for contacting me about the proposed downtown Wal-Mart located between Frankfort Avenue and U.S. 75 between Fourth and Sixth Streets.



First, let me start by stating that the article in the Tulsa World dated August 22, 2007, and titled "Some voice concerns about downtown Wal-Mart," inferred that I thought a downtown Wal-Mart would be beneficial to the area.  The actual quotes that I provided the reporter were as follows:



"Downtown needs a grocery store to become a vibrant area again with both pedestrian and auto traffic, especially after 5:00 when business closes."



"As soon as I know something about the development, I'll make every effort to inform my constituents on this development."



With that being said, I would like to reiterate that I have not and will not support a proposed Wal-Mart downtown, but I do support a grocery store.  As I have always stated, I respect and support the wishes of the constituents within Council District 4.



Again, thank you for contacting me regarding the proposed Wal-Mart.  I will make every effort to keep you informed regarding this development.



Sincerely,

Councilor Maria Barnes

Council District 4

---

When Maria makes a statement like this about a downtown Wal-Mart in the paper, that will carry some weight, IMO. This means nothing to me . She can't have it both ways. It's just like how she cries that checking immigration status at the jail and HB 1804 are racist, yet gives a silent endorsement to the rehire of one of Tulsa's most racially divisive Police Chiefs? Error, does not compute. That just don't jive. I don't trust Maria any more.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Double A When Maria makes a statement like this about a downtown Wal-Mart in the paper, that will carry some weight, IMO. This means nothing to me . She can't have it both ways. It's just like how she cries that checking immigration status at the jail and HB 1804 are racist, yet gives a silent endorsement to the rehire of one of Tulsa's most racially divisive Police Chiefs? Error, does not compute. That just don't jive. I don't trust Maria any more.

---

So, an actual letter from a Councilor means nothing to you.  You only trust things that are printed in the Tulsa World?  That makes a lot of sense.

By the way, here's a quote from you when the Mayor appointed Palmer:

quote:

---

Palmer is a good choice, he wasn't her first choice or Bill Wells either, for that matter. I am sure the FOP will support Palmer, but if you think this will make the at-will issue will go away, you've got another thing coming. This issue will be Kathy Taylor's Bell's.

---

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7442&whichpage=1

What made you change your mind?  If he was Tulsa's most racially divisive police chief, shouldn't you have know that?

quote:

---

Originally posted by pmcalk

By the way, here's a quote from you...

---

PWN3D!

quote:

---

Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:

---

Originally posted by Double A When Maria makes a statement like this about a downtown Wal-Mart in the paper, that will carry some weight, IMO. This means nothing to me . She can't have it both ways. It's just like how she cries that checking immigration status at the jail and HB 1804 are racist, yet gives a silent endorsement to the rehire of one of Tulsa's most racially divisive Police Chiefs? Error, does not compute. That just don't jive. I don't trust Maria any more.

---

So, an actual letter from a Councilor means nothing to you.  You only trust things that are printed in the Tulsa World?  That makes a lot of sense.

By the way, here's a quote from you when the Mayor appointed Palmer:

quote:

---

Palmer is a good choice, he wasn't her first choice or Bill Wells either, for that matter. I am sure the FOP will support Palmer, but if you think this will make the at-will issue will go away, you've got another thing coming. This issue will be Kathy Taylor's Bell's.

---

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7442&whichpage=1

What made you change your mind?  If he was Tulsa's most racially divisive police chief, shouldn't you have know that?

---

Uh, not that I'm questioning CP's credibility but who is to say that is an actual letter from the Councilor? When she holds a press conference and I hear the statements opposing a downtown Wal-Mart made in that letter come out of her mouth, that will carry weight with me. I did go on to clarify later in that thread that I do not support the Palmer appointment. The point I was trying to make was it is a good political strategy in regards to the FOP, because it would placate a certain faction of the membership who support Palmer to take some of the heat out of the fury about going At-will and outside the force in the Police Chief selection. I did know about Palmer BTW, that's just one of many reasons I oppose his appointment. A little reading comprehension goes a long way. Maria needs to get both feet firmly planted on one side of the fence or the other to have any credibility as far as I am concerned.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Double A

quote:

---

Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:

---

Originally posted by Double A When Maria makes a statement like this about a downtown Wal-Mart in the paper, that will carry some weight, IMO. This means nothing to me . She can't have it both ways. It's just like how she cries that checking immigration status at the jail and HB 1804 are racist, yet gives a silent endorsement to the rehire of one of Tulsa's most racially divisive Police Chiefs? Error, does not compute. That just don't jive. I don't trust Maria any more.

---

So, an actual letter from a Councilor means nothing to you.  You only trust things that are printed in the Tulsa World?  That makes a lot of sense.

By the way, here's a quote from you when the Mayor appointed Palmer:

quote:

---

Palmer is a good choice, he wasn't her first choice or Bill Wells either, for that matter. I am sure the FOP will support Palmer, but if you think this will make the at-will issue will go away, you've got another thing coming. This issue will be Kathy Taylor's Bell's.

---

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7442&whichpage=1

What made you change your mind?  If he was Tulsa's most racially divisive police chief, shouldn't you have know that?

---

Uh, not that I'm questioning CP's credibility but who is to say that is an actual letter from the Councilor? When she holds a press conference and I hear the statements opposing a downtown Wal-Mart made in that letter come out of her mouth, that will carry weight with me. I did go on to clarify later in that thread that I do not support the Palmer appointment. The point I was trying to make was it is a good political strategy in regards to the FOP, because it would placate a certain faction of the membership who support Palmer to take some of the heat out of the fury about going At-will and outside the force in the Police Chief selection. I did know about Palmer BTW, that's just one of many reasons I oppose his appointment. A little reading comprehension goes a long way. Maria needs to get both feet firmly planted on one side of the fence or the other to have any credibility as far as I am concerned.

---

I know of several people who received the same letter from Councilor Barnes.  Perhaps they are all in a vast conspiracy to convince you that she doesn't support Walmart, when she secretly does?  I know you prefer your politicians to grandstand on every little issue, to rant and rave in front of the media, but that's not Councilor Barnes's style.  You must have known that when you worked on her campaign--it's one of the reasons I support her.

As for my reading comprehenion, maybe the problem is actually the writer.  I've never known you not to attack the Mayor when you have a chance.  If you knew that "Palmer is the most racially divisive police chief," why would you have said "Palmer is a good choice"?  It wasn't until quite a bit later in the thread that you said you didn't support him.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Double A


Uh, not that I'm questioning CP's credibility but who is to say that is an actual letter from the Councilor? When she holds a press conference and I hear the statements opposing a downtown Wal-Mart made in that letter come out of her mouth, that will carry weight with me.

---

I can PM the email conversation we had if you're interested.

Maria's style is to ride the fence. Maria can ride the fence all she wants, don't expect me to respect that or refrain from criticizing it. The fact that she turns a blind eye to charter violations does not help her case or yours for that matter. Maria should do everyone a favor to end the speculation by having the intestinal fortitude and leadership to clearly define exactly where she stands on the issues, instead of playing the plausible deniability game. Better yet, she should have the guts to defend herself instead of sending you and CP. When it comes time to vote on this she'll probably run through a laundry list of reasons to vote against it, right before she votes for it. That's her style.

quote:

---

Originally posted by YoungTulsan

^ So your point would be that Just as big box spread out sprawl is bad for the creation of a walkable community that serves everyones needs, a 52-story tower that consolidate everything into one address is equally harmful to the balance of a walkable community?

It requires some consideration...

---

Actually my point would run a little deeper than that... nobody knows the future... and that includes even the most intellectually wise urban planners...

I was a kid at the time so I'm sure I may not be completely accurate in my memories, but the mid/late 70s and early 80s were heady times to be a Tulsan...

Tulsa was "America's Most Beautiful City" and the "Oil Capital of the World."  So, in plans befitting an "Oil Capital of the World," a 50% scale building that would replicate one of the World Trade Center towers was built in downtown.  There was a big beautiful downtown mall complete with an ice-rink... a performing arts center, high-end hotels/restaurants like the Adams Mark and the Magic Pan (mmm, Tulsa quiche!)...

...my Tulsa Roughnecks were busy playing the New York Cosmos in a 1979 playoff game in front of 76,000 fans at Giant Stadium (on a Wed nite!)... the City of Faith Hospital (now the CityPlex Towers) was being built after Oral Roberts saw a 900 ft-tall Jesus and also said God would "take him home" if he didn't get enough money to finish its construction (some of us at the time called this the Oral Roberts hostage crisis)[:O]... Tulsa Opera under Ed Purrington was gaining in stature... at one point I saw an opera with world class talent-- a Don Carlo with Tatyana Troyanos, Rosalind Plowright, Sam Ramey, Jerome Hines... still don't know how he pulled it off, even with the oil $$$...

At the time, who cared about or had heard anything negative about "superblocks"?  New York skyscrapers?  Superblocks.  The Sears Tower, John Hancock Building, etc. in Chicago?  Superblocks.  And Tulsa, as "oil capital of the world," needed a shiny new skyscraper so it could "run with the big dogs."  After all, if more and more people work downtown, and more and more people live/work here, then all of Tulsa would ultimately benifit.  Most big cities have downtown financial districts that are not residential.  Conventional wisdom dictated that people live outside the central business district, not in it...

If I had to guess, I'd say Tulsa's movers and shakers didn't want their downtown to look anything like the town of Mayberry from the Andy Griffith Show... they wanted big and bold.

It didn't work out.  So the skyline of Tulsa is deceptively big... I wonder if I'm the only one who saw the big cube downtown and thought, "look at that big, new parking garage!"  No need for surface parking here...

I wish downtown Tulsa could get a nice Lexus, but it looks like it's getting a Saturn... ain't perfect, but better than nothing...

Here's an interesting example of a big-box store going urban in downtown Denver.  I don't know if this includes any mixed-use/residential, but I include it here to show the Walmart developers an example of how to start thinking outside the (big) box.

For those of you who believe that a sprawling, suburban-style Walmart superstore is not what downtown Tulsa needs, start writing the mayor and city councilors.  Every letter that you send will help give the folks in power the ammunition they need to stand up to mis-conceived development (or, at least the TIF $$ they need to build it).  If you care enough to vent on this forum, don't forget to also write letters that actually get to the decision-makers at City Hall.
(http://www.denverinfill.com/images/blog/2006-08/2006-08-29_target.jpg)

But you have to realize. If there is going to be any Wal-Mart, Target or otherwise in that area its not going to be 2 story or more with underground or structured parking, etc. That works in an area that has high traffic, is already high density, has great demographics, is often in an area of flashy new condo towers or other dense new growth. Our downtown is not like that at all. The area where the Wal-mart may go is a mostly vacant wasteland. It might as well be suburbia. A group of tall, partially empty buildings off in the background do not an urban environment make. And certainly not a reason for any company to build some flashy, very expensive, 2 story, with elevators and structured parking, etc. store. Demographically and traffic wise there is less of an economic reason to build something more expensive there than they would in a suburb. Its actually a less attractive area imo. Its absurd to think they are going to do that. Unless your whole approach is to demand that in order for it to not be built.

I know, Artist...and I'm sure that's what the developer will say.

But here's an analogy:  Let's say that you want to landscape your yard.  Right now, it's just a big, empty, flat area with dirt and some grass... but you have a vision for something great.  A vibrant, three-dimensional space full of  plants, trees, sculptures, mosaics, water features, intriguing paths and patio space, etc.  Now, let's assume that you can't afford to build it all at once.  You have to add one piece at a time over the course of years.  Do you start by filling your yard with an enormous piece of crap--ugly and poorly made--but cheap?  Is this how you get from your current state to the fulfillment your vision?

I may be a dreamer, but I think it's more practical to move slowly and deliberately than to take desperate, short-sighted actions...like giving TIF money to build something that will detract, not add to the future you want to build.  (And don't forget that Walmarts tend to vacate every 10 years or so...)

We did the Home Depot thing about 10 years ago.  How much development did it spur in the surrounding area?  Thank goodness they spared the Warehouse Market, but we essentially got a big box store with a big box parking lot for our money.  I'm glad we got an infusion of sales tax dollars, and yes, I do shop at Home Depot downtown (though I've noticed they took a hit when the Lowe's went in at 15th and Yale)...but can't we do better than this?  Did we learn anything from that experience?  Are we smarter now?

Originally posted by Ponder Inc.

quote:

---

For those of you who believe that a sprawling, suburban-style Walmart superstore is not what downtown Tulsa needs, start writing the mayor and city councilors. Every letter that you send will help give the folks in power the ammunition they need to stand up to mis-conceived development (or, at least the TIF $$ they need to build it). If you care enough to vent on this forum, don't forget to also write letters that actually get to the decision-makers at City Hall.

---

Write letters to The Artist as well.

He needs the motivation...



[}:)]

I hate to be negative, but Wal-Mart is a company whose corporate headquarters are located in a military-looking compound in Arkansas.  Why would they care to invest in an urban-designed spectacle of a store?  Wal-Mart only cares that the average person thinks the quality of their products is good-enough.  The goal for the city should be to rehab the block so that it allows for on-street parking with curb bump-outs, thus preserving the possibility of a walkable neighborhood.  Even if the sidewalk is just a border between the street and parking lot, it would be better than nothing.

I'm not sure if the planned parking deck will serve the store and the apartments, but if it doesn't, the TIF should be conditional on Wal-Mart's building fronting the street and parking in rear.  That way they could possibly realign the typical two front entryways into one in front and one in back.

Judging by Don Himlfarb's comments in the paper recently, I don't think he takes this developement very seriously. I get the feeling that the administration won't act on anything until they get a new developement consultant in place. Not sure whether that is good or bad, though because I wonder if cooperation with GDP would have helped move that project forward.

Why do things have to be one extreme or the other? I have never vouched for a "cheap piece of crap" Wal-mart to go downtown. There is a middle ground and people keep ignoring it. It doesnt have to be either a usual suburban wal-mart or a 2story with structured parking thing. There is a way to make a Wal-Mart, if there is to be one, quite suitable but not of either extreme.

(http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/2635/walmartlocation3webxa5.jpg)

(http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/3694/walmartuz8.jpg)

One hope is that the Form Based Codes will finally go through for the Pearl District, sometime late next spring or early summer. Once the precedence is set, it can then much more easily be placed in other areas like the Brady District, parts of Mid-town, and this area of downtown where the Wal-Mart may go. In areas where there are form based codes we wont have to have these arguments every single time a developer comes up with something we dont like. Any developer considering doing something in an area having Form Based Codes, will have to take them into account before they draw up any idea. We sooo need something like this for our city rather than continually going into panic mode with each and every building or development proposal that crops up.

I agree.

Originally posted by The Artist.

quote:

---

Why do things have to be one extreme or the other? I have never vouched for a "cheap piece of crap" Wal-mart to go downtown. There is a middle ground and people keep ignoring it. It doesnt have to be either a usual suburban wal-mart or a 2story with structured parking thing. There is a way to make a Wal-Mart, if there is to be one, quite suitable but not of either extreme.

---

Perhaps in your opinion there is a reasonable middle ground for a Downtown WalMart....

I have yet to see any substantive argument for the Downtown location versus the Pine and Peoria  location... Which, by the way, has a TIF already in place..

This Corporation has made billions from the use of City tax dollars to build their empire...

They will not build at the Downtown location without a sweetheart deal from the City of Tulsa.


IMO.. TIF's in the Downtown area should be reserved for development that compliment the development as it will be 10 years from now.

You are burning a very rare commodity in Downtown..(property for development).

If Seay is a Developer.... and not just a WalMart lackey... He would be the first to recognize the potential value of the Nordam land.

If Wal-Mart wants a TIF, there's one ready and waiting for them at Pine & Peoria.

I agree with both of you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Double A

If Wal-Mart wants a TIF, there's one ready and waiting for them at Pine & Peoria.

---

Amen

Let's hear it for Tulsa Now...............!

Maybe now they will look at the Pine and Peoria location.

I knew the Corporate "powers that be" had made a statement at the annual shareholder's meeting something along this line.

WalMart ..Dead in the Water...! Hooray..! (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071109_238_A1_hAdow60366%22)

Sorry to post again but I think TulsaNow should throw a party over this one....! [:D][:D][:D]

W-M corporate's decision to not build SuperCenters could be a good trend.  They could change their minds, of course.

Personally, I hate the huge stores.  A grocery store with a small footprint would be better for downtown.

I wonder if they will try to look for a different grocery store chain, though unlikely, or possibly a neighborhood market to go with the rest of the development they had planned? Or will they throw in the towel and put the property up for sale. If so perhaps Global will come back in and do something.

My feeling is that the "times have changed" and the momentum for downtown has fallen a bit in general. Especially with the focus being on the River District, the river vote, and the still unfolding drama of a possible Tulsa Landing type development. For a while, downtown was the focus of interest. Now that has been distracted and faded with all those other "goings on".

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

I wonder if they will try to look for a different grocery store chain, though unlikely, or possibly a neighborhood market to go with the rest of the development they had planned? Or will they throw in the towel and put the property up for sale. If so perhaps Global will come back in and do something.

My feeling is that the "times have changed" and the momentum for downtown has fallen a bit in general. Especially with the focus being on the River District, the river vote, and the still unfolding drama of a possible Tulsa Landing type development. For a while, downtown was the focus of interest. Now that has been distracted and faded with all those other "goings on".

---

The hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on the BOK Center, downtown streets and infrastructure, Centennial Walk, downtown housing incentives, downtown police substation and the 6th & Main park indicates otherwise to me. [;)]

Now is the chance for everyone who thought Wal-Mart wasn't the answer to step up.  Get Reasor's to build down there, add a few specialty shops and look for a smaller general retailer.  That could be a really cool area and I hope it is.

But I am somewhat disappointed that yet another development in Tulsa will just fade away.  Getting tired of that announcement NOTHING crap.  Even if the development was not ideal.

So someone step it up please.

ps.  Wal-Mart decided not to build in a large number of locations and announced it yesterday.  Presumably because of slumping sales (really just not growing as fast, they missed their sales forecast yesterday) and shaky consumer spending in general.  So it was not a Tulsa thing.

Drillers

quote:

---

Originally posted by Floyd

Drillers

---

Let Jenks foot the bill for a new Drillers stadium. I would like to see the city and or OSU Tulsa build a soccer stadium downtown.

Soccer is more urban and hip than baseball anyway. [8D]

Whatever, suburb-lover.  [;)]

Downtown Drillers.  On the Nordam site.  Himmelfarb, get Global back on the phone.  Now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:

---

Originally posted by Floyd

Drillers

---

Let Jenks foot the bill for a new Drillers stadium. I would like to see the city and or OSU Tulsa build a soccer stadium downtown.

Soccer is more urban and hip than baseball anyway. [8D]

---

Yeah maybe.  But we don't even have a soccer team do we?  Is soccer as popular to watch?  I couldn't tell you if where Dallas, OKC, Kansas City, or any other city's soccer stadium is, but I can definitely tell you where the baseball stadiums are - and i don't even like baseball.

We aren't wealthy and healthy enough to be quite so pie-in-the-sky.  Maybe once we establish downtown as a destination people actually want to go, then we can do soccer in addition to baseball, but i say baseball will be an easy way to bring people downtown.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Floyd

Whatever, suburb-lover.  [;)]

Downtown Drillers.  On the Nordam site.  Himmelfarb, get Global back on the phone.  Now.

---

^ +1

I feel the price of the property dropping.

quote:

---

Originally posted by carltonplace

quote:

---

Originally posted by Floyd

Whatever, suburb-lover.  [;)]

Downtown Drillers.  On the Nordam site.  Himmelfarb, get Global back on the phone.  Now.

---

^ +1

I feel the price of the property dropping.

---

^^Me, too.  Baseball belongs downtown--Drillers belong in Tulsa.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Now is the chance for everyone who thought Wal-Mart wasn't the answer to step up.  Get Reasor's to build down there, add a few specialty shops and look for a smaller general retailer.  That could be a really cool area and I hope it is.

But I am somewhat disappointed that yet another development in Tulsa will just fade away.  Getting tired of that announcement NOTHING crap.  Even if the development was not ideal.

So someone step it up please.

ps.  Wal-Mart decided not to build in a large number of locations and announced it yesterday.  Presumably because of slumping sales (really just not growing as fast, they missed their sales forecast yesterday) and shaky consumer spending in general.  So it was not a Tulsa thing.

---

Be carefull what you wish for.  Reasor's has been using Group Blaksley out of Owasso as a development partner and construction contractor.  I feel like I have to take a shower every-time I'm in the same room with the Blaksley group.  They are the black turtleneck and gold chain pinky-ring type.  They ooze sleaze.  Makes your skin crawl. Sheesh!

I hope Reasor cuts ties with them soon.  Makes him look bad.

quote:

---

Originally posted by tulsa1603

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:

---

Originally posted by Floyd

Drillers

---

Let Jenks foot the bill for a new Drillers stadium. I would like to see the city and or OSU Tulsa build a soccer stadium downtown.

Soccer is more urban and hip than baseball anyway. [8D]

---

Yeah maybe.  But we don't even have a soccer team do we?  Is soccer as popular to watch?  I couldn't tell you if where Dallas, OKC, Kansas City, or any other city's soccer stadium is, but I can definitely tell you where the baseball stadiums are - and i don't even like baseball.

We aren't wealthy and healthy enough to be quite so pie-in-the-sky.  Maybe once we establish downtown as a destination people actually want to go, then we can do soccer in addition to baseball, but i say baseball will be an easy way to bring people downtown.

---

I wasnt seriously proposing the city go and build a soccer stadium, especially at this point there are too many other things that we could spend that money on which would make more economic sense.  However I do like to imagine that at some time or another OSU Tulsa will become a full fledged college and that the idea could be put forth that some sort of joint venture with the city would be nice. Its true that Tulsa may not at this point be able to really support a team. But if the notion were planted within OSU Tulsa to perhaps have soccer as its "thing" versus say OSU Stillwater focusing on American Football. Tulsa itself could start growing a fan base, you could start promoting the idea and familiarity of soccer to the public. TUs team is ranked 7th in the nation. I see opportunity here for people in the community to have a great sports option grown here. Just needs to be promoted more in the media, by the city, the schools, become  more familiar,etc. Then people will start to become excited about it. Its simply a matter of choosing to do so and making a bit of effort. It could be something that we grow here on our own.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

I wonder if they will try to look for a different grocery store chain, though unlikely, or possibly a neighborhood market to go with the rest of the development they had planned? Or will they throw in the towel and put the property up for sale. If so perhaps Global will come back in and do something.

My feeling is that the "times have changed" and the momentum for downtown has fallen a bit in general. Especially with the focus being on the River District, the river vote, and the still unfolding drama of a possible Tulsa Landing type development. For a while, downtown was the focus of interest. Now that has been distracted and faded with all those other "goings on".

---

The hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on the BOK Center, downtown streets and infrastructure, Centennial Walk, downtown housing incentives, downtown police substation and the 6th & Main park indicates otherwise to me. [;)]

---

I would like to think those things will make a difference, but if the economy falters, none of that will matter. We needed to do those things regardless imo to set the stage. But it seems like we have been very slow and not urgently pursuing development along the river and downtown to capture the momentum. And I am not just talking about the 2025 momentum, but the remaining momentum that the national economy had.

I have said this over and over and hate to sound panicky about it, but we have seen this happen before. Tulsa did poorly, the nation as a whole was doing well... Tulsa started to pick up, the nation started to falter. Just as things were starting to look rosy and there were big exciting plans on the books, it all fell apart as the problems in the rest of the nation started to affect what was planned in Tulsa. Then even the small gains we had made, downtown, Brookside, etc, faltered and came to naught. Shuttered back up again and we even fell further behind than we were before.

Are we seeing the same thing beginning again? Tulsa Hills may make it. But most of the retail stores in the nation have shown losses and are pulling back on their new construction. Consumers are slowing down their spending. Will the River District get started but perhaps not finished? As far behind in the development scheme of things that any potential Tulsa Landing or East End project is at this point, those are likely to be the things that get really hit by the national financial jitters. I fear that if things get worse with the rest of the nation, no matter how well things may be here, the banks and investors will get skittish and start pulling back.

It seems we get so picky and squabbly about things that we miss the window of opportunity. Always thinking things will continue as good as they have been, "Oh just wait, no need to hurry or push for the first thing that comes along" "The economy is different this time Tulsa is better it wont happen" Then "poof" it all vanishes and we are left behind once again.

Hope it doesn't happen that way this time....
But, thats not what I am seeing so far.

If the national economy continues to falter. It WILL affect Tulsa. Then its only a matter of when.

quote:

---

Originally posted by tulsa1603

Yeah maybe.  But we don't even have a soccer team do we?  Is soccer as popular to watch?  I couldn't tell you if where Dallas, OKC, Kansas City, or any other city's soccer stadium is, but I can definitely tell you where the baseball stadiums are - and i don't even like baseball.

We aren't wealthy and healthy enough to be quite so pie-in-the-sky.  Maybe once we establish downtown as a destination people actually want to go, then we can do soccer in addition to baseball, but i say baseball will be an easy way to bring people downtown.

---

Major League Soccer was a unique opportunity Tulsa had.  It was definitely not "pie-in-the sky" to think Tulsa would get its major league soccer team back sometime in the 90s... but it may very well be "pie-in-the-sky" now...

The 1978-1985 Tulsa Roughnecks were the only successful major league professional sports team in our city's history.  They routinely drew in the top 25% in league attendance (North American Soccer League) despite winning only around 50% of their games.
http://www.sover.net/~spectrum/nasl/nasl-standings.html

The 1983 Roughnecks started off slow but got hot towards the end of the season, going 17-13... getting past Ft Lauderdale and Montreal in the playoffs, they faced Toronto in Soccer Bowl '83 in front of 60k in Vancouver... (I own the videotape...[:D]) http://www.soccerhalloffame.net/NASL_ChampionshipGameHistory.htm
...... Tulsa is, and forever will be, part of soccer history in this country...

MLS was interested in Tulsa initially... MLS was also very interested in Tulsa in 1997, they said as much... then MLS officials proactively contacted Tulsa officials following LaFortune's election as mayor in 2001...Tulsa has a 2002 Conventions, Sports & Leisure feasability study that was requested by MLS.  That study includes a phone-poll that was used to estimate crowds of 14,600 expected fans per game and a season ticket base of 6,100...

I've read the Johnson County feasability study for the Kansas City Wizards... let's just say Tulsa has its advantages over KC as an MLS city...

Last night, the New England Revolution only managed to draw a playoff crowd of 10,317 for it's semi-final victory over the Chicago Fire, sending them to the final... Tulsa's 2003 exhibition game between KC and Dallas drew a crowd of over 14,000 at Skelly Stadium...

Here's a timeline...
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6533&SearchTerms=Major,League,Soccer

There's a big difference, IMHO, between "pie-in-the-sky" and "ahead of the curve."

MLS in Tulsa would have happened years ago had we been ahead of the curve rather than "a day late and a dollar short."

Hope the Drillers get a development for the  ballpark in the East End, since it seems to be their first choice over the west bank of the river or Jenks.  If there's someone who wants to bankroll a USL1 soccer team (one level below MLS), feel free to try to piggyback off the Drillers' to share and push for a ballpark at the East End or partner with Jenks or BA...  http://www.uslsoccer.com/teams/6187380/LIST.html

But Major League Soccer will not play in a 22,000 seat "mixed-use" baseball park... not in Tulsa... and evidently, not in Portland, Oregon either...

http://wweek.com/editorial/3351/9893/

quote:

---

Portland Beavers and Timbers owner Merritt Paulson hasn't taken long to try a shake-up of the two minor-league teams he bought last spring.

He's been meeting with the commissioner of Major League Soccer about upgrading to that league.

Of course, this would involve money—taxpayers' money and Paulson's money. His idea: The city or state would pay to change PGE Park into a soccer-specific stadium (which would also work for football) and build a new stadium for the Beavers. Paulson would then go after an MLS franchise with his own cash.

But why now? And who's supposed to pay for all this?

Why go after an MLS team?

Paulson says one attraction of buying the Timbers was that "this city is a natural city for MLS...the appetite for soccer here is unbelievable." (The Timbers averaged 6,828 fans per regular-season game in 2007, third-best in their 12-team league.) His pitch is that upgrading PGE Park would bring another major-league team to town, and give Portland State a much-improved football home.

And the Beavers would have to split?

MLS wants its teams to play in soccer-specific venues, and those don't work with baseball teams. The fields are drastically different shapes, plus baseball and soccer present scheduling conflicts with overlapping seasons.

Paulson says MLS can tolerate a few years of the Beavers sharing PGE Park with a soccer team, but that ultimately the league wants a commitment that the Beavers will go and seating will be added in what's now left field.

Where would the Beavers go?

Paulson wants a new stadium of 8,000 to 9,000 seats, with "the right location and a footprint that would work for Major League Baseball." In other words, if we ever shoot for that major league, we'd have the beginnings of a baseball stadium, ready to expand. He wouldn't disclose any locations.

---

As for Wallyworld... I sincerely hope there's some other plan that will actually come to fruition... this time.  [}:)]  

 

I was little bitter that Himelfarb was syaing the city was going to give WalMart a tax break without any sort of public input process, city council meeting, or anything else.

Now that the Claremore/Arkansas duo and Global each have mixed financial interest in the property in question, what can be developed?  What type of rights to the property does each party have?

quote:

---

Originally posted by perspicuity85

Now that the Claremore/Arkansas duo and Global each have mixed financial interest in the property in question, what can be developed?  What type of rights to the property does each party have?

---

I believe the dyanmic duo has a contract on Nordam, Bill white said he'd be happy if the city wanted his land, and Global owns one block with a contract on some other properties.

With all of the entities that have a stake in Downtown it's no wonder that we never get any true momentum on development. I wish someone would stick their neck out and back a developer right or wrong. Personally I'm holding out some hope that GDP still has plans in the East End area, but hope dwindles.

Now that Walmart is out does this mean that Nordam might reject the latest contract?

I have been thinking and the most likely and worst outcome is for Seay to sit on this land for a couple of years until Wal-Mart is ready to grow again. Seay is a former Wal-Mart exec and he's not in the business of building anything that would compete with Wal-mart. I'm sure he still has a ton of Wal-mart stock. I think nothing is going to happen on the former Bill White and Nordam sites for some time, probably years.

The Tulsa city council needs to take this time to pass two ordinances that would control the kind of development that takes place on this land. First, ban any store with a footprint of greater than 80,000 square feet inside the IDL. That doesn't mean you can't have a 160,000 square foot super center, but it does mean that super center would have to be on two floors. Second, any development inside the city that has any public money component (housing funds, tax rebates, TIF) must pass an architectural review committee so that the development is a positive addition to Tulsa's appearance.

quote:

---

Originally posted by swake

I have been thinking and the most likely and worst outcome is for Seay to sit on this land for a couple of years until Wal-Mart is ready to grow again. Seay is a former Wal-Mart exec and he's not in the business of building anything that would compete with Wal-mart. I'm sure he still has a ton of Wal-mart stock. I think nothing is going to happen on the former Bill White and Nordam sites for some time, probably years.

The Tulsa city council needs to take this time to pass two ordinances that would control the kind of development that takes place on this land. First, ban any store with a footprint of greater than 80,000 square feet inside the IDL. That doesn't mean you can't have a 160,000 square foot super center, but it does mean that super center would have to be on two floors. Second, any development inside the city that has any public money component (housing funds, tax rebates, TIF) must pass an architectural review committee so that the development is a positive addition to Tulsa's appearance.

---

In my opinion, those guidelines--especially the architectural review committee--should have been in place YEARS ago... Now if we could actually the the Council to DO it [^]

In 1996 OKC passed an Urban Design District Ordinence.  (City of Tulsa, take note...we NEED THIS!)

Here's how it works (from the OKC Planning website):
The ordinance aims to maintain as far as possible the existing historic, architectural and visual character of an area, while at the same time encouraging compatible, quality, new development. Its primary intent is "to promote the health, safety, economic and general welfare of the public by encouraging the revitalization and enhancement of the urban environment."

To accomplish this stated intent, the Commission reviews applications for changes to property and structures in the Design District, including demolition, new construction, reconstruction, and remodeling of the exterior of structures. The Commission assesses the impact of the proposed changes against specific guidelines that are articulated in the ordinance to achieve the ordinance's aforementioned intent, and recommends changes, and approves or denies the application accordingly. The ordinance requires the Commission to base its decision on these guidelines.

Approval of an application is provided in the form of an Urban Design Certificate of Approval (UDCA). The Commission is required to approve or deny complete applications within 30 working days of the City's official receipt of an application, or the application is considered automatically approved.

The Commission is appointed by the Mayor with the approval of the City Council and includes nine volunteer members, comprised of:

1. One member of the Oklahoma City Planning Commission;
2. The Chair of the Oklahoma City Traffic Commission or a member of the Commission designated by the Chair;
3. Five citizen members who are owners of property or businesses, or representatives of owners, within the Design District; and
4. Two citizen members employed in the planning, design, or land development professions who are knowledgeable in the field of historic preservation, one of which must be a registered architect.

The Commission meets monthly, and more often if needed.

Meetings of the Commission are subject to the Open Meetings Act and the Commission's decisions may be appealed to the Board of Adjustment.

The Board may "affirm, reverse, or modify the decision of the Commission."

The ordinance also provides that "any application to the Board of Adjustment concerning property located within the Urban Design District shall be reviewed by the Urban Design Commission prior to final action by the Board." The Commission has the option of forwarding a non-binding recommendation to the Board concerning such applications.

The Design District includes several commercial areas in the inner city and is established by overlay zoning.

When initially approved, the Design District only included north downtown; in the area approximately bounded by NW 4, NW 13, Classen Boulevard and Broadway Avenue.

The District has since been expanded to include several new districts, including NW 23rd Street between I-235 and Villa Avenue; the Plaza District, centered on 16th Street and Indiana and Blackwelder; the Asian District, centered on Classen between NW 23rd Street and NW 30th Street; and the Capitol Hill District, centered on Commerce Street between Shields Boulevard and Walker Avenue, and extending north and south along Robinson Avenue and Walker Avenue.