I've been looking at some renderings of the Kauffman Performing Arts Center, currently under construction in Kansas City, and I'd really like to know when underground parking will ever become an option here in Tulsa...
There is a 3-level, 950 space parking garage being built below the KPAC. Why are all of the ancient, backward-thinking, non-qualified city "planners" in Tulsa so opposed to anything different than what was commonplace in the 1950s?
The architecture of the building alone is stunning. The planning and land use of developments in other cities should be viewed as examples to Tulsa's "planners". Maybe we could have a job-swap month in which we could assume the roles as decision- and policy makers.
(http://www.kcskyscrapers.com/albums/renderings/PACstarcrosssection.jpg)
(http://www.kcskyscrapers.com/albums/renderings/PACstarrendering.sized.jpg)
Working in construction I know underground parking is significantly more expensive. So unless there is no other way to provide parking, either in a garage or surface lot, and you're in a highly dense urban area (nowhere in Tulsa except downtown and maybe parts of midtown) then it isn't viable. I'd like to see more of it though, it makes the most sense from an urban design standpoint.
And large businesses that might build that sort of thing here know it frightens us simple town-folk.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't there a tunnel from the underground parking garage for the Adam's Mark (The last name that I knew it by) to the PAC? I used to park in it to go ice skating at the forum years ago, and I seem to remember that it was on the 1st or 2nd level.
I will agree that in years gone by they should have looked at verticle both above and below ground level for downtown, but as stated earlier surface level is the least expensive way to go.
Isn't the proximity of the water table more of an issue in Tulsa than other places as well?
I remember discussing, with Bob Shipley at TU, the aspects of building a basement here in town. He said that you'd have to dig out the boulders underground. Then, you'd have to put a french drain around it. Even then, you are still very prone to leaking through the basement walls.
Besides, I think I like above ground parking similar to the University Club tower. It makes the building appear even larger, given the extra 4-5 stories of structured parking beneath.
Tulsa's Planning department has qualified, educated, forward-thinking individuals who DO understand the benefits of limiting surface parking (while encouraging alternative transit, walkability, etc).
However, our city is not built by the Planning Department. It's built by developers/builders who simply follow the zoning code (more or less).
Our zoning code requires so much parking (per sq. foot of commercial space)...and does not in any way offer incentives or encouragement for alternatives. (There are also no city ordinances that prohibit tearing down historic buildings to make more of it!) Simple market forces--cheap land and cheap materials and no incentives to change--make surface parking lots the standard in Tulsa.
Builders don't ask the Planning Department how to build their structures. (If they did, things would be a lot nicer....). They just try to get the most profits for the least amount of money.
If you hate giant surface parking lots, then the zoning code must change. A great start would be getting involved in the Comprehensive Plan Update, and voicing your concerns/opinions. What the Planning Department can help us do is come up with a better vision for our city. What do we WANT it to be? You can have a voice in this. If we do it right, the zoning code will then be adapted to fit the goals/vision of the Comp. Plan.
But remember, a lot of people suffer under the myth that we need lots and lots of parking. They think that downtown (50% of the area inside the IDL is already surface parking) suffers from a lack! They also believe that every new building must have a whole bunch of on-site, surface parking to accomodate customers. (Not realizing that designing for pedestrians/transit users reduces the need for cars...). (Also not realizing that by the time you walk from your car--way out in the giant surface parking lot--to the hardware department at Super Walmart, you've walked the same distance as a couple blocks downtown!)
By the way, the Williams Green downtown sits on top of a surface parking lot, along with several other downtown plazas.
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
Tulsa's Planning department has qualified, educated, forward-thinking individuals who DO understand the benefits of limiting surface parking (while encouraging alternative transit, walkability, etc).
However, our city is not built by the Planning Department. It's built by developers/builders who simply follow the zoning code (more or less).
Our zoning code requires so much parking (per sq. foot of commercial space)...and does not in any way offer incentives or encouragement for alternatives. (There are also no city ordinances that prohibit tearing down historic buildings to make more of it!) Simple market forces--cheap land and cheap materials and no incentives to change--make surface parking lots the standard in Tulsa.
Builders don't ask the Planning Department how to build their structures. (If they did, things would be a lot nicer....). They just try to get the most profits for the least amount of money.
If you hate giant surface parking lots, then the zoning code must change. A great start would be getting involved in the Comprehensive Plan Update, and voicing your concerns/opinions. What the Planning Department can help us do is come up with a better vision for our city. What do we WANT it to be? You can have a voice in this. If we do it right, the zoning code will then be adapted to fit the goals/vision of the Comp. Plan.
But remember, a lot of people suffer under the myth that we need lots and lots of parking. They think that downtown (50% of the area inside the IDL is already surface parking) suffers from a lack! They also believe that every new building must have a whole bunch of on-site, surface parking to accomodate customers. (Not realizing that designing for pedestrians/transit users reduces the need for cars...). (Also not realizing that by the time you walk from your car--way out in the giant surface parking lot--to the hardware department at Super Walmart, you've walked the same distance as a couple blocks downtown!)
By the way, the Williams Green downtown sits on top of a surface parking lot, along with several other downtown plazas.
+1
The parking requirements are part of a larger sickness.
I think we are working on the cure now.
If we could recover all of the wasted space taken up by unused parking spots in Tulsa, we would have a lot more Tulsa! [:D]
quote:
Originally posted by dsjeffries
I've been looking at some renderings of the Kauffman Performing Arts Center, currently under construction in Kansas City, and I'd really like to know when underground parking will ever become an option here in Tulsa...
There is a 3-level, 950 space parking garage being built below the KPAC. Why are all of the ancient, backward-thinking, non-qualified city "planners" in Tulsa so opposed to anything different than what was commonplace in the 1950s?
The architecture of the building alone is stunning. The planning and land use of developments in other cities should be viewed as examples to Tulsa's "planners". Maybe we could have a job-swap month in which we could assume the roles as decision- and policy makers.
(http://www.kcskyscrapers.com/albums/renderings/PACstarcrosssection.jpg)
(http://www.kcskyscrapers.com/albums/renderings/PACstarrendering.sized.jpg)
Being underground is closer to Satan.. Bad.
Seriously though, I agree with you.
quote:
Originally posted by dsjeffries
...I'd really like to know when underground parking will ever become an option here in Tulsa...
Underground parking adjacent to Tulsa's Performing Arts Center has been an option for about 30 years.
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
Our zoning code requires so much parking (per sq. foot of commercial space)...
The Zoning Code has no parking requirement in the Central Business District.
quote:
...and does not in any way offer incentives or encouragement for alternatives.
False.
One alternative is the elimination of required off-street parking in the Central Business District.
Other alternatives are offered for the reduction of the number of required parking spaces associated with qualifying commercial mixed use developments as described in Section 1305.
I don't consider the PAC parking as full-on underground parking. It's street level, only with some some dirt, grass and trees on top. It's not even large enough to accommodate parking for a show in one of the small theatres (John Williams~400 seats?), and most PAC-goers have to use the square-block-sized surface lot to the East, or the half-block surface lot to the South.
It's certainly better than other parking options, but when I say "underground parking", I mean:
Below the structure for which it is built;
More than just one level;
Large enough to accommodate the number of spaces needed for the structure(s) above
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
I remember discussing, with Bob Shipley at TU, the aspects of building a basement here in town. He said that you'd have to dig out the boulders underground. Then, you'd have to put a french drain around it. Even then, you are still very prone to leaking through the basement walls.
Besides, I think I like above ground parking similar to the University Club tower. It makes the building appear even larger, given the extra 4-5 stories of structured parking beneath.
The only reason is cost. Going from surface lot to an above ground parking structure is a 10x increase in cost. To go underground would be even more since you have to deal with waterproofing and more difficult ventilation. The basement problems here are no different than any other place in the country, really, so anyone who claims that is the reason we don't have basements in Oklahoma is really pulling your leg.
The thing I DON'T like about parking structures above ground is that it takes "life" away from the street. One of the major needs of a pedestrian friendly space is to have windows and doors at street level- usable spaces. Spaces where people are theoretically living or working, with their eyes on the street on occassion. Moving everything up, presenting a blank parking garage structure to face the sidewalk, isn't good. Think of walking around a downtown area at night - I would much rather be walking in an area with doors and windows facing the street than along the edge of a parking structure. Sometimes they integrate retail or office at the ground floor with parking above. This is something I'd like to see more of.
quote:
Originally posted by dsjeffries
I don't consider the PAC parking as full-on underground parking. It's street level, only with some some dirt, grass and trees on top.
The upper level of the parking garage is at the level of Second Street. There are two more levels below that. By most reasonable definitions, that qualifies as underground parking.
quote:
It's not even large enough to accommodate parking for a show in one of the small theatres (John Williams~400 seats?)...
I estimate approximately 200-250 spaces per level, maybe about 600-700 spaces for the entire garage. Assuming a sold out performance with everyone attending, all performers, tech crews, box office employees, and ushers each individually driving a separate vehicle -- most if not all of them could park in that garage.
quote:
...and most PAC-goers have to use the square-block-sized surface lot to the East, or the half-block surface lot to the South.
I haven't counted the parking capacities, but I'm confident that there are more spaces in the garage below some dirt, grass, and trees than there are on those two surface lots combined.
quote:
It's certainly better than other parking options, but when I say "underground parking", I mean:
Below the structure for which it is built;
Some of the parking associated with the KPAC is being built below the facility according to the cross section. Some of the parking is not below the facility. Some of the parking in the garage adjacent to the Tulsa PAC is below the facility. Most of the parking is below Williams Green.
quote:
More than just one level;
The garage adjacent to Tulsa's PAC has three levels of parking.
quote:
Large enough to accommodate the number of spaces needed for the structure(s) above
Assuming an average of how many passengers to a vehicle? And will the 950 spaces associated with the KPAC be adequate, according to your passenger counts and "needs"?
quote:
...I'd really like to know when underground parking will ever become an option here in Tulsa...
The answer, as I stated in a previous post, is that underground parking adjacent to Tulsa's PAC has been an option for about 30 years or so.
But my modified answer is that the option of "underground parking" as you've defined it may never happen. Underground parking is expensive to build and to maintain. Underground parking constructed below another structure is even more expensive to build and to maintain. Land in Tulsa is not valuable enough, and demand for parking is not high enough to justify the costs. The garage below Williams Green is mostly empty most of the time, as is nearly all parking in downtown Tulsa.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
Our zoning code requires so much parking (per sq. foot of commercial space)...
The Zoning Code has no parking requirement in the Central Business District.
I am curious where you see this. As you know, the parking requirements are defined by use, and I see no exemption of those use requirements in the CBD. I may be missing something, but as far as I can tell, CBD still requires the same parking # as any other zoning category.
quote:
quote:
...and does not in any way offer incentives or encouragement for alternatives.
False.
One alternative is the elimination of required off-street parking in the Central Business District.
Other alternatives are offered for the reduction of the number of required parking spaces associated with qualifying commercial mixed use developments as described in Section 1305.
True with respect to section 1305, but that is limited to pretty large establishments (400,000 sq. feet--about half the size of the Promenade). Great for Woodland Hills, not much help for small business in areas like Cherry Street.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
Our zoning code requires so much parking (per sq. foot of commercial space)...
The Zoning Code has no parking requirement in the Central Business District.
I am curious where you see this. As you know, the parking requirements are defined by use, and I see no exemption of those use requirements in the CBD. I may be missing something, but as far as I can tell, CBD still requires the same parking # as any other zoning category.
According to Tulsa's Zoning Code, the Central Business District allows for intense use of land without regard to off-street parking requirements. See Section 700.E.1 and Section 1200.D.
quote:
quote:
continuation of post by PonderInc
...and [our zoning code] does not in any way offer incentives or encouragement for alternatives [to the parking requirements associated with commercial space].
False.
One alternative is the elimination of required off-street parking in the Central Business District.
Other alternatives are offered for the reduction of the number of required parking spaces associated with qualifying commercial mixed use developments as described in Section 1305.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
True with respect to section 1305, but that is limited to pretty large establishments (400,000 sq. feet--about half the size of the Promenade). Great for Woodland Hills, not much help for small business in areas like Cherry Street.
Section 1305 also includes a smaller threshold (of 100,000 square feet) for a commercial mixed use development if approved by the Board of Adjustment as a Special Exception or by the City Council in a Planned Unit Development. That's what I meant by "
qualifying commercial mixed use developments as described in Section 1305"...
As far as I know, the Tulsa Zoning Code does offer some incentives and encouragement for alternatives to the number of off-street parking spaces required for development:
1. Build within the CBD.
2. Build a commercial mixed use development which qualifies for a reduction of required parking spaces as described in Section 1305.
If someone can prove that the Zoning Code has been amended to the contrary to what I've said, then I will retract or revise my post. I'm not an expert on Tulsa's Zoning Code.
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
By the way, the Williams Green downtown sits on top of a surface parking lot...
The Williams Center Green is above a subsurface parking structure.
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
Tulsa's Planning department has qualified, educated, forward-thinking individuals who DO understand the benefits of limiting surface parking (while encouraging alternative transit, walkability, etc).
However, our city is not built by the Planning Department. It's built by developers/builders who simply follow the zoning code (more or less).
Our zoning code requires so much parking (per sq. foot of commercial space)...and does not in any way offer incentives or encouragement for alternatives. (There are also no city ordinances that prohibit tearing down historic buildings to make more of it!) Simple market forces--cheap land and cheap materials and no incentives to change--make surface parking lots the standard in Tulsa.
Builders don't ask the Planning Department how to build their structures. (If they did, things would be a lot nicer....). They just try to get the most profits for the least amount of money.
If you hate giant surface parking lots, then the zoning code must change. A great start would be getting involved in the Comprehensive Plan Update, and voicing your concerns/opinions. What the Planning Department can help us do is come up with a better vision for our city. What do we WANT it to be? You can have a voice in this. If we do it right, the zoning code will then be adapted to fit the goals/vision of the Comp. Plan.
But remember, a lot of people suffer under the myth that we need lots and lots of parking. They think that downtown (50% of the area inside the IDL is already surface parking) suffers from a lack! They also believe that every new building must have a whole bunch of on-site, surface parking to accomodate customers. (Not realizing that designing for pedestrians/transit users reduces the need for cars...). (Also not realizing that by the time you walk from your car--way out in the giant surface parking lot--to the hardware department at Super Walmart, you've walked the same distance as a couple blocks downtown!)
By the way, the Williams Green downtown sits on top of a surface parking lot, along with several other downtown plazas.
You're right, builders don't ask the planning department what they will build, they tell them. The problem is that previous public planning projects like the mid town redux study done by OU Tulsa urban design students (some of whom have gone on to jobs as city of Tulsa planners) would not even allow underground parking to be considered or even discussed as part of the study due to pressure from the the builders, bankers, and developers. Very short-sighted and completely spineless, IMO.
Yet, I should not question the current comp plan update when I perceive similarly short-sighted, spineless maneuvering occuring. I know, everything is fine in the land of Oz, just follow the yellow brick road. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Now click those heels together, cause there's no place like home.
P.S. I was involved in the mid-town redux study and beat my head against the wall till it was bloody trying to get underground parking as part of that plan.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
...The problem is that previous public planning projects like the mid town redux study done by OU Tulsa urban design students (some of whom have gone on to jobs as city of Tulsa planners) would not even allow underground parking to be considered or even discussed as part of the study due to pressure from the the builders, bankers, and developers. Very short-sighted and completely spineless, IMO...
...P.S. I was involved in the mid-town redux study and beat my head against the wall till it was bloody trying to get underground parking as part of that plan.
I participated in a couple of the OU Midtown Redux study Saturday sessions, and I don't remember underground parking being banned from discussion, but I do remember one important change in the rules which was made sometime between the first session and the second session I attended. Parking structures 60 feet wide were not allowed, although I clearly demonstrated that a bi-level garage of that width could work.
60 foot wide bi-level garages (whether the lower level was partially underground or at surface level) would be very appropriate for the relatively small and shallow parcels behind commercial streets in Midtown without encroaching much into the abutting residential areas. I did try to demonstrate how such a garage could function, but one of the OU students nixed the idea and removed the 60 foot wide bi-level garages from my team's site model. Then at the end of the site model planning session, one of the officials attending (I think it was Tom Baker) commented on how all the various schemes he'd seen generated in the Saturday workshops seem to be so similar and lacking innovation!
Another advantage of bi-level garages is that they are generally not as expensive to construct as above ground garages more than two levels high. And bi-level garages are generally
far less expensive to construct and operate than are underground garages.
I didn't beat my head against the wall until bloody, but I think I did complain to the director of the OU Urban Design Studio and to some of the students that banning 60 foot wide bi-level garages from consideration was unreasonable. I think their rule was based on garages being a minimum of 120 feet wide so vehicles could move from level to level on a continuous parking ramp, and that planning groups in some Saturday sessions had tried to create multi-level parking garages only 60 feet wide without accounting for any ramps. But I thought that excluding 60 foot wide bi-level garages from consideration was ludicrous, illogical, and short-sighted.
P.S. As you may remember, this is when I became so irritated about shills on this forum. I thought it was ridiculous to create multiple user names (which was against the TN Forum rules) in order to post something about the OU Midtown Redux study or any other topic. It looked so silly, and it severely damaged the credibility of this forum IMO.
+infinity on the parking requirements being stupid.
Look at the short corridor on Harvard between the BA and South to 33rd St.:
Behind Dollar General is a giant unused lot. Staples bought a lot behind them and demolished a house for parking that I have NEVER seen a car on. The Harvard Center and Ranch Acres both have excess parking that is never used.
I'm not talking the hyperbole "never used" cliche, I mean I have honestly never seen a (singular, one) car in the parking behind Staples or Dollar General. Argh!
- - -
We did a study at my undergrad for new central parking. There are guidelines for how much each form of parking costs per space (outside of land cost), these are the starting figures (they go up if you want it thicker, taller and better. Each level above 3 on structure parking costs about $500 more per space):
Surface: $1,500 per space
Ramp: $7,500 per space
Underground: $14,000 per space
Generally, land costs must be more than $100 per square foot to substantiate underground parking (or about $4.5 MILLION an acre) according to commercial real estate "experts." Since I was looking at it for a University, this figure was influential but profit was not mandated. Still, we decided underground parking - while more attractive on several grounds, was just too expensive. If that is the case for a University, I imagine it kills most commercial applications.
Some sources that seem to backup what I remembered:
http://books.google.com/books?id=fs68ZmTwtSMC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=%22underground+parking%22+%26+%22cost+per+space%22&source=web&ots=ypjfPkjcZS&sig=WLe0p6qcL2S8ItvYN5lhTCNRJGQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA21,M1
http://www.ciremagazine.com/article.php?article_id=432
or google "cost per space" and several other articles come up, all within my ranges (I was using 2000 numbers, which is when the study I remember was done). Sorry for the ramble, mostly from memory but I wanted to have SOME sources for you to look at.