Plans for expanding the existing QT at 11th and Utica have been posted:
http://www.tmapc.org/Agenda/03-07-12/PUD-588-A.pdf
Its expected to be much larger (annexing the lot to the north) but Im not certain if this is a Type III from the low-resolution pdf's of the plan.
One good bit of news is that since it's a PUD it includes stricter control over things like lighting (even though I didn't see their required lighting plan in the exhibits). Ill be following that with interest.
Having shielded, low-glare lighting will be a plus for the nearby hospital and rehabilitation center, and vision-challenged customers.
It also sounds like they are going all out for wheelchair accessibility
Quote from: patric on March 02, 2012, 12:02:48 AM
It also sounds like they are going all out for wheelchair accessibility
They ought to. There's quite a bit of wheelchair traffic in there as it is.
Quote from: patric on March 02, 2012, 12:02:48 AM
Plans for expanding the existing QT at 11th and Utica have been posted:
http://www.tmapc.org/Agenda/03-07-12/PUD-588-A.pdf
Its expected to be much larger (annexing the lot to the north) but Im not certain if this is a Type III from the low-resolution pdf's of the plan.
One good bit of news is that since it's a PUD it includes stricter control over things like lighting (even though I didn't see their required lighting plan in the exhibits). Ill be following that with interest.
Having shielded, low-glare lighting will be a plus for the nearby hospital and rehabilitation center, and vision-challenged customers.
It also sounds like they are going all out for wheelchair accessibility
The two side doors on the plan indicate that it would be a change to the GenIII model. The expansive side parking also would indicate as such.
Are the plans out on the QT at I44 and Harvard?
I wonder if the large amounts of landscaping are an attempt to appease those who are unhappy with the 10th street closure and fact this doesn't fit the form based codes.
Yea, I honestly don't know what to say. Its frustrating to see them constantly ignore what so many people have worked so hard to create and how they want their neighborhoods to be like, like the Brookside Plan (and honestly I haven't seen what appears to me to be any more cars at that gas station than before they ripped out more of Brooksides pedestrian friendly fabric) and now the Pearl Districts plans and even the new city Comprehensive Plan. Being a gas/car service company, I know they are likely totally against pedestrian friendly/transit friendly design, but its not like there isn't a profusion of places in this city and area that will always be car oriented, and there are so few areas that we are working to have be pedestrian/transit friendly which imo will help everyone in the end by giving us more lifestlye options, make our city more competitive with other cities for jobs and people, more attractive, etc.
I drive by that area every few days and I saw a yellow zoning change sign, so this makes sense. I think it's a good thing to see it upgraded. I doubt it will do much to make it any more attractive a destination at night though. I can handle a few panhandlers during the day, that doesn't bother me all that much, but the after dark crowd can be frightening at times.
This is a good thing IMO. That store is so crowded and it looks to be one of the most rundown in their system. I also like the expanded grocery in this area. I bet Hillcrest and the other surrounding areas will use the heck of the grocery and prepared foods part of this store.
Quote from: rdj on March 02, 2012, 10:38:04 AM
This is a good thing IMO. That store is so crowded and it looks to be one of the most rundown in their system. I also like the expanded grocery in this area. I bet Hillcrest and the other surrounding areas will use the heck of the grocery and prepared foods part of this store.
I agree, but it would be nice if they could figure out a way to make it more pedestrian-friendly. There are a
lot of pedestrians in the area (for Tulsa, anyway)
Quote from: Floyd on March 02, 2012, 08:51:05 AM
Quiktrip has been a good corporate citizen but their expansion has not been a positive thing for the urban landscape of midtown Tulsa.
Lighting-wise, they have done fairly well at some locations (like 21st & Memorial), but only because they had to in order to satisfy the PUD.
Using the crappy drop-lens "Scottsdale" lighting at the GenIII at 11th and Sheridan was a step backward.
QT should be designing responsibly by default, and not wait for complaints to rectify bad choices.
I worked that store about 14 years ago... on nights. It was the small 1st gen design that are all but extinct. I am sure that things have changed since then, but that store had a change in shoppers after the sun went down. I would have rather worked at apache and harvard than 11th and utica.
With the Pearl Dstricts zoning ordinances being expanded to the entire district soon, QT made a good decision on their part to expand to a store design they already have the plans for. Had they waited until after the zoning change, QT would have been required to build a 2 story building/store roughly 15 ft ft from the property line. They likely saved themselves a reasonable amount of time and money.
Quote from: 46hudson on March 03, 2012, 08:53:19 AM
With the Pearl Dstricts zoning ordinances being expanded to the entire district soon, QT made a good decision on their part to expand to a store design they already have the plans for. Had they waited until after the zoning change, QT would have been required to build a 2 story building/store roughly 15 ft ft from the property line. They likely saved themselves a reasonable amount of time and money.
Welcome to the forum!
One of the tihings that form based codes advocates is building for the future; creating spaces that can outlive their current use. Its wasteful to create buildings that need to be replaced every 10 years
True enough Carlton, but you can understand the hesitance of people in the construction industry to support that premise. They like tearing up, building, tearing up, building. It keeps their business healthy. Kind of like GE making light bulbs that wear out quickly.
Quote from: carltonplace on March 03, 2012, 09:40:33 AM
Welcome to the forum!
One of the tihings that form based codes advocates is building for the future; creating spaces that can outlive their current use. Its wasteful to create buildings that need to be replaced every 10 years
So, in 10 years they will have to put up a building matching the "new" codes.
I have to agree with Aquaman on the following though:
QuoteTrue enough Carlton, but you can understand the hesitance of people in the construction industry to support that premise. They like tearing up, building, tearing up, building. It keeps their business healthy. Kind of like GE making light bulbs that wear out quickly.
I don't think the main premis is so that you can reuse a building later, great if you can though. One main concern is continuity in design. Not what type of design per say (it can be contemporary or "old world" or whatever" but placement and being pedestrian/transit friendly is important. Also it helps the builder in that you know the nature of your area. You wont say invest in building a pedestrian/transit friendly building up to the sidewalk and then end up with another developer on either side of you putting in huge parking lots or buildings with little or no fenestrations which would in effect destroy your investment. You as a developer know whats going to happen and can securely invest. Also, I am not sure there is a lower height limit? Certainly a preferred suggestion, but not a definite requirement. Also part of the design scheme of the buildings encourages certain "wall plane" heights/amounts so that you end up with an interesting street in which the buildings don't have large blank spaces (massing) but those spaces are broken up with windows, set-backs, etc.
Quote from: nathanm on March 02, 2012, 11:02:47 AM
I agree, but it would be nice if they could figure out a way to make it more pedestrian-friendly. There are a lot of pedestrians in the area (for Tulsa, anyway)
Maybe I'm off, but I would bet making a facility that exists to service autos pedestrian friendly is a bit tough.
The only way to make that store more ped/service friendly is size.
And honestly, I don't think QT ever thought that store would outgrow what they initially put in. Building something that would need to be replaced is counterproductive to the QT way of looking at things... of course I know things have changed a good deal since Chester retired and in the 13 or so years since I worked there, but when they initially began the massive overhauls to the stores from the old style (brass fittings and small area) to the 4000 series (for the size), I remember it was going to be or supposed to be a long term solution.
I believe they seem the solution for the amount of pedestrian traffic is one of the newer stores that is more open concept and easier for people to move around. Larger parking areas and outside seating.
I really don't remember what my point was...
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 03, 2012, 11:06:56 AM
So, in 10 years they will have to put up a building matching the "new" codes.
No. Not at all, they can build whatever they want to. But it makes more sense to build a structure that will have a life beyond QT's current short term need. QT has a history of abandoning stores which are not situated to their liking or are obsolete to their business model in favor of moving to an intersection that they prefer (15th and Main, 14th and Denver and now store number 2 at 15th and Denver in the span of 20 years). They also have a history of tearing down and rebuilding on the same lot over and over again...(21st and Harvard is on QT number 3). That is alot of material destined for the landfill.
Form Based Codes are about building for form so that a building can have a life beyond its current use: Think about how many uses the building at 15th and Quaker (Currently Mi Cocina) has had over the years.
Quote from: rdj on March 05, 2012, 10:35:16 AM
Maybe I'm off, but I would bet making a facility that exists to service autos pedestrian friendly is a bit tough.
I look at it the same way. However, I believe there is space for businesses like QT. For what it is worth, there is a 7-11 in Fort Worth on 7th street (around Henderson?) that is supposedly very "urban friendly". I really couldn't tell much of a difference. It was very nice, I guess.
I know in many urban areas, even in Bartlesville, even gas station/convenience should be welcomed, not outlawed. Many people who work at ConocoPhillips walk a couple blocks to the gas station for lunch/drinks/etc all the time. So whatever the design is, many are in fact pedestrian friendly.
Quote from: rdj on March 05, 2012, 10:35:16 AM
Maybe I'm off, but I would bet making a facility that exists to service autos pedestrian friendly is a bit tough.
Sure, if you insist on putting the pumps out front and setting the store directly in the center of the lot. Move the store so that the side entrance is close to 11th Street (in a way that keeps peds out of the flow of traffic) or the pumps behind the building and all of a sudden you have yourself a reasonably pedestrian friendly gas station.
Quote from: Teatownclown on March 02, 2012, 07:34:44 AM
Are the plans out on the QT at I44 and Harvard?
Is a QT going in there? I want one there. No--I need one there.
Not sure if this is the right thread to reply to however, I recall the TMAPC vote on The Pearl District expansion was tabled in favor of workshops to better inform intrested (or misinformed) parties and the issue would go back before commitee on June 6. Any word on the workshops? Or did the 11th & Utica QT vote spell disaster for the Pearl District expansion and thereby kill the workshops?
Quote from: nathanm on March 02, 2012, 12:10:55 AM
They ought to. There's quite a bit of wheelchair traffic in there as it is.
I agree...there are a couple of places there that cater to people with physical disabilities - The Center and Murdock Villa.
Quote from: 46hudson on May 09, 2012, 11:23:08 AM
Not sure if this is the right thread to reply to however, I recall the TMAPC vote on The Pearl District expansion was tabled in favor of workshops to better inform intrested (or misinformed) parties and the issue would go back before commitee on June 6. Any word on the workshops? Or did the 11th & Utica QT vote spell disaster for the Pearl District expansion and thereby kill the workshops?
to my knowledge there are no plans for one there, but I will look into it.
The new QT has a massive footprint. They build the new one next to the old one, farther north down Utica, so it is no longer really on the corner. What will become of the original footprint? It would have seemed better to tear down and rebuild in the same location even though it would lose some time. The new footprint just seems odd to me, especially with all the fuss about closing down the street. Still seems like an extraordinarily large footprint that might lead to a massive parking lot on the corner.
Quote from: DowntownDan on March 27, 2013, 02:06:31 PM
The new QT has a massive footprint. They build the new one next to the old one, farther north down Utica, so it is no longer really on the corner. What will become of the original footprint? It would have seemed better to tear down and rebuild in the same location even though it would lose some time. The new footprint just seems odd to me, especially with all the fuss about closing down the street. Still seems like an extraordinarily large footprint that might lead to a massive parking lot on the corner.
I have assumed they would just put pumps on the south and east ends? No?
Quote from: davideinstein on March 27, 2013, 04:24:19 PM
I have assumed they would just put pumps on the south and east ends? No?
They built a new canopy in front of the new building, several feet north of the existing pumps and canopy, so my assumption is that the pumps are moving too, unless they are expecting to keep the old ones and have pumps under two seperate canopies. They also installed a new sign with gas prices to the north also so not sure if even the existing sign on the corner is staying put or not.
I did notice they are following Kum & Go's lead and installed shielded, Full-cutoff LED lights under (and around) the canopy.
That's certainly a plus, being next to a hospital.
Quote from: DowntownDan on March 27, 2013, 04:43:09 PM
They built a new canopy in front of the new building, several feet north of the existing pumps and canopy, so my assumption is that the pumps are moving too, unless they are expecting to keep the old ones and have pumps under two seperate canopies. They also installed a new sign with gas prices to the north also so not sure if even the existing sign on the corner is staying put or not.
If pattern follows, they will turn on the new pumps, then tear down the old ones and extend the new canopy where they old one was.
Quote from: sgrizzle on March 28, 2013, 06:51:52 AM
If pattern follows, they will turn on the new pumps, then tear down the old ones and extend the new canopy where they old one was.
That would be the longest set of pumps in town outside of maybe some truck stops.
Quote from: patric on March 27, 2013, 07:51:49 PM
I did notice they are following Kum & Go's lead and installed shielded, Full-cutoff LED lights under (and around) the canopy.
That's certainly a plus, being next to a hospital.
QT catching up to Kum-n-Go, bet you dont hear that often.