|
Title: Neighborhood Pride or Elitism? Post by: restored2x on July 03, 2007, 08:30:36 am Been reading several posts today here and noticed the infighting about downtown, midtown, southside (new hotel thread) suburbs, and even a mention of BA here and there.
There seems to be an underlying neighborhoodcentricity (new word) that permeates these threads. People are assuming that everyone desires to live where they live. I understand pride in your neighborhood - I'm originally from Baltimore, and most of the places I lived there are torn down. It breaks my heart to see parking lots where rowhouses used to be. Downtown is thriving, but is also a tourist trap. It just seems to me that some of the opinions expressed are more steeped in elitism (very obvious in the suburbanite who is dissing downtown - but not as obvious in other posts) it's still there. I appreciate passion as much as anyone, and passion will get the job done when other traits fail - but it just seems so divisive. How does the elitism help Tulsa? How is midtown "more Tulsa" than southside? Why is Brookside a sacred cow? I don't know if I'm ready for the responses - and the ire of "true Tulsans" - (I can't be a true Tulsan, I've only been here for 12 years)but just thought I'd throw that out there. Title: Neighborhood Pride or Elitism? Post by: tulsa1603 on July 03, 2007, 08:55:47 am quote: You make good points. We should all work together to make the city better. However, here is my take from a midtown perspective. Midtown and downtown is "more Tulsa" than south Tulsa, because it's got an identity that is unique to Tulsa. Driving on 169 at 71st, there is nothing there that says "Ah yes, THIS is Tulsa" - it's an Anytown USA. That being said, I still frequent the area - it's where a large majority of the shopping is. It's almost unavoidable. Midtowners might be snobby, but only because we want Tulsa to develop LESS like that and more like midtown, meaning with some form of architectural identity, some form of character that has more to do with the city of Tulsa than with some corporate architecture that is exactly the same from city to city, be it Midland, Austin, Dallas, or Chicago. I know that living in midtown isn't for everyone. The houses are small, they cost more per square foot, the lots are smaller, etc., But there are a lot of misconceptions that south Tulsans have about midtown - it's unsafe, it's crowded, etc. Brookside is a sacred cow because it's one of a very few walkable areas in this city that actually have something to walk to. I'm not really into the Brookside scene, so I'll stop there. But I will say that areas like Brookside, downtown, etc., are more appealing to people from larger cities than an area like Woodland Hills Mall. Again, it's the Anytown vs. the Unique. Oh, also, people from the older parts of town tend to think that it makes more sense to redevelop parts that are going downhill, rather than adding new areas, thus more infrastructure and cost to the city. Here is an analogy: if you can't keep your entire house up, rather than adding on a new room to move into, why not fix up the one you have? Title: Neighborhood Pride or Elitism? Post by: sgrizzle on July 03, 2007, 08:57:24 am Maybe 71st is Tulsa's "Mother in law apartment?"
Title: Neighborhood Pride or Elitism? Post by: restored2x on July 03, 2007, 09:52:07 am I guess I can understand where you're coming from. Same feelings I get when I visit Baltimore and the local sub-joint is now a Quiznos. Not very Baltimore. Very corporate. The flavor is lost, could be any city.
"But I will say that areas like Brookside, downtown, etc., are more appealing to people from larger cities than an area like Woodland Hills Mall." Forgive me - but this seems to be a generalization. I'm from a city much larger than Tulsa, and prefer cost-efficient suburb to live in. Of course, this may be a generational thing for me. The burbs were part of the American dream when I was growing up. I love the smell of tar and diesel when I go downtown, but only in a nostalgic way. I guess it is totally subjective. One alien city-dweller may prefer midtown, another may prefer south tulsa and malls. I guess my point is: Tulsa is a great city, from downtown outward to all parts. Charm and convenience can be found all over - I may prefer to live in a certain area - but that doesn't make "my Tulsa" superior to someone else's. I absolutely love the school district my daughter is in (education-wise), the roads are not nearly as bad as other places I've lived. Downtown is being slowly developed and renewed. The quality of life here is really good. Taxes are tolerable for the return we get. South Tulsa, downtown, midtown, west and north Tulsa are not going away. Together we can maintain and improve quality of life here. At least, that's why I frequent this forum now. Boy, what rambling - sorry. Title: Neighborhood Pride or Elitism? Post by: cannon_fodder on July 03, 2007, 10:03:04 am As a relativie newbie to Tulsa I agree with the assessment that midtown is 'more Tulsa' because it has character. Its unique. I could open my eyes in South Tulsa and not have a clue if I was in Dallas, KC, Omaha, Des Moines, BA, or nearly any other location in a plains state.
Not that its worse, just less unique. Some people dont like unique, it usually comes with some negatives (it is more crowded, the lots are smaller, its more noisy, there is more diversity). Just my 2 cents. Title: Neighborhood Pride or Elitism? Post by: RecycleMichael on July 03, 2007, 10:29:27 am quote: You left out East Tulsa. Do you know something about East Tulsa going away and are afraid to tell me? Title: Neighborhood Pride or Elitism? Post by: restored2x on July 03, 2007, 11:52:02 am I thought East Tulsa was annexed by Mexico?
Just kidding - don't flame me, my wife is Hispanic and I lived in Puerto Rico for 10 years. Sorry I missed the east tulsa area. Title: Neighborhood Pride or Elitism? Post by: rwarn17588 on July 03, 2007, 12:15:46 pm Well, the pride thing can cut both ways.
I've encountered people in Tulsa who haven't ventured to the west side in literally decades because they still think you're risking your life being in it when the sun goes down. Sure, the west side is still very much blue-collar, which is part of its charm, IMO. But this rough-and-tough image is now so far away from reality, it's laughable. I've been in my neighborhood for three years, and there's been one homicide -- that's O-N-E -- the entire time. I like the fact Red Fork is a blue-collar, beer-drinking neighborhood with plenty of dogs and beat-up pickup trucks around. McMansion-living people who drive Hummers need not apply. Maybe that's elitist, but it's the type of elitist that a lot of people don't find desirable. Their loss. Title: Neighborhood Pride or Elitism? Post by: Wilbur on July 03, 2007, 05:43:29 pm I prefer to stick with us south Tulsan's as being elitist.
Title: Neighborhood Pride or Elitism? Post by: tulsa1603 on July 04, 2007, 12:33:24 pm quote: Yes, many choose a cost efficient suburb to live in, but NOT to visit. That was my point on the Woodland Hills Mall quote. i don't go to Chicago to see the malls in the suburbs, I go to see the downtown and the unique things that Chicago has to offer. Tulsa is not Chicago, but we do have some unique things that make our city interesting, and few of those are in the newer parts of town. Title: Neighborhood Pride or Elitism? Post by: deinstein on July 04, 2007, 03:44:56 pm It's a little bit of both for me personally. I chuckle at anyone for the South side or Broken Arrow who thinks they are elite.
[}:)] Title: Neighborhood Pride or Elitism? Post by: USRufnex on July 04, 2007, 07:22:22 pm don't mean to hijack your thread... this thread seemed a better fit over where I originally posted...
quote: Chicago's streets are worse... Boston streets are well... yikes... and they've achieved urban density. Actually, in my opinion from having visited Tulsa on a regular basis for the last couple of decades before moving here last fall... the streets in this city are alot better than they used to be. quote: Oil built this city. Steel built Pittsburgh. Cities have to adapt to the future and diversify. Tulsa's done that to a certain extent, but not to the satisfaction of the alarming number of negativists and naysayers I meet here. Maybe you should drive around the entire city of Tulsa more often. There are many styles of development around town. Some suburban. Some bungalows. Some little crackerbox homes. Some south Tulsa condos. Some beautiful older homes that take up more space than suburban "McMansions." Some gated communities in midtown. And yes, Utica Square, Cherry St, Brookside, Brady Village, Florence Park... but evidently not enough styles for more discriminating cosmopolitan tastes... [:O] Which kinda begs the question, "Are you willing to pay a premium for that priviledge?" And so I'll go ahead answer your question. I have already. Over 15 years living in Chicago I paid a "premium" of around 15% sales taxes. Basic groceries were exempt. And my housing options in Chicago were rather limited due to the skyrocketing costs of those tiny yet efficient urban condos/homes... how sustainable is that? So I left Chicago and chose Tulsa over Indianapolis, Grand Rapids, MI, and Rochester, NY (they have a pro soccer team and a world famous music school, BTW). And no, I will not choose the suburbs. I'd rather live in an urban area. But I can easily understand why a family of five would choose Jenks or Owasso or BA or south Tulsa over midtown. And I could choose suburban style south Tulsa, or I can continue to live in my walkable area around 41st and Garnett, convenient to the 71st St urban density that's a little too "dense" for my tastes... or I can find a smaller home or condo in other areas of town. Lots of options. Lots more than I had in sustainable Chicago. Trust me on this. Oh, and am I prepared to pay a premium for a new mass transit/light rail system when I see almost zero people riding Tulsa's city buses? The answer is "no." I look back on the 70s when people were telling us that a new monorail would be the Tulsa answer to the energy crisis. I loved the "el" and the METRA suburban sprawl commuter rail in Chicagoland. Talk to me about new public funds for mass transit when a reasonable number of people actually start riding the buses. Some things never change... quote: Well, for the Mayor of Tulsa, that's part of the job. And my point was that if Tulsa had implemented Portland-style policies in the 60s/70s and we didn't have suburban style development on Tulsa's south and east sides, it is my opinion that Tulsa would currently have a population of around 200,000 (225k if you count illegal immigrants)... Broken Arrow would have a population of about 150,000... Jenks, Bixby, Owasso and Claremore at 50,000 - 75,000... etc... talk about sprawl? Sounds like your answer to make Tulsa more manageable would be to just divide up the city a little better. South Tulsa can be its own city. East Tulsa/Union be it's own city. And David Arnett can help midtown Tulsa become part of Kansas. [}:)] That way, comfortably cosmopolitan Tulsans can squabble over whether they want to pay a premium for downtown/river-only projects while the rest of the metro area travels to Jenks, Keystone and Oologah... strangely enough, I think there's a good chance Tulsa county voters will pass the "river tax." Oh, and if you want to see the face of "unsustainable" urban development, you'll find no better example of that than Downtown Tulsa, home of skyscrapers and surface parking with trees... Title: Neighborhood Pride or Elitism? Post by: TheArtist on July 04, 2007, 08:42:17 pm quote: Thats more an example of urban undevelopment. Title: Neighborhood Pride or Elitism? Post by: Chicken Little on July 05, 2007, 09:44:53 am quote: I don't think that's an accurate statement (http://"http://www.tripnet.org/national/RoughRoadsPR052605.htm"): quote: quote:On the whole? I'm not sure I can agree with you here. quote:Except for development patterns? Our failure to diversify when the oil industry left caused decades of heartache. 90% of what we've built over the last couple has been one kind of car-dependent suburb. You don't see a paralell here? quote:Yeah, those people bother me, too. Tulsa is making some progress, but there are always plenty of people who are eager to stamp out those little sparks of innovation. quote:I'll never be able to afford the Gold Coast (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Coast%2C_Chicago#Gold_Coast"), but I sure as heck could go for a Lincoln Park (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Park,_Chicago"). Tulsa's got neither, they aren't planning for either, and in fact, anything with that kind of density and design would be illegal. I'd say that those who think we can get by without evolving are the one's who are discriminating. quote:Chicago is expensive, and I've spent time there. Tulsa would not be as affordable either if we actually paid our bills. Tulsa is about $4 billion behind on the rent...do you think that will ever catch up with us? quote:See, that's the thing. We can never justify a mass transit system in this town unless we are willing to up the densities. It doesn't have to be everywhere, but we need to have some dense corridors at least. quote:And your job is to stand in the way? quote:Yes, but this is all speculation. We could have also resisted providing cheap water and sewer to those suburban communities back in the '70s, which was the old LaFortune's idea. quote:I'll pass on that idea. This is my city, every corner of it. quote:I disagree with your notions of what is sustainable and what isn't. I've provided you with examples of places that work and you've provided me with accounts of great American "failures" like Portland and Chicago. While I think that your first-hand experience in Chicago is interesting, and I don't doubt you on the expense of living there, I don't think you've advanced the idea that Tulsa couldn't learn a thing or two from these places. After all, these cities are rated among the greatest in the world. I think you'll have to do better. Title: Neighborhood Pride or Elitism? Post by: USRufnex on July 06, 2007, 01:32:21 am quote: "...Studies also show..." Oh, gee... and 4 out of 5 dentists... what did they have to say about this? Of course, you did notice that the larger regional metro areas of KC, StL, and OKC are WORSE than Tulsa because of "substandard roads"... but hey, too bad the wishes of south and east Tulsans couldn't have been ignored back in the day so midtown could have had a "futuristic" 70s-Disney-style monorail while the rest of Tulsa flooded year after year... after all, those folks who live in south and east Tulsa aren't really "real" Tulsans, are they? But here's a question for you, CL. Do you know the difference between a city and a "metro area"? Because Chicago and Boston both have some very nice roads... in their suburbs! I drove the Elgin Tollway on the northwest side of Chicagoland's suburban sprawl... past the suburban icon of Schaumburg (still have my IKEA computer stand, btw)... the roads were better... probably because there was a toll booth about ever few miles of it. Now there's the new tolls where they take your money by radar and you don't even have to stop anymore... Natick, MA also had some very nice roads when I lived there before I moved to East Boston and gave up on driving in Beantown... Massachusetts Turnpike gets a marginal thumbs up from me... But the urbanly dense cities of Chicago and Boston do not have good streets/roads. Riverside Drive in Tulsa has been, in my recent experience, a much better road than Lake Shore Drive in Chicago. Most of 169 is much better than Lake Shore Drive... parts of 169 are worse than Lake Shore Drive only because I can drive 65-70 mph on 169 and only 45 mph on Lake Shore Drive. And don't get me started on narrow, pothole-ridden streets... I once lost a muffler driving from pothole-ridden Touhy Ave from my northside apt. to the leaning tower of Niles (http://www.roadsideamerica.com/attract/ILNILpisa.html)... or the fun of spending a half hour trying to find a good spot within blocks of my apt. when I paid a premium for a $75 city sticker for parking every year I had a car in the Windy City... yeah, I know... "$75 a year?... you should be so lucky!"... XXX's and OOO's, New York City Boston driving was a nightmare... the "rotary" is a cruel joke. And the roads sucked... but that's 18th & 19th century infrastructure for ya... the potential for high $$$ for vehicle maintenance is mitigated to a large extent when you can only drive 20 miles per hour in traffic... I wish Boston could come up with some forward thinking infrastructure improvements that would fix that. Oh, yeah... the big dig. Whoopee! quote: Well, compared to its condition 5+ years ago, I-244 has improved a great deal. I also remember when most of the major streets east of Memorial Drive were 2-laned. This has changed for the better. Although I guess this isn't really "real Tulsa" to midtowners... quote: Yes, I do see a parallel. But be careful what urban density you wish for. You may find out exactly why people were fleeing the big cities for the suburbs in the first place. quote: Here's a thought. Use your own money to "evolve." The upscale yuppies in Chicago's Lincoln Park drove out the natives... then, the frat boys & girls drove out the natives in Wrigleyville... I thought I was safe in Edgewater/Andersonville until the condo-flippers invaded that area... I still have a soft spot for Rogers Park, but hey... time and gentrification marches on... Don't ask me to pay sales taxes or support blindly self serving TIF districts as "economic incentive" to subsidize my own gentrification. Huh, what's that?!? You lack the capital funds to finance the transformation of midtown Tulsa into a clone of Lincoln Park? Hate it for ya!... [:P] quote: So, how could low-density towns like Claremore and Pryor and Muskogee ever have existed? Well, let's just call it "Little House on the Prairie" density. Old LaFortune wanted to have Tulsa build a stadium with taxpayer money for the World Football League... a league that only lasted a couple of years back in the 70s... while a sizeable part of the city was flooding... while pompous, condescending Tulsans from a certain area of town laid blame on selfish developers and the people who moved close to Mingo Creek... until THEIR OWN HOMES started flooding... then, and only then, did something actually change.... I should be your urban ally, CL... but old wounds run deep... Title: Neighborhood Pride or Elitism? Post by: waterboy on July 06, 2007, 07:22:43 am I don't know what you guys are arguing about but some historical insights for you. I will give the benefit of the doubt that these builder/developers were just stupid and greedy rather than evil.
You wrote about the real reason folks moved to east Tulsa and the burbs in the late 60's and 70's. My father was in the homebuilding industry and I worked on many of those homes and apartments. Some reputable builders, Never Fail, Jim Nuckolls etc. A lot of crooks though. A few years later I sold real estate and learned the details of that expansion. That growth was fueled by cheaper land and construction costs. At the urging of these "forward thinking" developers who populated all the boards and commission offices, the new burbs didn't require sidewalks, built cheap slabs on shifting sub-soil, abandoned the grid street pattern in favor of swirling roads that allowed more homes per development and generally did shoddy work. There was a glut of what were called 235 homes because of the government program that encouraged affordable homes for the public. Most are rentals now. The housing surrounding them was devalued because of them. It wasn't as if the population demanded this type and location of homes. This is what was offered and offered cheap. That is important to repeat. The public did not demand cheap, poorly constructed, poorly served, poorly designed neighborhoods. These same developer/builders did the same thing to south Riverside at 61st. That was prime property that they exploited with overly dense apartments that were built with government assistance. They intended to carve up the Maple Ridge area with a high speed expressway to ease the pain of living away from their downtown jobs. Broken Arrow began to grow when this first spurt of building began to wear thin. It offered lower property taxes and lax construction oversight as well. So the public was offered cheaper, larger housing with lower property taxes and the city virtually leapfrogged from one hot development area to the next. Cities in the expansion belt have enjoyed the growth but struggled to keep up services and have ended up raising their taxes to prosper. Thus fueling more leapfrogging. It continues today with entire south Tulsa neighborhoods and shopping being leapfrogged every 10 years or so. Thus Jenks. I still remember when 61st and Sheridan was hot, now it has been leapfrogged. Yes, there were race, class and education issues during that time as well, but they were secondary. Between the Realtors and the builder/developers Tulsa never had a chance to look at any other type of develpment and anyone who suggested it was ignored. I don't know how a monorail would have changed Tulsa but I doubt it would have blunted its growth. We needed leadership that was educated, sophisticated and had a conscience. We got builders. edit- two other things while I'm at it. The growth of Southeast Tulsa in 69-75 was magnified by the arrival of Cities Service employees to man their new offices-downtown. The older execs opted for nearby Maple Ridge while jr. execs, leary of transfer, opted for new construction that they could sell faster out by 61st & Sheridan or over in newly devleoped Gilcrease Hills. Meanwhile, where did the contractors for these southward sprawl hoods live? Maple Ridge. They knew a bargain when they saw it and were able to maintain the homes. Though they still joined Southern Hills cc just to keep near the builders. Title: Neighborhood Pride or Elitism? Post by: Chicken Little on July 06, 2007, 09:11:09 am quote:Yes, and do you know the difference between a searching for independent confirmation and talking out your hiney? First-hand accounts are very helpful in general and provide tremendous insight, but internet arguements have lofty standards[;)]. quote:quote: Okay, I'm all for being careful. But how come we have to be careful when we talk about urban places and we can be just as narrow-minded and irresponsible as we please when it comes to building suburbs? Suburbs are "new technology" in the history of cities. Yes, they have become the prevalent form of development in the last 50 years, but as Waterboy points out, it may have little to do with rational decisions about what is best for the city and citizens in the long run. It may have a lot more to do with the politics of the moment and the pressure from developers seeking the cheapest and quickest way to make a buck. quote:That's exactly what people will do. If those choices aren't in Tulsa, they'll move someplace else. You've already said you don't have kids yet, so I'm not surprised that this doesn't bother you. quote:They were little railroad towns. The 'original towns' were about a (walkable) square mile. Tulsa was that way, too. As Tulsa boomed, it boomed with streetcars. Places like Cherry Street are often called streetcar suburbs. With smaller lots, carriage houses, and small apartment buildings mixed in, they were about two to three times denser than how we build today. Mass transit doesn't work at the densities we build today.quote:So, how could low-density towns like Claremore and Pryor and Muskogee ever have existed? Well, let's just call it "Little House on the Prairie" density. quote:I've lived easy and rough. Tulsa is easy and I do like it very much. What worries me is that you, or anyone, can think that this town is going to stay this way forever. There are too many variables, i.e, gas prices, age of infrastructure, density, etc.. If we aren't prepared for these changes, we will be in trouble. Title: Neighborhood Pride or Elitism? Post by: Conan71 on July 06, 2007, 09:59:36 am I've lived about a third of my life north of 31st, south of 11th, and between Harvard & Lewis. So I guess I'm partial to that area of town. I have a lot of fond memories as a kid and an adult in that area.
The first house I "remember" was around 25th & Delaware where my parents moved when I was four. That was a very well-planned neighborhood mostly built in the late 1940's. Based on the construction, I would guess it was supposed to be a little bit of a step-up from the "Veteran Homes" built west of Brookside and up north of downtown. We lived there until I was almost 12 and we moved to 84th & Toledo- one of the "contemporary" suburbs with split levels, contemporary homes with cedar siding and stucco. That was my first exposure to "builder dreck". Our house was built into the side of a hill. In the haste to build a lot of homes at maximum profit, there was little, if any soil engineering done. Just about every house on that hill wound up with severe structural problems. A couple have been torn down and nothing built to replace them. My mother spent a small fortune keeping the house structurally together. That was one of the neighborhoods that helped put the Jenks school system on the map. I lived at Center Plaza before it became condos in my early '20's and remained there for about a year after I got married the first time (I've only been married twice [;)]). I enjoyed being in the DT skyline, shopping at the Homeland on Denver whilst negotiating past the vagrants, checking in on the re-development of the Brady district, and generally having a great view of "old Tulsa". The first house I owned was in the shadows of F & M Bank near 15th & Harvard. I now live on the same block some 18 years later. I liked the mid-town vibe, gingerbread style, sidewalks, well-built homes with individual pride. The neighborhood was still slightly seedy around the edges in 1989, but it's improved now. After that, we moved to the Sungate Addition which is south and east of the Farm Shopping Center. That was touted as being one of Tulsa's best planned sub-divisions at the time with a neighborhood pool, all utilities buried under-ground, an elementary and junior high co-located on the same plot, side walks, and curved roads, like WB alluded to. We had a growing family that necessitated more space than we could afford at the time closer in. After that, we moved to 105th & Yale to escape the traffic of "mid-town", have a larger lot and a larger house that I thought was supposed to reflect to having "made it in life". It was convenient for my kid's sports activities, and at the time, I officed at home, so we had most every convenience we needed in the area. Circumstances changed later and I wound up divorced. The big house went bye-bye and I resumed a much more humble life-style. I've liked something about each area I've lived in and felt pride at living there. Personally, I'd like to stay in the area I'm in as long as I'm in Tulsa. I like the older neighborhoods, the younger vibe of the area I live in and the convenience to all the things that give that area of town a unique cool factor- like re-sale shops on 15th, the Cherry St. restaurants, farmers markets at Cherry St. and the Pearl, the little strip centers along Harvard with mostly locally-owned businesses, etc. Cherry St. isn't as Bohemian as it used to be, but is there really any part of Tulsa we can call Bohemian these days? I guess there is a certain snob satisfaction or elitism with saying I live in mid-town. Part of a person's pride is their house and where they live. Title: Neighborhood Pride or Elitism? Post by: USRufnex on July 10, 2007, 08:36:14 pm quote: This is the statement that prompted me to post... if you looked at the history of large American cities you'd see all sorts of shenanigans going on that would make Tulsa's "stupid and greedy" developers of the 60s and 70s look like forward thinking philanthropists... lots of studio/one bdr buildings were built on the northside of Chicago to house the large number of g.i.'s back from WWII out of shortsighted profit motives... but who could predict that 50 years later, budding artists, singers, photographers, and people from the country looking for the excitement of big city life would agree to pay a premium to live in apts/condos with old substandard plumbing, noisy building controlled radiator heat, and high crime... a decade or two after those buildings nearly stood vacant when huge numbers of Chicagoans moved to the 'burbs... If Tulsa's erred by making this city too suburban and too affordable?, Chicago erred by putting together the forward thinking concept of building public housing for the poor in huge complexes like Cabrini Green and the Robert Taylor homes... that urban density didn't turn out too well, now did it? Oh, suburbs AND skyscrapers have been with us for a short time... neither are perfect and nobody has a crystal ball to predict what cities will look like in the next 20 years, let alone 50. Did urban planners in 1850 have a clue about what life would be like in 1950? Besides, hasn't there been a nationwide liberal battle cry for years of... "We NEED affordable housing! We NEED MORE affordable housing!"??? Yet when Tulsa developers from previous decades provided affordable housing, it is criticized with terms like "low density," "unsustainable," "cheap and substandard" and those developers are referred to as short-sighted and greedy. BTW, my neighborhood in east Tulsa may not appeal to your sense of style, but it DOES have sidwalks on both sides of the streets (unlike Florence Park and half of midtown)... my depression-era shaped grandparents lived for awhile in a "cinder-block house"... they then moved to a little home off Admiral between Sheridan and Memorial... from that tiny home yours truly walked to Burbank Elementary school in a neighborhood without sidewalks... oh, the horror... and I was scarred for life by that experience... /sarcasm. Sure, I'd love to see something like this in Tulsa... http://www.rogerspark.com/master.htm? or this... http://www.cityofelgin.org/index.asp?NID=501 And I think the option is attractive enough for certain areas of Tulsa that TIF districts could/should be established to support something like that... after all, a full 30% of Chicago's land mass these days is TIF district... http://www.lincolnsquare.org/document/bid_tif.php quote: This can be appealing to 20-somethings and "empty-nesters" but the overwhelming majority of large families will continue to live in very safe cities like Broken Arrow and continue to make Rogers County the fastest growing county in the state because they want the best they can afford for their children... like my sister and her husband who choose not to raise their children in midtown, yet they are still real Tulsans. Real Tulsans don't have to live in some perceived trendy area to prove their identity. I don't find the majority of midtowners I've met here so far to be elitist. But there is a subculture that can be very annoying. Not elitist, per se. Just highly provencial and cliquish. XXXX's and OOOO's, Ruf Title: Neighborhood Pride or Elitism? Post by: waterboy on July 10, 2007, 08:51:23 pm quote:Besides, hasn't there been a nationwide liberal battle cry for years of... "We NEED affordable housing! We NEED MORE affordable housing!"???
Yet when Tulsa developers from previous decades provided affordable housing, it is criticized with terms like "low density," "unsustainable," "cheap and substandard" and those developers are referred to as short-sighted and greedy. When a builder of the character that built those apartments along the prime riverfront property of 61st & Riverside, that are now the center of crime in that area, uses government money to build cheap, poorly constructed high density slums under the guise of "affordable" then he is greedy and short sighted. Many of those sub-contractors had difficulty even being paid by the guy. You know what sub-contractors do when that happens? Sh**t work. As little as they can get away with. "Good enough for govt. work". Whatever your points are, don't give these builder/developers of the time so much benefit. Title: Neighborhood Pride or Elitism? Post by: Chicken Little on July 11, 2007, 12:21:16 pm Mr. Neck,
Perhaps the most important point I am trying to make here is that you have to look beyond the sales price of the house to judge what is affordable and unaffordable. Low density development requires much larger investment per person in roads, water, sewer, stormwater, police, and fire. Much of this infrastructure is wearing out and getting stretched thin. Tulsa's policy so far has been to punt, i.e., to defer maintenance to the point where they have billions in backlog repairs. What seems affordable in the short run is going to cost the taxpayers a lot more in the long run. On the other side of the coin, building at more efficient densities has been outlawed, here and elsewhere, and has thus become abnormal. So it should come as no surprise that higher density developments of any lasting quality, so far have been less affordable. At both ends of the spectrum, the "affordability" of housing has been skewed artificially. It's an untenable situation, but you seem to think that everything is rosy. There's nothing inherently sensible about monorails or any form of mass transit so long as we continue to build the way we do today. We're far too spread out to allow these kinds of systems to operate conveniently or affordably. The only way those things make sense is if also choose to build at higher densities. Your strategy is to sit still. I contend that that can only lead to higher taxes and a diminished quality of life in this city. If people like you are willing to pay your freight and increase taxes to the point where we can manage our infrastructure, then we have no argument. But if you aren't willing to let this town evolve into something more efficient, and you aren't willing to pay a premium to maintain what we've got, then I think you are being unreasonable. Title: Neighborhood Pride or Elitism? Post by: tulsa1603 on July 11, 2007, 12:49:36 pm quote: Actually, Florence Park DOES have sidewalks on both sides of the street. Title: Neighborhood Pride or Elitism? Post by: USRufnex on July 11, 2007, 06:28:43 pm Some streets do.
I took the opportunity to do laundry and drink beer at Univ of Wash... so I'll cross that off the list of things I do before I die (go to a laundromat/bar)... and also walked around that area around 15th... So quite a few of the streets in the area I walked a couple of weeks ago do not have sidewalks... not on both sides... and some east/west streets in Florence Park/Renaissance? have no sidewalks at all. |