East End Update?

[TheArtist]

At least its on the edge of downtown next to a highway and not in the middle of it. Its really hard to make any good comments though without knowing how the apartments, parking garage and other stores are going to be placed relative to each other. The possibilities are numerous. I have seen where they have the front of the Wal-mart look like a row of shops then the sides of the wal-mart have other smaller stores built around it forming kind of an old time "city block" look.

The parking in front concerned me for a moment. then I realized that one compromise could be to put a 2way street right in front of the store between the parking lot. If you have stores that eventually develop on the other side of the streets all around that parking lot you end up with kind of a central square layout.

[dsjeffries]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

If you have stores that eventually develop on the other side of the streets all around that parking lot you end up with kind of a central square layout.

A central square would be nice, but this would be a parking lot... not a green with fountain, plaza, etc.--a parking lot.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by DScott28604

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

I'd like to know of an instance of a public outcry preventing the construction of a surface parking lot in downtown Tulsa.

I really don't think plans for surface parking in the CBD would be rejected.  Surface parking is a legal land use downtown.  Building demolition permits are also approved routinely.

It is legal, but that doesn't mean that it has to be approved, and it shouldn't mean that it will be automatically.

And there have been a few outcries concerning the demolition of historic buildings for surface parking--granted, none too large--but a development as large as this automatically generates more public interest.  A lot of people don't even know that buildings used to be in downtown instead of parking lots... This development, however, has the ability to draw large public attention to the asphalting of downtown, and it also has the ability to change that and make the East End a walkable, urban environment.

A significant portion of the site is paved with asphalt already -- I estimate about 50% of the area from looking at aerial photos.  I suppose that plans for surface parking lots wouldn't necessarily have to be approved, but I think that the City would have no valid basis to deny or delay any permits to build parking lots.  Such obstruction by the City would be legal fodder for the developer since there are recent precedents of the City issuing demolition permits to clear the way for more surface parking lots downtown.  

What should happen isn't necessarily what will happen.  Much of this is a result of our City government deciding to close and vacate streets.  Tulsa has encouraged large assemblages of land and superblocks downtown for decades.  If Wal-Mart wanted to build a 150,000 square foot store on typical downtown block with an alley, then they would be forced to  build at least four stories tall, because they would be limited to a 42,000 square foot parcel.  If they had a typical block with a vacated alley, then a 150,000 store would need to be a minimum of two stories tall.

This is what happens when we allow public streets to be privatized.  I don't think anyone should be shocked if and when the developers decide to build some multi-story residential buildings where there are few or none now, some multi-level parking where there is little or none now, and some single-story retail buildings where there are vacant, mostly single-story buildings or asphalt parking lots now.  In the current real estate market, there is no particular reason to build tall and dense, especially in that part of downtown.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by DScott28604

A lot of people don't even know that buildings used to be in downtown instead of parking lots...

I agree that there is a great amount of ignorance about the history of downtown Tulsa.  Some prime examples are posted here on the TN forum.

I also contend that many (and probably most) people simply do not care whether or not a Wal-Mart is 'urban' or not.  Most people look for convenience, not high quality urban design.  And convenience for many people means being able to park their gas-guzzling SUVs as close to the entrance of the grocery store as possible so they can load up on high-calorie, low-nutrient 'convenience' foods before roaring back to their homes miles away from the downtown.  

I can't think of one case where public outrage prevented a surface parking lot from being constructed in downtown Tulsa.  There may be an example or two, but since I moved here 18 years ago, I've seen mostly tear-downs for more surface parking downtown.

[dsjeffries]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld


What should happen isn't necessarily what will happen.  Much of this is a result of our City government deciding to close and vacate streets.  Tulsa has encouraged large assemblages of land and superblocks downtown for decades.  If Wal-Mart wanted to build a 150,000 square foot store on typical downtown block with an alley, then they would be forced to  build at least four stories tall, because they would be limited to a 42,000 square foot parcel.  If they had a typical block with a vacated alley, then a 150,000 store would need to be a minimum of two stories tall.

Actually, with 300-foot city blocks, wouldn't a single square block consist of 90,000 square feet, resulting in the possibility of a single-story store occupying two square blocks?
And if the store were two levels, a single block could accommodate 180,000 square feet??  Oh wait, I think I get what you're saying...


I fully understand that what should be are what are are two different things.  But things can change.  And, if the developer, Tom Seay, had come in and just said, "We're building a typical Wal-Mart", instead of throwing the word "urban" out at every opportunity, saying that of course it would have to fit into downtown and that it couldn't and shouldn't be a typical suburban-like store, I wouldn't be quite so upset...

I'd still be upset that it would be a typical big box planted in downtown.  But it seems that he's trying to fool Tulsans into thinking this Wal-Mart is going to be a hip, urban store, when it's completely not.  And that really bothers me.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by DScott28604

quote:Originally posted by booWorld


What should happen isn't necessarily what will happen.  Much of this is a result of our City government deciding to close and vacate streets.  Tulsa has encouraged large assemblages of land and superblocks downtown for decades.  If Wal-Mart wanted to build a 150,000 square foot store on typical downtown block with an alley, then they would be forced to  build at least four stories tall, because they would be limited to a 42,000 square foot parcel.  If they had a typical block with a vacated alley, then a 150,000 store would need to be a minimum of two stories tall.

Actually, with 300-foot city blocks, wouldn't a single square block consist of 90,000 square feet, resulting in the possibility of a single-story store occupying two square blocks?
And if the store were two levels, it could accomodate 180,000 square feet??

The typical block in downtown Tulsa is 300 feet by 300 feet with a 20 foot wide alley bisecting it surrounded by 80 foot wide streets and avenues.  So the typical block in downtown Tulsa has two 42,000 square foot parcels separated by a 20 foot wide alley.  There are exceptions, but that was the general pattern when Tulsa was laid out.

A typical block with a vacated alley is a 90,000 square foot parcel.  150,000 divided by 90,000 is 1.67.  A single-story building would not be possible on a single block.  A 150,000 square foot building on 90,000 square foot parcel would need to be at least two stories tall.

Building height also depends on the occupancy and type of construction.  The building code adopted by Tulsa limits the size of buildings according to the area per floor in Table 503.

Provided all other code requirements were met and there were no projections above streets and alleys, a 180,000 square foot building two stories tall could be constructed on a typical block in downtown Tulsa (with a vacated alley).  Otherwise, on a typical block with an alley, a 150,000 square foot building would need to be at least four stories tall, because 150,000 divided by 42,000 is 3.57.  

Wal-Mart would not be able to build a 150,000 square foot single-story building on a typical block in downtown Tulsa, not even on a block without an alley.  The City's deliberate choice to close and vacate public streets and alleys is what allows a single-story 150,000 square foot store to be built.  This is one reason I am opposed to the creation of more superblocks downtown.  Superblocks are urban destroyers.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by DScott28604


...But things can change. And, if the developer, Tom Seay, had come in and just said, "We're building a typical Wal-Mart", instead of throwing the word "urban" out at every opportunity, saying that of course it would have to fit into downtown and that it couldn't and shouldn't be a typical suburban-like store, I wouldn't be quite so upset...

I'd still be upset that it would be a typical big box planted in downtown. But it seems that he's trying to fool Tulsans into thinking this Wal-Mart is going to be a hip, urban store, when it's completely not. And that really bothers me.

If it is built as a typical suburban type of Wal-Mart development, then I doubt if Tulsans will be foolish enough to perceive it as hip and urban.

At this point, I'm not really very upset about the proposal because I haven't seen design drawings.  I know what's there now:  mostly single-story, unattractive, vacant buildings and lots of asphalt paving.  I know what I've read and heard about the proposal:

a.  Demolition of all existing buildings on the site
b.  Construction of a 150,000 square foot Wal-Mart store backing up to Lansing with brick and stucco on its exterior
c.  Construction of approximately 65,000 square feet of commercial space (in addition to the Wal-Mart store)
d.  Construction of some surface parking
e.  Construction of some multi-level parking
f.  Construction of multi-story residential (150 units)

Offhand, without seeing the proposed arrangement, the development seems as though it will be more vibrant and denser than what's there now.  That's only my perception.  And I will not be surprised if it pans out to be the typical suburban or anti-urban style of development which is so common in Tulsa.  I do care about good urban design, but I don't think most Tulsans think about it much at all.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

quote:Originally posted by waterboy
In time this WalMart will be cause the germination of many stores that will coat-tail onto their store.

You are right. I have never seen a Wal-Mart without a McDonalds nearby.

Great. Just what we need downtown.

We didn't want McDonalds at 15th & Utica either. But they did a respectable job, its quite busy and diagonally from it, an upscale restaurant opened called The Palace. Besides, McDonald's always has nice things to say about you.[]

I just drove by the area. How anyone could express disapointment or embarrassment is beyond me. Those two words describe its current state.

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by potomac13

I guess what goes around comes around.

Back in the 1950's when Tulsa was riding high on a wave of oil $'s, I can remember my father referring to the folks in the state just east as "Arkansawyers" – a put down on their supposed hillbilly origins.

Sixty years later, Arkansas WalMart has all the bucks and Tulsa is slobbering over one of their stores for downtown that symbolizes "cheap-cheap-cheap" – you can wrap a WalMart  in brick but it is like putting lipstick on a pig. Talk about a disgrace for downtown.

Wonder who looks like a hillbilly now?

I wonder what took Sam Walton, who was born in Kingfisher, worked in- and met his wife in Tulsa, to end up starting the World's Biggest Company in Bentonville, Arkansas?  Imagine how different Tulsa would be today if it, or Claremore, were the HQ of Wal-Mart.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

quote:Originally posted by potomac13

I guess what goes around comes around.

Back in the 1950's when Tulsa was riding high on a wave of oil $'s, I can remember my father referring to the folks in the state just east as "Arkansawyers" – a put down on their supposed hillbilly origins.

Sixty years later, Arkansas WalMart has all the bucks and Tulsa is slobbering over one of their stores for downtown that symbolizes "cheap-cheap-cheap" – you can wrap a WalMart  in brick but it is like putting lipstick on a pig. Talk about a disgrace for downtown.

Wonder who looks like a hillbilly now?

I wonder what took Sam Walton, who was born in Kingfisher, worked in- and met his wife in Tulsa, to end up starting the World's Biggest Company in Bentonville, Arkansas?  Imagine how different Tulsa would be today if it, or Claremore, were the HQ of Wal-Mart.

He probably couldn't find any investors here and the commissioners probably ran him off.