Tulsa Street Names

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

The Pattons did not indicate a cemetery at 2nd and Frisco on their plat, which leads me to believe that they might have overlooked an old burial ground while they were surveying the townsite from August until December 1901.  Human bones were unearthed in that vicinity from time to time for many years and as recently as 2005 when site work began for the BOK Center arena.  If anyone has additional information on that cemetery (or burial ground), please post it.  I suspect that the most recent Tulsa World articles (from 2005) about the origins of that cemetery are incorrect.

The cemetery is marked on the 1915 Sanborn Fire Maps, Sheets 11, 17, 43, and 44. (Sheet 44 also shows the location of the Sand Springs Bottling Co. Pop Factory, the Tulsa Street Railway barn, and a "Bluff Line" just a bit west of the cemetery. 2nd wasn't open west of Guthrie, evidently because of the terrain, and it was a dead end between Guthrie and the cemetery.)

I think I've found part of the answer in Phil Mulkins' "Action Line" column in last Halloween's issue of the Tulsa World.

What I was wondering is why Gus Patton did not indicate the cemetery on the plat of the townsite in 1901.

I was using several sources of information:

1.  Sanborn maps -- the cemetery first appeared on the 1907 edition (sheet .  It was shown in the northwest portion of Block 99 and in Second St to the north of Block 99.  The 1907 Sanborn also shows that the alley in Block 100 had been revised as an east-west alley.  On the 1901 Patton plat, Block 100 has a north-south alley.  Later editions of the Sanborn maps indicate a cemetery more centered on the intersection of Second and Frisco.

2.  The Beginning of Tulsa, by J.M. Hall.  Hall mentions that Tulsa's first cemetery was laid out in 1882, but he doesn't give a location.  It seemed strange to me that the Patton survey crew could miss a cemetery less than 20 years old, or not acknowledge it on the plat.

3.  Dr. S.G. Kennedy's memoirs.  Kennedy descibes a number of early trails and roads around Tulsa.  He mentions an old "burial ground" west of Tulsa off First Street.  Kennedy used the term "burial ground" instead of "cemetery" in his account.  

4.  An 1898 USGS map.  I see no cemetery near the vicinity of what would be platted as Second and Frisco in 1901.  It seems to me that a cemetery established in 1882 would show up on a USGS map published 16 years later.

Phil Mulkins' November 2, 2007 column included even more information about the cemetery.





How could Gus Patton and his survey crew miss a cemetery this large, or why would they not indicate it at all on their 1901 townsite plat?

The (boo)World may never know...



 

[spoonbill]

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

The biggest culture shock to me was the year I moved to Houston (1991).  Talk about no rhyme or reason to the streets.  All over the place, names changed after intersections, with directions, and if you didn't have a Key Map you were a goner (this is before the days of TomTom).

I used to tell people that if you gave me two addresses in Tulsa, I could tell you the quickest way to get between the two without a map.  I think I can still do it.

Try Boston. That will get you going in Circles.

[Red Arrow]

Try a lot of the northeastern U.S.  A compass is useless. Follow the Route numbers or you will get hopelessly lost.

[bugo]

quote:Originally posted by Steve

Whatever the original rhyme or reason for Tulsa street naming conventions are, I think it makes Tulsa a very easy city to navigate, especially the alphabetical order of named streets in the older parts of town.  That was a brilliant idea; I don't know why more cities Tulsa's age and younger did not do the same.

I have lived here all of my 50+ years and the street naming system is ingrained in my brain, but I know people that move here from other areas and they also have said that the naming/numbering system, once learned, makes perfect sense and makes for easy navigation and location of addresses.

I'm newish here, and I agree with you to a point.  If you're talking about Midtown addresses, you're absolutely right,  But there are also some confusing aspects of the street system.  The E-W streets having a N and a S counterpart, the numbered N-S streets out west and way out east, the streets inexplicably changing name in BA, and the abundance of parallel streets having the same name with a different suffix (XX Street, XX Place, etc).  All of this can make Tulsa extremely confusing to the outsider.  But getting around in the area from roughly downtown to Yale or Sheridan and points south is pretty simple to get around in.

[sauerkraut]

quote:Originally posted by deinstein

The west/east of the Mississippi is an urban myth. For example, St. Louis Ave. It's west of the Mississippi River, but east of Tulsa.

I don't know how much of a myth it is. Tulsa has streets named "Boston" "Cincinatti" and "Denver" which is west of Tulsa. I have heard the same thing  that Connan 71 mentioned. They say every myth has some truth in it (or whatever that saying is).[xx(]

[sauerkraut]

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

The biggest culture shock to me was the year I moved to Houston (1991).  Talk about no rhyme or reason to the streets.  All over the place, names changed after intersections, with directions, and if you didn't have a Key Map you were a goner (this is before the days of TomTom).

I used to tell people that if you gave me two addresses in Tulsa, I could tell you the quickest way to get between the two without a map.  I think I can still do it.

I did not know that about Houston- I find the streets in Salt Lake City hard to get a handle on if you look at a map you'll see what I mean, also Atlanta, GA is ruff, they have no grid patterns and every street has the name "PeachTree" in it or so it seems. Metro-Detroit where I grew up has one of the most easy grid patterns for streets, 8 mile, 9 mile, 10 mile, 11 mile road and so at each mile, the N.S. streets are also layed out at 1-mile sections with minor streets at the half mile mark. Tulsa is pretty easy too.[8D]

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71


I was told a long time ago that the north/south named streets east of Main St. are named after cities east of Tulsa, those west of main street are named after cities west of Tulsa.

In the original plat, Houston Avenue (if named for Houston,Texas) is the only one which doesn't fit that pattern.  Houston is slightly east of Tulsa.

[Steve]

quote:Originally posted by bugo

quote:Originally posted by Steve

Whatever the original rhyme or reason for Tulsa street naming conventions are, I think it makes Tulsa a very easy city to navigate, especially the alphabetical order of named streets in the older parts of town.  That was a brilliant idea; I don't know why more cities Tulsa's age and younger did not do the same.

I have lived here all of my 50+ years and the street naming system is ingrained in my brain, but I know people that move here from other areas and they also have said that the naming/numbering system, once learned, makes perfect sense and makes for easy navigation and location of addresses.

I'm newish here, and I agree with you to a point.  If you're talking about Midtown addresses, you're absolutely right,  But there are also some confusing aspects of the street system.  The E-W streets having a N and a S counterpart, the numbered N-S streets out west and way out east, the streets inexplicably changing name in BA, and the abundance of parallel streets having the same name with a different suffix (XX Street, XX Place, etc).  All of this can make Tulsa extremely confusing to the outsider.  But getting around in the area from roughly downtown to Yale or Sheridan and points south is pretty simple to get around in.

Good points, but in Tulsa proper, always remember N-S numbered street will be East or West Avenues, with the exceptions being arterial roads.  As far as street/place/court suffixes are concerned, they will always be in succession, right next to each other in the grid.  I believe Tulsa naming convention dictates the first street to be named "Street," the second to be "Terrace" or "Court," the third to be named "Place."  Regardless, they will always be right in a row next to each other.  The naming of streets as St., Place, Terrace, Court, comes from curvature of the streets and conforming to the basic grid pattern, but all streets with the same number but different suffix will always be within 1-2 blocks of each other.

I guess it is all so simple to me, having lived here all my life.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

The Pattons did not indicate a cemetery at 2nd and Frisco on their plat, which leads me to believe that they might have overlooked an old burial ground while they were surveying the townsite from August until December 1901.  Human bones were unearthed in that vicinity from time to time for many years and as recently as 2005 when site work began for the BOK Center arena.  If anyone has additional information on that cemetery (or burial ground), please post it.  I suspect that the most recent Tulsa World articles (from 2005) about the origins of that cemetery are incorrect.

The cemetery is marked on the 1915 Sanborn Fire Maps, Sheets 11, 17, 43, and 44. (Sheet 44 also shows the location of the Sand Springs Bottling Co. Pop Factory, the Tulsa Street Railway barn, and a "Bluff Line" just a bit west of the cemetery. 2nd wasn't open west of Guthrie, evidently because of the terrain, and it was a dead end between Guthrie and the cemetery.)

I think I've found part of the answer in Phil Mulkins' "Action Line" column in last Halloween's issue of the Tulsa World.

What I was wondering is why Gus Patton did not indicate the cemetery on the plat of the townsite in 1901.

I was using several sources of information:

1.  Sanborn maps -- the cemetery first appeared on the 1907 edition (sheet .  It was shown in the northwest portion of Block 99 and in Second St to the north of Block 99.  The 1907 Sanborn also shows that the alley in Block 100 had been revised as an east-west alley.  On the 1901 Patton plat, Block 100 has a north-south alley.  Later editions of the Sanborn maps indicate a cemetery more centered on the intersection of Second and Frisco.

2.  The Beginning of Tulsa, by J.M. Hall.  Hall mentions that Tulsa's first cemetery was laid out in 1882, but he doesn't give a location.  It seemed strange to me that the Patton survey crew could miss a cemetery less than 20 years old, or not acknowledge it on the plat.

3.  Dr. S.G. Kennedy's memoirs.  Kennedy descibes a number of early trails and roads around Tulsa.  He mentions an old "burial ground" west of Tulsa off First Street.  Kennedy used the term "burial ground" instead of "cemetery" in his account.  

4.  An 1898 USGS map.  I see no cemetery near the vicinity of what would be platted as Second and Frisco in 1901.  It seems to me that a cemetery established in 1882 would show up on a USGS map published 16 years later.

Phil Mulkins' November 2, 2007 column included even more information about the cemetery.





How could Gus Patton and his survey crew miss a cemetery this large, or why would they not indicate it at all on their 1901 townsite plat?

The (boo)World may never know...

I found a little more information on the cemetery at 2nd and Frisco at the Tulsa City-County Libary Genealogy Center last week:

From Bill Inglis's Illustrated Guide to the Cemeteries of Tulsa County, Oklahoma:

"If you had the misfortune to die of gunshot wounds, or otherwise, during your stay in Tulsey, you probably were buried near 2nd and Frisco.  It really wasn't ever 'officially' designated as a cemetery, so when the streets were laid out the graves were just dug up and re-interred in the new Oaklawn Cemetery, way out of town on 11th Street."