New Downtown Plan is Old School

[Walt Henry]

New Downtown Plan is Old School

The recently released Downtown Master Plan by Jack Crowley does an admirable job of incorporating past plans and existing projects, maybe too good a job, since this plan differs little from the plan he produced for Downtown Tulsa Unlimited in 1989. While some of the details vary, the plan's main ideas reflect planning and urban design practice found in the previous work. The crude hand drawn sketches of the plan show a disjointed patchwork of private developments supported by expensive public infrastructure projects. This framework is not surprising given the top down methodology employed to produce the plan. The plan claims that the process was extensive, transparent, broad-based and participatory, but the fact is that most of the interaction consisted of Mr. Crowley having discussions and making presentations to groups with downtown interests. There were no public workshops like those used in PlaniTulsa, no published schedule, no website to receive comments, and no meaningful involvement by citizens outside the immediate downtown area.

With such a closed process it is hardly surprising that few new ideas emerged and the plan comes off as a series of isolated real estate development projects. Mr. Crowley seems to be obsessed with identifying uses for these with a hotel here, a few townhouses over there, the ever present hall of fame museum and even a Wal-Mart Supercenter. He employs none of the latest practices of urban design that focus on form instead of use to create a series of well-defined spaces, streets and squares. The suggested buildings and site plans look outdated; many such as the Banfield Site are dominated by parking and enclosed pedestrian courtyards that will see little use. Others like the Doubletree Hotel expansion propose outlandish megastructures that would be more common in the modernist fantasies of the 1960's.

Mr. Crowley's perspective drawings lack context and only a handful of large three-dimensional drawings are included, leaving much for the imagination to try to fill-in. The use of three-dimensional computer modeling, photomontage and GIS mapping could have greatly improved our ability to understand this plan.

The large public transportation projects proposed in the plan are even rougher and again employ some tired ideas, such as separating transportation modes using tunnels and bridges. The viaducts passing under the railroad tracks at Elgin and Greenwood Avenues are good example of this principle and we are forced to ask is the Denver Avenue underpass an example of good urban design. And despite the exorbitant light-rail and Boulder Avenue trolley proposals that do not really connect much, the plan is conventionally autocentric. Nearly ever building site has extensive off-street parking with some having enormous surface lots and garages. The proposed traffic circle at Detroit and Cincinnati Avenues at Standpipe Hill is designed to speed up traffic and is not the quaint roundabout it is described as. Pedestrian improvements are mentioned but no overall system is explored in-depth. These attitudes also show that the plan does not truly embrace the trend toward green city design and little can be found about sustainable design practices such as high performance building standards, district energy systems or green roofs to reduce stormwater run-off.

Overall, Mr. Crowley plows no new ground and in many ways ignores some of the major problems facing downtown such as poor demand for almost all real estate products, a convoluted land ownership pattern, dwindling municipal resources, underutilized infrastructure and the loss of buildings due to obsolescence. Tulsa needs a downtown plan and this one may have to do for the time being but lets not fool ourselves that the job is done at least not until some fresh ideas are added to it through a truly participatory process.

[TheArtist]

  I agree on many points.  I think "Crowleys plan" as it were does include some old ideas and some new "some of which were not all his but may have been perceived to be presented as such lol".  I do think he forwarded things and worked to keep the momentum going, and at least put on the table a broad starting point from which we can now more easily start to visualize a larger whole.  We can use this as a basis from which to move forward and overlay more "up to date" and contemporary/visionary ideas.

I would love to hear more about your ideas and perhaps we could begin the type of public process you speak of.  I do not think all the rough concepts or even details of this plan are intended to be written in stone, and I am sure we can go through a process and work to improve elements within it. I see this plan as an over all starting point upon which we can continually update the latest visionary thinking, while not rocking the boat too much. There is always going to have to be some give and take between "old school" and "new visionary" old entrenched interests and new ones.

We have a plan, its up there posted for everyone to see.  Lets talk about it, learn its ideas and about creative new ones, and propose improvements.  

[sgrizzle]

Poor demand for downtown real estate? Didn't a recent study show a need for 540 more units per year?

[Red Arrow]

Poor demand for downtown real estate? Didn't a recent study show a need for 540 more units per year?

What price range?

[PonderInc]

As far a I know, Crowley never turned down an opportunity to talk with an organization or group of people who were interested in the plan.  I think he did 3 different presentations just to TulsaNow folks, and he was certainly open to feedback and questions.  He would spend hours answering questions and providing details to anyone who cared.  Where have you been the past couple years?  Why the sudden interest in attacking it (on your first post)?

Here's the COT website that explains the downtown master plan, why it was done, and what it's trying to achieve:
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/community-programs/planning/downtown-master-plan.aspx

Here are links to the plan itself...
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/82484/volume1.pdf
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/82487/volume2.pdf
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/82490/volume3.pdf

And here's the info from the City website where they specifically ask folks to review and comment on the plan draft:

Comments
Please review the draft plan elements. Additional comments on the proposed "Downtown Area Master Plan" should be emailed to: downtownplan@cityoftulsa.org or call (918) 576-5663.

Contact Us
Principal Contributors - City of Tulsa:
Jack Crowley, PhD, FAICP, FASLA, Principal Author and Special Advisor to the Mayor on Urban Planning and Design
Susan Neal, Director, Community Development and Education Division
Stephen D. Carr, AICP, Senior Planner and Project Coordinator

Primary Contact
Stephen D. Carr, AICP, Senior Planner and Project Coordinator   
(918)576-5663

City of Tulsa Planning Department
City Hall at One Technology Center
175 E. 2nd Street, Suite 570
Tulsa, OK 74103
(918)576-5663

[Townsend]

Not really sure we'll hear from ol' Walt again.