How do you add density...?

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by cdowni

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

Allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

This has been considered by the TMAPC in the past few years.  

So were conservation districts and they both went nowhere fast. Did the C.O.R.E. proposals ever make it to the TMAPC only to die a silent death and get buried in the bureaucracy? It's time for Tulsa, especially in regards to infill, to start doing it's own planning and that starts with it's own planning commission. Neighborhood sensitive, appropriate infill that adds density while maintaining the character and quality of life in a neighborhood is possible. The TMAPC and to a greater degree, INCOG staff have a dismal record in this regard. City Planners have come up with some great plans that sit on shelves or get ignored by INCOG staff or the TMAPC. They should stick to regional planning like the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan and let the city of Tulsa and Tulsans be the ones who decide, implement, and enforce the planning process for Tulsa's future.

i couldn't agree with you more. i've always disliked incog. what is the point of it? is there any way the city could get out of it, or disband it or something?

Get rid of INCOG. It's as simple as not renewing their contract. It's just a matter of having a Mayor and Council with the political will to do it. It's like DTU and the disservices they provide through the tax assessment district downtown. Simply not putting ink to paper would rid ourselves of them both.

I agree on DTU and INCOG land planning services.  We would need to be very careful to insist on fairness in how a City Planning Commission would be established and how the commissioners would be elected and/or appointed.  Otherwise, you know what would happen.

I'd like to see a planning commission made up of one representative from each council district, one representative from the Mayor's office, and one representative from the County Commission to mirror the current 11 Commissioner make-up of the TMAPC. I would prefer the Council district representatives be elected by a public vote, but if these positions were to be appointed I hope the nominations for each Council District be made by the Councilor for that district to go before a vote of the full Council for approval, instead of being Mayoral appointments. Futhermore, I would like to see the terms of these appointments to begin and end shortly after Council elections. So new Councilors aren't stuck with appointments made outside of their term.

Problem is guys like you, me and CP won't be the ones on the task force to study this issue and make recommendations. We don't have the gold, we don't get to make the rules. The GOB pay to plan rule is strictly enforced in these matters.

[RecycleMichael]

Electing more people by council district is unnecessary. We have a councilor already.

Would these be like councilor-lite(a certain percentage less powerful than a regular councilor)? Councilor wanna-bees? Would the councilor be responsible for the new vice-councilor views and actions?

I think having more elections just to have more elected officials sounds like just more government bureacracy. I know, let's decorate their offices with red tape...

[pmcalk]

Actually, if the city decides to move to a City Planning Commission, state law would require that one person be appointed from each district.  However, the appointments would still be made by the mayor, not city council, and unlike the current set up, those appointments would not need city council approval.  The commissioners would also serve 6 years instead of 3.

Sorry, side topic.

[sauerkraut]

Apartments mean more crime. I would never buy a home next to Apartments. I also would avoid buying a home next to a school and shopping center.[:O]

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

Actually, if the city decides to move to a City Planning Commission, state law would require that one person be appointed from each district.  However, the appointments would still be made by the mayor, not city council, and unlike the current set up, those appointments would not need city council approval.  The commissioners would also serve 6 years instead of 3.

Which state law or laws require all of that?  Any why?

Title 11, Section 47-103 sets the make up of any city planning commission for cities with populations over 200,000.

quote:
The city planning commission shall consist of nine (9) members to be appointed by the mayor, if the mayor be an elective officer, otherwise by such officer as the council may designate as the appointing power in the ordinance creating the commission. In a municipality which is divided into wards or other subdivisions for the election of members of the council, one member shall be appointed to the planning commission from each of the wards or subdivisions. All members of the commission shall serve as such without compensation, and the members shall hold no other municipal office, except that one member may be a member of the zoning board of adjustment or appeals. The term of each member shall be six (6) years or until his successor is appointed and qualified; except that when the commission is first appointed, the respective terms of three of the members shall be three (3), four (4) and five (5) years. Members may be removed by the mayor, after a public hearing, for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. The mayor shall file a written statement of reasons for the removal. Vacancies occurring otherwise than through the expiration of term shall be filled for the unexpired term by the mayor or by the appointing power designated by the council in municipalities in which the mayor is not an elective officer.

I'll be the first to admit I am no expert, but I do believe this would be the section the city would have to abide by.  I don't know the reason why it is required.

[pmcalk]

So we don't steal Ponderinc's topic, any additional discussion about city planning can go here.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

Actually, if the city decides to move to a City Planning Commission, state law would require that one person be appointed from each district.  However, the appointments would still be made by the mayor, not city council, and unlike the current set up, those appointments would not need city council approval.  The commissioners would also serve 6 years instead of 3.

Sorry, side topic.

As a charter city we have the flexibility to tweak this to make it work the way I stated. FYI.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

So we don't steal Ponderinc's topic, any additional discussion about city planning can go here.

I think this is on topic, my response to the question of this thread is you let the city do the infill planning for the city, that's the best way to add density. Seems on topic to me. There's a few others who have agreed that INCOG and the TMPAPC should not be doing increased density infill planning and the city should be doing it.

Does that make you uncomfortable? You seem to be the only one insinuating this thread has somehow been hijacked. This ain't no PlaniTulsa Partners and Advisors meeting, it's a public forum, you don't control the direction this discussion naturally evolved towards in response to a simple question, nor do I(as much as it hurts my ego to say it).

[PonderInc]

Allowing Accessory Dwelling Units is a great idea...but again, there's resistance.  I think people are simply scared of "change" and uncertainty.

However, I think that density has one major image problem that must be overcome: the associated cars.  

Think about it: most people's biggest concern with any new development, PUD, or plan for a new apartment/condo boils down to cars: traffic, parking, noise, safety.  

Here's what you hear:
"The parking lot is so big, they want to tear down 4 single-family homes to build it!"
"Where are they going to park when someone has a party?"
"There are going to be people racing around on our streets!"
"We don't want them cutting through our neighborhoods."  
"It won't be safe for the kids anymore b/c of the additional traffic."  
"I don't want them parking in front of MY house!"
etc, etc, etc.

The solution is workable transit.

If you eliminate the car/parking problems (by creating workable transit options), then, all of a sudden, density is not a bad thing.  (Who's going to complain b/c there are too many people walking around on the sidewalks? ...Or that you're bumping into too many friends at the local coffee shop?)

This won't solve the problem of simple prejudice "I don't want those people around here"...but it would certainly solve most of the negative issues associated with density.

Now if we can just get some mixed use....

[USRufnex]

It's a nice night tonight... okay, a little hot, buy hey...... I'd like to take the bus tonight up Lewis to downtown/east end/brady... or maybe south to the Jenks Riverwalk...

Last bus was a couple of hours ago... and that  one I saw had maybe 2-3 people on it.

Typical.

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc
(Who's going to complain b/c there are too many people walking around on the sidewalks? ...Or that you're bumping into too many friends at the local coffee shop?)

Great for downtown.  

I don't want it in my neighborhood no matter how upscale it would be. We don't have sidewalks and I don't want them.

[carltonplace]

You don't want sidewalks because no one in your neighborhood walks? You prefer that mothers push their strollers in the streets next to traffic? No one in your neighborhood uses a wheel chair? Kids on bikes belong in the streets?

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

You don't want sidewalks because no one in your neighborhood walks? You prefer that mothers push their strollers in the streets next to traffic? No one in your neighborhood uses a wheel chair? Kids on bikes belong in the streets?

People walk.  They walk their dogs. At least one person I know walks from an adjacent neighborhood. I've seen mothers (and fathers) with strollers. Kids ride in the street. (I thought Tulsa didn't allow bicycles on the sidewalks, we are actually in Bixby.) I don't remember seeing any wheelchairs lately but I have seen some electric scooters with small tires, the size of the ones on the front of a wheelchair. There isn't any reason a wheelchair couldn't be used on the street.

I don't have to shovel snow or clear ice from sidewalks in the winter. I also don't have to maintain a ribbon of concrete and probably curbs. (Did that in a previous life, or at least my dad did.)  Life isn't quite as hectic out here in suburbia.

It's one of the advantages of low density living.

There's nothing wrong with the things you want, if that's what you want. All I ask is that some people recognize (not even accept or understand) that not everyone wants to live in a dense place.  This ties back to the original post by PonderInc about how to "add density without freaking out the neighborhood".  The answer is that if the neighborhood doesn't want density, you can't do it without freaking them out.  It doesn't matter how attractive you make it to people that like density.

Come out and visit sometime, but drive slow. If you hit one of our kids or mothers with strollers, we'll get you.

[Renaissance]

Totally understand and appreciate your preference-based argument.

The only real problem is that sprawl, while preferred by many, is not sustainable given new economic realities (price of oil, price of construction).  This is why the streets are such a wreck.  Someone should do a street mile per capita comparison decade by decade in Tulsa.  It would show the increasing cost of supporting the infrastructure of the city.

My point, then, is that urban density is not simply an aesthetic preference.  It is a fiscal necessity for a thriving metro area that wishes to be able to maintain its infrastructure.  So when the question is posed, "how to increase density," it's the equivalent of "how to keep the core infrastructure from becoming decrepit."

[carltonplace]

Ever read "The Big Sort" by Bill Bishop? He suggests that we place ourselves closer together or further apart based on political affiliations and ideological beliefs: we are creating homogeneous communities where everyone thinks like we do. Its an interesting idea and it has some merit when you compare the types of folks that live in burbs to those that live urban.