OH NO...not again...Toll Bridge???

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Tulsa was far more dense back in the day than it is now. Early on it had around 9,000 people per square mile.

9000 people per square mile is approximately 1/4 acre lots with 3 to 4 people per house.  Certainly more dense than now as an average but averages can be deceiving.  It would be interesting to have a map with the density of the developed areas.  For example: If a quarter section is developed but the remaining 3/4 square mile is not, show the developed area at its  density and show the remainder at its density rather than average it together.  Show the density as smooth contour lines like an elevation chart rather than by artificial borders.  I saw something similar to this at the "What about rail" meeting but I don't remember it being in fine enough detail.  There are probably areas of the metro area that meet or exceed 9000/sq mi or more.  I've seen some developments where the houses are packed in pretty close.  There will also be areas with the low density that many here complain about.

edit: darn no-line bifocals make it difficult to catch typos.

I think there is a misunderstanding, its more about the "proportions" of low, medium and high density thats important. When the VAST majority of ALL living is very spread out, low density,,, thats when things get a bit out of hand, inefficient, and expensive. And if there isnt a decent portion of higher density it becomes very, very, difficult to create it. Was reading on a different forum about how some in Austin were mentioning how even the high density living areas with lots of condos, the condos offer sometimes 2 parking spaces per unit. Even if the parking is structured, what it still means is that a good number of people still find it important to use cars to get everywhere, which again hurts the development of "pedestrian friendly" areas. People are still driving to the stores and to work etc. So you still need wide roads, businesses want parking lots, the walkable/pedestrian friendly "infrastructure" doesnt often happen which also stifles mass transit, etc.   Its kind of a self-reinforcing, feedback loop thats hard to break.  Where as even in some small towns in Europe you can see the traditional, midrise, 6 story buildings right up to the edge of town. The new buildings on the edges are just a continuation of that pattern, up to the sidewalk, 3-6 floors. The accepted norm is that people dont often have cars and want to be close to mass transit and walking/biking/scooter distance to lots of things. So the developers build what people want. Its a different kind of self-reinforcing, feedback loop.

Here is a town of about 150 thousand.
The central old part.



More of a "middle" part.


Close to the edge of town.


Aaaand the edge of town.


Notice the edge of town how it almost, suddenly ends. It doesnt turn into an endless sea of sprawl. There is even a mass transit line possibly going to the nearby larger city or another, similar "suburb".

I find it fascinating how even right up to the edge of town, and I have seen this in many examples, how similar sized buildings prevail. Again, many of those people may not have or even want cars. Many just walk/bike/scooter or mass transit to where they want to go. Its the prevailing habit, so even on the outskirts of town, the developers build accordingly.

Here is how we do it.

(now these examples may be extremes or ideals, but I am mostly trying to paint a picture and get an overriding idea across, and again, not everyone wants to live in the above example and nore do they. There are higher density and lower density areas and cities, its more about the proportion of people living in one way or another. We, especially in the midwest, tend to go too far imo, of having a majority of our people living...)

like this...

Living here.


Then a lot of us funnel onto roads.


And commute often like this.


Then drive to shopping districts like this.


Then pull in to places like this.


Perhaps head to work or back home like this.


And yes, I know, I know, I know. Some suburbanite will holler "But I CAN walk to places!"

Indeed.


And, OMG isnt this traffic horrible?


I remember reading some where how someone mentioned that it appears that the "ideal" city would have a population of around 100-150 thousand.  Then I remember seeing the pics and hearing about what Tulsa was like when it was that size. Then I kept seeing European towns of that size being shown on "Skyscraper forums" . At first in the photo thread I would think it was a larger city like Paris because of how the streets looked, but then would see that the person would put the name and population of the city and would constantly be amazed when I would see that the population of so many of those places was around 100 thousand or so. And they had mass transit options. So you dont need to have a large population or skyscrapers, you just need a certain amount of "compactness".

Plus, many of these towns and cities did indeed have suburbs as we know them, and some often have taller buildings and more "citylike" areas. But it appears the majority of the people lived in more traditional 6 story buildings.

I also noted when they were showing us how the maps that people create for the Comprehensive Plan exercises in other cities often fell into 2 categories. One tendancy was to have a very large, dominant central core then growth spread out from that. Then the other was more "nodal" there were many dense nodes dotting the landscape and connected by mass transit. Still a larger core, but not as large. Each node was also its own little core.

We are so, habitually ingrained, with the particular development pattern we have had over the last 50 years or so, that I think we (city planners, developers, homeowneres, etc) have forgotten and dont even consider that there may be other alternatives. And even if we want the alternative, we are so stuck and force molded by what we have so much of now, that its almost impossible to create something different. I mean just go back up there and look at the amount of asphault that we use for our current way of doing things. WE ALL have to pay for that.

 

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

quote:Originally posted by waterboy
Both executives and workers preferred to live away from the refineries, so the bridge allowed them a way to live comfortably in Tulsa but make their living in the oil fields.

Tulsa was the "suburban sprawl" of its early days.  Ironic indeed.

Tulsa was far more dense back in the day than it is now. Early on it had around 9,000 people per square mile. And mass transit to the "suburbs" lol.  There were plenty of other areas and towns to live away from the refineries and oil fields. The real history is, and you wont likely find it in your kids history books, is that Tulsa had the Hotels, Hookers and gambling. Thats what really made Tulsa different than all the other small towns. They built a bridge across the river so that the money could buy the goods. The oil field workers could spend their money and sow their wild oats here. The oil barons and stary eyed businessmen and prospectors from back east could stay in the fancy hotels to wheel and deal, and I am sure they sowed their share of oats as well. Once the big money set up shop here in the hotels, then came more buildings, big churches, fancy houses, airport, etc.

It was the hotels and the hookers that built Tulsa. The men and their money would have got here one way or the other, bridge or no. The bridge just sealed the deal.

That's an interesting take. However, Creek county was full of hookers, hotels and stills. Redfork had anything you wanted too. Most of the small towns around the area had the goods and "services" necessary to satisfy the common needs or could get to them by railroad & ferry.

As in most times, people followed the opinion leaders, the movers and shakers and those folks preferred to be upwind and looking down upon their investments. For instance the McBirney mansion has a fine view from above as did the Cosden home and neither one of them had to worry about flooding.

Artist, I appreciate your view for higher density that rivals Tulsa's early days. I live in one of those dense neighborhoods and dearly love it. It was more convenient in its day when the residents could walk a few blocks to 18th & Boston and get groceries, baked goods, services etc. (now its mostly walk over and get a good meal and some hillbilly beer). But I doubt most of Tulsa wants that anymore.

When I see those interesting pics of European or East Coast cities that embrace the walkable concept I think just how foreign that is to kids who grew up in the suburban mindset. How much of Tulsa that isn't already in a walkable  neighborhood really wants to live this way? Gotta' ask doncha know.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

quote:Originally posted by waterboy
Both executives and workers preferred to live away from the refineries, so the bridge allowed them a way to live comfortably in Tulsa but make their living in the oil fields.

Tulsa was the "suburban sprawl" of its early days.  Ironic indeed.

Tulsa was far more dense back in the day than it is now. Early on it had around 9,000 people per square mile. And mass transit to the "suburbs" lol.  There were plenty of other areas and towns to live away from the refineries and oil fields. The real history is, and you wont likely find it in your kids history books, is that Tulsa had the Hotels, Hookers and gambling. Thats what really made Tulsa different than all the other small towns. They built a bridge across the river so that the money could buy the goods. The oil field workers could spend their money and sow their wild oats here. The oil barons and stary eyed businessmen and prospectors from back east could stay in the fancy hotels to wheel and deal, and I am sure they sowed their share of oats as well. Once the big money set up shop here in the hotels, then came more buildings, big churches, fancy houses, airport, etc.

It was the hotels and the hookers that built Tulsa. The men and their money would have got here one way or the other, bridge or no. The bridge just sealed the deal.

That's an interesting take. However, Creek county was full of hookers, hotels and stills. Redfork had anything you wanted too. Most of the small towns around the area had the goods and "services" necessary to satisfy the common needs or could get to them by railroad & ferry.

As in most times, people followed the opinion leaders, the movers and shakers and those folks preferred to be upwind and looking down upon their investments. For instance the McBirney mansion has a fine view from above as did the Cosden home and neither one of them had to worry about flooding.

Artist, I appreciate your view for higher density that rivals Tulsa's early days. I live in one of those dense neighborhoods and dearly love it. It was more convenient in its day when the residents could walk a few blocks to 18th & Boston and get groceries, baked goods, services etc. (now its mostly walk over and get a good meal and some hillbilly beer). But I doubt most of Tulsa wants that anymore.

When I see those interesting pics of European or East Coast cities that embrace the walkable concept I think just how foreign that is to kids who grew up in the suburban mindset. How much of Tulsa that isn't already in a walkable  neighborhood really wants to live this way? Gotta' ask doncha know.

I dont think we are somehow genetically different from those people who automatically assume that "walkable, pedestrian oriented, non car centered" development is their norm. I think its just mostly force of habit. Interestingly though, the trend actually is that a lot of young people DO want to "live that way", they DO want what I have described.
Not everyone does, but a growing and ever larger number of people do. The notion that this very thread originally brought up is partly a battle over what direction we want, to either continue heading in and spending our resources on the usual, or do we start shifting more towards a different way and take that development strategy into consideration. Its not as though we dont have plenty of "suburban" living options around here lol. There is no balance what so ever.  If more and more people want something similar to what I have described... where is it? We keep habitually building more and more of the same. And we are choosing as a city and its suburbs to put in the infrastructure/zoning/parking requirements/etc. for more of it. That doesnt help, it actually hurts the prospects for trying to get some change of direction for those who DO want it. IMO we have enough roads and bridges and parking. Lets "hold the line" when we can and nurture a different option a little more. When we made the old comprehensive plan we intentionally changed our development path from the previous way of doing things. We did it before, we can do it again. Its kind of ironic to keep pointing and saying... see thats what people want cause they keep buying it, when its the only option available for purchase in the first place, and at this point we have made it very difficult to create the other option, or even just get it started. How do we know what people would choose when there isnt the other option to choose from?    1. For the most part its actually ILLEGAL to create what I have described. You have to get an exception in order to do so. 2. The current infrastructure and "built environment" inhibit the creation of dense, pedestrian friendly areas. 3. We continue to put a lot of thought, energy, resources and money into "enabling" the current pattern.  

[waterboy]

It seems the answer then would be in convincing those who develop and build that it is monetarily worth their changing direction rather than trying to blunt their efforts at suburbanizing or forcing them to change with comprehensive plans and zoning. That will merely create more powerful resistance.

The other group that has to be convinced that it is in their interest is the political powers who derive their employment from satisfying the suburbanites. You can't expect Christiansen to turn his back on his constituents. When we were a commissioner style government the common good could be accomplished but not when its councillor based.

The public demand would have to be overwhelming to overcome these two groups and it is not. When you look at the political climate in Tulsa being so negative you can see that its going to take an awesomely popular leadership group to make it happen. Either that or a sudden influx of wealth distributed throughout the city so that we aren't sniping at each other.

I don't want to troll this thread too long and I'm not as deep into it as you are. If the demand is there, it may already be happening. White City, 41st & Yale, Whittier square, Holiday Hills, and others are either there or almost there. Wouldn't take much to add some sidewalks, some pedestrian bridges, etc. to facilitate more bikes and walkers in those areas. And I guess that's where the comprehensive plan updates are going to be so important. But you still have to show the two major groups, developers and politico's how it not only benefits them but enhances their success. Otherwise they'll continue to ignore or redirect the movement. To me developments like Tulsa Hills, Riverwalk, River District are efforts to suck developmment away from walkable areas as they serve no particular neighborhoods. I am doubtful that they will ever create enough residential tenants to be a neighborhood. Thats window dressing. They are the Woodland Hills of the times.

[Red Arrow]

I would like to see a dense, walkable, urban area for those that want it. Just don't try to force it on an area that doesn't want it just because the area is presently trendy.  If the economics are there, it will work. If there are only a few vocal groups that want it, eventually it will fail. The problem I see is that developers seem to want to cater to the "upscale" groups which will cause further economic stratification. This will cause even more suburban sprawl as the less economically able (poor folks)have to leave the denser areas.  Tulsa's parking lots need to be turned into housing affordable and attractive to the middle class.  

I know this is straying from the original thread. The local facts are that suburban sprawl will not stop until there is a desirable alternative.  Using the river as a boundary seems like it will cause a Big Box store at 141st and Yale as well as 121st and Yale when a bridge would stop that in its tracks.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

I would like to see a dense, walkable, urban area for those that want it. Just don't try to force it on an area that doesn't want it just because the area is presently trendy.  If the economics are there, it will work. If there are only a few vocal groups that want it, eventually it will fail. The problem I see is that developers seem to want to cater to the "upscale" groups which will cause further economic stratification. This will cause even more suburban sprawl as the less economically able (poor folks)have to leave the denser areas.  Tulsa's parking lots need to be turned into housing affordable and attractive to the middle class.  

That's exactly what the elitist a**holes on this  board want, economic cleansing to rid these trendy areas of the affordable housing so those in lower income brackets will be forced to leave. Just look at the housing that is being developed downtown, taxpayer subsidized luxury lofts, while the homeless and the affordable housing that does exist is being cleansed from downtown. They are only concerned with the welfare of and for the wealthy. Another example is the Pearl District pork. Economic segregation is the name of their game.