Get your small area nomination in by Nov 17!

[PonderInc]

From the PLANiTULSA website...

Due Nov 17: Nominate an area for a small area planning workshop!

The PLANiTULSA team is requesting nominations for five areas in which to conduct these small area plans. Planning areas should be between 20 and 200 acres in size and should be illustrative of local planning issues that may be typical in other parts of the city.

Download and fill out the Nomination Form
Download application instructions

More info: http://www.planitulsa.org

[Double A]

Looks like the deadline has been extended to Dec 4. I nominate the areas west of the river currently occupied by the refineries for small area workshops.

[patric]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

Looks like the deadline has been extended to Dec 4. I nominate the areas west of the river currently occupied by the refineries for small area workshops.

Four days notice wasnt enough? []
Hadnt thought about the refinery area.  Good suggestion, as they wont be there forever.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by patric

Hadnt thought about the refinery area.  Good suggestion, as they wont be there forever.

True dat

[two lumps of shugh]

quote:
Hadnt thought about the refinery area.  Good suggestion, as they wont be there forever.

I heard an idea from a librarian at the Central branch downtown about that area. (I didn't catch her name.  Maybe she'll come forward to expand on her ideas here, on this forum.)

She envisioned a clutch of those slow-moving wind power generators, all along the river bank (west bank), silently creating energy for the city, within view of downtown.

Visionaries in our midst.

There could be greenspace (recaptured from industrial zone that's there now) right underneath the local wind farm. Actually, there's room for such wind turbines already on the north bank of the river (see park along Charles Page Blvd, called Newblock Park).

For more on wind turbines
http://www.pickensplan.com/act/

I notice 168 mayors have signed Pickens' Pledge
including:

T.L. Gramling, Mayor, Altus
Gene Brown, Mayor, Duncan
Tony Rivera, Mayor, El Reno
Philip Siberts, Mayor, Henryetta
Mick Cornett, Mayor, Oklahoma City
Mike Brown, Mayor, Weatherford

but not Tulsa

[TheArtist]

Just to flesh out the "small area nomination" thing a bit.  From what I understand, the 5 areas are to be representative areas. As in, you pick an area, not with the expectation that the ideas will be just for that 1 area, but so that the ideas can be applied to other similar areas.

For instance, Double A's suggestion of the refinery area could be applied to other industrial/brownfield type areas. The ideas that can work to revitalize, change, evolve, etc. that area could then be applied to say the industrial areas just north and east of downtown or any other similar areas in Tulsa.

Some other possible area types could be...

  A MALL type area, like around Woodland or the Promenade. What would we like to see happen in those types of areas? What are the possibilities?

 My personal interests revolve around how we could change areas like 21st and Garnett or 21st and 129th. I would like to possibly see some, even just one, of these typical shopping intersections in the East part of Tulsa evolve into more pedestrian friendly areas. Areas that give that part of town a sense of identity and pride. More of a Main Street type feel. Possibly have some zoning for mixed use and more dense, walkable developments to go in. Areas that can become transit hubs, likely bus, but where working class people can take the bus from their neighborhoods, go to the area, work, shop, run errands, etc. Would also be good for young people to bike to, get jobs, etc. I go to that part of town and everything seems so spread out and see a person walking or trying to ride a bike somewhere and it,, just doesnt work. The areas are inhospitable, yet lots of people live there. The areas do not look nice, dont foster a sense of identity or community. What could we do to make those areas work better, more pleasing, more hospitable and helpful for the people who live in that area or similar ones?

How about an Infill type area that has things we do not want to lose, yet that are likely to see growth, or that we want to see growth? Brookside, Cherry Street, Whittier Square, The Pearl District, etc.  They all have some similar characteristics, potential problems and opportunities. Choosing one type of area and thinking it through will give some general guidelines for all of them.

Remember, the 5 areas are to represent 5 types of areas.

What are some other areas or "area categories" that you can think of to nominate?

Mall/high traffic
Industrial/Brownfield
Typical shopping intersection
Infill with preservation concerns
Possible transit hub/rail/high density node

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by two lumps of shugh

quote:
Hadnt thought about the refinery area.  Good suggestion, as they wont be there forever.

I heard an idea from a librarian at the Central branch downtown about that area. (I didn't catch her name.  Maybe she'll come forward to expand on her ideas here, on this forum.)

She envisioned a clutch of those slow-moving wind power generators, all along the river bank (west bank), silently creating energy for the city, within view of downtown.

Visionaries in our midst.

There could be greenspace (recaptured from industrial zone that's there now) right underneath the local wind farm. Actually, there's room for such wind turbines already on the north bank of the river (see park along Charles Page Blvd, called Newblock Park).

For more on wind turbines
http://www.pickensplan.com/act/

I notice 168 mayors have signed Pickens' Pledge
including:

T.L. Gramling, Mayor, Altus
Gene Brown, Mayor, Duncan
Tony Rivera, Mayor, El Reno
Philip Siberts, Mayor, Henryetta
Mick Cornett, Mayor, Oklahoma City
Mike Brown, Mayor, Weatherford

but not Tulsa

I like the idea of wind turbines, however there are some things that have to be considered.

Not all areas are good for generating power. Check out a wind map and the Tulsa area doesnt rank highly at all. However, those maps are very general and there may possibly be some "microclimate" situations in or near Tulsa that might not be bad.

IF the city were going to spend money on building a decent number of wind turbines that could generate any real energy... Might it be wise to consider joining with some other investors in a good wind corridor area, or just putting in our own city sponsored wind farm and then using that as an investment that would pay Tulsa back. It would be an investment that would create energy, perhaps for a different community, BUT it would still be green energy, a way to help the environment and take the place of energy being produced by other means, And could produce a profit that could be used for other things in Tulsa (bus and or rail mass transit, recycling, parks, bike trails, etc?).

It wouldnt be smart to spend millions of dollars putting in wind generators IN Tulsa that couldnt even pay themselves off, let alone make a profit, and generate any real amount of energy sporadically throughout the year. When you could spend the same amount of money, get more energy onto the grid, and make a profit for the city.

The trick with a lot of this is Transmission Loss and cost of transmission infrastructure. You couldnt plop say 100 windmills in the Panhandle where there is a good wind corridor, then have lines that go all the way to Tulsa. There would be a relative trickle of electricity left by the time it got all the way here. Plus your paying big bucks on top of that for all the infrastructure. Unfortunately it seems that the closer you get to Tulsa the less "profitable wind" there is, but there is also less transmission loss and infrastructure cost. It would take people more determined than me to figure out if there is a happy medium some place in or nearby Tulsa that would make economic sense and not just be an expensive feel good, oh doesnt that look neat windmills by the river, measure.  

I frankly think it would be a great national example to have our city do something so "cutting edge" as to set up windmills in another part of the state or country. help take a community or town off the fossil fuels grid. Thus helping everyone, the world, use less fossil fuels. And we could probably make a profit doing it. Surely just as much of a profit as anyone could imagine in the best case scenario doing the same thing IN Tulsa.

Just throwing out the idea.

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by two lumps of shugh

She envisioned a clutch of those slow-moving wind power generators, all along the river bank (west bank), silently creating energy for the city, within view of downtown.

Wind turbines are not silent. People living near wind power farms in other parts of the country complain about the whooshing sound. I don't know how far the noise travels but they would need to be a reasonable distance from residential areas.

Wind is not constant.  The feasibility studies I have seen all use average wind speed. Average is good if you can use the above average wind to store energy for the less than average times. That technology needs to be developed. Until it is developed, using wind power will require conventional power generation to fill the gaps.  Assuming there will be periods when very little wind power can be generated, the conventional capacity will need to be near its present level. You cannot instantly start or stop a large steam powered generating plant.  The requirement for backup generation is always downplayed by wind proponents.  Let's develop wind power but realize it is still a few years away.

[Red Arrow]

Returning to the late 19th and early 20th century pedestrian friendly shopping model will be difficult.  

In some ways, the shopping malls are an attempt at high density pedestrian only shopping, (once you get inside the mall) obviously without the "main street" charm or atmosphere. They allow small shops to exist because of the traffic that would not exist elsewhere. The mall on the south side of 41st and Yale (Promenade?) was not enclosed when we moved here in 1971. It kind of had a main street feel but it had to enclose itself to remain competitive.  Main Street gets rain, snow, wind, cold, hot etc. If there were shopping malls with little or no automobile parking but with transit to the mall entrance, would that satisfy people here that it was transit and pedestrian friendly?  Take the bus or rail to the center and do your shopping without the hassle of walking across a parking lot. It wouldn't be that much different than the 69th Street shopping area in Upper Darby at the western edge of Philly, PA in the 1950s. It was a little difficult for mom dragging me along while only able to buy what she could carry. She occasionally tells me of an experience when I was young enough that I don't remember it. We lived a few blocks from 69th St and were able to walk there. On one trip, I got tired and sat down in the middle of West Chester Pike. She was carrying enough stuff that she couldn't just drag me to the curb. Fortunately, traffic was more sedate then and it stopped until mom could get me across the street.

The noise from the Spirit Center at Regal Plaza has shown that poorly planned Mixed Use development will be a hard sell. The limited parking at Regal Plaza will please some of the people on this forum. I would call that place truly automobile unfriendly.  I hope they get some kind of public transit. As a minimum, they need a shuttle operating from the parking garage during events which cause the other parking areas to fill.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

Returning to the late 19th and early 20th century pedestrian friendly shopping model will be difficult.  

In some ways, the shopping malls are an attempt at high density pedestrian only shopping, (once you get inside the mall) obviously without the "main street" charm or atmosphere. They allow small shops to exist because of the traffic that would not exist elsewhere. The mall on the south side of 41st and Yale (Promenade?) was not enclosed when we moved here in 1971. It kind of had a main street feel but it had to enclose itself to remain competitive.  Main Street gets rain, snow, wind, cold, hot etc. If there were shopping malls with little or no automobile parking but with transit to the mall entrance, would that satisfy people here that it was transit and pedestrian friendly?  Take the bus or rail to the center and do your shopping without the hassle of walking across a parking lot. It wouldn't be that much different than the 69th Street shopping area in Upper Darby at the western edge of Philly, PA in the 1950s. It was a little difficult for mom dragging me along while only able to buy what she could carry. She occasionally tells me of an experience when I was young enough that I don't remember it. We lived a few blocks from 69th St and were able to walk there. On one trip, I got tired and sat down in the middle of West Chester Pike. She was carrying enough stuff that she couldn't just drag me to the curb. Fortunately, traffic was more sedate then and it stopped until mom could get me across the street.

The noise from the Spirit Center at Regal Plaza has shown that poorly planned Mixed Use development will be a hard sell. The limited parking at Regal Plaza will please some of the people on this forum. I would call that place truly automobile unfriendly.  I hope they get some kind of public transit. As a minimum, they need a shuttle operating from the parking garage during events which cause the other parking areas to fill.

I dont think it ought to be seen as just the 19th and early 20th century shopping model. There is more to it that just shopping.

Transition. There is indeed an awkward transition time that occurs when you move an area from, or develop to, a more urban village type design. You even kind of touch on that with the Regal Plaza type development. Once its recognized that there "isnt enough parking", that its "car unfriendly" and that, that is unlikely to change... people start looking for other solutions. Aka, shuttles, mass transit, etc. In a suburban designed area people tend to look for suburban type answers, more parking and roads. In an urban, pedestrian friendly environment people will tend to more look towards different transit solutions. Once you get an area that is definitely one type or another, your kind of locked in to continuing that type of development and its difficult to transition to a different type.

Transition. Its kind of the chicken and the egg thing. If you want people to use mass transit, they have to be able to easily walk/bike to lots of places nearby. They need to live near the bus stop to get to it, they need to be near where they want to go when they get off the bus. In order to encourage higher density, your going to often push out the cars and start asking people to consider other transit options. The points from which we are starting are going to cause awkward and difficult transitions to occur. BUT if we ever want to have any true urban/pedestrian friendly type areas and not just have one growth pattern, that of car dependant, suburban sprawl,,, then we are going to have to go through those awkward transitions.

There are other things to consider about the urban village type model. Again, you cant just change one thing and everything be ok. It takes a collection of changes for the transition to be complete.

Mixed use:  Living above shops, behind grocery stores or starbucks lol (aka Bomasada or the new apartments on Brookside). In other words, higher density living close to higher density jobs and services. (For example, I believe I have mentioned that I regularly see a few people, mostly young, who ride their bikes from the apartment complexes on the south side of the highway near my house to work at the Promenade Mall. Not the most ideal situation, but it is an opportunity not as easily afforded people in many other parts of town.) When I was a Senior in Owasso going to high school. I walked 4 miles to school every morning. I would then catch an early bus to Tulsa Vo-Tech. I remembered thinking about trying to get a job somewhere so that I could buy a bike, but that every place was so far away. Just to even fill out job applications at various places would have been a difficult chore. The more people who live closer to more stuff, is a great opportunity, especially to young people and poorer people.    

pleasing safe public sidewalks and squares/parks, multiple transportation forms (bikes, scooters,rental bikes and scooters, walking, mass transit, rental cars, cars).  

 Its not just getting to and from these places that takes some changes and adjustments. Living in them also can take a change in mindset from the "suburban model". One small difference is that space may be more expensive in an urban environment, BUT the urban attitude doesnt just see it that way. The local coffee shop, pub (public house as they call it) etc, are part of your home, your space. The parks, plazas, sidewalks, are your yard (One reason they should be nice.Each person isnt spending their money on their own yard, but getting together and spending their money on their shared spaces.) The movie theater, is equivalent to the suburban home theater lol.

But again, it takes a lot of things all together to make it really work right. Once you get it truly started, it can take on a life of its own and grow. Just as the suburban model does. Not saying the suburban model is bad, but do want to say that there are a lot of people who like different types of urban living and it would be nice for Tulsa to offer some good examples of that.

The question then becomes,,, where might we want to nurture those types of developments? And how do we do it? Do we think some modicum of planning and foresight is worthwhile? (making sure all the components CAN come together and work together) Or do we just let things go willy nilly as they are and tackle each problem as we come to it?

I think I have shown this before but here it is in the context of "self-perpetuating" or the awkward nature of transitioning from one form to another. The "holistic" need to have multiple things under consideration. You cant just change one or two things and it work.

Look at this photo towards the central part of town...



Now look at this photo on the outskirts of the same town...

 

and this one further down the street...




You know whats interesting to me? The development doesnt go from density to sprawl. It doesnt go from taller buidings to one story buildings. Its "medium" sized buildings right up to the edge of town.

It doesnt go to this on the outskirts...


You see, if so many people are used to walking everywhere, dont have cars, take mass transit, scooters, bikes, etc.  Then if your a developer building something new on the edge of town, or the edge of this type of development in an area,,, and you want customers. You build pedestrian friendly development that everyone can get to. It tends to want to become self perpetuating.

If you had this....


You wouldnt build this right next door...


Even if you had room to do so just down the way...


Because most people wouldnt go there.

Its also just as awkward to change and self perpetuating when you have this...


and this...


And try to plop down a pedestrian friendly development next door. It just doesnt work as well.

Each "form" wants to self perpetuate itself. And we have ONE form that keeps wanting to replicate, on and on and on. Its going to be tricky to get a different form going and to have it work well.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Just to flesh out the "small area nomination" thing a bit.  From what I understand, the 5 areas are to be representative areas. As in, you pick an area, not with the expectation that the ideas will be just for that 1 area, but so that the ideas can be applied to other similar areas.

Just another example of more misleading and confusing rigmarole from PlaniTulsa. By that logic the plans from the North and East Tulsa small area workshops might not ever be put into action in North and East Tulsa, but used elsewhere in the city. Why even bother designating specific areas, if it won't pertain to them?

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Just to flesh out the "small area nomination" thing a bit.  From what I understand, the 5 areas are to be representative areas. As in, you pick an area, not with the expectation that the ideas will be just for that 1 area, but so that the ideas can be applied to other similar areas.

Just another example of more misleading and confusing rigmarole from PlaniTulsa. By that logic the plans from the North and East Tulsa small area workshops might not ever be put into action in North and East Tulsa, but used elsewhere in the city. Why even bother designating specific areas, if it won't pertain to them?

It can pertain to them,(if its decided in the master plan to do so) AND similar types of areas.

I dont think the city can say, "we want this exact building, this size, this type, this use, in this exact spot." in each different area of the city. People and businesses still own the property. You can use zoning and such to encourage different development types in an area. From now on whats built in this area we want it to evolve towards this general form and function.  Here is a vision, here are some steps we can take to encourage that vision in this type of area.

Once you have that, you can plop it down in all the similar areas of your choosing. Thats where the "Master" plan comes in. Once the master plan lays out all the different types of areas we want to see happen and where,,,You do the example in the workshop.  THEN those areas can lay on top of that, on top of the master plan, more specific guidelines that take into account that particular areas unique concerns.

For example. Brookside already has its own plan for a Main Street/Urban Village type development pattern. Whittier Square, Cherry Street, or the Pearl District couldnt take that exact plan and simply overlay it onto those areas. But they, or many other similar areas can take the general form of the Main Street/Urban Village and then add on top of it their more specific desires. Perhaps Whittier Square would want to say everything is brick. That they want a square with a fountain in the middle. Perhaps a 2 story height limit or 4, versus Brooksides 3 story limit. So the master plan would say, we want Whittier Square to be Urban Village, not industrial. Then Whittier Square goes in and does their own version of Urban Village. We want 21st and Garnett to be "Main Street". You zone for that in the master plan. Then the people, businesses, etc of that area can get more specific.

They arent going to pick 5 areas and say those are the only areas we want that type of development to occur in. You will do that type of area and then apply the concepts to any similar areas you wish, to help make up the over all master plan. Perhaps more people suggest the NE industrial area. The workshop may then choose to do the NE industrial area. But that does not preclude that in the master plan concensus we also include that same development type in the industrial area by the river, and some area in East Tulsa.

I think your wanting it to be something its not. After the different types of areas are laid out over the city. Then it will likely be up to the people in those areas, like Brookside, to add any specifics they want on top of that. We as a city can decide that we want a certain area to develope in a certain general direction,,, in the master plan. But it will in most cases be up to the people, businesses and interests of each area to make things more specific, if they want, on top of the general types of areas laid out in the master plan.

[Red Arrow]

Artist: (and others)

I agree that "shopping model" is too limited a description.  I think the late 19th and early 20th century part is essentially correct... there were very few automobiles, people depended on public transit or walked. Even then, not everything was as dense as you propose.  The Philadelphia, PA region had rail transportation well into the suburbs and places farther out.  (I keep referring to that area because that's where I spent my first 20 years.)  My mom lived in a rural area NNW of Philly but had train access to downtown about a mile away.  It was a long walk in bad weather but she didn't have a car.  Walk-and-ride, not park-and-ride.

Transition is indeed the difficult part.  I live about a mile from Regal Plaza. If I need to drive a mile to a park-and-ride lot to get on public transit to get to the Plaza, it is unlikely I will go without a specific need. Our large lot housing is not going to attract public transit, except maybe along Memorial.  In fact, I don't want buses driving down our street.  Trash trucks are bad enough.  Then it would depend on the cost of a ¾ mile ride whether or not it would be worth going.   We knew we would be car dependent when we moved here.  You have mentioned the 21st and Garnett area.  I agree it is not pedestrian friendly.  How to change it (if it should be changed) is a difficult question.  There is always the issue of what do the people already living there want?  Do urban village proponents have any more right to impose their desires than "sprawl" people do to tell urbanites to spread out?  You have said there is room for more than one development model.  

Mixed use:  I believe your picture of mixed use is more idealistic than mine.  Around the corner from the house where I grew up is actually pretty close to what I think you want.  (It's on Google Streets.  PM me and I'll give you the address.)  My mental picture of mixed use is more like some early scenes from the "Blues Brothers", "Stripes" and the sort.  I accept that my view is probably too pessimistic.

Public spaces:  The house where we lived when I was a kid was on about ¼ acre or maybe a bit less.  There was a nice park about 4 blocks away.  It had some wooded areas, hills, a creek, picnic tables, ball diamonds etc.  It was nice but I never considered it my space.  I lived in a dorm while at college. Between "my" dorm and our sister dorm was a common area.  There was a TV, a kitchenette, and maybe some other stuff I don't remember.  It was a place to go but I never considered it my space.  I lived in a 4-man room in the barracks when I was in the Navy at Virginia Beach. (I know, tough duty.)  There was a commons area, even with beer machines.  Again, I never considered it my area.  Your urban attitude can accept the park, sidewalk, plazas, Pub, coffee shop, etc as your space.  I'm glad you can and there is nothing wrong with that.  I admit I just see more expensive living with places to go that are just that, places to go.

You say the suburban model isn't bad but want an area for urban types. I agree. The question is where.  There have been some posts on here that ask why the urban types should "be forced" to live downtown instead of converting an existing area to their dreams against the wishes of many of the existing residents.  I ask why not downtown?  Isn't that what "you" want?  Convert some of those parking lots to mixed-use living.  Pretty much wherever new mixed use goes, it will require renovation or new build. It will be pricey but in a few decades the economically challenged will be able to move in.

The pictures you show of high density not slowly changing to sprawl are interesting.  I believe you have posted them before.  When I visited Germany in 1995, my friend's cousin had a pilot's license.  We made a big circuit around the Frankfurt am Main area.  Even the suburban areas with houses and apartments ended abruptly, unlike the USA.   I expect that even in the USA where sprawl and high density meet, it is because they grew toward each other.  Actually, many recently developed areas near Tulsa also end abruptly.  You can see a quarter section filled with houses so close you cannot drive a car between them surrounded by totally undeveloped areas.

You posted a picture of what appears to be a European city (with a McD's) and say if you had that, that you wouldn't want – then you posted a picture of a Lowes with a huge parking lot.  I agree.  I don't know who would want that. Where to put that is another whole question.  We live in the SE corner of 111th and Memorial. I didn't want the Lowes, the Wal-Mart, all the strip shops etc.  I go to Lowes because it would be stupid to go to 71st Street with one only ½ mile away.  I walked there during the ice storm last December to get a new chain for my chainsaw.   I go to the Wal-Mart for the same reason.  I was happier with the Wal-Mart at 91st.  The only thing moving WalMart to 111th did was bring more traffic 2 miles farther south. The only other stores between 111th and 101st that I can think of that I patronize are occasionally the Quiznos and Schlotsky's and the Food Pyramid, the liquor store by Pyramid and Aldi's.  I got a new cell phone at the AT&T store but that was a one-time visit.  I suppose it could have been possible to put the strip center stores crammed together and closer to the street to give it a main street feel.  Memorial is probably too big, or perhaps too much of a through road. I think 11th street was Route 66 years ago.  It looks like it could have been kind of like your "main street".  It's probably also why the Skelly Bypass was built.   I liked S. Memorial a lot more when those places were fields, woods, and horse pastures. Additional low density housing would not have required (so much) road expansion.  I say if you want to live 5 feet from you neighbor, live in the city. You probably think that is sprawl.  I think if there were a Big Box (but not home improvement) store at the edge of your European town, people would go there.  Since there is a (real) trolley running down the street median, they wouldn't need the parking lot.  Since they live in apartments, they wouldn't need a home improvement center.

Plopping a pedestrian friendly development next door to your last picture could work.  It wouldn't be a part of it, just next door.  The street with the car dealers, McD's, and the Exxon station would be difficult to do anything else with unless there was an undeveloped end to the stuff there. Then, as people chose the pedestrian way of life, the car oriented stuff would die out and the pedestrian stuff could expand.  It would take a long time.

Even the Cherry St area is mostly a few blocks of early 20th century development with streets of houses behind it. I see it as the 1920s (?) strip center for the local single family sprawl behind it. I'm not knocking it.  I think it could be copied (never quite duplicated) in a new development if that's what is wanted.  It would be difficult to retrofit pretty much anywhere.

Summary:  I agree that your Urban Village should be available for those that want it.  I don't believe it should be forced on any existing area that doesn't want it.  I cannot understand why some in favor of density object to starting in the downtown area.

[TheArtist]

I am not going to go after every point. I think we actually, generally, agree on most things. Some of it is a difference in what we each "visualize" or understand an idea to mean.

But as to not wanting urban living to "start in Downtown". I think most people would love for it to start in downtown lol. Its getting it to thats difficult.

Couple reasons as I see it...

1.  Downtown doesnt yet feel as if its as desirable a place to live and doesnt have a full range of services. So we are kind of starting from scratch.

2.  Downtown, though it has lots of vacant lots and some run down buildings, often those who own them want a LOT for them and that hampers things from starting up. "same with 6th street and the Pearl District (buildings that are crumbling in a run down area...you ask how much they want for it and you pass out when they tell you")

3.  There are already areas that have started like in Cherry Street, Brookside, Utica Square (which is an interesting mixture). They are seen as desirable areas, they already attract lots of people, things are moving along, etc. So here we have that example of one type of living, something a little more urban and pedestrian (Tulsa urban lol) tending to grow and replicate itself. Look at Bomasada, tore down a bunch of houses, wanted to be about 5 stories, Brookside said 3, they compromised at 4. Urban wants to be more urban once it gets started and is seen as urban and pedestrian friendly. (the old car oriented Wendys was torn down, it wasnt making it as a car oriented development, and it was turned into a pedestrian friendly development, extending the pedestrian nature of the area a bit more, etc.) Its interesting to see more vespas, bikes, itsy bitsy cars lol,etc in that area than say the Woodland area. So you can see even the transportation types evolving towards something more urban, even in such a small scale, low density, urban setting. And as it grows, you will probably see more of that.    

The Blockbuster. Most of the shops and things in that immediate area are right up to the sidewalk. But then you run into the Blockbuster and some other things, the pedestrian friendly fabric of the area is "busted". Exceptions wont kill an area, especially one thats growing, but they do hurt it. The battle continues between the types. The more urban and dense an area is, the more exceptions can be handled.

But all of these examples Downtown to Brookside show how you need a certain amount of "the form" a "critical mass" of one nature or another, and how both types, urban and suburban can clash and compete. One form can literally do harm to the other or make the other less functional.

Downtown is still VERY car oriented with less contiguous mixed uses than even say Brookside. Its shifting it BACK into an urban village like it once was thats going to be difficult. But even here it cant be what it once was, for you cant ignore the importance of car culture and the fact that downtown is also a nexus for office towers and entertainment centers which bring in thousands of commuters.  

Its interesting to look at things that are kind of mixed, exceptions. Is the Utica Square area more Urban or Suburban? Its definitely car oriented, yet also somewhat pedestrian friendly. There are several large Condo Towers, Utica Place being one which is mixed use. It has lots of parking, underneath mostly. There is a grocery store, shops, restaurants, bank, business offices, hospital, schools, living, parks. Its a beautiful area.  I enjoy being there and walking around or at the Starbucks in almost any type of weather. They have art shows, musical entertainment,,, Has just about everything you want. It started out as a suburban shopping center, but has over time, and a lot of that has to do with its location and how it "connects" to everything around it, has evolved into more of an Urban Village. It could be said that its an example of how, if done in a particular way, suburban design can evolve into something more urban. But thats a different topic lol.

If I get you right, I think your kind of frustrated that we even concern ourselves with trying to figure out ways to get the 71st and Memorial corridors to evolve into something more urban or pedestrian friendly? And to tell you the truth, it is faaaar down on my list of concerns lol. I do indeed rank downtown as a first priority. Its just going to be a long difficult haul to get enough down there of a mixed use/pedestrian friendly nature to set off that growth mode.

Fingers crossed, but I think the Ballpark is just the ticket. Not because of the Ballpark itself, but because of its location and thus the location of developments around it. Having the Ballpark there will spur pedestrian friendly developments around it, AND those developments will tie together the bits and pieces of that type of form in the Brady district, Greenwood, and Blue Dome. Once that desirable critical mass gets there, it will grow and spread throughout downtown, on to 6th street, etc. But we must take care to nurture it and not let "Super Wal-Marts in a sea of parking" be a "blockbuster".

There is where we can talk about A streets and B streets and even A areas (Whats in front of the Arena) and B areas (Whats behind the Arena). You can connect your A areas with A streets and design a continuous, pleasing, walkable district that works.

Downtown Dallas has lots of small, pedestrian friendly areas, but you can only go a few hundred feet in either direction before you are confronted with pedestrian unfriendly areas. The areas are not connected so the downtown does not work as it could.

A neat thing about A streets and B streets is that it allows both pedestrian friendly areas and car oriented areas to exist side by side. BUT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PLAN. (emphasis for the downtown folk)Say you have a Mc Donalds that wants to go in downtown. You give them a choice. Here are our A streets, you build to the sidewalk, have doors and windows fronting the sidewalk, drive through in back, etc.  Here are our B streets, you can have your playground out front, drive through on the side, whatever. These are our rules, you pick. A pedestrian will cross an unfriendly B street, but the pedestrian needs a continuous network of A streets. Parking lots and garages can go on the B streets along with loading areas, gas stations, etc. There are other ideas that help to make this work, but by using smart design,  zoning and a little compromise, you can interweave car centered design and pedestrian centered design into areas like downtown, and do so quite pleasingly.

Trying to make all your streets into great, pedestrian friendly streets will only end up making a bunch of mediocre streets. You have to designate, and connect as much as possible, your A (pedestrian oriented)streets to each other, and B (side streets, alleys, and car oriented) streets to each other.

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

I am not going to go after every point. I think we actually, generally, agree on most things. Some of it is a difference in what we each "visualize" or understand an idea to mean.

Darn! I can't disagree with anything in this post. Now what am I supposed to do with my Sunday evening???

All kidding aside, it's good to have a discussion without resorting to stupidity.  

Thanks,
Red Arrow