Hipper and Livelier?

[sgrizzle]

I believe the refinery land was considered out-of-scope due to the fact the refineries were immobile.

Of course, now it looks like the Sunoco refinery is going to shut down...

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by dsjeffries

My & TURobY's table had people from all over the city, of varying backgrounds and ethnicities, even a Tulsa newbie, and they all wanted what Fregonese has pointed out.

that is just your observation.  I want to see the actual demographic makeup of these workshops.  That has been carefully hidden throughout this entire project.

You can't hide what you didn't gather.

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by dsjeffries

My & TURobY's table had people from all over the city, of varying backgrounds and ethnicities, even a Tulsa newbie, and they all wanted what Fregonese has pointed out.

that is just your observation.  I want to see the actual demographic makeup of these workshops.  That has been carefully hidden throughout this entire project.

You can't hide what you didn't gather.

Let's not let facts get in the way of that now!

[:O]

[grahambino]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by dsjeffries

My & TURobY's table had people from all over the city, of varying backgrounds and ethnicities, even a Tulsa newbie, and they all wanted what Fregonese has pointed out.

that is just your observation.  I want to see the actual demographic makeup of these workshops.  That has been carefully hidden throughout this entire project.

my table:

South Tulsa, an affluent, advanced degree holding white male, aged 60
North Tulsa - native american or latino woman, maybe 35-45, homemaker.
East Tulsa - a husband & wife, white. I think he was a minister.  They were around 60-65.
Midtown (x2) - a 29 year old (me)
another was around 32 or 33.  
Both of us have college degrees, both white.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by dsjeffries

My & TURobY's table had people from all over the city, of varying backgrounds and ethnicities, even a Tulsa newbie, and they all wanted what Fregonese has pointed out.

that is just your observation.  I want to see the actual demographic makeup of these workshops.  That has been carefully hidden throughout this entire project.

You can't hide what you didn't gather.

Let's not let facts get in the way of that now!

[:O]

I don't remember filling out 32/Male/Caucasian on anything during the workshops. I didn't even give my name or address for one of the times I did a map.

What demographics are they using?

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by dsjeffries

My & TURobY's table had people from all over the city, of varying backgrounds and ethnicities, even a Tulsa newbie, and they all wanted what Fregonese has pointed out.

that is just your observation.  I want to see the actual demographic makeup of these workshops.  That has been carefully hidden throughout this entire project.

You can't hide what you didn't gather.

Let's not let facts get in the way of that now!

[:O]

Following that logic, PlaniTulsa shouldn't be claiming that the workshop participants were diverse from across all parts of the city, either.

I mean, you can't show what you didn't gather, but let's not let facts get in the way of that now.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle


There was no sticker for "low density residential nimby buffer zone"

C'mon, not even a chuckle for that?

[carltonplace]

^ I drew that in with my green marker and then circled inteller's house.

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle


There was no sticker for "low density residential nimby buffer zone"

C'mon, not even a chuckle for that?

How can you guide people to the politically correct solution if you allow other choices?

[TURobY]

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle


There was no sticker for "low density residential nimby buffer zone"

C'mon, not even a chuckle for that?

How can you guide people to the politically correct solution if you allow other choices?

You mean options such as "Large Lot Residential" and "Single-Family Housing Subdivisions"?

[RecycleMichael]

I missed the three big city-wide meetings, but did attend one of the small area workshops. I was at one of the four tables that participated.

They allowed us to turn the colored paper pieces over and write whatever we wanted.

We came up with a light rail/urban trolley/ commuter shuttle station to be part of our New EastLand Event Center.

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by TURobY

You mean options such as "Large Lot Residential" and "Single-Family Housing Subdivisions"?

They are obviously not popular choices with the "in-crowd", especially for downtown and midtown infill, but they are options. I have been taught that during brainstorming sessions that no idea should be immediately rejected. Another idea may spring from it. Rejecting unfit ideas is for later sessions.

Having an area of large lots (approx 1 acre) in outlying areas within city limits could have caused some of the 4 to 5 house per acre developments to have been in town in-fill instead. Then maybe the S.E. Tulsa traffic problem would not exist (by a factor of at least 1/2).  The multitude of 2 lane streets would be sufficient as they were 30 years ago. Downtown and mid-town would be more dense. Suburban areas would be in denser nodes along a few arterials rather than along all of them as now exists. An effective public transit system from the suburbs would be more possible. The dozens of areas of big-box stores could not be supported by the low density housing.  I am not saying that this would have been the result only by requiring big lots. I am saying that by immediately rejecting big lots that you have guaranteed that it could not happen.

[TURobY]

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

quote:Originally posted by TURobY

You mean options such as "Large Lot Residential" and "Single-Family Housing Subdivisions"?

They are obviously not popular choices with the "in-crowd", especially for downtown and midtown infill, but they are options. I have been taught that during brainstorming sessions that no idea should be immediately rejected. Another idea may spring from it. Rejecting unfit ideas is for later sessions.

Having an area of large lots (approx 1 acre) in outlying areas within city limits could have caused some of the 4 to 5 house per acre developments to have been in town in-fill instead. Then maybe the S.E. Tulsa traffic problem would not exist (by a factor of at least 1/2).  The multitude of 2 lane streets would be sufficient as they were 30 years ago. Downtown and mid-town would be more dense. Suburban areas would be in denser nodes along a few arterials rather than along all of them as now exists. An effective public transit system from the suburbs would be more possible. The dozens of areas of big-box stores could not be supported by the low density housing.  I am not saying that this would have been the result only by requiring big lots. I am saying that by immediately rejecting big lots that you have guaranteed that it could not happen.

No, I was saying that they were available options in the planning meetings. Our table actually utilized them in areas of South Tulsa and East Tulsa, understanding that people who originally moved to those areas wanted that type of development.

"Large Lot Residential" and "Single-Family Housing Subdivisions" options existed and were utilized in the planning meetings.

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by TURobY

No, I was saying that they were available options in the planning meetings.

"Large Lot Residential" and "Single-Family Housing Subdivisions" options existed and were utilized in the planning meetings.

I misunderstood their availability.  I guess I missed something somewhere.

[TheArtist]

We had large lot, single residential etc. in our packet. They were used mostly in empty areas of East Tulsa, North Tulsa and some in West Tulsa. Though we did trade a few of those for more dense development types. I guess most of us figured South Tulsa was doing ok in that department already lol. One of our thoughts was to encourage "urban village" type development nodes in North Tulsa and East Tulsa, and around those the lower density housing. With the hope that both types would reinforce the other, and that future infill and redevelopment would spread outward from those nodes.