District 4 Dilemma

[sgrizzle]

Underneath the bank, as they did on 21st and Utica. 

Umm...

[Red Arrow]

I prefer candidates who post on TulsaNow. If Perry or Romney were a regular contributor to our forum, I would probably consider voting for them as well.

I believe you might consider it.  I believe the probability of you actually voting for either of them is near zero.

[RecycleMichael]

I believe you might consider it.  I believe the probability of you actually voting for either of them is near zero.
 

You are probably right. But my vote for President of the United States doesn't mean much in the electoral college system while living in Oklahoma. Heck, I will do it. If Perry or Romney post on TulsaNow, They will get my vote for President of the United States (conditionally on them being on the ballot).

[TheArtist]

    I think we need to have a process whereby many of these issues are given a good chance to be resolved one way or another.  I am very much a fan of finding creative solutions for compromise in order to create, win win situations.

I went to some preservationist meetings and they were arguing for no change or infill what so ever.  I just couldn't see that that was ever going to be able to fly in the area they were talking about.  My thought was that if you allowed new development, but have it be context sensitive, and there are different levels of that to be negotiated, you would have better success of getting something positive done.  As is, both sides aren't budging, and both sides are losing imo.  

The preservationists I had met with wouldn't even allow homes that already did not fit the over all characte of the neighborhood (and these were not at all historic homes so they werent talking historic preservation but preserving everything as it is right now forever and always) to be "bulldozed" and then allow a new one that would better fit the character of the neighborhood to be built.  Now, you can argue against that change for many valid reasons, BUT your not at all likely to get enought other people to back you in that result and thus, your going to get just the opposite.  Not only will you see some plain, brick home from the 70s with a garage up front,,, in other words, a home that was put into the neighborhood counter to its over all character and forms,,, torn down, you also see older, more historic homes being torn down, and having even more, newer homes that don't fit the prevailing character put in.  

No compromise, no trying to find an acceptable middle ground, you get a status quoe that is basically doing absolutely nothing.

I think it would be great to set up a process to entreat each neighborhood, and or corridor, to choose a level of "Context Sensitive" redevelopment and infill.  This should also go along with an educational program so that people can see various options, the different levels and types of choices that are available out there.

Not all areas have to be the same, nor should we imo want them to be.  A city can add even more character, uniquiness, flexibility and opportunity by having different areas that evolve to have have A. a mixture  B. various degrees of context sensitive, and C. strict historic preservation.


I like the mixture on the north side of Cherry Street.  I like that they have kept the character on the South side of the street.  I think it was a nice compromise.  A compromise that did not have to happen but has been a kind of gentlemans agreement with the various developers and the neighborhoods.  Not everyone is happy, BUT it could have been a lot worse with most being unhappy.  The highway to the north acts as a barrier and constraint to the new types of development.  Imagine if they had gone ahead and also done that new type of development to the south, as they very well could have, with no good definable line.   Developers got some, the neighborhoods got some.  Too bad it wasn't a formal agreement of some sort that either did or did not allow this situation.

I understand the preservationists desires, but I believe the majority of the average people, the average property owners, and they are the ones who are going to be casting votes to make any situation become "law", are not going to be strict preservationists, in all situations.  Each area is going to have to find its own way and if its not the exact way some "no compromise under any situation" preservationist wants, or some "no compromise developer or property owner" wants.  Nothing is going to happen and your going to keep leaving things up to chance.  

I believe you will get a whole lot more by coming at the situation with creative compromise in mind.

One other level removed from the "mixture" level of compromise is... "General Form", which pays attention to general scale/heights-width and wall planes.     The other day I saw a contemporary styled home in a historic neighborhood that was a good example of this. (I will go and get pictures)  It was the same scale and had the same "wall planes" (size of blank wall space and number of fenestrations/window dormers, set backs, etc.) window numbers and sizes as some of the old homes near it.  Had the same pitched roof.  Had the attached drive under porch with a room over it off to the side like you see on the older homes with the garage out back. Even had the graciously large roof overhang that you see on some of the old mansions.  But it was distinctively modern in execution.  It was general in that you could have taken say either Italianate details and placed them around the windows and doors and made it Italian, or say Colonial details and made it Colonial.  The general form was there, but the look was contemporary versus another style.   (contrast this home to the one off of lewis that has the large tower, the two garages out front, large swaths of flat wall with no windows on them, etc.)   The "General Form" allows for a lot more creativity than "Strict Form", but not the total free for all that we have now.  And again, there are still even more levels in between these that can be chosen from.      

[Townsend]

Umm...

There is understructure parking for the bank.  The rest of the complex?  That.

[AquaMan]

Artist, its a matter of loss of trust by both sides, but particularly by people who have watched the city cave in to builders/developers who have the ear of the powerful. I watch the zoning board meetings and try to keep up with changes in the area, but without the vigilance of "zealous preservationists" we are at the mercy of people whose business it is to exploit our resources and know all the clever ways to ignore our interests.  It just gets to the point where people become entrenched in their views as long as there are abuses.

Your view of being thankful that there was some sort of gentleman's agreement to protect the South side of Cherry Street is kind of like being thankful the abusive husband didn't beat his wife over the weekend. If they had started down that path it would have been all out war between the neighborhoods, preservationists and developers. Left to their own devices, developers would have destroyed the very fabric of that eclectic neighborhood that attracted them in the first place. These areas are not virgins being kept intact till suburbans and developers are ready to make use of them. They are cultural lifestyles that shouldn't have to fear from another culture bent on changing them to fit their desires...just because a developer sees a greater profit in serving prospective buyers who tire of the chaos and inconvenience of their areas and see no problem in transferring them to a different part of town.

Your idea for different levels of protection is not a bad idea, though getting an acceptable level of neighborhood involvement would be difficult. I wonder though, how some of the areas in the suburbs would feel if we proposed a three tier level of protection for them? Do you think we could force them scrape off some POS snout houses to allow <2000sq ft. craftsman style frame homes with detached garages and street parking in the same walled off communities with their McMansions? As long as they used similar setbacks, colors and scale? I doubt that.

Its not just old houses near quaint or quirky shopping areas either. Conan knows that areas like his where a specific style is dominant (mid century modern) may be judged to be POS flat tops that have more value in the land and thus can justifiably be re-developed to fit more current styles. Surprisingly, this is why we don't have some of our more notable historic structures from the past ie. Cosden Mansion, Locust Park, etc. The land became more valuable than the history.

[JoeMommaBlake]

Completely agree, Aqua Man. Brilliant post.

[SXSW]

Blake - do you have a stance/opinion on the Cherry Street parking plan proposal?  It will turn the south side of 15th into angled parking and keep the north side parallel while reducing the street to 2 lanes.  I personally do not like angled parking but could live with it on one side.  I really think the city needs to do a streetscape along 15th between Peoria and Utica.  Wider sidewalks, pavers and street trees similar to what they did in Brookside but better. 

[JoeMommaBlake]

SXSW,

I attended the Cherry St. Parking meeting where Mark Brown pitched the new plan. Overall, I think it's okay. It's a short term band-aid on what will likely be a growing problem along Cherry Street. If I recall, it will bring 67 new spaces (don't hold me to that, it's just my shaky memory).

Ultimately, we're going to have to seek out some real parking solutions for the area, which will likely include some structured parking, a change in the parking requirement for new construction or use change, and possibly even a Cherry Street loop trolley or something like it. See where I'm going? We need to start thinking with some creativity as it relates to this issue. The commercial corridor is too important. The neighborhoods are too important.

If we don't do something like that, new businesses will continue to have to scrape and pave and Cherry Street's growth will frustrate its neighbors even more. It's already a growing safety issue, as it's a notable pedestrian area with poor cross-walks and fast moving cars. So, to definitively answer the question: We can do better than the angled parking plan, but it may be a good transition move to provide some much needed short-term relief.

B

[AquaMan]

Completely agree, Aqua Man. Brilliant post.

Man, you know how to get my vote. The Aquaman thrives on praise.

[SXSW]

SXSW,

I attended the Cherry St. Parking meeting where Mark Brown pitched the new plan. Overall, I think it's okay. It's a short term band-aid on what will likely be a growing problem along Cherry Street. If I recall, it will bring 67 new spaces (don't hold me to that, it's just my shaky memory).

Ultimately, we're going to have to seek out some real parking solutions for the area, which will likely include some structured parking, a change in the parking requirement for new construction or use change, and possibly even a Cherry Street loop trolley or something like it. See where I'm going? We need to start thinking with some creativity as it relates to this issue. The commercial corridor is too important. The neighborhoods are too important.

If we don't do something like that, new businesses will continue to have to scrape and pave and Cherry Street's growth will frustrate its neighbors even more. It's already a growing safety issue, as it's a notable pedestrian area with poor cross-walks and fast moving cars. So, to definitively answer the question: We can do better than the angled parking plan, but it may be a good transition move to provide some much needed short-term relief.

B

A very level-headed response, thank you.  The next D4 councilor will hopefully put a larger emphasis on making walkable areas like Cherry Street, Blue Dome, Brady, and the Pearl even better and more pedestrian and bike-friendly.  D4 is the most urban part of Tulsa and as such should be the first to really enhance its assets with innovative streetscape projects.  It also promotes connectivity between the areas i.e. streetscape improvements on Peoria between 15th and 6th connecting Cherry Street to the Pearl; 6th between Delaware and Denver connecting TU to the Pearl and to downtown; Boulder between 21st and I-244 connecting the riverfront with downtown and Brady; and within downtown itself along main corridors like Cincinnati/Detroit, Denver, 3rd/4th, 1st/2nd, etc.  The Brady will soon be seeing streetscaping projects thanks to the GKFF and it would be great to see that extended into other parts of downtown with better sidewalks, street trees and bike lanes.

[JoeMommaBlake]

Couldn't agree more. How cool would that be, right?

We're going to get there. Tulsa has great bones, she just needs a new dress and some make-up.

[TheArtist]

    Would rather see any city funds go to more regular transit instead of parking garages.   I imagine that in a few areas, new businesses/residential would rather spend some amount to help with better transit rather than spend more on "rape and scrape" or added property for parking and parking.  

 I bet that if you were to see wheeled "trolleys" or small busses (The ones we rode in NYC were much smaller than those lumbering behemoths we use here, keep them small and friendly for short routes) every 5-10 minutes in the Brookside, Cherry Street and downtown areas, many many more people would be far more inclined to use them.  City pays a little, the "areas" perhaps pay a little, the riders pay a little.  If developers see that transit is becoming viable, it can free them up from having to put in parking.  That adds density.  And so on.  

 When I go to other cities that have good transit, I use it.  I know its still kind of alien and frightening to Tulsans lol, but if we were to ever put in some transit on even some limited routes, that had VERY regular trips with a MAX wait time of 15 minutes, (preferably between 5 and 10) you would get more people using it.  

Small busses or wheeled trolleys, whichever is cheaper.
Mid-town/Downtown routes only and clearly marked as such   (Brookside,Cherry Street, Deco District, Arena, Blue Dome,Brady Arts, Downtown Parking).
Have the busses have a distinctive look from regular city busses.
Have signs at the bus stops that say "average wait 7 minutes" or something like that, and again note where the vehicle goes on a map.
Have maps posted in the busses.
Have a promotion/education/awareness campaign showing the route, where to park and where the stops are, etc.

Brainstorming for different funding options....

Have the city redirect some funds from regular busses that go in these areas to help with the cost.
Instead of the city paying a few million for new parking garages, go ahead and use those funds to get this going.
You could probably get a little from advertising on these special routes.
If you park and pay in a city parking lot, get a ticket and get on the bus free, if not pay a small amount to ride the bus.
New businesses/construction in these areas can have minimum parking requirements waived if they pay into this transit.  
If you add new parking in these areas, add a parking space tax to help this transit. (helps fund the transit, helps deter             the "automatic" reaction to add new parking)
Redirect some portion of an existing fee or tax to help.  (example; there are easily 3-400 new homes that have, and will be in
  the near future, going in along 5th street in downtown.  The city didn't spend any on building one more street, or widening
  one new intersection, or have yet another street to pay for repairs on and maintenance, snow removal/salting, etc.)  
  Take a portion of the funding that would usually go to those things and add it to downtown/mid-town transit.  Just as if       you were to have to spend more to pay for new roads for new suburban homes/businesses, in these infill areas where your adding new homes and businesses, redirect a portion of that to transit.  

I am sure we can think of a dozen more ways to get this to happen.


I would be all for letting the free market get this to happen if I thought it would.  But what I see is new development, realizing that there isn't any transit in these areas, and trying to figure out ways to get more parking, and spending their money, and or the cities money, to get it.

   

[AquaMan]

Did I miss something Artist? Don't people who live outside the Cherry Street area...drive their vehicles to get here? If so, they need parking. The current setup, even with the stop gap angled solution, still doesn't provide for any growth. There has to be some structured parking that doesn't come at the expense of the convenience of the pedestrian.

Unless you are saying that folks outside the area would park downtown, Brady, Riverside, etc. and take transit to the area. Our past experience with any of those loop type systems has not been good. Urban Trolley tried it, Bill White tried it and they both found it hard to attract support from the entertainment districts or the passengers. Maybe now is different or maybe there are better combinations of vehicles and funding.

My son just returned from Spain where the pedestrian is king, plaza's rule and mass transit is mostly in the form of trains. The photos were very alluring with all the restaurants and clubs having outside service. I know our winters would seriously dent that concept but still, the concentration of these old areas should follow that formula. Large medians, small lanes, large sidewalk service areas and plazas. And yes, small, distinctive people movers.

I'm afraid that right now, Cherry Street is still viewed by many as the arterial to get to the grocery store, drug store and gas stations. Make it easier to use 13th and 14th to do that while you make the change to structured parking and a pedestrian friendly boulevard.

[AquaMan]

A very level-headed response, thank you.  The next D4 councilor will hopefully put a larger emphasis on making walkable areas like Cherry Street, Blue Dome, Brady, and the Pearl even better and more pedestrian and bike-friendly.  D4 is the most urban part of Tulsa and as such should be the first to really enhance its assets with innovative streetscape projects.  It also promotes connectivity between the areas i.e. streetscape improvements on Peoria between 15th and 6th connecting Cherry Street to the Pearl; 6th between Delaware and Denver connecting TU to the Pearl and to downtown; Boulder between 21st and I-244 connecting the riverfront with downtown and Brady; and within downtown itself along main corridors like Cincinnati/Detroit, Denver, 3rd/4th, 1st/2nd, etc.  The Brady will soon be seeing streetscaping projects thanks to the GKFF and it would be great to see that extended into other parts of downtown with better sidewalks, street trees and bike lanes.

When you're visualizing this, try to remember that the Utica corridor of Hospitals and clinics is a huge consumer driver in this area. By dedicating a people mover vehicle to serving the visitors and employees of these centers you could really decrease traffic and increase productivity for everyone. I could see a lane dedicated to an electric powered vehicle that had the power to over-ride traffic signals, over-ride no left turn intersections and operate on a frequent basis on a short loop. I bet you would have better co-operation and support with that community than with restaurants and bars.