"The Pearl" an area that will go down in History as a turning point in Tulsa

[Conan71]

Just a couple lowly attorneys. Soundpony is way too hip for us most of the time.   I prefer Hodge's Bend, Tavern, The Vault, and occasionally Hunt Club.

We usually try and get out of the Pony before the music starts, as it's usually a bit far out for my tastes.   About the only time we go there is if there is a post race party there or a friend is celebrating a birthday.  Haven't been in the Hunt Club in awhile.  We love the cocktail menu at the Vault, but their food menu is full of "meh" with the exception of the pretzels.  I'm sad to say their catering isn't much better.

I wish Libby would get someone to helm the kitchen at The Vault who understands the concept of adequate seasoning, consistent food temps, and a creative menu.  By far, The Vault has one of the absolute coolest dining environments I've ever seen.  There again, I'm a huge Mid-Century Modern fan, so I might be biased.

RDJ, I love Coors yellow belly.  Nothing like it, especially for yard work.

[MyDogHunts]

We usually try and get out of the Pony before the music starts, as it's usually a bit far out for my tastes.   About the only time we go there is if there is a post race party there or a friend is celebrating a birthday.  Haven't been in the Hunt Club in awhile.  We love the cocktail menu at the Vault, but their food menu is full of "meh" with the exception of the pretzels.  I'm sad to say their catering isn't much better.

I wish Libby would get someone to helm the kitchen at The Vault who understands the concept of adequate seasoning, consistent food temps, and a creative menu.  By far, The Vault has one of the absolute coolest dining environments I've ever seen.  There again, I'm a huge Mid-Century Modern fan, so I might be biased.

RDJ, I love Coors yellow belly.  Nothing like it, especially for yard work.

We live in Oklahoma were the law says we can not enjoy Coors beer above the 3.2 level.   Right there.  It be a problem.  And yup, PBR is good at it's 6.+  We live in a kindergarden state.  At least it is one of the cheapest places on the planet

I love hearing how some of you are enthusiastic about downtown being an environment worth living within.  I am trying to go through my last 20-years by never owning another car.  Downtown is going to be cool.

[AquaMan]

I like to hear about 1000s going downtown for an event. Thousands go to see a show at the arena, too. How many thousands and thousands go to the malls in restaurant row and elsewhere all the time. Truth be told, I view "downtowns" as a dying concept. That's just not where people go on a regular basis anymore--they go elsewhere.

Would you be willing to kiss off those thousands because they don't represent the majority of the city which resides outside the CBD? That would be kind of short sighted. I spend a lot of time downtown and have observed that many of those thousands are obviously from the burbs. Could be they tire of the franchise row restaurant offerings and the tidy shopping. Many more are outsiders staying at hotels downtown. New money, not the local money being passed around.

Even if its only 15% of trade, shall we dismiss them as un-important to our economy?

[carltonplace]

I think that is one of the things I love most about living downtown: Community. I know the people that live and work there. I know the business owners, servers and bar tenders. It's great to go to an event like Eat Street and see so many people that you know.

[guido911]

Would you be willing to kiss off those thousands because they don't represent the majority of the city which resides outside the CBD? That would be kind of short sighted. I spend a lot of time downtown and have observed that many of those thousands are obviously from the burbs. Could be they tire of the franchise row restaurant offerings and the tidy shopping. Many more are outsiders staying at hotels downtown. New money, not the local money being passed around.

Even if its only 15% of trade, shall we dismiss them as un-important to our economy?

Not a "kiss off", just not pour tax money into that area in the hopes of attracting people from other places where they are already going. That's all. In other words, reward those areas with the 85% of trade (using your number) and not hurt/disregard them by trying to take their business away. Those businesses were/are risk takers, and it is paying off for them.

[TheArtist]

Dewey Bartlett spoke against the move for urban building in his interview with KWGS a few weeks ago. He is in favor of "growing out" rather than "growing up" and to me that shows how out of touch he is. There is a burgeoning group of urbanites in Tulsa. All of the new and announced downtown and near downtown development proves this, as did the successful "Dwell in the IDL" tour on Sunday.

Some people like to drive wherever they go. Some don't. There is room for both.

Unless he is the mayor of Tulsa County and the surrounding counties... there isn't much room left in the city limits to "grow out".  The Tulsa Hills area is pretty much a last gasp for that kind of growth, after that, it's slower "growing out" to the north of downtown and the remainder of the east side of Tulsa.  The city paid for studies that had results that showed if we were to zone for,allow, and add urban infill to the growth model of the future, we would grow much faster than if we did not, especially after the Southern Hills area fills out. 

[AquaMan]

Not a "kiss off", just not pour tax money into that area in the hopes of attracting people from other places where they are already going. That's all. In other words, reward those areas with the 85% of trade (using your number) and not hurt/disregard them by trying to take their business away. Those businesses were/are risk takers, and it is paying off for them.

But your request is fraught with contradiction. Tulsa Hills was the result of tax money poured into infrastructure to satisfy the needs of the developer. The develop wasn't going to happen without tax money and city support. It was done in the hopes of attracting people from other places they were already going. Places like the development along south Riverside at 101st and Peoria at 71st. Even Riverwalk. Those business owners were risk takers whose tax dollars were used against them.

Woodland did it to Southland/Southroads, who did it to Utica Square, who did it to downtown and the old Cherry Street of the 30's. Now the cycle reverses on itself and you don't want suburban tax dollars used to attract downtown usage? Even though it likely attracts more new, outside money than southern developments? Doesn't make sense.

[guido911]

But your request is fraught with contradiction. Tulsa Hills was the result of tax money poured into infrastructure to satisfy the needs of the developer. The develop wasn't going to happen without tax money and city support. It was done in the hopes of attracting people from other places they were already going. Places like the development along south Riverside at 101st and Peoria at 71st. Even Riverwalk. Those business owners were risk takers whose tax dollars were used against them.

Woodland did it to Southland/Southroads, who did it to Utica Square, who did it to downtown and the old Cherry Street of the 30's. Now the cycle reverses on itself and you don't want suburban tax dollars used to attract downtown usage? Even though it likely attracts more new, outside money than southern developments? Doesn't make sense.

I disagree with your characterization that my view is a contradiction. That said, I agree that newer development will seemingly supplant older/established business, my understanding is that Tulsa Hills, etc. were created to meet an existing need. Same goes for the massive development around inteller and my home. Someone felt there was a need, then the risk takers coupled with tax treatment/dollars (presumably) came in. Not sure how reviving downtown in a similar fashion is similar--particularly since this area has seen uber millions already spent on the arena, ball park and other projects and it still isn't enough. Buildings are being razed, and it appears parking lots are the investment du jour. Face it, downtown is a unique place favored by certain folks living nearby or that long for yesteryear. The people I know around me (Jenks, Bixby, and to a slight degree BA) simply do not want to make that trip.

[Conan71]

But your request is fraught with contradiction. Tulsa Hills was the result of tax money poured into infrastructure to satisfy the needs of the developer. The develop wasn't going to happen without tax money and city support. It was done in the hopes of attracting people from other places they were already going. Places like the development along south Riverside at 101st and Peoria at 71st. Even Riverwalk. Those business owners were risk takers whose tax dollars were used against them.

Woodland did it to Southland/Southroads, who did it to Utica Square, who did it to downtown and the old Cherry Street of the 30's. Now the cycle reverses on itself and you don't want suburban tax dollars used to attract downtown usage? Even though it likely attracts more new, outside money than southern developments? Doesn't make sense.

Building primarily big box with many national and regional chains along a major highway is far different than building development with zero to a few nationally-recognized chains along a busy road a few miles removed from a highway.  I really don't see that Tulsa Hills cannibalizes Riverwalk or the 96th & Riverside development.  It actually filled the huge gaps those developments did not satisfy in the first place for southwest Tulsa.  If anything, it cannibalized the big box district on 71st from Memorial eastward.

[TheArtist]

I disagree with your characterization that my view is a contradiction. That said, I agree that newer development will seemingly supplant older/established business, my understanding is that Tulsa Hills, etc. were created to meet an existing need. Same goes for the massive development around inteller and my home. Someone felt there was a need, then the risk takers coupled with tax treatment/dollars (presumably) came in. Not sure how reviving downtown in a similar fashion is similar--particularly since this area has seen uber millions already spent on the arena, ball park and other projects and it still isn't enough. Buildings are being razed, and it appears parking lots are the investment du jour. Face it, downtown is a unique place favored by certain folks living nearby or that long for yesteryear. The people I know around me (Jenks, Bixby, and to a slight degree BA) simply do not want to make that trip.

Do not want downtown Tulsa revitalized "in a similar fashion" all many are asking for is for urban zoning to allow for pedestrian/transit friendly development. Your right in that we have many of the big pieces in place that cost hundreds of millions of dollars...why can't we finish the deal (for practically no cost at all in comparison) and get the zoning thats been needed and fought for for going on almost two decades now?

[Hoss]

Do not want downtown Tulsa revitalized "in a similar fashion" all many are asking for is for urban zoning to allow for pedestrian/transit friendly development. Your right in that we have many of the big pieces in place that cost hundreds of millions of dollars...why can't we finish the deal (for practically no cost at all in comparison) and get the zoning thats been needed and fought for for going on almost two decades now?

Good luck dooing that now with Dooey in the chair.

[guido911]

Do not want downtown Tulsa revitalized "in a similar fashion" all many are asking for is for urban zoning to allow for pedestrian/transit friendly development. Your right in that we have many of the big pieces in place that cost hundreds of millions of dollars...why can't we finish the deal (for practically no cost at all in comparison) and get the zoning thats been needed and fought for for going on almost two decades now?

BY "urban zoning", are you referring to buildings being tore down to make parking lots? And so folks know, this is a story that has been the impetus for my views of downtown...http://www.academia.edu/2098742/Santa_Monicas_Third_Street_Promenade_the_failure_and_resurgence_of_a_downtown_pedestrian_mall

[TheArtist]

BY "urban zoning", are you referring to buildings being tore down to make parking lots? And so folks know, this is a story that has been the impetus for my views of downtown...http://www.academia.edu/2098742/Santa_Monicas_Third_Street_Promenade_the_failure_and_resurgence_of_a_downtown_pedestrian_mall

So you don't like this?...



[Los Angeles], 20 November 1988; McGuigan, 2003b; Zane, 2005).The Third Street Mall was renamed Third Street Promenade. Also, the streetscape was redesigned.Palm and jacaranda trees were planted along the street, lighting was improved, wrought-iron benchesand trash receptacles were placed around, and plazas were built at each end of the three blocks,containing fountains and topiary dinosaurs (Figure 6). Sidewalks were widened to 30 feet, and thestreet was narrowed to 20 feet. Pavilions were placed at intervals along the middle of the street to break up the right-of-way width and avoid the feeling of a vacated space. The street was decoratedwith banners to create a colourful and festive environment and to establish a theme throughout thePromenade. The mall entrance was emphasized with banners as well. It was decided that the citywould rent carts to street vendors to encourage street vending on the Promenade. To be on the safe

7
side, Santa Monica tried a hybrid experiment. Removable traffic barriers (bollards) were put in placethat would go down to allow car traffic at 15 mph from 4.30 pm to 10.00 am (Zane, 2005).In September 1989, the revitalized Third Street Mall, renamed Third Street Promenade, was launchedamongst a new round of parades, concerts, and fanfare (Zane, 2005; Rawson, 2005; Kaplan, 2005).Overnight, the project became a community and commercial success. After the first few years, the bollards went up permanently because of the abundant number of pedestrians (Zane, 2005). The rentstook a sharp turn upwards almost immediately. A study showed that the average annual rent per square foot on the Promenade jumped from $59 in 1984 to $122 in 1988. Many of the thrift storesclosed down before the renovation and others unavoidably followed as leases expired (
Los AngelesTimes
[Los Angeles], 20 November 1988).
The city, the residents, and the property owners along the promenade share a common vision and animplicit agreement that the Promenade is an important community place in Santa Monica (Warfel,2005).

Through the years the Third Street Promenade has earned several awards for excellence in attractingtourism and economic development, and has played a major role in reviving the larger downtownarea. The initial $13 million investment by the city has attracted private investment estimated at morethan $500 million, far exceeding the initial expectations (Rawson, 2005). In fact, in its beginning, theBayside District Corporation had only projected $100 million in private investment over 15 years (
Los Angeles Times
[Los Angeles], 20 April 1986)

We are not advocating for anything that drastic, just want an update to the zoning to encourage pedestrian/transit friendly development, and only along certain corridors in downtown and allowing others to "opt in" as they like. What I am advocating for has worked, has been working for decades now actually, in many cities.  The article you link to shows many "lessons learned" what worked what didn't.  We just want to do a little of that "what works" stuff, though this story only shows one aspect of one type of street/history.

As for buildings being torn down for parking lots.  Lets see.... 270 plus square miles of zoning encouraging auto oriented development (including mandated minimum parking requirements).  Vrs. Under 2 square miles of "do as you want'.  Lets see... I see more parking.  No brainer there dude.  What else would anyone expect would happen?

Actually, I really don't get your point with all this?

They made a mistake, just like we did (the exceptions of where this type of mall worked were in cities with urban zoning, that we do not have and are asking for).  Then they made changes, like we have not, and turned it into a success,,, like we have not.

[AquaMan]

It seems a pointless conversation anyway. Those who don't like downtown won't like it because others do (and vice versa). And no amount of logic or defense of either position is of much consequence. 

I dislike OSU and wouldn't visit unless paid to do so, but I understand those who do and am glad my taxes help pay for them. Why can't it be left at that? Because, those who feel uncomfortable downtown and can't identify with its denizens, object to it on emotional grounds not logical. They think we're trying to resurrect something that they feel is unworthy. I assure you that as someone who has always lived in the midtown/downtown area, this new downtown development is nothing, nothing like the past. Even when we had 100,000 people working downtown in oil companies, banking, retail and food, it wasn't like this. It was busy, but boring. If you think this is a resurrection, you are only looking at the shell of past downtowns.

The business people who have invested in this new Downtown are not light weights. They don't invest in fads.

[guido911]

It's this from that article Artist:

Why Most Pedestrian Malls Failed
Planners in the U.S. believed that by applying the European formula to decrepit American downtowns they would cure their malaises including neglect, abandonment, and disinvestment. However, by the 1960s and 1970s when downtown pedestrian malls were built, people were already well set into car oriented suburban lifestyle. Pedestrian malls were not able to change street use patterns and stimulate the suburbanized population into new habits. There was no reason to go to these malls, just as there was no reason (i.e. attractive retail, entertainment, and activities) to go into the rest of the downtown except for business purposes. The general lack of appeal of American downtowns was responsible in large part for pedestrian malls' failure.
In the U.S. as a result of low density, foot traffic was often insufficient to maintain substantial levels of street activity (Robertson 1994). There simply were not enough users crossing paths in the downtown mall.

emphasis added