Good Bye downtown Coney Island

[carltonplace]

Saw this on FB

[DTowner]

Is the plan to turn this into a parking lot? As soon as we fill in one surface parking lot another takes its place.

It's a shame because it had the potential to be something retro cool, but given its state of disrepair and seemingly no hope of fulfilling its potential, a surface lot is better than what the old moter inn had become.  This is probably another unintended consequence of the downtown stadium assessment - non-revenue producing empty building cost its owner a lot of money.  Knock it down and the cost goes down and gain revenue as a parking lot.

[Townsend]

From Tulsa deco district's FB:

[Hoss]

From Tulsa deco district's FB:

Hope the demolitioners are wearing at least level 2 decon suits.

[dsjeffries]

I got about 50 pictures of it before I had to head home and plant the trees I had just got from Up With Trees...









More photos at: flickr.com/dscott28604

[jacobi]

Good thing someone let you know it was going on, dsjeffries .  There was a man who came over and talked to us who leases space in the beacon building.  He said that this build went down because of the baseball assement district.  The owner was paying on squarefootnage that he wasn't earning profit off of.  Men who think this way should be publicly shamed.  We have a lot of people here who deserve this shame.

Hope the demolitioners are wearing at least level 2 decon suits.

They weren't.  They disn't even bother to take anything out of the rooms.  The drapes were still hanging up.  The thermostats were still on the wall (mercury!).

In other news I, I rode around downtown on my bike and I have to say that boston really is doin so much better for itself these days.  There were people out and about.  It helped calm the anger in my heart for soulless property owners.

[Conan71]

That could have been a really cool destination hotel in a place like Palm Springs with a very deep and well-appreciated Mid-Century Modern heritage.  Unfortunately, Tulsa's romance with MCM seems to be the oddballs like myself who live in MCM communities such as Lortondale.

[jacobi]

I really have to say that I support swiping properties like these out of property owners hands.  I would support a measure that says if you are going to demo a building, it will be eminant domained right out from underneath you.  If they get pissed off and decide to leave downtown, GREAT!  I would rather have these buildings sitting vacant and on the unending TDA rolls than knocked down to save some @#%hole money.

Sorry, I'm just venting.

[Red Arrow]

I would rather have these buildings sitting vacant and on the unending TDA rolls than knocked down to save some @#%hole money.

Are you trying to save all buildings regardless of whether they are worth saving or are you just trying to make some @#%hole pay more tax?

[erfalf]

From a property rights standpoint, which devalues the neighboring property more? A parking lot or a building that is getting run down. Having no professional experience in real estate I would be curious as to what the answer would be.

Generally, I don't think the government or a controlling body should be able to dictate what you do with your property, UNLESS it affects neighboring properties. That's why I do agree with the idea of zoning laws. For example, putting a gas station smack dab in the middle of a residential neighborhood in the burbs would be very detrimental to the neighbors property values. Downtown is just so complicated because their are so many property owners in such close proximity to each other.

[TheArtist]

From a property rights standpoint, which devalues the neighboring property more? A parking lot or a building that is getting run down. Having no professional experience in real estate I would be curious as to what the answer would be.

Generally, I don't think the government or a controlling body should be able to dictate what you do with your property, UNLESS it affects neighboring properties. That's why I do agree with the idea of zoning laws. For example, putting a gas station smack dab in the middle of a residential neighborhood in the burbs would be very detrimental to the neighbors property values. Downtown is just so complicated because their are so many property owners in such close proximity to each other.

 See, now I would say that in a downtown that your wanting to be pedestrian/transit friendly, a parking lot for cars would be the about the same as the gas station in the residential neighborhood.  As a new member of the downtown community, I need people walking by my place and able to take transit from one part of downtown to the next.  I don't want someone coming in, parking, going to a place right near where they park, then going back to their car and heading out or worse yet, driving to the next place downtown, parking and going in, etc.  I need the sidewalks to be busy.  

 Again I will use the example of the tourists who were at the museum at 5th and Boston and wanting to go to either the Blue Dome and Boston Ave Church, just a few blocks away. In both cases if there had not been parking lots, they would have walked.  But since there were parking lots, they did not walk and were not walking by, say new businesses trying to make a go of it in some older building, but were instead getting back in their car and driving past those businesses in the few buildings that remained and driving right past them.

 We are never going to create a real downtown if its car oriented.  We have got to break that cycle.      

Yea the coney island may have been run down looking, but I guarantee you people will more likely walk past that than another parking lot.  You have just created another gap that people already on foot will look at and decide not to go that way.  A few more parking spots won't make up for the loss of pedestrians for any nearby business that already exists or is thinking about building and moving in.  Again, there is already pleeeenty of parking in and around downtown, what we are lacking is coherent, pedestrian friendly "streetwall" and transit.  

You know, I have thought about where I may like to put a new business downtown, or perhaps move the museum to next to get a larger spot. One great building would be the ONG building.  Problem is, nobody really walks over there.  It's kind of at the "end" or edge of the core and beginning of the "parking lot zone" and has other pedestrian unfriendly gaps around it.  5th street is great for a block or two, Boston is great for a few blocks,,, then you hit gaps in the streetwall and people turn back and don't venture further. You need a contiguous streetwall and you don't really want to be near the end of it either for people look that direction and don't see much and turn around. You can't put parking next to eeevery building.  Not that we haven't tried lol. 

  If the city wanted a successful downtown, you know what I would want them to do... all the property they own instead of spending millions on new parking garages, put in a row of 1story shops and put in a downtown circulator transit system.  Enhance the streetwall, enhance the pedestrian experience, allow businesses to get started and then in time sell and let developers build taller buildings with living and offices above.  Use the cities influence to get the streetwall going and transit going, the sidewalks going.  Enhance the pedestrian experience from place to place downtown, not force people to keep using their cars.   

[jacobi]

See, now I would say that in a downtown that your wanting to be pedestrian/transit friendly, a parking lot for cars would be the about the same as the gas station in the residential neighborhood.

Bravo!

[DowntownDan]

Downtown will always have enough parking for evening and weekend shopping and events based solely on the downtown workforce.  Most downtown workers don't live downtown and drive in and park to get to their office.  This parking opens up in the evenings and weekends for events and shopping.  Increasing downtown residential is important if downtown is going to thrive, but it is impossible to pretend that it can sustain itself without consumers who will drive in and park.  At that point, they can walk around downtown, or use trollys, etc., especially if you have to pay to park.  If you park near the BOK Center, but want to eat at McNellies, you aren't likely to pay to park twice.  Park at one end or the other and make the walk, or if light rail or trolleys are available, use that to get around. 

As nice as it would be, there just is zero chance that any part of Tulsa can be successful without accounting for the use of cars.  It's just not going to happen.  That's not to say that downtown needs to emulate 71st and Memorial because that just won't work.  My point being that the focus right now should be on residential and density.  There does not need to be any new parking opened up.  There is tons of parking and garages available for shopping and events.  I don't think this particular spot is going to be parking for long.  The article I read said there are no immediate plans, but I expect someone will step up and build.  With all of the new parking going into OnePlace, I just don't see it being lucrative to use the relatively small hotel space solely for parking.  Someone will step up and build. 

[TheArtist]

Downtown will always have enough parking for evening and weekend shopping and events based solely on the downtown workforce.  Most downtown workers don't live downtown and drive in and park to get to their office.  This parking opens up in the evenings and weekends for events and shopping.  Increasing downtown residential is important if downtown is going to thrive, but it is impossible to pretend that it can sustain itself without consumers who will drive in and park.  At that point, they can walk around downtown, or use trollys, etc., especially if you have to pay to park.  If you park near the BOK Center, but want to eat at McNellies, you aren't likely to pay to park twice.  Park at one end or the other and make the walk, or if light rail or trolleys are available, use that to get around. 

As nice as it would be, there just is zero chance that any part of Tulsa can be successful without accounting for the use of cars.  It's just not going to happen.  That's not to say that downtown needs to emulate 71st and Memorial because that just won't work.  My point being that the focus right now should be on residential and density.  There does not need to be any new parking opened up.  There is tons of parking and garages available for shopping and events.  I don't think this particular spot is going to be parking for long.  The article I read said there are no immediate plans, but I expect someone will step up and build.  With all of the new parking going into OnePlace, I just don't see it being lucrative to use the relatively small hotel space solely for parking.  Someone will step up and build. 

I agree that they will have to account for the use of cars, and I agree that there is already plenty of parking.  It's how the city is choosing to work with those things that bugs me.  Their solution is to build more parking garages.  They just spent what, 8mill on new parking?  That could have gone a long way to having that downtown dedicated, bus/trolley circulator route.  Then now that more stuff is going in the Brady Arts district there is the push for more parking garages to serve that, then if the East End starts to develop they will want to spend millions on parking there, then in another place, etc. etc.   Instead of funding transit, they are funding parking.   Thats the route they want to take.  And then developers, without transit in downtown also feel like they have to build plenty of parking which starts that vicious cycle going. If you were to start transit that would help developers feel like they could not have to build as much parking with their developments, and or it would allow people to park in garages or lots further out. 

  You know, you can make it work with the way they are going.  Downtown can still be better.  But with this current route your not going to create exceptional.  Your not going to be better than our competitor cities, we will just be "following" them, from behind as usual and still wondering what we can do break out of our usual slower growth than everyone else mediocrity.  Few simple choices and we could create superb.  We could be the small city with the NYC quality, knock em out, urban lifestyle.  That would appeal to a LOT of people and give us the edge that always seems to so frustratingly elude us.  We are always playing catch up. And thats exactly what the city is planning to have us do once again.  Ten, twenty years from now, we will find ourselves better than where we are now, no doubt, but in relation to our competitors, we will be in exactly the same spot, behind,,, when we could be exceptional, and not finding ourselves again just like everyone else was ten or twenty years ago.     

[DowntownDan]

I hadn't heard of any plans to build any parking garages in the Brady District.  The Central Parking expansion is more for the BOK Tower/City Hall complex workers to park.  It is more than enough parking to serve the Brady, Blue Dome, BOK Center, Deco District--pretty much all of downtown.  But, as far as I'm aware, it still closes at 9 pm.  I'm hoping that downtown businesses find a way to utilize existing parking.  A trolly service to get around from the garage would be nice.  Park at any of the existing parking structures and take a ride anywhere you want to go downtown. 

At this point, my biggest question is what the Brady hotel plans to do for parking.  A hotel, by definition, serves out of town visitors, many of whom will get here by car.  I would assume some sort of valet service, but where would they take the cars?  The Central Parking garage again seems to be a good fit.  I really hope there are no plans to create additional parking in the Brady District.  We are finally filling up parking areas with density.  Utilize whatever parking already exists.  Lets not go backwards.