Downtown Densities (from S&J Discussion)

[BKDotCom]

Bravo.  This is something that is one my mind all the time.  There is an endemic inefficiency in living 10-15 miles from where one works.  We don't all deserve our own country manner houses.

Whaa??
It's the American dream!

[jacobi]

Whaa??
It's the American dream!

Since when?  1950?  Even then the suburbanism one saw was far denser and more 'urban' than the sprawling diaspora of housing tracts out in east jesus (owasso).  It seems that the McMainsion fad starts in the mid 70's or so.  It has only been for the last 40 years or so that people have lived this way.  That's long enough though to make people think "well, it's just always been this way.  Why would or how could you live without a car?"  Unfortunately we have sunk ALOT of our resources into developing an infrastructure around this life style, which can only be supported by the finite resource of petroleum.

[Hoss]

Since when?  1950?  Even then the suburbanism one saw was far denser and more 'urban' than the sprawling diaspora of housing tracts out in east jesus (owasso).  It seems that the McMainsion fad starts in the mid 70's or so.  It has only been for the last 40 years or so that people have lived this way.  That's long enough though to make people think "well, it's just always been this way.  Why would or how could you live without a car?"  Unfortunately we have sunk ALOT of our resources into developing an infrastructure around this life style, which can only be supported by the finite resource of petroleum.

I think BK was being facetious.

[jacobi]

Whaa??
It's the American dream!

I know. 

I've had alot of arguments with people (mostly those younger than I)  who seem to think that one of the reasons why America is evil is because we have a dream of suburbia.  I tell them that is not the american dream.  It is a charature of the american dream.

[AquaMan]

Revisit your statement in ten years, I think you will be surprised.  The amount of growth in the last ten years has been truly dynamic.  In 2002, I would have agreed with your assessment.  If we maintain the downtown area and private investment maintains existing buildings or develops current surface parking lots into more high-rise office or residential density, I predict you will be wrong.  The trend toward people moving back to geographic centers isn't a fad. Only time will convince you of this. The American trend toward suburbs is completely counter to 5000 or so years of civilized development which either favors dense urban centers or rural areas with much smaller hubs of commerce.

If I'm wrong then that's okay. The city will recreate itself downtown and we can be a mini-NYC. If I'm right, thats okay too because downtown will still survive, just not what we each want to see there. What dampens my faith in your future vision stems from the reasons that the burbs are so popular in spite of the logic that argues against them. It is the lack of a solidly respected school system in the inner city. It is the lack of support for effective mass transit. It is the fear of non-conformity. These are the powerful elements that fuel suburbanism.

$5 dollar a gallon gasoline could overcome a lot of those elements.

[Conan71]

If I'm wrong then that's okay. The city will recreate itself downtown and we can be a mini-NYC. If I'm right, thats okay too because downtown will still survive, just not what we each want to see there. What dampens my faith in your future vision stems from the reasons that the burbs are so popular in spite of the logic that argues against them. It is the lack of a solidly respected school system in the inner city. It is the lack of support for effective mass transit. It is the fear of non-conformity. These are the powerful elements that fuel suburbanism.

$5 dollar a gallon gasoline could overcome a lot of those elements.

Tulsa will never have the sort of density you find in NYC, LA, San Francisco, etc. and I'm good with that.  Tulsa doesn't need to be like every other city, as not everyone has the dream of living in a fast-paced, dense urban environment.  Those that do want that have moved to an area like that.  I don't consider that a loss for Tulsa either.  That's simply someone who has a different idea of how they want to live, work, commute, and spend their down time that doesn't jibe with Tulsa.  

I've certainly made no secret that my ideal living situation will be in a smaller mountain community far from a major population center or an island somewhere out in the Atlantic.  I don't expect Tulsa to change to accommodate my ideal lifestyle, in fact it would be downright impossible.

I think Tulsa is on track to offer something of a good compromise for those who prefer suburban living and those who want an urban lifestyle.  I think we are better suited for that than most other cities our size and even ones larger than us.

[TheArtist]

   Here is where I disagree a bit.  Tulsa once had NYC type, high quality "urbanness".  I think it still can have some of that again.   I also don't think that lots of other US cities do have that kind of high quality urban space other than "Portland, Chicago, San Diego, Boston, and some up and coming cities like Salt Lake City.  

 I do see a lot of cities that are trying to become better, trying to emulate the good qualities of those very desirable cities, but have failed at it. Look at Dallas for instance and it's "fake" urbanity.  Many of these cities, that are often smaller than Dallas and that are our "competitor cities" are following this "fake" urbanity model.  What happens is that mish-mash of growth that is neither truly urban nor suburban keeps growing.  It doesn't "transition" as many of these cities keep hoping it will to the high quality urban spaces they say they are actually wanting.  

 Tulsa is at the point in its development where it needs to decide how it wants it's core to grow.  Does it want high quality, pedestrian friendly/transit friendly growth?   Or does it want to follow the "half-arsed" phoney model thats not really urban or suburban, thats still car oriented, where the sidewalks in the core are busy on "occasions", where the transit is in place but not really functioning cost effectively, thats paying for oodles of garages and transit at the same time, etc.

 They put in a new parking garage by the arena and left...some space to have retail built later around the base.
 They are thinking of building a new parking garage for the Brady District and.... oh it will be ok because it will have retail space along the base
 They may someday put a parking garage near the PAC and... oh, it will be ok because it too will have retail at ground level.
 They just spent 8 mill to expand a parking garage downtown
 They figure it will cost around $600,000 to fix the parking meter situation downtown
 etc.
 etc.
 etc.

You see where we are going here.  We are already headed down the "fake urban" road like most every other small and midsized city.  Rather than make our selves exceptional and have really desirable urban spaces that would give us an edge up against our competitor cities.  Rather than being something special, we are aspiring to be average.  And we are a slow growing city, that's already decades behind.  Apparently heck bent on staying that way.  

 Zone to create great urban spaces, simply allow developers to be able to build those spaces.  

 Quit spending money on parking.  We could build a nice starter transit system in our core for the cost they have and will spend on parking,,, and then use that transit to get people from the plentiful parking we already have to the pedestrian friendly spaces we want to grow.  Heck I am all for street level retail, build it please, just leave out the garage behind it and instead have a trolley or special downtown bus go by it.  There is already plenty of parking in and around downtown. Do we really want to keep trying to build parking garages in every section that "needs" it as downtown grows?  Or will we take that money and instead put in transit in the areas that "need" it?

 What growth model do we want to persue and get started?  Average, slow growing and forever behind, or exceptional. Once you choose your path, your likely to be stuck with it for a looong time for it will keep wanting to replicate itself and fight against the other models.

[Red Arrow]

It is the lack of support for effective mass transit.

Readily available public transportation is what made suburban Philadelphia, PA possible.   I will agree that many of the east coast suburbs are more dense than many of Tulsa's.  Looking at new housing developments in the Tulsa area, with houses 5 feet from each other, will show a density rivaling many eastern suburbs.  The push to suburbia in the USA is as old as economical transit to live there.

[Oil Capital]

  Here is where I disagree a bit.  Tulsa once had NYC type, high quality "urbanness".  I think it still can have some of that again.   I also don't think that lots of other US cities do have that kind of high quality urban space other than "Portland, Chicago, San Diego, Boston, and some up and coming cities like Salt Lake City.  

 I do see a lot of cities that are trying to become better, trying to emulate the good qualities of those very desirable cities, but have failed at it. Look at Dallas for instance and it's "fake" urbanity.  Many of these cities, that are often smaller than Dallas and that are our "competitor cities" are following this "fake" urbanity model.  What happens is that mish-mash of growth that is neither truly urban nor suburban keeps growing.  It doesn't "transition" as many of these cities keep hoping it will to the high quality urban spaces they say they are actually wanting.  

 Tulsa is at the point in its development where it needs to decide how it wants it's core to grow.  Does it want high quality, pedestrian friendly/transit friendly growth?   Or does it want to follow the "half-arsed" phoney model thats not really urban or suburban, thats still car oriented, where the sidewalks in the core are busy on "occasions", where the transit is in place but not really functioning cost effectively, thats paying for oodles of garages and transit at the same time, etc.

 They put in a new parking garage by the arena and left...some space to have retail built later around the base.
 They are thinking of building a new parking garage for the Brady District and.... oh it will be ok because it will have retail space along the base
 They may someday put a parking garage near the PAC and... oh, it will be ok because it too will have retail at ground level.
 They just spent 8 mill to expand a parking garage downtown
 They figure it will cost around $600,000 to fix the parking meter situation downtown
 etc.
 etc.
 etc.

You see where we are going here.  We are already headed down the "fake urban" road like most every other small and midsized city.  Rather than make our selves exceptional and have really desirable urban spaces that would give us an edge up against our competitor cities.  Rather than being something special, we are aspiring to be average.  And we are a slow growing city, that's already decades behind.  Apparently heck bent on staying that way.  

 Zone to create great urban spaces, simply allow developers to be able to build those spaces.  

 Quit spending money on parking.  We could build a nice starter transit system in our core for the cost they have and will spend on parking,,, and then use that transit to get people from the plentiful parking we already have to the pedestrian friendly spaces we want to grow.  Heck I am all for street level retail, build it please, just leave out the garage behind it and instead have a trolley or special downtown bus go by it.  There is already plenty of parking in and around downtown. Do we really want to keep trying to build parking garages in every section that "needs" it as downtown grows?  Or will we take that money and instead put in transit in the areas that "need" it?

 What growth model do we want to persue and get started?  Average, slow growing and forever behind, or exceptional. Once you choose your path, your likely to be stuck with it for a looong time for it will keep wanting to replicate itself and fight against the other models.

Very interesting.  I think we missed a great opportunity to differentiate Tulsa by proceeding with the reuilding and expansion of I-40.  There is plenty of capacity on 240.  We could have replaced I-40 with a lovely parkway , rather than expanding and amplifying the gash that cuts through the middle of Tulsa.

My only quibble with your thoughts is that I think you underestimate the cost of a starter transit system.  For light rail, I think you can assume at the very least, $50 Million per mile.  Street cars probably at least $15 Million per mile.

[TheArtist]

Very interesting.  I think we missed a great opportunity to differentiate Tulsa by proceeding with the reuilding and expansion of I-40.  There is plenty of capacity on 240.  We could have replaced I-40 with a lovely parkway , rather than expanding and amplifying the gash that cuts through the middle of Tulsa.

My only quibble with your thoughts is that I think you underestimate the cost of a starter transit system.  For light rail, I think you can assume at the very least, $50 Million per mile.  Street cars probably at least $15 Million per mile.

 Indeed, but to be a little more clear, what I am talking about isn't light rail at this point, or perhaps even Street Cars.  Also I am talking about routes that are only long enough, starting off, to circulate within downtown itself.  There is a need to get people into areas like the Brady Arts district, but rather than build more parking, have say a small, sharp looking bus or two that goes by each stop every 5-10 minutes in a loop around downtown that passes areas plentiful in parking and goes through the areas where the people want to go. Then in time add perhaps another bus, or perhaps a streetcar line that intersects that route, or two lines, etc.  Start small and build that transit model up.  Free up places where you would otherwise put in more parking garages to have them instead be used for businesses, entertainment and living (not to mention freeing up developers of places like living from having to add as much or even any parking and thus allowing them to make their living more affordable).  Then as the parking spaces get used up and you still need parking... keep inching your transit routes outward.  Make the transit go across the river to the west bank where there is parking there or to the Fin Tube site, use park and ride into the core from other parts of the city and suburbs, etc.   Keep densifying the core and making it super high quality and attractive and as you need "parking" push your transit out to parking, or other "nodes" like Cherry Street, that exist further away. And remember, as you make the lines longer, your not just adding parking at either end, but potentially streetside parking all along the way.  The parking already exists, just need transit of some sort to get people from those spots to where they want to go.      

I see all kinds of empty parking spaces all over downtown while some areas are packed with cars on different occasions.  Boston Ave around 5th is often packed with cars in those spaces, but go two blocks south or east and there is plenty of parking.   Put in transit that goes past those available spaces and while your doing that you allow more density to happen, incentivise development that doesn't feel that it has to have or pay for it's own parking and so forth.  That model grows versus the "parking garage/fake density" model.   You end up with sidewalks that are actually busy and attractive most of the time, which spurs more growth, versus the parking garage/fake density model that has your sidewalks often still empty and transit if you want it, that doesnt work as well because you don't have enough people using it. (aka Uptown Dallas).

[AquaMan]

 Indeed, but to be a little more clear, what I am talking about isn't light rail at this point, or perhaps even Street Cars.  Also I am talking about routes that are only long enough, starting off, to circulate within downtown itself.  There is a need to get people into areas like the Brady Arts district, but rather than build more parking, have say a small, sharp looking bus or two that goes by each stop every 5-10 minutes in a loop around downtown that passes areas plentiful in parking and goes through the areas where the people want to go. Then in time add perhaps another bus, or perhaps a streetcar line that intersects that route, or two lines, etc.  Start small and build that transit model up.  Free up places where you would otherwise put in more parking garages to have them instead be used for businesses, entertainment and living (not to mention freeing up developers of places like living from having to add as much or even any parking and thus allowing them to make their living more affordable).  Then as the parking spaces get used up and you still need parking... keep inching your transit routes outward.  Make the transit go across the river to the west bank where there is parking there or to the Fin Tube site, use park and ride into the core from other parts of the city and suburbs, etc.   Keep densifying the core and making it super high quality and attractive and as you need "parking" push your transit out to parking, or other "nodes" like Cherry Street, that exist further away. And remember, as you make the lines longer, your not just adding parking at either end, but potentially streetside parking all along the way.  The parking already exists, just need transit of some sort to get people from those spots to where they want to go.      

Didn't we have a discussion recently about those routes? Several good ideas of route layouts were offered but I don't remember the thread.

[TheArtist]

Didn't we have a discussion recently about those routes? Several good ideas of route layouts were offered but I don't remember the thread.

Yes, we have had these discussions and come up with some nice route ideas... but "those in power" think parking garages with retail at ground level is the way to go.  Saw a birds eye view of an area like that in another city.  Looked urban at ground level, but then looking down you could see that it was really just suburbia done a different way.  Stripmalls with parking behind and above.  Block after block of buildings with nothing but a thin veneer of retail or living around the outside and no density on the inside of the block. Mostly empty sidewalks and "fake transit" that too "looked nice" but wasn't carrying many people.  SOOOO expensive and wasteful and ultimately BORING.

[ZYX]

Will, your idea simply makes too much sense to pass the filter of some of those in power in our city. I very strongly agree with your idea and would love to see it implemented.

[Conan71]

William, just to clear up your point, do you mean more like parking areas on the perimeter of the CBD with transit routes rather than parking garages in the middle of all the activity?  Interesting concept, and I like it but you've got a couple of pitfalls:

During a sold out concert at the BOK, you have to figure out how to move 18,000 people in and out of the BOK in a matter of a 1/2 hour to an hour.  If average bus capacity is 50 or 60... well you see where I'm going with that.

At peak commute times, I suspect the system could get overwhelmed, again due to not enough seats.

No matter what we do, Tulsa grew up with a sense of independence via the automobile and we will always have that identity.  That doesn't make what we do downtown a faux urbanism at all.  I've met people from NYC and London who have never owned a car and don't know how to drive one.  Those cities grew up with mass transit though and it's woven into their fabric.  Our attempts at mass transit simply were too clumsy to keep up.

[Red Arrow]

Very interesting.  I think we missed a great opportunity to differentiate Tulsa by proceeding with the reuilding and expansion of I-40.  There is plenty of capacity on 240.  We could have replaced I-40 with a lovely parkway , rather than expanding and amplifying the gash that cuts through the middle of Tulsa.

Replace I-40 with a parkway in OKC rather than widen I-44 through Tulsa.  That won't get you too many "gee thanks" on this forum.

My only quibble with your thoughts is that I think you underestimate the cost of a starter transit system.  For light rail, I think you can assume at the very least, $50 Million per mile.  Street cars probably at least $15 Million per mile.

How much per mile to re-route I-40 in OKC and widen I-44 in Tulsa?