Downtown Densities (from S&J Discussion)

[TulsaGuy]

Livability is in the eye of the beholder. 

I like a dark sky at night, unless it's being lit by sunlight reflected by the moon.  I like hearing tree frogs and crickets.  I like smelling lawns of organic matter rather than hot concrete or asphalt.  I like having room for the dogs to play in the back yard.  I like that the nearest main road noise is about 1/4 mile away. Mostly I don't hear it. 

I like to visit the city once in a while but feel no need to be there a lot.  I spent a few years in the Navy (on shore duty) and did the "go to the bar every night" thing.  I met some nice people but felt no need to continue that pattern when I got out of the Navy in my mid 20s.  Besides, I doubt my liver would have put up with it long term.   I don't particularly enjoy going out to eat in restaurants.  I like to see a museum a few times but don't want to spend all my spare time there.  I might like to hear the symphony occasionally but not enough to get dressed up for it, even if it were next door.  I've been to the theater a few times. Yawn. I am not a sports fan.

Many on TNF are struggling for the right to live like a sardine. I think all that stuff should be available for those who want it.  Just don't expect everyone to want the same thing.  Don't condemn me for wanting something different any more than you want to be condemned for wanting the life style you want.

I love a good dark sky at night as well but our development over the past 5 or so decades is simply not sustainable.  I'm not saying everyone needs or should desire to live in an urban core, but we must re-develop the way we operate as cities.  The number one problem is infrastructure costs (roads, sewer, water, transportation, public services (fire, police, etc)) and their escalating maintenance costs as we expand out into suburbia as cities.  Unfortunately, we have gotten comfortable with oversize houses 10-20 miles from the city center and it will be harder for some to go back to urban lifestyles.  However, a good chunk of the population will support and embrace it and enjoy the financial and environmental sustainability of the urban lifestyle. 

I hope Tulsa continues to encourage development of the city's core and more and more people desire to live closer to the city center.  I'm proud of the progress we've made so far.

[carltonplace]

OK, what?  Tulsa Downtown needs a big event....the arena and the ball park help, but not enough. Sorry. Fail.

Stop being coy and tell us what you think this "big event" entails.

I look at downtown (where I have lived since 2004) and I see a place that is much changed from what it was, I see cranes in the air from 3rd Street north, I see demolished bridges being rebuilt, the destruction of old buildings has slowed, the revitalization of old buildings is nearly at critical mass. New residential spaces are everywhere. Weekends downtown are filled with pedestrians where it used to be isolation.

Yes we need more, I want to see retail for everyday (basic needs) and retail that is singular to downtown to create a regional draw. I want to see increasing entertainment options, increasing numbers of occupied living spaces, more parks and fewer ground level parking lots. I want a circulator and bike lanes. We need more employment options across the spectrum.

But I couldn't have imagined the change from 2004 to now when I moved downtown. Even without a big event the changes make me excited about the future of one of my favorite places.

[DTowner]

I look at downtown (where I have lived since 2004) and I see a place that is much changed from what it was, I see cranes in the air from 3rd Street north, I see demolished bridges being rebuilt, the destruction of old buildings has slowed, the revitalization of old buildings is nearly at critical mass. New residential spaces are everywhere. Weekends downtown are filled with pedestrians where it used to be isolation.

Yes we need more, I want to see retail for everyday (basic needs) and retail that is singular to downtown to create a regional draw. I want to see increasing entertainment options, increasing numbers of occupied living spaces, more parks and fewer ground level parking lots. I want a circulator and bike lanes. We need more employment options across the spectrum.

But I couldn't have imagined the change from 2004 to now when I moved downtown. Even without a big event the changes make me excited about the future of one of my favorite places.

That's a great point.  It's easy to get so caught up in the what's wrong and what we could/should be doing next, that we lose sight of how far we've come. 

[JCnOwasso]

That's a great point.  It's easy to get so caught up in the what's wrong and what we could/should be doing next, that we lose sight of how far we've come. 

In feb 2005 I came back to Tulsa after a 5 year stay in the military.  My wife (girlfriend at the time) and I would go downtown for a couple things here and there, but nothing much.  There were a couple places to eat but not much else.  Things have changed tremendously in the 7 years I have been back, and there is so much more to go.  I look forward to the next 5 years of downtown development and to see what is going to happen.  Things were never going to change over night, but it seems like it has been pretty close to that.

Everyday I drive through downtown and am amazed at what has happened.

[Jeff P]

Stop being coy and tell us what you think this "big event" entails.

I look at downtown (where I have lived since 2004) and I see a place that is much changed from what it was, I see cranes in the air from 3rd Street north, I see demolished bridges being rebuilt, the destruction of old buildings has slowed, the revitalization of old buildings is nearly at critical mass. New residential spaces are everywhere. Weekends downtown are filled with pedestrians where it used to be isolation.

Yes we need more, I want to see retail for everyday (basic needs) and retail that is singular to downtown to create a regional draw. I want to see increasing entertainment options, increasing numbers of occupied living spaces, more parks and fewer ground level parking lots. I want a circulator and bike lanes. We need more employment options across the spectrum.

But I couldn't have imagined the change from 2004 to now when I moved downtown. Even without a big event the changes make me excited about the future of one of my favorite places.

Awesome post is awesome.

People who don't think downtown has been almost completely transformed in the past 6-7 years just aren't paying attention.

Or they are too blinded by their own prejudices that they can't see what's right in front of them.

[DowntownDan]

I'm hoping that with Missouri leaving the Big 12, that Tulsa will get a significant opportunity to host a Big 12 basketball tournament.  The main competition is Kansas City, which still has a strong hold on it because of nearby KU, but there may be some backlash at providing an economic benefit to Kansas City, which will be mostly beneficial on the Missouri side, with the University of Missouri having left the conference.  Oklahoma City is a strong competitor because they have already hosted it successfully.  I would hope Dallas would be out of the picture.  I lived in Dallas the last time it was there.  It received very little coverage.  The early rounds had attrocious attendance.  The sports talk radio were more interested in the Mavericks and the Cowboys off season moves.  It is a pro sports town through and through. 

With the convention center arena nearby, it could host both mens and womens.  Hopefully the First place tower and surrounding retail would be completed by the time the tourney showed up in Tulsa.  It would receive top billing in this town.  It would attract pretty much every KU fan from the north.  Both KU and Texas drew very well to Tulsa when they were seeded in the NCAA tournament in town.  Add in OU and OSU fans (hopefully both teams will improve by then) and it should be a massive success.  Would that be a big enough event? 

[DTowner]

I'm hoping that with Missouri leaving the Big 12, that Tulsa will get a significant opportunity to host a Big 12 basketball tournament.  The main competition is Kansas City, which still has a strong hold on it because of nearby KU, but there may be some backlash at providing an economic benefit to Kansas City, which will be mostly beneficial on the Missouri side, with the University of Missouri having left the conference.  Oklahoma City is a strong competitor because they have already hosted it successfully.  I would hope Dallas would be out of the picture.  I lived in Dallas the last time it was there.  It received very little coverage.  The early rounds had attrocious attendance.  The sports talk radio were more interested in the Mavericks and the Cowboys off season moves.  It is a pro sports town through and through. 

With the convention center arena nearby, it could host both mens and womens.  Hopefully the First place tower and surrounding retail would be completed by the time the tourney showed up in Tulsa.  It would receive top billing in this town.  It would attract pretty much every KU fan from the north.  Both KU and Texas drew very well to Tulsa when they were seeded in the NCAA tournament in town.  Add in OU and OSU fans (hopefully both teams will improve by then) and it should be a massive success.  Would that be a big enough event? 

Wasn't this possibility/hope the primary reason for the design change to the convention center remodel?  Originally the arena was to be replaced by the new ballroom, but it became apparent that having a second arena to contemporaneously hold the mens and woman's conference tournaments was a requirement to host the Big XII.

Missouri's departure probably helps us (although KC has more KU grads than anywhere else, so I wouldn't count it out completely), but I suspect we are still behind OKC because of its past success.  I don't see how we really distinguish ourselves from OKC and, with the Thunder, OKC has proven itself a better sports town generally than Tulsa.  Tulsa's crowds for last year's NCAA were ok, but not great compared to other first round sites.  If anything hurts OKC now, it's scheduling conflicts with Thunder games.

I would be happy if Tulsa could get in a regular rotation for the Big XII and NCAA first two rounds (technically, I guess, second and third rounds assuming they keep the current play-in games).  That would probably get us a major basketball event in March every few years that is guaranteed to draw a lot of visitors.

[JCnOwasso]

Yes DT, we needed to have a venue that could host the womens portion of the tournament.  You will most likely see a rotation between KC, OKC, Dallas... and possibly Tulsa.

[DowntownDan]

Maybe the new Conference USA-Mountain West Conference merged league would look to Tulsa for their bball tournament.  Smack dab in the middle of the new coast-to-coast conference.  I attended some C-USA tournament games when it was here and it was run well.  Attendance at the end suffered because TU lost early, and Memphis, which brought a lot of fans, was upset early.  Not many UTEP or Houston fans made the trip because they weren't reallly expected to make it to the finals.  The league, outside of Memphis, also suffers from a lack of basketball fans.  The new league won't be much better.  It is more football centric than basketball. 

[Red Arrow]

I love a good dark sky at night as well but our development over the past 5 or so decades is simply not sustainable.  I'm not saying everyone needs or should desire to live in an urban core, but we must re-develop the way we operate as cities.  The number one problem is infrastructure costs (roads, sewer, water, transportation, public services (fire, police, etc)) and their escalating maintenance costs as we expand out into suburbia as cities.  Unfortunately, we have gotten comfortable with oversize houses 10-20 miles from the city center and it will be harder for some to go back to urban lifestyles.  However, a good chunk of the population will support and embrace it and enjoy the financial and environmental sustainability of the urban lifestyle. 

Ahhhh... the old "sustainable" argument. 

"However, a good chunk of the population will support and embrace it and enjoy the financial and environmental sustainability of the urban lifestyle."   You must be a .00001%er if you think the price of urban housing is sustainable.  Concrete, asphalt, bricks, tar roofs... that's the environment I want.  I don't want no stinkin' trees and lawns.  The sustainability of urbania depends on things like Lake Spavinaw and landfills out of the urban core, just like suburbia.  No money from outside the local government is needed either.  Federal grants for transit?  Don't make me laugh. We don't need that either.  Oversize houses?  The apartment my cousin lived in while in Boston was originally a 5 story single family home in the brownstone area along Commonwealth.  It was divided into at least 10 apartments.

[TheArtist]

   Lets see, in just the last few years in the area around the Mayo Hotel and Boston Ave on 5th st we have seen either put in, being worked on now, or in the works easily around 400 plus homes, several hotels, new shops, new restaurants, couple salons, etc.  With lots more on the way.

Not one new street was put in or widened.  Not one more new street needs to be maintained, snow plowed off it, patrolled, lighted, etc.

You know, I do get to south Tulsa on occasion and see the new "bigger better" intersections going in and read about how much those cost.  How much it costs to widen this or that road, move and or put in new lighting, etc.  I see how much parking is needed for those new businesses, how much concrete and asphalt is laid for an equivalent number of new homes in those suburban neighborhoods, and so on. 

If urbanity is done right, not the "mutated fake form", it can be quite cost effective and efficient (not to mention healthy).  Especially in a situation like ours where a lot of the infrastructure is already there.  And I don't know where some on here get off thinking that it's only a few people that want to live in a good urban environment when statistics and demographics are showing thats the main trend at the moment and one that only seems to be building steam.  That the younger generations that grew up in suburbia, and I would say that includes me at the age of 45 lol, more and more want to live in an urban area over a suburban one.  We don't see it as much here, simply because we don't have it to offer!  And if we don't do things right, we will not be a city that will be competitive in offering good urban lifestyle options. 

Back to transit... IMO, our transit should evolve, starting small and growing, while all the time thinking and planning about where the needs might be in the future.  As we grow our housing and other offerings downtown, we should build up our transit (starting with small city busses running only in the core with dedicated stops, etc.) to serve that, just like they add, widen and improve roads in suburbia as more housing and such goes in there.  We don't need to add new roads downtown, and we don't need to pay big bucks to add new parking, take those funds and istead put it towards starting transit.   

[Red Arrow]

   Lets see, in just the last few years in the area around the Mayo Hotel and Boston Ave on 5th st we have seen either put in, being worked on now, or in the works easily around 400 plus homes, several hotels, new shops, new restaurants, couple salons, etc.  With lots more on the way.

Not one new street was put in or widened.  Not one more new street needs to be maintained, snow plowed off it, patrolled, lighted, etc.

Maybe in 100 or more years, the areas of SE Tulsa will have the same transformation.  At one time, those roads downtown were dirt paths at best.  Maybe in 30 or so years, Tulsa will need a subway (transit type, not the sandwich shop).  During one of my visits to Boston, they were extending the subway.  They were doing it by digging a trench from the top. That was a BIG hole, but not as much as the "Big Dig".  Tulsa's utilities may be enough for now but when they do need an increase in capacity, it's going to be expensive.  Even the per person price gets big when you start digging up streets 30 feet deep. Bixby doesn't plow snow in the residential areas.  I missed a couple of days of work last year.  I grumbled but realized that's one cost of living here.  The kid across the street ran up and down the street in his Jeep to pack the snow for the rest of us (and because it was fun).  I gave him some gas money.   I believe Bixby has enough police and firemen but I rarely see them just cruising the neighborhoods. Lights?  After the 2007 ice storm we lost a local street light.  I was disappointed when "they" fixed it.  Our neighborhood does not need to be lit up well enough to read a newspaper while walking down the street at midnight.

You know, I do get to south Tulsa on occasion and see the new "bigger better" intersections going in and read about how much those cost.  How much it costs to widen this or that road, move and or put in new lighting, etc.  I see how much parking is needed for those new businesses, how much concrete and asphalt is laid for an equivalent number of new homes in those suburban neighborhoods, and so on. 

There sure is a preponderance of 2 lane (1 in each direction, not two in each direction) roads in downtown.  http://g.co/maps/g9h3d
Well, maybe not.  The roads don't need to be widened because they are already 4 or 6 lanes.  They don't need new lighting because they have old lighting.  Patric would probably like to see most of it replaced with better, more efficient, dark sky friendly lighting.  Why do we need so much lighting out here in suburbia anyway?

My neighborhood:  http://g.co/maps/nd9uk
I make no claim to being "efficient" use with regards to maximizing people per square mile.  This "Bud" is not for you.  Our house was built in 1968.  I expect the developer put in the roads and Bixby water.  Except in the low areas by the creek, septic tanks work fine on 1+ acre lots.  Sanitary sewers were added a few years ago, mostly to accommodate the houses in the lower areas. The neighborhood streets here have been resurfaced once since we moved here in 1971 and are in fine shape.  There is not enough traffic to warrant sidewalks.  It's safe to walk in the street.

This is why we need 6 lanes on Memorial, fake suburbanism: http://g.co/maps/v2763
I don't know why these families couldn't be happy closer to downtown if other (perceived) conditions like schools were equal.  Some people just want a new (not newer) house.  I know that some of the older areas just outside downtown have grandfathered electric wiring, floor furnaces, probably window airconditioning....  The cost of bringing these structures up to present day code and convenience is overwhelming to many folks. I don't want our historic areas razed but we need to recognize that the average 30 yr old isn't going to renovate those old houses. 

If urbanity is done right, not the "mutated fake form", it can be quite cost effective and efficient (not to mention healthy).

Are you implying that suburbia is inherently unhealthy?  You are probably too young to remember "healthy" cities like Pittsburgh, PA in early to mid 20th Century.  They started cleaning up by the 60s. (By closing the steel mills.)  One of my cousins, (the one who later moved to Boston) went to college in Pittsburgh in the late 60s and early 70s.  A friend and I visited for a weekend (only a 6 hr drive across the PA Tpk) in spring of 72.  Most of the buildings were still covered in soot.  I believe most major epidemics like cholera were in densely populated areas like London, England.  NYC tenements were not a particularly nice place to live in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  I don't know about now.  I believe the idea of healthy living in a densely populated urban environment is a recent phenomenon. Maybe it's a side benefit of all of our manufacturing going to China.

Especially in a situation like ours where a lot of the infrastructure is already there.  And I don't know where some on here get off thinking that it's only a few people that want to live in a good urban environment when statistics and demographics are showing thats the main trend at the moment and one that only seems to be building steam.  That the younger generations that grew up in suburbia, and I would say that includes me at the age of 45 lol, more and more want to live in an urban area over a suburban one.  We don't see it as much here, simply because we don't have it to offer!  And if we don't do things right, we will not be a city that will be competitive in offering good urban lifestyle options.

I believe I have been consistent in saying that the urban lifestyle should be available, even in Tulsa, for those who want it.  The more of "you" that want to live downtown and have a place to be, the better for me to not have to fight traffic, put up with urban lighting, Lowes and WalMart in place of horse pastures... 

Back to transit... IMO, our transit should evolve, starting small and growing, while all the time thinking and planning about where the needs might be in the future.  As we grow our housing and other offerings downtown, we should build up our transit (starting with small city busses running only in the core with dedicated stops, etc.) to serve that, just like they add, widen and improve roads in suburbia as more housing and such goes in there.  We don't need to add new roads downtown, and we don't need to pay big bucks to add new parking, take those funds and istead put it towards starting transit.   

I agree, transit will be key to getting a really urban environment to the core of Tulsa.  Getting population density up to support the specialty shops that cannot exist in suburbia will be good for the whole area.  What I want in a specialty shop may be different than what you want but with enough density, we can both get what we want.  I know I have stated before that while I don't personally want to live "downtown" I want to live near a city. 

In the late 80s, I wanted a printer for my home computer.  None of the suburban computer stores had quite what I wanted.  There was a store downtown (I forget the name) that had the Epson LQ series (24 pin dot matrix rather than the more common 9 pin) in stock.  I wanted to see how good the print looked.  I drove downtown, grumbled about the parking meters, saw the printer, decided to get the wide body rather than the regular one, spent $1000., and took home a printer.  Yep, that's what it cost.  One thousand dollars, not a typo.  (OK, maybe it was $950. but I'm not going to look for the receipt.)

Back to transit.  I am willing to help support a regional transit system.  In return I will want a street widened occasionally.  Maybe in 100 years this place will look like:
http://g.co/maps/m5unj
http://www.septa.org/maps/system/

[carltonplace]

Arrow, I don't think anyone is denying your right (or anyone's) to live where you prefer. To me the point is that more people would choose to live downtown if there were options for them to do so. People that would prefer to live downtown can't live there because demand exceeds supply and most of the existing housing stock in downtown is spendy.

Transportation options are another matter: in Tulsa auto ownership is a necessity. Combustion engines are known to cause pollution that is not healthy for us, petroleum will become an ever rarer commodity, and car ownership is expensive with payments, insurance premiums, repair and maintenance, fuel. On the average car ownership costs the owner $598 per month (when I had car payments mine was more like $798 per month). Providing reliable public transportation could alleviate this cost and most people could spend this money elsewhere (health care, college tuition, retirement, paying off a mortgage) and reduce the amount of emissions that all of us agree to breathe as a trade off to our dependence on cars. Additional savings are there when you consider the need to continually widen and improve streets (something that both you and the Artist touched on). 

[we vs us]

Are you implying that suburbia is inherently unhealthy?

Absolutely yes.  Suburbia is inherently unhealthy.

[Conan71]

I wouldn't mind living downtown, but I'm actually in a pretty ideal location living near 31st & Yale.  90% of anything I need can be found within just over a mile radius, including legs & eggs and pin striping on my car or bikes if I were so inclined   It's literally sort of a micro city.