Downtown Densities (from S&J Discussion)

[bacjz00]

What people in Dallas call Uptown is centered on McKinney Ave. on the 1.5-mile stretch from Pearl to Blackburn, and stretches east-west between US-75 and Turtle Creek.  It basically includes the old State Thomas neighborhood as well as east Oaklawn.  In the last 10-12 years since DART opened at Cityplace (US-75 and Blackburn) there have been a couple thousand new apartments built.  If you want urban density built out of parking lots and vacant lots in 2012, flyover-state style, look no further than the corner of State St. and Allen, Dallas, Texas.  Sorry if that makes you sad.  It's not Plano... people walk.  I swear, I lived there.

EDIT: Read the wikipedia page and then tell me, especially in the context of this thread, that Downtown Tulsa becoming like Uptown Dallas would be a failure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uptown_Dallas Here's a hint: if you think that, your expectations are wildly unrealistic.

I just looked at it on Google Maps.  I don't see much "faux" about it.  Just looks like a nicer, more accessible version of Cherry Street or Brookside to me.  

[Red Arrow]

I just looked at it on Google Maps.  I don't see much "faux" about it.  Just looks like a nicer, more accessible version of Cherry Street or Brookside to me.  

If what you really want is (Greenwich Village, NYC):
http://g.co/maps/m69h6

I can understand how this (Dallas) would be disappointing:
http://g.co/maps/9gtuf

[TheArtist]

If what you really want is (Greenwich Village, NYC):
http://g.co/maps/m69h6

I can understand how this (Dallas) would be disappointing:
http://g.co/maps/9gtuf

Oooooh look at the vibrancy of those streets in Dallas! The sidewalks bustling with life just so makes you want to be right there in the mix of it all.  What a thrill! I can't WAIT to go back to Dallas and visit again someday.  Had SOOO much fun the last time I was there.  Oh, wait, I meant Greenwich Village.

Look at the birds eye view of that area in Dallas... parking garages taking up more space than the living and retail.  Costs money (makes living there more expensive than it needs to be), takes away property that could otherwise be used for more living and retail/dining, etc. (which also decreases the tax base and jobs),  and it takes vibrancy off the streets.   Plus, can you imagine how well transit would work in such an area? 

[TheArtist]

What people in Dallas call Uptown is centered on McKinney Ave. on the 1.5-mile stretch from Pearl to Blackburn, and stretches east-west between US-75 and Turtle Creek.  It basically includes the old State Thomas neighborhood as well as east Oaklawn.  In the last 10-12 years since DART opened at Cityplace (US-75 and Blackburn) there have been a couple thousand new apartments built.  If you want urban density built out of parking lots and vacant lots in 2012, flyover-state style, look no further than the corner of State St. and Allen, Dallas, Texas.  Sorry if that makes you sad.  It's not Plano... people walk.  I swear, I lived there.

EDIT: Read the wikipedia page and then tell me, especially in the context of this thread, that Downtown Tulsa becoming like Uptown Dallas would be a failure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uptown_Dallas Here's a hint: if you think that, your expectations are wildly unrealistic.

Its not a matter of the amount of development, its the type and quality of end result.  No, I don't think we are going to be able to get the amount, Tulsa is a slow growing city.  But imo thats all the MORE reason to go with higher quality type of development model, that could actually cost about the same.... or less.... for better results!  Whats not to like?   It just requires thinking outside the usual of what we typically find, these days, in this region of the country.  And I know thats hard, especially when looking at the proliferation of other cities in the area whose downtown streets, indeed "appear" better than what we got, but if you have experienced the real deal...you know its sh!t.   Which then goes back to "Giving Tulsa that competitive edge." "Let us stand out from the crowd and become one of those talked about places thats attractive to young people and businesses, etc. because, though we are small, we still have high quality, big city, vibrant, fun, living."  better than Dallas, KC, OKC, Denver, etc.  Its our choice.  We can be different and not continue to "follow" the average at our usual slow pace.  We could make a few descisions that imo, will change the direction of our future for the better and not be a smaller, slower version of everyone else around us.  How competitive and attractive is that?     

[Red Arrow]

Oooooh look at the vibrancy of those streets in Dallas! The sidewalks bustling with life just so makes you want to be right there in the mix of it all.  What a thrill! I can't WAIT to go back to Dallas and visit again someday.  Had SOOO much fun the last time I was there.  Oh, wait, I meant Greenwich Village.

Plus, can you imagine how well transit would work in such an area? 

No question that for a place to visit, Greenwich Village wins.

If you rotate the Street View left or right about 90 degrees, you will see the McKinney Ave Trolley tracks in the street.  That trolley helped restart rail transit in the area.  It may not be the NYC Subway but it has been accepted enough to undergo several expansions.

[TheArtist]

No question that for a place to visit, Greenwich Village wins.

If you rotate the Street View left or right about 90 degrees, you will see the McKinney Ave Trolley tracks in the street.  That trolley helped restart rail transit in the area.  It may not be the NYC Subway but it has been accepted enough to undergo several expansions.

I have seen that trolley.  Its quite pretty.  Dallas can afford pretty nice stuff.  Really love their fancy bridges and overpasses with all the nice artwork, fancy railings, artistic lighting features, etc.  Dallas has money and can spend it in a way that Tulsa can not, or will not.  Oh, and I even think I saw someone on that Trolley in Dallas once, course I think it was a holiday weekend when there were more people in the area. 

[Red Arrow]

I have seen that trolley.  Its quite pretty.  Dallas can afford pretty nice stuff.  Really love their fancy bridges and overpasses with all the nice artwork, fancy railings, artistic lighting features, etc.  Dallas has money and can spend it in a way that Tulsa can not, or will not.  Oh, and I even think I saw someone on that Trolley in Dallas once, course I think it was a holiday weekend when there were more people in the area. 

http://www.mata.org/

[erfalf]

Its not a matter of the amount of development, its the type and quality of end result.  No, I don't think we are going to be able to get the amount, Tulsa is a slow growing city.  But imo thats all the MORE reason to go with higher quality type of development model, that could actually cost about the same.... or less.... for better results!  Whats not to like?   It just requires thinking outside the usual of what we typically find, these days, in this region of the country.  And I know thats hard, especially when looking at the proliferation of other cities in the area whose downtown streets, indeed "appear" better than what we got, but if you have experienced the real deal...you know its sh!t.   Which then goes back to "Giving Tulsa that competitive edge." "Let us stand out from the crowd and become one of those talked about places thats attractive to young people and businesses, etc. because, though we are small, we still have high quality, big city, vibrant, fun, living."  better than Dallas, KC, OKC, Denver, etc.  Its our choice.  We can be different and not continue to "follow" the average at our usual slow pace.  We could make a few descisions that imo, will change the direction of our future for the better and not be a smaller, slower version of everyone else around us.  How competitive and attractive is that?     

I would like to agree with you, in that I would like to see "quality" development to distinguish Tulsa, however, I have a feeling we will see little of it until land prices dictate it (like New York/San Francisco/Boston). We are a long way off. More than likely to see the type of development that you see anywhere in Manhatten, it will be after they tear down one of those "faux" buildings. So in that respect I would be pleased with a lot less than perfect if it moves us in that direction. Plus is it even legal to construct a building with no parking anymore? If not why? Every successful redevelopment has zero parking. What's the difference. I don't know this for a fact, but it seems that the Dallas donut must be a relatively inexpensive compared to the alternative. Course I'm just guessing.

[bacjz00]

I would like to agree with you, in that I would like to see "quality" development to distinguish Tulsa, however, I have a feeling we will see little of it until land prices dictate it (like New York/San Francisco/Boston). We are a long way off. More than likely to see the type of development that you see anywhere in Manhatten, it will be after they tear down one of those "faux" buildings. So in that respect I would be pleased with a lot less than perfect if it moves us in that direction. Plus is it even legal to construct a building with no parking anymore? If not why? Every successful redevelopment has zero parking. What's the difference. I don't know this for a fact, but it seems that the Dallas donut must be a relatively inexpensive compared to the alternative. Course I'm just guessing.

It's not just a Dallas thing...it's a Texas thing...and it has a lot to do with using property taxes instead of sales taxes as your primary funding mechanism for government. 

What do you expect in a state like Oklahoma?  We're some of the most fiscally conservative people in the country!!! We like to save our money not spend it! We're the last outpost for many national retailers.  And yet.....AND YET....we tie a huge chunk of our state and local budgets to sales tax instead of property taxes.  All so that every man, woman and child with or even without a job can afford a double-wide on an acre of land like its some god-given right.

We're so backwards it's not even remotely funny.

Sorry, I was in a ranting mood this morning. 

[we vs us]

I don't think land prices will ever dictate the need for Tulsans to live like New Yorkers or Chicagoans or Parisians.  There is simply no need to live like that here, there's no need to conserve anything, and while it will remain a nice idea and certain pioneers (ahem, Artist) will be early adopters, by and large the market is going to continue dictating what we see.  Until there is sufficient demand for Greenwich Village, there will be no Greenwich Village.  And it's worth noting that, to date, there's no Greenwich Village anywhere near here.  And even more worth noting is the lack of Greenwich village even in places that might be more suitable for it to occur, like Dallas, or Denver, or St. Louis, or Houston or Nashville or choose your own metro. 

[DTowner]

1.5+ million people live on the 23 square mile island of Manhatten.  That number probably doubles every work day with commuters and visitors.  No other city in the United States compares for density.  Let's use a more realistic yard stick.

[TheArtist]

  It's possible because I see it happening in small, new, suburban towns in Europe.  It's possible because Tulsa itself once had high density, pedestrian/transit friendly areas.  In neither of those instances does it, or did it, require huge populations and or high property values.  

Portland did it and now Salt Lake City is doing it.  Yes both of those cities have constrained boundaries, part by choice, part by geographic circumstances.  But they learned lessons that can be very applicable to Tulsa.  Tulsa's city boundaries aren't going to change much and we know where the areas of future growth are and where we would want them to be.  Our comprehensive plan lays out many of those hoped for, higher density/pedestrian/transit friendly areas.  So much like SLC knows where their growth is going to be and where they want it, so do we. We will ever more be playing the "infill" game here in Tulsa.  How we play that game is key.  I have been interested in Salt Lake Cities experiences in this matter because they are a conservative city somewhat like Tulsa.  

Here is an excerpt from an article I recently ran across.... my bold



....In the course of solving that problem, the city ended up answering several other head-scratchers, like: How do you get buy-in for smart-growth policies from conservatives wary of urbanism? And, how do you make new greenfield development both sustainable and wildly popular?

At the Rail~Volution conference last week, Andrew Gruber, executive director of the Wasatch Front Regional Council, showcased the transit-centered solution that's now propelling development in Utah's capital city.

If official projections are right, the high quality of life and thriving economy of the Wasatch Front could invite population growth of more than 65 percent by 2040.

If the region continued along current growth trends, Gruber explained, it would add more than 300 square miles of development to meet the housing and commercial demand by 2040. Vehicle miles traveled would nearly double, from 49 million to more than 90 million per day, by 2030. By 2020, the cost of new infrastructure could balloon to more than $26 billion.

In just a few decades, a region known for its open space and outdoor lifestyle would be a mighty congested and costly place to call home......

Now, Salt Lake City is investing more, per capita, in new public transit than any other metro area in the country, and exporting ideas to the rest of the country.......

Starting in 2005, citizens and planners in the Wasatch Front evaluated different scenarios for growth, looking at the long-term consequences of each development pattern. Perhaps surprising for such a conservative state, the consensus that emerged included a set of progressive growth principles focused on efficient infrastructure, transportation and housing choice, and coordinated planning.

By following those guidelines, Wasatch Front residents could look forward to benefits like an 18 percent reduction in congestion (compared to the baseline projections).


......One model of this approach is the new Daybreak development, just southwest of Salt Lake City. "This community was planned with transportation choices in mind from the very beginning," Gruber explained. A rail line extending from downtown has two stops in the mixed-use development. The community design prioritized sidewalks and walkability, organizing the streets in a connected grid that makes it easy to get from Point A to Point B without having to navigate a maddening maze of cul-de-sacs that seem to go in circles.

Those simple principles have had a dramatic impact on how residents get around the mixed-use neighborhoods. For instance, in Daybreak, an incredible 88 percent of kids walk or bike to school, compared to just 17 percent in other neighborhoods in the region.

And folks are lining up to live there. In 2010, the National Homebuilders Association named it Community of the Year, and this year, real estate consulting firm Robert Charles Lessor recognized the development as the 11th best-selling community in the country. "Daybreak is the most successful housing development in the region, and one of most successful in the country," Gruber said. "It's not that everybody wants to live in this type of development, but there's a demand out there that's not being met... This is a model for greenfield development done in smart, sustainable way."




The work in Salt Lake could also benefit cities around the country. As part of its HUD grant, the Wasatch Front Regional Council is using its experience to help other governments and citizens overcome two major barriers to sustainable development: lack of information and antiquated zoning requirements.

On the zoning front, the council is working on a form-based code that doesn't splinter development into commercial areas and residential areas. "It focuses on the form of the building, instead," Gruber said. "So, in a particular area you might want two- to three-story buildings with a certain set back from the streets, and whatever the market will bear is OK, as long as it fits the character of the neighborhood... That model will be available to folks across the country."
http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/10/24/how-salt-lake-city-became-a-leader-in-transit-oriented-development/








 

[Conan71]

1.5+ million people live on the 23 square mile island of Manhatten.  That number probably doubles every work day with commuters and visitors.  No other city in the United States compares for density.  Let's use a more realistic yard stick.

I'm going to an island week after next which is the same size but only has 200 residents and maybe 50 or so guests at any time.  Needless to say, it's quite walkable

[AquaMan]

Go back to the first two posts in this thread. Then compare what SLC did and you see that the new development they tout has as its centerpiece, a school. It attracts young people because it is not only convenient but offers entertainment for young adults, education for their kids, common sense zoning and convenient mass trans. IOW, you can grow with this neighborhood as your interests change and not have to move out because some new club or shopping center moved nearby or because your family dynamics changed.

I like the thought process involved but I think its more than conservative views of urbanism that is at play in Tulsa. Its a paradigm shift that is necessary here because we are not hemmed in by geography but by political negativism and class distinctions.

For instance, even when we do infill its in a suburban manner. We tear out homes on a grid pattern, create a cul-de-sac, wall it off and restrict entry with a gate. That is because of the fears of common folk that drove people to the burbs in the first place AND the builders who only see a grid layout as meaning fewer lots to sell. Then the residents all send their kids to private schools to avoid the...you know...problems the public school systems have.

I do see your point though. Mass transit and forms zoning actually can be the impetus. I would simply add that a unique public school system is necessary as well.

[Red Arrow]

I'm going to an island week after next which is the same size but only has 200 residents and maybe 50 or so guests at any time.  Needless to say, it's quite walkable

Are you sure the pictures are correct?  Are you sure it's not a snake, insect, and other varmit infested overgrown jungle island?