2/17 Pics of Brady

[dsjeffries]

Going back to pics, I finally got my photos from last week uploaded.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dscott28604/sets/72157629423512231

[Jeff P]

The hotel is being developed because of the ballpark??
Is the ballpark also responsible for the Matthews warehouse, AH-HA, Tribune-II, KOTV, park, etc??

I would say, yes... it's of course not the sole reason, but it is one of the reasons that development is happening - particularly in the Brady District.

The Drillers have drawn an average of more than 380,000 fans in their first two seasons downtown.

You think that 380,000 additional visitors to downtown doesn't play a part spurring development?

[Hoss]

The hotel is being developed because of the ballpark??
Is the ballpark also responsible for the Matthews warehouse, AH-HA, Tribune-II, KOTV, park, etc??

Can you disprove it?  It's in proximity closer than the arena.

The others?  I can't speculate to those.  But I am pretty sure of one thing:

*that without the arena OR the ballpark, the hotels and other things (save myabe KOTV's new facility) would not have been built this soon.

[Conan71]

So we can call the millions of taxpayer dollar invested in the ballpark and higher downtown property taxes worth it because a burger joint sprouted up next door?   I'm not aware of anything else that's been developed around the ballpark.
Kinda operating in the red there.

PS I think the ballpark is good for downtown, but so far... it hasn't spurred squat.

The ballpark has done more for that area of downtown than 50 years of Downtown Tulsa Unlimited did.  It's changed the whole streetscape of the eastern end of the Brady.

The ballpark has helped spur more rapid development in the Blue Dome and the Brady.  It was a bargain.  Without it, I suspect the east end of the Brady district would have Spaghetti Warehouse and some transient gang-banger night clubs.  I also suspect it's helped the Greenwood District.  It very much helped accelerate interest in the first & Elgin to Cinncinnati area.

[erfalf]

Can you disprove it?  It's in proximity closer than the arena.

The others?  I can't speculate to those.  But I am pretty sure of one thing:

*that without the arena OR the ballpark, the hotels and other things (save myabe KOTV's new facility) would not have been built this soon.

But what I am saying is, that I am absolutely certain that had Tulsa spent $350M plus on transit (light rail or something) those developments would have all been done 5 years ago.


* Plus the other projects that would have taken place all around transit stops that will now NOT happen until decades later because we built an arena instead.

[Conan71]

But what I am saying is, that I am absolutely certain that had Tulsa spent $350M plus on transit (light rail or something) those developments would have all been done 5 years ago.


* Plus the other projects that would have taken place all around transit stops that will now NOT happen until decades later because we built an arena instead.

Not really.  Mass transit in a car-oriented city like Tulsa wouldn't matter if there were no major destination locations which can draw 7,000 to 18,000 people on a periodic basis.  Why would anyone need to come downtown with so many other entertainment destinations for food, drink, and club music around Tulsa?  It's the same formula as every other major and medium market.

[DTowner]

But what I am saying is, that I am absolutely certain that had Tulsa spent $350M plus on transit (light rail or something) those developments would have all been done 5 years ago.


* Plus the other projects that would have taken place all around transit stops that will now NOT happen until decades later because we built an arena instead.

How could I use Tulsa's fancy light rail when I'm in my car driving to OKC or Dallas to see a concert that Tulsa can never get because we have no arena?

When you make a statement that says you are certain development would have happened based solely on construciton of a transit system, you must back that up with an example of a city comparable to Tulsa where it actually worked as you say it would.

[Jeff P]

But what I am saying is, that I am absolutely certain that had Tulsa spent $350M plus on transit (light rail or something) those developments would have all been done 5 years ago.

Yeah -- I hate to pile on, but I also totally disagree with this.

Here's the way I look at it --

If we go back in time about 10 years, what would you say was the limiting factor in getting economic development downtown?  By that I mean additional hotel capacity, new bars and restaurants, new living spaces and new retail.

If you're proposing that the problem was inexpensive and easy transportation access was that limiting factor, then I disagree.  Getting to and from downtown cheap and easy has never been a problem.  We're a mid-sized city with virtually no traffic problems.  There is good access to downtown from every major highway in the area.  Basically you can get to downtown from anywhere in the Tulsa metro in 20 minutes or less.  And as we all know, there is plenty of parking. 

I would propose that the limiting factor to development back then was that after 5 p.m. every day, downtown became a ghost town.  There was no reason for anyone to stay downtown after work because there was nothing to do.  There was no reason to come downtown on the weekends for the same reason.

The BOK Center gave people reason to come downtown after hours.  That, in turn, gave new bars and restaurants a reason to open.  That, in turn, gave people reasons to stay downtown after work and on weekends.  That, in turn, gave reason to open more bars and restaurants, and on and on and on.

[we vs us]

I'm piling on, too. 

We just aren't big enough or dense enough to support major transit infrastructure like light rail.   Compare Tulsa County with Cook County (Chicago) and some things become apparent right away:

                                    2010 pop                            2010 density

Tulsa County                   603,403                              988/sq mi

Cook County                   5,194,675                           5491.3/sq mi

This isn't to single out Chicago, per se, but it's to point out that the kind of light rail transit that we undoubtedly envision is based on densities and populations that are several orders of magnitude greater than what we're dealing with here in Tulsa.  It doesn't help that, in Tulsa, no matter how you slice it, the time it takes to get in your car, drive to 71st and Mingo, shop, get back in and drive home will undoubtedly trump a walk to a transit node, a wait for a train or bus, a trip with multiple stops down to 71st and Mingo, and then the shopping, and then the reverse trip back.  I can drive and get that done in literally half or less than the amount of time it would take for a trip using transit.  But in Cook County that's not the case.  The density and the population is such that, given the choice of an excruciating (and expensive!) car trip to and from the mall, I'd much prefer to have a train or bus take me there and home again

This is why the economics of transit won't work in places like Tulsa.  We're not just talking the dollar economics, but also time and convenience economics.  It's simply too easy to drive here.  We would have to do some seriously draconian smile to make driving less convenient than what transit currently is in Tulsa. 

[Conan71]

After lunch with Hoss, I ran an errand near the Brady and decided to drive through. I can't believe all the activity in just the last three to six months.  I counted no less than six cranes in the air today.  Great going, Brady!

[Teatownclown]

After lunch with Hoss, I ran an errand near the Brady and decided to drive through. I can't believe all the activity in just the last three to six months.  I counted no less than six cranes in the air today.  Great going, Brady!

Get some chocolate? Ducats for all the great shows coming through?

[Conan71]

Get some chocolate? Ducats for all the great shows coming through?

Nah, just unloaded some 28 year old chains up on North Denver. 

[Teatownclown]

Nah, just unloaded some 28 year old chains up on North Denver. 

Tell everybody here at TNF what that means......


sheeesh, without Guido and now this from you, TNF could become singular despite Gassie.....
then again, it's only labels. Change has come to America. 

[TheArtist]

  Per transit I believe in starting small and building up.  Also, have a long range plan in place, zone for future expansion nodes so that over the decades by the time you are ready to expand your transit offerings your not building it out to a place that is not already on its way to being pedestrian/transit friendly.

 I know some don't believe in busses as a way to start, but think about it this way.  

1.  If you put in stations with signage, times, route maps, etc. that are just like a rail transit stop.
2.  Have quick turn around times so people are not waiting long at a stop and electronically post when the next bus will arive.
3.  Use busses that are nice, unique looking and specific to downtown or that route.
4.  Its on a route that in your master plan you say will someday have rail, or will connect to rail of some sort and you implement that plan and zoning to have pedestrian/transit friendly developments...

Those efforts and expenditures (though not as great as putting in even a starter rail line to begin with) give a decent amount of reasurrance to developers to begin creating TOD (and not feeling like they have to put in as much parking and thus can save on costs making things more affordable). Then put in that first rail line say down 5th or 6th street, or up Boulder and have that route be on part of or all of one of those first bus routes.  Right there you have proven your word and shown your sincere.  Part or all of one bus route is now rail or connected to rail, and you have anchored your transit and very much reasurred developers.  Then keep adding on little by little over time.   The cost of doing the starter bus route could be offset by taking the tens of millions you would otherwise spend on more parking garages and using it for the busses.  Instead of the city building more parking garages, take those properties and allow more density to be built on them instead (which will help the pedestrian experience and transit).  All your doing is allocating your money in a different manner.  Instead of building new roads (for the new homes, urban neighborhoods, and businesses going into downtown) and parking garages, your slowly building transit.  

 I would like to see light rail happen,,, but even if it were to happen and we said we wanted to do that next, it would likely take a long time to implement and imo, during that time we would be wasting potential and wasting money paying for two infrastructure types. Thats one reason why I think this town could buy the "baby step by baby step" approach and the "different allocation" of money that would already be spent or would otherwise be spent on one type of infrastructure, but for another type, mass transit.  We just threw 8mill out the window imo, 8mill that could have been used for that transit start.  Now they are talking about a new parking garage for the Brady District.  Again, we could be using that money instead for that transit start. 

[Red Arrow]

 
1.  If you put in stations with signage, times, route maps, etc. that are just like a rail transit stop.
2.  Have quick turn around times so people are not waiting long at a stop and electronically post when the next bus will arive.
3.  Use busses that are nice, unique looking and specific to downtown or that route.
4.  Its on a route that in your master plan you say will someday have rail, or will connect to rail of some sort and you implement that plan and zoning to have pedestrian/transit friendly developments...

Although I would like to start with rail, I understand the upfront costs involved.

Per above:
1. Would show a commitment to a route and make the route more identifiable than a bus stop sign the size of a no parking sign.  A good first step.
2. Necessary regardless of rail or rubber tires.  If people can walk there faster than wait for transit they either won't be there to begin with or will walk.
3. Yes
4. Yes