Proposed ordinance - downtown demos and surface parking

[Gaspar]

Paying developers to develop through literal subsidies will just lead to a bubble.

I would agree, any subsidy has the potential to create a bubble in any market.  That's why you you must have limits, both temporal and structural.  The subsidy would not only expire for each project at a given time (i.e. tax incentive for the first 3 years) but it's expiration would need to be gradual and understood by all parties involved in the finance.  

Charging fees or taxes in the amount of the costs people who demo a building and put in a parking lot foist upon the rest of us, on the other hand, actually lets the market work as it should.

I assume you would also want the additional proposed restrictive ordinance?  So basically it would mean not only the new burden on development, but you would also want the developer to pay for the cost and administration of the new burden?  I can just imagine the explosion in development and investment that will come from that.  

Or we could do what cities have been doing since the early 1800s..zoning. That is, remove parking as a use by right from CBD zoning, just like I can't pave over my yard here in RS land.

Not sure that would pass, but throw it at the wall and see if it sticks.  I am relatively sure this has been proposed or at least raised by someone in the peanut gallery and received a polite chuckle on more than one occasion.  I assume you knew you couldn't pave your yard when you bought your house? 

Or we could build a whole lot of free structured parking to make surface parking unprofitable.

Yes, we could.  We could use the money we get from selling unicorn glitter, otherwise that just shifts the burden to the taxpayer who would need to fund that parking.  Besides, there are free lots downtown but people still pay a few bucks to avoid walking a block in the rain (or the sun, or the wind, or the moonlight).  Guilty!

[nathanm]

I assume you would also want the additional proposed restrictive ordinance?  So basically it would mean not only the new burden on development, but you would also want the developer to pay for the cost and administration of the new burden?  I can just imagine the explosion in development and investment that will come from that.  

I'm not sure what you think would be difficult to administer about requiring that a developer that proposes to tear down a building have a plan and financing for constructing a new building? In what way is that more expensive than redevelopment would be at present? As far as the burden you assert but provide no evidence of, owners of disused buildings downtown have been paying for their upkeep up to now. When did it become a huge burden?

Not sure that would pass, but throw it at the wall and see if it sticks.  I am relatively sure this has been proposed or at least raised by someone in the peanut gallery and received a polite chuckle on more than one occasion. 

I was in a hurry and misspoke. I intended to say "eliminate surface parking as a use by right". It impacts neighboring property owners just as surely as building a strip mine would.

[Red Arrow]

We could use the money we get from selling unicorn glitter, otherwise that just shifts the burden to the taxpayer who would need to fund that parking.

I believe some of the demolitions were to lower some particular owners' property taxes.  That just raises everyone else's to make up for the loss.  The burden has already been shifted.

[TheArtist]

So, today, I can go and purchase a piece of land with full understanding of it's potential, and my bank will be willing to back me for the same reason.

This proposed ordinance would create an extra set of conditions and criteria for development of a property contingent on a board approval process, and public hearing prior to any demolition.  This means that there is essentially no way for a developer, investor, or current property owner to have any means of forecasting the value of his/her property or investment as developable.  It also means that banks and other finance entities will be less likely to approve funds for such endeavors early in the process, because there will be less confidence in their viability as a developable property.

Today, I can go downtown and buy an old building, knowing, based on the current zoning, that I can build my new restaurant or officebuilbing...  

You make some good points.  I am not sure whether I agree with the ordinance fully. BUT, I have some questions about some of the above statements as well.

If I am a developer or a business that has a business based on sidewalk traffic... in other words I want to build something urban or shall we say pedestrian/transit friendly, as the zoning stands I have no guarantee at all that the guy next to me might then tear down his building essentially cutting off my lifeline of pedestrian traffic and hurt my business "or it's potential as you called it".  Or, think if you were the guy owning the property facing the south and looking at the spot where Cimarex Towers were to be and thinking you wanted to build an urban, pedestrian friendly development there.  Then saw a blank, deathly boring, parking garage wall go up right in front of you.  Kiss your dreams, your possible "potentials" good by.

How many of you have heard the story of how Mr Phillips built the Philtower then bought the property across the street to build the Philcade.... Why? to protect his investment.  He wanted to control what went in across from his building because he knew it would affect the value of his property, his investment.  Not everyone can afford to do that.   All we can do is cross our fingers and hope that what goes in next to us or across from us does not hurt, but helps our business investments.

Downtowns are supposed to have good urban development.  A city should be able to offer good urban living/lifestyle options alongside it's suburban ones.

Currently our downtown zoning neither advocates for nor against pedestrian friendly urban development.  It says it advocates for "density", but as anyone who has seen a Canadian Suburb or Los Angeles can attest, density and or tall buildings do not, in and of themselves, equal; quality, pedestrian and transit friendly development.  Not by a long shot.

In essence what gets pushed onto downtown, de-facto, is the auto centric zoning in the rest of the city.  Several hundred square miles of auto centric, suburban zoning, versus... approx 1.5 miles of downtown laissez faire zoning... you tell me what's going to happen...auto oriented development and parking lots?  Don't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.   Imho, either get rid of the autocentric zoning in the rest of the city, or zone, for at least some areas of downtown to be pedestrian/transit friendly.

I have actually met people who have looked at property downtown and are hesitant to build on some of those vacant lots precisely because we do not have any zoning in place to regulate for urban or suburban style development.   Well, I would like to build this here... but I have no idea what the guy next to me might build that might destroy everything I am hoping for.  

If you have a business that relies on "people walking by" like I and some others I know do, you realize how important it is that you be as close as possible to other pedestrian friendly buildings and businesses.  If your the lone goose out there, you struggle and lose.  You realize how VERY important it is, and how much easier it is when your in the heart of things.  So again that developer making the first step a little further out, would be much more secure if he could know that on either side of him, the next development would only enhance his, and the next and the next.  You could invest more securely.


Here is what I sent in a letter to others concerning this topic....

Yes, there are a few buildings I am concerned about and would hate to see lost, however, what I think is actually more important, (though it pains me to admit it ) at this point in the game, is guiding future development.   We may spend a large amount of time, energy and capital on winning a battle,,, and end up losing the larger, more important war.  Not saying completely give up on the one, but don't lose sight of the bigger picture.


I do not think anyone should try and zone for all of downtown to have pedestrian/transit friendly development.  

Rule of thumb...  If you try and make all your streets "A" Streets (pedestrian/transit friendly) none of them will be.   Even the greatest walkable cities have "B" auto oriented, streets lined with parking garages, drive thru this and that, ugly blank facades, delivery areas, etc.  What they DO have are long connected, unblemished corridors with superb, wonderful streets you can walk block after block on to enjoy high quality "urbanity" at it's best.  And that's what Tulsa needs.  We offer great suburban living and lifestyles for those that want that, but shouldn't we also be a "City" that offers superb, attractive, highly competitive, urban living and lifestyle for those who want that?

I like what Denver has done.  They looked at the developing districts, the fabric they already have, where transit infrastructure was and is planned to be, then selected a few streets that connected the dots.  Then they put incentives and development guidelines and zoning in place to ensure that those selected streets connecting districts and important points and along transit corridors will become high quality, pedestrian/transit friendly corridors.

Again, I think something like this, that is smaller in scale, and focused on a few critical corridors (with other streets being able to opt in in the future) as a start can go a long way.  I also see it as a way of not stirring up every hornets nest in downtown, only a few lol, and also as a way of focusing our energy to rally support from property owners and businesses in a more manageable way.

If I may be so bold. Starting "A" Streets might be...  (and here again, talk with others, property owners, businesses, etc. to gather input)

Boulder Ave (already designated for investment as a future transit corridor)  
6th Street  (also mentioned as future transit corridor and leading to the Pearl and possibly TU)
5th Street  (already high quality urban/pedestrian friendly along a good stretch, and containing a couple of "endangered" buildings)
Archer and or Brady
Boston Ave
Elgin (as another N-S connector from Blue Dome/Brady/Greenwood to the Core/Deco District and East End)



This would make a great start helping connect large segments of downtown with high quality urban fabric.  It would essentially make a loop all the way around the core area.  You No matter where you were in downtown, you would never be more than a few blocks away from those great pedestrian/transit friendly streets, and those streets never too far away from existing, or future, parking, nearby every major attraction/point of interest, etc.  And if there are other segments in which most of the property/business owners liked the new (Pedestrian/Transit friendly, Zoning and Incentives, Corridors) they could be added as well.  You may find that there will be groups knocking on your door wanting their street or area to be added or linked up to this initial loop in the future.  

[PonderInc]

If anyone is wondering why all this matters, here's a nice 1 minute video that pretty much sums up what makes a downtown street work.  Retail concentration...which is completely destroyed by surface parking lots.  In fact, a surface parking lot or blank building facade can "prematurely signal the end of a pedestrian district."  Hmmm.  Sound familiar?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_863341&feature=iv&src_vid=o3b7GiaRC78&v=f9shF8_zpAk

Another fascinating video studies why people like the streets that they like: what draws them to a street and what repels them. (Spoiler alert! Surface parking is bad!) "Insights into a Lively Downtown" breaks down the key elements that people respond to downtown.  You've felt this too, if you've ever crossed the street to avoid an ugly surface lot or monolithic blank wall.  We all prefer to walk down a street with an uninterrupted row of interesting storefronts, shops and restaurants, even if we've never stopped to wonder why.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsrqBHEOT0k

[PonderInc]

Remember back in 2008 when the National Trust for Historic Preservation held its national convention in Tulsa?  I just ran across a quote I wrote down from one of the speakers at the opening ceremonies of the conference:

"I'm reminded of Potsdam at the end of WWII...except you did it to yourselves.  It didn't take Allied bombers to destroy your historic architecture.  You tore it down for parking lots." 

Sad but true.  Still.

[Red Arrow]

Remember back in 2008 when the National Trust for Historic Preservation held its national convention in Tulsa?  I just ran across a quote I wrote down from one of the speakers at the opening ceremonies of the conference:

"I'm reminded of Potsdam at the end of WWII...except you did it to yourselves.  It didn't take Allied bombers to destroy your historic architecture.  You tore it down for parking lots." 

Sad but true.  Still.

2008 doesn't seem like all that long ago to me.

Your quote is, however, still appropriate.

[pfox]

The ironic thing about this debate is that it really isn't about who loves parking lots or doesn't.  The fact is, save one or two people, nobody for or against the ordinances likes the condition our of CBD in regards to those lots.  Now, there are people who believe that all that parking is a necessary evil, but I don't think anyone thinks that all of that surface parking provides an ideal visual experience.  I am also one of those who believes that downtown is headed in the right direction...that we are going to see fewer and fewer applications for demolition.

I opposed the ordinance for two reasons.  First, it was really two ordinances in one.  Two issues, tied together that should have been separate.  I think the demolition/HP ordinance was actually weakened because of its attachment to the parking component.  (Also, the demo ordinance was actually stricter than the demo ordinance in HP Zoned districts, which makes me wonder why they didn't just use that model.  They could have at least made the argument that the ordinance was already being used in other parts of town.)  Secondly, I think they applied suburban standards to an urban area.  The landscape requirements, for example, were bad standards in my opinion. You can't take that much space from property, when you have such limited pre-existing borders on property (300'x300' blocks).  A simpler solution would be to say that surface parking that takes up x % of a parcel has to be behind the primary structure. It should allow some parking to the side of a structure.  It should encourage structures to be built near or on the property line.  City policy should be to ensure that there is as much on street parking available as possible and accessible to businesses.  City policy should also reward developers who can incorporate structured parking in to their projects... property tax abatement, matching dollars... whatever.  Tie it to density or use.

Not all surface parking is the same, nor is it all bad, and it's foolish to believe that we should or can get rid of it all and grow the district in the manner in which we all want it to grow.

We need a real comprehensive parking plan for downtown, one that provides incentives for landowners and developers to develop their land in efficient and marketable ways, and deals with all the parking types and needs for an urban area; short and long term parking, site-specific, institutional, and revenue-based parking.