REI

[PonderInc]

Get out your inspector gadget magnifying glass, and you'll notice that there's one fewer row of parking in Lot 2 (south of the restaurant), which allowed them to add more greenspace.  That's nice.  The original plan included around 580 parking spaces.  I'm sure we're down to almost 560 here... (Whoops!  sarcasm returned!)

[swake]

Get out your inspector gadget magnifying glass, and you'll notice that there's one fewer row of parking in Lot 2 (south of the restaurant), which allowed them to add more greenspace.  That's nice.  The original plan included around 580 parking spaces.  I'm sure we're down to almost 560 here... (Whoops!  sarcasm returned!)

To be fair, isn't this supposed to be parking for the park as well?

[DowntownDan]

I can get on board if it really means $1.5 million to make the rest of the park better, but I think more is needed to make that park a real gem, and Bynum all but admitted that Dewey made a sweetheart deal for well below fair market value.  Some of the local small business owners I think made the best opposing pitches that the city is picking winners and losers with this special deal for prime real estate for a single national retailer.  There was some discussion that they can write in some fairly specific landscaping requirements that will require real semi-mature trees instead of the 4 foot sad little sapplings that go up around every suburban McMansion, but I remain skeptical.

What bothers me the most about all of this is that the development still isn't anything special.  It's slightly better than the typical big box setup, but not by much.  An opponent used the term "lipstick on a pig" yesterday.  It's the second time in a year I've heard that used to describe development (the other was CVS at 15th and Utica which I'm still holding out hope will look okay).  What it tells me is that the city is okay with slightly better than usual.  It seems to go against Bynums campaign pitch of "restoring the spirit of high expectations."  We obviously are still okay with low expectations for developers.  I still like Bynum and think he's doing good work but I wish he's push harder on smart development issues.

[Conan71]

I can get on board if it really means $1.5 million to make the rest of the park better, but I think more is needed to make that park a real gem, and Bynum all but admitted that Dewey made a sweetheart deal for well below fair market value.  Some of the local small business owners I think made the best opposing pitches that the city is picking winners and losers with this special deal for prime real estate for a single national retailer.  There was some discussion that they can write in some fairly specific landscaping requirements that will require real semi-mature trees instead of the 4 foot sad little sapplings that go up around every suburban McMansion, but I remain skeptical.

What bothers me the most about all of this is that the development still isn't anything special.  It's slightly better than the typical big box setup, but not by much.  An opponent used the term "lipstick on a pig" yesterday.  It's the second time in a year I've heard that used to describe development (the other was CVS at 15th and Utica which I'm still holding out hope will look okay).  What it tells me is that the city is okay with slightly better than usual.  It seems to go against Bynums campaign pitch of "restoring the spirit of high expectations."  We obviously are still okay with low expectations for developers.  I still like Bynum and think he's doing good work but I wish he's push harder on smart development issues.

Not just a sweetheart deal for the national retail chain but for an out of state developer as well.  I think it is a kind gesture that the developer wants to put $100K toward park improvements on what would remain of the adjacent park, but I still choke on the idea of how cheaply this deal was worked out.

I'm not sure if I'm more pissed off that we negotiated such a poor deal or that we were paying Clay Bird $140K or so to run around trying to negotiate such poor deals with many retailers.  How many people really believe Costco would not have come here if not for a $2mm incentiveto do so?

If the previous admin would have simply gotten behind Horizon Group's proposal for an outlet mall in east Tulsa instead of trying to court more suitors to completely muddy that proposal that might have been a retail development which would have actually had more imported sales tax dollars than shifting from other collection points in the city.

Bird and Bartlet (sic) always seemed more concerned about the stature of the retailers and developers than looking at how good or poor the economic and development realities were for the city.  Essentially: "We need an REI because that's what the cool cities have and we can attract more REI's!"  "We want Simon Group to develop our Outlet Mall because all the cool cities have Simon Outlet Malls!"

There's marginal gain in the livability factor with "cool" retail.  Whomever sorts out the mishmash of colleges in downtown and near downtown and finally gets a four year public university/research park will have pulled off the true stroke of genius in economic benefit and livability that really attracts major industry.

[Conan71]

I realize that my tone in the above post sounds a bit sarcastic.  For the record, I totally understand that the current administration was handed a turd of a problem (Or as former Mayor Terry Young said, "A bad lemon and a bunch of rotted Bartlett pears...") and they are trying to do the best they can.  This is really the first time the City Council has had an opportunity to address this issue.  (They previously voted on what was basically a minor administrative change to the comp plan land use map, and I think they applied the RDO-2 river overlay to this land, which would only apply in the case of a major amendment to the PUD.)

Dooey handled this poorly from the beginning, and as GT said, we don't have a time machine to go back and fix it.  Had the previous administration handled this appropriately, we would have STARTED with a discussion of whether or not the citizens of Tulsa wanted to abandon any park land for economic development purposes.  If so, we could have moved forward with discussions of what type of development was desired and how to achieve that.  Instead, we're doing the whole thing backwards.

However, this is our current reality, and I sincerely believe everyone in the administration and City Council is trying their best to do the right thing.

I'm still worried we might get our collective PUD pulled.

[ZYX]

 There was some discussion that they can write in some fairly specific landscaping requirements that will require real semi-mature trees instead of the 4 foot sad little sapplings that go up around every suburban McMansion, but I remain skeptical.

Many or most of these trees would probably die. It's very difficult to transplant large trees and keep them alive for long in their new home. Instead of this, why not require the developer to keep some of the mature trees already on the site?

[Conan71]

Many or most of these trees would probably die. It's very difficult to transplant large trees and keep them alive for long in their new home. Instead of this, why not require the developer to keep some of the mature trees already on the site?

I was about to make a point there aren't many mature trees on the site. I was wrong:

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0589041,-95.9774908,17z/data=!3m1!1e3

[RecycleMichael]

Protecting the existing large trees on the site was discussed yesterday. I certainly hope that detail is followed through and in writing...

[PonderInc]

Here's the original "Tree Preservation Plan" from the 2015 PUD exhibit. It's a bit slow to load and you really have to zoom in to read it.
PUD 128-E Tree Preservation Plan 2015

In this, they give their analysis of the condition and location of the various trees and their priority for preserving them.  Several healthy mature trees are on the cutting block because the location is "poor."  Which means they want a building or a parking lot in that space.

I doubt the "new" plan will do much to save these trees.  To protect an established tree during construction, you basically need to fence around it at the drip line of the tree (ie: prevent trucks and bulldozers from driving underneath any of the branches, damaging limbs, and compacting roots).  Most developers prefer the speed and convenience of ripping up all the trees so they don't have to work around them.  Then you just plant new trees and start over.  Unfortunately, it takes a long time to get an oak tree with a 2 foot diameter.

Fun fact: many cities have ordinances demanding this level of protection for all mature trees.  If any mature tree is removed, the developers have to replace the tree with enough young trees to equal the trunk diameter of the one that was lost. (If you destroy a tree with a 24" trunk, you have to plant 6 trees with 4" diameter, or whatever.)  It's amazing that these places are not know as being "anti-development."  Instead, they're known as "great places to live."  Weird.

[ZYX]

Fun fact: many cities have ordinances demanding this level of protection for all mature trees.  If any mature tree is removed, the developers have to replace the tree with enough young trees to equal the trunk diameter of the one that was lost. (If you destroy a tree with a 24" trunk, you have to plant 6 trees with 4" diameter, or whatever.)  It's amazing that these places are not know as being "anti-development."  Instead, they're known as "great places to live."  Weird.

I had never heard of something like this, but I like the idea.
And who cares, I'd rather be seen as "anti-development" than live in some paved over hell.

[DowntownDan]

Many or most of these trees would probably die. It's very difficult to transplant large trees and keep them alive for long in their new home. Instead of this, why not require the developer to keep some of the mature trees already on the site?

It's expensive, but there are farms that have raised or maintained trees grown or designed for viable transplant.  They don't need to be 50 or 100 year old oaks, but something along the lines of 15 years mature.  Anything other than those pathetic branches they stick in the ground in new generic suburban developments.

[Dspike]

"Whomever sorts out the mishmash of colleges in downtown and near downtown and finally gets a four year public university/research park will have pulled off the true stroke of genius in economic benefit and livability that really attracts major industry."

Seconded.

[Bamboo World]

It's expensive, but there are farms that have raised or maintained trees grown or designed for viable transplant.  They don't need to be 50 or 100 year old oaks, but something along the lines of 15 years mature.

Tulsa's Zoning Code doesn't require expensive trees.  It doesn't require trees to be 15 years old.

Minimum required tree sizes at time of planting are as follows:
a. Deciduous trees must be at least 8 feet in height and 1.5 inches in caliper size at the time of planting; and
b. Conifers/evergreen trees (e.g., pine, spruce or cedar) must be at least 6 feet in height at the time of planting.

All parking spaces must be located within 50 feet of a tree. Required parking lot trees must be located in a landscaped area that is at least 64 square feet in area and that has a minimum width or diameter of 8 feet.

[Bamboo World]

What bothers me the most about all of this is that the development still isn't anything special.  It's slightly better than the typical big box setup, but not by much.

The development is no better than the typical big box setup.  In other words, it's ordinary and awful.
 

[In_Tulsa]

Great development!! Hope it gets built soon!!