TriArch pitches multisport project to reverse Tulsa's infamous parking crater

[TulsaGoldenHurriCAN]

This design concept was originally created by James Parker of TriArch Architecture in the East Village.

Known by some as the cathedral district, to others it's just the parking district.
An idea that could someday change that has been gathering steam for the past year, ironically adding even more parking.
The designers, a group of local architects and design consultants, are presenting their designs for a multisport field and facility Wednesday to the Downtown Coordinating Council.
The design actually adds more parking space than is currently there but in a parking garage under a multiuse sports field, said Terrell Hoagland, director of sustainability at Jones Design Studio.
"They are not thrilled about the (surface) parking, but they need the parking," Hoagland said about the local businesses and churches. "The latest design actually increases their parking capacity by 30 percent."
The south side of downtown has been the focus of planners for years, hoping that someone would marry parking with business space on the same land mass. The area between Eighth and 12th streets from Boulder to Detroit avenues is filled with parking lots.
The parking sprawl is so bad, a national blog recognized Tulsa as home to the country's worst collection of surface lots.
In 2013, online voters on streetsblog.org looked at satellite photos of downtown parking zones, calling Tulsa out for its "parking crater" with the hope of inspiring change, according to the website.
Hoagland, alongside partners Kenton Grant, James Parker and Scott Pardee, have been designing their idea for more than a year.
They initially designed it in response to a 2014 Tulsa Young Professionals, or TYPros, Street CReD contest that called for conceptual designs to replace surface parking. It won.
"This has been an interesting process for us because none of us are developers," Grant said. "We don't have a pool of money to draw from."
Instead, the group has been winning awards for their design and putting it in front of stakeholders, including Tulsa Community College, which owns the parking lot the design was initially planned for.
The sports field would sit atop a parking garage on the parking lot south of TCC on 11th Street between Boston and Cincinnati avenues.
The facility would be built over 11th Street to have room for the field, which would also connect to office or retail space and a park area, Grant said.
As more and more stakeholders show interest, Grant said the project turns toward fundraising.
"A lot of that will drive where our money comes from," Grant said.
A ballpark figure for construction is from $20 million to $25 million, he said.
One of the selling points, Hoagland said, is the zero-impact design of the facility, which would have geo-thermal wells and solar panels to offset energy costs.
They are also pitching artificial turf for the field so that it could be low-cost maintenance, he said.
"There's plenty of seating, but the idea is not to necessarily create a pro-sports stadium," Hoagland said. "It's something that people can come and enjoy."
Hoagland said the idea is about more than eliminating surface parking. It's about adding something to downtown in an area that needs more retail and more draw.
"This is a way to capture and bring people in," Hoagland said. "We need something to bookend the other side of downtown."

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/it-s-down-not-up-designers-pitch-multisport-project-to/article_044e29c3-72fd-58b8-9060-62bab383e984.html

[Tulsasaurus Rex]

That's an awfully long blank wall to walk past. Some retail would help.

[SXSW]

I don't like closing off 11th between Boston and Cincinnati.  I like the idea of burying parking but would prefer actual buildings constructed on top.  The other idea presented that showed an innovation center/incubator affiliated with TCC and possibly OU/OSU would be better between 10th and 11th to keep 10th as the primary route through this part of downtown with residential on the lots surrounding it.  No closing streets!

If we're going to build a soccer stadium why not build it on the parking lots east of OSU-Tulsa?  Lots of surface parking there between the campus and railroad tracks.  Any future development of the campus would take place on the lots between Elgin and Greenwood.

[TulsaGoldenHurriCAN]

I don't like closing off 11th between Boston and Cincinnati. ... No closing streets!

This plan will not close off 11th street permanently, if that's what you mean. The garage and field will be over 11th street. 11th will just be a tunnel for that stretch.

If we're going to build a soccer stadium why not build it on the parking lots east of OSU-Tulsa?

Because the parking crater which this is addressing is in south downtown. OSU-Tulsa is a completely different part of downtown. Furthermore, TCC board of directors, who have rejected every previous proposal for these lots, approve of this plan.

[RecycleMichael]

I like the design and the use. I hope it happens.

[AquaMan]

Real grass please!

Underground parking is nice but the one below the courthouse didn't work so well.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Real grass please!

Underground parking is nice but the one below the courthouse didn't work so well.

60's design - cars and people were smaller then.  But it was poor design for the 60's, too.


That location would be excellent for a very deep multi-level parking facility.  If a hole is gonna be dug, it may as well be deep enough to do some good...75 feet or more should give at least 4 or 5 levels with plenty of headroom for today's pickup trucks and big SUV's!!  Make some underground "walking subway" facility north into the office districts, with the kind traveling ways larger airports have.  That could be a great facility.

Could take this steps further - any new surface development must partner with a subsurface parking facility.  When they built the Williams tower the hole was probably 60 to 75 ft deep - plenty of room for many layers of parking.

[ZYX]

I like it.

[Conan71]

Finally, some really innovative thinking!

[TheArtist]

 I like it to. Btw, there is a retail component to the street level area, just not able to see it in the renders.

Know anyone who will fund it?

[SXSW]

Don't get me wrong I like the idea and it's much better than the surface lot.  The soccer field could get a lot of use but all of the activity would be above the street.  Street level retail along Boston and 10th would be an improvement.  It would be great to see the YMCA move from 5th & Main to a larger location on the south side of the field with a pool, gym, etc.

[RecycleMichael]

to recap...

A small group of local and well credentialed folks see ugly parking lots as an opportunity. They spend their own money and a year of their time on an idea. It is good enough to win a design competition and they are good enough to get the blessing of the community college (landowner) to proceed. It uses green technology like geothermal heat pumps and solar collectors to be a shining example of green building. They reach a point where they need to be serious about attracting investors so they get a story in the local newspaper.

If you read the comments on the newspaper and some of the ones on this forum, you would think they were madmen. Stupid idea, not enough pictures of retail, no to artificial grass, etc.

Everybody has a right to an opinion. My opinion is that the idea is great.

[LandArchPoke]

I don't like this, I don't like this at all.... The soccer field section is no better than this:



Get rid of the soccer field. 11th to 10th you are making a pedestrian walk along the picture above ^ and that is bad, bad, bad. Also, a tunnel over 11th street is terrible to pedestrian friendliness!!

The southern section I think looks great, they're just trying to force this playing field that is not in conducive to this site. Also, turf? How are they going to manage the run-off from an elevated turf field like this? And just fyi... turf can be just as expensive to maintain as real grass. Turf on an elevated surface like this will be about 160 degrees in the summers with no shading features, rendering it useless for most of June - September. Another thing I'm sure they have thought of is that with an elevated field like this you are going to have to put walls all around the field with high netting too. If you don't put walls (or a sturdy chain link fence), what's to say someone doesn't run past one of the sidelines, and falls off onto Boston Ave? You'll need nets along the entire perimeter to keep as many of the soccer balls, footballs, etc. from going into traffic or pedestrians below. How much of that sounds appealing to any pedestrian walking along Boston Ave?

Also, the costs are not realistic at all. They need to add an extra $10 million at least.

Guthrie Green cost $8 million to build and is 1/2 the size of this proposal. Park costs will be easily $16-20 million. Underground parking spaces are at least $25,000 a pop. Many can cost into the $30,000-$40,000 a space range depending on soil and other factors. So 200 spots would be a minimum $5,000,000 cost (@$25,000/space). 200 spaces would barely give back what is already there, and would not encourage TCC or Boston Ave Methodist to develop or sell any of the other lots around the park. Honestly, you're looking at a realistic cost of $40 million to build the park and enough parking to make the other surrounding surface parking lots redevelopable.

The Good

- Underground parking
- South section looks great! Shade trees, and it interacts with the sidewalk at street level!
- The geothermal wells, etc. features sound great too

My Advise

- Axe the soccer field - there are to many negatives to it and it's not suitable for this site what so ever. It's also going to add a tremendous amount to the construction cost to float this field over 11th Street.
- Carbon copy the south section to the north block, and turn 11th street into a brick paved street that can be easily closed off for events and it easy to the eye of the pedestrian to cross (would you rather walk across Main Street between 5th and 4th or walk under a dark tunnel for an entire block?)
- Add more retail, especially along Boston. Boston Avenue is one of Tulsa's biggest gems, and we need to figure out ways to entice development along it. Blank street walls are more destructive than the surface parking lots. Boston Ave could be Tulsa's version of Congress Ave in Austin that goes through the high-rise district and transitions into a more human scale area with funky businesses, retailers, and food places.

[LandArchPoke]

to recap...

A small group of local and well credentialed folks see ugly parking lots as an opportunity. They spend their own money and a year of their time on an idea. It is good enough to win a design competition and they are good enough to get the blessing of the community college (landowner) to proceed. It uses green technology like geothermal heat pumps and solar collectors to be a shining example of green building. They reach a point where they need to be serious about attracting investors so they get a story in the local newspaper.

If you read the comments on the newspaper and some of the ones on this forum, you would think they were madmen. Stupid idea, not enough pictures of retail, no to artificial grass, etc.

Everybody has a right to an opinion. My opinion is that the idea is great.

The idea of a park and underground parking is great. What they have proposed is not though. Every design needs to be tweaked, and I think there is potential to make this great - the soccer field needs to go though. The cement walls along most of the sidewalks go against everything that is important to creating a vibrant street life. How is that any better than a surface parking lot?

[Conan71]

The idea of a park and underground parking is great. What they have proposed is not though. Every design needs to be tweaked, and I think there is potential to make this great - the soccer field needs to go though. The cement walls along most of the sidewalks go against everything that is important to creating a vibrant street life. How is that any better than a surface parking lot?

It is conceptual in nature at this point, not a final draft. Let's be patient.  The first two stabs at some sort of attractive river development around Zink Lake met a dead end as well.  

Finally someone had the courage and at least either the spare time or nominal funding to do this rendering for south downtown.  

Can we all, at least, agree that innovative ideas for urban blight like surface parking lots and long vacant brown fields are superior to ideas to destroy urban wilderness and green space for retail development?