Downtown Development Overview

[Red Arrow]

Some places still use gas lights for the effect which is incredibly inefficient. Acorn lights are similar to that. They create a certain atmosphere which is worth the extra cost in some areas if it can make the place more of an experience. Santa Fe will be a nice shopping/urban area and nicer lighting is similar to paying more to decorate or having fancier-designed architecture. Acorn lights look far better than the car lot lights Townsend posted. I bet they'll be a fraction of the cost of what it will cost to make the outside of the buildings look quaint.

Acorn lights look great, during the daylight hours when the bulbs aren't lit.  Acorns with a bulb that duplicates the original gas light might be acceptable for setting an atmosphere but with regular bulbs they are just glare bombs.

We have way too much sky light pollution around here.  I used to be able to see the stars to the north of 111th  & Memorial but now I cannot see any stars below about 30º above the horizon to the north.  Terrible, especially since it is just wasted light.  I agree with others here, check out Patric's threads on lighting.

[Red Arrow]

Here's where it could hurt: higher property values and demand to live in the IDL may mean there may not be affordable housing in the IDL any longer.

I thought everybody wanted higher property values.  Higher property values is the justification for almost everything in urban (and even suburban) development.

In the cities I have visited, "affordable housing" is stuff that used to be nice but is now a bit long in the tooth. The stuff being built now will be affordable housing in maybe 50 years.   

[Red Arrow]

If everyone had access to free tuition, would those numbers stay the same? Would the value of a degree remain what it is now? Degrees seem to be declining in value and increasing in price. Still far better than no degree (depending on which degree).

Access to free tuition would increase the freshmen class size.  I expect it would only marginally increase the size of the graduating class.

[Red Arrow]

When I see the horrible traffic on the BA to downtown, I wonder how much more those commuters will put up with before moving closer. Waiting 40 minutes in traffic for a few months would be enough to convince me to move closer to make it a 5 minute commute. It is a shame the "free market" encourages sprawling growth.

I expect it depends on what those commuters want outside of their life at "the job".

[erfalf]

If everyone had access to free tuition, would those numbers stay the same? Would the value of a degree remain what it is now? Degrees seem to be declining in value and increasing in price. Still far better than no degree (depending on which degree).

This is purely for comedic effect mind you, but I once heard someone say that "the way to make college truly worthless, is to give it away for free."

[heironymouspasparagus]

Access to free tuition would increase the freshmen class size.  I expect it would only marginally increase the size of the graduating class.

The ratio stays the same, as shown by decades of past experience.

[heironymouspasparagus]

This is purely for comedic effect mind you, but I once heard someone say that "the way to make college truly worthless, is to give it away for free."

NOW we are getting close to a real discussion.  Good!  What type of college is of value?  Most of them.  There was - and probably still is - massive scorn and derision heaped upon the idea of someone going to college to get a degree in 'basket weaving'.  Not that it actually existed, but the meme is strong!  In reality, we know, also from massive amounts of past experience, just how important the arts are to learning and improvement in overall academics.  So the ones heaping derision are actually the same type as those running the state of Oklahoma right now.  Gutting the whole system of public education in this state.  Trying hard to 'dumb-down' the electorate.  And look around you...Failin', Kern, Inhofe, and their ilk keep getting elected, so it's working tragically well.

As for free...well, it should have conditions.  Like successful completion and ongoing progress toward the ultimate goal - a degree in something.  And successful means a C or better average.  Should arts be included?  Absolutely.  Along with all the prerequisites that a typical curriculum contains.  STEM...ok, sure, why not?   I don't imagine there would be more than what we have now - there is only about 1% of the population (if that) who are suited to that type of education/work, but lets give it a try and even start earlier in the school program to get people thinking in STEM terms sooner.

The big problem is that this would bring about a better educated, more well-rounded person, who would be less susceptible to the Murdochian Fantasy World View of things, as well as the "Koch-a Kola" brand of nonsense spewed around the country today, and that would be anathema to the existing power structure.

How about political science?   Well, starting with the initial big lie in the title - there is no science, notwithstanding Hari Seldon's conjectures, I would say we got enough societal parasites, so no, poli-sci would not be eligible for free education.

[cannon_fodder]

I move to go start a thread somewhere on free college.


Back to the downtown discussion:

If you missed the talk last night from Jeff Speck, you missed a lot.
http://www.jeffspeck.com/

There are two types of development: neighborhoods or sprawl. Everything else and all the troubles that come with it, are the details.

[johrasephoenix]

Jeff Speck's book is awesome.  I read it to get myself hyped up for planning school last summer.

I'm really glad to see that Tulsa leadership is starting to really get these issues.  It seems like each time an old city official retires the new blood that steps in "gets it" - hence finally getting 2 way streets after waiting 15 years for the old city works director to retire.  There's a generational shift at City Hall that's doing T-Town loads of good.  This seems to be the case for a lot of the city council too.

The only exception, of course, is the Big Guy in the driver's seat.  I don't think he's particularly opposed to the stuff we advocate for on this forum but I also don't think he "gets it" and thus hasn't pushed for it or done much to advance it.  When you think a Chili's on 81st is a great urban space its hard to fight the good fight for downtown.

Once we get turnover at our highest office I think we'll see some major changes fast.  All of Dewey's last three opponents seem to "get it" - Tom Adelson, Kathy Taylor, GT Bynum, etc.  I honestly don't know who keeps voting him back in but hopefully the country-wide anti-establishment mood will help us out.  I can see how Kathy and Tom lost because of the big "D" next to their name that is the Mark of Satan for a lot of Tulsa voters, but GT has an "R" which gives me high hopes.   

 

 

[heironymouspasparagus]

I move to go start a thread somewhere on free college.


Back to the downtown discussion:

If you missed the talk last night from Jeff Speck, you missed a lot.
http://www.jeffspeck.com/

There are two types of development: neighborhoods or sprawl. Everything else and all the troubles that come with it, are the details.

Starting with the first video on his site.  Great stuff!!



One thing glaringly obvious - we will never be a Portland!  Ever!

[heironymouspasparagus]

In Walkable City, he gets right to the gut of the matter - page 17.  Failin', Doobie, and all the other "growth for growth's sake" crowd are always bleating with great agony, wringing of hands, and gnashing of teeth....   "How can we attract companies and get jobs...?"

I have known intuitively for decades some of the symptoms (education, infrastructure, etc) that has aggravated the problem, and thought that the question just seems out of sync somehow.  Jeff clarified it on that page.  It's the wrong question.

The Correct Question is, "How can we keep our children from leaving?  How can we keep our grandchildren from leaving?".  Answers to those questions are what will get us on the right path.

[Bamboo World]

One thing glaringly obvious - we will never be a Portland!  Ever!

Tulsa probably won't ever be a Portland, but I'd never say never.  In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Tulsa and Portland were more similar than they are now.  There were some proposals to establish urban growth limits around Tulsa, as there are around Portland.  Other than the size of P's and T's downtown blocks and street grids, I'd say the biggest difference between the two cities is that Portland implemented their urban plans.  In contrast, Tulsa has continued to host planning workshops, conduct traffic studies, hold meetings, create plans, revise plans, and talk about urban design -- but it has been mostly talk, with very little coordinated or cohesive action, other than installing thousands of brick-like unit pavers and hundreds of glaring acorn lights.

Perhaps Tulsa never will be a Portland, but we do have our own Pearl District.  I know this for a fact, because there's a sign identifying Tulsa's Pearl District at the corner of 11th & Utica, way out in front of the sea of paving surrounding the "pedestrian friendly" Pearl District QT.  I've seen the "Pearl District" sign, fairly recently, so I'm assuming that Tulsa still has a Pearl District, or at least has a sign with "Pearl District" on it...unless the sign has been removed during the last week or so.  I don't pass by Tulsa's "Pearl District" sign every day, but the last time I looked, it seemed (to me) to be substantial -- constructed with masonry with the words "PEARL DISTRICT" in capitalized letters. 

A few years ago, Tulsa had a Lawrence Halprin fountain -- that was common thread shared with Portland.  Unfortunately, Tulsa's fountain has been replaced a couple of times during the last decade.  And what we have now, in its place, perplexed Jeff Speck last night!  He couldn't seem to figure out what it was, other than a low obstruction in the middle of the intersection at 5th & Main.   

[erfalf]

In Walkable City, he gets right to the gut of the matter - page 17.  Failin', Doobie, and all the other "growth for growth's sake" crowd are always bleating with great agony, wringing of hands, and gnashing of teeth....   "How can we attract companies and get jobs...?"

I have known intuitively for decades some of the symptoms (education, infrastructure, etc) that has aggravated the problem, and thought that the question just seems out of sync somehow.  Jeff clarified it on that page.  It's the wrong question.

The Correct Question is, "How can we keep our children from leaving?  How can we keep our grandchildren from leaving?".  Answers to those questions are what will get us on the right path.

I'm am with you. How to keep children from leaving is an excellent question. However study after study (which I don't put much stock in) tells our leaders that our young people want Targets & trendy fast casual restaurants that tend to be situated in large canyons of parking lots. Bartlesville city leaders over and over again claim that the way to retain young talented people is to have brand new shiny things (basically). Nearly every survey indicates a massive desire for a Target, Chick-fil-A, Olive Garden, etc. And Bartlesville literally already has a mirror image of these places in existence already (albeit much more local in many cases). But apparently young people want big, shiny & new. Even Bartlesville schools poll as performing below our peers in the Tulsa metro, when it is nearly the exact opposite in reality. Again, not as shiny and new as Owasso/Skiatook/Bixby/BA/Jenks new facilities. See a trend.

I personally think Bartlesville is a phenomenal town to live in to raise a family. Which fortunately for us includes a huge swath of the population. I feel like my own city is going to turn itself upside down in order to please a relatively small portion of the population, that in the end, if they are working here anyway, will likely grow to find the community much more desirable, for reasons entirely different than they would have considered when they were single and 23 years old. I'm not saying that demo should not be considered, but it is hard to take it seriously sometimes when the opinions seem so divorced from reality. Probably similar to when you hear people complain about the "parking problem" downtown.

[Bamboo World]

Why would you want Frankfort reopened?

1. It would create more options for vehicles and pedestrians to circulate around the area between 1st & 3rd, Elgin and Greenwood -- especially if 1st and 2nd remain one-way.

2. It would help to create a direct connection across the railroad to the ballpark and the Greenwood District (even if it became a pedestrian-only connection across the tracks).

3. One block of Frankfort between 1st & 2nd, with two-way traffic and on-street parking allowed on both sides of the street, would create a safer and more active pedestrian environment on the abutting sidewalks.

4. If there happened to be a wreck, a parade, an arts festival, a fire or another emergency, a bike race, a marathon, road construction, utility work, or similar obstructions on another street in the vicinity, then Frankfort could provide an alternate path for vehicles and pedestrians.

5. Smaller blocks and finer-grained grids make for safer pedestrian environments. 

[erfalf]

In regards to extending Frankfort. There is already no rail crossing for Frankfort. I really don't see the benefit, and I totally understand that smaller blocks are better. But I believe there will actually be pedestrian way through the development even. Putting a stop sign/signal @ Greenwood would do just as much for perceived pedestrian safety. It would slow down the entrance/exit traffic from the highway. I would think this would be planned for already...hopefully.