1551 Cherry St Buildling

[AquaMan]

Old people don't know what Uber is and/or don't trust it.  They still want to drive and park.  Some of the business owners care about walkability but also know that parking is something they need to consider for business reasons.  The first step, however, is doing away with parking requirements.  I never understood why the government cares how many parking spots a business has.  It should be up to the business owner to make that decision.

These thoughts came to mind-
The first step is organizing the Cherry Street merchants and dealing with a problem too long ignored. That area was designed during the late twenties with little regard for usage as a trendy entertainment district. It was neighborhood shopping and services. Now it attracts from a city many times the size of Tulsa in 1928. Why didn't we plan ahead, close the street off on each end, build multi story parking and run a trolley up and down the street with tie-ins to other entertainment districts via shuttles? Because it grew slowly and with no leadership. Instead of those plans developers quickly tore out multifamily and built very high end loft condos.

Uber is not the solution. I know at least one of their drivers. He only makes money late at night. Turns out Uber is great for late night drunk transport but not shopping and dinner. I remember reading a few years back that Tulsa has more cars per person than LA! We obviously have not embraced mass transit but you think they will embrace Uber instead? Doubtful. So, eliminate parking and you kill the area. A significant portion of customers on Cherry Street are well off, established, middle age or old. Is Smoke willing to write them off by not offering parking and valet service?  

[TheArtist]

Interesting, most of the people I know who use Uber are in their 40s and 50's, course that's the age group I am in so there is that.  But everyone I know that uses it, loves it. I a still all in for better transit of course but as Uber becomes more well known and people begin getting comfortable using it, it can in some small part be a way to bridge the gap and help to transition some areas on their way to becoming more dense and pedestrian friendly. 

Also, I find it interesting to think about all the people I know and hear about who would love to live in a more pedestrian/transit lively city, but who do not come to Tulsa or leave Tulsa because it is not.  We try to make things comfortable for the "suburbanite" type people who then still complain no matter what we try to do unless it was to bulldoze everything and turn it into suburbia  (I don't like parking garages they are nasty, I don't like parking garages they are scary) etc.  And then while we are catering to them we completely turn a blind eye to those who would have been perfectly fine with no parking and better transit.   

[AquaMan]

I didn't mean to imply that Uber won't work or isn't helpful. It isn't the solution. As much as we dislike the suburbs, they are there and they are much larger in population than the old part of town which, though not big city pedestrian friendly,  is infinitely more so than the burbs. Lots of money outside the inner city that will never love us but always enjoy the difference. And they aren't going to walk or take the bus to visit.

Sat for 20 minutes on Saturday night around 9pm at Mingo and 71st. The traffic never ended. Seriously, it was constant traffic along restaurant row. A fraction of that would have kept Cherry Street busy all night. No buses. No walkers. No cabs. Cars, trucks and motorcycles.

I can't imagine the lunacy of Cherry Street with no parking regulations and little parking.

[carltonplace]

I'm always amazed by the traffic that people who live in South Tulsa have to deal with every day. I count myself lucky everytime I get stuck in ST traffic that I live where I live.

[TheArtist]

I would rather be stuck in traffic between beautiful buildings having interesting window displays, trees, lamp posts, and sidewalks full of people than between more cars, ditches, parking lots and far off in the distance bland strip malls, and not another human being in sight.

[onehandoneheart]

I would rather be stuck in traffic between beautiful buildings having interesting window displays, trees, lamp posts, and sidewalks full of people than between more cars, ditches, parking lots and far off in the distance bland strip malls, and not another human being in sight.

+1

[cannon_fodder]

Heres what we know:

1) desirable development brings in people
2) in Tulsa, peoples default is to drive
3) people who drive need to park

Those are unfortunate facts (at the moment). But, we also know:

4) areas developed to be car centric can have the greatest traffic problems
5) they pay less in taxes per area
6) they cost more in infrastructure and city services
7) they are statistically more crime prone

So it seems we would want to discourage that model as a city...

[Breadburner]

Don't have any trouble with parking or traffic in that area........

[glove51]

I'm 50 (my wife is 48); we use Uber frequently and we love it.

[LandArchPoke]

Cherry Street is not even close to congested. Anyone ever been on Wisconsin Avenue in DC through Georgetown? There's thousands of other examples of way more congested corridors similar to Cherry Street.

Anyone ever tried to find street parking in Georgetown? I have... and at times I would have to drive around for 30 minutes to find a parking spot or pay $30 to park in a public lot for 2 hours.

Again... Cherry Street does not have a parking problem, at all. It has way to much parking.

People in Tulsa seem to think they own the street and sidewalk outside their homes. Guess what? You did not pay for them - you DO NOT OWN THEM. People can park in front of your house and walk to a neighboring business - it's not a big deal. It works in DC, LA, San Francisco, and every other city in the United States. Drive up and down the streets around that area at lunch and there is plenty of street parking available in the residential areas. Why not utilize this public infrastructure for parking instead of forcing developers to knock down structures to add surface parking behind their building?

The only time I ever see Cherry Street congested is Monday-Friday at about 12:50 - the traffic going west back towards downtown can and has backed up from Peoria to Utica. 15 minutes of congestion per day does not mean the area in congested.

[TheArtist]

Cherry Street is not even close to congested. Anyone ever been on Wisconsin Avenue in DC through Georgetown? There's thousands of other examples of way more congested corridors similar to Cherry Street.

Anyone ever tried to find street parking in Georgetown? I have... and at times I would have to drive around for 30 minutes to find a parking spot or pay $30 to park in a public lot for 2 hours.

Again... Cherry Street does not have a parking problem, at all. It has way to much parking.

People in Tulsa seem to think they own the street and sidewalk outside their homes. Guess what? You did not pay for them - you DO NOT OWN THEM. People can park in front of your house and walk to a neighboring business - it's not a big deal. It works in DC, LA, San Francisco, and every other city in the United States. Drive up and down the streets around that area at lunch and there is plenty of street parking available in the residential areas. Why not utilize this public infrastructure for parking instead of forcing developers to knock down structures to add surface parking behind their building?

The only time I ever see Cherry Street congested is Monday-Friday at about 12:50 - the traffic going west back towards downtown can and has backed up from Peoria to Utica. 15 minutes of congestion per day does not mean the area in congested.

Here Here!

[BuiltRight]

Cherry Street is not even close to congested. Anyone ever been on Wisconsin Avenue in DC through Georgetown? There's thousands of other examples of way more congested corridors similar to Cherry Street.

Anyone ever tried to find street parking in Georgetown? I have... and at times I would have to drive around for 30 minutes to find a parking spot or pay $30 to park in a public lot for 2 hours.

Again... Cherry Street does not have a parking problem, at all. It has way to much parking.

People in Tulsa seem to think they own the street and sidewalk outside their homes. Guess what? You did not pay for them - you DO NOT OWN THEM. People can park in front of your house and walk to a neighboring business - it's not a big deal. It works in DC, LA, San Francisco, and every other city in the United States. Drive up and down the streets around that area at lunch and there is plenty of street parking available in the residential areas. Why not utilize this public infrastructure for parking instead of forcing developers to knock down structures to add surface parking behind their building?

The only time I ever see Cherry Street congested is Monday-Friday at about 12:50 - the traffic going west back towards downtown can and has backed up from Peoria to Utica. 15 minutes of congestion per day does not mean the area in congested.

I agree that Tulsa city code requires too much parking per building. When you stop to think that the current required ratio for restaurant parking is 1 parking spot for every 100 sqft of building. Which doesn't sound crazy untill you realize that a standard parking spot is 18ft X 8ft which is 144 sqft and that doesnt include the driveway to get to the parking spot which is usally 20ft wide. So for the 22,000sqft of a good looking "1551 Cherry St" we are getting we are getting 40,000sqft of asphalt (that is actual numbers taken off the site plan). If the city ever wants to really stop the destroying of historic buildings and create a true urban core the first thing they have to do is change the way they think about parking requirements.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Cherry Street is not even close to congested. Anyone ever been on Wisconsin Avenue in DC through Georgetown? There's thousands of other examples of way more congested corridors similar to Cherry Street.

Anyone ever tried to find street parking in Georgetown? I have... and at times I would have to drive around for 30 minutes to find a parking spot or pay $30 to park in a public lot for 2 hours.

Again... Cherry Street does not have a parking problem, at all. It has way to much parking.

People in Tulsa seem to think they own the street and sidewalk outside their homes. Guess what? You did not pay for them - you DO NOT OWN THEM. People can park in front of your house and walk to a neighboring business - it's not a big deal. It works in DC, LA, San Francisco, and every other city in the United States. Drive up and down the streets around that area at lunch and there is plenty of street parking available in the residential areas. Why not utilize this public infrastructure for parking instead of forcing developers to knock down structures to add surface parking behind their building?

The only time I ever see Cherry Street congested is Monday-Friday at about 12:50 - the traffic going west back towards downtown can and has backed up from Peoria to Utica. 15 minutes of congestion per day does not mean the area in congested.

Even somewhere more sparse like downtown Milwaukee and Chicago are workable for parking, but better done by walking.


Hate to quibble...oh, wait - no I don't, I love to quibble!  One comment I do disagree with is "You did not pay for them...".  Yes, we do pay for them!

Along with everyone else, so the idea of ownership hits the nail on the head - it is a shared resource with others who want to park in front of your house and walk.

The only times I get by there are on the weekends and every time in recent years, it has been pretty busy/congested.  Weekdays, outside of noon, don't know.  Wouldn't be surprised if it is quiet though.

[AquaMan]

So sad. It seems in spite of education, without first hand experience, we keep making the same mistakes. Go ahead and kill Cherry Street if you want. I liked it better before it became trendy anyway.

Some truth to what you said, but not accurate. We do own the street, the curbs, the street signs and the landscaping through years of shared taxes, levies and maintenance. That gives us the right to lobby for its thoughtful, appropriate usage with zoning, parking restrictions and (heavens above..) asking a business to provide some parking for its employees and customers. Even those that don't ascribe to the same lifestyle preferences as yours.

You may argue about the amount required but you'll play hell opening up the neighborhoods for indiscriminate parking for the sake of businesses who merely rent space nearby. It creates rental properties, it diminishes home values, and is equivalent to shoving into the lunch line because you're bigger than the guy ahead of you. Check with a realtor@ about how much longer it takes to sell a house near a busy public school site or by one of the cut through streets. Less value.

Reducing the value of the surrounding neighborhood by funneling those cars into them reduces ad valorem revenue, and eventually kills off the goose you were trying to gold plate. Before it was Cherry Street it was simply an old neighborhood full of eclectic, bohemian residents, bars, not much parking and parallel parking at that (young gen just can't handle that). The result was congestion, crime and rentals. Good place to find drugs.

I notice you didn't mention cities like Minneapolis/St Paul where multi level parking is a given for streets that were redeveloped like Cherry Street. My wife is from there and they followed that practice 30 years ago.

[heironymouspasparagus]

So sad. It seems in spite of education, without first hand experience, we keep making the same mistakes. Go ahead and kill Cherry Street if you want. I liked it better before it became trendy anyway.

Some truth to what you said, but not accurate. We do own the street, the curbs, the street signs and the landscaping through years of shared taxes, levies and maintenance. That gives us the right to lobby for its thoughtful, appropriate usage with zoning, parking restrictions and (heavens above..) asking a business to provide some parking for its employees and customers. Even those that don't ascribe to the same lifestyle preferences as yours.

You may argue about the amount required but you'll play hell opening up the neighborhoods for indiscriminate parking for the sake of businesses who merely rent space nearby. It creates rental properties, it diminishes home values, and is equivalent to shoving into the lunch line because you're bigger than the guy ahead of you. Check with a realtor@ about how much longer it takes to sell a house near a busy public school site or by one of the cut through streets. Less value.

Reducing the value of the surrounding neighborhood by funneling those cars into them reduces ad valorem revenue, and eventually kills off the goose you were trying to gold plate. Before it was Cherry Street it was simply an old neighborhood full of eclectic, bohemian residents, bars, not much parking and parallel parking at that (young gen just can't handle that). The result was congestion, crime and rentals. Good place to find drugs.

I notice you didn't mention cities like Minneapolis/St Paul where multi level parking is a given for streets that were redeveloped like Cherry Street. My wife is from there and they followed that practice 30 years ago.

You talking to me?

If so, I don't want to kill Cherry st at all.  I liked the Bohemian before and I like it now - except the parking.   

Parking is a pain...but I found a space.  If I wanted to park instantly, valet was available at $15.  I'm just too cheap, plus would rather walk a couple blocks on a day like it was.