Vision Extension - IDL Removal/Demolition

[patric]

It doesnt seem like that long ago voters were turning down Vision-like proposals because they were tied to "public safety" slush funds, but now that is being touted as a feature.

I always understood V2025 was for quality-of-life and capitol improvements, and not to prop up city departments that cant stay within their budgets.
Has the tide turned?

[davideinstein]

It doesnt seem like that long ago voters were turning down Vision-like proposals because they were tied to "public safety" slush funds, but now that is being touted as a feature.

I always understood V2025 was for quality-of-life and capitol improvements, and not to prop up city departments that cant stay within their budgets.
Has the tide turned?

My understanding as well. But welcome to Tulsa politics.

[davideinstein]

I'll go on record that I don't think the police department is under funded. There are more than enough police on the streets. If there is a crime problem, then maybe the city should look into other options instead of funding more police. If you have more police, your crime rate will go up naturally. The problem in Tulsa could be a host of other issues which likely starts with education.

[LandArchPoke]

My understanding as well. But welcome to Tulsa politics.

Agreed. Seems like deja vu all over again. The same thing happened with Vision2025 in the first place, several politicians tried to cram the Arena idea down voters throats what, 3 times or so? All of which were voted down until Vision2025. I'm afraid this next go around might meet the same fate as the previous votes.

This needs to be solely focused of capital improvements projects that make an impact on the community. The idea that we can just use more and more sales taxes to pay for roads, police, and fire are dangerous in my opinion. If we don't make investments in our community that are going to spur growth - such as the BOK Center which has brought downtown back to life - we are just going to go down the road of Detroit. We can't bail ourselves out this way, the only way to fix our revenue problems is to spur growth. Well how do we do that? We do it through investing in light rail, streetcars, commuter rail, bus rapid transit, trails, bike lanes, or the IDL project I've proposed. Projects that make a developer go "I want to build a new development in Tulsa" - a public safety tax isn't going to do that and never will. The public safety tax proposal is doubling down, and it seems like pretty all of the council outside of Gilbert gets this. The public safety tax would be putting us in fast lane for the City of Tulsa to go bankrupt - if we can't live within our means, don't dip into sales taxes like this - figure out a way to spur growth and revenue to fix the problem (hint > it's density).

I'm not convinced damns on the river will spur must economic development either because right now with the REI and Outlet Mall two of the most prime develop-able pieces on the river are being converted to typical suburban shopping center you can find anywhere else in the US - not what waterfront property deserves. Bynum did say they are working on a ROI in terms of what the damns would spur in new tax dollars, but that won't be released for a few months so once I see that I would be more willing to vote one way or the other.

If it was public safety tax or water in the river - I would vote for water in the river in a heartbeat.

[LandArchPoke]

Took me a while, but I have been convinced.  I like the idea as well.  We might want to work on a 3 sentence soundbite ( I think that is one of those speaking/writing rules)  that encapsulates the positives of the concept.



Lets get rid of part of the IDL.  

It will free up desirable developable land while increasing connectivity.

We can do this in a way that will both pay for itself and additional future transit, while still carrying the same amount of traffic.


Or something like that.

Thanks - Glad you are finally convinced. My advise, and to anyone else that is supportive of the idea. Like the Facebook page and sign the change.org petition. Share it with your friends as well if you haven't already. The more word get's out the better.

https://www.change.org/p/city-of-tulsa-state-of-oklahoma-rebuild-the-idl

https://www.facebook.com/infrastructuretulsa

[carltonplace]

I'm a fan!, I've been talking this up to every one that wants to hear about it.

It's quibbling I know but just quickly edit the impact page for diction please.

http://www.infrastructuretulsa.org/the-impact.html

Example:
The impacts of traffic flow through downtown if the IDL were reconstructed were significantly more impactful than what this proposal as sections were completely closed off

This additional expensive will open the opportunity

[TeeDub]

From your site:

All new development would be built with an approximate $250 per sq. ft. value.
With current costs at near $100/sqft what will drive people to spend 2.5x that?

All retail assumes $200 per sq. ft. in sales per year. For reference, Woodland Hills Mall attains approximately $450-500 per sq. ft. in sales per year.
I am not a retailer, but will these numbers keep a place in business?   Half the sales of Woodland Hills?  Especially with the rent being what it must to pay off a $250 per sq. ft. building.

[patric]

I'll go on record that I don't think the police department is under funded. There are more than enough police on the streets. If there is a crime problem, then maybe the city should look into other options instead of funding more police. If you have more police, your crime rate will go up naturally. The problem in Tulsa could be a host of other issues which likely starts with education.

Historically, adding more police to the ranks has resulted in fewer police on patrol, because the leadership has used the fresh fish to replace patrolmen that are promised off-street assignments like vice and narcotics.  The Tulsa Whirled had the numbers a while back.

[LandArchPoke]

I'm a fan!, I've been talking this up to every one that wants to hear about it.

It's quibbling I know but just quickly edit the impact page for diction please.

http://www.infrastructuretulsa.org/the-impact.html

Example:
The impacts of traffic flow through downtown if the IDL were reconstructed were significantly more impactful than what this proposal as sections were completely closed off

This additional expensive will open the opportunity

I will have to reword that, thanks for pointing that out.

From your site:

All new development would be built with an approximate $250 per sq. ft. value.
With current costs at near $100/sqft what will drive people to spend 2.5x that?

All retail assumes $200 per sq. ft. in sales per year. For reference, Woodland Hills Mall attains approximately $450-500 per sq. ft. in sales per year.
I am not a retailer, but will these numbers keep a place in business?   Half the sales of Woodland Hills?  Especially with the rent being what it must to pay off a $250 per sq. ft. building.

$200-250 per sq. ft. is about what the Edge at East Village and the View are being constructed. $100 sq. ft. is what you'd see a cheaper suburban house constructed at. In reality, most of the new development built here would be over the $250 per sq. ft. mark - I just don't want to assume they will all be higher than that when trying to calculate an ROI figure.

Same thing with the sales taxes. If you figure the development will attain $200 per sq. ft. and calculate the ROI based off that, anything extra is just icing on the cake in terms of revenue to the city and state. $200-250 in sales per sq. ft. is enough to keep businesses in operation, but also depends on how expensive the rents are per sq. ft. Many malls in the U.S. have sales in the range of $250-300 per sq. ft., and most malls charge rents in the range of $20-30 per sq. ft. However, Woodland Hills charges many tenants over $50 or 60 per sq. ft. because the sales per sq. ft. are so high. I would imagine if you built a new retail center here the sales would be comparable to Utica Square and Woodland Hills so the potential revenues are much higher than I've estimated, but better to assume low when assessing the viability of this project and it's returns. I wouldn't want to assume $500 in sales per sq. ft. and then it really get $350-400 and then the project not pay for itself - but the project still provides a great return in 10 years using a relatively low development value and sales per sq. ft.

[davideinstein]

I'm a fan!, I've been talking this up to every one that wants to hear about it.

It's quibbling I know but just quickly edit the impact page for diction please.

http://www.infrastructuretulsa.org/the-impact.html

Example:
The impacts of traffic flow through downtown if the IDL were reconstructed were significantly more impactful than what this proposal as sections were completely closed off

This additional expensive will open the opportunity

I travel that portion of 75 everyday. I'll gladly go around the west side of the IDL to get that kind of development.

[Conan71]

Taking a good look at it, I'm pretty certain we could live without the east leg of the IDL.

[DTowner]

If you could get rid of only the south leg or east leg of the IDL, what would be your preference?

[carltonplace]

Since I live on the south side of the south leg, for personal reasons I'd want to get rid of S64/51 but from a development and flow and ease perspective the east leg makes the most sense.

1. The East leg is elevated and with lots of bridges and over passes, it doesn't need to be filled in like the south leg does.
2. Removing the east leg creates a natural transition between the East Village and the Pearl
3. There is an alternate H75 route on the west side of downtown.

[Conan71]

Since I live on the south side of the south leg, for personal reasons I'd want to get rid of S64/51 but from a development and flow and ease perspective the east leg makes the most sense.

1. The East leg is elevated and with lots of bridges and over passes, it doesn't need to be filled in like the south leg does.
2. Removing the east leg creates a natural transition between the East Village and the Pearl
3. There is an alternate H75 route on the west side of downtown.

And there again, the south could always be capped as a tunnel.

[SXSW]

I would at least like to provide the ability for people to rent a paddle board or canoe and go back and forth between the pond by 15th and the pond by 6th. If the other Pearl pond projects could be built with canal connections in a way that provides further access for people via water I think that would be fantastic as well. I don't know if it could be connected to the Arkansas or not - you'd have to find some route from 15th to Veterans Park most likely.

Elm Creek runs in a big tunnel from the river (the outlet is just south of the 23rd St Bridge) up through Veterans Park and north along/near Baltimore.  You can tell you're in the former creek valley when you go down 18th between Cincinnati and Cheyenne.  My thoughts regarding Elm Creek have been creating a small lake and wetlands in Veterans Park that helps treat the stormwater before going into the river, and creating a canal down Baltimore with urban rowhouses along each side.  Austin is working on a ambitious project with a stormwater tunnel that has a lot of similarities to what we could do with Elm Creek: