“Economic Development” Means Gentrification for North Tulsa

[joiei]

Went in a week ago.  It's VERY picked over.    Picked up a few things and some cleaning supplies

I'll be surprised if they make it till May 1st.  New sign, 50% off.  And not much left. 

[PonderInc]

I completely understand the frustration of people who see dollar stores popping up like QTs and mushrooms in springtime. People in north Tulsa have plenty of Dollar Store choices...but few other options.  When all your choices are the same old crap, it's not much of a choice.

North Tulsa has so much potential, I'm surprised so few people pay attention.  Areas near downtown and north of 244 have walkable street grids, cool old housing stock and some neat surviving storefronts that could be the foundation of our next great places. Further north are underdeveloped areas with inspiring views of downtown and the surrounding countryside.  The question is, who's going to build what in North Tulsa?

Sadly, we've spent millions on the Gilcrease Expressway and turning streets like Peoria into highways, while other areas don't even have sidewalks. The result is expensive "feel good" road projects that don't help build wealth, and actually deter the kind of high-quality development that people love. (Hint: wide, fast roads don't create places. They are designed for the sole purpose of moving lots of cars fast.  Thus, a wide, fast road is, by definition, a pass- through area.)  Where do you want to sit and have coffee or walk around? Probably not next to a highway.

The adjacent neighborhoods may have a walkable street grid, fairly dense housing, and a lot of folks without access to cars, but the public investment all goes to building ridiculous high-capacity roads. All those unnecessary and overly wide lanes make it easy to drive fast through the area, but they thwart good urban design and they don't really serve the local population.  Instead, they create an ideal habitat for Dollar stores and McDonalds.

If I could convince Tulsans of one thing it's that transportation planning and urban design and zoning and private development all go hand in hand.  You need to be thinking about what sort of place you want to build, and then make sure all the components contribute to this vision.  Currently, our bad habits, inertia and lack of vision are helping set the stage for North Tulsa to have lots of high-cost public investment and low-yield, car-centric private development.

[TheArtist]

I completely understand the frustration of people who see dollar stores popping up like QTs and mushrooms in springtime. People in north Tulsa have plenty of Dollar Store choices...but few other options.  When all your choices are the same old crap, it's not much of a choice.

North Tulsa has so much potential, I'm surprised so few people pay attention.  Areas near downtown and north of 244 have walkable street grids, cool old housing stock and some neat surviving storefronts that could be the foundation of our next great places. Further north are underdeveloped areas with inspiring views of downtown and the surrounding countryside.  The question is, who's going to build what in North Tulsa?

Sadly, we've spent millions on the Gilcrease Expressway and turning streets like Peoria into highways, while other areas don't even have sidewalks. The result is expensive "feel good" road projects that don't help build wealth, and actually deter the kind of high-quality development that people love. (Hint: wide, fast roads don't create places. They are designed for the sole purpose of moving lots of cars fast.  Thus, a wide, fast road is, by definition, a pass- through area.)  Where do you want to sit and have coffee or walk around? Probably not next to a highway.

The adjacent neighborhoods may have a walkable street grid, fairly dense housing, and a lot of folks without access to cars, but the public investment all goes to building ridiculous high-capacity roads. All those unnecessary and overly wide lanes make it easy to drive fast through the area, but they thwart good urban design and they don't really serve the local population.  Instead, they create an ideal habitat for Dollar stores and McDonalds.

If I could convince Tulsans of one thing it's that transportation planning and urban design and zoning and private development all go hand in hand.  You need to be thinking about what sort of place you want to build, and then make sure all the components contribute to this vision.  Currently, our bad habits, inertia and lack of vision are helping set the stage for North Tulsa to have lots of high-cost public investment and low-yield, car-centric private development.

Good points!

[Conan71]

Aldi would be great.  The issue with Aldi (who owns Trader Joe's) is that a big chunk of their sales comes from house brand alcohol.  We don't allow alcohol in grocery stores, which is a huge line item for smaller footprint grocers like Aldi/Trader Joe's, so it's hard to attract more outlets, especially into neighborhoods without the retailing demographics of Brookside.

But it's doable.  Rahm Emmanual got a Whole Foods opened up in Englewood, ground zero for urban crime on the Chicago South Side. 

We drove up to Colorado Springs to visit some other ex-pat Tulsans yesterday, they kept insisting we needed to visit Costco and Trader Joe's.  This was the first time MC or I had ever been in a Costco.  The TJ's there does no alcohol sales yet the Costco across the parking lot does.  With the price point on Charles Shaw (Three Buck Chuck) wines, that almost has to be a loss-leader not a profit center anyhow.  I'm not aware of anything kinky in Colorado's alcohol laws which would have prevented TJ's from selling alcohol unless they have some sort of law about multiple liquor/wine/beer retailers within a certain proximity to each other.

As a side note, MC and I have always thought TJ's had amazing prices on lamb.  Not so.  TJ's was cheaper than Reasor's in Tulsa but compared to Costco, they are stupid expensive.  Costco is about 40% cheaper on lamb products than TJ's.

One other aside from this trip: I think we have become spoiled already to the quiet and simple life in Cimarron, NM.  I do NOT miss "power centers" and mega-retailers one iota.  Our local grocer is more than willing to provision all sorts of items for our personal and business kitchen needs they normally don't carry on the shelves due to space limitations.

[takemebacktotulsa]

We drove up to Colorado Springs to visit some other ex-pat Tulsans yesterday, they kept insisting we needed to visit Costco and Trader Joe's.  This was the first time MC or I had ever been in a Costco.  The TJ's there does no alcohol sales yet the Costco across the parking lot does.  With the price point on Charles Shaw (Three Buck Chuck) wines, that almost has to be a loss-leader not a profit center anyhow.  I'm not aware of anything kinky in Colorado's alcohol laws which would have prevented TJ's from selling alcohol unless they have some sort of law about multiple liquor/wine/beer retailers within a certain proximity to each other.

As a side note, MC and I have always thought TJ's had amazing prices on lamb.  Not so.  TJ's was cheaper than Reasor's in Tulsa but compared to Costco, they are stupid expensive.  Costco is about 40% cheaper on lamb products than TJ's.

One other aside from this trip: I think we have become spoiled already to the quiet and simple life in Cimarron, NM.  I do NOT miss "power centers" and mega-retailers one iota.  Our local grocer is more than willing to provision all sorts of items for our personal and business kitchen needs they normally don't carry on the shelves due to space limitations.

Colorado has very similar liquor laws to OK. 3.2 beer at grocery stores, and liquor and wine at liquor stores. I'm not sure about ownership laws, though. From what I understand, TJ's, costco, etc., would be allowed to own 1 liquor store in OK. Is that accurate? That's the law in NY, where I live, and many other states.

EDIT: I just looked it up, and CO has the 1 business 1 liquor store law. So there is probably another TJ's somewhere else in the state that has a liquor store.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I guess really it isn't just about making money but about making more money if you went somewhere else.  As soon as you run out of other places then these will move up the list (assuming the economics works out)

Business 101.

[Conan71]

Colorado has very similar liquor laws to OK. 3.2 beer at grocery stores, and liquor and wine at liquor stores. I'm not sure about ownership laws, though. From what I understand, TJ's, costco, etc., would be allowed to own 1 liquor store in OK. Is that accurate? That's the law in NY, where I live, and many other states.

EDIT: I just looked it up, and CO has the 1 business 1 liquor store law. So there is probably another TJ's somewhere else in the state that has a liquor store.

Yep, I just went to their web site.  It appears there are 8 TJ stores in Colorado.  One store has alcohol sales in Denver the rest have none.  That pretty well blows away the theory that alcohol sales are central to their profit model.

Interesting to think that a state which has friendly enough laws to have been at the forefront of the craft beer explosion and one of the first to legalize recreational pot use still has some kinky sales and distribution laws.

[sgrizzle]

EDIT: I just looked it up, and CO has the 1 business 1 liquor store law. So there is probably another TJ's somewhere else in the state that has a liquor store.

One difference, a corporation cannot own a liquor store in the state. Tulsa is the only TJ's and they considered liquor but can't due to the corporate restriction. Has to be in an individual or partnership name.

[Townsend]

One difference, a corporation cannot own a liquor store in the state. Tulsa is the only TJ's and they considered liquor but can't due to the corporate restriction. Has to be in an individual or partnership name.

Isn't a corporation a person?

[sgrizzle]

Isn't a corporation a person?

No, a corporation has more rights.

[guido911]

Good thing we do not have the gentrification thing going on up in North Tulsa. And we might need to add another business to the lsit of those that are unhealthy...

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/crimewatch/update-three-suspects-arrested-on-murder-complaints-after-fatal-armed/article_81dbbab9-39c4-55ce-81fe-bd3a3195ba7b.html

[swake]

Good thing we do not have the gentrification thing going on up in North Tulsa. And we might need to add another business to the lsit of those that are unhealthy...

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/crimewatch/update-three-suspects-arrested-on-murder-complaints-after-fatal-armed/article_81dbbab9-39c4-55ce-81fe-bd3a3195ba7b.html

Hey, you keep on being all Christian and charitable and worrying about those with less than you, k? What was you said about yourself?

Charitable giving and helping those without is a large portion of my life. Almost a mission.

Or is there something particular about north Tulsa that leads to feel less for those people than others "without"?

[guido911]

Hey, you keep on being all Christian and charitable and worrying about those with less than you, k? What was you said about yourself?

Or is there something particular about north Tulsa that leads to feel less for those people than others "without"?

Probably should have thought a bit before your weak azz attempt at tagging me as a hypocrite.

[cannon_fodder]

This may be a bit of a drift, but I'd like some group thought on the larger issue:

Gentrification is defined as improving an area to middle class taste.  Doing so creates more demand for more affluent people, which raises prices.  This brings on the complaint that it chases out current residents. But I don't see how that is avoided in an area that is largely renter occupied (as is the case with areas seen as less desirable) or where owners choose to cash out, other than keeping it less desirable? Not that all of North Tulsa is less desirable than all of anywhere else... I'm greatly generalizing.

Sure, it is possible that current owners/residents break the 40+ year cycle of decline in North Tulsa, but in that it hasn't happened yet, it is most likely that outsiders will be the catalyst for improving the area to middle class tastes.  That isn't a judgment; economics, "planning," and other factors have maintained the status quo, but it is rare for an area to see large scale change out of the blue.  It will likely be money coming in from outside the community, with that money comes people from outside the area and the bemoaning effects gentrification. Every well positioned older community with "good bones" that sees its fortunes change seems to go through the same process.

Retailers have computers running demographics constantly, looking for places that "fit" their model for a new store. The current demographics in North Tulsa appear to attract only select businesses.  If the area becomes more attractive to middle class tastes and attracts wealthier people, it will attract the businesses that follow that demographic.  Unfortunately, to attract those other businesses naturally the change that people are worried about (increasing the income/net worth of the people living there, which generally means moving less affluence people somewhere else) is likely part of the equation.  I'm not saying there isn't money to be made by opening a business in North Tulsa, I'm merely commenting on what I see happening.

Unfortunately, the choice appears to be status quo or change.  The status quo isn't a good choice because the area is likely to continue to decline and not attract the most desirable businesses (including main-line grocery stores). The change isn't desirable to many because it will break apart a long standing community.

Like  many on here I see a lot of potential in North Tulsa.  Cool homes, neighborhood churches, great location to downtown or TU, add life and value to the city utilizing existing infrastructure, etc. etc. etc.   But I don't see how we utilize those assets without altering the wealth paradigm. And I don't see how we do that on a large scale without forcing the less affluent people to somewhere else (assuming history is a guide and simply making everyone wealthy isn't an option). 

Someone correct my ignorance, what are the other options.

[rebound]

Unfortunately, the choice appears to be status quo or change.  The status quo isn't a good choice because the area is likely to continue to decline and not attract the most desirable businesses (including main-line grocery stores). The change isn't desirable to many because it will break apart a long standing community.

The entire issue/discussion is simply one of personal change writ large.    A significant portion of people, in all walks of life, demographics, etc., want things to be "better", but don't want real change.   Whether that be to make more money (but not invest in training or education), or to lose weight or otherwise improve their fitness (but not make any real changes to their current lifestyle), or whatever. 

And real change often means a change in your social circles as well.  If a person changes, a lot of those old friends and associates (who are now in a different tax bracket, or are still laying on the couch eating Twinkies...) will hold that change against you.  The choice then is to either revert and keep the friends, or go find new ones.

That's basically gentrification.   A neighborhood has issues, whether it's crime, lack of home ownership, general poverty, etc..  Doesn't matter.   When/if real change comes to that neighborhood,  a good portion of the current residents will no longer fit or feel comfortable there.  So they move, or sell out for a profit, etc.   But one way or the other, a lot of them won't be there anymore.   

Saying "I want to be better, but want to keep everything the same", doesn't work.   True for people, true for neighborhoods.