Most elected officials like river plan

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little
That's an excellent observation Waterboy.  It really drives home what I was getting at far better than I have been able to do.  It demonstrates that Tulsa itself has changed and evolved through the decades.  Not necessarily for the better.  

Frankly, I'm scared to death of "retirement communities".  They're a dumping ground for old people who don't fit into this car-oriented world we've fabricated.  It's like Logan's Run.  If your not young and licensed, you're going to have to report to the sleepshop. If we still did things the old fashioned way, old people could remain independent and enjoy a decent, healthy lifestyle for years and years after their driver's license disappeared.

But you're describing something that is a national issue as if it's just a Tulsa problem.  

Once again, referring to Portland as a successful model compared to Tulsa's "cheap" housing misses the point...

Trying to legislate urbanist morality far too often makes things worse...

http://www.ti.org/vaupdate52.html

***And the city of Portland may have at one time decades ago been slightly more populated than Tulsa, but the Portland metro area has always been much larger than Tulsa's... roughly double.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

But you're describing something that is a national issue as if it's just a Tulsa problem.  

Once again, referring to Portland as a successful model compared to Tulsa's "cheap" housing misses the point...

Trying to legislate urbanist morality far too often makes things worse...

http://www.ti.org/vaupdate52.html

***And the city of Portland may have at one time decades ago been slightly more populated than Tulsa, but the Portland metro area has always been much larger than Tulsa's... roughly double.

I know it's a national issue, but land use decisions are always local.  And so, the problem is ours to address.  What's your concern with having laws that shape development?  Our current land use laws do exactly that.  It just so happens that they are skewed to produce low density, suburban, sprawling development, so much so that they outlaw higher density, mixed-use development.

You keep banging on about this as "urbanist morality".  First, I don't think that density, efficiency, and accessibility are moral issues.  They're design issues.  90% of what has been built over the last 30+ years has been low density suburbs.  I think the decisions that led us to throw all our eggs in one basket were more based on marketing and short-term sales. I don't think any thought was given to the long-term viability of this kind of development.  Tulsa is billions behind in this infrastructure refurbishment: streets, sewers, etc.  Why?  Now that the infrastructure from earlier booms is wearing out, I think it's a perfect time to ask ourselves if this kind of development is sustainable.  I fully expect that most people in Tulsa will want to find a way to sustain it somehow.  So, the question is, are Tulsan's ready to pay a premium to retain these low-density suburbs?  If they are, then who am I to complain?

The other side of this question is whether or not Tulsa should try to embrace or encourage more sustainable development models.  It's especially important today because we have an aging population.  In 20 years, many of the boomers won't (or at least, shouldn't) be driving.  What is to become of them?  Do we herd them into retirement camps at the edge of town?  Given the option of "transitioning" from a suburban home into a retirement community or retiring into a small, urban apartment in a walkable neighborhood, which would you choose?  Personally, I'd want to retain the independence that Waterboy was describing.

And that seems to speak to your last point, which is that this "urbanism" is some kind of new, scary, dogmatic thing that we should all fear and fight.  It's really not.  Pay attention to pre-car neighborhoods here in Tulsa and elsewhere.  The details vary, but they are very consistent in many ways...compact, multi-story, with everything you need to live within a short walking distance.  It's a development pattern that has evolved over millennia.  And it's therefore a proven model of efficiency.

So, please tell me why we shouldn't work towards some of this denser style of development if it is more efficient, works better for populations who can't drive, and it's already "tried and true".

Personally, I don't think we should eliminate suburbs, but I do think that they should pay their own freight.  As I said, Tulsa is billions behind...somebody's got to pay it.  If you want to pay more for the isolation and exclusivity, then knock yourself out.

[RecycleMichael]

I don't want to put my parents in a nursing home...I am thinking more of a group home.

Remember that TV show, "The Golden Girls", with Betty White and Bea Arthur? They seemed to be having fun.

My parents could turn that place into a party palace. Ten or twelve people living together under one roof would be kind of like a 1960s hippy commune.