Most elected officials like river plan

[sgrizzle]

I'd vote for that.

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by tulsa1603
Chicken Little for mayor!

He would have to change his name. Nobody would vote for a guy named Chicken (or a chicken named Guy, for that matter).

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

The last time I remember feeling that Tulsa was well managed was 40 years ago. What happened?

Maybe you just thought they were doing a good job.  At the time, however, they were allowing an explosion of low density sprawl that was bound to catch up with us someday.  Now, all of that 40 year old infrastructure is wearing out and fixing it costs a heck of a lot more than we are willing to pay.  

If we don't want to raise taxes, then we're going to have to get more taxpayers.  That means rebuilding at higher densities and finding a sustainable balancing point.  I wouldn't get too used to the suburban, "Woodland Hills" Tulsa of the last 40 years. I have a feeling it's just a passing phase.  I think it'll all look pretty different in another 20 years.

We bit off more than we could chew several decades ago.  Today, places like Owasso, Jenks, and Glenpool are busy making the exact same mistakes we did decades ago.  I don't think they deserve praise, they're their sh*t's just newer than Tulsa's, and that's all.  In another 20 years, they'll be in bad shape, too.  But I guess that's someone else's problem.

There's no leadership at all on these issues...never has been....ever, ever, ever.  "Growth is good", even if it's cheap and unsustainable.  It's shameful.

Wow.  Nothing quite like high-handed utopian second-guessing and 20/20 rose-colored hindsight...

You realize that if Tulsa had gone with your plans 3 or 4 decades ago, the city would have dwindled down to half the population it is today... and the suburban sprawl would've been far worse.  

Oooh... let's build lotsa brownstones and politically correct urban dwelling places so Tulsa's families will move to Rogers County that much faster... brilliant.

"explosion of low density sprawl"

Interesting.  I now live in an area of east Tulsa that was built by developers in the late 60s through the 70s... and when my car broke down, I was able to walk to the grocery store, barber, fast food, restaurant, bar, etc, etc, etc...  

As a kid, I remember the 70s in Tulsa.  Developers were responding to peoples' wants and needs.  Tulsa's urban activists from the 70s didn't care about the folks who had their houses flooded around Mingo and Joe Creeks... Tulsa's urban activists from the 70s wanted a monorail.  Ride the bus these days and tell me how a monorail built back in the 70s would have been "sustainable."  

And those evil developers in the 70s actually  built a lot of condos and duplexes within the city limits.  After all, this was during the energy crisis and we all knew at the time that "in another 20 years" none of this suburban-style growth would be sustainable... so hearing a poster with the screen name Chicken Little trumpeting Tulsa's development as "cheap and unsustainable" is... well... highly ironic...

"rebuilding at higher densities and finding a sustainable balancing point"

Working families had dreams in the 50s/60s/70s of owning their own homes... they still do...

But hey, I know... let's start our egalitarian new urbanist paradise by first destroying all those sprawling old unsustainable mansions and homes in the Cascia Hall area and force them to live in new urbanist communes....

Don't get me wrong.  I'd love to live in an urban condo in a walkable area of Tulsa.  But I understand I represent a small minority of Tulsans.  And I don't have a wife and four kids to support who might be much better served by living in one of those "unsustainable" suburbs...

So no... I won't be casting a vote anytime soon for subsidized urban social engineering by electing CL as mayor of Tulsa.  []  

Guess we were talking about river development... yeah I think lots of Tulsans can support a true public/private partnership.  I just think it bothers a lot of people when local pols talk about "the Boeing money" with a sense of entitlement... I guess after The Channels debate, opponents won't have to make new signs to replace the old ones that read "No River Tax."

[Double A]

Call me crazy, but with all the lakes that feed into the river swelled past flood stage and the corps having to do a coordinated balancing act of shifting releases between dams to keep the river from overflowing it banks, low water dams have lost their appeal.

[rwarn17588]

OK, you're crazy. []

Seriously, though, they are LOW-water dams. I see no reason why they suddenly become outmoded when the river gets high every few years or so.

[TheArtist]

Yep, completely bonkers. []

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

quote:Originally posted by Chicken LittleIf we don't want to raise taxes, then we're going to have to get more taxpayers.  That means rebuilding at higher densities and finding a sustainable balancing point...

Wow.  Nothing quite like high-handed utopian second-guessing and 20/20 rose-colored hindsight...

You realize that if Tulsa had gone with your plans 3 or 4 decades ago, the city would have dwindled down to half the population it is today... and the suburban sprawl would've been far worse

Oooh... let's build lotsa brownstones and politically correct urban dwelling places so Tulsa's families will move to Rogers County that much faster... brilliant.

"explosion of low density sprawl"

Interesting.  I now live in an area of east Tulsa that was built by developers in the late 60s through the 70s... and when my car broke down, I was able to walk to the grocery store, barber, fast food, restaurant, bar, etc, etc, etc...  

As a kid, I remember the 70s in Tulsa.  Developers were responding to peoples' wants and needs.  Tulsa's urban activists from the 70s didn't care about the folks who had their houses flooded around Mingo and Joe Creeks... Tulsa's urban activists from the 70s wanted a monorail.  Ride the bus these days and tell me how a monorail built back in the 70s would have been "sustainable."  

And those evil developers in the 70s actually  built a lot of condos and duplexes within the city limits.  After all, this was during the energy crisis and we all knew at the time that "in another 20 years" none of this suburban-style growth would be sustainable... so hearing a poster with the screen name Chicken Little trumpeting Tulsa's development as "cheap and unsustainable" is... well... highly ironic...

"rebuilding at higher densities and finding a sustainable balancing point"

Working families had dreams in the 50s/60s/70s of owning their own homes... they still do...

But hey, I know... let's start our egalitarian new urbanist paradise by first destroying all those sprawling old unsustainable mansions and homes in the Cascia Hall area and force them to live in new urbanist communes....

Don't get me wrong.  I'd love to live in an urban condo in a walkable area of Tulsa.  But I understand I represent a small minority of Tulsans.  And I don't have a wife and four kids to support who might be much better served by living in one of those "unsustainable" suburbs...

So no... I won't be casting a vote anytime soon for subsidized urban social engineering by electing CL as mayor of Tulsa.  []  

Guess we were talking about river development... yeah I think lots of Tulsans can support a true public/private partnership.  I just think it bothers a lot of people when local pols talk about "the Boeing money" with a sense of entitlement... I guess after The Channels debate, opponents won't have to make new signs to replace the old ones that read "No River Tax."

Let's be clear.  I was talking about efficiency and you seem to want to talk about personal preferences.

quote:You realize that if Tulsa had gone with your plans 3 or 4 decades ago, the city would have dwindled down to half the population it is today... and the suburban sprawl would've been far worse

You realize that that is pure speculation and you have no idea what this city would be like had we made smarter, more efficient, choices.  You might not want to sell your unsupported, bias laden theories as fact.

I don't know what this town would be like either, but at least I have an analogous example. It's not perfect, but it's better than talking out of my *ss.  Portland was about our size and style 30 and 40 years ago.  They opted for a denser, transit oriented community.  Portland didn't fail.  In fact, they've outpaced us in several ways.

Tulsa's 1970 pop was 331,658.  Portland was 382,619.  Today, we're still at 391,000, having grown about 18% in over three decades.  Portland has a population of 562,000; they have grown by 47%.  So, they didn't "dwindle down to half the population".

Portland has a density of 4,014 persons per square mile.  Tulsa has a density of about 2,114; that's twice the population density.  In fact, they have hundreds of thousands more citizens living on a smaller piece of ground (140 sq. mi. vs. 183 for Tulsa).
I think it's reasonable to assume that we, even today, maintain similar amounts of infrastructure; they may have bigger pipes and a few trains, but we have to cover a larger area.  So, think about it.  We may be maintaining the same amount of infrastructure with 60% of their population.  Is this difference significant to you?  What if Tulsa can't afford what we've already built?

This has little to do with "new urbanism" and utopian idealism; it has lots to do with city-building techniques proved over thousands of years of human history.  We've only been building car-suburbs like this for 50 years.  So, in the grander scheme, who's the utopian idealist?  Me, the guy that believes in tried and true walkable cities...or you, the guy that has a "hunch" that we've found a better way to live?

I would hope that your hunch would shrink a little as you see 30 year old streets and sewers wear out, as we go back and add expensive flood protection (like in Mingo Creek), sidewalks, fire stations, etc. in places that were built too cheaply in the first place.  Tulsa is learning just how expensive these "perfect little suburbs" are.

So, who won this little contest?  Portland's denser and has grown tremendously in relation to Tulsa.  But it's probably an overcrowded cesspool, right?  Actually, no.  Several quality of life measures have Portland near the top.  For example: top 50 cities in the world, top 25 favorite US(Travel + Leisure), etc.  Oh, and they have pro soccer.

I'm not saying that Tulsa is a bad place or that we made fatal mistakes that can't be undone.  I'm not even saying that I'd rather live in Portland.  What I am saying is that Portland made different choices than we did beginning back in the 70s, and, it appears that they made some good calls.

I'm also saying that you, Roughneck, better get ready to pay through the nose for the lifestyle we have if you want to keep it.  Moreover, you had better think about who you choose to call and idealogue and a social engineer.  Cities have evolved incrementally over about 6,000 years.  In that light, this car-oriented, suburban lifestyle, represents a huge social experiement and tremendous leap of faith.

[Double A]

The recent flooding will be an effective tool to kill these dams. Who says there isn't an upside to flooding?

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

The recent flooding will be an effective tool to kill these dams. Who says there isn't an upside to flooding?

Are you saying that because you feel that the lowater dams will cause increased hindrance to water flow and thus flooding? Or that people will forget that they were walking on sand in the middle of the river just 3 months ago?

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

The recent flooding will be an effective tool to kill these dams. Who says there isn't an upside to flooding?

Why is that?

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

Let's be clear.  I was talking about efficiency and you seem to want to talk about personal preferences.
----------------------------------------------
You realize that that is pure speculation and you have no idea what this city would be like had we made smarter, more efficient, choices.  You might not want to sell your unsupported, bias laden theories as fact.

No.  Let's be perfectly clear.  You were the one who sold (and is still selling) YOUR unsupported bias laden theories as fact.

And quel supris, you've trotted out that old anti-sprawl poster child of Portland, OR and decided you can conveniently lay blame on Tulsa's city planners and developers in the 70s for not being more like Portland.......

http://www.sprawlcity.org/portland.html

OKC has a population density of 833.8 people per square mile while Tulsa has a population density of 2,152 people per square mile...

... and you conveniently leave out the fact that Tulsa's economy as the "Oil Capital of the World" took a huge tumble in the oil bust of the 80s and that the 90s weren't much better... JOBS are why Portland grew faster than Tulsa.

I have nothing but disdain for the work of naive futuristic urban planners and academics who treat citizens like little children who need to be scolded and told what to do and where to live...

But amuse me, and keep re-writing history by telling me that if Tulsa had simply achieved Portland's urban density in the 70s (and built a monorail?) with more "efficient" urban planning, it would have thrived in the 80s and 90s despite all the economic problems brought on by the oil bust....

***Out of Tulsa's just under 900,000 metro area inhabitants, nearly 400,00 live in Tulsa.
***Out of Portland's 2.1 million metro area inhabitants, only about 530,000 live in Portland.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex
[brNo.  Let's be perfectly clear.  You were the one who sold (and is still selling) YOUR unsupported bias laden theories as fact.

Feh.  That's what you've got?  What are you, Pee Wee Herman?  "I know you are but what am I?"[]

quote:And quel supris, you've trotted out that old anti-sprawl poster child of Portland, OR and decided you can conveniently lay blame on Tulsa's city planners and developers in the 70s for not being more like Portland.......

I thought I was "trotting out" a city that is arguably pretty great and pointing out that it was once analogous to Tulsa.  Analogous means, similar in some respects but otherwise dissimilar.  Most cities are that way.  I "trotted it out" because I find this interesting and worthy of discussion.  I could, and have in other threads, mentioned that I think Tulsa is denser, and therefore in much better shape, than OKC.  They were very similar about 40 years ago.  But they dug their own hole...I'm talking about ours. Our streets are in the top 10 worst in the nation.  Their's are worse than ours...every ask yourself why?  Do you every get past the "lazy gov't jerks" "explanation"?

quote:http://www.sprawlcity.org/portland.html

The title of this page is "Outcome of 'Portland Experiment' Still Uncertain".  And my point was that if you take a long look at the history of cities, you might ask yourself if the "Outcome of 'Suburban living' is certain."  Suburbs are just a successful marketing construct, one that's barely 55 years old.

quote:OKC has a population density of 833.8 people per square mile while Tulsa has a population density of 2,152 people per square mile...

I think we're in way better shape than OKC.  If you read my posts in this thread you'd understand that I'm not hatin' on Tulsa, I'm simply saying that we made some choices which, I believe, are about to get very expensive.  I said that there is a relationship between density and infrastructure efficiency.  And I'm suggesting that we worked out some of the details over the course of the last 6,000 years.  That's not "new urbanism" dogma, but it's not an endorsement of sprawling, car-dependent suburbs either.

quote:... and you conveniently leave out the fact that Tulsa's economy as the "Oil Capital of the World" took a huge tumble in the oil bust of the 80s and that the 90s weren't much better... JOBS are why Portland grew faster than Tulsa.

I would say that our oil-dependent economy was an analogous example and a lesson that we could use with our one-size fits all development offerings.  You can keep telling yourself that we don't need other kinds of development in this town, that suburbs are fine and dandy, and that we shouldn't try to offer choices.  Think that might be a risky strategy in the long run?

quote:I have nothing but disdain for the work of naive futuristic urban planners and academics who treat citizens like little children who need to be scolded and told what to do and where to live...

Me, too.  You want to live in the suburbs, then by all means do so.  Are you willing to pay a premium for that privilege?  I've asked you several times...

quote:But amuse me, and keep re-writing history by telling me that if Tulsa had simply achieved Portland's urban density in the 70s (and built a monorail?) with more "efficient" urban planning, it would have thrived in the 80s and 90s despite all the economic problems brought on by the oil bust....

It's a discussion board, man.  That's the whole point.  I'm glad you are amused.  I am, too!

quote:***Out of Tulsa's just under 900,000 metro area inhabitants, nearly 400,00 live in Tulsa.
***Out of Portland's 2.1 million metro area inhabitants, only about 530,000 live in Portland.

Good info, and an excellent point.  Trouble is, I could give a sh*t about "could be anywhere" suburban communities.  My point was that the City of Portland is in pretty good shape...more density, less infrastructure per person, more manageable.

I'm glad you were able to walk to the things you needed in East Tulsa.  Imagine yourself doing that as a young child or elderly person.  Would East Tulsa be user-friendly if you had to get around like this every, single, day?  Kids, old folks, and handicapped persons are over half the population.  But you still don't think other kinds of development are worthy?

[waterboy]

I hate to step across the streams of urine spraying through the air, but thought I would share something.

In the fifties-sixties and early 70's there were lots of elderly people living downtown. My grandparents lived in some of the multi story apartments that have since been torn down. They loved the lifestyle, which included being around others in the same generation, walking to Woolworths, Crown, Brown-Dunkin. Safeway and Warehouse Market were also within walking distance. Movie theaters, bus lines, city hall, and police and fire depts were all nearby. Eating was good with lots of small cafes, diners and hotel restaurants. Oklahoma Osteopathic and Hillcrest were also close by. As children we loved visiting them and messing around in the lobbies.

The point is that there were few "retirement homes" around town. There was little need as everything necessary to grow old comfortably and respectably was a few steps away. These comfy old apartment buildings were replaced with parking lots for office buildings for the next generation and replaced with burbs and nursing homes. It is a sad replacement. Burbs were around then too, my home is in one of the original burbs, but they existed for expanding families or the wealthy. It isn't new age thinking, its a return to the wisdom of my grandparents generation. It is simply cheaper, more efficient and less troublesome to live that way.

[USRufnex]

after re-reading the title of this thread... I thought my response to CL would be more appropriate here...

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6982

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

I hate to step across the streams of urine spraying through the air, but thought I would share something.

In the fifties-sixties and early 70's there were lots of elderly people living downtown. My grandparents lived in some of the multi story apartments that have since been torn down. They loved the lifestyle, which included being around others in the same generation, walking to Woolworths, Crown, Brown-Dunkin. Safeway and Warehouse Market were also within walking distance. Movie theaters, bus lines, city hall, and police and fire depts were all nearby. Eating was good with lots of small cafes, diners and hotel restaurants. Oklahoma Osteopathic and Hillcrest were also close by. As children we loved visiting them and messing around in the lobbies.

The point is that there were few "retirement homes" around town. There was little need as everything necessary to grow old comfortably and respectably was a few steps away. These comfy old apartment buildings were replaced with parking lots for office buildings for the next generation and replaced with burbs and nursing homes. It is a sad replacement. Burbs were around then too, my home is in one of the original burbs, but they existed for expanding families or the wealthy. It isn't new age thinking, its a return to the wisdom of my grandparents generation. It is simply cheaper, more efficient and less troublesome to live that way.

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.