Neighborhood Pride or Elitism?

[restored2x]

Been reading several posts today here and noticed the infighting about downtown, midtown, southside (new hotel thread) suburbs, and even a mention of BA here and there.

There seems to be an underlying neighborhoodcentricity (new word) that permeates these threads. People are assuming that everyone desires to live where they live.

I understand pride in your neighborhood - I'm originally from Baltimore, and most of the places I lived there are torn down. It breaks my heart to see parking lots where rowhouses used to be. Downtown is thriving, but is also a tourist trap.

It just seems to me that some of the opinions expressed are more steeped in elitism (very obvious in the suburbanite who is dissing downtown - but not as obvious in other posts) it's still there.

I appreciate passion as much as anyone, and passion will get the job done when other traits fail - but it just seems so divisive. How does the elitism help Tulsa?

How is midtown "more Tulsa" than southside?
Why is Brookside a sacred cow?

I don't know if I'm ready for the responses - and the ire of "true Tulsans" - (I can't be a true Tulsan, I've only been here for 12 years)but just thought I'd throw that out there.

[tulsa1603]

quote:Originally posted by restored2x

Been reading several posts today here and noticed the infighting about downtown, midtown, southside (new hotel thread) suburbs, and even a mention of BA here and there.

There seems to be an underlying neighborhoodcentricity (new word) that permeates these threads. People are assuming that everyone desires to live where they live.

I understand pride in your neighborhood - I'm originally from Baltimore, and most of the places I lived there are torn down. It breaks my heart to see parking lots where rowhouses used to be. Downtown is thriving, but is also a tourist trap.

It just seems to me that some of the opinions expressed are more steeped in elitism (very obvious in the suburbanite who is dissing downtown - but not as obvious in other posts) it's still there.

I appreciate passion as much as anyone, and passion will get the job done when other traits fail - but it just seems so divisive. How does the elitism help Tulsa?

How is midtown "more Tulsa" than southside?
Why is Brookside a sacred cow?

I don't know if I'm ready for the responses - and the ire of "true Tulsans" - (I can't be a true Tulsan, I've only been here for 12 years)but just thought I'd throw that out there.

You make good points.  We should all work together to make the city better.

However, here is my take from a midtown perspective.

Midtown and downtown is "more Tulsa" than south Tulsa, because it's got an identity that is unique to Tulsa.  Driving on 169 at 71st, there is nothing there that says "Ah yes, THIS is Tulsa" - it's an Anytown USA.  That being said, I still frequent the area - it's where a large majority of the shopping is.  It's almost unavoidable.  Midtowners might be snobby, but only because we want Tulsa to develop LESS like that and more like midtown, meaning with some form of architectural identity, some form of character that has more to do with the city of Tulsa than with some corporate architecture that is exactly the same from city to city, be it Midland, Austin, Dallas, or Chicago.

I know that living in midtown isn't for everyone.  The houses are small, they cost more per square foot, the lots are smaller, etc.,  But there are a lot of misconceptions that south Tulsans have about midtown - it's unsafe, it's crowded, etc.  

Brookside is a sacred cow because it's one of a very few walkable areas in this city that actually have something to walk to.  I'm not really into the Brookside scene, so I'll stop there.  But I will say that areas like Brookside, downtown, etc., are more appealing to people from larger cities than an area like Woodland Hills Mall.  Again, it's the Anytown vs. the Unique.

Oh, also, people from the older parts of town tend to think that it makes more sense to redevelop parts that are going downhill, rather than adding new areas, thus more infrastructure and cost to the city.  Here is an analogy: if you can't keep your entire house up, rather than adding on a new room to move into, why not fix up the one you have?

[sgrizzle]

Maybe 71st is Tulsa's "Mother in law apartment?"

[restored2x]

I guess I can understand where you're coming from. Same feelings I get when I visit Baltimore and the local sub-joint is now a Quiznos. Not very Baltimore. Very corporate. The flavor is lost, could be any city.

"But I will say that areas like Brookside, downtown, etc., are more appealing to people from larger cities than an area like Woodland Hills Mall."

Forgive me - but this seems to be a generalization. I'm from a city much larger than Tulsa, and prefer cost-efficient suburb to live in. Of course, this may be a generational thing for me. The burbs were part of the American dream when I was growing up. I love the smell of tar and diesel when I go downtown, but only in a nostalgic way. I guess it is totally subjective. One alien city-dweller may prefer midtown, another may prefer south tulsa and malls.

I guess my point is: Tulsa is a great city, from downtown outward to all parts. Charm and convenience can be found all over - I may prefer to live in a certain area - but that doesn't make "my Tulsa" superior to someone else's. I absolutely love the school district my daughter is in (education-wise), the roads are not nearly as bad as other places I've lived. Downtown is being slowly developed and renewed. The quality of life here is really good. Taxes are tolerable for the return we get.

South Tulsa, downtown, midtown, west and north Tulsa are not going away. Together we can maintain and improve quality of life here. At least, that's why I frequent this forum now.

Boy, what rambling - sorry.

[cannon_fodder]

As a relativie newbie to Tulsa I agree with the assessment that midtown is 'more Tulsa' because it has character.  Its unique.  I could open my eyes in South Tulsa and not have a clue if I was in Dallas, KC, Omaha, Des Moines, BA, or nearly any other location in a plains state.

Not that its worse, just less unique.  Some people dont like unique, it usually comes with some negatives (it is more crowded, the lots are smaller, its more noisy, there is more diversity).  Just my 2 cents.

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by restored2x
South Tulsa, downtown, midtown, west and north Tulsa are not going away.

You left out East Tulsa. Do you know something about East Tulsa going away and are afraid to tell me?

[restored2x]

I thought East Tulsa was annexed by Mexico?

Just kidding - don't flame me, my wife is Hispanic and I lived in Puerto Rico for 10 years.

Sorry I missed the east tulsa area.

[rwarn17588]

Well, the pride thing can cut both ways.

I've encountered people in Tulsa who haven't ventured to the west side in literally decades because they still think you're risking your life being in it when the sun goes down.

Sure, the west side is still very much blue-collar, which is part of its charm, IMO. But this rough-and-tough image is now so far away from reality, it's laughable. I've been in my neighborhood for three years, and there's been one homicide -- that's O-N-E -- the entire time.

I like the fact Red Fork is a blue-collar, beer-drinking neighborhood with plenty of dogs and beat-up pickup trucks around. McMansion-living people who drive Hummers need not apply.

Maybe that's elitist, but it's the type of elitist that a lot of people don't find desirable. Their loss.

[Wilbur]

I prefer to stick with us south Tulsan's as being elitist.

[tulsa1603]

quote:Originally posted by restored2x

I guess I can understand where you're coming from. Same feelings I get when I visit Baltimore and the local sub-joint is now a Quiznos. Not very Baltimore. Very corporate. The flavor is lost, could be any city.

"But I will say that areas like Brookside, downtown, etc., are more appealing to people from larger cities than an area like Woodland Hills Mall."

Forgive me - but this seems to be a generalization. I'm from a city much larger than Tulsa, and prefer cost-efficient suburb to live in. Of course, this may be a generational thing for me. The burbs were part of the American dream when I was growing up. I love the smell of tar and diesel when I go downtown, but only in a nostalgic way. I guess it is totally subjective. One alien city-dweller may prefer midtown, another may prefer south tulsa and malls.

I guess my point is: Tulsa is a great city, from downtown outward to all parts. Charm and convenience can be found all over - I may prefer to live in a certain area - but that doesn't make "my Tulsa" superior to someone else's. I absolutely love the school district my daughter is in (education-wise), the roads are not nearly as bad as other places I've lived. Downtown is being slowly developed and renewed. The quality of life here is really good. Taxes are tolerable for the return we get.

South Tulsa, downtown, midtown, west and north Tulsa are not going away. Together we can maintain and improve quality of life here. At least, that's why I frequent this forum now.

Boy, what rambling - sorry.

Yes, many choose a cost efficient suburb to live in, but NOT to visit.  That was my point on the Woodland Hills Mall quote.  i don't go to Chicago to see the malls in the suburbs, I go to see the downtown and the unique things that Chicago has to offer.  Tulsa is not Chicago, but we do have some unique things that make our city interesting, and few of those are in the newer parts of town.

[deinstein]

It's a little bit of both for me personally. I chuckle at anyone for the South side or Broken Arrow who thinks they are elite.

[}:)]

[USRufnex]

don't mean to hijack your thread... this thread seemed a better fit over where I originally posted...

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little
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"?

Chicago's streets are worse... Boston streets are well... yikes... and they've achieved urban density.  Actually, in my opinion from having visited Tulsa on a regular basis for the last couple of decades before moving here last fall... the streets in this city are alot better than they used to be.

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little
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?

Oil built this city.  Steel built Pittsburgh.  Cities have to adapt to the future and diversify.  Tulsa's done that to a certain  extent, but not to the satisfaction of the alarming number of negativists and naysayers I meet here.  

Maybe you should drive around the entire city of Tulsa more often.  There are many styles of development around town.  Some suburban.  Some bungalows.  Some little crackerbox homes.  Some south Tulsa condos.  Some beautiful older homes that take up more space than suburban "McMansions."  Some gated communities in midtown.  And yes, Utica Square, Cherry St, Brookside, Brady Village, Florence Park... but evidently not enough styles for more discriminating cosmopolitan tastes... [:O]

Which kinda begs the question, "Are you willing to pay a premium for that priviledge?"  

And so I'll go ahead answer your question.  I have already.  Over 15 years living in Chicago I paid a "premium" of around 15% sales taxes.  Basic groceries were exempt.  And my housing options in Chicago were rather limited due to the skyrocketing costs of those tiny yet  efficient urban condos/homes... how sustainable is that?  

So I left Chicago and chose Tulsa over Indianapolis, Grand Rapids, MI, and Rochester, NY (they have a pro soccer team and a world famous music school, BTW).

And no, I will not choose the suburbs.  I'd rather live in an urban area.  But I can easily understand why a family of five would choose Jenks or Owasso or BA or south Tulsa over midtown.  And I could choose suburban style south Tulsa, or I can continue to live in my walkable area around 41st and Garnett, convenient to the 71st St urban density that's a little too "dense" for my tastes... or I can find a smaller home or condo in other areas of town.  Lots of options.  Lots more than I had in sustainable Chicago.  Trust me on this.

Oh, and am I prepared to pay a premium for a new mass transit/light rail system when I see almost zero people riding Tulsa's city buses?  The answer is "no."  I look back on the 70s when people were telling us that a new monorail would be the Tulsa answer to the energy crisis.  I loved the "el" and the METRA suburban sprawl commuter rail in Chicagoland.  Talk to me about new public funds for mass transit when a reasonable number of people actually start riding the buses.  Some things never change...    

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little


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.

Well, for the Mayor of Tulsa, that's part of the job.  And my point was that if Tulsa had implemented Portland-style policies in the 60s/70s and we didn't have suburban style development on Tulsa's south and east sides, it is my opinion that Tulsa would currently have a population of around 200,000 (225k if you count illegal immigrants)... Broken Arrow would have a population of about 150,000... Jenks, Bixby, Owasso and Claremore at 50,000 - 75,000... etc... talk about sprawl?

Sounds like your answer to make Tulsa more manageable would be to just divide up the city a little better.  South Tulsa can be its own city.  East Tulsa/Union be it's own city.  And David Arnett can help midtown Tulsa become part of Kansas.  [}:)]

That way, comfortably cosmopolitan Tulsans can squabble over whether they want to pay a premium for downtown/river-only projects while the rest of the metro area travels to Jenks, Keystone and Oologah... strangely enough, I think there's a good chance Tulsa county voters will pass the "river tax."  

Oh, and if you want to see the face of "unsustainable" urban development, you'll find no better example of that than Downtown Tulsa, home of skyscrapers and surface parking with trees...

[TheArtist]

quote:Oh, and if you want to see the face of "unsustainable" urban development, you'll find no better example of that than Downtown Tulsa, home of skyscrapers and surface parking with trees...

Thats more an example of urban undevelopment.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

Chicago's streets are worse... Boston streets are well... yikes... and they've achieved urban density.

I don't think that's an accurate statement:  

quote:...Studies also show that driving on roads in disrepair increases consumer costs by accelerating vehicle deterioration, increasing the frequency of needed maintenance and increasing fuel consumption. The metro areas (500,000 people or more) where motorists pay the most annually in additional vehicle maintenance because of substandard roads are: San Jose - $689 ($689.38), Kansas City - $689 ($689.09), Los Angeles - $671, St. Louis - $669, San-Francisco-Oakland - $656, Oklahoma City - $636, San Diego - $623, Sacramento - $593, New Orleans - $576 and Tulsa - $573...

quote:
Actually, in my opinion from having visited Tulsa on a regular basis for the last couple of decades before moving here last fall... the streets in this city are alot better than they used to be.

On the whole?  I'm not sure I can agree with you here.

quote:Oil built this city.  Steel built Pittsburgh.  Cities have to adapt to the future and diversify.

Except for development patterns?  Our failure to diversify when the oil industry left caused decades of heartache.  90% of what we've built over the last couple has been one kind of car-dependent suburb.  You don't see a paralell here?
 

quote:Tulsa's done that to a certain  extent, but not to the satisfaction of the alarming number of negativists and naysayers I meet here.

Yeah, those people bother me, too.  Tulsa is making some progress, but there are always plenty of people who are eager to stamp out those little sparks of innovation.  

quote:Maybe you should drive around the entire city of Tulsa more often.  There are many styles of development around town.  Some suburban.  Some bungalows.  Some little crackerbox homes.  Some south Tulsa condos.  Some beautiful older homes that take up more space than suburban "McMansions."  Some gated communities in midtown.  And yes, Utica Square, Cherry St, Brookside, Brady Village, Florence Park... but evidently not enough styles for more discriminating cosmopolitan tastes... [:O]

I'll never be able to afford the Gold Coast, but I sure as heck could go for a Lincoln Park.  Tulsa's got neither, they aren't planning for either, and in fact, anything with that kind of density and design would be illegal.  I'd say that those who think we can get by without evolving are the one's who are discriminating.

quote:Which kinda begs the question, "Are you willing to pay a premium for that priviledge?"  

And so I'll go ahead answer your question.  I have already.  Over 15 years living in Chicago I paid a "premium" of around 15% sales taxes.  Basic groceries were exempt.  And my housing options in Chicago were rather limited due to the skyrocketing costs of those tiny yet  efficient urban condos/homes... how sustainable is that?

So I left Chicago and chose Tulsa over Indianapolis, Grand Rapids, MI, and Rochester, NY (they have a pro soccer team and a world famous music school, BTW).

And no, I will not choose the suburbs.  I'd rather live in an urban area.  But I can easily understand why a family of five would choose Jenks or Owasso or BA or south Tulsa over midtown.  And I could choose suburban style south Tulsa, or I can continue to live in my walkable area around 41st and Garnett, convenient to the 71st St urban density that's a little too "dense" for my tastes... or I can find a smaller home or condo in other areas of town.  Lots of options.  Lots more than I had in sustainable Chicago.  Trust me on this.

Chicago is expensive, and I've spent time there.  Tulsa would not be as affordable either if we actually paid our bills.  Tulsa is about $4 billion behind on the rent...do you think that will ever catch up with us?

quote:Oh, and am I prepared to pay a premium for a new mass transit/light rail system when I see almost zero people riding Tulsa's city buses?  The answer is "no."  I look back on the 70s when people were telling us that a new monorail would be the Tulsa answer to the energy crisis.  I loved the "el" and the METRA suburban sprawl commuter rail in Chicagoland.  Talk to me about new public funds for mass transit when a reasonable number of people actually start riding the buses.  Some things never change...

See, that's the thing.  We can never justify a mass transit system in this town unless we are willing to up the densities.  It doesn't have to be everywhere, but we need to have some dense corridors at least.  

quote:Well, for the Mayor of Tulsa, that's part of the job.

And your job is to stand in the way?

quote:And my point was that if Tulsa had implemented Portland-style policies in the 60s/70s and we didn't have suburban style development on Tulsa's south and east sides, it is my opinion that Tulsa would currently have a population of around 200,000 (225k if you count illegal immigrants)... Broken Arrow would have a population of about 150,000... Jenks, Bixby, Owasso and Claremore at 50,000 - 75,000... etc... talk about sprawl?

Yes, but this is all speculation.  We could have also resisted providing cheap water and sewer to those suburban communities back in the '70s, which was the old LaFortune's idea.

quote:Sounds like your answer to make Tulsa more manageable would be to just divide up the city a little better.  South Tulsa can be its own city.  East Tulsa/Union be it's own city.  And David Arnett can help midtown Tulsa become part of Kansas.  [}:)]...

I'll pass on that idea.  This is my city, every corner of it.

quote:That way, comfortably cosmopolitan Tulsans can squabble over whether they want to pay a premium for downtown/river-only projects while the rest of the metro area travels to Jenks, Keystone and Oologah... strangely enough, I think there's a good chance Tulsa county voters will pass the "river tax."  

Oh, and if you want to see the face of "unsustainable" urban development, you'll find no better example of that than Downtown Tulsa, home of skyscrapers and surface parking with trees

I disagree with your notions of what is sustainable and what isn't.  I've provided you with examples of places that work and you've provided me with accounts of great American "failures" like Portland and Chicago.  While I think that your first-hand experience in Chicago is interesting, and I don't doubt you on the expense of living there, I don't think you've advanced the idea that Tulsa couldn't learn a thing or two from these places.

After all, these cities are rated among the greatest in the world.  I think you'll have to do better.

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

Chicago's streets are worse... Boston streets are well... yikes... and they've achieved urban density.

I don't think that's an accurate statement:  

quote:...Studies also show that driving on roads in disrepair increases consumer costs by accelerating vehicle deterioration, increasing the frequency of needed maintenance and increasing fuel consumption. The metro areas (500,000 people or more) where motorists pay the most annually in additional vehicle maintenance because of substandard roads are: San Jose - $689 ($689.38), Kansas City - $689 ($689.09), Los Angeles - $671, St. Louis - $669, San-Francisco-Oakland - $656, Oklahoma City - $636, San Diego - $623, Sacramento - $593, New Orleans - $576 and Tulsa - $573...

"...Studies also show..."  

Oh, gee... and 4 out of 5 dentists... what did they have to say about this?  Of course, you did notice that the larger regional metro areas of KC, StL, and OKC are WORSE than Tulsa because of "substandard roads"... but hey, too bad the wishes of south and east Tulsans couldn't have been ignored back in the day so midtown could have had a "futuristic" 70s-Disney-style monorail while the rest of Tulsa flooded year after year... after all, those folks who live in south and east Tulsa aren't  really "real" Tulsans, are they?

But here's a question for you, CL.  Do you know the difference between a city and a "metro area"?

Because Chicago and Boston both have some very nice roads... in their suburbs!  I drove the Elgin Tollway on the northwest side of Chicagoland's suburban sprawl... past the suburban icon of Schaumburg (still have my IKEA computer stand, btw)... the roads were better... probably because there was a toll booth about ever few miles of it.  Now there's the new tolls where they take your money by radar and you don't even have to stop anymore... Natick, MA also had some very nice roads when I lived there before I moved to East Boston and gave up on driving in Beantown...  Massachusetts Turnpike gets a marginal thumbs up from me...

But the urbanly dense cities of Chicago and Boston do not have good streets/roads.  Riverside Drive in Tulsa has been, in my recent experience, a much better road than Lake Shore Drive in Chicago. Most of 169 is much better than Lake Shore Drive... parts of 169 are worse than Lake Shore Drive only because I can drive 65-70 mph on 169 and only 45 mph on Lake Shore Drive.  And don't get me started on narrow, pothole-ridden streets... I once lost a muffler driving from pothole-ridden Touhy Ave from my northside apt. to the leaning tower of Niles (http://www.roadsideamerica.com/attract/ILNILpisa.html)... or the fun of spending a half hour trying to find a good spot within blocks of my apt. when I paid a premium for a $75 city sticker for parking every year I had a car in the Windy City... yeah, I know...

"$75 a year?... you should be so lucky!"...
XXX's and OOO's,

New York City  

Boston driving was a nightmare... the "rotary"  is a cruel joke.  And the roads sucked... but that's 18th & 19th century infrastructure for ya... the potential for high $$$ for vehicle maintenance is mitigated to a large extent when you can only drive 20 miles per hour in traffic... I wish Boston could come up with some forward thinking infrastructure improvements that would fix that.  Oh, yeah... the big dig.  Whoopee!
 

quote:
Actually, in my opinion from having visited Tulsa on a regular basis for the last couple of decades before moving here last fall... the streets in this city are alot better than they used to be..."On the whole?  I'm not sure I can agree with you here," says CL.

Well, compared to its condition 5+ years ago, I-244 has improved a great deal.  I also remember when most of the major streets east of Memorial Drive were 2-laned.  This has changed for the better.  Although I guess this isn't really "real Tulsa" to midtowners...

quote:Our failure to diversify when the oil industry left caused decades of heartache.  90% of what we've built over the last couple has been one kind of car-dependent suburb.  You don't see a paralell here?

Yes, I do see a parallel.  But be careful what urban density you wish for.  You may find out exactly why people were fleeing the big cities for the suburbs in the first place.
 

quote:I'll never be able to afford the Gold Coast, but I sure as heck could go for a Lincoln Park.  Tulsa's got neither, they aren't planning for either, and in fact, anything with that kind of density and design would be illegal.  I'd say that those who think we can get by without evolving are the one's who are discriminating.

Here's a thought.  Use your own money to "evolve."  The upscale yuppies in Chicago's Lincoln Park drove out the natives... then, the frat boys & girls drove out the natives in Wrigleyville... I thought I was safe in Edgewater/Andersonville until the condo-flippers invaded that area... I still have a soft spot for Rogers Park, but hey... time and gentrification marches on...

Don't ask me to pay sales taxes or support blindly self serving TIF districts as "economic incentive" to subsidize my own gentrification. Huh, what's that?!?  You lack the capital funds to finance the transformation of midtown Tulsa into a clone of Lincoln Park?  Hate it for ya!... []

quote:Chicago is expensive, and I've spent time there.  Tulsa would not be as affordable either if we actually paid our bills.  Tulsa is about $4 billion behind on the rent...do you think that will ever catch up with us?
-----------------------------------------------
See, that's the thing.  We can never justify a mass transit system in this town unless we are willing to up the densities.  It doesn't have to be everywhere, but we need to have some dense corridors at least.  
-----------------------------------------------
Yes, but this is all speculation.  We could have also resisted providing cheap water and sewer to those suburban communities back in the '70s, which was the old LaFortune's idea.

So, how could low-density towns like Claremore and Pryor and Muskogee ever have existed?  Well, let's just call it "Little House on the Prairie" density.

Old LaFortune wanted to have Tulsa build a stadium with taxpayer money for the World Football League... a league that only lasted a couple of years back in the 70s... while a sizeable part of the city was flooding... while pompous, condescending Tulsans from a certain area of town laid blame on selfish developers and the people who moved close to Mingo Creek... until THEIR OWN HOMES started flooding... then, and only then, did something actually change....

I should be your urban ally, CL... but old wounds run deep...