|
tulsabug
|
 |
« Reply #195 on: March 17, 2011, 11:09:03 pm » |
|
Very true, but you also have low income housing and factories nearby. Not that condusive to upscale retail and loft apartments. Perfect for a larger park though.
Riverside would be so much better if all the apartments would be razed and replaced with upscale lofts - sure wouldn't hurt if the neighborhoods would start sprucing up their houses too. It's just a shame that Tulsa's greatest natural asset looks like Turley. / Yea, I'm sure I'll get flamed for that one on the Turleynow.org forum.... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SXSW
|
|
« Reply #196 on: March 18, 2011, 07:41:47 am » |
|
Riverside would be so much better if all the apartments would be razed and replaced with upscale lofts - sure wouldn't hurt if the neighborhoods would start sprucing up their houses too. It's just a shame that Tulsa's greatest natural asset looks like Turley.
/ Yea, I'm sure I'll get flamed for that one on the Turleynow.org forum....
What areas are you talking about - 41st to I-44? I agree there needs to be redevelopment of the area along Riverside north of the 21st St bridge, and there is a plan for eventual redevelopment of the Crow Creek apartments and Blair property near 31st. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
tulsabug
|
|
« Reply #197 on: March 21, 2011, 02:22:05 am » |
|
What areas are you talking about - 41st to I-44? I agree there needs to be redevelopment of the area along Riverside north of the 21st St bridge, and there is a plan for eventual redevelopment of the Crow Creek apartments and Blair property near 31st.
I like the Blair house and all of it's nice open land - that needs to stay. But I'd ditch all of the apartments along Riverside - nice or not - replace them with some nice condos or loft-style brick housing that all faces the river. And some general sprucing up of the housing starting at around 60th and all the way down. Maybe put some sort of standards in though I know that really isn't possible. Too many of those houses are just rundown. I'm actually surprised some developer hasn't bought up most of those houses and replaced them with something nicer, especially with how cheap they all would sell for. I like the post-war housing and am all for keeping it, but too many of those just look like they are teetering on crackhouses. Sorry - just playing SimCity with Riverside... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Red Arrow
|
|
« Reply #198 on: March 21, 2011, 05:18:36 am » |
|
I'm actually surprised some developer hasn't bought up most of those houses and replaced them with something nicer, especially with how cheap they all would sell for.
That's prime for redevelopment. Probably won't go cheap. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SXSW
|
|
« Reply #199 on: March 21, 2011, 09:04:45 am » |
|
And some general sprucing up of the housing starting at around 60th and all the way down. The Crow Creek apartments redevelopment should be a good improvement for the Riverside corridor, and could lead to other development. I don't know if it's part of the streets master plan or not, but Riverside Dr needs to be resurfaced from 61st north. I would also like to see the median, currently crumbling concrete, raised and filled with trees like it is south of I-44. This would only be from I-44 to 31st (where the median ends) but would make that stretch a lot nicer. They could install the curbs while resurfacing like they recently did from 71st to 61st. Up With Trees could supply the trees if the city creates the median for them. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Teatownclown
|
|
« Reply #200 on: December 27, 2011, 11:30:31 am » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dbacks fan
Guest
|
 |
« Reply #201 on: December 27, 2011, 01:21:34 pm » |
|
^^^thanks captain obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
AquaMan
|
|
« Reply #202 on: December 27, 2011, 01:50:19 pm » |
|
Obviously they don't follow the advice or our CPA's, transportation experts and internet experts. Rail simply isn't economical, our suburban car driven culture will never accept it and is merely a boondoggle for politically connected insiders. I have heard that my whole life and now that other cities and countries are successfully providing the service....I'm sure we'll keep hearing it.
I love to remember what city "leaders" told Tulsa inhabitants at the turn of the 20th century. You can't build a bridge across the Arkansas River. Then someone did and they wouldn't allow them to keep it. Even the Corps of Engineers said it was improbable to manage the Arkansas river with dams as early as the late 1800's.
Always question the status quo and its expert sources.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
onward...through the fog
|
|
|
|
Gaspar
|
|
« Reply #203 on: December 27, 2011, 02:59:50 pm » |
|
I think a train system is an excellent possibility for us, but first, we need to be able to fill a bus. If we can't manage, promote, and operate a bus system efficiently, then perhaps we are not ready for rail.
Nationally, we don't have a culture that supports high-speed rail yet. Sure, some of our more dense cities seem to be better candidates, but not much else. I don't know if it is the government's subsidization of Amtrack or if it is the business model itself that is flawed. The one determining factor seems to be population density. Rail works in dense environments where ownership and operation of private means of transportation is prohibitive.
China has a little different culture. They need such rail projects, and have no problem fully utilizing them. They can also get 4,000 people to live in a 400,000 square foot apartment building with community bath and restroom facilities.
Very efficient folks.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
When attacked by a mob of clowns, always go for the juggler.
|
|
|
|
TheArtist
|
|
« Reply #204 on: December 27, 2011, 05:27:02 pm » |
|
Pedestrian friendly and transit friendly are the same thing. Because of our current zoning laws,,,, Efficient, cost effective mass transit is illegal in Tulsa.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"When you only have two pennies left in the world, buy a loaf of bread with one, and a lily with the other."-Chinese proverb. "Arts a staple. Like bread or wine or a warm coat in winter. Those who think it is a luxury have only a fragment of a mind. Mans spirit grows hungry for art in the same way h
|
|
|
|
Red Arrow
|
|
« Reply #205 on: December 27, 2011, 06:26:38 pm » |
|
I think a train system is an excellent possibility for us, but first, we need to be able to fill a bus.
That depends somewhat on who you expect to ride the train/trolley. See the facts and myths sections. www.lightrailnow.org |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Townsend
|
|
« Reply #206 on: December 28, 2011, 08:36:50 am » |
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-16345592China bullet train crash 'caused by design flaws'
China's cabinet has received the official report into the crash Continue reading the main story
A bullet train crash which killed 40 people in China in July was caused by design flaws and sloppy management, the Chinese government says.
Almost 200 people were injured in the crash near the south-eastern city of Wenzhou.
"Missteps" by 54 officials led to the disaster, the long-awaited official report says.
The crash led many Chinese to accuse the government of putting development and profit before safety.
It also triggered a wave of popular anger against officials who were accused of trying to cover up the seriousness, and causes, of the crash.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
AquaMan
|
|
« Reply #207 on: December 28, 2011, 08:56:24 am » |
|
That depends somewhat on who you expect to ride the train/trolley. See the facts and myths sections. www.lightrailnow.orgThat is a good link. Especially the facts and myths at the bottom of the page. Tulsa doesn't have to have a high speed, bullet train. Just some progression towards admission that more roads and road repair is not the best answer for travel in the next century would put us on a different track. The idea that the need for LRT is dependent upon, or competitive with, a fully utilized bus system is one of those myths. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
onward...through the fog
|
|
|
|
nathanm
|
|
« Reply #208 on: December 28, 2011, 09:09:08 am » |
|
The idea that the need for LRT is dependent upon, or competitive with, a fully utilized bus system is one of those myths.
Ideally, they serve difference constituencies within the group of people who need transportation. Off-street rail moves a person a few miles or more. The bus and/or trolley gets them from that point to a short walk to their destination. They're complementary not competitive. Each improves the ridership and utility of the other. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration" --Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
|
Red Arrow
|
|
« Reply #209 on: December 28, 2011, 09:20:30 am » |
|
Ideally, they serve difference constituencies within the group of people who need transportation. Off-street rail moves a person a few miles or more. The bus and/or trolley gets them from that point to a short walk to their destination. They're complementary not competitive. Each improves the ridership and utility of the other.
The point is that just because our buses are only half full does not lead to a proper conclusion that any form of rail transit will necessarily fail. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
