East End Update?

[Rico]

A little something to put in the mix regarding the EastEnd..............KOTV

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by DScott28604

Oh God, I wish this idiot would just shut up.  He's now claiming it's "totally urban"....

From KOTV:

quote:...The land purchased for the shopping center is bordered by Sixth Street on the south and Fourth Street on the north. The shopping center will be next to the Inner Dispersal Loop and the Wal-Mart will back up to it, facing downtown.

The developer says the land is under contract and the next step is seeking permits from the city to build the development.

The land to be redeveloped covers 15 acres, and besides the Wal-Mart, it will include 65,000 square feet of other shops, a four story, 150 unit apartment complex and a four story parking garage.

The developer told us Friday the Wal-Mart would be smaller than most suburban stores being built now, with a totally urban design to reflect it's location. He would not reveal how much he paid for the land to build it.

Not to mention that the "it's" should be "its"...  I'm starting to think this guy is dumber than a box of hair (not that he wrote the article and misspelled 'its'--that's KOTV's fault--but by his statements).

If there's going to be a four story parking garage, would there really be need AT ALL for surface parking?  Perhaps he's ditched the whole 'box in the parking lot with fences and bushes' idea?  And, correct me if I'm wrong, but the proper next step is NOT to apply for building permits, but to seek citizen input.  District 4 Councilwoman Barnes wasn't even approached At All, and isn't happy about it.

From KTUL:

quote:The land is in Councilor Maria Barnes' district. And, she's concerned because she hasn't been a part of any discussion about the big development...

Councilor Barnes says it could be a good thing, if only she could see it.

"I don't like to get up in the morning and read the paper and say 'oh, this is what's going on in District Four'," Barnes says. "I think it makes for good practice just to keep the councilors, the mayor, everybody on board, on the same page so we know what's going on."

This really has me ticked.

For the love of God, don't tout urban unless it actually is!

My reading of the news stories tells me that the parking garage is for the apartment complex, not for the Wal-Mart.

[booWorld]

Unless the developers are expecting a TIF district or some sort of public involvement, why would they need to have Maria Barnes review their plans?  If the developers need the City Council's approval on something, then they'll need to get a majority vote, but not necessarily her vote.

Kenosha and Lansing Avenues between 4th and 6th Streets are private property.  What remains of 5th Street between Frankfort and Lansing Avenues is private.  5th Place between Kenosha and Lansing is private.  That's what happens when the City decides to close and vacate public streets.  I imagine there are some existing utilities below the formally public streets and alleys on the site, and there is an overhead power line along the east side of Kenosha.  If there are existing easements through the property, then the developers will need to respect them or request that the easements be revised.  Otherwise, why should the developers jump through any extra hoops?  What additional requirements would stand in their way of obtaining demolition and building permits?  The property has CBD zoning, which is extremely flexible.  If the developers change their plans and decide to convert the entire site to surface parking, then there isn't much Maria Barnes or anyone else can do about it.

Here is what I've been able to glean from various news links:

Developers are planning:

a.  An urban Wal-Mart store backing up to Lansing Avenue with brick and stucco on its exterior
b.  Some additional retail space other than Wal-Mart
c.  Some surface parking
d.  Approximately 150 residential units -- probably about four stories tall and probably along Fourth and Fifth Streets
e.  A four-story parking garage  

The proposal is vague so far.  KOTV showed the block between Elgin and Frankfort and 4th and 5th as part of the site.  I'm willing to give the developers some slack at this point because I haven't seen any design drawings yet.  If the project turns out to be ugly and anti-urban, then I most likely will go out of my way to boycott it.  But the East End grocery store will be the closest to where I live and work.  If I want to be bull-headed about boycotting it, then I'll be forced to go to Petty's or to an even more distant ugly and anti-urban development.  

The developers will try to put a project together which they think will appeal to their targeted market.  Unfortunately, there is very little demand for excellent urban design and dense development in Tulsa -- especially in that particular area of downtown.    

[joiei]

so long as it doesn't look like all the other wal-marts in town, especially the ones they have abandoned.

[waterboy]

In the Tulsanow planning meeting back in January I felt that a grocery store, any grocery store is the cornerstone of development downtown. Until it is convenient to live there only the most stalwart will live in such a draconian atmosphere. In time this WalMart will be cause the germination of many stores that will coat-tail onto their store. The site selection process for big retailers is not done haphazardly or to satisfy anything but the need to succeed. Human nature tends to balance things. The WalMart grocery will be balanced off with a Petty's type store. Each category of retail is likely to spawn a contrasting competitor. We will look back and wonder why we weren't more excited at their entrance.

I am surprised the developers didn't give Maria Barnes the respect a councilor deserves. They didn't need her approval but they certainly didn't need her as a potential adversary. Kind of arrogant.

[dsjeffries]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

We will look back and wonder why we weren't more excited at their entrance.

I'm very excited to see them coming into downtown, but I think we need to scrutinize their 'urban' plans.  Other cities have accomplished truly urban Wal-Marts, and if they can do it for others, they can certainly do the same here in Tulsa.  There's no reason they shouldn't build a store downtown that actually is urban.

I don't have any problems with the store itself coming downtown--I think it's going to be a wonderful asset for all downtown and North side residents.  That's fantastic.

The design, though, isn't.

[AVERAGE JOE]

Amazing how many people gullibly accept that it'll be an "urban" designed Wal-Mart purely at face value.

Tell me again how a 150,000 square foot single-story building fronted by surface parking is an urban design?

The White Plains, NY Wal-Mart pictured above is an urban design -- built to the sidewalk within the street grid, parking garage integrated into the building, vertical development, etc.

Hokey facadism does not equal an urban design.

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy
In time this WalMart will be cause the germination of many stores that will coat-tail onto their store.

You are right. I have never seen a Wal-Mart without a McDonalds nearby.

Great. Just what we need downtown.

[dsjeffries]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

Unless the developers are expecting a TIF district or some sort of public involvement, why would they need to have Maria Barnes review their plans?  If the developers need the City Council's approval on something, then they'll need to get a majority vote, but not necessarily her vote.

It's an issue of respect for the area they're trying to enter.  If a company completely ignores the surrounding community's input, the more they're likely to resist the development all together.

quote:Kenosha and Lansing Avenues between 4th and 6th Streets are private property.  What remains of 5th Street between Frankfort and Lansing Avenues is private.  5th Place between Kenosha and Lansing is private.  That's what happens when the City decides to close and vacate public streets...  

...Otherwise, why should the developers jump through any extra hoops?  What additional requirements would stand in their way of obtaining demolition and building permits?  The property has CBD zoning, which is extremely flexible.

Yes, all the land is private, but that does not mean that the public should have no form of input--as potential future customers, we are after all, entitled to question and criticize the development.

No, they don't HAVE to have Barnes's approval, per se, nor do they HAVE to have the community's input, but it is only respectful that they do at least work with the neighborhood, including Councilwoman Barnes, to make the development appropriate for downtown.

quote:If the developers change their plans and decide to convert the entire site to surface parking, then there isn't much Maria Barnes or anyone else can do about it.

You're wrong about that--there is a lot that we can do to prevent things like that coming to fruition.

[potomac13]

I guess what goes around comes around.

Back in the 1950's when Tulsa was riding high on a wave of oil $'s, I can remember my father referring to the folks in the state just east as "Arkansawyers" – a put down on their supposed hillbilly origins.

Sixty years later, Arkansas WalMart has all the bucks and Tulsa is slobbering over one of their stores for downtown that symbolizes "cheap-cheap-cheap" – you can wrap a WalMart  in brick but it is like putting lipstick on a pig. Talk about a disgrace for downtown.

Wonder who looks like a hillbilly now?

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by DScott28604


I'm very excited to see them coming into downtown, but I think we need to scrutinize their 'urban' plans.  Other cities have accomplished truly urban Wal-Marts, and if they can do it for others, they can certainly do the same here in Tulsa.

If the developers are expecting some type of public financing supported by tax dollars, then I agree, their plans ought to be subjected to public scrutiny.  I'd rather see it happen with no public funding.  The process seems a bit perverted for taxpayers to be forced to help foot the bill for the construction of a Wal-Mart store, whether it's 'urban' or not.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by DScott28604

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

If the developers change their plans and decide to convert the entire site to surface parking, then there isn't much Maria Barnes or anyone else can do about it.

You're wrong about that--there is a lot that we can do to prevent things like that coming to fruition.

What can we do to prevent property owners from building surface parking downtown?  In the CBD, surface parking is allowed.  If the owner of a building wants to tear it down for a parking lot, then it's legal to do so.  I can think of several recent examples.  It didn't matter to the property owners whether or not the public was opposed to their desire to create more surface parking lots, or at least it did not matter enough for them to change their actions.

[dsjeffries]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

What can we do to prevent property owners from building surface parking downtown?  In the CBD, surface parking is allowed.  If the owner of a building wants to tear it down for a parking lot, then it's legal to do so.  I can think of several recent examples.  It didn't matter to the property owners whether or not the public was opposed to their desire to create more surface parking lots, or at least it did not matter enough for them to change their actions.

Plans have to be submitted for review and approval, and if there's a large enough public voice against it, there is more of a chance that the plans won't just automatically be approved.  Permits, building apps...  any number of things could be denied to the developers if their plans aren't sufficient or appropriate.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by DScott28604

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

What can we do to prevent property owners from building surface parking downtown?  In the CBD, surface parking is allowed.  If the owner of a building wants to tear it down for a parking lot, then it's legal to do so.  I can think of several recent examples.  It didn't matter to the property owners whether or not the public was opposed to their desire to create more surface parking lots, or at least it did not matter enough for them to change their actions.

Plans have to be submitted for review and approval, and if there's a large enough public voice against it, there is more of a chance that the plans won't just automatically be approved.  Permits, building apps...  any number of things could be denied to the developers if their plans aren't sufficient or appropriate.

I'd like to know of an instance of a public outcry preventing the construction of a surface parking lot in downtown Tulsa.

I really don't think plans for surface parking in the CBD would be rejected.  Surface parking is a legal land use downtown.  Building demolition permits are also approved routinely.

[dsjeffries]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

I'd like to know of an instance of a public outcry preventing the construction of a surface parking lot in downtown Tulsa.

I really don't think plans for surface parking in the CBD would be rejected.  Surface parking is a legal land use downtown.  Building demolition permits are also approved routinely.

It is legal, but that doesn't mean that it has to be approved, and it shouldn't mean that it will be automatically.

And there have been a few outcries concerning the demolition of historic buildings for surface parking--granted, none too large--but a development as large as this automatically generates more public interest.  A lot of people don't even know that buildings used to be in downtown instead of parking lots... This development, however, has the ability to draw large public attention to the asphalting of downtown, and it also has the ability to change that and make the East End a walkable, urban environment.