Downtown Wal-Mart

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by emersonbiggins

Hi all; there's good reason to think that Wal-Mart may actually be turning over a new leaf with its urban store prototype.  Consider this gem, revealed to an absolutely BITTER public in Austin a few months back:





Downtown Tulsa could certainly herald this type of development.

dude....if downtown gets something like that I'm buying lofts downtown and moving in with all the other smuggites down there.

So is this a done deal?

[Renaissance]

It is by no means a done deal.  There are still too many details to be worked out.  But it does have an air of inevitability about it--seems like we're getting a downtown Wal-Mart, and it's just a matter of how.

[elm]

As a co-founder and board member of Tulsa Foundation for Architecture, and as a downtown resident and longtime advocate for downtown redevelopment, I would offer the following thoughts on the subject of a mixed-use development downtown:
a.  I concur that the idea of a traditional big-box retail development is not what we want or need.  I would say that it appears that this is not what the developer appears to propose.... so we need to hear them out before we pass judgement.
b.  Please, PLEASE, PLEASE, gentlemen, do not try to pander to us by coming up with some crappy art deco scheme; it is time for something new and fresh.  I am sure that it would be well-intentioned and even viewed by many as a wonderful idea to play off the whole art deco thing.  However, it misses the point entirely.  The reason art deco is so prevalent (well, whatever is left anyway) and so important is that it was built by really creative architects and visionary owners at the time those ideas were flourishing; they were be best of that time.  Today, almost 90 years later, there are new ideas flourishing.  We need for the developer and their architects to create a really visionary urban design with really smart, creative "today" design that does not copy some long-ago style.  Maybe winking at it is ok, but let's treasure the great architecture we have, create some new great architecture that represents now and today, that we can talk about preserving 100 years from now.
c.  As to the whole topic of Wal-Mart.... well, they are a fact of life.  People vote with their pocketbooks and last time I checked Wal-Mart gets lots of votes.  But we as citizens can influence what the developer and Wal-Mart do by getting pro-actively involved in the entitlement process and demanding of our community that the best possible solutions are developed for this area of downtown.  We can use it as a catalyst for even more development.  Let us use this as an opportunity to get what our city wants and needs and deserves, while letting them get what they want.
d.  I think now would be a good time for the City (for instance, the MAYOR) to surface with a statement of vision for how this project might fit in with the context of our city and what our city's expectations are for the developer (and by extension, Wal-Mart).  The real question that I would have of the Mayor is:  Do you know what you should want or expect of this development and what tools you have at your disposal to "guide" them?  How can we use this development as a catalyst for other aspirations (baseball park downtown or a big public farmers market or more residential development or a new library or......) Maybe now is the time to get a vision developed that this project can fit into.

So, let's first ask in the strongest possible way, that the Mayor take a crack at forming a vision statement that elevates the expectations and possibilities.  We DO NOT WANT OR NEED a traditional strip center with huge fields of parking in front.  NOPE.  We DO want and need retail, groceries, housing, entertainment downtown.  Wal-Mart is not THE issue.  THE issue is WHAT and HOW.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by elm

I think now would be a good time for the City (for instance, the MAYOR) to surface with a statement of vision for how this project might fit in with the context of our city and what our city's expectations are for the developer (and by extension, Wal-Mart).  The real question that I would have of the Mayor is:  Do you know what you should want or expect of this development and what tools you have at your disposal to "guide" them?....

So, let's first ask in the strongest possible way, that the Mayor take a crack at forming a vision statement that elevates the expectations and possibilities.  We DO NOT WANT OR NEED a traditional strip center with huge fields of parking in front.  NOPE.  We DO want and need retail, groceries, housing, entertainment downtown....

Welcome to the discussion, elm.  I agree.  

But read through all the pages of posts on this topic.  If tax increment financing is allowed, then I think the City has some leverage if officials don't cave as they did on the Tulsa Hills TIF district.  Otherwise, it's a private development on private property.  The City has allowed for a situation such as this one by vacating public streets and alleys for decades.

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

It is by no means a done deal.  There are still too many details to be worked out.  But it does have an air of inevitability about it--seems like we're getting a downtown Wal-Mart, and it's just a matter of how.

What kind of time frame are we looking at? I'm making some plans on getting moved back to the Tulsa area no later than 2009-is it going to break ground before or after I return?

[dsjeffries]

quote:Originally posted by mr.jaynes
What kind of time frame are we looking at? I'm making some plans on getting moved back to the Tulsa area no later than 2009-is it going to break ground before or after I return?

Seay, the developer, said he expects it to be open within 12 to 18 months.

Are you planning on moving in to one of those apartments?
_____________________________________

[Renaissance]

I think Seay said his expectation was to start work in 12 to 18 months, actually, not finish.  Given all the planning and politics involved, that makes sense.  If I were you, I would expect to see projects coming online by the end of 2009.  Obviously it depends on many, many things.  I'll look for the quote . . .

[YoungTulsan]

I dunno, they throw up Wal-marts really damn fast.  At least the cheap big box suburban ones.  Watching a Wal-mart go up in a couple of weeks vs. how long some other construction projects take, is impressive.

[buckeye]

...do not try to pander to us by coming up with some crappy art deco scheme...

So wait a minute, we have bad taste?!  Or you just don't like art deco?  

I understand your reluctance to recreate old ideas, most all creative people feel that way.  Most of my exposure and feelings about modern architecture is echoed by James Howard Kuntsler's 'Eyesore of the Month'.  Here is July's:

http://www.kunstler.com/eyesore_200707.html

The new law building at Case Western Reserve is another:

http://www.kunstler.com/eyesore_200510.html

I attended CIM while this building was going up.  It replaced a small greenspace with public art and pissed off the occupants of the nearby law building something fierce.  Kuntsler's picture actually looks better than the building does in person from the sidewalk.  Sure it's new, unusual, creative and so forth, but gawd it's ugly up close and is hilariously incongruous with the surrounding buildings.  Of course, the CIM building is the same way!  It won a major award in 1961...starting about ten years later, it just looked pitifully dated and unattractive.  New construction (new recital hall and such) does a bit to mitigate the horror.

The old (again, looking better as a picture):
http://www.case.edu/pix/buildings/cim.jpg

The addition (scroll down):
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=97396

It would be nice if the architecture of the new WallyWorld paid homage or at least played nicely with the art deco already here.

[tulsa1603]

If they proposed bulding the modern Wal Mart design shown in the pics above, I would be all over it and I would even SHOP there, which says a lot, since I haven't set foot in a Wal-Mart in nearly two years.

I wonder if that's what they're proposing for us?  It will be interesting to see if that one in Austin gets built.
Austin WalMart debate

[TheArtist]

I believe the townhomes at central park got a tif and met design standards to go with the area. Several other new buildings in the area, like the new Central Center also met those design guidelines. This Wal-Mart will be less than a block away and on the same street. It would only seem reasonable, if they also want a tif, to have them meet some sort of design standards as well.

Tulsa and Tulsans have invested a looot of money downtown. Streets, sidewalks, parks, turning old buildings into living, new Arena, etc. Part of that investment is to make downtown into a liveable, walkable environment. Yes we want a grocery store. I personally dont care if it is a Wal-Mart or whatever. But whatever goes there should not go against our investments and what we are trying to do with downtown.

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace


4. This shouldn't leave any room for a baseball or soccer stadium so that long running argument (soccer! baseball! SOCCER! BASEBALL!) is dead.

Gee.  Ain't payback a bee-atch... enjoy your new SuperWalMart, suckuhzzzzzz....

This should never have been primarily about the sports stadium... should have been about the forty acres...... oh, wait... twenty acres and a mule... oh, wait... one square block of mixed-use new urbanism that's gonna be big... no, I mean it... really big... I heard it from Michael Eisner... no, Tim Kissler... c'mon... trust me...

The guys from DC who bought MLS's DC United who were going to bring pro soccer back to Tulsa didn't tell the whole truth... to anyone.  This includes MLS and the city of Tulsa.  It's a shame, really.

Instead of arguing over the merits of the 40 acres of walkable urbanity part of GDP's proposal, I was stuck arguing over the less-important part of the project... oh, gee, Average Joe... yes, indeedley doodley... a double-A baseball park is soooooooo much more important to downtown Tulsa than attracting MLS, a league that had been actively  recruiting this city despite its small size... I'm still angry over the naysayers who decided a new minor league ballpark is preferable to Major League Soccer... the soccer part of this  goes back not only to former mayor LaFortune but to Susan Savage as well.... but we can't git-r-done for soccer fans here, who just need to take a backseat... yet again.

LaFortune is still the only person in the last decade who spoke common sense when it came to ideas for downtown development... Taylor ain't saying nothing, probably because she saw the political damage it did to her predecesor... too bad political partisans on both sides have poisoned the well for at least the last 20 years and evidently aim for the next 20 years as well...

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace


4. This shouldn't leave any room for a baseball or soccer stadium so that long running argument (soccer! baseball! SOCCER! BASEBALL!) is dead.

Gee.  Ain't payback a bee-atch... enjoy your new SuperWalMart, suckuhzzzzzz....

This should never have been primarily about the sports stadium... should have been about the forty acres...... oh, wait... twenty acres and a mule... oh, wait... one square block of mixed-use new urbanism that's gonna be big... no, I mean it... really big... I heard it from Michael Eisner... no, Tim Kissler... c'mon... trust me...

The guys from DC who bought MLS's DC United who were going to bring pro soccer back to Tulsa didn't tell the whole truth... to anyone.  This includes MLS and the city of Tulsa.  It's a shame, really.

Instead of arguing over the merits of the 40 acres of walkable urbanity part of GDP's proposal, I was stuck arguing over the less-important part of the project... oh, gee, Average Joe... yes, indeedley doodley... a double-A baseball park is soooooooo much more important to downtown Tulsa than attracting MLS, a league that had been actively  recruiting this city despite its small size... I'm still angry over the naysayers who decided a new minor league ballpark is preferable to Major League Soccer... the soccer part of this  goes back not only to former mayor LaFortune but to Susan Savage as well.... but we can't git-r-done for soccer fans here, who just need to take a backseat... yet again.

LaFortune is still the only person in the last decade who spoke common sense when it came to ideas for downtown development... Taylor ain't saying nothing, probably because she saw the political damage it did to her predecesor... too bad political partisans on both sides have poisoned the well for at least the last 20 years and evidently aim for the next 20 years as well...

Cool off Ruf! Its like making sausage, not too many people will eat it if they ever see the process up close. Stand back a little let our little burg wrestle with itself. Good stuff happens in spite of our best efforts. You have pithy comments and argue tenaciously but I think you lack the faith that others like yourself and the more erudite on this forum will prevail. It wasn't evil that destroyed downtown, it was apathy and economics. And it won't be "good" that rebuilds it, but passion and greed. Ya gotta have the faith. More often than not stupid wins, but that makes the successes all the more sweet. Enough Oprah think...damn I gotta block that channel.

Soccer is an inevitability. The investment made with our kids back in the late 70's-80's has yet to flower but the seeds were planted. We will have to meet that demand as those generations take the reins. Maybe the river bank is the best place for a soccer stadium. Certainly a better investment than 30million for useless pedestrian bridges.

[TheArtist]

Now thats a trade I would support. Soccer stadium instead of pedestrian bridges. BTW there is still room for a soccer stadium or baseball stadium downtown.

[AVERAGE JOE]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace


4. This shouldn't leave any room for a baseball or soccer stadium so that long running argument (soccer! baseball! SOCCER! BASEBALL!) is dead.

Gee.  Ain't payback a bee-atch... enjoy your new SuperWalMart, suckuhzzzzzz....

This should never have been primarily about the sports stadium... should have been about the forty acres...... oh, wait... twenty acres and a mule... oh, wait... one square block of mixed-use new urbanism that's gonna be big... no, I mean it... really big... I heard it from Michael Eisner... no, Tim Kissler... c'mon... trust me...

The guys from DC who bought MLS's DC United who were going to bring pro soccer back to Tulsa didn't tell the whole truth... to anyone.  This includes MLS and the city of Tulsa.  It's a shame, really.

Instead of arguing over the merits of the 40 acres of walkable urbanity part of GDP's proposal, I was stuck arguing over the less-important part of the project... oh, gee, Average Joe... yes, indeedley doodley... a double-A baseball park is soooooooo much more important to downtown Tulsa than attracting MLS, a league that had been actively  recruiting this city despite its small size... I'm still angry over the naysayers who decided a new minor league ballpark is preferable to Major League Soccer... the soccer part of this  goes back not only to former mayor LaFortune but to Susan Savage as well.... but we can't git-r-done for soccer fans here, who just need to take a backseat... yet again.

LaFortune is still the only person in the last decade who spoke common sense when it came to ideas for downtown development... Taylor ain't saying nothing, probably because she saw the political damage it did to her predecesor... too bad political partisans on both sides have poisoned the well for at least the last 20 years and evidently aim for the next 20 years as well...

Your obsession with me is bordering on fanboy. It's cute, really.

Hugs and kisses,
AJ