Downtown Wal-Mart

[Double A]

Shame on Maria Barnes for supporting this downtown Wal-mart.                                                   "Maria Barnes, city councilor for District 4 where the proposed store would stand, said a downtown Wal-Mart is beneficial."          http://www.tulsaworld.com/community/article.aspx?articleID=070822_9_ZE4_spanc15863

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

Shame on Maria Barnes for supporting this downtown Wal-mart.                                                   "Maria Barnes, city councilor for District 4 where the proposed store would stand, said a downtown Wal-Mart is beneficial."          http://www.tulsaworld.com/community/article.aspx?articleID=070822_9_ZE4_spanc15863

Gotta do better than that AA. She represents an entire district, not just the Cherry Street folks, many of whom would benefit from a grocery downtown. It may not be the brand of grocery we all admire but she said nothing wrong.

If downtown can be rebuilt in the image of a more sophisticated East coast city that would never invite a WalMart, then it would already have been done. That said, if public funds in any way are used to attract a grocery, it better not be a WalMart.

[Jamie]

Thanks for the constructive comments on the letter I emailed to the Mayor Aug 30.  I particularly agree with the point regarding the urban grid.  Re.our Councilor: I don't think Maria has thought much about the way successful downtowns 'work' for human beings/pedestrians and I'm sure she has no sense of the importance of Design in creating a vital urban core: it's not her day job after all; and she has spent most of her civic life concerned about Kendall-Whittier, which is still where her heart is (she retains the title of President of the KW Nhd Assn., which seems odd).  And there are relatively few Downtown residents to whom she has to answer as Councilor.  

I sent Maria a 3-page, bullet-pointy evaluation of the Wal-Mart project - which I also sent the Mayor a week or so ago.  (Incidentally I have never got a reply from the Mayor on anything, not even to requests for meetings; Don Himelfarb on the other hand has always been receptive, a good listener, straightforward and constructive).  Anyway, this is by way of warning that I'll post the 3-pager in a subsequent posting and would welcome comments.  

I'm very concerned at the limpness of the response from various quarters at the prospect of a suburban retail monster on the east side of Downtown.  I see this issue as a decisive one for Tulsa: we either drift along complacently with a development policy of bumbling mediocrity in terms of design and development standards, or we determine to make Tulsa a vital, competitive city for the 21st century that lifts our spirits and makes us proud.  This latter is what Susan Neal announced as the City's intention at the recent briefing of candidate consultants for the Comprehensive Plan. Does plonking a huge Wal-Mart in Downtown help us along in this direction?

I was therefore heartened to some degree by today's (Sunday's) World which announced the forthcoming appointment of a consultancy to help with integrating Downtown's development. I make no secret of my opinion that Downtown should be the city's No. 1. priority and that the River is a side-show so far as economic development is concerned.  (As an aside London ignored its river for two thousand years except as a port; and began to 'develop' the river's banks only when it made the strategic decision to place boundaries on its outward growth, and to grow by increasing walkable density. So there was a deliberate, strategic context to the Thames's river-bank development that has been very successful in delivering a very livable and enjoyable, very dense urban environment.  But despite all the activity on the Thames, the center of activity remains in the streets, cafes , restaurants, pubs, galleries etc. in the rest of London.  Even in London the river development is secondary.  

Forgive the digression.

[Jamie]

EVALUATION OF 'EAST END' RETAIL PROJECT

1.   THE WRONG DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY?
a.   Competitor cities are delivering vital, distinctive, pedestrian-focused Downtowns. The present proposal is a suburban design that damages the City's distinctiveness and reduces reasons to visit Downtown.
b.   A 'Big Box' strategy sends a counter-productive message about Downtown Tulsa revitalization.
c.   It sharply reduces the potential for a diverse mix of distinctive, local businesses.
d.   It limits subsequent retail profile to generic, superstore 'complementers' - the opposite of what is sought by urban dwellers.
e.   Destruction of some of the existing urban buildings in the area damages Tulsa's Downtown identity and potential: some of those buildings are good 're-hab' candidates.
QUESTIONS:
•   How does a very 'big box' retail strategy stack up against competitor cities' Downtown strategies?
•   Have demographic changes, environment impact, health, gas prices, and long-term strategic imperatives been considered by the City's planners and economists in evaluating the proposal?
•   What other strategic approaches have been carefully evaluated, if any? For what reasons were these discarded?


2.    THE WRONG LAND-USE STRATEGY?
a.   This proposal is an auto-centric, suburban template, not an 'urban' one.
b.   It is grossly out of scale:
i.   A 150,000sf, multi-product-sector 'supercenter' eclipses and dwarfs all other retailers and buildings.
ii.   Wasteful, surface parking lots are proposed, to fit a mis-placed, suburban strategy.
c.   It is insensitive to Downtown's urban design needs.  It should be multi-story; with structured, shared parking; with no blank walls along pedestrian streets; with a pedestrian frontage onto the street; urban architectural design (modern or traditional); pedestrian-oriented street-scaping; and small-scale retailer units 'wrapping' the store.
d.   It involves the removal of 'urban grid' elements – such as streets, alleys, sidewalks - that are pedestrian-friendly, cost-efficient and deliver economic flexibility.
e.   It requires demolition of older buildings, some of which lend themselves to re-habbing.
f.   It will bring permanent traffic congestion.
g.   It is an asphalt-led, backward step away from a sustainable city.
h.   Big Box 'solutions' do not deliver a successful urban environment.
i.   Based on past performance the store is vulnerable to going 'dark' after a few years.
QUESTIONS
•   Does the City consider that a low-density, large-scale store is an appropriate use of urban land?
•   Does the City believe that such a strategy will deliver a vital, urban environment?
•   How many, and which existing buildings would be demolished?



3.   WRONG RETAIL STRATEGY?
a.   The scale and breadth of product-range of a 'Supercenter' prevents other retailers from competing effectively.
b.   An urbanized version of Wal-Mart's 'neighborhood market' at c. 35,000sf would be better- suited in size and range...but better yet:
i.   12,000sf. (e.g. Tesco 'Metro' stores in urban settings).
ii.   30,000sf (e.g. Whole Foods)
iii.   31,000sf. (e.g. Tesco superstores - world's 4th largest retailer).
c.   A Wal-Mart Supercenter will impact other businesses within the trading area – its own too.
d.   Increasing local predominance of Wal-Mart makes Tulsa vulnerable (i) to food security if the company closes stores, and (ii) to price-hikes when other serious competitors have departed (such as Homeland, Albertsons).
QUESTIONS
•   Is the City aware that Wal-Mart is currently actively evaluating much smaller stores for urban environments?
•   Does the City know that three times as much money stays in the local economy when we buy from local businesses vs. large chain stores?


4.   THE WRONG NEIGHBORHOOD?
a.   Pine & Peoria neighborhood, recently abandoned by Albertsons, is very under-served in terms of grocery stores: it's virtually a 'food desert'.  That site is a much better location for a conventional, suburban store than Downtown, since all the infrastructure is in place and a TIF district is already established for the purpose.
b.   A Downtown superstore location prejudices the very hard-won and on-going achievements and strategy of the adjacent 'Pearl District':
i.   Additional policing costs may well be incurred nearby, including the Pearl District;
ii.   There will be an increase in pollution and noise arising from traffic arising from an auto-centric store;
c.   The Pearl is beginning to make real progress on a sustainable, imaginative, progressive, but under-funded plan.  
QUESTIONS
•   Since Wal-Mart has the opportunity to locate a store at Pine/Peoria on an ideal site with few design restrictions, where the consumer need is greatest, and where a TIF district is already in place, why not go there?  
•   Given that Wal-Mart has this option, why should the City provide funding and accede to anything less than full cooperation with its urban design requirements?

5.   THE WRONG RETAILER?
a.   Wal-mart has a reputation for playing hardball and not responding to municipalities' design needs.
b.   Crime:  Wal-Mart reportedly brings higher crime-levels than comparable stores.
c.   Wal-Mart's comparatively low contribution to employee healthcare resulting in the local community picking up the rest of the tab.
d.   Wal-Mart often insists on a 'non-compete' clause when it eventually closes the store, thus blighting an area.  We cannot afford this in Downtown.  
e.   'Sales per square foot' is key to a tax-increment financing district's business model, and to the productive use of scarce, urban land.  Other retailers deliver higher sales psf than Wal-Mart (eg. CostCo).  
QUESTIONS
•   What does the Tulsa Police Department think?
•   Has the City evaluated the policies of those municipalities that have actively sought to keep Wal-Mart out?

6.   A BETTER DOWNTOWN STRATEGY?
a.   Goals
i.   Commit to the concept of proactive strategy development, to avoid piecemeal reaction to ill-conceived projects.
ii.   Keep profits in the Tulsa area: Focus on stimulating local businesses.
iii.   Seek economic diversity of businesses.
iv.   Deliver a truly urban environment that addresses the needs of the 21st Century.  

b.   Strategy: Infrastructure
i.   Invest relevantly in civic amenities that foster a distinctive, pedestrian-oriented environment, that benefit everyone and attract public and private-sector investment; for example ...
1.   A magnet elementary school;
2.   Pedestrian-oriented 'Grand Central Library' in the East End;
3.   Centennial Walk;
4.   'The Tulsa Pearls' (an imaginative, connective, Downtown waterway system and tourism generator);
5.   Pocket Parks; and sidewalk shade trees;
6.   Bike trails and bike lanes;
7.   'Parking' for bicycles, motorbikes, scooters;
8.   Mass transit choices and facilities;
9.   Invest in and integrate with the adjacent 'Pearl District' Plan - already approved by the Council - to leverage the scale and impact of the above strategy.

ii.   Protect the grid system (including alleys), because ...
1.   It delivers greater flexibility,
2.   It is pedestrian-friendly,
3.   Is safer,
4.   Is more 'human' ('super-blocks' and big boxes destroy walkable urbanity).

c.   Strategy: Retail
i.   Formalize urban design guidelines for Downtown
ii.   Collaborate with the Tulsa Drillers.
iii.   Seek out collaborative, enlightened and/or local, urban grocers (eg. Reasors, Whole Foods, Tesco, Target...
iv.   Seek out collaborative and genuinely urban developers.
1.   Global Development Partners plans for 6th/Elgin sound promising in this respect.  

d.   Strategy: Urban Design Management
i.   Make Urban Planning & Development responsible for managing Downtown's urban design strategy.
ii.   Consider setting up an Urban Design Studio under Urban Planning & Development (as Vancouver).
iii.   Adopt a 'form'-based code to foster walkable, vital, sustainable urbanity.


7.   STRATEGY: TIF FUNDING
a.   On no account should the City fund the degradation of our urban fabric.
i.   The urban grid system (alleys, sidewalks, streets, etc.) is proven to function effectively and efficiently.
ii.   'Super-blocks' in an urban setting are counter-productive to 'walkable urbanity'.
b.   The City should not fund:
i.   new infrastructure when suitable infrastructure exists elsewhere in the trading area;
ii.   a suburban design that is predicated on a 7-10 year lifespan and an out-dated, auto-focused environment;
c.   It is impossible to justify a new, grocery-led TIF when a TIF district is already in place at a location – Pine & Peoria - where both an urgent need and the business opportunity exist.

[Rico]

Jamie, I am very pleased to hear this level of interest on your behalf.

I must admit being somewhat puzzled by the lack of response from others that have an equal interest in the type of Downtown that you refer to.

If I could make a suggestion...
This type of threat, to the integrity of the "Downtown" so many of us hope will be achieved, deserves a response equal to or greater than any WalMart can afford to dish out.

IMHO,from the research I have been able to do, there is a limit at which WalMart will sit down at a table and talk. (i.e. there relatively  recent encounter with a Chicago that would not budge.)

This needs to be an organized response.The City Hall residents need to experience the threat that this development poses. They need to know this is unacceptable....Absolutely unacceptable.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by Jamie

STRATEGY: TIF FUNDING
a.   On no account should the City fund the degradation of our urban fabric.
i.   The urban grid system (alleys, sidewalks, streets, etc.) is proven to function effectively and efficiently.
ii.   'Super-blocks' in an urban setting are counter-productive to 'walkable urbanity'.
b.   The City should not fund:
i.   new infrastructure when suitable infrastructure exists elsewhere in the trading area;
ii.   a suburban design that is predicated on a 7-10 year lifespan and an out-dated, auto-focused environment;
c.   It is impossible to justify a new, grocery-led TIF when a TIF district is already in place at a location – Pine & Peoria - where both an urgent need and the business opportunity exist.

I certainly agree with these points.  At one time, the Seayco site had public streets and alleys dividing the current super-block into relatively small urban parcels.  As platted, the largest block on the site was Block 143 of the Tulsa Townsite, which was bordered by Frankfort, Kenosha, 5th, and 6th.  Block 143 had an east-west alley creating a north portion of the block and a south portion.  The north portion of Block 143 was approximately 70,000 square feet (surrounded by a public alley on the south and by public streets -- Frankfort, 5th, and Kenosha -- on the west, north, and east).  The north portion of Block 143 (at approximately 70,000 sq ft) was at one time the largest chunk of private land on the entire site.

If the City of Tulsa had not tinkered with the public streets and alleys downtown (and assuming Seayco was proposing the same mix of uses for the same tract), then we'd be looking at a Wal-Mart at least 3 stories high with a maximum footprint of approximately 70,000 square feet.

The City has created the possibility of a single-story retail monster to be built downtown by creating super-blocks.  It's really as simple as that.  That we would even consider a TIF district without requiring the re-dedication of those public ways makes no sense to me.  But I don't have much hope that the City will demand quality urban planning and design.  I hope I'm wrong about this.

I'm very disappointed to read about Maria Barnes's position on the downtown Wal-Mart.  This indicates a continued erosion of the urban grid downtown which I've observed during the 18 years since I moved to Tulsa.  Although the Wal-Mart as proposed at 6th & Lansing would be within walking distance of my home, I most likely will boycott it on principle.  I doubt also if I'll be voting for Maria Barnes's re-election unless she changes her stance on this issue.

[Double A]

Maria needs to clean up her act and be the Councilor she campaigned to be or we need to clean house. The Mayor is desecrating our charter while she turns a blind eye, that is unacceptable any way you cut it. As a supposed friend of the TPD, she has turned her back on our police force by her silence on the police chief issue and as a supposed friend of labor by supporting the cancer that is Wal-Mart in the heart of downtown Tulsa. My brothers and sisters in labor are talking about this and are not pleased. With the deadline to file coming up in December, this has the makings of a very interesting primary season in District 4.

[USRufnex]

I'll take a do-able NW Ark WalMart over Target and the Jamie Jamison agenda.

Entitlements, special rights, pork barrel spending and TIF's...  

Yours is a brick facade with government incentives that achieves no more urban density than my apt in east Tulsa...

[cannon_fodder]

Ok, I understand the gist of your argument.  A Wal-Mart is not a unique urban cool thing to brag about to other people.  I get that.  But when something like that was put in (Williams Forum) it quickly folded and no new retail has developed downtown in the last decade.

quote:Originally posted by Jamie


reduces reasons to visit Downtown.

At the moment, why would anyone go the vacant buildings and empty lots that occupy the proposed location?  Of course, they wouldnt. How does adding a retail destination DECREASE reasons to go downtown?

quote:
b.   A 'Big Box' strategy sends a counter-productive message about Downtown Tulsa revitalization.
c.   It sharply reduces the potential for a diverse mix of distinctive, local businesses.
d.   It limits subsequent retail profile to generic, superstore 'complementers' - the opposite of what is sought by urban dwellers.
e.   Destruction of some of the existing urban buildings in the area damages Tulsa's Downtown identity and potential: some of those buildings are good 're-hab' candidates.

All very good points and superb alternatives.  Also all things that are not on the drawing board, are unfunded, and have failed to come to fruition to date.  I would greatly prefer downtown Tulsa resemble Manhattan, but given the choice between abandoned street or big box...

quote:
2.    THE WRONG LAND-USE STRATEGY?

I agree with nearly all these points.  I wish they would put in a multi story design with a parking ramp.  But back to my main point - what they are proposing is still better than anyone what anyone else has actually offered to pay for and build.

quote:
f.   It will bring permanent traffic congestion.

Won't any successful downtown revitalization effort?  In fact, couldn't that be seen as an indication of success downtown.  When congestion becomes a problem downtown, we'll deal with it... for now it is a far flung fear as I drive blindfolded without fear of hitting anyone or anything after 5pm.

quote:
i.   Based on past performance the store is vulnerable to going 'dark' after a few years.

If by a "few years" you mean a couple decades, then yes... it is a possibility.  A refusal to allow a non-compete clause would be needed IMHO to avoid a large empty box downtown in the future.

quote:
3.   WRONG RETAIL STRATEGY?
a.   The scale and breadth of product-range of a 'Supercenter' prevents other retailers from competing effectively.

So because the proposed development meets consumers needs too well we should not allow them?  This argument stinks of elitism, sentimentality, and a loathing for Wal-Mart.  Other retailers are free to come in and do a better job if they are able to.  With how much people seem to hate Wal-Mart, one would not think it a tall order to do so.

quote:
•   Does the City know that three times as much money stays in the local economy when we buy from local businesses vs. large chain stores?

Does the poster know that the city can not show preference to local business in zoning decisions without being sued for Antitrust violations?

quote:
4.   THE WRONG NEIGHBORHOOD?

I generally disagree with all of your comments here.  NIMBY.  Wal-Mart feels that there is a strong customer base for its product at this location.  They have done well in the past identifying markets and placing their stores there... in fact, its actually what they do.  I'm willing to bet they have actual data on the market and have studied it.

And what effect will this have on the pearl?  What businesses in the Pearl will be detrimentally effected by this Wal-Mart?  The people who live or shop in the pearl district are not likely to be lured away by a Wal-Mart... that would be like arguing the Tulsa Ballet is in jeopardy because "You Got Served 2" is coming out this summer.

quote:
i.   Additional policing costs may well be incurred nearby, including the Pearl District;
ii.   There will be an increase in pollution and noise arising from traffic arising from an auto-centric store;

Again, this would be true of any and all developmental successes downtown.  Tulsa is a car centric town, without some DRASTIC change in that regard, any development (including townhouses) causes more congestion and pollution in a given area.  Higher population density or just more foot traffic creates a need for more policing.    

It doesnt really matter if it is a Wal-Mart or a
Neiman Marcus that is going in - you will have an increase in traffic, pollution, and the need for police presence.  

quote:
c.   The Pearl is beginning to make real progress on a sustainable, imaginative, progressive, but under-funded plan.  

I dont know about the funding, but the district is making a good run and becoming very interesting; if only there was somewhere nearby to get casual items like toiletries, groceries and a cold beer to go.  

Really, why would a Wal-Mart damage the Pearl District, I dont get it.  If you think it would be better served by a Petty's and a half dozen specialty stores - build them and show Wal-Mart they are not wanted by drawing all their potential customers away.  That's how capitalism works, not by having the government decide whats best for its citizens who are apparently too stupid to know for themselves.

quote:
•   Given that Wal-Mart has this option, why should the City provide funding and accede to anything less than full cooperation with its urban design requirements?

I hope the city stands tall on the issue and offers a carrot and a stick to get Wal-Mart to go urban.  Not because they are Wal-Mart, but because it is best for the image and development of downtown.

quote:
5.   THE WRONG RETAILER?
a.   Wal-mart has a reputation for playing hardball and not responding to municipalities' design needs.

In this instance, the city has some cards to play and can play hardball right back.  Hopefully, it does not come to that and we are able to negotiate something.  Perhaps add the Wal-Mart to the bus route in exchange for less surface parking and offering TIFF financing to cover the additional expense of making it multilevel.  Dictating a design and offering nothing does not seem fair, considering their are no existing alternative uses for that land.

quote:
b.   Crime:  Wal-Mart reportedly brings higher crime-levels than comparable stores.

That's because Wal-Mart attracts more poor people and poor people commit more crimes.  No one likes to say it, but that is a core issue here.  If you truly want a diverse and livable downtown, it is going to have to include poor people.  Wal-Mart or not.

quote:
c.   Wal-Mart's comparatively low contribution to employee healthcare resulting in the local community picking up the rest of the tab.

Mom and pop shops are not terribly well known for their excellent benefits nor job security.  If good benefits is a requirement of doing business in this town we had better shove off a large portion of specialty stores...

quote:
d.   Wal-Mart often insists on a 'non-compete' clause when it eventually closes the store, thus blighting an area.  We cannot afford this in Downtown.  

agreed.
- - - - - - - -  

I agree with most of your vision for downtown and how we have to get there.  But we have to remember that it is not your nor my downtown... it should be allowed to grow and not dictated on how or for whom it will grow.  In its heyday downtown was the shopping destination for everybody, not just preppy professionals or housewives looking for rare items at specialty stores.

Anyway, I felt the need to point out the flaws I saw above.   I hope Wal-Mart or some other retail development does it right downtown and the city works WITH THEM to ensure a strong urban presence.  Downtown has been long neglected, I don't think heavy handed government will turn it around.  Good planning by the government creating opportunity coupled with private development is the only way.

[Kiah]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

Shame on Maria Barnes for supporting this downtown Wal-mart.                                                   "Maria Barnes, city councilor for District 4 where the proposed store would stand, said a downtown Wal-Mart is beneficial."          http://www.tulsaworld.com/community/article.aspx?articleID=070822_9_ZE4_spanc15863

"Downtown needs a grocery store to become a vibrant area again with both pedestrian and auto traffic, especially after 5:00 when business closes . . . ."

Which part of that do you disagree with?  The reporter, not Maria Barnes, made the statement about supporting Wal-Mart.  I don't read this statement to indicate support for Wal Mart, generally, or the Seayco proposal, specifically.

[RecycleMichael]

Don't contradict doubleA with the facts.

He hates the establishment and attacks anyone who is reasonable.

I think councilor Barnes is trying to help her district. He wants her to agree with his view on every topic and if she doesn't...he yells at her at public events and posts lies about her.

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

I'll take a do-able NW Ark WalMart over Target and the Jamie Jamison agenda.

Entitlements, special rights, pork barrel spending and TIF's...  

Yours is a brick facade with government incentives that achieves no more urban density than my apt in east Tulsa...

Rufnex.... Quit with the edit already...!

Everyone here is more or less an adult. Critique
is good for everyone... Even when it comes from one of those "Soccer Hooligans".... []

[USRufnex]

Just needed to edit on the basis that I'd follow up with something that explains some of my anger... once again, the urban density achieved by the Village Park condos isn't any different than what I see in my east Tulsa apt complex... maybe something with this kind of urban density in Phase II...



CF seems to have already beaten me to most of my critique...

My unedited post stated that Jamieson's condos were overpriced... and included a few choice words to describe my feelings about that... especially when we're talking about a TIF district development.  The more I read about the Home Depot/Village Condos TIF district, the more disappointed I was that there weren't a few condos that could have been made available at more affordable prices comparable to the markets in other areas of Tulsa that haven't had to resort to TIF designations... or that maybe a Children's Museum or other regional attraction could have been part of the proposal instead of a glorified drainage ditch...

The pricing on these condos can be higher than brand new homes in other parts of the Tulsa area...
http://www.southcountytulsa.com/pdfs/the_map.pdf

I find much of Mr. Jamieson's rhetoric to be highly ironic...

Home Despot = BIG BOX.
Target = big box.
Albertson's = grocery big box.
Reasor's = local grocery big box.
Tesco = proper English big box.
Wal Mart = our big box.

Seems odd that Tulsa's most financially successful TIF district to date... a TIF that gets some big $$$ due to the presence of a non-local big box inside the IDL... is so resistant to the idea of another company attracted to downtown?...  A company that's based only a couple of hours east of Tulsa in NW Arkansas?

For someone to cite Tesco and not think any of us would notice that Tesco happens to be the British version of WalMart is puzzling... Tesco controls over 30% of the grocery market in Britain, and is the fourth largest retailer in the world, behind WalMart and Home Depot...

WalMart had stores in Vinita, Pryor, Claremore and Wagoner back when other discount retailers wouldn't touch those towns with a 10-foot pole...

And Whole Foods?  Well, most of their locations are in affluent suburban areas... an upscale grocery store will NOT be coming to the east end anytime soon, the residential density is  clearly not there yet... WF's Dallas locations are in affluent suburbs and affluent north Dallas.  Their only KC location is in affluent Overland Park, KS... Their new urban Chicago locations are in areas that were already highly developed and gentrified years ago and are now PRIMED for development..... Whole Foods will come to downtown AFTER its renaissance, not before...

When a North Peoria location for WalMart is suggested, it reminds me of the forum sticky post by Admin and TulsaNow from Nov 2005 that suggested Global Developments' soccer stadium should be moved to Mohawk Park... in other words, a classic red herring.  Maybe a smaller scale store that caters to the working poor would be better for North Peoria and Pine, anyway... Aldi.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_2_what_does_the_war.html

quote:When Hartford, Connecticut, tore down a blighted housing project, city officials hatched an innovative plan to redevelop the land: lure Wal-Mart there, entice other retailers with the promise of being near the discount giant, and then use the development's revenues to build new housing. Wal-Mart, after some convincing, agreed, and city officials and neighborhood residents celebrated a big win—better shopping, more jobs, and new housing in one of America's poorest cities.

But then, out of nowhere, outsiders claiming to represent the local community began protesting. Astonished city leaders and local residents quickly discovered the forces fueling the campaign: a Connecticut chapter of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union; and ACORN, the radical community group. Outraged residents fought back, denouncing outside interference, but opponents persisted, filing three separate lawsuits that have delayed construction, including a ludicrous suit claiming that the development would destroy unique vegetation that has sprouted since the housing project came down. "These people looked for every possible reason to stop a project that the community wants," says Jackie Fongemie, a frustrated community activist who has fought for the store. "Where were the environmentalists when rats were running wild around this place?"

Though Wal-Mart has encountered opposition for years from anti-sprawl activists or small-town merchants worried about the competition, the Hartford drama exemplifies a brand-new kind of opposition, a coordinated effort of the Left, in which unions, activist groups like ACORN and the National Organization for Women, environmentalist groups, even plaintiffs' attorneys work together in effective alliances. They are fighting the giant retailer not only store by store, but in statehouses, city halls, and courts. They have already managed to make Wal-Mart an issue in the presidential campaign: several Democratic hopefuls indicted the American shopper's favorite store as unfriendly to working people.

------------------------------------------------

The stores themselves still reflect Sam Walton's values, and draw fire for it. In light of its vast market power, Wal-Mart has infuriated the media with its long-standing refusal to stock obscene CDs and racy magazines. BusinessWeek branded the company a cultural gatekeeper that has "served to narrow the mainstream for entertainment offerings while imparting to it a rightward tilt." Playboy magazine, which Wal-Mart has refused to sell, was more blunt in its recent, lengthy anti-Wal-Mart diatribe, which called Bentonville "the epicenter of retailing's Evil Empire." So striking have the attacks been that a Kansas City business columnist recently suggested that the national press is "angry that average Americans don't share their perceptions of Wal-Mart as the bad guys" and that Wal-Mart "has come to represent the defining cultural divide between the elites and the common folk." In other words, the press doesn't like the fact that most Americans share the company's values.

http://www.macleans.ca/business/companies/article.jsp?content=20050725_109503_109503

quote:It's a divisive political standoff that's been mirrored in communities throughout North America over the past few years. To the project's advocates in City Hall, this is just the kind of development Cleveland so desperately needs. Aside from precious jobs, the mall will spin off US$3 million in property taxes annually, US$1.8 million of which will go to the city's struggling school system, plus US$700,000 in local payroll tax. It will also give city residents a place to shop near home, rather than travelling to the suburbs.

Officials estimate local residents spend US$4 billion a year in retail shops, a third of which currently goes outside the city. If ever there was a Wal-Mart that deserves support, they say, this is it.

But that's just the point: Wal-Mart isn't engaged in a series of messy local zoning disputes. It's at war with a well-financed, well-organized opposition, determined to fight it on every front. From Los Angeles to the Saguenay, from Hartford, Conn., to Vancouver, a broad array of activist groups and unions have launched protests, lawsuits and ad campaigns, all aimed at discrediting Wal-Mart, halting its growth, and unionizing its workforce.

Like most wars, it's about money and power, and the first casualty is truth. Because even after all the scrutiny and analysis of the Wal-Mart phenomenon, most of what we've been told -- about worker abuse, destroyed small-town economies, crushed suppliers and greedy management -- is wrong.

[TheArtist]

Lets not forget this deal is also going to take up a lot of space with a very spread out, unwalkabale, low density, apartment complex. If you dont like whats been done downtown in that respect so far, you will hate what this development will do.  
That right next to this large unwalkable wal-mart and its large parking lot. Its kind of a double whammy on the time, effort and money we as citizens have put into trying to develop a walkable downtown.

We have spent a lot of money and effort in recent years to, not just bring downtown to life. But to creat a specific type of downtown. A walkable urban district. Refurbishing buildings like the Mayo into multi use with living, creating parks downtown, turning the streets back to 2 way, redoing and improving the sidewalks, laying out plans for the Brady and the Pearl so that they can grow in that direction and connect with the rest of downtown in a walkable manner, trying to save old buildings, etc.

There is still room for this to happen. But I just wish this developer, and some in the city, could get on the same game plan the rest of us have been pushing for.

I know its too cost prohibitive in our current environment to ask a Wal-Mart or any other large store to build 2 stories with parking unerneath or a parking garage. Those examples you see of that type of developments are usually underneath gleaming new pricey condo towers on busy streets. Not what we have in that area of downtown.

However there could have been some easy and inexpensive design changes made. Why not have the apartments fronting streets with parking hidden in the middle versus a typical apartment complex layout with row after row of one and 2 story buildings in a large block with fencing around it? Why just one story and possibly a few 2 story apartments? Even suburban apartments often have parking underneath and 2 floors of living above. This development is even more suburban than most suburban ones. Yuck

Why couldn't this Wal-Mart have its front on a street? Have the parking lot across that street. Put some traffic calming features in and you will have no more trouble with crossing that than you would have getting to any other wal-mart from the parking lot. Is that such a major request? No its not totally urban, but it would have made a positive difference and helped maintain some of the street grid and at least a semblance of walkability. Especially if you have the "row of shops" facade facing the street. But they dont even want to do that. This is a completely urban set up. No concessions to urban walkability whatsoever.

These developers do not want to make even the most basic adjustments, that wouldnt really cost anything. They dont care about all the effort and money that the citizens of Tulsa have been putting into downtown. To not just have downtown develop in any old way, but to create a walkable urban environment.

I was leaning for this development because I thought it at least had some urban components to it, but then I saw the layout of the apartments. I had thought there were going to be 4 story apartments with some structured parking. That is not the case.

[Townsend]

Did I miss something?  Would someone recap for me?  Do we have knowledge of the plans for this project?  We know what the buildings will look like?  Walmart has knowledge that it is building in that area?

Last I saw, the developer was the one speaking for Walmart.

I apologize if I'm behind the curve.