Downtown Wal-Mart

[dsjeffries]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

I'm wondering the same thing...

Who has seen plans, what, where, when, why...??
I want to see them

[USRufnex]

That's the problem.  People can act like they have insider info, but anybody who really knows what's going on likely signed a "confidentiality agreement" weeks/months ago... and alot of interested parties both pro and con are left in the dark...

Then the Tulsa World will sit on the story for months until it senses a politically opportune time to print it....

So, we ain't gonna hear nothing until after the River Tax vote...

I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt these people would want to turn downtown into a suburb...

http://www.argtulsa.com/

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist


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.

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

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.

I too am wondering what you are basing this critique on.  Where did you learn that the apartments will be less than 4 stories?  Where did you get the idea the apartments will not front the streets?  In the initial story on this development, it was stated that it would include "about 150 apartments 'that fit into the streetscape fronting on Fourth and Fifth streets'" with an parking deck, which makes it sound like the parking deck would be concealed behind the apartments.

As to destroying the street grid, well, there is not much street grid in that part of downtown to destroy.  In looking at a map the only street that currently goes through the development area is Kenosha, and it ends two blocks south at the back side of Home Depot anyway.  Not much loss to the street grid there.  As to connecting with the Pearl District; again, this development causes no interruption in the street grid connection to the Pearl District.  The streets that go across the freeway are 4th and 6th and they presumably will still do so.  The streets within the development (5th st and 5th Pl) do not go across the freeway, so they would never provide connectivity to the Pearl District no matter what is developed on this site.  

Also, had a baseball stadium been built on this site, it would have had at least as much negative impact on the street grid.  (But would clearly be a better development in other ways)

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by DScott28604

quote:Originally posted by 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.

I'm wondering the same thing...

Who has seen plans, what, where, when, why...??
I want to see them

In case you missed it the developers had a meeting with the YP people and brought their plans and "showed them off" at that meeting. Sorry I just assumed everyone knew and had gotten word of what they presented and what it looked like. Trust me I was expecting something different because of what I had read in the paper and was quite baffled by what I was told as well.

[Rico]

One thing I can say for certain.... This project will be the proverbial "straw that broke the Mayor's back"...

She may as well give her staff the heads up...

All the Chamber's Horses and all the Chamber's Men will not be able to put Katy back together again...

[}:)]

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

In case you missed it the developers had a meeting with the YP people and brought their plans and "showed them off" at that meeting. Sorry I just assumed everyone knew and had gotten word of what they presented and what it looked like. Trust me I was expecting something different because of what I had read in the paper and was quite baffled by what I was told as well.

That sounds disappointing.  Now can the creation of a TIF district and the City Council's rubber-stamp approval be far behind?

[akupetsky]

quote:
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.

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.

Jamie does a great job laying out the reasons to oppose a Walmart at this location, and Cannon Fodder does an equally good job addressing them from a sense of practicality.  Many of us don't like the idea of a Walmart downtown because of the things Jamie points out, but lots of people also think that we need a grocery store and other development there.  These are not mutually-exclusive sentiments.  A Walmart in and of itself is not an awful thing if it is done correctly.  What is "correctly"?

First, there seems to be a potential that Walmart's development downtown could deter investment by other groups that might be considering commerce and design that are more urban-friendly than Walmart's.  If Walmart's entry precluded this beneficial investment, then all the arguments that Walmart is "better than nothing" don't hold water.  At the very least, Walmart's footprint (geographic and commercial) in downtown should be limited to allow for additional, potentially-competitive entry.  

Second, if there is going to be a Walmart downtown, it should be urban/pedestrian-friendly.  That means that there should be no parking lots between the front of the store itself and the sidewalks leading to the rest of downtown.  And, to be clear, there must be sidewalks leading to the rest of downtown, at least on the South, West and North sides of the store.  Any parking should be below or on top of the store, or in a multi-story garage that (again) does not block pedestrian access to or views of the store. I also like Cannon Fodder's idea about access to bus routes.

Third, the Walmart appearance should fit in with downtown.

Fourth, Walmart should take additional steps to protect Tulsa's very sensitive environment.  Walmart has taken steps recently to improve its energy efficiency, but if Walmart is going to enter downtown with a business plan that relies on automobile traffic for a large part of its business, it needs to offset that footprint somehow.  Tulsa doesn't want to lose any benefit Walmart brings by incurring federal fines, further increasing the heat and ruining the health of its people.  

I don't agree with Cannon Fodder that government has no role in the design or planning of this or other developments.  Those of us in and around downtown have a strong public policy interest in seeing sustainable, livable growth in infill areas.  We live here because we don't want to live in suburbia.  We are ready to spend lots of time and money in downtown (and remain in the area) if it is going to be a good experience.  Government is the only thing that can protect this interest.  (Unfortunately, Oklahoma's laws could have a say in how much government is able to protect us against unwanted development.  This is why Cannon Fodder's suggestion about use of a TIF is worth considering.  But let's not agree to a TIF or any other benefit for Walmart without meeting all of our concerns.)

Finally, I don't disagree with DoubleA regarding the impact on labor.  That is an important issue, and Walmart is not the best in terms of treatment of employees.  To some extent, this is a more national and worldwide project that is having some limited success as Walmart seeks to improve its public image.  I don't know that I would oppose otherwise-favorable development in downtown, since it would be difficult to gain this type of concession in just one store.  However, I could see someone like DoubleA using this as an opportunity to highlight the important issue, and I'm sure he will.

[booWorld]

The denial of TIF is about the only leverage the City has in this project.  The land is zoned CBD, which allows the developer to build just about anything, suburban or otherwise.

The City has closed and vacated public streets and alleys to make a super-block site.  In so doing, they created a situation in which an enormous Wal-Mart (or Drillers Stadium, or parking lot, or whatever) could be built there.  There is not much the City can do now to encourage the developer to cooperate except for rejecting a TIF district and enforcing any remaining utility easements.

This is how super-blocks destroy a downtown.  

Ah, shucks....

[TheArtist]

Quote ..... "" Second, if there is going to be a Walmart downtown, it should be urban/pedestrian friendly. That means that there should be no parking lots between the front of the store itself and the sidewalks leading to the rest of downtown. And, to be clear, there must be sidewalks leading to the rest of downtown, at least on the South, West and North sides of the store. Any parking should be below or on top of the store, or in a multi-story garage that (again) does not block pedestrian access to or views of the store. I also like Cannon Fodder's idea about access to bus routes.""

There is no way any large store is going to put in parking below or above in this area. The demographics aren't there to support it. The places where you see such things are in places where there is already a large concentration of wealthy people or the urban density demands it simply because you cant afford surface parking. Or its zoned so that you cant. And I am all for some kind of zoning for downtown, but until someone does that... well here we are.

[TheArtist]

Here is the area before and what I would propose doing if the Wal-Mart was of normal size. I am just assuming it will be slightly larger than the Home Depot and its Garden Center seen at the bottom of the map. I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong lol.

I know its not perfect or what many would like but I dont see it as being too horrible. Especially compared to what we could be getting. If my scales are somewhat reasonable I dont see that a layout similar to this would be too unreasonable to ask them to do. I dont think it would really be more expensive. The apartments could front the streets. I added a street in front of them facing the Wal-Mart and they could have their parking in between or on the ground floor with 2 floors of living above. The shops opposite Wal-Mart and the green space could use that strip of parking. Some of the stores could have living above as well. I am just giving a general layout. In general appearance the area would appear to be a Square with shops and buildings all around it. And heck when and if the Wal-Mart left it could be turned into a real "town square".  

Again, it would be great if any large store that went in there had parking above or below. But thats expensive to do and the demographics and price points would make it unreasonable in this area.

If it were tweaked a bit and the architecture of the Wal-Mart and the buildings around it were nice I think something along these lines could be a decent compromise. Urban perfection it is not. Just trying to think of a doable, workable compromise, if we could get it.

As is...



Perhaps something like this?...

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Here is the area before and what I would propose doing if the Wal-Mart was of normal size. I am just assuming it will be slightly larger than the Home Depot and its Garden Center seen at the bottom of the map. I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong lol.

I know its not perfect or what many would like but I dont see it as being too horrible. Especially compared to what we could be getting. If my scales are somewhat reasonable I dont see that a layout similar to this would be too unreasonable to ask them to do. I dont think it would really be more expensive. The apartments could front the streets. I added a street in front of them facing the Wal-Mart and they could have their parking in between or on the ground floor with 2 floors of living above. The shops opposite Wal-Mart and the green space could use that strip of parking. Some of the stores could have living above as well. I am just giving a general layout. In general appearance the area would appear to be a Square with shops and buildings all around it. And heck when and if the Wal-Mart left it could be turned into a real "town square".  

Again, it would be great if any large store that went in there had parking above or below. But thats expensive to do and the demographics and price points would make it unreasonable in this area.

If it were tweaked a bit and the architecture of the Wal-Mart and the buildings around it were nice I think something along these lines could be a decent compromise. Urban perfection it is not. Just trying to think of a doable, workable compromise, if we could get it.

As is...



Perhaps something like this?...

Since we're apparently not going to get a peak at it in The Whirled, could you take a stab at showing us the plan they presented at the YP meeting?

[TheArtist]

I will see what I can do. I know someone who drew out on a piece of paper what they were presenting at the meeting.

[cannon_fodder]

Just so people don't get the wrong idea, I do not want to see a typical sprawling Wal-Mart with surface parking and suburban style apartments downtown.  I would greatly prefer an urban styled Wal-Mart and a density to the housing and stores.  Maybe even housing ABOVE the other stores.

However, I understand the economics in what has become low-density downtown does not justify a super cool multi story Wal-Mart on top of a parking garage.  I'm sure Wal-Mart looked into going into one of the abandoned buildings downtown... if it would make them money they would do it for sure.

I hope for a compromise and would be willing to pay for it with a TIFF.  Things as simply as what Artist have described or placing the parking lot in the back of the store or designing all sides of the Wal-Mart to look interesting/Not like the side of a Wal-Mart.  SOMETHING.  I will be very disappointed if this Wal-Mart + apartment complex mirrors the one near Woodland Hills mall.

That said, I do not think I'm willing to deny them the ability to build in that location without at least some commitment from another developer.

[RecycleMichael]

The one ache for me on a Wal-Mart downtown is a building with long walls and no windows.

Downtowns have pedestrians and long, blank walls where nobody is looking seem like magnets for street crime such as muggings, drug dealing, etc.

If there were windows looking out, then people would be witness and the illegal activities would probably go elsewhere.

What is our chance at getting a downtown Wal-Mart with windows on three sides?

[sgrizzle]

I can't imagine why you couldn't skin the building on three sides plus a 2nd floor of apartments and retail.