OKC puzzled by Tulsa's approach to downtown

[MichaelBates]

Steve Lackmeyer, writing for The Oklahoman, has been visiting Tulsa and asking questions of "downtown civic leaders" and doesn't think the answers he's getting make much sense.

quote:
Why, for example, was a site surrounded by large institutional properties like the U.S. Post Office, Tulsa Sheriff's Office and City Hall, chosen as the site for the city's new arena? Why not instead build an arena between two fledgling entertainment areas, the Brady and Blue Dome districts?

And why, in a city world-renown for its Art Deco architecture, would one not do everything possible to restore the one surviving grand hotel — the Mayo — back into a hotel instead of housing?

Experienced hands in downtown Oklahoma City share such questions. But their counterparts in Tulsa — the ones I've visited with — seem much more interested in promoting their current course than to stop and reconsider.

Seems like the questions about the arena site were asked by a lot of people on this forum and elsewhere. But, of course, any dissension about the arena location was the bleating of Vision 2025 saboteurs.

If you could talk to Mr. Lackmeyer, how would you answer his questions?

[Chicken Little]

Specifically?  

1) Why, for example, was a site surrounded by large institutional properties like the U.S. Post Office, Tulsa Sheriff's Office and City Hall, chosen as the site for the city's new arena? Because nobody thought about those details...the arena was an impulse buy.  Nobody was thinking about the long term when they sited our jail, either.  It's our style...ready, fire aim![/snark].

2) Why not instead build an arena between two fledgling entertainment areas, the Brady and Blue Dome districts?I'll guess because of the train tracks.  I'll add to that that the people who put this in Vision 2025 had never been to Arnie's or the Cain's, and certainly weren't thinking seriously about ancillary benefits when they did it.  

3) And why, in a city world-renown for its Art Deco architecture, would one not do everything possible to restore the one surviving grand hotel — the Mayo — back into a hotel instead of housing?Because it is a very, very, big building, over 300 rooms, compared to the Skirvin's 200.  Hotel space is part of it, housing is another part.  I think he might be uninformed on this one.

4) Experienced hands in downtown Oklahoma City share such questions. But their counterparts in Tulsa — the ones I've visited with — seem much more interested in promoting their current course than to stop and reconsider.What else are they going to do?  Admit that they're shortsighted?  All you can hope for is that they adapt and start thinking ahead.  Along those lines, I still think you can make lemonade out of the arena site...eventually the PO/courts building can be had.  I think the lack of adjacent parking is a plus because it will get 20,000 people milling about downtown in the evenings. Add to that to the 40,000 during the day...and downtown streets could be hopping.  Contrast that with the several thousand parking spaces within a block or two of the Ford Center.  I wonder if those arena users ever even see downtown.  Personally, I think critiques are very helpful.  Here's one.  I've been to OKC quite a bit and you guys have done some good things, but your "experienced hands" aren't exactly setting the world on fire.  Don't be smug.

[sgrizzle]

Maybe I'm the only one not that impressed by bricktown. Surface level parking, a green ditch that divides more than connects, and a completely disjointed feel. Chellino's is my favorite but you walk down a back alley past a dumpster to get into it.

[cannon_fodder]

Sq, I'm not THAT impressed by Bricktown... but it is a nice area.  There is life, things to do (Arena, botanical gardens, memorial, movie theater, etc.), hotels, and plenty of bars.  Tulsa would have  much cooler area if the Brady and say - Brookside were added together.  Anyway, its a nice area, if not amazing.

As to why the Arena wasnt built in the East End or somewhere near the Brady or Blue Dome, I can think of several reasons

1) The land in the area they purchased it was cheap and the city had rights to some of it.  

2) It is near a large municipal parking lot and just down the street from their other new lot.

3) Proximity to the central plant (heating and cooling)

4) Proximity to the convention center.

5) No significant structures to remove (ie. there was nothing to be removed that anyone would make a fuss about.  Most blocks in downtown have at least one historic building that would draw protests to protect it.

6) Blighted area.  Having worked in the federal building I can attest that the area was better off when it was bulldozed.  Between the vagrants, day laborers, and criminals from the jails nearby it was a real treat.

- - - -

One thing that NEEDS to be done is to make a trolley system that goes from the bus station to entertainment areas.  The Brady, Blue Dome, Cherry Street, Brookside... to TU or ORU on game days.  One might think the bar districts or a particularly confident bar could do this on their own if they so choose.  

Or at very least, make the bus system more worthwhile.  Without routes posted at the stops its worthless.  And they do not run for bar hours anyway.  

As it stands, a traveler could walk from the convention center to the Double Tree, Western Inn, Ambassador, Adams Mark or soon the Mayo and be totally convinced there is no night life in Tulsa.  If hotel staff was asked at most of those locations for a walkable district the answer would be "not really."  I know I have extended stays in KC, Memphis, or Austin and stayed close to a bar district for an extra night. Or even planned long weekends to a city for such reasons - it doesnt have to be Vegas to have a good time.

[Renaissance]

1) Why, for example, was a site surrounded by large institutional properties like the U.S. Post Office, Tulsa Sheriff's Office and City Hall, chosen as the site for the city's new arena?  

The site is adjacent to the current convention center.  It's also cattycorner to the transit hub downtown.  The site wasn't chosen to create synergy with restaurants and bars.  The site was chosen because it was closest to certain civic facilities with which it would interact.  It's worth pointing out that although the Ford Center is very close to Bricktown, it's not smack dab in the middle of it.  There's a legitimate argument that if the BOK Center had been plopped down in the middle of the East End or Brady, we wouldn't be seeing the fledgling residential and small business development in those areas that is coming about.  Placing the BOK Center among other large institutional properties can be seen as a show of respect for the urban contexts of various corners of downtown.

2) Why not instead build an arena between two fledgling entertainment areas, the Brady and Blue Dome districts?

See above.  In addition, the site made sense as being closer to both existing hotels and prospective sites.  

3) And why, in a city world-renown for its Art Deco architecture, would one not do everything possible to restore the one surviving grand hotel — the Mayo — back into a hotel instead of housing?

Pay attention.  It's becoming both.  Are you against downtown residential?  It's not as though we're losing the archtitecture by allowing people to live in it full time.

4) Experienced hands in downtown Oklahoma City share such questions. But their counterparts in Tulsa — the ones I've visited with — seem much more interested in promoting their current course than to stop and reconsider.  

Are we sure about this?  Discussion has to start somewhere, and there is no such thing as a plan to please everyone.  Tulsa has shown it can deviate from the original plan (whether this is good or bad is up for debate).  The Convention Center is a good example--the plan is adapting to the needs of prospective events by retaining the current arena and building the ballroom closer to the new one.  Another example is the City Hall move--hotly contested, somewhat risky, but a bold step that may end up giving downtown higher office occupancy, a new hotel adjacent to the Convention Center and the BOK Center, and a minor league ballpark in the very area Lackmeyer so snarkily suggests (if we're lucky).  

It's also worth admitting that politics in Tulsa are much different, incorporating an Eastern establishment brand of infighting and bloc-building rather than the Western settler tradition of consensus building (See Danney Goble's writings on Oklahoma politics.)  Further, we've got a hodgepodge of political entities including the city, county, and suburbs, who work as adversaries rather than allies.  It doesn't help to have a local Republican party full of strange reactionaries caring, civic-minded individuals who cannibalize their own demand accountability, attack whomever the Democrats produce engage in spirited debate, and ultimately alienate like-minded but more pragmatic types energize their base.  All this is simply the lay of the political landscape in our fair city.  But we'll get it done in our own way, eventually.  

[Chicken Little]

Nice post, Floyd.  And you and cannon fodder have prompted me to reverse myself on my earlier statement.  Yes, the plan (such as it was) was to situate the arena near the Convention Center.  If I recall correctly, it was the only real consideration...maybe there was a mention of the existing hotels, but I don't remember talk about nearby sites until much later, when Taylor showed up actually.  What's that, four years?  As far as I know, there still isn't a clear plan to get the District Court Building.  I wonder if anybody has even asked our congressweiners for help on that.

To your list of political infighters, add the Chamber.

[MichaelBates]

My guess is that the site between Brady and Blue Dome to which Lackmeyer refers is the mostly vacant land east of Elgin between Archer and I-244. Tulsa Development Authority owns the land and has owned it since before the Vision 2025 vote. It's about 350,000 sq. ft. There's one non-descript 4,000 sq. ft. building on it.

I don't think the city owned any of the land for the selected arena site, they had to deal with a large number of owners, and two buildings of some historic significance were lost -- the Children's Day Nursery and the Denver Grill. The Day Nursery and the Firestone store served a useful purpose for downtown office workers, and neither have relocated in downtown.

As for reason number 6, demolishing sound buildings doesn't cure a people problem. The area wasn't blighted in the sense of abandoned buildings. The old Safeway store (between the day nursery and the Citgo station) is the only vacant building I can recall. True, there was a day labor site, but there was also an office furniture store, a Red Wing shoe store, a union hall, a gas station, and a few other businesses. Nothing glamorous, but all contributing in some way to the downtown economy.

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

1) The land in the area they purchased it was cheap and the city had rights to some of it.  

2) It is near a large municipal parking lot and just down the street from their other new lot.

3) Proximity to the central plant (heating and cooling)

4) Proximity to the convention center.

5) No significant structures to remove (ie. there was nothing to be removed that anyone would make a fuss about.  Most blocks in downtown have at least one historic building that would draw protests to protect it.

6) Blighted area.  Having worked in the federal building I can attest that the area was better off when it was bulldozed.  Between the vagrants, day laborers, and criminals from the jails nearby it was a real treat.

[cannon_fodder]

Bates, certainly the area was not beyond hope.  But ever time I had to walk through that area to the Sheriffs or David L. Moss I did so at a brisk pace and without fail had to rebuff bums.   Some of the businesses contributed and perhaps some building that I missed was of value.  But from my experiences in the area I was happy to see it go.  Sorry.  Remove #6 if you so desire, I think the case still stands pretty tall.

As a side note, nice article about Wal-Mart in the UTW.  Seemed really balanced and well thought out.  Hope someone with power takes your ideas to heart on that one.

[MichaelBates]

Did Floyd change his last paragraph himself, or is this the work of the same hacker who changed the title of aoxamaxoa's Larry Craig thread?

[MichaelC]

Oy.  Please Floyd, please tell me you made those changes yourself.

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Bates, certainly the area was not beyond hope.  But ever time I had to walk through that area to the Sheriffs or David L. Moss I did so at a brisk pace and without fail had to rebuff bums.   Some of the businesses contributed and perhaps some building that I missed was of value.  But from my experiences in the area I was happy to see it go.  Sorry.  Remove #6 if you so desire, I think the case still stands pretty tall.

As a side note, nice article about Wal-Mart in the UTW.  Seemed really balanced and well thought out.  Hope someone with power takes your ideas to heart on that one.

Thanks for the kind words.

I suspect the Y, the library, and the liquor store (if it was still around) at one end of Denver and the shelters, bail bond shops, and jail at the other end had a lot to do with the kind of people you encountered along your route.

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

Did Floyd change his last paragraph himself, or is this the work of the same hacker who changed the title of aoxamaxoa's Larry Craig thread?

The strike-through effect was my attempt at humor.  No hacker here.

Naturally, take my jabs at the local elephants with several grains of salt.  My sympathies skew right on issues of national policy, but I have different priorities than some of my fellow Republicans when it comes to local governance.  Mostly, I found the ouster of LaFortune distasteful.  Of course, that's off topic . . . my point was that OKC doesn't have the same political issues we do in Tulsa.

And, no hackers that I'm aware of.

EDIT: This blog entry in Business Week explains the effect I was going for: http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/blogspotting/archives/2005/08/blog_correction.html

[TheArtist]

One other reason for the arena being where it is is precisely because there are other large structures and buildings that you would not want to walk past near it.  I would rather see as many pedestrian friendly buildings; shops, restaurants, businesses, etc. between our walkable entertainment districts than a hulking pedestrian barrier and its supporting parking garages.  There are already other buildings and structures you wouldnt want to walk past in the corner of downtown where the arena was placed so why not place it with the rest of them yet closest to the other potential walkable areas of downtown. If the towerview sites and other areas to the East of the area are done properly, the arena site will be very fortunate since it wont split up or act as a pedestrian unfriendly, blank space. Its just off in the corner with its main entrance facing toward the more pedestrian friendly part of downtown and its back towards the prison, parking garages and all that stuff.

And yes the Mayo will have hotel rooms in it and possibly almost as many as the Skirvin. BTW the old Mayo indeed had over 300 rooms, it had 600. I rather like the idea of it being mixed use. Several businesses on the first floor, hotel, downtown living, hopefully a rooftop restaurant. Sounds nicer than just a hotel.  And one other thing. What on earth does the Mayo have to do with Art-Deco? Its not art-deco at all.

[ttown_jeff]

Part of being downtown is the homeless people.  Most of them are harmless, and that is just urban. If you don't know how or can't deal with them, stay out at 71st & Memorial.  Just say no and keep walking - trust me nothing will happen.

I work downtown, and until the Firestone was demolished, that was my mechanic.  Firestone was well used down here (I ride the bus now, so I don't need no stinkin mechanic).

As a lifelong downtowner, I understand the the reasons why the location was selected but also questioned that.  Why weren't they making the decision to go over by OSU Tulsa, as MB suggested?  That was the sensible place.  Everything is dense in downtown.  Shuttles and other forms of transportation could have cured the problem of the civic center.   I can't imagine that they need each other to exist anyway.

You guys have to start thinking "BIG CITY" and stop thinking "BROKEN ARROW." Nothing big in this city will ever get accomplished if you don't stop it.

I'm gonna throw up.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by ttown_jeff

Part of being downtown is the homeless people.  Most of them are harmless, and that is just urban. If you don't know how or can't deal with them, stay out at 71st & Memorial.  Just say no and keep walking - trust me nothing will happen.

I work downtown, and until the Firestone was demolished, that was my mechanic.  Firestone was well used down here (I ride the bus now, so I don't need no stinkin mechanic).

As a lifelong downtowner, I understand the the reasons why the location was selected but also questioned that.  Why weren't they making the decision to go over by OSU Tulsa, as MB suggested?  That was the sensible place.  Everything is dense in downtown.  Shuttles and other forms of transportation could have cured the problem of the civic center.   I can't imagine that they need each other to exist anyway.

You guys have to start thinking "BIG CITY" and stop thinking "BROKEN ARROW." Nothing big in this city will ever get accomplished if you don't stop it.

I'm gonna throw up.

What would have made it more "big city" to have had the arena by OSU than by the convention center?