We really havent been talking about much lately

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by spoonbill

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by TeeDub


Why do "we" have to fund corporate investments?   If it isn't a good enough idea to stand up on its own, why should the taxpayer foot the bill?

I realize in today's day and time everyone feels that having a hand out is okay, but really....   Why do I have to pay for you?

And that's the problem.

If you want everywhere to resemble 71stSt, then great, that's what developers build when left to themselves. And there is cost involved there, lots of it. But it's hidden, it's in the ever widening of streets and highways, the cost of congestion, the cost of pollution that is related to congestion and seas of asphalt. We pay, but we don't pay upfront.

If you want the kind of lasting urban development that makes a city a city and want it done in places where the infrastructure is already in place then we have to help differently. The cost of infill is probably lower in the long run, but the cost is upfront in helping to develop the project rather then on the back end in ever increasing infrastructure needs.

The other bad part about the development along 71st is that it is transitory. We paid to 6 lane 71st and to widen US 169 and everything around it and in 15 years it's going to be a trashy area. There already are empty buildings. There will be more and more of that as the big box format moves onto something else. Places like Utica Square will remain, and will continue to be a place that business adapt to instead of being places they abandon. The River District in Jenks is getting $300 million in public funds and seems to be the kind of development that will last. Nothing on Memorial or 71st or at Tulsa Hills or at Smith Farm will.

Build something of quality and it will remain, the infrastructure that you have paid for will remain useful. Build crap and before long you are building all new infrastructure for all new crap.  

Downtown has the greatest concentration of infrastructure in the city. We need to make use of that instead of always moving further and further out. It's not only cheaper to do, it's also one of those places that make Tulsa unique. 71st is bland crap USA, it looks just the same here as it does in Denver, and Des Moines and 60 other cities, why on earth is that what we should want?

I agree with most of what you said except for the part about infill development being less.  Infill is usually exceptionally more expensive than new development.  It is also wrought with opportunity for failure.  No matter what your infill project you are subject to a fight from the city and from the existing neighborhoods, or commercial developments.

People don't realize it, but most infill projects fail before anyone ever knows they existed.  Modern environmental and engineering requirements make it next to impossible to do infill development on a parcel that was only subject to old requirements.  

I've seen many that succeeded, but at an incredible expense to the developer and ultimately the consumer (underground retention tanks, dedicated streets, improvements, utility tunnels etc.).

It is far less expensive to build a high-end permanent structure on new land than it is to build a cheep EFIS coated metal econo-box on infill land.

I understand that and don't disagree at all. And that is why infill often needs a public component.

What that infill project doesn't need is a widened street to it, and a widened highway to that street and expanded police and fire coverage or an expanded electrical grid. My guess would infill is less expensive overall, but it requires a much larger upfront cost instead the hidden and somewhat deferred cost of new development.

[spoonbill]

quote:Originally posted by swake

I understand that and don't disagree at all. And that is why infill often needs a public component.

What that infill project doesn't need is a widened street to it, and a widened highway to that street and expanded police and fire coverage or an expanded electrical grid. My guess would infill is less expensive overall, but it requires a much larger upfront cost instead the hidden and somewhat deferred cost of new development.

Actually, there is no part of infill development that is less expensive.  The land survey is the only thing I can think of that will cost less.  

Land will cost more.

The zoning services (if necessary) will cost more.

The engineering will cost significantly more.

Phase 1 and/or 2 enviro study will be needed.

Soils report will cost more.

Any grading and demo will cost more.

Retention/Detention requirements will eat up a more significant portion of the development than anticipated (always).

Architecture & structural will need to tie into existing utilities costing more and limit design.

Depending on the type of business and existing utilities on site, there will be an expense for upgrades.

Then there is the public notice and legal fees to fight for the project.

Infills are always delayed by something.  If one angry neighbor who can't be paid off or a business owner that thinks you may provide space to his competition pops up, you will end up spending weeks, months, or years trying to fight.  Meanwhile your buddy the banker is ever-so-gently massaging your buttocks through your wallet pocket.

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by spoonbill

quote:Originally posted by swake

I understand that and don't disagree at all. And that is why infill often needs a public component.

What that infill project doesn't need is a widened street to it, and a widened highway to that street and expanded police and fire coverage or an expanded electrical grid. My guess would infill is less expensive overall, but it requires a much larger upfront cost instead the hidden and somewhat deferred cost of new development.

Actually, there is no part of infill development that is less expensive.  The land survey is the only thing I can think of that will cost less.  

Land will cost more.

The zoning services (if necessary) will cost more.

The engineering will cost significantly more.

Phase 1 and/or 2 enviro study will be needed.

Soils report will cost more.

Any grading and demo will cost more.

Retention/Detention requirements will eat up a more significant portion of the development than anticipated (always).

Architecture & structural will need to tie into existing utilities costing more and limit design.

Depending on the type of business and existing utilities on site, there will be an expense for upgrades.

Then there is the public notice and legal fees to fight for the project.

Infills are always delayed by something.  If one angry neighbor who can't be paid off or a business owner that thinks you may provide space to his competition pops up, you will end up spending weeks, months, or years trying to fight.  Meanwhile your buddy the banker is ever-so-gently massaging your buttocks through your wallet pocket.

Yes.  And yet it is vital to the health of the city.  So, what to do about this conundrum?

Option 1: Let the market decide what the city will look like.  Allow disposable development, and let historical commercial areas lie fallow.

Option 2: Provide subsidies to developers who invest in infill in an attempt to offset the increased costs.  

I think Option 2 makes a lot of sense, given the deferred costs of Option 1 outlined by Swake.  Of course, it's imperative that any developer subsidies be accompanied by smart zoning and good policies designed to streamline infill.  But the inherent inefficiency of city government does not cause me to accept the flight of development dollars to distant pastures as healthy for Tulsa.

[spoonbill]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

Yes.  And yet it is vital to the health of the city.  So, what to do about this conundrum?

Option 1: Let the market decide what the city will look like.  Allow disposable development, and let historical commercial areas lie fallow.

Option 2: Provide subsidies to developers who invest in infill in an attempt to offset the increased costs.  

I think Option 2 makes a lot of sense, given the deferred costs of Option 1 outlined by Swake.  Of course, it's imperative that any developer subsidies be accompanied by smart zoning and good policies designed to streamline infill.  But the inherent inefficiency of city government does not cause me to accept the flight of development dollars to distant pastures as healthy for Tulsa.

I hope that can happen some day!  
It happens in other cities.

[TheArtist]

If the inner city dies, you end up paying more than if you paid some up front to get it to thrive again.

You hope the nice areas build up and grow outwards. But you run into nimbys in those nicer areas. Then the developer wanting to make a buck is left looking at "bad" areas in town and the growing areas in the suburbs. Which would you choose?

If you can "prime" an area like the Pearl District where there arent a lot of nimbys, create a pleasing pallet with a plan, put in some form based codes, etc. This can give developers some bit of assurance that their investment will pay out.

People often point to the main mall as an example of failed intervention. Downtown was on its way out and would have died anyway for looots of reasons. The new arena a cure all? I dont remember hearing that it would be nor have I ever been under the illusion that it would be. A step in the right direction? Yes.  A baseball stadium is another step, especially if it has even a small amount of retail and or living along with it.

Your going to pay a price if downtown loses. It did a lot for us over the years. Its in a bad spot. If it gets going again, it will begin to pay out again.

As for the 71st corridor. I actually am of the belief that it will evolve over time. It will infill and become more varied and stable. Height restrictions lifted for the mall area.  I would like to see some midrise and highrise living there. It in a way is the "downtown" of our age. To let it falter would be just as tragic as allowing downtown to. "Enable" the area and yes let the free market do its thing. One can imagine downtown and the 71st area evolving towards similar destinations. Both becoming, bustling urban villages.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by spoonbill

Infills are always delayed by something.  If one angry neighbor who can't be paid off or a business owner that thinks you may provide space to his competition pops up, you will end up spending weeks, months, or years trying to fight.

Don't forget the "planners" and staff at INCOG who are pushing you in the opposite direction of where you want to go, such as by lobbying the TMAPC to recommend to the City Council that the infill development potential of your real estate be down-zoned by a factor of...oh, let's say eleven just for kicks.  Of course that's assuming that they are not too preoccupied with their conversation about white chocolate hot chocolate.

[spoonbill]

OK LETS SETTLE THIS RIGHT NOW!!!!  THIS INCOG DEBATE MUST BE PUT TO REST!!!!!!

White chocolate hot chocolate, is not superior to regular hot chocolate.  By it's nature, it contains no actual chocolate, only coco butter, palm kernel oil and sugar. Without chocolate it can hardly be called "White Chocolate."

Chocolate contains a natural 'love drug'. Tryptophan is a chemical that the brain uses to make a neurotransmitter called serotonin. High levels of serotonin can produce feelings of elation, even ecstasy - hence the name of the designer drug that also works by increasing serotonin levels.

While tryptophan could be considered 'chocolate's ecstasy', another chemical called phenylethylamine has earned the nickname 'chocolate amphetamine.' High levels of this neurotransmitter help promote feelings of attraction, excitement, giddiness and apprehension. Phenylethylamine works by stimulating the brain's pleasure centres and reaches peak levels during orgasm.

So. Regular hot chocolate is far superior and can aid in the approval of PUDS, Plats and other permit documents at INCOG.

[cannon_fodder]

can we go to Kokoa and settle this?

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

I have a feeling there's going to be one more big conversation very soon.  It's going to involve a plan for a baseball stadium downtown as well as adjuacent development.  It's probably going to involve subsidies from the city, which will inflame those who are always against that sort of thing.  The result of that will drive our discussion for a long time--if Tulsa leaders are finally successful in getting commercial development downtown, we're going to have a good time debating the direction of development down there.

If not, we're just going to sit quietly, chat a little bit, and watch the suburbs prosper.

That's interesting.  Do you feel like we're approaching a "last chance" sorta moment?  And if so, before what happens?

Well, it will certainly be downtown's last chance to secure a ballpark and surrounding development.

I disagree.  There have been at least two ballparks in what is now downtown Tulsa.  Even if the Drillers move to Jenks or to the west bank area, that's not to say there will be no chance of a downtown ballpark at sometime in Tulsa's future.  Downtown Tulsa has gone through several cycles of tearing down, building up, then tearing down again, and so on.  If not now, then it still could happen in the future.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by spoonbill

OK LETS SETTLE THIS RIGHT NOW!!!!  THIS INCOG DEBATE MUST BE PUT TO REST!!!!!!

White chocolate hot chocolate, is not superior to regular hot chocolate.  By it's nature, it contains no actual chocolate, only coco butter, palm kernel oil and sugar. Without chocolate it can hardly be called "White Chocolate."

Chocolate contains a natural 'love drug'...

...Regular hot chocolate is far superior and can aid in the approval of PUDS, Plats and other permit documents at INCOG.

You've nearly convinced me.  I want to start feeling the love at INCOG right now!  But the white chocolate hot chocolate discussion at INCOG might very well be a red herring set up to divert our attention from a much larger issue.  Now I'm starting to doubt and second-guess myself...

If we try to pre-empt further discussion about white chocolate hot chocolate, are we squelching free thought?  What's the harm in white chocolate hot chocolate, anyway?  Are we trying to fabricate a straw man merely to knock it down?

Could Michael Bates somehow be involved in this issue on some level?  Has he written anything about white chocolate hot chocolate on his blog?  

If commuter rail service is established between BA and Tulsa, should discussion of white chocolate hot chocolate be allowed on the passenger cars or at the train stations?  It seems to me that it would be a shame to not allow the ongoing debate over the merits of white chocolate hot chocolate on the trains.  And wouldn't it be wonderful if tumbling porters could serve white chocolate hot chocolate (a la the hot cocoa scene from The Polar Express) to weary commuters while they sat on the slow train as it crept along its pre-determined path from Broken Arrow to Tulsa at average speed of 27 miles an hour?

To end the white chocolate hot chocolate debate now would be devastating for the future of Tulsa -- a mistake of colossal proportions.  Not only should the debate continue, I suggest that we establish a blue (or white or brown) ribbon task force to study the issue in depth.  The future of all of Tulsa is at stake here...why can't everyone wake up and see that?

[spoonbill]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

quote:Originally posted by spoonbill

OK LETS SETTLE THIS RIGHT NOW!!!!  THIS INCOG DEBATE MUST BE PUT TO REST!!!!!!

White chocolate hot chocolate, is not superior to regular hot chocolate.  By it's nature, it contains no actual chocolate, only coco butter, palm kernel oil and sugar. Without chocolate it can hardly be called "White Chocolate."

Chocolate contains a natural 'love drug'...

...Regular hot chocolate is far superior and can aid in the approval of PUDS, Plats and other permit documents at INCOG.

You've nearly convinced me.  I want to start feeling the love at INCOG right now!  But the white chocolate hot chocolate discussion at INCOG might very well be a red herring set up to divert our attention from a much larger issue.  Now I'm starting to doubt and second-guess myself...

If we try to pre-empt further discussion about white chocolate hot chocolate, are we squelching free thought?  What's the harm in white chocolate hot chocolate, anyway?  Are we trying to fabricate a straw man merely to knock it down?

Could Michael Bates somehow be involved in this issue on some level?  Has he written anything about white chocolate hot chocolate on his blog?  

If commuter rail service is established between BA and Tulsa, should discussion of white chocolate hot chocolate be allowed on the passenger cars or at the train stations?  It seems to me that it would be a shame to not allow the ongoing debate over the merits of white chocolate hot chocolate on the trains.  And wouldn't it be wonderful if tumbling porters could serve white chocolate hot chocolate (a la the hot cocoa scene from The Polar Express) to weary commuters while they sat on the slow train as it crept along its pre-determined path from Broken Arrow to Tulsa at average speed of 27 miles an hour?

To end the white chocolate hot chocolate debate now would be devastating for the future of Tulsa -- a mistake of colossal proportions.  Not only should the debate continue, I suggest that we establish a blue (or white or brown) ribbon task force to study the issue in depth.  The future of all of Tulsa is at stake here...why can't everyone wake up and see that?

CAUTION GRASSHOPPER  This conspiracy is larger than both of us.  Regular chocolate has been proven to lower blood pressure and reduce cholesterol.

White chocolate has none of these properties and due to the fact that it is comprised mostly of coco butter and tropical oils (like palm) it in fact has a very detrimental effect on the health of the beverage consumer.

By supplying this toxic libation on the new BA/Tulsa Express Monorail, we increase the risks of heart attack and stroke, slowing the anticipated 27 mile an hour pace to make concession for frequent rendezvous with EMSA for victims of the Tulsa Rail White Chocolate conspiracy.

I will stop now, I think they are watching me.[:O]

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

I have a feeling there's going to be one more big conversation very soon.  It's going to involve a plan for a baseball stadium downtown as well as adjuacent development.  It's probably going to involve subsidies from the city, which will inflame those who are always against that sort of thing.  The result of that will drive our discussion for a long time--if Tulsa leaders are finally successful in getting commercial development downtown, we're going to have a good time debating the direction of development down there.

If not, we're just going to sit quietly, chat a little bit, and watch the suburbs prosper.

That's interesting.  Do you feel like we're approaching a "last chance" sorta moment?  And if so, before what happens?

Well, it will certainly be downtown's last chance to secure a ballpark and surrounding development.

I disagree.  There have been at least two ballparks in what is now downtown Tulsa.  Even if the Drillers move to Jenks or to the west bank area, that's not to say there will be no chance of a downtown ballpark at sometime in Tulsa's future.  Downtown Tulsa has gone through several cycles of tearing down, building up, then tearing down again, and so on.  If not now, then it still could happen in the future.

Good point--if Jenks takes the Drillers, we'll only have to wait a generation or more to get baseball back in Tulsa where it belongs.  Not to mention, the suburbs will think they can walk all over us and take not only our baseball team, but ALSO our white chocolate hot chocolate as well.  That ALONE should give you reason enough to support a downtown stadium!

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

...if Jenks takes the Drillers, we'll only have to wait a generation or more to get baseball back in Tulsa where it belongs...

My, my -- such negative, glass-half-empty thinking!

If we get that passenger rail system up and running, then Tulsa AND Jenks might be able to support baseball teams in the future.  Perhaps a minor league and a major!  Just think of the possibilities.

[FOTD]

Post winter storm syndrome....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-romm/antarctic-ice-loss-jumps-_b_81472.html

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

...if Jenks takes the Drillers, we'll only have to wait a generation or more to get baseball back in Tulsa where it belongs...

My, my -- such negative, glass-half-empty thinking!

If we get that passenger rail system up and running, then Tulsa AND Jenks might be able to support baseball teams in the future.  Perhaps a minor league and a major!  Just think of the possibilities.

Snark noted.

Honestly, and to the point of this thread--I see a turning point.  We are potentially five years from a city where people ride a train in from the suburbs to see a baseball game downtown.  We are also potentially five years from a city where people drive from the center of town to the wealthy suburbs to eat T.G.I. Fridays because that's where the restaurants are.