When will this ever happen?

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc


Our zoning code requires so much parking (per sq. foot of commercial space)...

The Zoning Code has no parking requirement in the Central Business District.

I am curious where you see this.  As you know, the parking requirements are defined by use, and I see no exemption of those use requirements in the CBD.  I may be missing something, but as far as I can tell, CBD still requires the same parking # as any other zoning category.

According to Tulsa's Zoning Code, the Central Business District allows for intense use of land without regard to off-street parking requirements.  See Section 700.E.1 and Section 1200.D.

quote:

quote:continuation of post by PonderInc

...and [our zoning code] does not in any way offer incentives or encouragement for alternatives [to the parking requirements associated with commercial space].

False.

One alternative is the elimination of required off-street parking in the Central Business District.

Other alternatives are offered for the reduction of the number of required parking spaces associated with qualifying commercial mixed use developments as described in Section 1305.

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

True with respect to section 1305, but that is limited to pretty large establishments (400,000 sq. feet--about half the size of the Promenade).  Great for Woodland Hills, not much help for small business in areas like Cherry Street.

Section 1305 also includes a smaller threshold (of 100,000 square feet) for a commercial mixed use development if approved by the Board of Adjustment as a Special Exception or by the City Council in a Planned Unit Development.  That's what I meant by "qualifying commercial mixed use developments as described in Section 1305"...

As far as I know, the Tulsa Zoning Code does offer some incentives and encouragement for alternatives to the number of off-street parking spaces required for development:

1.  Build within the CBD.
2.  Build a commercial mixed use development which qualifies for a reduction of required parking spaces as described in Section 1305.

If someone can prove that the Zoning Code has been amended to the contrary to what I've said, then I will retract or revise my post.  I'm not an expert on Tulsa's Zoning Code.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

By the way, the Williams Green downtown sits on top of a surface parking lot...

The Williams Center Green is above a subsurface parking structure.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

Tulsa's Planning department has qualified, educated, forward-thinking individuals who DO understand the benefits of limiting surface parking (while encouraging alternative transit, walkability, etc).  

However, our city is not built by the Planning Department.  It's built by developers/builders who simply follow the zoning code (more or less).

Our zoning code requires so much parking (per sq. foot of commercial space)...and does not in any way offer incentives or encouragement for alternatives. (There are also no city ordinances that prohibit tearing down historic buildings to make more of it!)  Simple market forces--cheap land and cheap materials and no incentives to change--make surface parking lots the standard in Tulsa.

Builders don't ask the Planning Department how to build their structures.  (If they did, things would be a lot nicer....).  They just try to get the most profits for the least amount of money.

If you hate giant surface parking lots, then the zoning code must change.  A great start would be getting involved in the Comprehensive Plan Update, and voicing your concerns/opinions.  What the Planning Department can help us do is come up with a better vision for our city.  What do we WANT it to be?  You can have a voice in this.  If we do it right, the zoning code will then be adapted to fit the goals/vision of the Comp. Plan.

But remember, a lot of people suffer under the myth that we need lots and lots of parking.  They think that downtown (50% of the area inside the IDL is already surface parking) suffers from a lack!  They also believe that every new building must have a whole bunch of on-site, surface parking to accomodate customers.  (Not realizing that designing for pedestrians/transit users reduces the need for cars...).  (Also not realizing that by the time you walk from your car--way out in the giant surface parking lot--to the hardware department at Super Walmart, you've walked the same distance as a couple blocks downtown!)

By the way, the Williams Green downtown sits on top of a surface parking lot, along with several other downtown plazas.

You're right, builders don't ask the planning department what they will build, they tell them. The problem is that previous public planning projects like the mid town redux study done by OU Tulsa urban design students (some of whom have gone on to jobs as city of Tulsa planners)  would not even allow underground parking to be considered or even discussed as part of the study due to pressure from the the builders, bankers, and developers. Very short-sighted and completely spineless, IMO.

Yet, I should not question the current comp plan update when I perceive similarly short-sighted, spineless maneuvering occuring. I know, everything is fine in the land of Oz, just follow the yellow brick road. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Now click those heels together, cause there's no place like home.

P.S. I was involved in the mid-town redux study and beat my head against the wall till it was bloody trying to get underground parking as part of that plan.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

...The problem is that previous public planning projects like the mid town redux study done by OU Tulsa urban design students (some of whom have gone on to jobs as city of Tulsa planners)  would not even allow underground parking to be considered or even discussed as part of the study due to pressure from the the builders, bankers, and developers. Very short-sighted and completely spineless, IMO...

...P.S. I was involved in the mid-town redux study and beat my head against the wall till it was bloody trying to get underground parking as part of that plan.

I participated in a couple of the OU Midtown Redux study Saturday sessions, and I don't remember underground parking being banned from discussion, but I do remember one important change in the rules which was made sometime between the first session and the second session I attended.  Parking structures 60 feet wide were not allowed, although I clearly demonstrated that a bi-level garage of that width could work.  

60 foot wide bi-level garages (whether the lower level was partially underground or at surface level) would be very appropriate for the relatively small and shallow parcels behind commercial streets in Midtown without encroaching much into the abutting residential areas.  I did try to demonstrate how such a garage could function, but one of the OU students nixed the idea and removed the 60 foot wide bi-level garages from my team's site model.  Then at the end of the site model planning session, one of the officials attending (I think it was Tom Baker) commented on how all the various schemes he'd seen generated in the Saturday workshops seem to be so similar and lacking innovation!

Another advantage of bi-level garages is that they are generally not as expensive to construct as above ground garages more than two levels high.  And bi-level garages are generally far less expensive to construct and operate than are underground garages.

I didn't beat my head against the wall until bloody, but I think I did complain to the director of the OU Urban Design Studio and to some of the students that banning 60 foot wide bi-level garages from consideration was unreasonable.  I think their rule was based on garages being a minimum of 120 feet wide so vehicles could move from level to level on a continuous parking ramp, and that planning groups in some Saturday sessions had tried to create multi-level parking garages only 60 feet wide without accounting for any ramps.  But I thought that excluding 60 foot wide bi-level garages from consideration was ludicrous, illogical, and short-sighted.  

P.S.  As you may remember, this is when I became so irritated about shills on this forum.  I thought it was ridiculous to create multiple user names (which was against the TN Forum rules) in order to post something about the OU Midtown Redux study or any other topic.  It looked so silly, and it severely damaged the credibility of this forum IMO.

[cannon_fodder]

+infinity on the parking requirements being stupid.  

Look at the short corridor on Harvard between the BA and South to 33rd St.:

Behind Dollar General is a giant unused lot.  Staples bought a lot behind them and demolished a house for parking that I have NEVER seen a car on.  The Harvard Center and Ranch Acres both have excess parking that is never used.

I'm not talking the hyperbole "never used" cliche, I mean I have honestly never seen a (singular, one) car in the parking behind Staples or Dollar General.  Argh!
- - -

We did a study at my undergrad for new central parking.  There are guidelines for how much each form of parking costs per space (outside of land cost), these are the starting figures (they go up if you want it thicker, taller and better.  Each level above 3 on structure parking costs about $500 more per space):

Surface:  $1,500 per space
Ramp: $7,500 per space
Underground: $14,000 per space

Generally, land costs must be more than $100 per square foot to substantiate underground parking (or about $4.5 MILLION an acre) according to commercial real estate "experts." Since I was looking at it for a University, this figure was influential but profit was not mandated.  Still, we decided underground parking - while more attractive on several grounds, was just too expensive.  If that is the case for a University, I imagine it kills most commercial applications.

Some sources that seem to backup what I remembered:
http://books.google.com/books?id=fs68ZmTwtSMC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=%22underground+parking%22+%26+%22cost+per+space%22&source=web&ots=ypjfPkjcZS&sig=WLe0p6qcL2S8ItvYN5lhTCNRJGQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA21,M1
http://www.ciremagazine.com/article.php?article_id=432

or google "cost per space" and several other articles come up, all within my ranges (I was using 2000 numbers, which is when the study I remember was done).  Sorry for the ramble, mostly from memory but I wanted to have SOME sources for you to look at.