To clear the record up: William does not live South of I-44, has no trust fund, and is only rarely a diva. ;)
The amount of hatred over a proposed zoning change is amazing. If you have paid any attention at all over the last 8 years or so you would have at least caught wind of this plan. To say otherwise is to say you just weren't paying attention.
I understand the landowners concerns. If I owned a business in the Pearl I'd want to make sure my business was not negatively effected. They, by and large, want more information and apparently don't know where to get it. Clarify the code, make sure existing businesses can do the things they need to in order to continue functioning, and work this out. There is a happy middle ground between McDonalds/Sonic/QT argument that in Tulsa they never, ever have to change their designs or they will take their ball and go home... and simply forcing them to build what you want. There are hundreds of cities around the country with sensible building codes that give areas a certain feel.
Of course, Tulsa's "feel" is "whatever." Development is all equal and what business owners want has to be what is best. Ignoring that fact that the most beloved parts of town (Cherry Street, Brookside, etc.) simply wouldn't exist under current rules. Also ignoring that the RESIDENTS of the Pearl want this change. When a person visits a city they don't go and check out the subdivisions or the suburbs, you go to vibrant places.
And to anyone who belittles the value of urban living and wants to pretend it is a pipe dream for baby boomers reliving their youth... please try leaving Tulsa every now and then. In Minneapolis, Kansas City, St. Paul, Chicago, St. Louis, Portland, Denver, Des Moines and all over the place the walkable urban areas are largely inhabited by the young professionals earning good wages who leave places like Tulsa to find that vibrant lifestyle.
Next you will say "but Tulsa isn't a hip urban place so it can't happen," we cannot cater to people that want to live like that, we cannot support those property values, we cannot compete with "real" cities. Instead of stating that as a sad conclusion, let's try to change that. We have made some really bad development decisions (Zoo 20 miles from the Aquarium, tore out trolley lines, more road miles per citizen than we can maintain, discouraged redevelopment), so let's start making it right.
This is a positive process. The complaints from the businesses can add to the process and make it better.
I am glad there are people like TYProle and the others who obviously care about about Tulsa or they wouldn't take the time and effort to comment so passionately on here. Thank you. Now, in response to "practice what you preach". What I preach, is that we want diversity of living styles in this city and region. I often say that we have some of the best, and most affordable, suburan neighborhoods in the world imo. And Tulsa should be proud of that. But, again, what we do not offer in this city is any "Urban Village" type living that we can be equally proud of, and that more and more people want these days. And we lose out as a city because of that. I am not so selfish as to believe that the way I live now, in a single family detatched home, is the way everyone should want to live. My own family runs the gamut from some of the sweetest, salt of the earth, old time Okies, to more wealthy "city slicker" types. I love and care about them all and wish that Tulsa were able to be a city in which ALL of them could find their ideal place to live. I think most families would also like that. How that makes me an "urbanist elite" I do not know?
Btw, I live just north of I-44 near Yale, by the Promenade Mall and OU Tulsa, and one of the reasons I chose this particular area was precisely because I can walk or bike to shopping, restaurants, bookstore, movies, trails, even the grocery store and do so quite often. If you check out "Walkscore" online you will find that this area has one of the highest walkscores of any in the city even better than Brookside and Cherry Street. Some may think that it's a shame that this area is one of the "best we have to offer" in that respect. But, I did the best I thought I could at the time. Now, over the years, I have come to realize that I would indeed like to live closer to, or even in, downtown someday. When exactly that can best happen I don't know yet.
Affordable housing... On the one hand people argue that this Form Based Code zoning won't work, then on the other some argue that it will work so well that it will push out all the affordable housing in the area. To the latter,,,, we have LOTS of affordable housing in Tulsa, a rapturous, bountiful, blessing of it. Changing this small, less than one percent, area of the city will not even come close to somehow destroying the majority of all the affordable housing in the city or in the core of the city so please do not worry about that. Check a Zillow map of nearby areas and you will see that is true. However, yes indeed in this small area, new housing will go in. And yes likely a good portion of it will not be affordable to everyone. But again, this isn't for everyone, not everyone wants that type of lifestyle just like not everyone wants whats there now, we are just trying to create a great place in our city for those people who do want this particular type of, high quality, urban lifestyle. And too there are things you can do in the core that can bring urban living costs down. For instance, with Form Based Codes there are no minimum parking requirements and thus if someone is building for example an apartment building they arent forced to add as much parking. You can cut around 20% off the cost of such a building by not having to have all the parking. This can lower the rent. Plus, if you create a good quality, pedestrian friendly area like this (right near downtown and near Cherry Street and Brookside), that will be as successful as you apparently believe it will be, then you will not have to have a car, which makes living there all that more affordable.
Plus, as I have stated before, "Transit Friendly" and "Pedestrian Friendly" are the same thing. Your transit is only as good as your pedestrian friendly areas are. As it stands our transit is quite ineffective. Imagine your a poor person who uses transit and wants to go to the doctor or to the grocery store, a drug store, shopping, to work, etc. As it stands you likely have to go only to one place at a time and then catch a bus to the next place or do that another day. Or you have to bike or walk over large distances through areas that are not comfortable to walk and bike through. Now imagine being able to go to a mixed use area where its easy to get to a hospital, shopping, grocery, all kinds of potential work from manufacturing to "cafes and baristas" or Mc Donalds, print shop, mail/shipping office, drug store, etc. etc. etc. You will be able to take care of a lot of things in one, easy to get around in area.
I met a young man a few years ago that had recently found himelf in Tulsa, through circumstances I don't exactly recall. But he was poor, lived in a duplex in north Tulsa, did not have a car, and rode his bike over 4 miles, one way, each day to work. He was from back east and I remember him saying that when he got off the bus in downtown Tulsa that first time, he felt trapped and isolated here. It was so hard to get around in Tulsa he said without a car and because of the bus routes and schedules he could not get to the job he had found that way so rode his bike. Now, no he wouldn't have been able to afford housing in the Form Based Code area, BUT, that area would have been the closest area to where he lived where he could do all of those things I mentioned above. These types of areas help make transit more effective for everyone and imo would have made his life here in Tulsa a little easier.
As to my art. The only conformation I need in respect to my talent is the fact that people pay me for it, enough so that I have bought a house, a car, can travel and have made a decent living off of it for over 20 years. Not bad for a "wanna be" "pretend" artist. Would all that Tuscan/French stuff I paint on the walls and ceilings in those Mc Mansions be my first choice to paint these days? No, but hey it pays the bills, and I am smart enough to keep doing that as long as it does lol. Thanks Much, WilliamTheArtist.
In response to William, the swap meet, wanna be Bouguereau "artist" and self appointed deco diva:
Why don't you practice what you preach instead of living far outside of the urban core, south of I-44 in your detached single family suburban style home?
What a hypocrite.
Besides, most young professionals on staring salaries can't afford(or even qualify for a mortgage) for the overpriced luxury lofts that you new urbanist elitists want built in the pearl in place of the affordable housing that currently exists in the neighborhood, much less the baristas and bartenders who will work in the bars and coffeeshops you envision for the area, but empty nesting baby boomers looking to downsize and live in a state of denial in a vain attempt to deny their own mortality and symbolically reclaim their youth by living a hip urban lifestyle sure can. The argument that this is for the young people is just a straw man to cover for the real demographic this plan is catering to.
Real starving young, creative artists with talent won't be able to afford the rent for studios or apartments in the gentrified, economically gated community envisioned by Jamie Jamison either. One look $300,000+ price tag for living in his village at central park just proves that point, maybe the talentless trust funders or those who get bankrolled by the 'rents so they can pretend to be artists will be able to, but that's about it.
As a proponent of Form Based Codes it honestly pains me to think that these business would feel as if these codes are such a threat to them. I personally was not involved in the process that drew up the specifics of this code, but knew about it generally and tried to keep abreast of how the progress was going. But all the properties and businesses that have been there are "grandfathered in", they can stay the way they are. IF however they completely rebuild, then of course they must fit the code just like any other business must fit the present code in the rest of the city. And, if they make changes above and beyond a certain amount, that too would need to fit the new code, or the old code. AND in both of those instances they can apply for an exception/PUD just like others were doing for other parts of town the very day of this meeting. Or as the example I gave earlier with the Gengis Grill. With the current zoning and codes their pedestrian friendly design that they wanted to add to Cherry Street was illegal. They went before the board and got an exception. These businesses in the Pearl, under the new codes, can do that like everyone else has to do now if they want to do that. One of the main things the Form Based Codes call for is diversity of use, living, shops, and yes work. And nobody wants Tulsa to lose any jobs so if any business came before the board that had been there and needed an exception because of some hardship that would push them to leave, I can't possibly imagine that the TMAPC would deny them that exception. Matter of fact QT got an exception just a while back to do what they did in Brookside against the Brookside Plan.
One side note. From what I gather of the new census it appears Tulsa is losing population. It was barely holding steady for a long time and only then because of hispanic immigration. But apparently now we are losing population again. Someone the other day said something to me that shocked me at first, but then I thought about it and figured that what they said was to a large extent true. What they said was "There is no real difference between Tulsa and Owasso except that Tulsa is older and trashy and has worse schools compared to Owasso. If you want suburban living, he is pretty much right. Then I watch as friends and their businesses, family members, and others leave Tulsa for cities that have Urban Living which we do not offer and will not really be able to offer because we do not allow it in most parts of the city. Then I look at cities our size that have zoned for urban development and see how much faster they are growing,,, well it makes you wonder. Change is going to happen to Tulsa and those businesses in the Pearl District one way or another. Whether any area gets better (prices go up through gentrification) or worse (and crime goes up) nothing stays the same and these companies will have to adapt, or move (with or without FBC's). We really believe its better, not just for this area and those particular businesses, but for the city and metro region as a whole if Tulsa begins to offer high quality, competitive, urban living. Otherwise other cities that offer it will pull urban dwellers away, and our suburbs, like Owasso will pull the suburban dwellers away to their greener pastures.
Tulsa has just about filled up its boundaries to the south. It has a nice reprive to the west with the Tulsa Hills area. But after that, the suburbs will definitely out do us in the easy suburban development game. The only game that will be left for Tulsa to grow will be through infill. It will be infill or die. Do we want good, competitive urban infill, or lousy stuff that can't compete with the suburbs or other cities?
Urban okie, I'm assuming your were at the TMAPC hearing. The vast majority of the opponents of the FBC's at the hearing were the business's that have been located within the district for years. Business's that employ people and generate sales tax revenue. The fact is that the Pearl district proponents don't care about any business that's located within the District. Whether it's QT, Sonic, Mcdonalds, manufactures, or any other business that's not a cafe, art bar, or entity that fits within their ideas. Where were these business's you ask? They were at work... trying to make money. But please don't act as if the PDA was trying soooo hard to get input from the business community, because they don't want them there. The PDA president himself said the the PDA would love to talk about making the plan more business community friendly, but that's only after the new FBC passes. As for Keithline and others, they should be thanked for their personal investment in the district and for the jobs and traffic they bring to the area. Did I say traffic? Oh no it's those evil cars again!!
People from Cherry Street, Brookside and Downtown, Whittier Square to the Pearl District are pushing for good urban infill in the core that is pedestrian and transit friendly. The large numbers of citizens who participated in the new Comprehensive Plan also expressed their desire to have pedestrian friendly urban infill in the core. All over the country there has been a growing desire by more and more people to live in vibrant, lively, "urban village" type neighborhoods. You read about it in national magazines and papers, hear about it in the news and on TV, etc. We all know what they are trying to do in the Pearl and how so many are working to bring new pedestrian friendly businesses and life to the 6th street corridor.
How on earth it was that this dental office came in and rather than simply built their office up to the sidewalk with parking behind, instead built a typical suburban development, I don't know. We cherish areas like Brookside and Cherry Street and want to see those areas grow, and to see more of them. Developers like the ones who built the new Gengis Grill there went out of their way to fight to build their development in a pedestrian friendly manner. Yet some still, just don't seem to get it or care?
This dental office example is exactly why imo we need the Form Based codes in at least this tiny area of the city. We have about 200 square miles of area in this city full of suburban style development potential, where it's obvious you can build that way, AND where its wanted. We have some great suburban neighborhoods and areas that we can rightly be proud of. But what we DON'T have are any high quality urban style neighborhoods that we can be proud of and in which those people who want that lifestyle can choose to live. It used to be legal to build urban neighborhoods and areas in Tulsa, but now with minimum parking requirements forced on most areas of the city, mixed use structures (housing above shops or cafe's)illegal (except in downtown) new accessory dwelling units to add density illegal, and so on... it's almost impossible to create good urban living for those who want it in Tulsa. The core neighborhoods and old "main street" type areas are the logical place to begin re-allowing and rebuilding this type of live/work/play pedestrian/transit friendly neighborhoods. If you think its difficult here in the core, it would be far more difficult in other areas of the city. Do we as a city only want to offer suburban style areas and living? Or do we also want to quit losing, and having difficulty attracting, those who want to live an urban lifestlye?
Once a "form" whether it be car oriented or pedestrian oriented gets established, it wants to grow. ONCE its established and IF its made legal. The dental office is again a prime example of how car oriented design wants to encroach into an area that so many wish to see become more, not less, pedestrian friendly. This area once was more pedestrian friendly and was serviced by trolley. The times and "fashion" changed, zoning was changed making the old "main street" type devlopments illegal, and though people are pushing to bring that classic development model back to the core of our city, this tiny, less than 1%, area of the city, without Form Based Codes in place the over 200 square miles of car oriented form will continue to try to over run it and destroy those efforts. Do we want urban living options or not? We can't JUST have downtown within the IDL, and the citizens of Tulsa have said as much.
Look at what QT did in Brookside. The Brookside Plan has been around for a long time. It is even being folded into the new Comprehensive Plan. It too, like these form based codes, expressly wants new structures built up to the sidewalk and it wants to preserve old buildings (especially the historic Streamline Art Deco ones) and wishes to enhance the pedestrian friendly nature of the area. Lots of people and businesses worked long and hard on this plan with plenty of give and take negotiating. But QT basically said "we don't care" what they want, or what the citizens said they wanted in the comprehensive plan, and then they bulldozed older buildings and expanded their car oriented form.
Form Based Codes are thus one proven way of "establishing a beachhead" of urban neighborhood/urban village type development that can then maintain itself and even grow. FINALLY allowing Tulsa the ability to offer that lifestyle option, and not just in a mediocre way but be able to offer superb, high quality, attractive, competitive with our peer cities, urban living.
If Keithline or any other of the opponents of the Pearl District form based code had paid any attention at all to the Pearl District in which they do business, they would have read the articles over the years in Tulsa newspapers, seen the reports in Tulsa TV and radio stations, seen the permanent signs about Pearl District meetings around the neighborhoods and been a part of their neighborhood's planning. Instead, they fight their neighbors' years of work on this plan with ignorance, falsehoods and misinformation.
The Pearl District, with its form based code, is the kind of neighborhood that Tulsa needs more of...to keep our young people and young thinkers. Not everyone wants to live in suburban type neighborhoods. If you want suburbia, move south and leave us alone in the Pearl. We love it here!
Please allow 4-6 weeks for processing. No refunds are issued. Back issues are available for $10/copy.
We accept Visa, M/C, checks and money orders. Call to charge by phone 918-592-5550. Enter your contact information in the form below and we will contact you.
If ordering by mail, make checks and money orders payable to Urban Tulsa Weekly. Send your payment along with your complete postal delivery address to Urban Tulsa Weekly, Attn: Samantha, PO Box 50499, Tulsa, OK 74150
Address:
Address2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email:
Phone:
Comments:
Urban Tulsa Weekly
1924 E. 6th St.
Tulsa OK 74104
Phone: (918) 592-5550
Fax: (918) 592-5970
e-mail: Subscriptions
COMMENTS
Re: Battle of Words and Wills
7 comments total
Sort Comments: Most Recent | Oldest First
Re: Battle of Words and Wills
The amount of hatred over a proposed zoning change is amazing. If you have paid any attention at all over the last 8 years or so you would have at least caught wind of this plan. To say otherwise is to say you just weren't paying attention.
I understand the landowners concerns. If I owned a business in the Pearl I'd want to make sure my business was not negatively effected. They, by and large, want more information and apparently don't know where to get it. Clarify the code, make sure existing businesses can do the things they need to in order to continue functioning, and work this out. There is a happy middle ground between McDonalds/Sonic/QT argument that in Tulsa they never, ever have to change their designs or they will take their ball and go home... and simply forcing them to build what you want. There are hundreds of cities around the country with sensible building codes that give areas a certain feel.
Of course, Tulsa's "feel" is "whatever." Development is all equal and what business owners want has to be what is best. Ignoring that fact that the most beloved parts of town (Cherry Street, Brookside, etc.) simply wouldn't exist under current rules. Also ignoring that the RESIDENTS of the Pearl want this change. When a person visits a city they don't go and check out the subdivisions or the suburbs, you go to vibrant places.
And to anyone who belittles the value of urban living and wants to pretend it is a pipe dream for baby boomers reliving their youth... please try leaving Tulsa every now and then. In Minneapolis, Kansas City, St. Paul, Chicago, St. Louis, Portland, Denver, Des Moines and all over the place the walkable urban areas are largely inhabited by the young professionals earning good wages who leave places like Tulsa to find that vibrant lifestyle.
Next you will say "but Tulsa isn't a hip urban place so it can't happen," we cannot cater to people that want to live like that, we cannot support those property values, we cannot compete with "real" cities. Instead of stating that as a sad conclusion, let's try to change that. We have made some really bad development decisions (Zoo 20 miles from the Aquarium, tore out trolley lines, more road miles per citizen than we can maintain, discouraged redevelopment), so let's start making it right.
This is a positive process. The complaints from the businesses can add to the process and make it better.
Re: Battle of Words and Wills
Btw, I live just north of I-44 near Yale, by the Promenade Mall and OU Tulsa, and one of the reasons I chose this particular area was precisely because I can walk or bike to shopping, restaurants, bookstore, movies, trails, even the grocery store and do so quite often. If you check out "Walkscore" online you will find that this area has one of the highest walkscores of any in the city even better than Brookside and Cherry Street. Some may think that it's a shame that this area is one of the "best we have to offer" in that respect. But, I did the best I thought I could at the time. Now, over the years, I have come to realize that I would indeed like to live closer to, or even in, downtown someday. When exactly that can best happen I don't know yet.
Affordable housing... On the one hand people argue that this Form Based Code zoning won't work, then on the other some argue that it will work so well that it will push out all the affordable housing in the area. To the latter,,,, we have LOTS of affordable housing in Tulsa, a rapturous, bountiful, blessing of it. Changing this small, less than one percent, area of the city will not even come close to somehow destroying the majority of all the affordable housing in the city or in the core of the city so please do not worry about that. Check a Zillow map of nearby areas and you will see that is true. However, yes indeed in this small area, new housing will go in. And yes likely a good portion of it will not be affordable to everyone. But again, this isn't for everyone, not everyone wants that type of lifestyle just like not everyone wants whats there now, we are just trying to create a great place in our city for those people who do want this particular type of, high quality, urban lifestyle. And too there are things you can do in the core that can bring urban living costs down. For instance, with Form Based Codes there are no minimum parking requirements and thus if someone is building for example an apartment building they arent forced to add as much parking. You can cut around 20% off the cost of such a building by not having to have all the parking. This can lower the rent. Plus, if you create a good quality, pedestrian friendly area like this (right near downtown and near Cherry Street and Brookside), that will be as successful as you apparently believe it will be, then you will not have to have a car, which makes living there all that more affordable.
Plus, as I have stated before, "Transit Friendly" and "Pedestrian Friendly" are the same thing. Your transit is only as good as your pedestrian friendly areas are. As it stands our transit is quite ineffective. Imagine your a poor person who uses transit and wants to go to the doctor or to the grocery store, a drug store, shopping, to work, etc. As it stands you likely have to go only to one place at a time and then catch a bus to the next place or do that another day. Or you have to bike or walk over large distances through areas that are not comfortable to walk and bike through. Now imagine being able to go to a mixed use area where its easy to get to a hospital, shopping, grocery, all kinds of potential work from manufacturing to "cafes and baristas" or Mc Donalds, print shop, mail/shipping office, drug store, etc. etc. etc. You will be able to take care of a lot of things in one, easy to get around in area.
I met a young man a few years ago that had recently found himelf in Tulsa, through circumstances I don't exactly recall. But he was poor, lived in a duplex in north Tulsa, did not have a car, and rode his bike over 4 miles, one way, each day to work. He was from back east and I remember him saying that when he got off the bus in downtown Tulsa that first time, he felt trapped and isolated here. It was so hard to get around in Tulsa he said without a car and because of the bus routes and schedules he could not get to the job he had found that way so rode his bike. Now, no he wouldn't have been able to afford housing in the Form Based Code area, BUT, that area would have been the closest area to where he lived where he could do all of those things I mentioned above. These types of areas help make transit more effective for everyone and imo would have made his life here in Tulsa a little easier.
As to my art. The only conformation I need in respect to my talent is the fact that people pay me for it, enough so that I have bought a house, a car, can travel and have made a decent living off of it for over 20 years. Not bad for a "wanna be" "pretend" artist. Would all that Tuscan/French stuff I paint on the walls and ceilings in those Mc Mansions be my first choice to paint these days? No, but hey it pays the bills, and I am smart enough to keep doing that as long as it does lol. Thanks Much, WilliamTheArtist.
Re: Battle of Words and Wills
Why don't you practice what you preach instead of living far outside of the urban core, south of I-44 in your detached single family suburban style home?
What a hypocrite.
Besides, most young professionals on staring salaries can't afford(or even qualify for a mortgage) for the overpriced luxury lofts that you new urbanist elitists want built in the pearl in place of the affordable housing that currently exists in the neighborhood, much less the baristas and bartenders who will work in the bars and coffeeshops you envision for the area, but empty nesting baby boomers looking to downsize and live in a state of denial in a vain attempt to deny their own mortality and symbolically reclaim their youth by living a hip urban lifestyle sure can. The argument that this is for the young people is just a straw man to cover for the real demographic this plan is catering to.
Real starving young, creative artists with talent won't be able to afford the rent for studios or apartments in the gentrified, economically gated community envisioned by Jamie Jamison either. One look $300,000+ price tag for living in his village at central park just proves that point, maybe the talentless trust funders or those who get bankrolled by the 'rents so they can pretend to be artists will be able to, but that's about it.
What a fairy tale.
Re: Battle of Words and Wills
One side note. From what I gather of the new census it appears Tulsa is losing population. It was barely holding steady for a long time and only then because of hispanic immigration. But apparently now we are losing population again. Someone the other day said something to me that shocked me at first, but then I thought about it and figured that what they said was to a large extent true. What they said was "There is no real difference between Tulsa and Owasso except that Tulsa is older and trashy and has worse schools compared to Owasso. If you want suburban living, he is pretty much right. Then I watch as friends and their businesses, family members, and others leave Tulsa for cities that have Urban Living which we do not offer and will not really be able to offer because we do not allow it in most parts of the city. Then I look at cities our size that have zoned for urban development and see how much faster they are growing,,, well it makes you wonder. Change is going to happen to Tulsa and those businesses in the Pearl District one way or another. Whether any area gets better (prices go up through gentrification) or worse (and crime goes up) nothing stays the same and these companies will have to adapt, or move (with or without FBC's). We really believe its better, not just for this area and those particular businesses, but for the city and metro region as a whole if Tulsa begins to offer high quality, competitive, urban living. Otherwise other cities that offer it will pull urban dwellers away, and our suburbs, like Owasso will pull the suburban dwellers away to their greener pastures.
Tulsa has just about filled up its boundaries to the south. It has a nice reprive to the west with the Tulsa Hills area. But after that, the suburbs will definitely out do us in the easy suburban development game. The only game that will be left for Tulsa to grow will be through infill. It will be infill or die. Do we want good, competitive urban infill, or lousy stuff that can't compete with the suburbs or other cities?
Re: Battle of Words and Wills
Re: Battle of Words and Wills
How on earth it was that this dental office came in and rather than simply built their office up to the sidewalk with parking behind, instead built a typical suburban development, I don't know. We cherish areas like Brookside and Cherry Street and want to see those areas grow, and to see more of them. Developers like the ones who built the new Gengis Grill there went out of their way to fight to build their development in a pedestrian friendly manner. Yet some still, just don't seem to get it or care?
This dental office example is exactly why imo we need the Form Based codes in at least this tiny area of the city. We have about 200 square miles of area in this city full of suburban style development potential, where it's obvious you can build that way, AND where its wanted. We have some great suburban neighborhoods and areas that we can rightly be proud of. But what we DON'T have are any high quality urban style neighborhoods that we can be proud of and in which those people who want that lifestyle can choose to live. It used to be legal to build urban neighborhoods and areas in Tulsa, but now with minimum parking requirements forced on most areas of the city, mixed use structures (housing above shops or cafe's)illegal (except in downtown) new accessory dwelling units to add density illegal, and so on... it's almost impossible to create good urban living for those who want it in Tulsa. The core neighborhoods and old "main street" type areas are the logical place to begin re-allowing and rebuilding this type of live/work/play pedestrian/transit friendly neighborhoods. If you think its difficult here in the core, it would be far more difficult in other areas of the city. Do we as a city only want to offer suburban style areas and living? Or do we also want to quit losing, and having difficulty attracting, those who want to live an urban lifestlye?
Once a "form" whether it be car oriented or pedestrian oriented gets established, it wants to grow. ONCE its established and IF its made legal. The dental office is again a prime example of how car oriented design wants to encroach into an area that so many wish to see become more, not less, pedestrian friendly. This area once was more pedestrian friendly and was serviced by trolley. The times and "fashion" changed, zoning was changed making the old "main street" type devlopments illegal, and though people are pushing to bring that classic development model back to the core of our city, this tiny, less than 1%, area of the city, without Form Based Codes in place the over 200 square miles of car oriented form will continue to try to over run it and destroy those efforts. Do we want urban living options or not? We can't JUST have downtown within the IDL, and the citizens of Tulsa have said as much.
Look at what QT did in Brookside. The Brookside Plan has been around for a long time. It is even being folded into the new Comprehensive Plan. It too, like these form based codes, expressly wants new structures built up to the sidewalk and it wants to preserve old buildings (especially the historic Streamline Art Deco ones) and wishes to enhance the pedestrian friendly nature of the area. Lots of people and businesses worked long and hard on this plan with plenty of give and take negotiating. But QT basically said "we don't care" what they want, or what the citizens said they wanted in the comprehensive plan, and then they bulldozed older buildings and expanded their car oriented form.
Form Based Codes are thus one proven way of "establishing a beachhead" of urban neighborhood/urban village type development that can then maintain itself and even grow. FINALLY allowing Tulsa the ability to offer that lifestyle option, and not just in a mediocre way but be able to offer superb, high quality, attractive, competitive with our peer cities, urban living.
Re: Battle of Words and Wills
The Pearl District, with its form based code, is the kind of neighborhood that Tulsa needs more of...to keep our young people and young thinkers. Not everyone wants to live in suburban type neighborhoods. If you want suburbia, move south and leave us alone in the Pearl. We love it here!
A proud Pearl District resident and homeowner