There are just as many costly restrictions in place with the current codes, actually more. Your simply "used" to the current codes. Take your replacing a "burned down building", or tearing down one and building new, or adding a new one to an empty lot, scenarios for instance. The current suburban style code requires that you have X number of parking lots per x number of square feet. For example when a developer wanted to build that new development where the Ghengis Grill now is on Cherry Street (that urban style development, up to the sidewalk, etc. was illegal) he had to go before the board to beg for an exception in order to not have to spend even more money to buy more property and tear down even more buildings around him in order to meet the parking requirements. Mixed use buildings, say rentable units above a shop, are also illegal. There are set back requirements, all kinds of costly requirements really if you want to add on or change use or build something new. Much of what is currently along 6th street now, if you tried to build it now, would be illegal under the current regulations. Expanding the old "urban style" fabric is illegal. Which imo has hampered growth in that area and will hamper good urban growth in that area in exchange for a different type of growth. Current zoning will not enable Tulsa to be able to develop good urban areas that will make our city competitive with other cities that can offer that. We offer great suburban style living for those who want it, and bravo, but we basically tell those people, and businesses, who want and expect good urban living and lifestlye choices to hit the road and go to another city. Trends are showing that more and more people are wanting good urban living/lifestyle options. Tulsa is hurting itself by making that, through our current codes, illegal.
I think that Form Based Codes can make a positive difference, and I also believe that there can be some compromise changes made to this particular code to at least enable us to move forward. No matter what part of town we try to rezone for good urban living, no matter what "form" that takes, there will be people and groups that cry foul.
For those who do protest the constraints of the Form Based codes, I would also really wish that they would also protest just as fervently the current codes and their constraints. But they do not. I would rather have highly deregulated zoning like in Houston, much less "government telling property owners what they can and can't do" than the current system which is just as onerous in that respect as the Form Based Codes, and makes the development of good urban areas illegal. Most are simply used to the current code (which again makes what was once legal to build in the Pearl District, now illegal) and not used to the ones they want to replace them with. Calling people names who want a different set of codes, and decrying "others dictating what someone else should be doing with their property", while at the same time NOT putting at least as much effort to get rid of the old codes which do exactly that! "dictate to others what someone else should be doing with their property", seems to at least be a bit shortsighted or at most hypocritical. They talk harshly of foolish utopians and their fanatic zoning ideas, while apparently not realizing that the type of zoning that exists there now wasn't always there. The type of zoning that is there now was added later, and the people who are complaining about utopian fanatics aren't raising a fuss about those zoning codes? Why don't they practice what they preach and at least work to get rid of the existing zoning requirements that also "tell people what to do with their property"? If you want to do that, I will be right there with you to help. I would rather have no zoning than the terrible zoning that is forced on the property owners there now.
One example on exchanging one type of requirement for another, the old zoning requirement for a new Form Based one. Lets say you have a 4,000 square foot lot (just for a simple round number) and want to rebuild or build new. Currently you would either have to use part of that lot for parking, or purchase more land for parking (maybe even tearing out another existing building to do that, which again is forcing things to be more suburban than urban). But with this Form Based Code there are no minimum parking requirements, but there are however minimum floor requirements. So instead of say building your 4,000 square foot space covering the entire lot (then purchasing more property for parking or only being allowed to use part of the lot to build on and then the rest for parking, and not being able to build on all 4,000 square feet ) you build two floors of 2,000 square feet, and perhaps sell the extra space, the lot next door (thus getting more density and having a "finer grain, aka, smaller lots and more businesses etc." better pedestrian/transit friendly, urban styled area). Which requirements would actually cost the property owner more, or which is more "others telling people what to do with their property"? They are just different, requiring a new way of thinking, with plenty of research to show that over all they are less costly and are actually less about "telling people what to do" than the current zoning we have in place. The existing zoning is what your used to so seems "natural", but it is not "natural" and without required costs and constraints.
Our culture has created high rates of alchohol abuse and food abuse problems in this state. Approximately 8 TIMES as many people die each year in this state from food abuse/addictions (obesity, heart disease, anorexia/bolemia, etc.) than from alchohol abuse/addictions. Should we limit the access of food or ban its sale on Sundays? Or should we work to create good eating and exercise habits? We do not work to create a culture that promotes healthy drinking habits (those who drink in healthy moderation live longer and healthier lives than those who do not drink at all), quite the contrary we more often than not say that alchohol is bad and focus on trying to limit accessibility, etc. Should suprise no one that when people then do drink, there is a much higher tendency to then not drink in a heathy manner and abuse it instead. Alchohol abuse can lead to alchohol addiction. Our current attitudes, culture, societal norms and habits have more to do with our high rates of alchohol abuse/alchoholism and obesity/food related problems/deaths than does the food or drink itself. Banning alchohol and having fights about limiting its sale sends the wrong message for it only acts to reinforce the bad attitudes, thoughts, and results, about alchohol instead of what imo we should be doing which is promote good, healthy, habits and norms for how, how much, and when to drink (and eat, and exercise, etc.). The healthy habits and messages are being drowned out by the bad. And we wonder why we have the bad results we do?
Most people break the law and speed as well, but that doesn't mean we should get rid of speeding laws and trying to enforce them for we realize that though many of us speed on occasion, if more and more of us do it and more and more of the time, then things will become dangerous. Food has similar comparisons to sex in many ways. For example, there are rules for how to prepare, handle, eat, what to eat, where to eat, etc. for several reasons. We may want to eat what we want when we want it, and there are natural, biological reasons that compell us to want certain foods, but we can kill ourselves by eating too much of certain, very yummy indeed, foods too often. Also, we try to be as safe and sanitary as we can with our food, from growing it, to processing it, to cooking and cleaning it in restaurants and in our own homes, handling it, storing it, etc. etc. The occasional lapse along the way will indeed happen and may not cause much harm, but if too many do so too often, then you will have serious problems. You do the best you can so that when the "lapses" happen, any harm or potential harm is far less. And too, nobody imagined AIDS at one time. One would be terribly remiss to think that there are not other diseases out there in the world, waiting for the right environment, that could make AIDS look like a difficult to get, walk in the park. Do we really want to open ourselves up to that? Also, just as we are finding out about our food, sanitation, and health concerns, old once easy to treat bacterial diseases are becoming more resistant to our antibiotics. Those old monogamy rules didn't just come out of thin air. No not all "old ways/rules" are always right, but we still might want to listen to at least some of the likely reasons for why this social rule, or those like it, were in place. Again, the occasional digressions in an environment that keeps pushing for more moderation or "controll" may not result in anything bad happening (think speeding for instance), BUT don't let that fool you into thinking that more is ok, for if more and more people do it, more and more often without regulation,,, then your asking for trouble and may end up hurting a lot of innocent people.
The mayor promised he would work on providing jobs for the community... One can indeed see that as progress, for I doubt that the mayor during the time of the 21 riots would have said as much. But what I can't help but wonder about is how after ther riot, the black community in a world with less opportunity, a world of more racism and hostility, managed to rebuild Greenwood and the Black Wallstreet to a point where it was better, grander and wealthier than it was before the riots? Like the mythical Phoenix rising from the terrible flames, the people of that time in that community did something incredible. How did they manage that and what lessons can we learn from that fantastic feat?
I suppose a lot of people look around that area today and see empty lots, remember that there was a riot and fire and assume that those empty lots are the result of the fire. Not true. Amazingly, they rebuilt that area. It's events that happened afterwards that truly decimated that part of town. That too holds important lessons that are often overlooked.
True the riot holds very important lessons, but so to does the rebuilding of that area (Also a history not taught and for what reason?), as well as the areas final decimation.
Police, fire protection, schools, prisons, child welfare, etc. can be taken care of by local city/county governments. No need for me to fund middle man jobs in OKC when, if I so wish, I can fund them here in Tulsa,,, and with better oversight and control of what the money is spent on and how its spent. Why on earth would I or anyone else want to spend 160 million to fix the Capitol building? The state doesn't exist to spend money on vanity projects. It supposedly exists to take care of those services mentioned above and do so in the most cost effective, efficient and effective, way possible. I bet it would cost less money to build a new building that would house the work that goes on in that Capitol building, and maintain it, than it would to repair the old one. Not to mention a lot of the people could be moved to some of the other buildings already at the Capitol complex, and add to that any money gained from selling off the old property to help reduce costs. If that's the case, then that danged well better be what is done. We aren't paying these people to sit around in some Emperors grandiose palace, they are there to do a job, again, in the least expensive and most effective way possible, period. THAT would be a conservative government I could be proud of, THAT would be a conservative state I could be proud of. I don't need a fancy building, representing a vain wasteful liberal government imo, as some false stand in for that.
Cutting state taxes, programs and services doesn't have to mean that local city/county governments can't take over those things. Why should I fund state bureaucracy and jobs in OKC when I could fund those things here, if we so wish, and oversee them better right here. You could eliminate state government all together for all I care. Let Tulsan's do with their own tax dollars as they see fit and not have to go down to OKC to beg, plead, negotiate and wrangle for some portion of it back. Ultimately we are paying or not paying for our own local things one way or the other, cutting state government and allowing the local governtments to take over those things, would cut out the middle man in OKC.
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.
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?
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.
Good mass transit is illegal in Tulsa. Transit friendly and pedestrian friendly are the same thing. With our, and our suburbs, minimum parking requirements, laws against being able to build mixed use developments, like living above shops, etc. etc. in by far most parts of the city... most people will not walk anywhere even if they want to. All the money in the world will not make Tulsa a transit friendly city (aka a city where enough people use transit and transit that is efficient and cost effective) until we change our zoning. In downtown you can build transit friendly/pedestrian friendly developments, and even there we often do not, but downtown in isolation won't get you decent transit to and from other areas of the city. I was in south Tulsa suburbia the other day off 71st and you could juuust make out the curvature of the earth between the Mattress King and the Best Buy. That is NOT the sign of a pedestrian or transit friendly development. Nobody is going to take a bus, train, trolley, whatever over there, and for that matter 90% or more of our city, and get off it to go shopping or to and from work. Also, so many of our new neighborhoods are designed to be car oriented only. Neighborhoods that are gated, only have one or two entrances and exits, whose streets are not on a grid of any sort but have dead end culdesacs, don't allow people to easily walk to the nearest bus stop on an arterial, or to any nearby shopping or work. We have intentionally zoned and designed our city and neighborhoods to be anti-mass transit and until that changes you will spend yourself to death trying to make transit work well. Even just changing our zoning laws to allow it to be legal would be a big start.
There are a lot of people who are for, not just the "Pearl District Plan" pers say, but who are really wanting Tulsa to be able to create good quality urban areas containing good urban development. The new comprehensive plan and the thousands who participated in that process showed that. I am sure the TYPros are one group that are pro "Form Based Codes" which is what the Pearl District Plan is based on, and Tulsa Now is another organization that I am sure is for good urban redevelopment and the Form Based Codes in the Pearl District. We have great car oriented suburban neighborhoods in and around Tulsa, but are very non-competitive as a city when it comes to being able to offer good urban living lifestyle choices. I would think that everyone would agree, no matter what you personally may want, that Tulsa being able to offer both superb suburban and superb urban living is important to our city and its future. If areas like downtown and the Pearl District are not the areas where we are going to create good urban, pedestrian friendly living... then in what areas will we?
QT did something similar with the Brookside Plan. The people and businesses in Brookside worked long and hard to create their plan negotiating and compromising with each other to come up with a fair and balanced development path and vision for the future. They expressly wanted to preserve any strutures (especially any historic art deco ones) or areas that were already pedestrian friendly and as new developments were created, have them be more pedestrian friendly as well. If a structure is torn down and rebuilt for instance, their wish is to have the new one be built up to the sidewalk and thus continue to grow and enhance the attractive pedestrian friendly nature of the area. Then QT basically said "screw you all". They tore out old buildings and increased the non-pedestrian space in Brookside in order to expand their gas station there. What they did in Brookside was terrible.
I would want "to ensure that Oklahomans have the right to enjoy "FOOD" responsibly without harming themselves or others, while at the same time allowing a business friendly environment,"... Approx 8 TIMES more Oklahomans kill themselves because of poor eating habbits and addictions/disorders than drinking related ones. But we don't ban and restrict food sales like we do alchohol. Its been shown that if you drink alchohol in moderation you will likely live a longer healthier life than those who do not drink at all, or who drink too much. I think our problems in Oklahoma with both food and alchohol are social and cultural. It's our cultural and societal thoughts, habits, and attitudes towards both that lead us to have some of the worst health outcomes in the US and the "civilized" world. Work to change those things for the better and you will achieve much more than trying to restrict or ban alchohol with laws. This would seem to be a no brainer in a conservative state that is against the government intruding into our lives, thinking it knows better, governing our choices, the "nanny state", etc. Let the competent and able individual choose and the free markets work.
Haven't been to a parade in decades. Will be nice to go back downtown like when I was a little kid and see the parade there. Really wish it were going down Boston Ave though. Shopping or no, (and there will be shopping there this year) You can't beat that incredible street anywhere in this region of the country.
IF, this is the building I think it is, it pains me to say it, but its a blight to the Whittier Square area. Its aims to help low income people are good, and I am glad to see the services being provided,,,,but.... Tulsa is trying, and should be trying to create more pedestrian friendly/transit friendly areas, especially for poor people who are often the largest users of transit in our city. Creating a pedestrian/transit friendly area means you build the building up to the sidewalk, and if you have parking, put it behind the building. This building does not do that. It adds another break in the pedestrian streetscape and hurts the efforts to make the Whittier Square area more pedestrian and transit friendly for everyone, including the poorest who need and use transit the most. Every new building that goes in needs to help our budding, pedestrian friendly areas, not do just the opposite and hurt them like this building does. On another note, if our new comprehensive plan was in place, this building would have not been allowed to be built with the parking in front of it like it has. Many people in the community worked to create that comprehensive plan. Many people in the community wanted to see the Whittier Square are become more pedestrian and transit friendly. Why the people who "placed" this building didn't care and basically flipped their middle finger at the efforts and desire to create a better, more pedestrian and transit friendly area, did this I do not know. But its a shame. And this is not the only example of this type of "placing" going on in areas that really NEED good, effective, easily useable transit for the people who most need and use it. And then the sad thing is that so many then complain about how much transit costs and wonder why more people don't use it. If you can't get to the transit easily and comfortably, and when you can't get off the transit and have an enjoyable, comfortable walk to lots of different places and services... people arent going to use it as much and it will cost you a lot more to operate your transit (thats money taken away from other city services btw). Design matters. Street design and placement of buildings matters. The people of Tulsa, of north Tulsa, have said as much. Why, again, the people who placed this building ignored that, have chosen to not make things better and more cost effective in this matter, baffles me. What a shame that something so obvious and easly done was so blatantly ignored.
Spoke to a lady a while back who had just moved here from back east. She commented on how religion here was different than where she was from, how community here was different. People here didn't mingle/socialize as much with their local community or neighborhood, but instead kept to their church group. Instead of the neighborhood kids playing soccer or baseball together, it was a church team. The lady had mentioned that though many went to church where she was from, often different churches and even different religions, they still all came together and socialized outside of that. Here in this new Tulsa neighborhood, if you or your kids didn't go to the same church as the people next door,there werent as many opportunities to socialize. A local church can offer sports, cafe's, movie nights, classes, a gym, daycare, all sorts of event, etc. They wall themselves up behind little "mini cities". And even then, it may not be that there are different amentities and events, but the culture is different. Your not us. This is my group here. This is where I live my life and spend my free time. These are the people I associate with. Churches here will "reach out" to, but but seem to be less and less part of, the broader community.
Another topic I would like to see the writer touch on is this other view that visitors, and some locals, often comment on. They note how religious Oklahomans are, how many churches there are, how many people go to church and call themselves believers, etc. Very high statistics. We are very religious here. And then they also note the other things that we rank very high on: infant mortality, homicide, drug use, obesity and poor health, divorce, teen pregnancy, smoking, alchoholism, child abuse and neglect,(In the 10years we have been at war in the middle east, we in the US have murdered more of our own children than soldiers were killed in those wars, and of course Oklahoma is leading the way.), (Tulsa's homicide rates are close to being third world, we can easily reach 60 or more homicides a year for a population of less than 400,000 Then compare that to some "Godless, as some locals would call them" European cities with populations over 3 million that average around 8 homicides per year.) Then we continue to try and pass laws that make our state even more conservatively religious as if we wanted to be as religious and punative as...Afghanistan? Yes that's an exaggeration. But you can get the point. Some see us as very religious and then can't help but notice the correlating very high crime/health issues. Again, perhaps its not the religion per say but the type of religion, not the community, but type of community.
Oh, and as to all those ever more conservative laws we Oklahomans keep trying to pass to punish more or make illegal this or that. Isn't there some where in the Bible that says in Heaven the laws are written on the, Hearts and Minds of men, not in books and on paper? And doesn't the Lord teach us to pray... on earth as it is in Heaven? Shouldn't that be our direction?
One other thing to consider with these old buildings, they exist where infrastructure already exists. Within a block or two of 5th street and the Mayo Hotel, there are and have been many renovations of old buildings into hundreds and hundreds of homes, several hotels, many new restaurants and businesses, etc. Not one new road was built, not one new road needs to be maintained, snow plowed from it, lights added, potholes constantly fixed, etc. Now contrast that to us spending taxpayer dollars to help private development in some south Tulsa field for example. Imagine how many roads, sidewalks, intersections, curbs, etc. have to be built for hundreds of suburban style homes, multiple hotels, businesses, restaurants, etc. Then all of that forever maintained, snow plowed, potholes fixed, eventually widened, lighted, trash picked up from, etc. Let's not forget that some of those rehabilitated buildings downtown can have enough new homes in them to be considered small neighborhoods in their own right, but without the cost due to sprawl. Not going to argue which form is better or more efficient cost wise, but lets not forget that they BOTH can have their costs.
This has got to be one of the most absurd articles I have read here. A. Nobody forced anyone to take out loans to go to college, and certainly nobody forced them to take out huge loans. I worked my way through college, my parents worked their way through college, I know young people who are doing that today as well. B. Sure you can pay a lot more for college if you want to, but there are plenty of inexpensive, very affordable, colleges around. There were no publicly funded, graduate universities in Tulsa when I graduated high school. You can get your first two years of college at TCC for free these days. Couldn't do that in my day. etc. C. I remember when I and my friends were in High School and were thinking about going to college. We both, looked at what the economy might be like when we graduated, strong or weak to take that into consideration, and what were some of the likely jobs that would needed to be filled/available when we graduated so we could take the appropriate courses. And we hedged our bets on top of that in numerous ways.
I have a young friend who graduated about a year and a half ago. He had an $80,000 a year plus job waiting for him the day he graduated. EVERY SINGLE ONE of his classmates in the same degree program quickly got jobs in their major. They chose wisely. Regardless, getting a degree is, and has never been, a promise or guarantee. It's a risk. I knew that, my classmates knew that, and we planned accordingly and took the route that we each felt best fit our circumstances and what we felt would be an acceptable amount of risk per those circumstances. D. Any moron knows that the economy is cyclical. It has its ups, it has its downs. Things had been going well (or at least appeared to do well) for far too long, a correction was waaay over due. No, nobody could be sure when it was going to happen, but the longer the good times rolled on, the more anyone going into, or already in, college should have been wary of taking out a lot of debt for it only meant that the risk of coming out of college right into a "correction" was all that much greater. History and prudence advise caution.
Again, looks like Tulsa is behind the curve. If we are gonna say we are thinking big, lets do it. Having city services and such be energy efficient is merely a common sense, common approach that everyone is doing,,, no news there, and would indicate a sad state of affairs if it is something we trumpet as "Great news!". San Antonio is getting ready to put in a 400 megawat solar power plant. Thats enough to power 80,000 homes, on top of its efforts to save 250 megawats from new home energy management systems. Solana Az is putting in a large solar farm, Austin is putting in one, etc. etc. And I am sure with San Antonios and other cities recent announcements the size of other solar farms will only increase. And thats only one type of for instance (wind, geothermal, as some others,,, and if your looking at the prices and capacities of the kind of solar of a year or two ago, your waaay behind the curve again). But hey we in Tulsa are in the forefront and thinking big by changing out the light bulbs in City Hall! And we are gonna attract those green businesses to Tulsa, places like San Antonio and Austin haven't got a chance to compete for those companies against our efforts.
PLANiTulsa really needs to be implemented. We will continue to languish as an average city, constantly faced with the struggle up from fear of decline and mediocrity. PLANiTulsa starts us on a roadmap towards a much better future. The old comprehensive plan needs to be done away with for its no longer relevant to the worlds and Tulsa's new realities. We can't "sprawl" our way to growth for much longer. The suburbs will beat us at that game. We have to start laying the groundwork for good "urban" growth. No,,, superb urban growth. Superior pedestrian friendly (which also means transit friendly aka transit that works and is affordable) growth. And begin to nurture the type of growth that will ensure we can become an enjoyable, beautiful, high quality, competitive city. This won't happen by accident or by sitting back and twiddling our thumbs and piddling along as per the usual while other cities have already made similar changes that are bettering their future. We needed to move ahead with all the haste and urgency we can.
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
Posted by: William
56 comments total
Sort Comments: Most Recent | Oldest First
Re: Opposition to New Zoning
I think that Form Based Codes can make a positive difference, and I also believe that there can be some compromise changes made to this particular code to at least enable us to move forward. No matter what part of town we try to rezone for good urban living, no matter what "form" that takes, there will be people and groups that cry foul.
For those who do protest the constraints of the Form Based codes, I would also really wish that they would also protest just as fervently the current codes and their constraints. But they do not. I would rather have highly deregulated zoning like in Houston, much less "government telling property owners what they can and can't do" than the current system which is just as onerous in that respect as the Form Based Codes, and makes the development of good urban areas illegal. Most are simply used to the current code (which again makes what was once legal to build in the Pearl District, now illegal) and not used to the ones they want to replace them with. Calling people names who want a different set of codes, and decrying "others dictating what someone else should be doing with their property", while at the same time NOT putting at least as much effort to get rid of the old codes which do exactly that! "dictate to others what someone else should be doing with their property", seems to at least be a bit shortsighted or at most hypocritical. They talk harshly of foolish utopians and their fanatic zoning ideas, while apparently not realizing that the type of zoning that exists there now wasn't always there. The type of zoning that is there now was added later, and the people who are complaining about utopian fanatics aren't raising a fuss about those zoning codes? Why don't they practice what they preach and at least work to get rid of the existing zoning requirements that also "tell people what to do with their property"? If you want to do that, I will be right there with you to help. I would rather have no zoning than the terrible zoning that is forced on the property owners there now.
One example on exchanging one type of requirement for another, the old zoning requirement for a new Form Based one. Lets say you have a 4,000 square foot lot (just for a simple round number) and want to rebuild or build new. Currently you would either have to use part of that lot for parking, or purchase more land for parking (maybe even tearing out another existing building to do that, which again is forcing things to be more suburban than urban). But with this Form Based Code there are no minimum parking requirements, but there are however minimum floor requirements. So instead of say building your 4,000 square foot space covering the entire lot (then purchasing more property for parking or only being allowed to use part of the lot to build on and then the rest for parking, and not being able to build on all 4,000 square feet ) you build two floors of 2,000 square feet, and perhaps sell the extra space, the lot next door (thus getting more density and having a "finer grain, aka, smaller lots and more businesses etc." better pedestrian/transit friendly, urban styled area). Which requirements would actually cost the property owner more, or which is more "others telling people what to do with their property"? They are just different, requiring a new way of thinking, with plenty of research to show that over all they are less costly and are actually less about "telling people what to do" than the current zoning we have in place. The existing zoning is what your used to so seems "natural", but it is not "natural" and without required costs and constraints.
Re: Challenge to Change
Re: The Last Civil Rights Struggle
Re: Amazing Grace
I suppose a lot of people look around that area today and see empty lots, remember that there was a riot and fire and assume that those empty lots are the result of the fire. Not true. Amazingly, they rebuilt that area. It's events that happened afterwards that truly decimated that part of town. That too holds important lessons that are often overlooked.
True the riot holds very important lessons, but so to does the rebuilding of that area (Also a history not taught and for what reason?), as well as the areas final decimation.
Re: More Voodoo
Re: You Get What You Pay For
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
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
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: Moving Along or Moving On
Re: Neighborhood Davids vs. Goliath Corporation
Re: Neighborhood Davids vs. Goliath Corporation
Re: Consequences of Convenience
Re: A Tale of Two Parades
Re: Construction Completed
Re: Culture Matters
Another topic I would like to see the writer touch on is this other view that visitors, and some locals, often comment on. They note how religious Oklahomans are, how many churches there are, how many people go to church and call themselves believers, etc. Very high statistics. We are very religious here. And then they also note the other things that we rank very high on: infant mortality, homicide, drug use, obesity and poor health, divorce, teen pregnancy, smoking, alchoholism, child abuse and neglect,(In the 10years we have been at war in the middle east, we in the US have murdered more of our own children than soldiers were killed in those wars, and of course Oklahoma is leading the way.), (Tulsa's homicide rates are close to being third world, we can easily reach 60 or more homicides a year for a population of less than 400,000 Then compare that to some "Godless, as some locals would call them" European cities with populations over 3 million that average around 8 homicides per year.) Then we continue to try and pass laws that make our state even more conservatively religious as if we wanted to be as religious and punative as...Afghanistan? Yes that's an exaggeration. But you can get the point. Some see us as very religious and then can't help but notice the correlating very high crime/health issues. Again, perhaps its not the religion per say but the type of religion, not the community, but type of community.
Oh, and as to all those ever more conservative laws we Oklahomans keep trying to pass to punish more or make illegal this or that. Isn't there some where in the Bible that says in Heaven the laws are written on the, Hearts and Minds of men, not in books and on paper? And doesn't the Lord teach us to pray... on earth as it is in Heaven? Shouldn't that be our direction?
Re: Okie Money
Re: Ah, To Be Young and In Hate
I have a young friend who graduated about a year and a half ago. He had an $80,000 a year plus job waiting for him the day he graduated. EVERY SINGLE ONE of his classmates in the same degree program quickly got jobs in their major. They chose wisely. Regardless, getting a degree is, and has never been, a promise or guarantee. It's a risk. I knew that, my classmates knew that, and we planned accordingly and took the route that we each felt best fit our circumstances and what we felt would be an acceptable amount of risk per those circumstances. D. Any moron knows that the economy is cyclical. It has its ups, it has its downs. Things had been going well (or at least appeared to do well) for far too long, a correction was waaay over due. No, nobody could be sure when it was going to happen, but the longer the good times rolled on, the more anyone going into, or already in, college should have been wary of taking out a lot of debt for it only meant that the risk of coming out of college right into a "correction" was all that much greater. History and prudence advise caution.
Re: The Alternative Energy Gambit
http://www.mysanantonio.com/living_green_sa/article/CPS-Energy-ratchets-up-investment-in-solar-1455605.php
Re: Delayed to Death?