|
|
 |
|
 |
Member since: December 26, 2008
|
|
|
|
"The plan also calls for the creation of traffic-calming measures through the corridor, a move intended to make it safer for motorists...."
The word conspicuous by its absence from Mike's otherwise accurate article is 'pedestrian'.
While the traffic calming will indeed make Peoria safer for motorists, the primary objective is to make it safe for pedestrians. Pedestrians are considerably more vulnerable than someone insulated by two tons of steel. Too much emphasis is placed on the well-being of people who happen to be sitting behind a wheel. Of much greater importance to the social and economic future of the Pearl District - or any neighborhood - is the pedestrian's experience of the public realm, including children, people in wheelchairs, the elderly and people who choose not to - or can't afford to - drive. Taken together this accounts for 30% of the population, and the proportion is growing.
The first step in making a neighborhood livable is to create a dignified, safe, enjoyable, attractive public realm for the pedestrian. It is key to economic revitalization too: a successful 'public realm' (for the pedestrian) is essential. Pedestrians spend money. People sitting in cars don't.
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
'Patience' is wonderful, very funny and I strongly recommend going to see it. You'll be glad you did. (I fell in love with the milkmaid, too.)
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, the first to say something?! Well, this is the inevitable 'You missed someone...' comment... except that you did indirectly refer to him several times. Namely: Theron Warlick, who's been the Main Man for PlaniTulsa for the last couple of years (though it probably seems like ten, to him). Theron's done more brain- and leg-work for the long-term future of Tulsa through his unobtrusive and tireless steering of PlaniTulsa than any City employee normally gets to do in a lifetime of public service. His and our grandchildren, hopefully, will be benefiting from Theron's work in fifty and a hundred years' time.
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
Very helpful article which summarizes the options clearly - to the extent that the options are yet clear.
When we get to evaluating them I'd like to see the options ranked in terms of lowest-to-highest... (i) return on investment of the public costs of any completely new infrastructure that we can't afford to maintain; (ii) utilization of existing infrastructure - the 'good bones' - that we've ignored for too long; (iii) delivery of the economically-vital, pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods that we don't have enough of, but which everyone was asking for at the workshops, (iv) impact on the natural environment, (v) relevance to the country's rapidly-changing demographics - particularly single-person households vs. families; (vi) our long-term vulnerability to rising gas prices.
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
The substance of this article is a helpful, balanced and arresting contribution to one of the most crucial, underlying themes - land use policy - emerging from PLANiTulsa.
Less useful is the redundant potshot in the second sentence of the headline, which is un-supported by anything in the article, nor - to this close observer - by anything in the process either.
PLANiTulsa is well-timed, given the state of the macro-economy, not to mention the planet. We need to take this opportunity to get engaged with 21st century realities and with the future of this City honestly and urgently; and not gripe emptily from the sidelines.
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
