Inspired by Gawker, these folks were discussing creating similar local-interest blogs for Austin and Berkeley, and how they might reflect the different cultures of the cities. I haven't lived in Austin long enough to have my finger on the pulse of the local culture, but I started to imagine what a Tulsa version of Gawker might be like. Here are some posts I thought you might see:
"Tulsa is way hipper than Norman."
"My mom thinks Brian Haas is hot."
"The Jenks-Union rivalry is out of control!"
"Brookside sucks now that the yuppies took over"
"Driving to Southtown sucks"
"Is Tulsa Gypsy as cool as Gold Coast Coffee?"
"I can't believe I lived in Norman for five years"
"Southtown can't be all bad if India Palace is there"
"I saw everyone I know during lunchtime at Wild Oats"
"QT is the greatest convenience store ever"
"OKC is the world's biggest parking lot!"
Its been some years since I've lived in Tulsa so those may be a few years out of date. I'm sure current Tulsans can come up with better posts.
Update (1/16): In his post, Peter mentions the "Thai Temple Brunch," a Sunday fundraiser at a Berkeley Buddhist temple, and I thought I would add that its some of the best Thai food I've ever had and a shot of Robson at the brunch.
Just happened across the website...nice blog! Check mine out in about a month...www.etaoinshrdlu.net
Posted by: Rolin Moe at January 15, 2003 02:07 PMSince I couldn't find a way to comment on your "ding-ding" post on the Austin Blog site, I'll do so here:
I don't think Austin's small parking spaces are driven by concern over global warming, as tempting as that theory might be. I couldn't cite chapter and verse of the ordinance, but I believe the city construction licensing process requires retail businesses to provide enough parking spaces (in theory) to avoid generating a lot of street parking, which neighbors usually view as a nuisance. I don't know how the numbers are determined -- my guess is it may be a political process based on various estimates of the amount of traffic a given property will generate (it's certainly political in the case of apartment complexes like the one being built opposite Mojo's). There's an additional requirement from the city, especially in new developments, not to pave too much land because the runoff from "impervious cover" leads to flooding.
That system creates an incentive for developers to cram as many parking spaces as they can into the tiniest lot possible. There is, of course, a contrary pressure from customers not to create impossibly claustrophobic lots. What you see is an uneasy balance between the two pressures.
I don't know whether the city has rules or oversight about the size of spaces but it wouldn't surprise me (since they have oversight of so much other stuff). In any case, whether it's driven by engineers' formulas or developers' rules of thumb, we see relatively small "full-size" spaces in newer Austin lots as well as designated "compact only" spaces.
There are never enough spaces for Texas-sized trucks and SUVs, which leads to the common spectacle of a monster truck parked across two or even three compact spaces in a completely full lot. That makes me, driver of a compact car, really ticked off; you could have caught me on a few recent weekends circling a strip mall or movie theater parking lot wishing for a tow truck to teach those %*&&%$*#!!! pickup drivers how to park. :-)
Posted by: Prentiss Riddle at January 16, 2003 08:28 AMHere's the post Prentiss refers to, in case readers are confused.
Posted by: m4dd4wg at January 16, 2003 09:27 AMrecent entries
about infobong.com
archives
topics