For those who read the paper this morning, Mayor LaFortune has requested that part of the 3rd penny sales tax, yet to be approved, be set aside to purchase the property where Towerview Apartments sits, so that a hotel can be built. The owner of Towerview wants to convert the building into upscale lofts, though he said he would look at the Mayor's offer. Obviously, its close proximity to the new arena makes it an idea location for a hotel (makes you a bit suspicious of the paper's motivation when it began its several-part story of the buildings substandard living conditions, and its repeated references to the "dilapidated building").
I am not one to scream about the need for a smaller government, or to bemoan every penny tax, but this does seem unnecessary.
First, instead of building new hotels, why not give the money to rehabilitate the Mayo? If the Mayo were returned to its original splendor, that would be enough to visit Tulsa, with or without an arena. And the Mayo is not that far from the arena. Apart from the Mayo, there are two other modern hotels nearby.
Second, if in addtion to the Mayo, the DoubleTree, and the AdamMark, another hotel is needed, why can't private development take care of that? Why must the TDA buy it, and not the Hyatt, or the Marriott, or whatever?
Just my two cents.
That is interesting. I wasn't very happy with the World stories a while back.
I can't really vouch for the intentions of the Towerview's owners. I don't know if it sold or not, but it was reported to be owned by some company out of Oregon. And perhaps they've had a change of heart, but the Towerview was allowed to fall apart by its owners. And now its shut down isn't it?
Early on, when the Arena model was first presented, they showed a map that had these potential blocks for development. And a hotel was mentioned, and I've kind of assumed that it was one of the next natural step. The Towerview, is on the block directly across Denver from the new Arena. It was one of the primary blocks mentioned for future development.
I don't particularly care for the World articles, I don't know if there is a historical reason why the Towerview should be saved, but that block is over 75% surface parking and is a prime location for development near the Arena.
The mayor is a moron.
Why in the hell would any public money go to build a new "same as everywhere else" hotel when we have the Mayo? The proximity of the Mayo is good to the arena, and it IS unique. Public money if it is going to be used, should be used to preserve assets like the Mayo, if another "new" hotel beyond the Mayo one is needed, let private money pay for it.
We have the DoubleTree right next to the convention center now, what would another Hammonds hotel add to the fabric of this part of downtown except hotel room count?
I know that TDA or some other gov't body owns the Parking Garage at 4th and Boulder. They have "American Parking" operate the garage. I've been kind of wondering about that. Does TDA own all surface parking lots in the IDL? Is TDA renting these things out, or are they privately owned? The reason why I'm asking, is that the block is a bit more than 75% surface parking.
I don't know if I have problem with public money being spent or not. If the Towerview can be purchased, and the land used for development, it would likely accelerate the process of development. Looking at Tulsa, one the biggest problems I've had with the city is that it doesn't move fast enough.
My understanding on the Mayo, is that the owners have balked on some public funds or restoration funds in the past. Maybe thats wrong, maybe its just a rumor I picked up somewhere. But if the Mayo is interested, I wouldn't mind public funds re-developing that building.
Nevermind on the TDA. The article does mention that TDA owns some of the surface lots on that block.
Although, I think I'd rather see the bunker like BOK Drive-Thru be re-developed. If Towerview could be re-developed, and the surface parking turned into retail, that might be a better setup.
Currently, the Vision 2025 Arena Cam shows a pretty good picture of what the backside of this block looks like. It cuts off part of the South side of the block, but thats all surface parking.
http://www.vision2025.info/camera.php?camera=arenacamera
It wasn't clear to me if the current owner of the Towerview is the same one that let it fall apart. Still, he seems to be doing work on it--the place appears to be gutted.
If the owner's of Mayo don't want any public funds, and believe they can do the work on their own, then I would say more power to them. Perhaps they don't want any strings attached.
Still, even if they don't want the money, do we really want to give the city money so it can purchase property to turn around and sell to a hotel chain that would compete with the Mayo? Is that money wisely spent? After all, a hotel is not like an art museum, which serves the public but ussually does not make a profit. Hotels will enter any market that will provide them with a profit. The Doubletree has about 450 rooms. The Crowne Plaza (sorry, not the Adam's Mark anymore) has at least that many. I would imagine once complete the Mayo will have several hundred rooms. That's before you even get to the Ambassador. If the arena pulls in such numbers that those hotels will be booked, I have no doubt that Marriott, Hilton, whatever, will find some land to build a hotel.
I would rather see the money go to something that will provide tourists with something to do once they get to Tulsa--develop the river, help some small, locally owned business to build downtown, etc....
I could be wrong about the Mayo. That may have been under specific circumstances (like historic preservation funds), or maybe its just a rumor. I'm sure somebody on here knows.
This TDA ownership issue, makes me believe that this part of the block would be granted or sold inexpensively for development. If TDA owned the rest of the block, its an easy transition. I'd kind of like to see the city choose the bank, but that entire block is being currently used for a bank. The TDA doesn't own a significant portion of it, and it probably would be much more expensive.
The Crowne Plaza mostly services downtown business folk and its own convention business, proms, etc. The Mayo is far from being ready for use as a hotel. The Ambassador is mostly business folk. However, I think the Doubletree should be a bit concerned.
If you look at a aerial photo of the area (like Google Earth), the Arena is suppose to use both the Convention Center parking and the new City garage at 2nd and Cheyenne. From the City garage, pedestrians will have to walk one block directly past the block with Towerview, and the block with BOK bank. If this hotel has integrated street level retail, this could be a location that helps increase sales taxes downtown. So from a "grand scheme" downtown development angle, I'm not sure they are wrong.
I'm still kind of mixed about the idea. There might be better options, I like the idea of funding Mayo if that is possible. It would be very nice to see the bank go, but I'd also be happy seeing part of the surface parking being dried up.
Good point, swake. Ask St. Louis about their taxpayer-funded hotel.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
I could be wrong about the Mayo. That may have been under specific circumstances (like historic preservation funds), or maybe its just a rumor. I'm sure somebody on here knows.
This TDA ownership issue, makes me believe that this part of the block would be granted or sold inexpensively for development. If TDA owned the rest of the block, its an easy transition. I'd kind of like to see the city choose the bank, but that entire block is being currently used for a bank. The TDA doesn't own a significant portion of it, and it probably would be much more expensive.
The Crowne Plaza mostly services downtown business folk and its own convention business, proms, etc. The Mayo is far from being ready for use as a hotel. The Ambassador is mostly business folk. However, I think the Doubletree should be a bit concerned.
If you look at a aerial photo of the area (like Google Earth), the Arena is suppose to use both the Convention Center parking and the new City garage at 2nd and Cheyenne. From the City garage, pedestrians will have to walk one block directly past the block with Towerview, and the block with BOK bank. If this hotel has integrated street level retail, this could be a location that helps increase sales taxes downtown. So from a "grand scheme" downtown development angle, I'm not sure they are wrong.
I'm still kind of mixed about the idea. There might be better options, I like the idea of funding Mayo if that is possible. It would be very nice to see the bank go, but I'd also be happy seeing part of the surface parking being dried up.
As I said before, the location is good for a hotel. But again, if it is a good location, why can't this be done privately? If the desire of a private company to build a hotel will be thwarted simply because they have to go to two people to purchase the property, or because the land is not dirt cheap, then I would be concerned as to how committed they really are to building the hotel, or how successful that hotel will be.
And I hate to see the destruction of an old building simply to build a run-of-the-mill hotel that may not be successful. Especially with my tax dollars.
As for the Mayo not yet being ready, neither is the Arena. I would say we have a 50-50 shot as to which is ready first.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
As I said before, the location is good for a hotel. But again, if it is a good location, why can't this be done privately? If the desire of a private company to build a hotel will be thwarted simply because they have to go to two people to purchase the property, or because the land is not dirt cheap, then I would be concerned as to how committed they really are to building the hotel, or how successful that hotel will be.
And I hate to see the destruction of an old building simply to build a run-of-the-mill hotel that may not be successful. Especially with my tax dollars.
As for the Mayo not yet being ready, neither is the Arena. I would say we have a 50-50 shot as to which is ready first.
I'd take that bet.
And as I said before, I'm somewhat mixed about the idea. While I mostly agree with you so far, I'm not going to ignore all the angles on this and go "PETA" overboard. Not yet.
I'd like to get more info before I commit to a general strike, sit-in, or midnight toilet paper party. But I'm not ruling any of those out.
What this discussion boils down to IMO, is "would we be having this discussion if we were talking about a 20 story residential tower on top of a 5 story garage with street level commercial?" IMO the answer is "no."
How about this then, why does a hotel need an entire block?
TDA owns the entire western half of the block and a portion of the other half. Look at Google Earth and it seems that both the DoubleTree and Crown Plaza sit on about a half a city block, why not configure the parking to be underneath any hotel and leave the Towerview out of it?
The article says the owner is converting the Towerview to 16 to 20 lofts now, sales to begin in February with prices starting at about $200,000. Isn't that good all on it's own?
On a side note, the article also says that the old hotel that houses The Coney Islander is about to be sold and will ALSO be converted to "retro" apartments. The owner is the guy that has redone a couple of buildings in the BOk Center area recently and is looking to build a condo tower on top of one of his buildings.
The good news seems to be there are a ton of housing projects downtown now, and a lot of the them have nothing to do with the 2025 housing money.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
On a side note, the article also says that the old hotel that houses The Coney Islander is about to be sold and will ALSO be converted to "retro" apartments. The owner is the guy that has redone a couple of buildings in the BOk Center area recently and is looking to build a condo tower on top of one of his buildings.
The good news seems to be there are a ton of housing projects downtown now, and a lot of the them have nothing to do with the 2025 housing money.
About time something happened with that eyesore!
Count me as one who is opposed to the city buying the Towerview....let it be a private deal.
If it can be confirmed that Towerview is actually converting those units, it will probably then be "PETA-nutty" time IMO. This isn't the only block that a hotel could go on.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
On a side note, the article also says that the old hotel that houses The Coney Islander is about to be sold and will ALSO be converted to "retro" apartments. The owner is the guy that has redone a couple of buildings in the BOk Center area recently and is looking to build a condo tower on top of one of his buildings.
The good news seems to be there are a ton of housing projects downtown now, and a lot of the them have nothing to do with the 2025 housing money.
Yeah, I agree that is great news--that building is sooo ugly. Just hope nothing happens to the Coney Islander.
Does anyone have a photo of the apts? I think there is plenty of open space DT for hotels and other new construction. But if its an old building that is in need of some serious repair, then I would have no problem with tearing it down for a hotel. Just as long as it is not torn down for another surface parking lot.
That is good news about the Coney Island.
Something that I find interesting about the World article, is that the owner of the Towerview is the same Oregon based owner who allowed Towerview to be a weekly rental location. The same owner that let the place go down the tubes. That sounds more like an ordinary slum lord, than a person who would convert this into a high-end property.
I also find it interesting, that since the Towerview closed, there has been an increase in the sale value of the closed property. Also, its interesting to note that all this activity around the Towerview is very recent. It sounds like the owner is trying to jack up the price.
I'm not convinced of this guys motives. I'm not convinced that this guy actually wants to be responsible for this property.
quote:
Originally posted by DM
Does anyone have a photo of the apts? I think there is plenty of open space DT for hotels and other new construction. But if its an old building that is in need of some serious repair, then I would have no problem with tearing it down for a hotel. Just as long as it is not torn down for another surface parking lot.
(http://www.kotv.com/pages/catimages/towerview-aprts2.jpg)
Also, as long as its daylight, you can see the back of the building from
http://www.vision2025.info/camera.php?camera=arenacamera
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
That is good news about the Coney Island.
Something that I find interesting about the World article, is that the owner of the Towerview is the same Oregon based owner who allowed Towerview to be a weekly rental location. The same owner that let the place go down the tubes. That sounds more like an ordinary slum lord, than a person who would convert this into a high-end property.
I also find it interesting, that since the Towerview closed, there has been an increase in the sale value of the closed property. Also, its interesting to note that all this activity around the Towerview is very recent. It sounds like the owner is trying to jack up the price.
I'm not convinced of this guys motives. I'm not convinced that this guy actually wants to be responsible for this property.
well, now that may well be true too. Same guy huh?
Who said there was work going on there?
Yeah, its the same guy that when the city told him he had to correct these problems with the building, he sent everyone out and shut the Towerview down.
I think pmcalk mentioned the possibility that it was being gutted, if true that still may be a part of "getting a bigger check" from the City.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
Yeah, its the same guy that when the city told him he had to correct these problems with the building, he sent everyone out and shut the Towerview down.
I think pmcalk mentioned the possibility that it was being gutted, if true that still may be a part of "getting a bigger check" from the City.
It was the county sccording to KOTV
quote:
The apartment managers were given 10 days to fix those violations, but instead, posted a letter telling residents to find other places to live.Tulsa County officials say they gave the Towerview a reasonable amount of time to make the necessary building improvements.
Urban Tulsa Story http://www.urbantulsa.com/article.asp?id=2695
quote:
The Towerview Quartet
Last October, the Tulsa World reported that a law firm located in the Wright Building just across the street from the much-maligned Towerview Apartments near 2nd and Cheyenne had aimed a security camera on the front entrance of the dilapidated structure to capture evidence of potential criminal activity and turn it over to police.
The Towerview had become the center of attention after World reporter Michael Overall stayed at one of the apartments for two weeks and later wrote about its substandard conditions.
The pay-by-the-week SRO sits annoyingly in the midst an almost perfect line that extends from the Williams Towers, where the Metro Chamber's offices are located and the Tulsa World's building, to the Tulsa Vision Builders' offices, where a partnership of two powerful local construction firms conducts the brainwork for the arena's construction and the planned site of the events center itself.
After Overall's story ran, building and fire inspectors appeared at the Towerview and found numerous violations. The Towerview was eventually shut down and its tenants were forced to leave. The city said at the time that the tenants would be provided with assistance.
The owner of the building has since allowed it to sit stubbornly, its windows boarded up. We were unable to identify and reach the law firm, but Overall told us it's unlikely the camera is still up considering the building is empty.
Deputy Chief Mark Andrus said he was unaware of the police department receiving any videotapes from the firm containing evidence of a crime.
Channel 8 stories
http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/1004/180226.html
quote:
"It seems like whoever did this inspection did not come in and say I want to make this place correct," Aljamal says. "I want to make this place right. He came in to say I want to demolish this building. They were sent for a purpose."
He believes it was to get rid of his property to pave the way for posh development near the newly planned arena, but he says there's a bigger issue.
http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/1004/180552.html
quote:
"The code violations don't restrict him from being able to sell the property," says Mayoral Aide Clay Bird.
Bird says, as a matter of fact, Thursday, Aljamal approached the City of Tulsa to take Towerview off his hands. And, the number changed again.
"He paid 750 thousand dollars for the property," says Property Manager Linda Williams. "He asked for that amount, asked for no more than what he paid."
Aljamal gave the city 24 hours to make up its mind. But, Bird isn't bowing to Aljamal's pressure.
"Government doesn't move that quickly," he says.
New and current hotels only need to take up about ¼ or a 1/3 of a block. I think LaFortune is trying to find an excuse to get ride of this building. As I am all for converting old building into great living spaces, I am very hesitant on this owner of Towerview. He has run the building into the ground. Now that something is going in, I bet he wants to get his hands on some of that V2025 or the future 3rd penny. If a new owner took hold of the property then I would be fine with public funds going to help the project, or just to keep the building. It's a cool building, what the photo does not show is that along the south side of the building it has these cool niches.
But the issue that was found before even the demolition of the arena site is, Tulsa is ether going to need to make some grand walkway between the new arena and the blue dome area, or they are going to have to build a whole new district on that side of town. I would hate to see the later happen. Tulsa should support small business owners, and those being the ones who have already spent the money to have what is already there.
County is probably right.
This was a "rent by the week" apartment complex. The owner was given the opportunity to bring the building up to code, he chose to kick people out and board it up over a year ago. Before Towerview closed, this block was labeled a potential development sight for the new Arena, and now all of the sudden he's trying to develop this into lofts that sell for 200K? Not six months ago, not over a year ago when he shut it down; he claims to be getting his plans together right now. At least he sounds like an opportunistic slum lord. He certainly doesn't sound like a developer. If he is a developer, why didn't he bring the place up to code?
There may very well have been a "plan" to help Towerview shut down. But the slum lord from Oregon is the one that let the building fall apart, not the World. He may have a lot to complain about, but I don't really sympathize.
quote:
Originally posted by sportyart
Tulsa is ether going to need to make some grand walkway between the new arena and the blue dome area
I think the Centennial Walk is suppose to address part of this. That should connect Blue Dome and Brady to the Arena via lighted paths/landscaping/etc. But the blocks around the Arena site are also expected to be developed.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by sportyart
Tulsa is ether going to need to make some grand walkway between the new arena and the blue dome area
I think the Centennial Walk is suppose to address part of this. That should connect Blue Dome and Brady to the Arena via lighted paths/landscaping/etc. But the blocks around the Arena site are also expected to be developed.
They SAY its going to work.............we shall see.
quote:
Originally posted by sportyart
They SAY its going to work.............we shall see.
Hey, that is about as optimistic as I feel about the Centennial Walk.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by sportyart
They SAY its going to work.............we shall see.
Hey, that is about as optimistic as I feel about the Centennial Walk.
[;)]
From what I read he only owned it for 6 months before it was shut down. Supposedly bought it without looking at it...
quote:
Originally posted by D.Schuttler
From what I read he only owned it for 6 months before it was shut down. Supposedly bought it without looking at it...
Buyer Beware!
Again, the point is not whether the building was or was not dilapidated. I am sure it had problems. And maybe the guy is a real sleaze and is trying to get more money for the building than its worth. I have noticed for several months now that the building seems to have been emptied out--nothing left but the shell. I was concerned that it meant demolition.
I, too, like the building. I see no reason to tear it down simply based on speculation that a hotel, who wouldn't need the entire area, might be willing to locate there.
However sleazy this guy might be, I am sure he ultimately wants to make money. He isn't going to let the building sit empty.
I am still puzzled why we need to use taxpayer's money to buy it. First, do we really need a Hardrock cafe hotel right there, when we have the Mayo down the block? And second, if we do, why can't private investment take care of it?
Whatever company believes it could earn the most money is likely to buy the property--sometimes the free market does work (OMG--I sound like my libertarian friends).
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Again, the point is not whether the building was or was not dilapidated. I am sure it had problems. And maybe the guy is a real sleaze and is trying to get more money for the building than its worth. I have noticed for several months now that the building seems to have been emptied out--nothing left but the shell. I was concerned that it meant demolition.
I, too, like the building. I see no reason to tear it down simply based on speculation that a hotel, who wouldn't need the entire area, might be willing to locate there.
However sleazy this guy might be, I am sure he ultimately wants to make money. He isn't going to let the building sit empty.
I am still puzzled why we need to use taxpayer's money to buy it. First, do we really need a Hardrock cafe hotel right there, when we have the Mayo down the block? And second, if we do, why can't private investment take care of it?
Whatever company believes it could earn the most money is likely to buy the property--sometimes the free market does work (OMG--I sound like my libertarian friends).
You can thank the Supreme Court for anything that the city may do. Tulsa can condemn any property they want if its view to be blighted (and will find it very easy to do with this property), then they turn around and sell it to what ever company wants it. So yes, public funds are used to by the property, but get our money back when they sell it to who ever, its not like city is giving it away. Also the only way that this is legal is if they DON'T know who is going to buy. The city CANNOT condemn a property if they know who the future buyer will be, but they can do so if they say the area is a planed development area with hotel, shops and business.
The city at most will give this developer for a new hotel no more then a TIF if anything. The Mayo hotel should try to get in on the funding from Vision 2025 and the 3rd penny if it goes around. I for one would hate to see the Towerview to go, but I would rather see those funds go into the Mayo then it.
Sends a mixed message to private developers doesn't it [B)]
Take a chance on Tulsa.....
quote:
Originally posted by swake
The mayor is a moron.
Why in the hell would any public money go to build a new �same as everywhere else� hotel when we have the Mayo? The proximity of the Mayo is good to the arena, and it IS unique. Public money if it is going to be used, should be used to preserve assets like the Mayo, if another �new� hotel beyond the Mayo one is needed, let private money pay for it.
We have the DoubleTree right next to the convention center now, what would another Hammonds hotel add to the fabric of this part of downtown except hotel room count?
These were my thoughts exactly Swake. At a presentation done at the Mathew's
Building the Daughter of the Owner of the Mayo seemed to indicate that there was a need for "City Interest" in the Mayo...
Maybe we should check and see if they have submitted a request for a portion of the "Downtown Housing V2025 Fund"...?
There could be no better draw for Tulsa's Downtown than the Mayo as it was when they were building the Oneok Building...
This is where I feel the City sometimes overlooks it's potential.. Building something new rather than making use of the assets they have...
To me this would be the major difference between Kanbar's approach and The LaFortune methodology.
Interesting article and link to Mayo Website..
http://www.abandonedtulsa.blogspot.com/2005/08/not-abandoned-mayo-hotel.html
I'll start the campaign . . . .
Do the Mayo First!
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by DM
Does anyone have a photo of the apts? I think there is plenty of open space DT for hotels and other new construction. But if its an old building that is in need of some serious repair, then I would have no problem with tearing it down for a hotel. Just as long as it is not torn down for another surface parking lot.
(http://www.kotv.com/pages/catimages/towerview-aprts2.jpg)
Also, as long as its daylight, you can see the back of the building from
http://www.vision2025.info/camera.php?camera=arenacamera
Thanks!
Is that boards I see on the windows? Seems like a good location for hotel. But so does that empty surface parking lot right next door.
quote:
Originally posted by sportyart
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Again, the point is not whether the building was or was not dilapidated. I am sure it had problems. And maybe the guy is a real sleaze and is trying to get more money for the building than its worth. I have noticed for several months now that the building seems to have been emptied out--nothing left but the shell. I was concerned that it meant demolition.
I, too, like the building. I see no reason to tear it down simply based on speculation that a hotel, who wouldn't need the entire area, might be willing to locate there.
However sleazy this guy might be, I am sure he ultimately wants to make money. He isn't going to let the building sit empty.
I am still puzzled why we need to use taxpayer's money to buy it. First, do we really need a Hardrock cafe hotel right there, when we have the Mayo down the block? And second, if we do, why can't private investment take care of it?
Whatever company believes it could earn the most money is likely to buy the property--sometimes the free market does work (OMG--I sound like my libertarian friends).
You can thank the Supreme Court for anything that the city may do. Tulsa can condemn any property they want if its view to be blighted (and will find it very easy to do with this property), then they turn around and sell it to what ever company wants it. So yes, public funds are used to by the property, but get our money back when they sell it to who ever, its not like city is giving it away. Also the only way that this is legal is if they DON'T know who is going to buy. The city CANNOT condemn a property if they know who the future buyer will be, but they can do so if they say the area is a planed development area with hotel, shops and business.
The city at most will give this developer for a new hotel no more then a TIF if anything. The Mayo hotel should try to get in on the funding from Vision 2025 and the 3rd penny if it goes around. I for one would hate to see the Towerview to go, but I would rather see those funds go into the Mayo then it.
Yeah, I was not too pleased with the
Kelo decision, but my question was not really about what the city could legally do--obviously they can do it. Just
WHY do it? It makes no sense to me. If another hotel is needed, there are lots of places to do it; if this guy is serious about building lofts, shouldn't we let him?; if a hotel is interested in building at that exact location, why not let that hotel buy the property?; if we need to spend public money on a hotel, why not the Mayo?
As I said before, I like the building--it has potential. What if the city takes the building, tears it down, and then fails to negotiate with a hotel to build there? Yea!!!! we will get another surface lot. At the taxpayer's expense.
With the Mayo, on the other hand, we have an existing, exquisite hotel unique to Tulsa that just needs refurbishing.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Yeah, I was not too pleased with the Kelo decision, but my question was not really about what the city could legally do--obviously they can do it. Just WHY do it? It makes no sense to me. If another hotel is needed, there are lots of places to do it; if this guy is serious about building lofts, shouldn't we let him?; if a hotel is interested in building at that exact location, why not let that hotel buy the property?; if we need to spend public money on a hotel, why not the Mayo?
As I said before, I like the building--it has potential. What if the city takes the building, tears it down, and then fails to negotiate with a hotel to build there? Yea!!!! we will get another surface lot. At the taxpayer's expense.
With the Mayo, on the other hand, we have an existing, exquisite hotel unique to Tulsa that just needs refurbishing.
Sounds like you think we should . . .
Do the Mayo First!
I would like to see the Mayo done as well. But if more hotels move into the area and the demand goes up then wouldnt investors look at the Mayo and consider renovating it?
quote:
Originally posted by DM
I would like to see the Mayo done as well. But if more hotels move into the area and the demand goes up then wouldnt investors look at the Mayo and consider renovating it?
How could more hotels create a demand for more hotels?
Let them take out the Tulsa World and build one there
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Again, the point is not whether the building was or was not dilapidated.
That may very well be the point. It may just not be your point. I don't know what this guy's intentions are. The TDA owns half that block, how easy will it be for them to develop it if a boarded up slum sits next to it? How much will it cost a developer to purchase that boarded up slum, if areas around the Arena are already developing? The Towerview could be a boarded up eye-sore for decades, and you just want ignore this? A bit more thought and information needs to go into this.
If he is really going to develop it, that is important to know. If he's going to let it sit there boarded up, while the property values go up, that is important to know. Also, how old is it? If you want make a preservation case, you'll need to get some facts. Show me some facts about Towerview. And maybe a few cool pics.
The World flatten the Skelly for surface parking. The Auto Hotel was in use, before it was purchased and turned into surface parking. They flattened several blocks for the Williams Tower. The City flattened several blocks for the Arena. Some of that was "progress", some of that was not.
I'm not opposed to all progress, and a hotel would probably be progress on that block. Especially if it takes up the entire block, and dries up the surface parking. The preservation case for Towerview is going to be hard to make unless you've got some facts.
The argument so-far, is kind of "shot-gun". You need one good argument. Or one good cheerleader.
My concern about the Towerview is whether the vermin can be exterminated. The place had fleas, cockroaches and rats galore, and in an old building like that, it's darned near impossible to get rid of them once they're established.
My concern is that the pro-Towerview folks can't convince me. If the case is all that obvious, this should be a slam-dunk.
Give me some info, and a realistic "lobby-able" alternative.
I'm going to back off this thread a bit, and see if you folks can come up with some information and a plan. If you guys can "warm me up", I'll "go nuts" with you.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by DM
I would like to see the Mayo done as well. But if more hotels move into the area and the demand goes up then wouldnt investors look at the Mayo and consider renovating it?
How could more hotels create a demand for more hotels?
Not creating more hotels. Just showing the demand for more hotels to investors. I have seen in other towns where older hotels dont get renovated until other hotels are built and more of a demand exists.
quote:
Originally posted by DM
Not creating more hotels. Just showing the demand for more hotels to investors. I have seen in other towns where older hotels dont get renovated until other hotels are built and more of a demand exists.
I think I see what you're getting at. Once some level of "critical mass" is achieved, renovating older hotels makes much more sense to developers. On the other hand, if the owners of the Mayo are interested, I have absolutely no problem with the City helping them along.
If I get a chance, I'll try to take some photos today or tomorrow.
All I have to say about towerview is...
"...it ain't nothin' napalm wouldn't cure!"[8D]
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by DM
Not creating more hotels. Just showing the demand for more hotels to investors. I have seen in other towns where older hotels dont get renovated until other hotels are built and more of a demand exists.
I think I see what you're getting at. Once some level of "critical mass" is achieved, renovating older hotels makes much more sense to developers. On the other hand, if the owners of the Mayo are interested, I have absolutely no problem with the City helping them along.
If I get a chance, I'll try to take some photos today or tomorrow.
Yea. What he said. Its Friday before a three day weekend so my brain has already shut down. lol!
I wouldnt have any problems with the city offering tax incentives to the Mayo or something like that to get the renovations done.
Just ignoring the guys motives, what is the plan? Is it to write everyone, and oppose such a purchase? Is it to oppose the 3rd Penny outright? Is there a counter-proposal being developed? Is the building historically significant to the point it can be preserved? Are we protesting? Are we complaining and shaking fists? Are we talking injunctions?
The building is interesting. It doesn't have to be demolished. But the case needs to be "shored up", and we need a plan.
I think the TowerView building is worth rehabilitating. Its attractive enough, should have some historical value and looks better there than a modern hotel would. I'l like to see more buildings of its ilk erected as condos and ground floor retail/service.
Here is a thread of Towerview Photos.
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2782
Didn't want to clog up this thread.
I want to agree with you carltonplace.
According to the front door sign, it was built in 1922. Pretty old for Tulsa.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
According to the front door sign, it was built in 1922. Pretty old for Tulsa.
Yeah it is. It is old enough to raise heck.
I've got some other photos to download, probably get to it tonight.
Towerview Photos (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2782%22)
Are we still hosting that Historical summit thing next year, or the year after?
Beats me how that honor was bestowed upon us in the first place - unless it's a tactic by a concerned commission to shame us into easing up on the bull-dozers.
Sheepish grins abound.
But really, it's pretty simple: we continue to elect small minds, that continue to plod along the bovinian path, and thus we continue to suffer one blunder after another.
It's our continued legacy.
Of interest to me, after the razed rubble is cleared and the fight is over, is following the money.
Earlier, someone posted "area's of developement" but actually there is just one area on site, and could be the details of that lone area is what caused our mayor to pound a fist on the table (which aledgedly prompted a forehead vein to make a sudden appearence) and with audiable clarity pronounce that site as the only site in town.
I wasn't there, and thus I don't know if this "story" isn't just some horrible, unforgivable lie (gasp!), but seems an awefully large elephant to hide if it is true.
"Usually takes a number of years for the truth of anything hinkey to find the light of day" - Rico
One would have to be nuts or a noble sucker for lost causes to start a save the structure in this case... But!, to present this case along with a few other, choice and recent blunders - in some slide show type presentation at the Historical summit thing (unless those people came to their senses' and moved the event to Nowata): well, that might be the time and place to produce a few progressive thoughts to take root and yeild results in the future.
This noble sucker will not be joining any fight to save the place...but do think the property merits concideration - if not for any other reason then we can't stand to loose any more then we alreay have.
Comes down to slow minds looking for fast money.
There, there's my take on what someone else should do with their money while I stand back and judge them visiously from a distance.
jdb
quote:
Originally posted by jdb
But really, it's pretty simple: we continue to elect small minds, that continue to plod along the bovinian path, and thus we continue to suffer one blunder after another.
jdb
I have a new quote for the day! (as though I have a quote of the day...the only one I know that has one (and I'm assuming here) would be RecycleMichael.
I'd like to just add this from my perspective. The Tower View, in 1951, contained the first home of my parents when they started their marriage together. They couldn't afford much, dad and mom just wanted to escape Salina, OK and move to the big city. Mom would walk anywhere she wanted to go downtown...(gasp...shopping and entertainment downtown!) and when Dad would get off work, they would take the car up Reservoir Hill at night to look at all the Oil Baron's mansions and the city lights and dream of a time they could live somewhere so elegant.
Now, I will tell you this...my parents actually finding each other and deciding to get married, well, one would assume that pairing would only be thought up by a Japanese film producer trying to find the next Godzilla vs. " " movie...or perhaps Archie Bunker (if you left out all the "loveable aspects") gets married to Maude (if you left out the Kaftans).
Seriously....wow.
By the time I came along, they were ready to kill each other any way they could (most likely using Charlie Rich and Freddie Fender albums in some way), so they divorced.
HOWEVER.
The one hopeful and happy story I have about them....the one that revolves around the Towerview...well, that's just priceless to me. I think that's a big reason why I'm such an idealist about preserving our past.
Have a happy new year, everybody! Just watch out for the cow pies on the path,
Lisa
What a wonderful story, LisaPeace. My parents started out very similarly--at an apartment near 15th & Utica. Sadly, it is now a surface lot for Stillwater.
I believe there are two types of people in this world. There are those who look at houses and structures only for their utility--they serve a purpose and that is all. Then there are those of us who look at homes and buildings as part of our family. We are the ones that insist on driving by our childhood home; we refuse to paint the door with the markings of family members at different heights of development.
I regret that I was not among those fighting to save the Skelly. Perhaps you did not save the building, but it was a worthy endeavor. Unfortunately, right now in Tulsa the owner of any property--no matter how significant--has the right to destroy it.
Which leads me to the difference in this case. This building may not be as significant as the Skelly. But it is not the owner that is wanting to tear it down--it is our elected officials, with our tax money. I believe that poses a much different issue--one much more susciptible to public pressure.
For those who haven't figured it out, I am jumping on the
DO THE MAYO FIRST
bandwagon.
Well stated pmcalk; You hit the nail on the head. I do not want any of my money spent on tearing down a structure that I think should or could be rehabilitated. This old building has character, great downtown views, and fits exactly into the credo that TulsaNow espouses "a liveable walkable downtown".
I don't know if the owner is serious about turning it into lofts, but we should get behind that idea anyway. If any taxpayer money is to be spent it should not be toward the destruction of this building but toward its rise from the stain of its past (not the building's fault it was a slum).
As far as "Do the Mayo First"! Who wouldn't prefer to stay in a famous restored Mayo hotel over some collection of boxes put up by Hilton or Motel 8 or Rent A Room. I find it highly improbable that a new structure would carry any of the architectural aspects that make the Mayo or the Towerview unique. Just a thought; but wouldn't anything over 5 stories block the arena from view looking west?
I don't want to be against downtown development, but I really want us to take our time and do what is right for the area. When I look at the eyesore Cinema that OKC threw up in BrickTown it makes me want to wave my arms wildly, point my finger, jump up and down on my soapbox and scream "Never in Downtown Tulsa". I haven't seen any recently built hotels that made me think "Wow, that is one beautiful structure".
I'm aware that condos are not the same economic impact but the 10 or so units of people living in downtown and caring about their neighborhood is worth more than a hotel to me. I might change my tune once I see the proposed plans, but I doubt it.
Agreed..
I have been thinking about this issue, probably way too much. But for those who still are undecided, who are concerned about whether the Towerview is worth saving, I would like to make one more argument. Think about how different scenarios might be played, the first being that the Mayor gets his way, and money is included in the third penny to buy the building:
1. In the best case scenario, the city and the owner reach an agreement on price, the building is torn down, and the mayor finds a national chain to come build a hotel right next door to the Arena--maybe even a walkway directly connecting the two. So a handful of times a year, when large convention come to Tulsa, the hotel will be booked. People will go back and forth from the arena to the hotel with the least amount of exposure to Tulsa as possible. No walking around downtown, most will sleep and eat at the hotel, and cross the street to go to the convention. Meanwhile, most of the year, the hotel will be half empty, and at all times will draw customers away from other downtown hotels that are already half empty much of the time. That's the best case--we could get a situation where the owner takes the city to court because they can't agree on a price, or, even worse, the city may fail to attract a national chain after the building is destroyed, and we will have yet another surface parking lot.
2. On the other hand, if the city does not choose to purchase the property, that money could be used for a variety of other purposes. And if there truly is a need for a large, national hotel, private companies can approach the owner on their own. If the owner is really committed to building highend lofts, and does not want to sell, then the hotel will simply have to be built around the lofts. We'll have both lofts and a hotel. In the worst case, the owner may not develop the building, and simply let it remain a boarded up slum. As the Arena is completed, the property around it will become more and more valuable. Which means his property taxes will go up higher and higher. Even a sleazy slumlord wants to make money--he won't sit on high valued property for long, without trying to make some money.
IMO, the best case would be for that block to be left for development of small scale retail, cafes, and even housing. Just think, if people were staying at the Crowne Plaza or Mayo for a convention, then they walked the few blocks to the Arena, they could stop at restaurants and cafes along the way. They could experience some of Tulsa instead just their hotel. The Towerview actually reminds me a lot of the Pizzeria Uno building in Chicago--wouldn't it be a great place to reopen My Pie pizza?
Exactly!
I don't love this building, but I'm 100% in favor of its rehabilitation because:
1. I see potential.
2. Its the devil we know.
http://www.urbantulsa.com/article.asp?id=2695
quote:
The pay-by-the-week SRO sits annoyingly in the midst an almost perfect line that extends from the Williams Towers, where the Metro Chamber's offices are located and the Tulsa World's building, to the Tulsa Vision Builders' offices, where a partnership of two powerful local construction firms conducts the brainwork for the arena's construction and the planned site of the events center itself.
Kept trying to think of what the building reminded me of, then finally...
There was an SRO (sleeping room only) in Chicago that looked a lot like it (a little smaller). The brick was almost exactly the same color-- plain and ugly. It rented rooms by the week-- and a neon sign on the front read "transients welcome." A guy I worked with from Australia was forced to live there a few weeks while working a job... inside was awful-- holes in the walls, obvious rodent infestation, etc, etc...
I walked by the place a year later and did a complete "double take." After sandblasting and adding concrete trim and decorative facades the place changed completely to a reasonably priced boutique hotel:
http://www.hawthorneterrace.com/
If the Towerview was an SRO weekly hotel, why not sell it off to a Best Western, Red Roof or Motel 6, etc?... under the conditions of a "total gut rehab" and give people a more reasonably priced alternative to the big modern hotels in the area...
My 2-cents.
I added some pics that show some of this building's surroundings.
Towerview Photos (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2782%22)
I think the Towerview's owner is undergoing a mafia-style "shakedown" by the City of Tulsa. "Do what we want or we'll put you out of business" seems to be the message the City of Tulsa has sent to the owner of the Towerview.
The City's treatment (and the World's treatment) of the Towerview's owner should have shocked people into realizing something is very wrong with our attitude in Tulsa.
Between the NEGATIVE newspaper articles besmirching the Towerview coming out of nowhere (and it really wasn't newsworthy), and the City SUDDENLY wanting to condemn the Towerview for code violations that had been allowed to exist for decades, I just think we have sent a very clear message to small, out-of-state investors.
Why don't we shake down every absentee property owner in Tulsa, and see how many real estate investors we can get to pull out of Tulsa? It could be an excellent way to prove we are as backwards as the rest of the nation thinks we are.
I think the Towerview's only hope for remaining under its current ownership is for the owner to contribute to someone's re-election campaign.
I really didn't appreciate the World stories, mainly because of the people effected. But in the grand scheme of things, I think the stories were "newsworthy." If the way to clean up an area is to put it in print, then the place I find fault with the World, is not being consistent about it. They should be carrying on their crusade in the rest of Tulsa, always bringing attention to slum lords. If you're going to "be bad", just be consistently "bad." Maybe that is too much to ask.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
I really didn't appreciate the World stories, mainly because of the people effected. But in the grand scheme of things, I think the stories were "newsworthy." If the way to clean up an area is to put it in print, then the place I find fault with the World, is not being consistent about it. They should be carrying on their crusade in the rest of Tulsa, always bringing attention to slum lords. If you're going to "be bad", just be consistently "bad." Maybe that is too much to ask.
I completely agree. How many slum lords do you think there are in Tulsa? I am sure there were much worse places than Towerview, which continue to violate ordinances everyday. Why this weekly rental, other than its close proximity to the Arena?
I think that many people learned lessons from the handling of the Denver Grill.
It was an embarassment and should have been forced to cleanup it's act or close (it had bathrooms outside). I thought it was kinda cool to have a diner restaurant on Denver until I actually took some visitors there.
The place was nasty, but when the city tried to purchase the land for the arena, suddenly certain individuals acted like it was Mecca. The whole purchase became political and messy.
It was right after this that the Tulsa World did a story about the Towerview Apartments and how decrepid it was. The code officials then used their power to enforce the rules.
I work a block away from the Towerview and my grandfather owned a building (long gone) across the street when I was growing up. I always remember this building as being in bad shape, but I am not a structural engineer to know if it is worth saving.
I worry that it will continue to be a blight on this part of downtown. We have committed to build the biggest and most expensive public building project in our city's history. I clearly don't want this building in it's current form to be across the street.
If I was a hotel chain looking to build a new hotel, I would also be cautious with such a eyesore next door as well.
If the owner had been working on it all year I would feel differently.
If tearing down this building is a stumbling block to a revitalized west downtown and no one can prove it is unique or historical in nature, why argue it's demise? Are we just overwrought because of the recent loss of the Skelly building or the Auto Hotel?
This structure pales in comparison.
I'm still firmly "on the fence" about Towerview. I would very much like a structural engineer to check that building out. Some of the things I saw made me question the cost of reusing this building. Primarily very large, and plentiful, cracks on the exterior brick work. I don't know what this structure is capable of. To bring this up to a standard that it could support $200K lofts, I don't know what amount of money would do that. I don't know if the owner can afford the upgrade, I don't know if the owner would actually make money off of an upgrade.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I think that many people learned lessons from the handling of the Denver Grill.
It was an embarassment and should have been forced to cleanup it's act or close (it had bathrooms outside). I thought it was kinda cool to have a diner restaurant on Denver until I actually took some visitors there.
The place was nasty, but when the city tried to purchase the land for the arena, suddenly certain individuals acted like it was Mecca. The whole purchase became political and messy.
It was right after this that the Tulsa World did a story about the Towerview Apartments and how decrepid it was. The code officials then used their power to enforce the rules.
I work a block away from the Towerview and my grandfather owned a building (long gone) across the street when I was growing up. I always remember this building as being in bad shape, but I am not a structural engineer to know if it is worth saving.
I worry that it will continue to be a blight on this part of downtown. We have committed to build the biggest and most expensive public building project in our city's history. I clearly don't want this building in it's current form to be across the street.
If I was a hotel chain looking to build a new hotel, I would also be cautious with such a eyesore next door as well.
If the owner had been working on it all year I would feel differently.
If tearing down this building is a stumbling block to a revitalized west downtown and no one can prove it is unique or historical in nature, why argue it's demise? Are we just overwrought because of the recent loss of the Skelly building or the Auto Hotel?
This structure pales in comparison.
Not many cared about Casa Bonita either until the announcement to close. People get used to having something around without feeling a need to give a cheer for it weekly.
Hatfields has bathrooms outside still but then again it's on the east side where some are lucky to have a tree for a bathroom..[:P]
Little Rock has a gas station converted bar? next to Alltel
(http://tulsaworld.cc/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/img7951web.jpg)
That's a good point about Casa Bonita. I knew some people who hadn't eaten there in 20 years stand in line for two hours only to have them run out of food the last week.
"Absent in body, but present in spirit".
Corinthians, 5:3.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I think that many people learned lessons from the handling of the Denver Grill.
It was an embarassment and should have been forced to cleanup it's act or close (it had bathrooms outside). I thought it was kinda cool to have a diner restaurant on Denver until I actually took some visitors there.
The place was nasty, but when the city tried to purchase the land for the arena, suddenly certain individuals acted like it was Mecca. The whole purchase became political and messy.
It was right after this that the Tulsa World did a story about the Towerview Apartments and how decrepid it was. The code officials then used their power to enforce the rules.
I work a block away from the Towerview and my grandfather owned a building (long gone) across the street when I was growing up. I always remember this building as being in bad shape, but I am not a structural engineer to know if it is worth saving.
I worry that it will continue to be a blight on this part of downtown. We have committed to build the biggest and most expensive public building project in our city's history. I clearly don't want this building in it's current form to be across the street.
If I was a hotel chain looking to build a new hotel, I would also be cautious with such a eyesore next door as well.
If the owner had been working on it all year I would feel differently.
If tearing down this building is a stumbling block to a revitalized west downtown and no one can prove it is unique or historical in nature, why argue it's demise? Are we just overwrought because of the recent loss of the Skelly building or the Auto Hotel?
This structure pales in comparison.
I understand people being on the fence with this one. After all, it is not the Skelly. Perhaps ultimately it is not worth saving--structurally it looks okay to me, but I am not an engineer. I don't see any major cracks in the outside walls; mostly I see a real need for new windows.
I would be interested, though, in your response to these questions:
1. Do you really believe we need another hotel downtown? Will the other hotels be able to survive if another is built? And if another hotel is needed, do you believe it is necessary for the city to instigate it?
2. Do you like the idea of our government using our money to take private property from one person to give it to another?
3. Do you think that this guy will sit on his property, letting it deteriorate while losing money on property taxes? While I am not among those who believe "greed is good," I do think there is a motivation for the owner to put his property to use.
I understand the argument that a hotel might be detered because of a rundown building next to it. But if what the city is predicting comes true--if the arena spurs the amount of development and focus on downtown that is hoped, I would imagine a hotel could look past one small building. Or buy that building. If the revitalization of downtown hinges on the city purchasing this one building, I would say we have a lot bigger problems.
I know that I probably come across as a zealot when it comes to historic preservation. But in this case it is not one simple factor that bothers me--it is the cumulation of bad decisions that bother me. If the owner of the building wanted to tear it down, I might be disappointed, but wouldn't say anything (unless it was to convert to a surface lot). If a chain hotel were being built in its place, I might worry about the city's ability to support four large hotels in such a small radius, but I would not say anything. And I don't always object to public money going to private development. But when you put all of that together, I simply cannot support it. I am not going to chain myself to the building, or picket in front of any new hotel; I am simply going to write the Mayor & Council and say I don't support 3rd penny sales tax going to this endeavor.
I understand what you are saying about the Denver Grill. I don't know the true motivation of the owner. I know my parents have lived in the same house for 35 years; some might say it is a little dumpy. But if they had to move, at any price, it would devestate them. If this guy's only motivation is to get an exorbitant price for his property, the best way to negotiate may be to simply walk away.
I can't believe I'm reading some of these posts. You have a slumlord who's letting people live with filthy rats, cockroaches and fleas, and you're blaming the city and the newspaper? No one should live in those conditions, so put the blame where it's deserved -- the property owner who let the building go to hell in the first place.
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a place that was worse than the Towerview. I can think of one -- the Shady Rest on Southwest Boulevard -- and that was closed by the fire marshal for fire, plumbing and electrical violations in October. It used to be a nice old Route 66 motel, but the owner let it go to hell. Sound familiar? Now it's been bulldozed.
I inspected the Shady Rest shortly after its closure and saw the squalor, saw the ramshackle maintenance and smelled the stench. I don't blame anyone for shutting the place down and bulldozing it. Although why the landlord let it deteriorate into such a deplorable condition is beyond me. As a landlord, you're obligated to give your tenants livable conditions, if for nothing else but for human decency. Both the Towerview and Shady Rest owners failed in that obligation miserably.
I'm involved in Route 66 preservation, and lots of enthusiasts blame developers for the loss of historic properties. But in my experience, at least half of these properties are lost because the current owners don't bother to maintain them. They get so bad that they're beyond repair.
These landlords don't have the basic decency to give people -- many of whom are struggling enough to stay alive -- a half-decent place to live. These landlords are the worst kind of scum.
Just speaking for myself, in regards to the questions above by pmcalk.
1. I don't know. Maybe. I don't think a new hotel will dry up the market in downtown. I'd rather spend political capital insuring that a new hotel would have a parking garage, and street level retail.
2. "Like" wouldn't describe the way I feel about such transactions. But I do feel that sometimes these things are necessary. And I feel that this may be one of those times.
3. I don't know. But trying to avoid condemnation long enough to get a better price, seems like motivation enough. The owner has made a statement that I find highly suspect at this point.
Question 2...The eminent domain rules can be punitive, but used for neglect and blight it can be a catalyst. This is probably the definition of neglect and blight.
Question 3, I don't know. Why has he sat on it this long if he had plans to rebuild? The price of materials has been skyrocketing. Why has he raised his buying price so much? What is his motivation? Remember, he lives in California and doesn't maintain it.
My answer to question 1, absolutely. Tulsa would be in a better position to go after tourism and convention dollars if it only had a couple of more hotels near the convention center.
In my job I spend lots of nights in hotels in cities all over America. Hotels can bring in new money and can be a host to everything from retail to restaurants...things I want near the new arena.
Two weeks ago I was talking to some managers at the downtown Doubletree and they said they would love to have a couple of more hotels downtown because they think it provides critical mass and they help each other. The hotel business understands the need to be a bit bigger in order to attract new conventions and meetings.
I am on the fence on the Towerview as well. If it was currently better managed I would hands down want to preserve it. We all should be zealots in historic preservation.
I just can't get upset about its demise based on the practices of the present owners and the hopes of the future downtown.
Holey moley, me and recyclemichael must be linked through telepathy.
I wasn't aware that I had that power. Or that recyclemichael has it, whatever the case.
"Power is nothing until you use it".
Machiavelli, Niccolò
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
.
My answer to question 1, absolutely. Tulsa would be in a better position to go after tourism and convention dollars if it only had a couple of more hotels near the convention center.
In my job I spend lots of nights in hotels in cities all over America. Hotels can bring in new money and can be a host to everything from retail to restaurants...things I want near the new arena.
Two weeks ago I was talking to some managers at the downtown Doubletree and they said they would love to have a couple of more hotels downtown because they think it provides critical mass and they help each other. The hotel business understands the need to be a bit bigger in order to attract new conventions and meetings.
I am on the fence on the Towerview as well. If it was currently better managed I would hands down want to preserve it. We all should be zealots in historic preservation.
I just can't get upset about its demise based on the practices of the present owners and the hopes of the future downtown.
I can agree with your points and I definately want to do what is best for downtown. If that translates to a new Hotel great, if it's condos, perfect.
But,
I want to know two things before I can back taxpayer dollars used to destroy another downtown structure.
1. Is the TowerView salvagable
2. Which hotel chain wants to build, and what do they want to build?
If the building can be saved, why can't it be converted into a hotel or become part of a larger similar structure? If the building is structurally sound and we tear it down, what will the new hotel look like? Will it add to the general "feel" of downtown or will it stand out like a sore thumb? If they want to reach back in time and build a big Chicago brick hotel I'm in, but I doubt that is what we'll get.
The more I think about it, the more I'm leaning towards saving this thing if it can be done. The current owner whatever his intention does not have to be the last owner. I'd rather see money spent in defense of the building than to tear it down and put G knows what in its place. I didn't think the Safeway store at 15th and Lewis could possibly be topped for sheer ugliness, but look at Office Depot.
I'd like to chime in...
1) I am 100% opposed to using 3rd penny sales tax money to purchase the Towerview. The city can hand over 2/3 of the block as it is -- the private developer can do the rest. No need to use our most reliable (yet regressive) funding source for capital improvements to sweeten the bottom line for an out-of-town hotel chain.
2) The Towerview was in bad shape for years. It was well known to downtown workers, so to lay the blame at the feet of the latest landlord doesn't go deep enough. The Towerview was allowed to exist for years by all manner of public agencies. If any of them express even a tinge of shock over its condition the day it was boarded up, they're hypocrites. It took a lot of people looking the other way for the Towerview to exist.
3) It's nearly impossible to tell fact from fiction by reading the World, but my understanding is that the owner in Oregon wanted to fix the problems with the building instead of boarding it up. Unfortunately for the evicted residents, he couldn't do that because city inspectors swarmed the building like locusts once the bad PR hit. The number of inspections in such a short time was all but unprecedented and gave the owner no choice but to board up the place.
4) All this came about AFTER it was widely known that city officials thought that square block would be a swell place for a new hotel. Hmmm...
5) The BOK drive-through bank just one block to the north is a crumbling waste of prime land in its own right. It is not heavily patronized from what I can tell (I'm down there a lot). The design and automobile-centric use makes it a highly underdeveloped and underutilized block. If an entire block is needed for a new hotel (which is doubtful), build it there... still across the street from the arena.
6) If the city spent 1/10th of the amount of time they've spent drooling over the Towerview block on the Mayo Hotel, we'd have that gem well on its way. If we build a brand new hotel less than 2 blocks from the Mayo and the grand old dame remains largely shuttered, that is a huge failure on the city's part.
7) Supposedly, the Towerview owner is starting work on the building in February and working with a local architecture firm on the plans. We'll see.
8) If the Towerview Loft project becomes a reality, there's no reason why it can't share the square block with a new hotel. No reason whatsoever.
Here's a concept -- let's work out a plan where we end up with a rehabbed Mayo Hotel, a new hotel AND a renovated Towerview that adds good housing units downtown. Why isn't the city ever in the business of working out these win-win deals? Why is it always a zero-sum game where the city is concerned?
Surely Bank of Oklahoma has redevelopment plans for that bank drive-thru. It is a prime lot and their name is going on the arena across the street.
I agree with you Joe that all the above would be the preferred option.
Well if we can come up with a concensus (I like what Joe has to say) I'm ready to draft my letter to the Mare.
I think we've had that consensus for a while. Most of the items AJ put forward I agree with in general.
If someone is to create a general letter writing campaign to the Mayor, I'd be in on that.
I'm still highly skeptical in this case. But I appreciate the fervor for preservation, I appreciate the discussion so far, and I don't mind going with the flow for a bit.
I'm going to shift gears a bit, just to put into perspective whether an entire square block is needed for a hotel.
The Bank of America Center on the NE corner of 6th & Boulder was the tallest building in Oklahoma when it opened in the early 60s.
(http://www.wigginprop.com/Properties1/Tulsaforlease/Banktowerpic.gif)
The lower fifth the building -- the white "base" portion -- is a parking garage. The smoked glass upper floors are the offices. There is a bank lobby on the ground floor and the Summit Club on the top floor. Lots going on there.
The entire building footprint is 1/4 of the block. It doesn't even encroach on the alley running north/south.
TDA owns about 2/3 of the square block where the Towerview is located, including the half-block deep by full-block long portion that fronts the arena site... but that's not enough land for a hotel? Please.
There's plenty of existing land just sitting there as surface parking for a hotel site.
Great point, there is no need to tear it down..let's please fill in the surface parking first.
I agree that the hotel, and the Towerview, can be a lot of things. I've already stated my concerns, I don't think they'll be addressed at this time.
We're being awfully speculative right now, there is a lot of negative possibilities that are being ignored outright. That is ok, we don't have to agree. I agree that the building is old, and IMO qualifies for a bit of action. Whether or not action is taken (beyond a letter), is going to be up to someone who isn't "on the fence."
I'll go with you, to a degree, simply on the principle that "the building is old." There are plenty of things that could change my mind one way or the other, they just haven't materialized yet.
I definitely understand your concerns, MC. Until proven otherwise, probably a good idea to be a bit skeptical of the Towerview owner's plans. He could be blowing hot air.
But... that doesn't mean the idea of converting the Towerview into housing isn't a good idea, and one the Mayor's office might want to sniff out. If a hotel and a renovated Towerview can be accommodated on the same square block, why not try to make it happen? Seems a better end result than a hotel alone.
The Mayo should be pretty much mandatory no matter what happens to the Towerview.
Does anyone know the owner's of the Mayo? The last I heard was that they were trying to raise the money for the elevators. How much do they need? There is currently 3 million slated for downtown acquistion and for the Brady district. I don't want to take away any from the Brady, but I wonder if enough is left to fix the Mayo hotel's elevators.
I am not saying that I am convinced that the owner wants to convert the building to lofts. But I think that we could give him the benefit of the doubt, at least for a bit of time. Its not like he has sat on this property for years--my understanding is that he bought it, within six months it was closed down, and it has only been a little over a year since that occurred. It takes some time to develop plans. And as far as he being an absentee landlord, so is Kanbar. Its not always a bad thing.
I don't know about all the intricacies of the purchase of Towerview. But for the time being, I don't see any reason to jump to conclusions. It could very well be that the owner has a plan. And according to the World article, the owner was talking about pre-selling these lofts in February.
The 3rd Penny expires July 1, 2006. Is the next 3rd penny vote going to be on the City Council ballot in April?
According to the Council website (if it is up to date) the City Council is still reviewing the 3rd Penny. If you want to raise the Towerview issue, I'd start with the Council, and with the Mayor. The 3rd Penny will be on a ballot before it expires July 1st. Time is a factor.
"We don't have time to discuss this in committee." - Han Solo
I didn't mean to stymie all discussion on this item, and invoke the sound of crickets.
If this item stays on the 3rd Penny to election, IMO, that would be a pretty good sign that it's a done deal.
I intend to voice my objection to the Council. My understanding is that the Mayor wants the third penny voted on during the municiple election on April 4, so the Council will have to approve it well before that date to get it on the ballot.
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
I'm going to shift gears a bit, just to put into perspective whether an entire square block is needed for a hotel.
The Bank of America Center on the NE corner of 6th & Boulder was the tallest building in Oklahoma when it opened in the early 60s.
(http://www.wigginprop.com/Properties1/Tulsaforlease/Banktowerpic.gif)
The lower fifth the building -- the white "base" portion -- is a parking garage. The smoked glass upper floors are the offices. There is a bank lobby on the ground floor and the Summit Club on the top floor. Lots going on there.
The entire building footprint is 1/4 of the block. It doesn't even encroach on the alley running north/south.
TDA owns about 2/3 of the square block where the Towerview is located, including the half-block deep by full-block long portion that fronts the arena site... but that's not enough land for a hotel? Please.
There's plenty of existing land just sitting there as surface parking for a hotel site.
Now that is my point, I have no idea and really don't care what the outcome will be for the towerview. I hope it can be rehabbed and reused, bt if not, I won't cry.
I just don't see the point to spend more money, the city already has plenty of land for any downtown hotel use.
If the city really wants to use the money on the Towerview, then do that, use the money to redo it! Or give it to the Mayo, whatever. I just see buying the towerview to tear it down and create a larger footprint hotel as counterproductive and wasteful.
I'm afraid of a large suburban style hotel if the entire block is available, something like Hammond's other hotel in town off of US169. Force any hotel developer to build up instead!
Why not lobby the Council and Mare to do the one year extension to finish the projects that were promised but fell short of funding in the current third penny and hold a vote on new projects projects before the year extension is set to expire? I think a little more time for review and consideration would be a good thing. Let the dust settle from all the election year posturing, and look at this package without the political blinders on. Besides we are going to basically have a new Council after April 4th(and hopefully a new mayor), why should they be saddled with administering a program that was decided by lame duck officials.
Oh yeah, one more thing, I agree:
DO THE MAYO FIRST!
Something was kind of bothering me about the assertion that this hotel could go on half a block. It appears that some hotels are on half a block if you look at aerial photos, but that isn't the way I was remembering it. So I went downtown this evening, to see what I could see.
The Mayo and Ambassador, those two hotels are obviously less than the size of a block.
Crowne Plaza's with it's attached convention space, is probably slightly larger than a 0.5 blocks. If you include the parking garage (that services Crowne Plaza) under that greenspace in front of Williams Tower, the Crowne Plaza is much larger than an entire block. It's close to 1.5 blocks.
If you include Doubletree's attached convention space, it's very close to a block in size. About 1.5 if you include the parking garage.
Doubletree and Crowne Plaza would both fit on half of a block, if they didn't have convention space and parking garages.
I'm sure it is possible, I'm sure it has been done elsewhere on half a block. But it doesn't appear that half of a block would support a typical modern downtown hotel development. For a hotel, IMO it makes sense to have your convention space on or near street level. And obviously a hotel would need it's own parking garage in that location.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
Something was kind of bothering me about the assertion that this hotel could go on half a block. It appears that some hotels are on half a block if you look at aerial photos, but that isn't the way I was remembering it. So I went downtown this evening, to see what I could see.
The Mayo and Ambassador, those two hotels are obviously less than the size of a block.
Crowne Plaza's with it's attached convention space, is probably slightly larger than a 0.5 blocks. If you include the parking garage (that services Crowne Plaza) under that greenspace in front of Williams Tower, the Crowne Plaza is much larger than an entire block. It's close to 1.5 blocks.
If you include Doubletree's attached convention space, it's very close to a block in size. About 1.5 if you include the parking garage.
Doubletree and Crowne Plaza would both fit on half of a block, if they didn't have convention space and parking garages.
I'm sure it is possible, I'm sure it has been done elsewhere on half a block. But it doesn't appear that half of a block would support a typical modern downtown hotel development. For a hotel, IMO it makes sense to have your convention space on or near street level. And obviously a hotel would need it's own parking garage in that location.
Wouldn't a hotel with its own convention space be counter-productive to the convention space Tulsa is already paying for and building?
Different point, but Tulsa voters already kind of already drew a line for west downtown development when we approved the arena. Why do we feel the need to sweeten the deal to entice a hotel to come to town? Am I wrong, or shouldn't we stand back and say: "Look what we're building, don't you want to be a part of it, bring money"?
Part of the problem is that I seem to be seeing this from almost exclusively the City's POV.
Even if you eliminate the convention space, both the Doubletree and Crowne Plaza are a block or more in size, with their parking garages. It would be asking something atypical, to require the hotel be built on half of a block.
But those are good points. There is a "bet" in all of this, that I wouldn't want to take if I were the City. But, I also have to agree with you. Everything that has been said so far, makes sense.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
Part of the problem is that I seem to be seeing this from almost exclusively the City's POV.
Even if you eliminate the convention space, both the Doubletree and Crowne Plaza are a block or more in size, with their parking garages. It would be asking something atypical, to require the hotel be built on half of a block.
But those are good points. There is a "bet" in all of this, that I wouldn't want to take if I were the City. But, I also have to agree with you. Everything that has been said so far, makes sense.
Just for sake of argument -- the Ramada Inn (or whatever it is this month) at 7th & Boulder only occupies 1/4 of a square block.
I'm no architect, but it would seem entirely feasible to build a hotel with the parking on the lower floors and the rooms above on a roughly 2/3 square block footprint - especially with a full 1 block by 1/2 block section. I've stayed at the downtown Doubletree in Kansas City and that's basically their setup.
Just speculating.
Again, the whole point is to get creative to see if a hotel can be accommodated without having to use taxpayer money normally earmarked for infrastructure to buy the Towerview out from an owner who claims to want to rehab the building. I don't ever see the Mayor's Office coming up with anything resembling creative, win-win plans.
I agree that it can be done.
The City could require that in order to be eligible for the TDA property on the West side of the block, a hotel would have to build its parking underground.
I have written the following to the Mayor, with copies to the council; for those interested, I would encourage you to write as wll.
quote:
Dear Mayor LaFortune,
I am writing in regard to the proposed third penny sales tax initiative that you have submitted to the City Council for an upcoming vote. I applaud your leadership, and your willingness to listen to the voters in the community prior to compiling the various projects addressed in the tax initiative.
Most of the projects are clearly devoted to needed infrastructure and similar projects. However, I find one project neither needed nor prudent. I am referring to the inclusion of money for downtown development—specifically that money devoted to the purchase of private property with the intent of building a new hotel downtown. My understanding from the local paper is that the City is interested in acquiring the Towerview Apartment building, the 1922 building that was recently shut down because of code violations. According to the paper, the owner of that building is interested in converting to apartments into high-end lofts.
I object to the use of public money for the conversion of this building to a hotel for several reasons. First, I see no reason why public money needs to be used. Hotel companies are multi-million dollar industries that are perfectly capable of negotiating deals in their best interest without the help of city governments. If a hotel chain is truly interested in building in Tulsa, I fail to see why spending public money is necessary. Second, I don't believe that the space on which that building sits is imperative to the building of a hotel. Much of that block—almost 2/3—is a surface lot already owned by the Tulsa Development Authority. Why is that not sufficient space to build a hotel? Finally, I believe that tearing down yet another old building in Tulsa is counter-productive, especially when someone has expressed an interest in rehabilitating it. True, the owner may not be sincere; yet, the building could be turned into a profitable venture by someone. Rehabilitating the Towerview and building a hotel downtown would be a win-win situation for all involved, including the residents of Tulsa. Tulsa has lost so many of its small and mid-sized historic buildings; tearing down yet another at the public's expense without justification makes no sense.
Tulsa relies heavily on its regressive sales tax. Thus, our politicians must take a strong leadership role to ensure that only those projects truly needed are included. To ask those who have limited means to fund this venture shows poor vision. That money could be used to provide needed infrastructure; it could be used to improve the walkways between the existing hotels and the Arena, encouraging visitors to experience more of downtown Tulsa; it could even be used to help rehabilitate the Mayo, a truly unique Tulsa hotel. But to simply use the money to take private property from one person, and give to another, ensuring the destruction of an old building, as well as another potential source of tax revenue, is bad policy.
Again, I do support the remainder of the third penny tax initiative, including the remainder of the money devoted to downtown development in the Brady District.
Good letter Pmcalk.
I appreciate that you took the time to state your comments in writing and addressed them to the Mayor and Council.
Many people just want to complain, thinking that their saying it to others in person or a forum is enough. Writing polite letters does matter and including all the people who could make a difference counts as well.
I also think it is important to include alternatives like funding the Mayo helps.
My letter is out:
Mayor Lafortune,
I would like to thank you for your continued dedication to the City of Tulsa and its development. As a lifelong resident of Tulsa I can't remember a time that held as much excitement for the future, or as many projects proposed or underway. Of particular interest to me are the Pearl District/6th St infill plan, River development, the arena, and other downtown projects. I envision a time in the not to distant future, where our downtown will be a dense, walkable, livable environment that all Tulsans will be proud to inhabit and show off to visitors. This vision is of a unique Tulsa, not a copy of some other city (though we might borrow from successful models) and it is imperative that we do not make the mistakes that some other cities have made.
It is for this reason that I've decided to write to you. In your proposed third penny sales tax package there is a provision for the purchase and removal of the Towerview apartment building located in downtown on Cheyenne. The building was erected in 1922 and in my opinion is a prime candidate for rehabilitation. The Towerview is an example of the type of building that we need more of in our downtown and is a sad reminder of the ones like it that have been lost. I do not think this historic building should be razed, nor should tax dollars be used to take it from its owner (who claims to have a plan for improvement) to give it to a hotel chain. There is plenty of room on this site for both to exist.
I also hold the opinion that the new arena should possess enough incentive to attract major business to the area, and am not convinced that Tulsa would need to sweeten the deal. If we are to put any money into a hotel in the downtown area, I'd rather spend it on the Mayo.
Again, thank you for your time and dedication.
Good letter, Carlton the Doorman.
You wrote personal feelings and gave solid reasons for your opinions.
I believe that letters matter and I encourage others to state their opinions on paper and then send to decision makers.
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
My letter is out:
Mayor Lafortune,
I would like to thank you for your continued dedication to the City of Tulsa and its development. As a lifelong resident of Tulsa I can't remember a time that held as much excitement for the future, or as many projects proposed or underway. Of particular interest to me are the Pearl District/6th St infill plan, River development, the arena, and other downtown projects. I envision a time in the not to distant future, where our downtown will be a dense, walkable, livable environment that all Tulsans will be proud to inhabit and show off to visitors. This vision is of a unique Tulsa, not a copy of some other city (though we might borrow from successful models) and it is imperative that we do not make the mistakes that some other cities have made.
It is for this reason that I've decided to write to you. In your proposed third penny sales tax package there is a provision for the purchase and removal of the Towerview apartment building located in downtown on Cheyenne. The building was erected in 1922 and in my opinion is a prime candidate for rehabilitation. The Towerview is an example of the type of building that we need more of in our downtown and is a sad reminder of the ones like it that have been lost. I do not think this historic building should be razed, nor should tax dollars be used to take it from its owner (who claims to have a plan for improvement) to give it to a hotel chain. There is plenty of room on this site for both to exist.
I also hold the opinion that the new arena should possess enough incentive to attract major business to the area, and am not convinced that Tulsa would need to sweeten the deal. If we are to put any money into a hotel in the downtown area, I'd rather spend it on the Mayo.
Again, thank you for your time and dedication.
Great letter--much less wordy than mine (which is probably more effective).
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
I'm going to shift gears a bit, just to put into perspective whether an entire square block is needed for a hotel.
The Bank of America Center on the NE corner of 6th & Boulder was the tallest building in Oklahoma when it opened in the early 60s.
(http://www.wigginprop.com/Properties1/Tulsaforlease/Banktowerpic.gif)
The lower fifth the building -- the white "base" portion -- is a parking garage. The smoked glass upper floors are the offices. There is a bank lobby on the ground floor and the Summit Club on the top floor. Lots going on there.
The entire building footprint is 1/4 of the block. It doesn't even encroach on the alley running north/south.
TDA owns about 2/3 of the square block where the Towerview is located, including the half-block deep by full-block long portion that fronts the arena site... but that's not enough land for a hotel? Please.
There's plenty of existing land just sitting there as surface parking for a hotel site.
Just to correct/revise your post, this building was constructed in 1967 (not the early 1960s) as the original home of 4th National Bank, a local Tulsa bank. You are correct, it was the tallest building in the state when constructed. I remember going on a tour of the building under construction in 1967 with my cub scout troup. The building had been topped out, and they took us up to the top floor, still a steel frame skeleton with wooden walkways. (I am sure this would be a no-no today, due to the liability and danger issues, but is sure was cool to a 10 year old at the time.) I know my comments really have nothing to do with the topic at hand, but just wanted to correct the historical facts. It is a good use of the land area and does not overpower the area or surrounding structures. It is also a wonderful classic mid-twentieth century design with the vertical glass slab over the horizontal base. Looks as modern and up to date today as it did in 1967.
Nice letters. Did you folks send them to the MAC@cityoftulsa.org or was there another address?
dist1@tulsacouncil.org
dist2@tulsacouncil.org
dist3@tulsacouncil.org
dist4@tulsacouncil.org
dist5@tulsacouncil.org
dist6@tulsacouncil.org
dist7@tulsacouncil.org
dist8@tulsacouncil.org
dist9@tulsacouncil.org
These are the addresses I used.
Thanks carltonplace,
The timing on these letters is probably good. The World mentioned the Mayo being reviewed for Vision 2025 money.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=060115_Ne_A1_Build58000
Regardless of your Political views of Councilman Medlock; something he had placed on the coming weeks Council UED Meeting Agenda may help this, as well as the shaping of Downtown in the coming year.
Here is an audio of the proposal placing a one year moratorium on the use of "Eminent Domain" .
audio courtesy of Tulsa Topics
AUDIO (//%22http://www.tulsatopics.com/tulsatopics/images/20060124_UED_Medlock_Eminent_Domain1.mp3%22)
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
Regardless of your Political views of Councilman Medlock; something he had placed on the coming weeks Council UED Meeting Agenda may help this, as well as the shaping of Downtown in the coming year.
Here is an audio of the proposal placing a one year moratorium on the use of "Eminent Domain" .
audio courtesy of Tulsa Topics
AUDIO (//%22http://www.tulsatopics.com/tulsatopics/images/20060124_UED_Medlock_Eminent_Domain1.mp3%22)
I am not sure it will help, since I would imagine the city could reach an agreement before eminent domain were necessary. My problems is the allotment of limited tax payer funds to purchase private property from one person to sell to another.
There are many other projects downtown that could use that 3 million. Why not fund those areas where there is no private economic motivation, like the Centennial walk?
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
Regardless of your Political views of Councilman Medlock; something he had placed on the coming weeks Council UED Meeting Agenda may help this, as well as the shaping of Downtown in the coming year.
Here is an audio of the proposal placing a one year moratorium on the use of "Eminent Domain" .
audio courtesy of Tulsa Topics
AUDIO (//%22http://www.tulsatopics.com/tulsatopics/images/20060124_UED_Medlock_Eminent_Domain1.mp3%22)
I am not sure it will help, since I would imagine the city could reach an agreement before eminent domain were necessary.
Tell me; if someone were trying to buy your home and at some point you knew that if a price could not be agreed upon they would pull out a trump card and take it anyway would this place you at a slight disadvantage.?
Furthermore; if this moratorium had been called for by the Mayor, when the nine wise ones made it the law, you would not have had Big Bob Attorney shopping for someone to tell him legally how the County could use E.M. to acquire City land for the IVI Bridge.
My problems is the allotment of limited tax payer funds to purchase private property from one person to sell to another.
There are many other projects downtown that could use that 3 million. Why not fund those areas where there is no private economic motivation, like the Centennial walk?
On this I agree. The problem with Tax Packages, the public rarely reads the fine print, they are voted in on hear say rather than facts.
quote:
Originally posted by RicoTell me; if someone were trying to buy your home and at some point you knew that if a price could not be agreed upon they would pull out a trump card and take it anyway would this place you at a slight disadvantage.?
Furthermore; if this moratorium had been called for by the Mayor, when the nine wise ones made it the law, you would not have had Big Bob Attorney shopping for someone to tell him legally how the County could use E.M. to acquire City land for the IVI Bridge.
That's true, I had not thought of that. If this guy really wants to keep his building, he is not likely to sell if he knows the city cannot force him. So, in that sense, it is a good thing.
Here is an excerpt from an Editorial written by Ken Neal... quote:
Tulsans have a greater stake in what happens in Sand Springs than they know. The city of Tulsa has steadily acquired property in the block surrounded by Second and Third streets and Denver and Cheyenne avenues. One of the properties still in private hands is the condemned Towerview Apartments.
City officials, after an expose' by the Tulsa World, ordered the establishment closed.
With the construction of the new arena between First and Third streets and Denver and Frisco avenues, a major hotel will be built in the area. Hotel builders have already contacted Mayor Bill LaFortune. What better site than the one across Denver from the arena?
Should Tulsa be able to use eminent domain to obtain the old two-story apartment building from an out-of-town owner? If not, plan for taxpayers to pay several times the worth of the abandoned, condemned building.
Turn your attention to the BOk Tower. It was built by private developers who bid for a nine-block area in the on of the oldest section of Tulsa. That area had been judged blighted and was cleared under what was then called urban renewal. Does anyone think the increased taxes that the BOk building has generated did not benefit the public? The odds are good that there was at least one, maybe more, businesses in that nine-square-block area that were not blighted. If they had refused to sell, would it have been in the public interest to let those few block the BOk project?
We owe a debt of gratitude to " The World"...
Their Civic involvement in the "Towerview" has pointed out the need for a Hotel at that location..
Come to think of it... We still owe them for the Skelly Parking Lot...(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/images.jpg)
Kenny is just being Kenny. He hasn't met an old building that he wouldn't like to bulldoze for some "higher" purpose -- even if that's surface parking. His mindset regarding downtown is stuck squarely in 1960s urban renewal. He is not a big thinker or visionary on any level, but he is as consistent as the sunrise.
The World constantly feeds the simplistic, zero sum game outcomes we get around here. They are not much in favor of win-win solutions when it comes to local development. They are far more likely to take the side of the 800-pound gorilla, usually under the guise that what's good for the gorilla is good for Tulsa. Of course, with that logic if you're not a gorilla in this town, then you're just a flea.
Ken's editorial this week was full of circular logic. He misses the main points of the whole issue -- in calling for eminent domain, what should be considered "public use" and what is "blight"? In the New London case, the neighborhood that will be bulldozed for shiny new development isn't blighted -- not by a long shot. It's a working class neighborhood that happens to be near the waterfront, potentially prime real estate. If we're able to define "blight" as "anywhere there aren't new, expensive condos and boutique shops", then very few property owners are safe.
That includes you, Mr. Neal. I wonder how your argument might change if the Mayor and the City Council were after your block for a new high-falootin' residential enclave development.
There is always a "higher use" for a piece of property. Always. But using that as one's foundation for arguing in favor of any development, as the World and Kenny tend to do, is morally and intellectually bankrupt. They are the lover who constantly scans the room for somebody "better" than the date they brought to the dance.
So back to the Towerview... taking that property from one private owner and giving it to another private interest isn't justified in my mind -- not as long as the current owner is sincere in his plans to rehab the building and make it a safe, quality, productive property.
A square block with a new hotel and a rehabbed Towerview would be better than a square block with a new hotel alone. That should be the outcome that everyone -- the city, the World and private citizens -- should be working toward.
I totally agree Joe.
Very well said, Joe.
what a joke. First they send an undercover Newspaper reporter in to get the skinny on this haven. Then guess what a few months later the City wants to take it. That bit in the paper was nothing less than a "setup" for the Mayor to do his thing. But I learned long ago: never pick a fight with somebody that buys ink by the truckload or runs the police department.
Unless you're the mob selling the truckloads of ink and handing out payola to the police department.
I don't trust the developer. He had a chance to make some fixes to keep the building open, and instead allowed it to be closed. So my position is somewhere in the middle - he should be given a fixed amount of time (1 year from now, perhaps) to make productive use of the property. If he doesn't, the city should have the power to exercise eminent domain. A run down, empty building shouldn't stand in the way of progress, if there is no genuine work happening in a reasonable time frame to put the property to use.
According to the Tulsa World today, the mayor is ruomored to be in talks with Hammons and Hard Rock International to bring a hotel to Tulsa.
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
According to the Tulsa World today, the mayor is ruomored to be in talks with Hammons and Hard Rock International to bring a hotel to Tulsa.
Also in the World today, Councilor Baker asked that the $1 million to purchase the Towerview be removed from the 3rd penny sales tax package up for vote on May 9 (hopefully).
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
According to the Tulsa World today, the mayor is ruomored to be in talks with Hammons and Hard Rock International to bring a hotel to Tulsa.
Rock and Roll (pun intended)
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
According to the Tulsa World today, the mayor is ruomored to be in talks with Hammons and Hard Rock International to bring a hotel to Tulsa.
Also in the World today, Councilor Baker asked that the $1 million to purchase the Towerview be removed from the 3rd penny sales tax package up for vote on May 9 (hopefully).
Baker taking a stand on something downtown... (marking calendar)
Price seems fair at least though.
pmcalk and I sent him (Mr Baker) a letter, he responded to mine saying that he agreed with me.
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
pmcalk and I sent him (Mr Baker) a letter, he responded to mine saying that he agreed with me.
He did not respond to mine--but I don't think he likes me--given Yorktown and all.
He did make a good decisions here, and I support him. I intend to send him an email telling him so.
I haven't met a politician who didn't say he agreed with me. I've had my councilor and mayor both talk with me and agree with what I had to say wholeheartedly and do nothing when the time came.
Nice UT article on Towerview.
http://www.urbantulsa.com/article.asp?id=3182
Great story. It really makes me appreciate the power of this forum and its members. I also want to send a letter of appreciation to Councilman Baker for his foresight and for listening.
Won't it be great if this building goes from condemned and derided to a desirable, habitable landmark (I mean roof top terraces how cool is that)?
Very cool. I'm a little surprised that there's news on this so quickly. Hopefully, the TDA will be able to do something else with the property around Towerview. Maybe give parts of a it away for residential with street level retail and underground parking.
Put the Hotel on the Bank.
Thanks for posting the article, Mike.
The owner seems pretty sincere in his desire to rehab the property. He is saying all the right things, at least.
I would love to see the city administration get behind this guy in a big way. I've speculated earlier in this thread that it should be possible to build a hotel on the remaining 2/3 or more of the square block. A hotel can be tall, it doesn't have to be deep.
Or as Mike suggested, use the square block where the drive-thru bank is located. I'd argue that the bank block is better for a hotel anyway, since it lies between 1st & 2nd Streets, both of which connect to the IDL directly. If a traveler is coming from the airport, exit I-244 at 1st Street and keep going 8 blocks. Time to check out... go east on 2nd to head to the airport. Not to mention that 1st/2nd is the Williams Tower block and the parking garage block. Line all that stuff up.
In any case, let's see if the city is capable of pursuing a win/win deal. Better to have a new hotel AND a rehabbed Towerview, than a new hotel alone.
Just wanted to point out that Lafortune wanted towerview to be bought out by the city, rumor was for a hotel at least in part built/controlled by John Q Hammons. Where was Lafortune's watch party?
When I was reading the Urban Tulsa story about the Towerview, I was puzzled about the comments from the head of Downtown Tulsa Unlimited.
The owner is quoted...Aljamal adds that he met with many city representatives including Mayor Bill LaFortune and Jim Norton, president of Downtown Tulsa Unlimited. "Jim Norton told me, 'Don't do nothing in the building. Don't waste your money in the building.'"
"It seems," Voss notes, "that there were a number of people, those Luay just mentioned, that didn't want to see the classic or traditional buildings and architecture preserved. There was a desire, maybe, to take out the old buildings and build new ones.
It strikes me as odd that would be the message we would be sending out to owners of buildings downtown.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
When I was reading the Urban Tulsa story about the Towerview, I was puzzled about the comments from the head of Downtown Tulsa Unlimited.
The owner is quoted...Aljamal adds that he met with many city representatives including Mayor Bill LaFortune and Jim Norton, president of Downtown Tulsa Unlimited. "Jim Norton told me, 'Don't do nothing in the building. Don't waste your money in the building.'"
"It seems," Voss notes, "that there were a number of people, those Luay just mentioned, that didn't want to see the classic or traditional buildings and architecture preserved. There was a desire, maybe, to take out the old buildings and build new ones.
It strikes me as odd that would be the message we would be sending out to owners of buildings downtown.
Only certain owners. The only two good spots to build a hotel for the new arena are on the BOK drive-through or towerview. Now who was it that bought naming rights to the arena?
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
sorry, the Urban Tulsa article sounds to me like these people are spreading their urban political correctness a little too darned thick.
Always good to know how Elgin, Illinois feels about Tulsa real estate development matters...
Ever live in a SRO (sleeping room only), AJ?... I have.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
Ever live in a SRO (sleeping room only), AJ?... I have.
I haven't personally, no. Some of my relatives, yes. Not enjoyable from all appearances.
quote:
Originally posted by sportyart
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvet" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by MichaelC
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvet" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by sportyart
Tulsa is ether going to need to make some grand walkway between the new arena and the blue dome area
I think the Centennial Walk is suppose to address part of this. That should connect Blue Dome and Brady to the Arena via lighted paths/landscaping/etc. But the blocks around the Arena site are also expected to be developed.
[/quote]
They SAY its going to work.............we shall see.
[/quote]
As stated in the independent study authorized by the City in conjunction with Vision 2025, a significant number of additional guestrooms are needed in the downtown area to support the potential demand to be created by the convention center. We believe further that the supporting hotels need to be modern, state-of-the-art in technology, facilities to compete with other metro and secondary markets for these same potential business conventions. And the reputation of Westin Hotels brings credibility to Tulsa as a major contender.
We consider the Tulsa Garden Center to be an integral part of the much larger Vision 2025 Initiative to revitalize downtown Tulsa. Currently, the downtown area does not have the means to support the retail, restaurant and upscale lodging that is critical to creating a vibrant economic community. We also feel that all three of these elements are needed to compliment the success of any new hotel in this market. Major steps have been taken through Vision 2025 with the creation of the new arena and future renovation of the convention center to bring people back to this area, but what is critical to building on this momentum is the structure that will support these facilities and keep people coming back to downtown Tulsa for other reasons than special events or a major convention.
The Franchise Agreement would be for at least Twenty Years and we intend to be the owners of the property for a minimum of twelve of those years. We set aside substantial sums every month from operations to cover Reserves for Replacement to keep the hotel in excellent condition. We also have incentives in our hotel management contract with RIM Hospitality that highly encourages quality by basing a good portion of their compensation on Franchisor Quality Assurance Scores. In turn they insist on high reserves for replacement which we fully support. Changing the name brand of the hotel would be extremely expensive given the penalties we would have to pay to the franchisor. We have no intention of changing the Franchise Affiliation before the twenty year term is up. Thereafter, we would likely seek renewal if we were still the owners.
We see this proposal as one single integrated project.
We believe the upscale retail, restaurant and services are vital to the hotel project as these services are not adequate right now.
Most business travelers now want to be able to walk to a variety of upscale restaurants, shopping and services. These uses will be more successful if there are residential guests available to frequent the businesses on nights and weekends in addition to the hotel guests and BOK Center attendees. We also see them vital to Vision 2025 and the economic success of the Events Center and downtown Tulsa as a desirable destination.
If one portion of the project lags the rest, it could have a detrimental affect to the success of the project. We will be very aggressively pre-leasing the retail and residential portions of this project while the hotel is being built. The hotel will have the longest construction period. We would like to have the hotel open as closely after the BOK Events Center and Convention Center Renovation/Expansion are completed. We believe it is critical to the economic success of both.
We see this as a win-win scenario for the developer and the City and we are in hopes of a close partnership with the City in making Vision 2025 a smashing success.
12. Is there anything you would like to add or clarify pertaining to the conditions set out by Westin Hotels on page 4 of your proposal? Do you believe that other hotel companies would request the same conditions?
We just recently answered a media question regarding same:
From the proposal, I noticed there were six conditions that Starwood put in place -- if the city is unable to meet these requirements, will it break any deals? Yes. Unless you are referring to the "Headquarters Hotel" issue. We just believe we will become the Headquarters Hotel but we are not requiring any special designation by the city.
Why is the train whistle a condition? What issues arise from the whistle? When people stay at a hotel they want peace and quiet, especially at night. Hotel guests don't want the sound of a train whistle blowing close by.
Why does Starwood want the bus station moved? What type of impact can the bus station have on the development? Most guests do not feel "safe" near a bus station, especially our female guests. Safety is a key consideration for where guest want to stay. Safety is a number one issue when it comes to walk ability of a downtown.
Is there concern that the YMCA is located a few blocks south at Sixth and Denver? Yes. It goes to the safety issue and attractive environment issue necessary for an upscale hotel to succeed. Creative options for how to support YMCA membership and improve downtown's attraction are necessary to move Tulsa forward.
Who should be responsible for the renovation or demolition of the Wright and Coney Island buildings? Why is this an issue for you and Starwood? An attractive environment is necessary for an upscale hotel to succeed. The main issue is making the surrounding area attractive. We are very open to how this can be accomplished including an attractive re-facing of the Wright building.
And what would you consider a creative way for the city to help you over come the feasibility gap? What type of an incentive would you like to see? We are very open in regards to how this can be accomplished. We are looking for a win-win scenario for everyone involved and are committed to seeing Tulsa reach her full potential.
Any of the premium hotel franchisors, quality management companies and knowledgeable development companies would have the same requirements. Trains and Bus Stations are always an issue for Upscale, Upper Upscale and Luxury Franchise Concepts as is an attractive and safe environment.
If Tulsa wants an upscale hotel downtown, you have to meet the franchisor requirements. Put yourself in the place of any guest staying in an upscale hotel. Do you want to look out your room or walk by boarded up buildings? Deteriorating Buildings? Listen to Train Noise while your trying to sleep or rest?
Both the GeoData/GeoTrends property and the Towerview property have to be acquired and demolished in order for us to meet franchisor requirements regarding the attractiveness of adjacent properties. This is the same requirement any premium franchise brand is going to require whether it is Starwood, Marriott, Hilton, Kimpton, etc.
We have selected Westin Hotel as Starwood is under represented in the Tulsa Metropolitan area. This will allow for better success from the Reservation System and Customer Loyalty program as Marriott, Hilton and IHG already have significant number of hotels and rooms in the subject market. This is because we will not be sharing the Reservation System and Customer Loyalty Program with numerous other hotels. Westin is also the best performing brand of the Upper Upscale Brands segement. It is number one in customer satisfaction and obtains higher ADR and Occupancy nationwide than Marriott (Marriott or Renaissance), Hilton (Hilton or Embassy Suites) or IHG Upscale (Crowne Plaza, Holiday Inn or Holiday Inn Select) or Upper Upscale segments.
Upper Upscale is the highest hotel segment that the Tulsa Metro Market will support given its current market price points.
We are not requiring that the City of Tulsa acquire any additional property, however, at the same time, it is a condition of our proposal that we obtain the Towerview property for our development. We will have to get it back under contract and be able to close on it. It is also a condition that we obtain the alley located on the site. This we assumed the City would accomplish this with the parcel being offered if the alley was not already being offered.
One of the non-economic parts of developing the hotel portion of this project is the prices for the land, especially the Towerview (most overpriced, especially for raw land) and the GeoData/GeoTrends Property (still overpriced for raw land - reflects value of buildings to Geo). This can easily be determined by computing the price per square foot for the City of Tulsa land versus these smaller parcels. This is one significant area of economic assistance needed by Developer to make this project viable.
The reason we selected this block over the adjacent Bank of Oklahoma block is two fold. First, the blight on the subject block (Towerview Apartments and GeoData/GeoTrends buildings) would have to be eliminated if any premium hotel franchise was going to be located near the arena. Second, the Bank of Oklahoma site is too close to the rail line.
To be quite frank, we really don't see the adequate success of the Arena without eliminating the blight of the Towerview Apartment at a bare minimum. To have the arena Icon a stone's throw from the absolute opposite. Just having that building in clear view of the arena will scare many people from coming or returning. People walking to the Parking Garage diagonally adjacent to the GeoTrends Buildings and Towerview Apartments after an event will pass uncomfortably close to these buildings. We believe the City must know the Towerview Apartments must go before the opening of the BOK Events Center, our project happening or NOT. It's the only way outsiders will come back.
Anyone who hasn't read the entire Hotel Study for the Tulsa Convention and Visitors Bureau needs to in order to make any intelligent comments or decisions about this project.
Secondly, have that same independent company verify that the conditions being sought is what any upscale franchisor will require in order to ensure the hotel will be successful and not be the "Dog" in the system. Franchisor's can't afford dogs in their system because people won't consistently stay at their hotels if they can't depend upon a certain standard for the hotel AND it's surroundings.
This morning's paper has an editorial by Ken Neal supporting the use of eminent domain to acquire and demolish the Towerview Apts. Whether or not this may be the best decision, I am really tired of the TW continuing to use the following picture whenever they discuss the Towerview issue:
(http://www.tulsaworld.com/images/2006/061217_G6_Easyd41377_towervg17.jpg)
Strange that they don't want to show the FRONT of the building (which, until an article by the TW caused it to be condemned, was not a bad looking building). If they're going to show only the backside of the building when debating its future, perhaps they should also show a picture of Ken Neal's naked butt (instead of his head shot) to accompany the editorial. It may not be his best angle, but at least it would be consistant. (No offense to Mr. Neal...just pointing out the TW's bias in its choice of photography.)
If someone was wanting to tear down this building for just another parking lot, I would not like it. Why? Because if we keep tearing down buildings in downtown it will loose its feel of being a downtown.
The other reason I do not like for buildings to be torn down is if they have some architectural or historic significance. The Towerview IMO has neither.
Its interior is gutted, and the exterior is so basic and simple that it could be easily reconstructed today. There are many examples of buildings going up today that are of equal or better design and quality using similar materials. The new homes by Harwelden, new business buildings by 91st and Yale, developments by Centennial Park, etc. There is no feel, character, quality or element that could not be easily bettered by a another building in its place.
Since developers are wanting to add to downtown, and what I have seen so far by HH, put in more density and equal if not better design elements, I see no reason to save this particular building.
When was the last time the city used eminent domain for private development? It has been used for public uses like roads and public buildings and has been threatedned to be used, but settled later without it's use.
I can't remember the last time the government took land from one private group or individual just to give it to some other private group or individual.
Anybody know?
There's an amazing amount of arrogance shown on the last post by Heavenly Hospitality.
Here's a thought... if Heavenly Hospitality wants the bus station moved... how 'bout THEY pay for it?... and not rely on subsidies from the working folks of Tulsa for an "Upscale, Upper Upscale and Luxury Franchise Concept" most Tulsans wouldn't even be welcome in...
quote:
Trains and Bus Stations are always an issue for Upscale, Upper Upscale and Luxury Franchise Concepts as is an attractive and safe environment.
If Tulsa wants an upscale hotel downtown, you have to meet the franchisor requirements. Put yourself in the place of any guest staying in an upscale hotel.
Try putting YOURSELF in the shoes of the Tulsa taxpayer who shouldn't be asked to subsidize your upper-uppity-upscale folly...
There are multiple luxury hotels in Chicago that are within blocks of train stations and bus terminals... and even the YMCA...
Maybe Heavenly Hospitality is more interested in making downtown Tulsa into a clone of Owasso...
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
This morning's paper has an editorial by Ken Neal supporting the use of eminent domain to acquire and demolish the Towerview Apts. Whether or not this may be the best decision, I am really tired of the TW continuing to use the following picture whenever they discuss the Towerview issue:
(http://www.tulsaworld.com/images/2006/061217_G6_Easyd41377_towervg17.jpg)
Strange that they don't want to show the FRONT of the building (which, until an article by the TW caused it to be condemned, was not a bad looking building). If they're going to show only the backside of the building when debating its future, perhaps they should also show a picture of Ken Neal's naked butt (instead of his head shot) to accompany the editorial. It may not be his best angle, but at least it would be consistant. (No offense to Mr. Neal...just pointing out the TW's bias in its choice of photography.)
Sorry Ponder, but after driving by the front of the Towerview, it really isn't much better than the rear-view photo... and after re-reading the three part story in the TW by Michael Overall from Sept. 2004, I don't care if politics did play a role in the condemnation of the Towerview... those owners should be in jail for allowing people to live in those conditions.
And yes, if eminent domain has to be used to protect Tulsa taxpayers from a couple of internet speculators from Portland who sat for months and let their rat/roach/flea infested SRO pay-by-the-week hotel turn into something beyond "substandard," so be it.
Those guys can't even pay the previous owners for the property they bought... but are still counting on making a hefty profit...
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
Sorry Ponder, but after driving by the front of the Towerview, it really isn't much better than the rear-view photo... and after re-reading the three part story in the TW by Michael Overall from Sept. 2004, I don't care if politics did play a role in the condemnation of the Towerview... those owners should be in jail for allowing people to live in those conditions.
And yes, if eminent domain has to be used to protect Tulsa taxpayers from a couple of internet speculators from Portland who sat for months and let their rat/roach/flea infested SRO pay-by-the-week hotel turn into something beyond "substandard," so be it.
Those guys can't even pay the previous owners for the property they bought... but are still counting on making a hefty profit...
I agree. The Towerview is an absolute eyesore and I'm willing to look the other way on the political implications as long as something that enhances downtown is put in its place. The Heavenly proposal was fine with me exxxxcept for the part about the bus station. Heavenly obviously sterotyped bus riders as degenerate members of society that they didn't want around their upscale development. In NYC the subway is the cheapest way to get around, and there are tons of subway street accesses in every part of the city. I've never heard of upscale property developers in NYC complain about the proximity of their site and the subway. Furthermore, a lot of people want to see Tulsa Transit expand its rubber-tire trolley system, which would get some more
upscale type traffic on city buses. An obvious rendezvous point for the trolley bus would be a large bus station right in the middle of downtown!
Why can't someone convince Heavenly to drop the bus station demand?
Or better yet, try to find other developers so we have more than just one to choose from!
I completely see PonderInc's point. The Tulsa World uses the same euphemisms and rhetoric in every article or opinion about the Towerview (condemned, eyesore). They present the same picture everytime and the same bias.
I'd like them to present some alternatives or answer some questions about the property. Is it structurally sound? Is it possible that a developement plan could include a rehabilitated Towerview? Why do they hate it so much? Why do they keep comparing it to old Tulsa at First and Main that was torn down to make way for the BOK? Why do they continually propose eminant domain and public funds?
I think the Tulsa World would support the demolition of almost any building in downtown. Why stop at the Towerview? The McFarlin and Mayo buildings are missing some cornices and the Philcade looks a little dusty. Tear 'em down!
What stood out in the TW article to me (and was pretty much ignored by Mr. Neal) is that Heavenly Host & the Towerview owner had reached a contract, proving that private parties are capable of working this out without using eminent domain. The article wasn't clear about what the title & timing issues were, but I don't know that eminent domain would resolve that anyway (it will be a long process). It's as though they can't get this building torn down fast enough. If a private developer decides to buy the building and tear it down, so be it. But why such pressure to bring it down?
FYI, Tulsa Today (http://www.tulsatoday.com) posted a publisher's editorial today on this issue titled "Towerview Taking." It may provide this fine forum of reasoned opinion additional perspectives.
From what I've gathered, ownership issues are in such a mess with Towerview, taking by eminent domain is about the only option left. Restoration of the building isn't going to happen for years -- if ever -- because of the ownership entanglements. And the health and code issues with the building are so severe, it's ripe for condemnation anyway.
I also find it interesting that Mr. Arnett calls TulsaNow a "fine forum of reasoned opinion." Not that long ago, he espoused shutting down TulsaNow's forum entirely for a myriad of reasons, including attacks, and had his own forum on his TulsaToday site.
Now Arnett's forum is gone, and he essentially calls TulsaNow a model of public discourse.
So what changed your mind, David?
Booted off santa and davas or whoever that was.
In answer – I am not a forum person and don't post that often, but I have always been a voracious reader online and off. As for "shutting down TulsaNow's forum entirely" that is incorrect.
As one who has watched Tulsa Now as an organization from the beginning, their mission and methods are not the dominate trend now expressed in this forum. Both are good, but different and I did and do suggest that they would each be stronger separate. It is amazing to me that the suggestion could be twisted. That idea was not posted but suggested by e-mail directly to the leadership. Leadership did not invite open discussion, to my knowledge, but I remain open to defending the perspective in any membership meeting. Maybe this will be done at some future date.
I discontinued the Tulsa Today forum because it is not the core of what Tulsa Today, Inc. (www.tulsatoday.com) does. What we do is provide an independent platform for professional writers of different perspectives to research, interview, and be published – the work of journalism. We are pleased to serve ever growing numbers of unique readers as Tulsa Today is the first, best, and original local internet news service in this metropolitan area – in fact, we have found no other site independent of traditional media, but operating by journalism standards. Established in 1996 we predate blogs and with their growing popularity believe those individual expressions in addition to community forums such as this one serve the need for diversity of opinion in Tulsa.
And now Jamie Pierson's take on the Towerview in UTW
Whose Domain?
Much ado about Towerview. City's approach is telling
BY JAMIE PIERSON
The Towerview Apartments. Plenty of ink, digital and newspaper, has been spent on that little tenement. Starting two summers ago when Tulsa World reporter Michael Overall did his bit of "investigative journalism" into substandard housing by living there for two weeks, we began wondering why. It continues to this day as the city takes steps to obtain the property through eminent domain. This unassuming building has been Tulsa's own media flashpoint, a poster child for all sides in the downtown struggle for culture and money.
The entire issue of this building has smelled fishy from start to finish. After the World did its story, it was a matter of weeks before inspectors had descended and demanded the corrections to the health code violations. And as nice as it is to see city officials acting quickly and the public interest, but why just there? Why not the other slums being maintained all throughout midtown, behind their cheerful brick facades and archaic names over the front door?
Read More (//%22http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A15543%22)
quote:
Originally written by Jamie Pierson
So whatever, the Towerview is history, that's cool. But pay attention to the signs, people. Don't imagine that this is just one little incident. This kind of M.O. has made a lot of people a lot of money in the past, and maybe next time it won't just be a run down, lonely old apartment building.
This is hipsterish for "I fear that which I don't understand, and I'm afraid it will eat me."
If this author has a better idea for what to do with that particular city block, I'd love to hear it. The alternative to eminent domain is to wait on market forces to act. This seems to make sense, until you look at what's going on with landowners downtown.
The problem is that the Tulsa market is stuck. It's stuck because speculators are sitting on parcels, waiting on somebody to pay inflated value. I'm sure crusty jdb can give you a sermon about this. It's what these out-of-state owners are doing with Towerview, and it's the reason the East End property acquisition is proceeding so slowly.
Normally I'd say fine, let these people sit on their decaying downtown properties until the market is willing to pay what they want. But that has led to the current state of downtown. Eminent domain forces a landowner to take fair current value, rather than insist on inflated value, and it gets the development ball rolling. Properly applied, it's a catalyst to get the property market moving. I see nothing about the Towerview situation to suggest that this is improper use of government authority. If the city allows these folks to insist on overblown prices, that block will never be developed and the so-called "arena district" will never get off the ground. So that - a vibrant, non-blighted central business district -is why this is in the public's interest.
I'm not a huge proponent of eminent domain, but I think it may be the only way to solve the Towerview problem. The fact is, the Towerview owner doesn't just own an ugly building next to the arena, he violated health codes. By now, any prospective buyer of the Towerview has heard plenty about its awful condition. Eminent domain is the only feasible way for the Towerview to change ownership. If eminent domain is used, the city will likely sell the Towerview site for much less than the current owner is apparently asking. Only then will the Towerview be refurbished into upscale apartments or torn down to make way for a new mixed use development.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
When was the last time the city used eminent domain for private development? It has been used for public uses like roads and public buildings and has been threatedned to be used, but settled later without it's use.
I can't remember the last time the government took land from one private group or individual just to give it to some other private group or individual.
Anybody know?
They were all geared up to use it for TU if necessary, probably still are.
quote:
They were all geared up to use it for TU if necessary, probably still are.
That bothered me, too.
I don't know what the rules are for government intervention in property deals, but I did not see the rational for the city to acquire land for a private university.
Was there any vote to allow the Tulsa Development Authority to be involved or did TU just get the permission from a department head to do it?
Well the Towerview apartments is one step closer to an almost certain eminent domain action by the City of Tulsa....IMO.
Last night a fire took out quite a bit of the interior of the building...
My understanding is that if the structure is condemned the owner must tear it down within a certain time frame..
This is sure to give the City more leverage in any negotiations in acquiring the property..
Here is a link to the coverage given by KOTV Channel 6.
http://www.kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=118099
yeah, lets see...
downtown on a weekend with slick streets making it hard to get to the building....oh no this wasnt arson.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
yeah, lets see...
downtown on a weekend with slick streets making it hard to get to the building....oh no this wasnt arson.
Things like that can happen when the Mortgage and Insurance policy get to close together...You can have a friction fire....
I live in Brady Heights and drove by the old Towerview Apartments today. When I saw the fire damage I just started laughing. I've lived in Tulsa since birth. Is it just me, or is this most corrupt, back dealin' town west of the mississppi??? Maybe I'm turning into a bitter 'ol man at age thiry-four.
Tulsa Today has some pics of the fire...
http://www.tulsatoday.com/
Ooops that don't look good in those pics. That ought to finish her off right there.
Sooooo, is the city going to be sending out another request for possible development in the area now that the HH deal is done for?
quote:
Originally posted by sinclairauto
I live in Brady Heights and drove by the old Towerview Apartments today. When I saw the fire damage I just started laughing. I've lived in Tulsa since birth. Is it just me, or is this most corrupt, back dealin' town west of the mississppi??? Maybe I'm turning into a bitter 'ol man at age thiry-four.
You're not telling me that you find it implausible that transients broke into the building and started a fire for warmth and it got out of control, are you?? C'mon... really??
I find the explanation given entirely credible. Not that it shouldn't be investigated.
The "Conspiracy" is now over... and can be laid to rest...!
The following link is to the story in Monday's World regarding the arrest of the two that have confessed to the starting of the fire.
Officials refused to comment on the involvement of larger Corporate and City Entities in the blaze. We do know that the two were arrested within a few feet of one another at the Tulsa Day Center for the Homeless.... Which everyone is sure to recognize as a "Shell Corp." set up by IVI Inc. Yes the same people that are trying to build the "Bridge"
Here is the link to the full story..
http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=070115_Ne_A15_Blaze5450
quote:
Originally posted by PRH
If I owned the Towerview, I'd sure hire a private investigator to find out whether those transients had a pocket full of new-found cash after the fire, and I'd want to know who gave it to them.
Well the story goes that they were going to ask them where they got the $3.78........
But they were wisked away in an unmarked car to an undisclosed location...[}:)]
It's that, state wide, we have more than our fair share of incompetent bum's.
This is four fires in as many years that I can count while under the influence.
Sad way to go.
"Save a building, stomp out a bum!" - jdb
I think there is a link between these two suspects and muslim terrorists. The one dude looks amazingly like Sasquatch and the girl spoke some sort of Martian language.
I know for a fact that black helicopters fanned the flames and the letters from towerview apartments re-arranged spell Viet Nam War Poweretts.
I was surprised that the pictures of the burning Towerview didn't capture DTU, the TDA, the TW and Himelfarb holding hands in a ring, singing and roasting marshmellows.
Its also surprising that they put the fire out and used such extreme measures on a DNR building. Well I guess if anyone needs some bricks they'll know where to find them.
quote:
Originally posted by PRH
How did those transients who burned the Towerview get enough money to buy firewood and have $3.78 left?
Most winos I have ever had experience with downtown don't have 9 cents among all of them. They have to pool their money to buy booze and share a bottle.
And if they had $3.78, they would have had a block party for ALL the winos.
I am very suspicious that someone with a financial incentive gave those transients money in return for a fire.
Even though it seems like incredible luck for the owner (if he had it insured), it isn't likely that he planned it. Maybe made it convenient... but not planned. Real arsonists do better work and are seldom caught in these parts.
So in a few weeks the blight will be gone, but who wants to bet the price the owner wants will be the same? Is this really going to change anything?
quote:
Originally posted by tulsa1603
So in a few weeks the blight will be gone, but who wants to bet the price the owner wants will be the same? Is this really going to change anything?
Probably. The value was in the land, not the structure.
Since it's been partially destroyed, can't the Health Department step in and start the ball rolling to condemn the property? If the owners don't take care of it, can the city take it?
Didn't the Health Department already determine the property was uninhabitable? That's what got it shut in the first place, I believe. As for forcing the guy to sell (through eminent domain), I don't know how you could speed up the process any more--it's slated to be heard by the TMAPC this Wednesday (item 6) http://www.incog.org/TMAPC/Agenda/Tmapc%20Agenda.htm.
The only potential difference I see between what happened earlier with the Health Department, and the way it is now is:
Originally, it was shut down because it was substandard. Right now, the question I have, is whether or not this building rises to the level of public nuisance. Is it hazardous for this building to exist? Or, Is it an attractive nuisance? If either of those is true, and the owner won't take care of the problem, does that allow the Health Department and the City of Tulsa to take matters into their own hands. Condemning the property to demo the building.
I think there may be a new available issue here for the Health Department and/or City of Tulsa to explore.
I'm sure the plan is laid.
The saga of Towerview should provide a cautionary tale to absentee landlords.
The vermin problems that shut it down, and now vagrants accidentally setting fire to the building -- all these things would have been much less likely had the building's owner been more hands-on and, um, present.
Or, just to anyone who owns property.
Convenient timing.
[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
quote:
They were all geared up to use it for TU if necessary, probably still are.
That bothered me, too.
I don't know what the rules are for government intervention in property deals, but I did not see the rational for the city to acquire land for a private university.
Was there any vote to allow the Tulsa Development Authority to be involved or did TU just get the permission from a department head to do it?
A private university should never be able to use eminent domain for student housing.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
The saga of Towerview should provide a cautionary tale to absentee landlords.
The vermin problems that shut it down, and now vagrants accidentally setting fire to the building -- all these things would have been much less likely had the building's owner been more hands-on and, um, present.
Thank you.
I don't understand why out-of-state people were allowed to buy/run a single-room-occupancy transient hotel in the first place... and this went on for months after they bought it... maybe we should care MORE about those people paying $125 a week for substandard rat-infested housing than the west coast landlords who bought the Towerview sight unseen...
All you have to do to qualify as a
modern-day slumlord is........... well............. nothing.
As promised above, the saga doth continue:
Fire may fuel city's effort to acquire, raze Towerview By BRIAN BARBER World Staff Writer
1/16/2007
The weekend blaze that gutted the vacant Towerview Apartments could give the city leverage to tear down the building, one city official said Monday.
"We'll need to get someone out there to look at it," Tulsa's Economic Development Director Don Himelfarb said.
"It was an eyesore before and now it could be unsafe. With the building still standing, someone could easily get in there and have it all fall in on them."
He goes on to say that the building did make some great s'mores.
Read more (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=070116_Ne_A1_Firem73812%22)
So here's my question. The city was proceeding to take the property through Urban Renewal, meaning that a determination would be made that the area (ie, the building) was blighted. Eminent domain for the purposes of removing blighted property is within the public interest. But if they tear down the building before using eminent domain, won't they have eliminated the blight? If a surface lot is "blighted", much of downtown is then blighted and subject to eminent domain. May or may not be a good thing.
In order to demo the building, the city will likely have to take the property. So it will already be owned by Tulsa via the TDA or some entity.
The problem essentially is, will the owner take care of it? Same problem as before, but NOW it's a question of is this building a hazard to the general public? The owners can't be allowed to leave a burnt out shell of a building downtown.
Even though it's now basically useless as a building, it's still owned by the folks from Oregon. To me it seems like the owners options boil down to: 1) Repair the building, 2) Demo the building, or 3) sell the property. They probably will have a very limited timeframe to make a decision because of the current state of the building, and up to this point I see no reason to believe that they'll take option 1 or 2. If they won't do any of those, the city has no choice but to take this property.
On surface lots, many of the surface lots are already owned by the TDA or other city entities. So turning them into something else is no big deal. Not sure how much is privately owned. When you see "Central Parking" or "American Parking" or whatever, those companies are contracted to run parking lots and garages. I don't think they own the lots.
^I am sure that someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe that's true. There is a procedure for determining that a building is "dilapidated," and requires demolition, and another procedure for determining that property is blighted and subject to urban renewal. The city can tear down a building on your property if it is unsafe, and you would continue to own the underlying land (plus you would be responsible for paying for demolition costs). After thinking about it, I am guessing that the city won't proceed under the "dalipidated building" proceedings, since they have already begun the eminent domain proceedings. Still it would be an interesting question whether the city can determine that a empty lot is blighted. My impression is that most parking lots downtown are owned by either TCC or the churches. Wouldn't it be great if the city determined the parking lot next to the Tulsaworld was blighted?
quote:
Originally posted by PRH
If I were the out-of-town owner, I'd double the price to the City after this fire.
They can't really double the price. Eminent Domain is at least partially determined by market value. The value of the property didn't go up when the building caught fire. The price should come way down.
If I were the owner, I'd see what could be done about taking the biggest offer they've had to date. The offer could very well go down from here.
quote:
Originally posted by akupetsky
^I am sure that someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe that's true. There is a procedure for determining that a building is "dilapidated," and requires demolition, and another procedure for determining that property is blighted and subject to urban renewal. The city can tear down a building on your property if it is unsafe, and you would continue to own the underlying land (plus you would be responsible for paying for demolition costs).
I'm not an expert on this stuff, but I'm relative sure that is true. However, the mentality of the owners IMO has never indicated that they were willing to sink large amounts of money into this property. They were just holding on to it so the value would go up, and they'd make more money off the city. Are they willing to pay demolition costs now? Given that the market value of the property will likely go down from here, I would doubt that. I'm sure they'll have the option of paying for demo, but I don't see where they'd have any more incentive than they would have to rehab the building. Which of course they chose not to do.
quote:
Wouldn't it be great if the city determined the parking lot next to the Tulsaworld was blighted?
Yes.
I'm guessing you never sold real estate or followed its history. I'll repeat something that didn't sink in earlier. The value of the property is in the land.
Valuation of real estate falls roughly into two methods, income producing ability or market for resale. Since the property was not likely to be rehabilitated and sold as rental, its income producing value dropped to $0. Maybe even negative if you figure fines, taxes, removal. Its market resale value then becomes what its value is. No one else wants to rehab the building either so the value is in the land.
The land is only of value for development based on current condition, value and activity of its setting. Comparative values will be hard to find. Guess what? It sits near a new arena where $200 million is being pumped into construction. Surrounding land is "not being made anymore" and thus its value is determined by what it could be, not what it is. The owners asking price may be determined by what was paid per foot to other taken/sold properties or they may pull it out of their rear end. Either way, the city has to take all this into consideration in determining its value for eminent domain as will a court. They need not declare it dilapidated, blighted or even irradiated to take it. Only that it serves the public good. Whether or not the owners now clear the property depends on the cost.
I somewhat agree with PRH. Its valuable property now. Many had a chance to buy it in the past and do something with it but these guys took the risk. Lousy, out of state slumlords? Absolutely. But no one else stepped up.
Point taken H20 .. Let's look at the land acquisitions for the property for the development of the Arena...
If you do, you will find that the value.... at least as it would be comped in this case, would not raise the value that much..
The taking of the land, if not developed, by current E D cases, will be somewhat easier than with a structure in place..
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Valuation of real estate falls roughly into two methods, income producing ability or market for resale. Since the property was not likely to be rehabilitated and sold as rental, its income producing value dropped to $0. Maybe even negative if you figure fines, taxes, removal. Its market resale value then becomes what its value is. No one else wants to rehab the building either so the Land is its value.
The owners have said all along, they have no intention of selling this property. They're intention was to
rehab. This, I believe was an outright lie, but that's kind of beside the point. They've been using that to up the value of the property.
You're right, right now it has pretty much everything to do with the land. That wasn't the case before the fire. Before the fire, the owners were saying "we are going to rehab this." Meaning: The value of the BUILDING was also in question.
quote:
I'll repeat something that didn't sink in earlier.
Pleasant.
quote:
Originally posted by akupetsky
^I am sure that someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe that's true. There is a procedure for determining that a building is "dilapidated," and requires demolition, and another procedure for determining that property is blighted and subject to urban renewal. The city can tear down a building on your property if it is unsafe, and you would continue to own the underlying land (plus you would be responsible for paying for demolition costs). After thinking about it, I am guessing that the city won't proceed under the "dalipidated building" proceedings, since they have already begun the eminent domain proceedings. Still it would be an interesting question whether the city can determine that a empty lot is blighted. My impression is that most parking lots downtown are owned by either TCC or the churches. Wouldn't it be great if the city determined the parking lot next to the Tulsaworld was blighted?
I don't think parking lots are considered blight. But nice thinking! :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blight_%28urban%29
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
In order to demo the building, the city will likely have to take the property. So it will already be owned by Tulsa via the TDA or some entity.
The problem essentially is, will the owner take care of it? Same problem as before, but NOW it's a question of is this building a hazard to the general public? The owners can't be allowed to leave a burnt out shell of a building downtown.
Even though it's now basically useless as a building, it's still owned by the folks from Oregon. To me it seems like the owners options boil down to: 1) Repair the building, 2) Demo the building, or 3) sell the property. They probably will have a very limited timeframe to make a decision because of the current state of the building, and up to this point I see no reason to believe that they'll take option 1 or 2. If they won't do any of those, the city has no choice but to take this property.
On surface lots, many of the surface lots are already owned by the TDA or other city entities. So turning them into something else is no big deal. Not sure how much is privately owned. When you see "Central Parking" or "American Parking" or whatever, those companies are contracted to run parking lots and garages. I don't think they own the lots.
The city can tear down a dilapidated property without owning it. Then they can place a lien on your property for the cost of the demolition. I lived in that neighborhood south of 21st between Harvard and the BA a few years ago, and we (the HOA) worked hard to get three houses condemned by the city, and we all became pretty well educated in the process.
Can we not declare a 'do not resuscitate' order for the building? Why was it saved when it is condemned anyway?
The walls are unstable, losing bricks, and the rattrap should be torn down or allowed to burn.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
The owners have said all along, they have no intention of selling this property. They're intention was to rehab. This, I believe was an outright lie, but that's kind of beside the point. They've been using that to up the value of the property.
You're right, right now it has pretty much everything to do with the land. That wasn't the case before the fire. Before the fire, the owners were saying "we are going to rehab this." Meaning: The value of the BUILDING was also in question.
quote:
I'll repeat something that didn't sink in earlier.
Pleasant.
Don't take it personal! It doesn't matter what they said they were going to do with it. We had a phrase when I sold real estate, "Buyers are liars". It goes both ways, though.
Don't confuse price with value. Value is appraised, price is offered. For instance there are several buildings in the downtown area that are priced ridiculously high, if for sale at all, because of the speculating on the arena's impact as well as other downtown activity. They don't add up on an income producing basis (they won't make enough to cover the loan payment) and don't match any comparables in the market. Nonetheless they hang a sign out and wait for someone to see the potential. Its better than just flattening them.
If the Towerview owners said they wanted to price it based on its re-habbed value in order to increase the price they were asking, it was because the income producing value of re-habbing it, including rents, grants, write-offs, cash flow, etc. was better than its value for market resale based on comps. Its a simple benefits comparison. I do believe they were bluffing, as there doesn't seem to be extreme demand for housing of that type downtown. Nothing too unique about the building I guess. But they may have seen something I didn't.
I agree Rico, they probably had in mind a certain return on this property and that was where the price came from. Whether it happened quickly or over time wasn't of consequense. The burn down doesn't matter. I bet they'll take the present value of that predicted return on investment if the authorities will deal in good faith.
quote:
Originally posted by tulsa1603
The city can tear down a dilapidated property without owning it. Then they can place a lien on your property for the cost of the demolition. I lived in that neighborhood south of 21st between Harvard and the BA a few years ago, and we (the HOA) worked hard to get three houses condemned by the city, and we all became pretty well educated in the process.
I understand that. This is a major problem for this owner. Like you said, the owner will have to be willing to take on that cost, even if the city simply bills the owner for demo costs.
We had a similar argument over a year ago about should the city take this property vs. the potential value of Towerview as loft apartments. I've said the entire time, that IMO this owner has no intention whatsover of rehabing this building. It turned out to be assumably true, yes the owner still had time to get rehab rolling, but it's been nearly a year since the owners said they were active and ready to do so. The same owners that when confronted by the Health Department, simply kicked out the residents instead of paying to repair the building.
I don't believe the owners want to sink a dime into this property. We'll find out. There are a ton of factors for the owners to take into consideration at this point.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Don't confuse price with value. Value is appraised, price is offered. For instance there are several buildings in the downtown area that are priced ridiculously high, if for sale at all, because of the speculating on the arena's impact as well as other downtown activity. They don't add up on an income producing basis (they won't make enough to cover the loan payment) and don't match any comparables in the market. Nonetheless they hang a sign out and wait for someone to see the potential. Its better than just flattening them.
I got ya. If we're planning on arguing semantics, lets just declare you the winner. I'm not a pro, and I've graduated from believing I need to be one.
I doubt that the owner's of this property are particularly happy about the fire.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Don't confuse price with value. Value is appraised, price is offered. For instance there are several buildings in the downtown area that are priced ridiculously high, if for sale at all, because of the speculating on the arena's impact as well as other downtown activity. They don't add up on an income producing basis (they won't make enough to cover the loan payment) and don't match any comparables in the market. Nonetheless they hang a sign out and wait for someone to see the potential. Its better than just flattening them.
I got ya. If we're planning on arguing semantics, lets just declare you the winner. I'm not a pro, and I've graduated from believing I need to be one.
I doubt that the owner's of this property are particularly happy about the fire.
Hey, you're letting your ego get in the way of reasoning. It's not semantics, its the jargon of the business. No one expects the average person to understand the details of a field they're not familiar with. I was just trying to add some of my insight from having worked in that field as the remarks being made just didn't add up. Bottom line? It doesn't much matter what people say on this thread. But one hopes it is based on more than guesses.
BTW the cost of destroying that building is not exhorbitant or time consuming. If it suits the owner to drop it he will. If the city insists it come down and their cost is less than what the owner is quoted then the city will do it. And I've seen worse buildings taken down to their skeleton and rebuilt so you assumption that they never considered re-habbing is just that. Economics rules.
It is an assumption. It's not a far leap though. Certainly not farther than leap it would take to jump my ego.
Yes it can be rehabilitated. Yes it can be demolished. Those things can happen.
However, if it is to be rehabbed. If the owner STILL continues that this is the case. They better be quick about it, because NOW the building can be called unsafe to the general public. It's a whole new problem, with new potential solutions.
If the building is to be demolished either by the company or the city. Same deal. They're going to end up with a defined amount of time to make this decision. Time is now a factor. Money is now a factor. They can no longer afford to simply wait out the city until they get the biggest offer.
On the other hand, if they fully intend to sell it to the city, now might be the time. I'm not sure of the extent the city and the owners are dealing with each other. But the owners might want to get this done quick, before the city gets a chance to fully re-evaluate the situation.
I was in a meeting this morning that included the city's development people and DTU folk.
They jokingly swore they all can account for their whereabouts during the fire. The one thing I have learned in life is that it is good to have an alibi.
Fires in abandoned buildings are pretty common. According to the U.S. Fire Association, "The statistics on abandoned buildings are compelling. According to the USFA, over 12,000 fires in vacant structures are reported each year in the US resulting in $73 million in property damage annually. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) estimates that 6,000 firefighters alone are injured every year in vacant or abandoned building fires".
I think we should tear down the building right now. Having a burned-out shell of a building looks terrible next to our biggest and newest public investment.
Sure, it's going to be torn down, now that 'fate' has lend its' hand.
Who does it at what cost is not relevant.
As WaterBoy states, the value is in the land. Always has been. Though, a renovation of the existing structure was ostensibly a possibility for economic reasons.
Those reasons are now gone.
But, the value is in the land.
The land is actually more attractive (and, thus more valuable) to developers without the building since demo costs can now be deducted).
The owner could now suggest he has plans to develop a hotel on his parcel, or a highrise condo project or simply hold onto it for future appreciation.
IMO, the City of Tulsa has no reason to bother this guy further, at least once the hulkskin is handled.
In court, there's no one who can suggest a hotel development _requires_ this parcel since there's more than enough available for a huge project without it. It would have to be argued a particular plan requires it, and that is subjective.
City leaders have a hard time with Free Markets, don't they? And, with so much of our money to play with, they cannot seem to contain themselves.
If I were the City, I'd start low-balling these guys for sure.
If I were the owner, I'd take bids immediately on demolition/removal. Finish with a nice, clean lot.
Then, I'd start plans to build a huge condo/hotel project. And, make offers to purchase surrounding parcels to enlarge the project.
It only makes economic sense.
A lot of things make economic sense. Like holding this building in it's pre-fire condition, refusing to make repairs so that the building can continue to generate revenue, then mentioning plans about plans that don't really exist, and upping the ante on the City.
Hope the building didn't have any asbestos.
How much does it cost to get a vagrant to start an "accidental fire?"
... just wondering.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
How much does it cost to get a vagrant to start an "accidental fire?"
Probably a little more money than it would to hire a vagrant to plant some asbestos in that building.
Just guessing.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
A lot of things make economic sense. Like holding this building in it's pre-fire condition, refusing to make repairs so that the building can continue to generate revenue, then mentioning plans about plans that don't really exist, and upping the ante on the City.
Hope the building didn't have any asbestos.
Yeah, the City has no interest in buildings with asbestos (ref: Camelot).
The City should get out of the mix here.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Yeah, the City has no interest in buildings with asbestos (ref: Camelot).
The City should get out of the mix here.
Or the owners. Assuming they actually demo the building or rehab it, that would currently be their rather expensive problem.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
A lot of things make economic sense. Like holding this building in it's pre-fire condition, refusing to make repairs so that the building can continue to generate revenue, then mentioning plans about plans that don't really exist, and upping the ante on the City.
Hope the building didn't have any asbestos.
Yeah, the City has no interest in buildings with asbestos (ref: Camelot).
The City should get out of the mix here.
Clearly correct. Other than how soon the building drops, the city's interest just went up in smoke.[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Yeah, the City has no interest in buildings with asbestos (ref: Camelot).
The City should get out of the mix here.
Or the owners. Assuming they actually demo the building or rehab it, that would currently be their rather expensive problem.
It would have no more asbestos, or be any larger problem than most the buildings torn down for the arena (many of same period), or any of the many other period buildings torn down in the CBD over the last decade.
Even less now that it's burned.
But, as you say, it's 'THEIR...problem'.
The City long ago went by the public need aspect of this and entered the punitive phase on this guy, presumptively because he wouldn't cooperate. It's time to let go.
Can't help but think that if all those other buildings demolished contained similar amounts of asbestos, then our leaders have subjected us to liabilities, from contractors and workers who both demolished those buildings and are working on the arena now, due to exposure.
When was the last time you saw anyone in an enviro-suit?
If they pull up some asbestos deal now, it would be interesting to do a film documentary on the removal process.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
The City long ago went by the public need aspect of this and entered the punitive phase on this guy, presumptively because he wouldn't cooperate. It's time to let go.
So, the ED end of it is more or less just a matter of time. Correct?
I haven't looked into ED in probably at least a year. I find my selective memory very useful in allowing me to forget that stuff.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
The City long ago went by the public need aspect of this and entered the punitive phase on this guy, presumptively because he wouldn't cooperate. It's time to let go.
So, the ED end of it is more or less just a matter of time. Correct?
I haven't looked into ED in probably at least a year. I find my selective memory very useful in allowing me to forget that stuff.
I think you misunderstood.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
I think you misunderstood.
What? Are we still on asbestos?
quote:
Clearly correct. Other than how soon the building drops, the city's interest just went up in smoke.
Oh yes, let's make that assumption. That the City either doesn't know what's going on with this building, or that asbestos would be a deciding factor in whether or not the City would want that property.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
How much does it cost to get a vagrant to start an "accidental fire?"
... just wondering.
Two bottles of "Everclear"....... One for ignition and one for blast off..
Have a number of a fellow... But I warn you he has rather expensive taste..!
Here is a pic of his hang-out..
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/SylvesterMorris.jpg)
[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
I don't know how you could speed up the process any more--it's slated to be heard by the TMAPC this Wednesday (item 6) http://www.incog.org/TMAPC/Agenda/Tmapc%20Agenda.htm.
This is an example of how the City could supplement their Tax Base.........
This one they should sell tickets to...
[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
I think you misunderstood.
What? Are we still on asbestos?
quote:
Clearly correct. Other than how soon the building drops, the city's interest just went up in smoke.
Oh yes, let's make that assumption. That the City either doesn't know what's going on with this building, or that asbestos would be a deciding factor in whether or not the City would want that property.
Why don't you clear it up for us. Since the building must now be razed, why does the city need to take a piece of vacant land, suitable for development, from a private owner. What is the public's need to do this? Isn't development what they want? Is it in the wrong hands? What?
Well it was bound to happen... The World has weighed in on the subject...
I think it rather a compliment to the writers on this Board, that much of what is said in the "World" tomorrow, is here today....!
Below is a link to the Editorial on the Towerview....
Tickets for the TMAPC meeting today are in short supply...
Ill Wind (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/OpinionStory.asp?ID=070117_Op_A12_Illwi12955%22)
I doubt that a building from the 20's has a significant asbestos problem. If it has asbestos at all it would have been added later. The Camelot and the Abundant Life buildings are problems because the stuff was put in during the construction process.
Anyone see the Marlette Cartoon in the paper today? It was funny, but it made me cringe a little.
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
I doubt that a building from the 20's has a significant asbestos problem. If it has asbestos at all it would have been added later. The Camelot and the Abundant Life buildings are problems because the stuff was put in during the construction process.
Anyone see the Marlette Cartoon in the paper today? It was funny, but it made me cringe a little.
Actually, Carlton, it was common as early as the late teens. Many of the houses in Maple Ridge have it covering their ductwork and heating pipes. It was later used in siding and roofing. My house dates to 1919 and has it.
We had asbestos in our 1920's bungalow as well. What suprised me was that it really wasn't that expensive to remove. Not cheap--but less than a couple of thousand to remove it all. People are very quick to write off buildings simply because they have asbestos.
Has anyone seen the editorial cartoon in the paper today. It depicts Mayor Taylor as the arsonist.
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
Has anyone seen the editorial cartoon in the paper today. It depicts Mayor Taylor as the arsonist.
Was her hair on fire......
Here is the cartoon...
http://www.tulsaworld.com/MarletteCartoonsStory.asp?ID=070117_Op_a12_toon
Very tacky.
I'm not particularly fond of the blame the gov't/conspiracy angle, but given the circumstances I thought it was kind of cute.
The Towerview owner tells the Tulsa World that he will pay for demolition of the building, and now that HH has been kicked to the curb, says he might build condos (uh-huh)
Article (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=070118_Ne_A13_Remai34464%22)
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
The Towerview owner tells the Tulsa World that he will pay for demolition of the building, and now that HH has been kicked to the curb, says he might build condos (uh-huh)
Article (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=070118_Ne_A13_Remai34464%22)
Perhaps the owner read PRH's savvy comments?
So if the guy tears down the Towerview and says he is considering building condos on the property. How could the city then use eminent domain to take the property from him? If the point of eminent domain in this case was to aquire the property for economic development, well, wouldn't building condos be economic development?
As someone has noted before, we have plenty of hotels downtown and the current cost of building a new high end hotel would be far more than the likely ability to make a profit on the hotel. A decent mid range hotel would be our best hope considering downtowns near future market.
That corner block having a mid level hotel building with a new condominium building wouldn't be such a bad outcome.
If the owner of the towerview is using the "I may build condos on the spot" as a bargaining ploy to keep the value up so he can get the best price from the city that wants it. This would seem to backfire to me, since the city most likely wont be able to use eminent domain to force a purchase, and building condos would be in the interest of the city anyway. So he would be left with a piece of dirt nobody else seems to want and a city hoping he will build condos on it.
Plus at this point why would the city want the property anyway? Is there a developer in the wings they aren't telling anyone about who would need the whole area including the Towerview lot?
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
So if the guy tears down the Towerview and says he is considering building condos on the property. How could the city then use eminent domain to take the property from him? If the point of eminent domain in this case was to aquire the property for economic development, well, wouldn't building condos be economic development?
As someone has noted before, we have plenty of hotels downtown and the current cost of building a new high end hotel would be far more than the likely ability to make a profit on the hotel. A decent mid range hotel would be our best hope considering downtowns near future market.
Eminent domain has its roots in the English common law, where the sovereign was considered to have the inherent right to take property for public use.
Enter the Bill of Rights and the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment: ". . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The Constitution requires "public use" and "just compensation" for any governmental taking of private property.
The Supreme Court has generally held the definition of "public use" to be expansive. It basically includes anything the government wants to do. States can limit the definition of public use by statute, but I do not believe Oklahoma has done so (correct me if I am wrong - possibly occurred after Kelo v. New London).
So as long as the City of Tulsa gives proper due process and pays fair market value (not inflated by speculation), eminent domain is always available. It is only limited by the political will of the city.
But why would the city want it now that nobody else wants it and the guy is saying he may put up condos?
quote:
The Supreme Court has generally held the definition of "public use" to be expansive. It basically includes anything the government wants to do. States can limit the definition of public use by statute, but I do not believe Oklahoma has done so (correct me if I am wrong - possibly occurred after Kelo v. New London).
Not by statute, but through a provision in the State Constitution (Art 2, Sec. 23). From a post-Kelo Oklahoma Supreme Court in Board of County Commissioners of Muskogee Co. v. Lowery:
quote:
To the extent that our determination may be interpreted as inconsistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Kelo v. City of New London, today's pronouncement is reached on the basis of Oklahoma's own special constitutional eminent domain provisions, Art. 2, §§ 23 & 24 of the Oklahoma Constitution, which we conclude provide private property protection to Oklahoma citizens beyond that which is afforded them by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In other words, we determine that our state constitutional eminent domain provisions place more stringent limitation on governmental eminent domain power than the limitations imposed by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
What credibility does the Towerview owner have? He said more than a year ago that he was going to fix up the building, then nothing.
Yet we expect to believe him when he says he's going to develop the land for condos?
Based on his track record, his claims carry the same weight as "I'm planning on making the Towerview float on air."
He has very little credibility.
I would rather see mixed use development, restaurants and retail on this block than a hotel.
I would love to have mixed use development on the property on and near the Towerview as well. But, so far all we have is a guy, without the best track record, and.... who else?
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
and.... who else?
That is a question for you to wonder about and "Himelfarb" to know the answer to....
To say that HH was the only potential investor is like saying IVI is the only company that would be willing to build a bridge in south Tulsa... Aint So......
I am not saying that this guy isn't a creep, but I don't think its surprising that he hadn't done much to the place. He bought the property (wasn't it part of another deal?), and within a year, the health department shut it down. Almost immediately after that, LaFortune began pushing to acquire it through 3rd penny. Then HH showed up, and they negotiated a contract that fell through. Then ED proceedings began. Then it burned down. I am not sure when he was suppose to begin that work on condos. Developments do take some time. Take 21st & Riverside--how long has that property sat empty, waiting for the developer to get started? Maybe the Towerview guy doesn't have a lot of credibility, but the same could be said for many developers. Should we take their property too?
quote:
Originally posted by akupetsky
I am not saying that this guy isn't a creep, but I don't think its surprising that he hadn't done much to the place. He bought the property (wasn't it part of another deal?), and within a year, the health department shut it down. Almost immediately after that, LaFortune began pushing to acquire it through 3rd penny. Then HH showed up, and they negotiated a contract that fell through. Then ED proceedings began. Then it burned down. I am not sure when he was suppose to begin that work on condos. Developments do take some time. Take 21st & Riverside--how long has that property sat empty, waiting for the developer to get started? Maybe the Towerview guy doesn't have a lot of credibility, but the same could be said for many developers. Should we take their property too?
My feeling as well. Be careful what you wish for in the taking of this property. Even if the owner wants to drop the building, sprinkle grass seed and put in bird feeders it is his to do so. NOTE: Many downtown land owners have elected to not develop their property in hopes it would be valuable and someone else, even the govt., would buy it at an inflated price and make them rich(er). How is this guy any different? Is it because he is not in the "club"? I don't care if he is more duplicitous than the others, if the rules are set for the game, he gets to play under those rules.
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
and.... who else?
That is a question for you to wonder about and "Himelfarb" to know the answer to....
To say that HH was the only potential investor is like saying IVI is the only company that would be willing to build a bridge in south Tulsa... Aint So......
I was the first to say that HH was not even a "potential" investor. I was the first to lay out how phony and unprofessional their website was and that it was unlikely anything would happen from them. I liked the development, and would have liked for it to have happened, but knew it likely wouldn't. Even if the city had done everything they requested, I don't believe they had what it took to get the job done. Hows their development in Owasso going?
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I was the first to say that HH was not even a "potential" investor. I was the first to lay out how phony and unprofessional their website was and that it was unlikely anything would happen from them. I liked the development, and would have liked for it to have happened, but knew it likely wouldn't. Even if the city had done everything they requested, I don't believe they had what it took to get the job done. Hows their development in Owasso going?
Yeah, the headline would've been, "Owasso Developer to Reshape Tulsa's Future".
There's a whole 'nuther set of characters behind all this who have yet to come out of the crawl space.
HH was mostly a distraction, the 'real' plan is forthcoming.
IAC, the TV guy needs to be treated like he actually owns the parcel. There is nothing urgent, public or otherwise of interest to the City with regard to his property once the safety issue is resolved.
BTW, what is, and who owns, the building attached to the north side of TowerView?
quote:
Originally posted by akupetsky
I am not saying that this guy isn't a creep, but I don't think its surprising that he hadn't done much to the place. He bought the property (wasn't it part of another deal?), and within a year, the health department shut it down. Almost immediately after that, LaFortune began pushing to acquire it through 3rd penny. Then HH showed up, and they negotiated a contract that fell through. Then ED proceedings began. Then it burned down. I am not sure when he was suppose to begin that work on condos. Developments do take some time. Take 21st & Riverside--how long has that property sat empty, waiting for the developer to get started? Maybe the Towerview guy doesn't have a lot of credibility, but the same could be said for many developers. Should we take their property too?
I Agree!Towerview timeline
1922: The Towerview opens next door to the Tulsa Carnegie Library.
1965: The Carnegie Library is torn down.
September 2003: Tulsa County voters approve the construction of an 18,000-seat arena within a block of the Towerview site.
March 2004: Oregon investor Luay Aljamal buys the property.
Sept. 26-28, 2004: Tulsa World publishes a three-day series about life inside the Towerview.
Oct. 4, 2004: City inspectors converge on the building for a mass inspection, finding numerous code violations.
Oct. 19, 2004: Last residents move out as health officials enforce an "order to vacate."
February 2005: Police clear squatters from the building before officials board up the windows and doors.
December 2005: Aljamal announces a plan to renovate the building into "upscale, trendy" condominiums.
Dec. 12, 2006: Tulsa Development Authority approves resolution to use the power of eminent domain to buy the property. The Towerview has always been a Tulsa Eye sore. In 1989, Towerview was in the same condition as it is today.
Staff Reports
10/04/2004
Tulsa World (Final Home Edition), Page A2 of Opinion
Apartments in a time warp
Regarding your article on the Towerview Apartments, I came here from Florida in 1987 and I moved into the Towerview Apartments. I figured that coming to a big town like Tulsa you live downtown. I stayed there two weeks, heard the roaches and saw those long tails running across the floor also. What he has written in the article is the same thing that was going on in 1987.
And Luay Aljamal from Oregon Purchased the buiding in a group deal sight unseen.
MICHAEL OVERALL World Staff Writer
10/20/2004
Tulsa World (Final Home Edition), Page A1 of News
The building is owned by Concord Development, a company controlled by Oregon resident Luay Aljamal. He bought the Towerview through an Internet sale in March, when he had not seen the building and did not realize it was in such bad shape, Williams said.
"You can't realistically ask us, in a few months, to fix problems that took years to create," she said. "My boss is an honorable man, a father of two, a good husband. He's not trying to rip anybody off."
The city gave him 10 days to fix the building or close it down. Knowing that that this was a loosing battle and the city wanted(the city owns the parking lot next to the building and has an agreement with the geodata building) Luay closed Towerview down.
Towerview's tenants gone
MICHAEL OVERALL World Staff Writer
10/20/2004
Tulsa World (Final Home Edition), Page A1 of News
Fire marshals and police officers arrived about 10:30 a.m. to enforce an "order to vacate" that had been posted on the front door 10 days earlier.
After a barrage of inspections in early October, the Tulsa City-County Health Department gave the building's owner an ultimatum -- fix several code violations that made the Towerview unsafe and unhealthy, or get all the residents out.
At first, the owner -- Luay Aljamal, an Oregon businessman -- seemed to fight to keep the building open. He hired new guards, painted and cleaned up the hallways, removed broken heaters and installed new electrical hardware.
But late last week, with just three full days left before the Health Department's deadline, the management posted a handwritten note telling residents to find other places to live.[/i]
Then trying to reestablish his investment, announced that he was going to build condos in December of 2005.
Mayor sees Towerview as hotel site
BRIAN BARBER World Staff Writer
12/29/2005
Tulsa World (Final Home Edition), Page A1 of News
The owner of the old apartments has other plans for the property.
Money to buy the dilapidated Towerview Apartments so a new downtown hotel can be built across from the BOK Center is included in the mayor's third-penny sales tax proposal.
However, the owner of the property wants to convert the building into high-end lofts.
"We would certainly listen to any reasonable, solid offer that might be made," said the owner, Oregon businessman Luay Aljamal, who controls Concorde Development of Oklahoma. "But right now, this is the plan."
Then HH comes along in April of 2006 with a contract to purchase towerview for $200,500.00. Then later this contract is canceled in April of 2006. So for one year this man was thinking that he "is" working with "the city" and "the people of Tulsa."
Then the city uses eminent domain to take the building saying the the building is "blighted" BUT now that the owner is going to tear Towerview down and continue on with his investment. Does everyone think that the city is right in continuing on with the eminent domain process? I definetly think the city does have a hotel up its sleeve and going to continue with the eminent domain process. I dont think that Mr. Luay Aljamal knew what he was getting into purchasing Towerview in the beginning. He certainly didn't make Towerview the way it is now...he just aquiered it in the very end. Maybe we should rethink who this guy from Oregon really is....and give him a chance.
quote:
BTW, what is, and who owns, the building attached to the north side of TowerView?
GeoData....they have a contract with the city.
A few changes to my quote above...The Heavenly Hospitality Contract was canceled in October of 2006. And the price was $2,000,050.00.
quote:
Originally posted by Leah
He certainly didn't make Towerview the way it is now...he just aquiered it in the very end. Maybe we should rethink who this guy from Oregon really is....and give him a chance.[/b][/size=2][/red]
Earlier in this discussion, I was pro eminent domain because it seemed to me that otherwise nothing positive would ever be done with the property. After reading into this more deeply, I have changed my mind. If the city wants to develop the land as a mixed hotel/condo project, why can't they let the current owner be a part of the condo development? Leah made a good point, the owner bought the property after it was already in poor condition. Surely he did truly want to redevelop the property, why else would he have purchased it in the first place? This guy sounds like a much easier developer to do business with than Heavenly Hospitality.
Furthermore, it seems that the hotel portion of the project is unneccessary considering the current supply of downtown hotel rooms, renovations of Crowne Plaza, and three possible new hotels in the East End.
Yeah when DO those East End hotels open up?
quote:
Originally posted by bacjz00
Yeah when DO those East End hotels open up?
Free Market forces will determine the date based upon potential for customers, upon site/market evaluations, a proforma and the developers ability to persuade lenders he has the ability to make his dream happen.
Where are the customers for the arena?
quote:
Originally posted by Leah
quote:
BTW, what is, and who owns, the building attached to the north side of TowerView?
GeoData....they have a contract with the city.
Where might one obtain a copy of this contract?
It is public information/domain.
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
quote:
Originally posted by Leah
He certainly didn't make Towerview the way it is now...he just aquiered it in the very end. Maybe we should rethink who this guy from Oregon really is....and give him a chance.[/b][/size=2][/red]
Earlier in this discussion, I was pro eminent domain because it seemed to me that otherwise nothing positive would ever be done with the property. After reading into this more deeply, I have changed my mind. If the city wants to develop the land as a mixed hotel/condo project, why can't they let the current owner be a part of the condo development? Leah made a good point, the owner bought the property after it was already in poor condition. Surely he did truly want to redevelop the property, why else would he have purchased it in the first place? This guy sounds like a much easier developer to do business with than Heavenly Hospitality.
Furthermore, it seems that the hotel portion of the project is unneccessary considering the current supply of downtown hotel rooms, renovations of Crowne Plaza, and three possible new hotels in the East End.
I can't see any reason not to let this guy have a chance to develop his property.
If he wants to play he should stop speculating and get a plan in front of the TDA so they can move forward knowing how much land they will be able to offer to the next potential.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by bacjz00
Yeah when DO those East End hotels open up?
Where are the customers for the arena?
Wrinkle...maybe you don't know this. The Arena isn't open for business. When it does open, you'll hear all about the events through local media outlets and you can fight the 1.2 million people living within 80 miles of Tulsa who will be glad to pony up money for tickets to concerts, shows, and sporting events.
The east end hotels are nothing but a drawing. I WANT them to happen, I really do, but until something bigger and bolder than the Jenks Riverwalk gets privately financed inside of Tulsa County, I continue to wonder if anyone will EVER sack up and privately invest in this city.
I think we need one higher end hotel and three or more mid-range hotels downtown. I am sure we are missing out on lots of small and medium conventions by not having enough hotel rooms downtown.
I am certainly not an expert on the Tulsa marketplace, but I stay in a downtown hotel in at least twelve different American cities in year. I know how a downtown hotel attracts business and I know that they will spur downtown life.
These kind of visitors need a variety of dining options, convenient retail options for sundry items, meeting space, cabs, etc. Most downtown hotels have nice restaurants and bars as well.
A nice hotel across from the arena would be a great place to book a company party, meet other professionals, even conduct job interviews.
Hotel lobbys are a very popular place to hang out, almost being the discos or bookstore of the new millenium.
I believe the hotel is a good thing too. However, if the old Towerview property is truly going to be developed by this company from Oregon, then I'd kind of like to see the City back off on ED and maybe begin negotiations for the BOK drive thru. It would be more expensive, but there are other projects that could go on the TDA property next to Towerview.
On the other hand, until this guy actually begins construction, the city has no reason to stop ED. Whether the project is real or fictional, it's kind of a race now.
We do need a nice hotel downtown. And yes, something with a nice lobby. The lobbies of the hotels in downtown Tulsa are laaaame. I was in the Double Tree a while back to see some friends who were in from out of town on business. I was embarrassed and humiliated at the style, look, and quality of the place. I had thought, that hotel was supposed to be one of the nice ones. The Crowne Plaza is set to undergo a 10 million$ renovation which it desperately needs, cudos to them.
It would be nice to have a hotel that downtown Tulsa could be proud of. Yes I love the Ambassador as a small, charming, historic, hotel, but that is a different type of hotel than what I am talking about. I would recommend the Ambassador over the Double Tree in any case.
quote:
Originally posted by PRH
The City of Tulsa has given the owner of the Towerview a really raw deal.
And you guys wonder why no one invests here?
The word is out among private developers - stay out of Tulsa.
Suppose you could give us a short list of the investors that you make reference to..?
Kanbar and Kaufman.?, Schneider.? (sp?}, Helmerich.?, Global Development.?,.......
It would be very Educational to us all to have this much insight....!
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
We do need a nice hotel downtown. And yes, something with a nice lobby. The lobbies of the hotels in downtown Tulsa are laaaame. I was in the Double Tree a while back to see some friends who were in from out of town on business. I was embarrassed and humiliated at the style, look, and quality of the place. I had thought, that hotel was supposed to be one of the nice ones. The Crowne Plaza is set to undergo a 10 million$ renovation which it desperately needs, cudos to them.
It would be nice to have a hotel that downtown Tulsa could be proud of. Yes I love the Ambassador as a small, charming, historic, hotel, but that is a different type of hotel than what I am talking about. I would recommend the Ambassador over the Double Tree in any case.
You let a hotel lobby embarrass and humiliate you....I had friends stay there and they were just fine with it...I didn't feel anything at all...
Originally posted by the Artist.
quote:
It would be nice to have a hotel that downtown Tulsa could be proud of. Yes I love the Ambassador as a small, charming, historic, hotel, but that is a different type of hotel than what I am talking about. I would recommend the Ambassador over the Double Tree in any case.
Senor Arteest... I have no knowledge of how the plan is going.. But just as a side note... you may want to stop in the "Savoy Hotel" and see how the development that he is working on is coming along.. At one time the furniture for this project was to have been custom made by "Mark Hawley - Hawley Designs".
Not... that it would be a Hotel that could accommodate all the "brown shoe" salesmen that attend many conventions... But it may appeal to the more artistic types that visit Tulsa...
The word is out among private developers - stay out of Tulsa.
I agree:
TU cares squat about the surrounding hood and continues - unabated - to stomp around like a Spoiled Child King.
We raze homes in an HP zone to build a parking lot for a bank.
The Mayor reverse's his largeness on endorsing a new HP hood.
wal-mart (spit) has Red Carpet parking lots.
Small Biz dudes are ignored so Boeing can be offered a handout.
It's a list of smaller events that number in the billions. Hard to point a lone finger at but word gets around.
Hell, our "Day to Come" doesn't look so good either if you recall the first thing K&K did was raze a DT building (and not much since), and then cast a glance at GDP, which is stalled with the same issues all the other giants conked their head against.
However:
This could be a happening location on a larger scale but this will require visionary people to actually roll up their sleeves, a mayor with more depth than a soundbite, shoppers that understand, and actually care about social fabric...
Several cigarettes later:
In the course of a single year: production companies can do litte more than pour a cup of coffee and developers can accomplish little more then hire an attoney.
Besides, the Towerview deal has been hinkey from the beginning.
Ponder why and who determined the arena location.
Look at who stood to profit.
Look at who owns the property now, opps.
Look at what new owner is having to deal with.
Coming up, lets follow the money that might be reaped from this lone lot of potential developement.
There is a reason no local boys put their hat in the ring for this juicey little property...it's what finally dawned on HH as they were laughed out of town.
Gimme back my football, jdb
quote:
Originally posted by PRH
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
quote:
Originally posted by PRH
The City of Tulsa has given the owner of the Towerview a really raw deal.
And you guys wonder why no one invests here?
The word is out among private developers - stay out of Tulsa.
Suppose you could give us a short list of the investors that you make reference to..?
Kanbar and Kaufman.?, Schneider.? (sp?}, Helmerich.?, Global Development.?,.......
It would be very Educational to us all to have this much insight....!
More snide questions, Rico? Don't you ever get tired of playing the sly mexican? It's not really very flattering.
I know what I'm talking about because I move in the same social circles as a lot of people who are the big builders in this area, but I'm not going to repeat their off-the-record comments online. I'm not a gossip.
Kanbar and Kaufman will learn from their mistakes. Gloval Development is a laugh. Helmrich is a home-town Tulsa operation.
If you don't think taking a property by condemning it for code violations, then taking it by eminent domain AFTER it burns is chilling to builders considering Tulsa, there's no helping your way of thinking.
As the British would say.......
Bully...!
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/13-bully.jpg)
When people describe the Towerview as an "eye-sore," they're describing conditions on the outside. But the only people who truly knew what was going on inside were the tenants and eventually the Tulsa World and the Health Dept...
Millionaire out-of-state landlords purchased a single-room-occupancy transient hotel for $750,000 and subjected their tenants to third world squalor for six full months before they got caught... what kind of precedent would it set if these people were able to realize over a million dollars in profit from their internet speculation???
In this INDIVIDUAL case, I still believe the process of eminent domain is warranted. If these people had... fumigated... spent a few thousand dollars to replace flea-infested bedding... spent a few hundred dollars to have a cleaning crew do a top-to-bottom of the property...
Instead, they forced tenants to purchase roach-bombs and bugspray... while at the same time charging $125 a week per unit for rent? In Tulsa???
And we're not talking about the benefits of capitalism and private investment here.
Why is this property valuable?
Certainly not because of private investment.
It's valuable because the taxpayers of Tulsa voted to fund an arena directly across the street from the Towerview.
Funny how Tulsans Bob and Darlene aren't allowed to put an old pickup truck on cinder blocks in their front yard... but a deadbeat landlord can be allowed to maintain rancid, filthy conditions inside his single-room-occupancy hotel? And not suffer any consequences? Instead, he should be allowed to profit from it???
What Rufnex said.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
When people describe the Towerview as an "eye-sore," they're describing conditions on the outside. But the only people who truly knew what was going on inside were the tenants and eventually the Tulsa World and the Health Dept...
Millionaire out-of-state landlords purchased a single-room-occupancy transient hotel for $750,000 and subjected their tenants to third world squalor for six full months before they got caught... what kind of precedent would it set if these people were able to realize over a million dollars in profit from their internet speculation???
In this INDIVIDUAL case, I still believe the process of eminent domain is warranted. If these people had... fumigated... spent a few thousand dollars to replace flea-infested bedding... spent a few hundred dollars to have a cleaning crew do a top-to-bottom of the property...
Instead, they forced tenants to purchase roach-bombs and bugspray... while at the same time charging $125 a week per unit for rent? In Tulsa???
And we're not talking about the benefits of capitalism and private investment here.
Why is this property valuable?
Certainly not because of private investment.
It's valuable because the taxpayers of Tulsa voted to fund an arena directly across the street from the Towerview.
Funny how Tulsans Bob and Darlene aren't allowed to put an old pickup truck on cinder blocks in their front yard... but a deadbeat landlord can be allowed to maintain rancid, filthy conditions inside his single-room-occupancy hotel? And not suffer any consequences? Instead, he should be allowed to profit from it???
The guy never had a chance. You've made an awful lot of assumptions.
The building was operated identically for at least 20 years prior to the ownership change.
What might make an interesting story is from whom he bought it. The prior owners are more guilty of its' condition. And, there's some chance they had word of pending action prior to sale. Thus, an 'internet' sale....hmmm. Besides, where was the City when this transaction occurred? They could've bought it on the open market then. The timeframe fits acquisitions of the other parcels on the block.
This is premeditated hijacking of personal property. Horse thievery. And, no less punishable by hanging than such.
Someone else just mentioned the BOK drive-in facility....a nearly blank square block immediately to the north. What I refer to as the 'other' part of planned development.
They're just doing the southern block first since BOK already has possesion.
We've yet to see the plan.
quote:
Originally posted by jdb
The word is out among private developers - stay out of Tulsa.
I agree:
TU cares squat about the surrounding hood and continues - unabated - to stomp around like a Spoiled Child King.
We raze homes in an HP zone to build a parking lot for a bank.
The Mayor reverse's his largeness on endorsing a new HP hood.
wal-mart (spit) has Red Carpet parking lots.
Small Biz dudes are ignored so Boeing can be offered a handout.
It's a list of smaller events that number in the billions. Hard to point a lone finger at but word gets around.
Hell, our "Day to Come" doesn't look so good either if you recall the first thing K&K did was raze a DT building (and not much since), and then cast a glance at GDP, which is stalled with the same issues all the other giants conked their head against.
However:
This could be a happening location on a larger scale but this will require visionary people to actually roll up their sleeves, a mayor with more depth than a soundbite, shoppers that understand, and actually care about social fabric...
Several cigarettes later:
In the course of a single year: production companies can do litte more than pour a cup of coffee and developers can accomplish little more then hire an attoney.
Besides, the Towerview deal has been hinkey from the beginning.
Ponder why and who determined the arena location.
Look at who stood to profit.
Look at who owns the property now, opps.
Look at what new owner is having to deal with.
Coming up, lets follow the money that might be reaped from this lone lot of potential developement.
There is a reason no local boys put their hat in the ring for this juicey little property...it's what finally dawned on HH as they were laughed out of town.
Gimme back my football, jdb
Shadows...is that you? I'm going to have to analyze those remarks some. Heading to Qt for a cigar to clear my head.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Quote
The guy never had a chance. You've made an awful lot of assumptions.
The building was operated identically for at least 20 years prior to the ownership change.
What might make an interesting story is from whom he bought it. The prior owners are more guilty of its' condition. And, there's some chance they had word of pending action prior to sale. Thus, an 'internet' sale....hmmm. Besides, where was the City when this transaction occurred? They could've bought it on the open market then. The timeframe fits acquisitions of the other parcels on the block.
This is premeditated hijacking of personal property. Horse thievery. And, no less punishable by hanging than such.
Someone else just mentioned the BOK drive-in facility....a nearly blank square block immediately to the north. What I refer to as the 'other' part of planned development.
They're just doing the southern block first since BOK already has possesion.
We've yet to see the plan.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
The new owners had a SIX FULL MONTHS.
How do YOU know what the building was like ON THE INSIDE?
If you'd like, I can post the three part Tulsa World series on the living conditions...
If only HALF of what was said turned out to be true, these people should at the very least be paying stiff fines, if not outright jail time.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Quote
The guy never had a chance. You've made an awful lot of assumptions.
The building was operated identically for at least 20 years prior to the ownership change.
What might make an interesting story is from whom he bought it. The prior owners are more guilty of its' condition. And, there's some chance they had word of pending action prior to sale. Thus, an 'internet' sale....hmmm. Besides, where was the City when this transaction occurred? They could've bought it on the open market then. The timeframe fits acquisitions of the other parcels on the block.
This is premeditated hijacking of personal property. Horse thievery. And, no less punishable by hanging than such.
Someone else just mentioned the BOK drive-in facility....a nearly blank square block immediately to the north. What I refer to as the 'other' part of planned development.
They're just doing the southern block first since BOK already has possesion.
We've yet to see the plan.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
The new owners had a SIX FULL MONTHS.
How do YOU know what the building was like ON THE INSIDE?
If you'd like, I can post the three part Tulsa World series on the living conditions...
If only HALF of what was said turned out to be true, these people should at the very least be paying stiff fines, if not outright jail time.
Well, now you are being just plain silly.
Besides, if you base your knowledge on the Tulsa World, well, you know less than not reading anything at all.
You're starting to sound like the gang who railroaded this guy.
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
Originally posted by the Artist.quote:
It would be nice to have a hotel that downtown Tulsa could be proud of. Yes I love the Ambassador as a small, charming, historic, hotel, but that is a different type of hotel than what I am talking about. I would recommend the Ambassador over the Double Tree in any case.
Senor Arteest... I have no knowledge of how the plan is going.. But just as a side note... you may want to stop in the "Savoy Hotel" and see how the development that he is working on is coming along.. At one time the furniture for this project was to have been custom made by "Mark Hawley - Hawley Designs".
Not... that it would be a Hotel that could accommodate all the "brown shoe" salesmen that attend many conventions... But it may appeal to the more artistic types that visit Tulsa...
I just may have to do that, thanks for the tip.
"The new owners had a SIX FULL MONTHS." - USR
In this town, that's nothing unless your last name starts with a "Z".
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Well, now you are being just plain silly.
Besides, if you base your knowledge on the Tulsa World, well, you know less than not reading anything at all.
You're starting to sound like the gang who railroaded this guy.
HELLO. HAVE YOU NO SHAME? HAVE YOU NO SENSE OF DECENCY?
PLEASE enlighten me as to which part of this article is a lie...??? Substandard Housing: It's the weekly rental blues
MICHAEL OVERALL World Staff Writer
09/26/2004
Editor's Note: The TOWERVIEW Apartments offers
by-the-week rent with few questions asked. The
building stands in the future shadow of the planned $183 million downtown arena. Tulsa World reporter Michael Overall spent two weeks in July living in the building. This is the first of three stories on his experiences there. The room looks dark even with the blinds open and the afternoon sun blazing outside. The light, apparently, is too intimidated to come in.
Cobwebs are hanging from the corners. Paint is
chipping off the ceiling. The walls have holes in them, and there's enough dust on the floor to leave footprints.
When the apartment manager opens a window, the air still doesn't move, the July heat making both of us sweat through our T-shirts.
"This isn't my nicest unit," he says.
He doesn't like the fake wood paneling.
"I've got one upstairs that's been painted."
But it's occupied.
"Maybe if you decide to stay long enough, it'll come open."
This apartment, the manager says, is one of the
smaller units, but not the smallest. There's a tiny kitchen in one corner, barely big enough for a stove, a sink and a wooden spice rack, just in case a gourmet moves in. Inside a cabinet, an old box of Rice Krispies has fallen on its side, spilling out and attracting a swarm of roaches.
The refrigerator is in the living room, warm inside and empty except for some dead bugs. And there's an old couch next to a beat-up chair, with a hole in it and the stuffing coming out.
"Well, this is it," the manager says. "What do you think?"
Down the hallway in the manager's office, no questions are asked. No credit checks. No references. All he needs is $125 for the first week. He'll take cash, but he would prefer a money order.
"Here's the key," he says. "Give it back when you move out. Some people don't do that."
With me in Room 209 now, out of almost 40 units in the building, the manager has only one apartment left empty. And there's already a girl waiting in his office to ask about it.
She doesn't look old enough to vote. In fact, not old enough to see R-rated movies.
"I don't have my ID with me," she tells the manager. She says her name is Rachel, but maybe it isn't.
She sits with her feet in the chair, hugging her knees close to her chest and twirling a strand of long blond hair around her finger.
Her T-shirt says "Grrl Power" and her blue jeans came from Abercrombie & Fitch. The watch on her wrist must have cost a week's rent, and she didn't even have the sense to take it off before coming into a place like this.
I want to call her parents. I want to call my parents. She can have my old room.
"I need a place to stay," she tells the manager. "You know, for like a few weeks."
So she follows him to the second floor, climbing the stairs with her trendy suede sneakers, leaving footprints in the dust.
First impressions:
It sounds like sandpaper or like the noise a dog makes when it's scratching at the door, wanting out side. It gets louder, then softer. Stops, then starts again. But where it's coming from, I can't tell. Under the chair. Outside the window. Behind the stove. In the closet. I look everywhere, and then I glance
into the bathroom.
In the darkness, the black and white tile appears to be rippling, as if the floor is made of water with little waves sloshing across the surface.
With a light on, the pool of water turns into a solid layer of bugs. There's a dog pile of insects --crawling under, over and around each other in a sickening, undulating clump. It's a mad frenzy, a thousand cockroaches rioting in front of my toilet.
I step away for only a minute, a mere 60 seconds, just long enough to unzip a duffel bag, fumble around for a camera and rush back to the bathroom door.
And they're gone. Every single one of them. Vanished, with nothing but a normal, empty floor.
A sort of housewarming:
On Saturday night, a few friends are nice enough to drop in for a little party. No gifts. No cake or ice cream. Just a few drinks and the chance to see inside of a place they've heard about for a long time. The TOWERVIEW Apartments is rather famous in downtown Tulsa. People might not recognize the name, but they
know what you mean when you talk about that old
apartment building near Third Street and Cheyenne Avenue.
By this time next year, the Vision 2025 arena will be under construction less than a block away. From my back window, you can see the Denver Grill and a Citgo gas station -- both to be torn down soon to make way for the new "events center."
In the future, when people come downtown for a
concert, the TOWERVIEW is going to be part of the scenery. That's why people are talking about it. And that's why my friends are curious.
They park around the corner. They take off their
jewelry. And they hustle down the hallway until the apartment door is securely locked and bolted.
The tour doesn't take long. This apartment is just big enough for two sitting areas, one immediately on your left as you come in the door, the other catty-corner across the room, near the back window.
In between, an old-fashioned Murphy bed folds down out of the wall, where a previous tenant left dirty laundry behind the headboard.
"Are you going to sleep in it?" my friends want to know.
Of course not. The mattress is stained and smells like urine. I'll be sleeping on a cot.
Around the corner in the bathroom, one friend turns on the faucet in the bathtub, and we're surprised to find plenty of hot water. But it comes out orange.
"That's weird," my friend says. "Very weird." She recommends not taking a shower for the next week.
Before long, in the living room, everybody seems to be ready to leave. But I want them to stay. Please. Let's talk about the weather or world peace or whatever comes to mind.
"Have a seat," I tell them. But where?
Just touching the couch is enough to send up a plume of dust, and it doesn't take long to realize the seat cushions are covered with fleas.
The four of us end up squishing together on the coffee table, hoping the old wooden legs don't break under the weight. And it becomes a little game to describe what this apartments smells like.
Spoiled cabbage and cigarettes.
Rotten potatoes and cheap bourbon.
Turned milk and moldy cheese.
"Never mind," I tell them. Nothing can describe it.
When you're not having fun:
For people on the outside, time is skipping along like
always. But for me -- sweating in the July heat
without an air conditioner and sitting in a folding
lawn chair because the couch has fleas -- the minutes are creeping forward like continental drift.
At 7:05, I open a magazine and I read every article, even the long, boring ones. And I examine every chart and look at every photo, then I flip the pages back and read some of the articles a second time. And when I put the magazine down, the clock says 7:15.
Time simply slows down here. The same things keep happening over and over, like the day is stuck on a treadmill, churning past the same events, again and again. A roach crawls across my lap and I flick it away. Then another roach crawls across my lap. And another one.
A homeless guy knocks on the door to beg for a
cigarette. Then another homeless guy. And another.
The bugs. The graffiti. The rickety floor. The vague sense of danger every time I walk out the door, like maybe somebody's going to pull a knife and steal my wallet. That's the easy part of living here.
It's the monotony that gets to you. The dreary
sameness of everyday life -- that's the real ordeal. I'm tired of stepping on mouse droppings. Tired of swatting flies. Tired of staying awake all night because I can't stop itching.
And the first week isn't even half over yet.
Opportunity knocks:
During the day, in the parking lot next door to the TOWERVIEW, there's a Porsche and a couple of Mercedes, along with a bunch of Hondas and Toyotas. At 5 o'clock, the office workers come and drive away,
leaving the lot mostly empty by 6. It stays that way until sunset, when the building casts a long shadow across the asphalt, and other cars begin to arrive -- this time beat-up Chevys and old Pontiacs. They don't all come at once, and none of them stay long, so the parking lot never looks full, but it often seems busy.
When people get out of the cars, they look up and yell at an open window on the second or third floor. Then somebody goes down to meet them in the parking lot.
They talk. They walk back and forth. And if you watch carefully, you can catch a glimpse of small packages being exchanged -- subtly, quickly, always in a way that makes you wonder whether you really saw anything.
It's impossible to say exactly what's happening out there. You can have your suspicions. You can have your intuitions. But you can't really say for sure. And maybe it's best not to know.
At one point tonight, just as the last shred of
daylight is fading away, one guy in particular catches my attention -- not because he is doing anything out of the ordinary, but because he's not doing anything at all. He's just standing there, hands in his pockets, eyes unblinking, looking straight ahead. He's looking, it seems, right at me.
So I lower the window and close the blinds. But now it's too quiet in here. Eerily quiet, because it's not really quiet at all.
Little feet are pattering back and forth inside the walls. Something keeps rustling behind the couch. The ceiling is creaking. And that scratchy noise is coming from the bathroom again.
Then there's a knock at the door -- so sudden it makes me jump and almost tip over the chair.
Whoever it is, he's not the same guy who was standing outside the window a few minutes ago. But he still makes an intimidating figure -- well over 6 feet tall, with a shaved head and dressed top to bottom in the powder blue of North Carolina.
He spots my eyeball looking at him through the
peephole.
"Hey, man," he says through the door. "You need an air conditioner?"
As a matter of fact, an air conditioner sounds
tempting. It was over 90 degrees today, and my room doesn't even have a fan. Only a couple of windows can be opened, and one of them is right above the building's Dumpster. The breeze isn't worth the stench.
So the guy convinces me to follow him outside to his car, a 1980-something clunker with bullet holes in the passenger door. The air conditioner is in the trunk, along with an assortment of VCRs and car stereos.
"It's brand-new," he says. The control panel is cracked, the air vents look dusty, and the power cord appears to be attached with a worn-out piece of duct tape.
"I'll take 30 bucks for it," he says. "And I'll even carry it inside for you."
On second thought -- thanks, but no thanks.
"Twenty bucks," he says. "Come on, that's a great
deal."
But really, the heat isn't so bad.
"Fifteen. And that's my final offer."
That's very nice. Really. But no.
"OK," he says. "But you're going to regret this."
Regret it? Why? Because this guy doesn't take no for an answer?
"Look, man, I'm just saying that it's going to get worse. You know what I mean?"
Not really. What's going to get worse? The heat? In a way, not having an air conditioner seems like a blessing, because the sticky humidity makes it impossible to sleep at night. And not sleeping at night makes it impossible to wake up in the morning with a mouse in the bed.
Back inside, the room still seems eerily quiet. Little feet pattering, something rustling, that scratchy sandpaper noise is still coming from the bathroom.
Somehow, through all the creepiness, the guy's voice seems to echo off the grimy walls.
"It's going to get worse."
The heat. The roaches. The mice. The strange
characters peeking through the window at night. It's all going to get worse.
And maybe he was right.
"You're going to regret this."
Around midnight, somebody else knocks at the door. But
this time, the door stays locked.
I lived in an SRO for about 6 weeks... in a seedy area on the northside of Chicago... the area around the SRO was bad but the hotel was well-regulated by the city...... if it wasn't up to code, THE CHICAGO HEALTH DEPT WOULD SHUT IT DOWN IN A HEARTBEAT.
I've been a landlord and I have to wonder why the tenants didn't move out if the Towerview was as bad as the paper described?
Maybe it's because the rent was consistent with the conditions.
Or maybe the newspaper brought their own rats and trash and junked the place up for another Whirled do-gooder article. There's nothing I wouldn't put past the newspaper....they've lost their credibility with me a long time ago.
Maybe the tenants of the Towerview prefered a roof over their head than to sleep on the sidewalks.
My point is, when you don't have much money, you don't have much housing choice, but anything is better than sleeping down by the railroad tracks or the river....something a few of you on this forum should try, before you pass such self-righteous judgement on the Towerview.
Sometimes I wonder where some of you Tulsa Now posters got your brains from. The tenants of the Towerview are worse off now than they were...but you do-gooders now feel good about yourselves, and that's all that matters to you. Never mind the people who have been displaced to the streets.
And if the Towerview was operated this way for the past 20 years, why was it all of the sudden so important to condemn it? Could it be because the new owner is not contributing enough money under the table?
"...wonder where all you Tulsa Now posters got your brains..." - prh
I take exception with the word "all" vs. "some".
Or maybe you were hoping to snag a few bystanders with that loose cannon of lazy diction?
jdb!
quote:
Originally posted by jdb
"...wonder where all you Tulsa Now posters got your brains..." - prh
I take exception with the word "all" vs. "some".
Or maybe you were hoping to snag a few bystanders with that loose cannon of lazy diction?
jdb!
Great ccott, you're right!
I'll change it right now.
PRH wrote:
My point is, when you don't have much money, you don't have much housing choice, but anything is better than sleeping down by the railroad tracks or the river....something a few of you on this forum should try, before you pass such self-righteous judgement on the Towerview.
<end clip>
Thanks, but I'll stay in my house. As Bob Dylan said, you don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
The fact is, there were plenty of motels in the city that offered rooms for the same price and lower than the $125 a week that tenants had to pay at Towerview. (I know this because I looked at the time.) The only reason I figure that the Towerview had tenants at all was because of its downtown location and its no-questions-asked policy. (No references needed ought to have raised a lot of red flags right there.)
And I find your conspiracy theories laughable. Maybe the newspaper brought in the fleas and cockroaches, too. And maybe it brought in the stray cats that hung out in the place after the building was vacated, too.
[}:)]
Like Rufnex said, the conditions there were so deplorable because of the vermin alone that just about any other city you name would have shut it down a long time ago. That's not even factoring in the fire and plumbing code violations.
quote:
Originally posted by PRH
I've been a landlord and I have to wonder why the tenants didn't move out if the Towerview was as bad as the paper described?
Maybe it's because the rent was consistent with the conditions.
Or maybe the newspaper brought their own rats and trash and junked the place up for another Whirled do-gooder article. There's nothing I wouldn't put past the newspaper....they've lost their credibility with me a long time ago.
Maybe the tenants of the Towerview prefered a roof over their head than to sleep on the sidewalks.
My point is, when you don't have much money, you don't have much housing choice, but anything is better than sleeping down by the railroad tracks or the river....something a few of you on this forum should try, before you pass such self-righteous judgement on the Towerview.
Sometimes I wonder where some of you Tulsa Now posters got your brains from. The tenants of the Towerview are worse off now than they were...but you do-gooders now feel good about yourselves, and that's all that matters to you. Never mind the people who have been displaced to the streets.
And if the Towerview was operated this way for the past 20 years, why was it all of the sudden so important to condemn it? Could it be because the new owner is not contributing enough money under the table?
You know, while we are at it, let's do away with the minimum wage too, if the pay is too low, people wouldn't take the jobs. Let's get rid of those pesky child labor laws too, if an 8 year old wants to work a drill press, we should let them! And how about we allow indentured servants again while we are at it. Slavery isn't so bad if the person chooses to be a slave.
The Towerview was not closed to punish the people living there and it wasn't closed because of the conditions. It was closed by the owner for refusing to pay correct the conditions. That's the owner's choice. And if you are a landlord, you know that six months can be a very long time for a multi-dwelling unit to go without repairs. Conditions can change drastically in that short a time-frame if no money is being put into the building.
There are plenty of cheap places to rent in the city and no reason those places should be unsafe. The price noted in this thread was $125 a week for a room. The owner should have been able to provide a clean and safe room for that rent. He just chose not too.
quote:
I find your conspiracy theories laughable. Maybe the newspaper brought in the fleas and cockroaches, too.
In Easter of 1961 (62?) My S.O. attended a party on the river banks at 131st and Sheridan. It got loud, and it was raided by local law enforcement. There was a top of a girl's swimsuit in part of the trash down by the water's edge that had nothing to do with the party.
My S.O. watched as a newspaper photographer and a law enforcement officer hung the swimsuit top from a tree branch and took a picture for the newspaper. The next morning it was front page news, and the caption implied the teenagers had a nude party, the proof being this "bra" flung into a tree. My S.O. and I still laugh at how Tulsa used to be.
So you see, reporters are not above manufacturing evidence. TV reporter Marty Griffin tried to ruin a certain Dallas football player's reputation a few years ago. Don't you remember that?
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
PRH wrote:
My point is, when you don't have much money, you don't have much housing choice, but anything is better than sleeping down by the railroad tracks or the river....something a few of you on this forum should try, before you pass such self-righteous judgement on the Towerview.
<end clip>
Thanks, but I'll stay in my house. As Bob Dylan said, you don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
The fact is, there were plenty of motels in the city that offered rooms for the same price and lower than the $125 a week that tenants had to pay at Towerview. (I know this because I looked at the time.) The only reason I figure that the Towerview had tenants at all was because of its downtown location and its no-questions-asked policy. (No references needed ought to have raised a lot of red flags right there.)
And I find your conspiracy theories laughable. Maybe the newspaper brought in the fleas and cockroaches, too. And maybe it brought in the stray cats that hung out in the place after the building was vacated, too.
[}:)]
Like Rufnex said, the conditions there were so deplorable because of the vermin alone that just about any other city you name would have shut it down a long time ago. That's not even factoring in the fire and plumbing code violations.
This building has long been associated with multiple drug use and all levels of distibution. Word was, you ordered on one floor, paid on another floor and picked up on a third floor. Well known on the street and within law enforcement. Several other buildings within the downtown district have replaced it and continue the biz.
Tenants paying weekly is a time honored ploy to milk 5 weeks out of a 4 week month. You take a weeks deposit up front, collect weekly and when the tenant drops out (arrested, passed out, hospitlized, whatever) keep the deposit and rent to the next damned soul. They tolerate the drug dealing because it keeps the machine rolling. Groups of attorneys are usually the owners as they are positioned well and know how to do it legally.
So the question has been asked and not answered. Who owned the building the last 10 years and why was it allowed to operate so brazenly?
Ps. Lest someone think I am repeating gossip. I was tipped to this kind of operation by a lawyer who tried to get me to invest in it and a drug user who frequented the Towerview.
So, PRH, you are basing your opinion of the media on one instance that happened 45 years ago (before I was even alive)? Is that the best you could come up with?
I bet you hold a grudge about being lightly teased that one time in preschool, too.
[}:)]
In 1961 131st and Sheridan at the River was not IN Tulsa. Hell, it's not IN Tulsa now, that's Bixby today, and back then, that was way, way out of town.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
In 1961 131st and Sheridan at the River was not IN Tulsa. Hell, it's not IN Tulsa now, that's Bixby today, and back then, that was way, way out of town.
That is immaterial. The police didn't even have arrest power on the river's sand bars but that didn't keep them from running off partiers in the mid sixties when "river bottom parties" were rampant. Motorcycle gangs would descend on the partiers and beat them with chains and clubs. One of my friends was laid up a year from that. The authorities decided that the ends justified their clean-up and the local media is just that, local.
"Motorcycle gangs would descend on the partiers and beat them..." - Waterboy
As a club member, I take exception with the word "gangs" vs. "clubs".
It's Street Gangs and Motorcycle Clubs.
Not many people back then deserved such a beating - can just about throw a rock now and hit someone worthy - but I'll take your word your buddy wasn't one of them.
Wasn't me, glad he got better.
jdb
quote:
Originally posted by jdb
"Motorcycle gangs would descend on the partiers and beat them..." - Waterboy
As a club member, I take exception with the word "gangs" vs. "clubs".
It's Street Gangs and Motorcycle Clubs.
Not many people back then deserved such a beating - can just about throw a rock and hit somene worthy now - but I take your word for it that your buddy wasn't one of them and say it wasn't me and I am glad he got better.
jdb
I'll go with that. Can't say that there was much difference back then though. My friend Mike was just drinking beer with friends. It was the "golden" age. If you were caught underage with a six pack from Golden, Co. you were thrown in jail. People find that hard to believe but its true. So they went to the river bottom where the cops had to come out on foot but the bikers could raise hell and be gone.
Wrinkle, PRH... so eager to be an apologist for an absentee slum lord.
Meanwhile, he's doing real damage to downtown. The comment about how the city has scared off private developers is laughable compared to what this guy has done to scare off developers.
The L-shaped property that TDA owns in that block was put up for sale at fair market value of $1.6 million according to the paper. That's for a patch of land about 58,000 square feet - or about 8 times the size of the Towerview lot, for which the slum lord wants over $2 million. Do the math. That's $27.50/ft for the TDA lot versus more than $260/ft for the Towerview lot, which includes a condemned building that has to be scraped.
So potential developers have 2 choices -- 1. pay the out of state slum lord through the nose for the property or 2. build around it. Of course, who would build a multi-million dollar development adjacent to a condemned flop house?
But according to the brain trust of PRH Wrinkle & Associates, it's the CITY that's scaring off developers. Suuuuuuure it is.
This guy from Oregon has no interest in helping Tulsa one bit. If the Towerview continues to rot, gets knocked down, holds up other developments, he doesn't care. He's just looking to hit the jackpot.
If you're more interested in helping an out-of-state slum lord extort every dollar he can out of his boarded-up flophouse at the expense of the new development that we spent millions of taxpayers dollars to attract, then you're not in favor of helping Tulsa move forward.
Boy, at this point, I will be glad when that thing is gone. lol
"If you're more interested in slum lord...at the expense of the new development...then you're not in favor Tulsa." - AJ
I find this closing statement, unsupported -except by personal (informed?) opionon - and unhelpful.
One, it's unstatesman like (never helpful) to create us and them's.
Two, I don't buy the statement that, loosely, this guy doesn't care one flip about Tulsa.
Three, while property rights extend beyond owners of parcels and the location of either, one can't toss the Building with the Firehose water. (er...I'll edit this mumbo later)
Small issue with painting someone evil because they buy something "hoping to hit the jackpot!"
Money talks, to use an old line for frame of reference.
Bigger issue though is what one does with his property, within reason, is protected and should be.
I don't see where you have shown - clearly or otherwise - That this guy is a slum lord, that he had time to accomplish anything positive, or that his investment in Tulsa would hinder the area - if you want to play the us & them game - any differently then what K&K did right off the bat of their investment in Tulsa.
Tee time was bumped to 9:30, see you there.
jdb
This just in:
"...a bit suspicious of the paper's motivation when it began its several-part story..." - pmcalk
Seems some of us has forgotten we share a common enemy and have bedded down in the House of The Whirled.
A bit suspicious?
How about stinkn' to high heaven!?!
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
Wrinkle, PRH... so eager to be an apologist for an absentee slum lord.
Meanwhile, he's doing real damage to downtown. The comment about how the city has scared off private developers is laughable compared to what this guy has done to scare off developers.
The L-shaped property that TDA owns in that block was put up for sale at fair market value of $1.6 million according to the paper. That's for a patch of land about 58,000 square feet - or about 8 times the size of the Towerview lot, for which the slum lord wants over $2 million. Do the math. That's $27.50/ft for the TDA lot versus more than $260/ft for the Towerview lot, which includes a condemned building that has to be scraped.
So potential developers have 2 choices -- 1. pay the out of state slum lord through the nose for the property or 2. build around it. Of course, who would build a multi-million dollar development adjacent to a condemned flop house?
But according to the brain trust of PRH Wrinkle & Associates, it's the CITY that's scaring off developers. Suuuuuuure it is.
This guy from Oregon has no interest in helping Tulsa one bit. If the Towerview continues to rot, gets knocked down, holds up other developments, he doesn't care. He's just looking to hit the jackpot.
If you're more interested in helping an out-of-state slum lord extort every dollar he can out of his boarded-up flophouse at the expense of the new development that we spent millions of taxpayers dollars to attract, then you're not in favor of helping Tulsa move forward.
I guess you don't know the difference between an RFP and a Typical Property sale. RFP is "Request For Proposal" with conditions that would meet the entity that submitted the RFP. Do more research before you assume a price per sq. foot. AND Concorde Development has been paying a mortgage on a vacant building that the city shut down for over two years. If you drive down a few blocks away and look at the building across from the closed now supermarket by HW 51. That building is the replica of towerview and it is in same or worse condition than towerview when it was open. It is still in operation and it seems that the city has no problem with it. What a double standard...if we let the city manipulate the private property owners as they need, then we are no different than a third world country. Let this guy receive what he deserves from his investment. The problem here is how can we let the let the government take a private property from a private owner and then turn around and give it to another private entity so it can reap the benefits. How about if someone took your real estate...it being your home...whatever...and doing the same thing?
quote:
Originally posted by Leah
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
Wrinkle, PRH... so eager to be an apologist for an absentee slum lord.
Meanwhile, he's doing real damage to downtown. The comment about how the city has scared off private developers is laughable compared to what this guy has done to scare off developers.
The L-shaped property that TDA owns in that block was put up for sale at fair market value of $1.6 million according to the paper. That's for a patch of land about 58,000 square feet - or about 8 times the size of the Towerview lot, for which the slum lord wants over $2 million. Do the math. That's $27.50/ft for the TDA lot versus more than $260/ft for the Towerview lot, which includes a condemned building that has to be scraped.
So potential developers have 2 choices -- 1. pay the out of state slum lord through the nose for the property or 2. build around it. Of course, who would build a multi-million dollar development adjacent to a condemned flop house?
But according to the brain trust of PRH Wrinkle & Associates, it's the CITY that's scaring off developers. Suuuuuuure it is.
This guy from Oregon has no interest in helping Tulsa one bit. If the Towerview continues to rot, gets knocked down, holds up other developments, he doesn't care. He's just looking to hit the jackpot.
If you're more interested in helping an out-of-state slum lord extort every dollar he can out of his boarded-up flophouse at the expense of the new development that we spent millions of taxpayers dollars to attract, then you're not in favor of helping Tulsa move forward.
I guess you dont know the difference between an RFP and a Typical Property sale. RFP is "Request For Proposal" with conditions that would meet the entity that submitted the RFP. Do more research before you assume a price per sq. foot. AND Concorde Development has been paying a morgage on a vacant building that the city shut down for over two years. If you drive down a few blocks away and look at the building accross from the closed now supermarket by HW 51. That building is the replica of towerview and it is in same or worse condition than towerview when it was open. It is still in operation and it seems that the city has no problem with it. What a double standard...if we let the city manipulate the private property owners as they need, then we are no differant than a third world country. Let this guy recieve what he diserves from his investment. The problem here is how can we let the let the government take a private property from a private owner and then turn around and give it to another private entity so it can reap the benefits. How about if someone took your real estate...it being your home...whatever...and doing the same thing?
Actually, that building across from the former Homeland store is something the city has been trying to get rid at least since I lived in the area more than 15 years ago. It's a halfway house for newly released DOC prisoners and the city wants it gone but has failed in its efforts. For example, out of all of downtown, where was the "Grand Central Library" going to be located? Right on top of that building.
And I don't think anyone is advocating taking the Towerview without compensation. I think we all just want the deal done. I say pay him his two million dollars (minus whatever insurance pays for the fire) and be done with it.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by PRH
I've been a landlord and I have to wonder why the tenants didn't move out if the Towerview was as bad as the paper described?
Maybe it's because the rent was consistent with the conditions.
Or maybe the newspaper brought their own rats and trash and junked the place up for another Whirled do-gooder article. There's nothing I wouldn't put past the newspaper....they've lost their credibility with me a long time ago.
Maybe the tenants of the Towerview prefered a roof over their head than to sleep on the sidewalks.
My point is, when you don't have much money, you don't have much housing choice, but anything is better than sleeping down by the railroad tracks or the river....something a few of you on this forum should try, before you pass such self-righteous judgement on the Towerview.
Sometimes I wonder where some of you Tulsa Now posters got your brains from. The tenants of the Towerview are worse off now than they were...but you do-gooders now feel good about yourselves, and that's all that matters to you. Never mind the people who have been displaced to the streets.
And if the Towerview was operated this way for the past 20 years, why was it all of the sudden so important to condemn it? Could it be because the new owner is not contributing enough money under the table?
The Towerview was not closed to punish the people living there and it wasn't closed because of the conditions. It was closed by the owner for refusing to pay correct the conditions. That's the owner's choice. And if you are a landlord, you know that six months can be a very long time for a multi-dwelling unit to go without repairs. Conditions can change drastically in that short a time-frame if no money is being put into the building.
Swake, I think you need to do your research on this building....it didn't take "six months" for this building to be in the condition that it is in now....its been like this for years. He bought it after it had been running like this for years. And might I remind everyone who thinks this company is slumlord...he did attempt to live up to the city's demands of getting the building up to code in TEN DAYS. He just couldn't fix the problem in the amount of time...even if appeal and get it extended, the amount of days still wouldn't have been enough time! So he closed it down and made plans to build condos! Then! He accepted the offer from HH! Then then went down the drain! Now? He is planning to demo the building and turn it into condos! Is this a Slum lord or a Developer! Let him Prove himself! and to comment on your last comment, I would like to see the someone offer a "reasonable offer" Lets see that happen! But I think the city should actually act like he owns the building. This is America and everyone has the right to "Own" Property! And with that property across from the Supermarket, if the city really wanted to take that building they would have planted a reporter to stay there for two weeks and report how horrible it was, then have 14 inspectors and police rampage the building to shut it down. But they haven't done that yet have they?
Agreed. Refer to my post on 1.23. The people who own/owned these multi-story tenement slums are most likely fairly well connected. Drugs, crime, poverty make for a powerful cash flow.
Pay the man his money and lets get on with our rat killing.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Well, now you are being just plain silly.
Besides, if you base your knowledge on the Tulsa World, well, you know less than not reading anything at all.
You're starting to sound like the gang who railroaded this guy.
HELLO. HAVE YOU NO SHAME? HAVE YOU NO SENSE OF DECENCY?
PLEASE enlighten me as to which part of this article is a lie...???
Substandard Housing: It's the weekly rental blues
MICHAEL OVERALL World Staff Writer
09/26/2004
Editor's Note: The TOWERVIEW Apartments offers
by-the-week rent with few questions asked. The
building stands in the future shadow of the planned $183 million downtown arena. Tulsa World reporter Michael Overall spent two weeks in July living in the building. This is the first of three stories on his experiences there. The room looks dark even with the blinds open and the afternoon sun blazing outside. The light, apparently, is too intimidated to come in.
Cobwebs are hanging from the corners. Paint is
chipping off the ceiling. The walls have holes in them, and there's enough dust on the floor to leave footprints....
Shame?...Decency?....
The only thing missing in the story is the smudged faced crack baby with a dirty diaper, but I haven't read the other two installments in awhile, it could be in there. Then again, he had to keep it toned down enough to prevent a required immediate SWAT team attack. Save that for later, if necessary. It reads like one of Letterman's embellishments.
But, it did the job. Followed closely by coordinated Health Department and Fire Marshall inspections.
I've yet to get an answer to my question of from whom he purchased the building. As I said, they're far more guilty of its' condition than the current owner. And, ostensibly, that's a local person who 'cares' for Tulsa.
They sold it for (other posting as resource) $750,000. According to Average Joe stats, that's around $100/sq. ft.
So, how long would you consider a sale offer of $27.50/sq. ft on a property you just purchased for almost four times that amount? He also did, apparently, have a $1 million contract for sale, which somehow was 'cancelled' just before the City actions. It's always nice when one retains the ability to just cancel contracts whenever it suits, especially if it costs nothing.
Besides, the $1.6 Million land value of the RFP (not an offer of sale on the 'open market') discounts the land value substantially, as a subsidy by Tulsa taxpayers (how nice of them).
I don't know if true market conditions would put the land value at, or over, $100/sq. ft (apparently, the Oregon investor seemed to think so when he bought in), but that means Tulsans are pitching in about $75/sq. foot for the land being 'given' to a developer.
Even if the land value were more appropriately placed at, say, $6 Million, from a developers' perspective, on even only a relatively small full-block development of $100 Million, land cost is a mere 6%. Hardly anything to raise a brow over. The guy handling the real estate transaction is getting that much, as is the bonding company and the architects, each. A $200 Million development (probably closer to what it would be) cuts the relative land cost in half to 3%.
Why Towerview, or land cost is even a fuss is the biggest question.
The reason is that somewhere along the line, someone here resents someone there from receiving that amount, and someone here can obtain the property for less, by the methods we've seen, show it on the books for more and pocket a couple million in the process. To me, you and him, that's a lot of money. To the development prospects, it's miniscule to the point of almost being negligible.
Even the arena initially put 10% of the funds into land acquisition, since representing around 6% due to project cost overruns. (Hmm, there's that 6% number again.)
Actually, the City also wants the citizens of Tulsa to 'pony' up another $60 Million in addition to all that for a hotel that they say cannot support itself. I guess that's because it's not right
inside the arena. That's ten times market value of the land.
The only ones getting soaked on Towerview, and the balance of the land block, are the current owner and the citizens of Tulsa respectively.
So, perhaps, I should be asking you, or Average Joe, where your shame and sense of decency lies?
"I lived in an SRO for about 6 weeks... in a seedy area on the northside of Chicago... the area around the SRO was bad but the hotel was well-regulated by the city...... if it wasn't up to code, THE CHICAGO HEALTH DEPT WOULD SHUT IT DOWN IN A HEARTBEAT."I've also lived in Chicago and know you'd be hard pressed to find any 'seedy' area on the northside, next to the Magnificent Mile, Oakton district or the Gold Coast. You'd have to go almost to Milwaukee before you pass through anything close to that. Maybe, it found you. Besides, Chicago is 700 miles from here and what they do there is of little consequence locally, unless your point was that Tulsa Health and Fire officials ignored their responsibilities for over 20 years before this guy owned it. Probably because they 'cared' about Tulsa, or the guy who owned it previously.
Just who was that anyway?
"Just who was that anyway?" - Wrinkle
Exellent post.
Stumbled over the begining of only one sentence.
Two Thumbs Up!
City moves toward possible purchase of Towerview By KEVIN CANFIELD World Staff Writer
1/25/2007
The Planning Commission votes to includes the blighted property in Tulsa's Urban Renewal Plan.
The city took an important first step Wednesday in the process it must follow to buy the Towerview Apartments, should that be the option it chooses.
In a unanimous vote, the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission approved an amendment to the Urban Renewal Plan to include the Towerview property, finding that it was in accord with the city's Comprehensive Plan.
Approval of the amendment is required before the Tulsa Development Authority can acquire the property, which is at Cheyenne Avenue between Second and Third streets.
The Planning Commission is a recommending body only. The City Council will have the final say on the issue.
READ MORE (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=070125_Ne_A10_Citym21471%22)
Wonder how many drinks it would take to get Mark Schwartz talking?
I'll step up and offer to buy the first three rounds, jdb
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
"I lived in an SRO for about 6 weeks... in a seedy area on the northside of Chicago... the area around the SRO was bad but the hotel was well-regulated by the city...... if it wasn't up to code, THE CHICAGO HEALTH DEPT WOULD SHUT IT DOWN IN A HEARTBEAT."
I've also lived in Chicago and know you'd be hard pressed to find any 'seedy' area on the northside, next to the Magnificent Mile, Oakton district or the Gold Coast. You'd have to go almost to Milwaukee before you pass through anything close to that. Maybe, it found you.
First, some of us never had mumsy and smarmy-wealthy-elistist Tulsa dadsy to pay for a Chicago Gold Coast studio..... second, there are ZERO single-room occupancy transient hotels next door to the Magnificent Mile, Oakton district?(Skokie?) or the Gold Coast...
Calling my bluff?
Ever been in Uptown off the Wilson "el"? Or Little Vietnam off the Argyle stop? Ever get off at the Granville "el" stop to see the sights?
Or even the Loyola/Rogers Park areas? Or my old apt. off Devon/Western in Little Pakistan?
Instead of boring you with stories you refuse to take seriously from parts 2 and 3 of the Tulsa World's fall 2004 articles, I'll just compare notes:
After I finished this gig in Colorado...
http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=1758694
...had about 6 weeks before moving on to a 7-month job in Indianapolis... so a 12 month lease was impossible... and I was burned out on Chicago roommates, mostly due to the last borderline-psycho Vietnam-vet roommate who liked to grow his pot using a sunlamp in a locked hallway closet...
Anyway, I think the SRO hotel I stayed in was priced at either $110 or $120 per week and was located in Uptown... an area that ten years ago had lots of problems... But I was adventurous and I knew the "hotel" was only a few blocks from The Riviera, The Aragon, and
The Green Mill, a great old place for poetry slams, lounge music and
zoot suit riots.I walked into the SRO and a gruff woman at the front desk asked for my I.D.... then asked me for two paystubs (no credit checks here since it's assumed you'd fail it anyway)... since the paystubs were from outta state, I had to verify current employment... and no visitors allowed after 11pm...
Room was small, actually think I saw orange water the first time I tried the shower... but... any older building has about a 50/50 chance of that happening anyway. Run the orange water until it turns clear-- rarely happens more than once. Buy a Brita for tap water... be prepared for major investments in Liquid Plumber...
The cast of characters I remembered there reminds me of some of the people mentioned in part 2 & 3 of the TW's story... the guy with multiple tattoos, the couple who got thrown outta their parents place, the old geezer with his door wide open and the TV blaring away... the recovering alcoholic, the girl with orange hair, the guy working a few weeks on a cell tower, a woman with children who had to leave the husband-- don't know the details...
Were there drug dealers and prostitutes there?... probably. Did I get people knocking on my door bumming for cigs/money... not that I can remember... was there serious crap going on down the street? yes... in front of the building? nope.
But the bedding was reasonable. Cheap hard mattress with a few stains? Yep. Flea-ridden? No.
http://aspin.asu.edu/hpn/archives/feb99/0050.html
quote:
``The key to SRO housing is counseling and [rehabilitation]. ... It's not just housing. It's the whole person,'' Mayor Daley said.
The decision to picket Daley's South Loop town house to press for more SROs obviously got City Hall's attention, said John Donahue, executive director of the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless.
``He got the message. ... Homelessness is a solvable problem and this is part of the solution,'' he said.
Daley has been under fire as the number of SRO units dropped from 35,000 during the mid-1970s to 17,000 when he took office in 1989 and 15,000 today.
``The primary factor has been the increased value of the property,'' said Jean Butzen, executive director of Lakefront SRO. Deferred maintenance and declining resident incomes are other factors, she said.
Was I young and stupid for doing it? Yes, especially after the tires on my $1000 1983 Honda Civic got slashed... but the place served its purpose... a temporary roof over my head and a place to sleep... and I saw the exterminator twice in the six weeks I was there...
Do these people from Oregon have any exterminator receipts? When did they first visit their property? Did they ever pay somebody to clean up after tenants when those people moved on and lost their security deposits???6 months is a long time for most of us... an especially long time for the short term tenants who only stay for weeks at a time... long enough to hire exterminators... long enough to hire people to clean up... long enough to be DECENT landlords... long enough to visit the property you paid $750,000 for sight unseen...
My opinions on the Tulsa World? Well, the Daily Disappointment (The Oklahoman) traditionally has seeked to mold/shape/influence public opinion by publishing editorials disguised as News Analysis on the front page... while the Tulsa World merely seeks to manipulate public opinion.... a daily newspaper with a political agenda???...... who knew? [:O]
You know, when you pay $750,000 for a property directly across the street from the biggest taxpayer funded facility Tulsa's built in decades, maybe you should cover your butt and from a purely selfish capitalistic point of view "protect your investment" by maintaining LIVABLE conditions for your tenants who are paying $125 friggin' bucks a week to live in your hell-hole... lest a certain "somebody" should call the paper or the health dept. to shut you down...
Urban Myth: Most slumlords are conservative Republicans.
My opinion: Your typical slumlords are more likely to be the trial lawyers from the firm of Willie, Cheatham & Howe, who enjoy having income generating property AND a place where they can purchase their recreational drugs... For all the current landlord's apologists who agree that
"The only ones getting soaked on Towerview, and the balance of the land block, are the current owner and the citizens of Tulsa respectively" I ask this....
Where, exactly, is the current owner making a MILLION DOLLAR PROFIT the equivalent of "getting soaked?" Because I wish I could live in that parallel universe...
Pics of demoltion posted on Flickr (//%22http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=towerview+tulsa+bok+downtown&s=rec%22)
The demolotion is supposed to be all done by Monday. Lotsa onlookers on site. The Cheyenne Ave wall should be fun to watch.
It's sad that we live in a town where it is harder to get a building permit than it is to get a demolition permit.
SUNDAY HEADLINE NEWS!
http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=070128_Ne_A1_Tower31202#
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Towerview coming down
By TOM DROEGE World Staff Writer
1/28/2007
View in Print (PDF) Format
Owner has crew clearing the site
Opened in 1922, condemned in 2004 and gutted by fire a few weeks ago, the Towerview Apartments in downtown Tulsa began to come tumbling down on Saturday.
The structure, which sits in the shadow of the city's emerging arena, will take several days to remove, said officials with wrecking company DT Specialized Services.
As the four-story, brick structure met its dusty end, curious spectators stopped by throughout the day.
"It's pretty fascinating," said Jerry Pointer, watching the building collapse from the parking lot.
Workers were using bulldozers and a crane demolition tool to slowly cave in the structure. The debris will be hauled to a landfill.
Mark Schwartz, the attorney for the building's out-of-state owner, said the cornerstone from the Towerview Apartments will be saved to incorporate into a new development.
"We'll keep a little bit of Tulsa history," Schwartz said.
The owner, Luay Aljamal of Oregon, is considering lofts and retail space for the property, he said.
"My client is debating which kind of development he wants to proceed with," Schwartz said.
On Wednesday, a city board approved an
amendment to the Urban Renewal Plan to include the Towerview property. City Council approval of the amendment is required before the Tulsa Development Authority can acquire the property.
City Economic Development Director Don Himelfarb insists the city is not considering acquiring the property through eminent domain, despite conflicting claims by the owner's attorney.
"The city is not talking about eminent domain," Himelfarb said. "You've got a situation where the owner and his representative are trying to make it into something else."
Claiming the property through eminent domain because of a blight problem no longer is possible because the building will be gone soon, Schwartz said.
"Now that the building is being demolished, any claim that there is a blighted property for eminent domain . . . no longer stands," he said.
From a health and safety perspective, Himelfarb said it's a good thing that the old building is being torn down. Before it was closed, the Towerview offered pay-by-the-week lodging with few questions asked.
It was closed and boarded up in 2004 after the Tulsa City-County Health Department found a number of code violations that the owner would not repair.
After an early morning fire on Jan. 14, Schwartz said his client planned to raze the building.
While it's unclear what will replace the Towerview, one thing is certain: The city wants to have authority over the property's future. The nearby BOK Center is scheduled to open in 2008.
"Our position is very clear," Himelfarb said. "We are moving ahead to have the property put in the Urban Renewal Plan. It's one step at a time and we'll see where this leads."
The city economic development director doesn't know why there's so much interest in the Towerview.
"This is a non-story," he said. "There is so much else going on downtown." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Droege 581-8361
tom.droege@tulsaworld.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is good that this owner is trying to fight to keep his property. I think that it's neat that the owner is keeping the cornerstone above towerview's door. Lets see what plans are ahead. The lame excuse to take the building is gone and Don Himelfarb and Kathy Miller are a bunch of millionairs who say one thing and do another. This is a victory to the average Tulsans. Lets see what happens next.
------------------------------------------------
quote:
Workers were using bulldozers and a crane demolition tool to slowly cave in the structure. The debris will be hauled to a landfill.
What, they are not going to try to reuse all those bricks? Such a waste!
quote:
Originally posted by Leah
SUNDAY HEADLINE NEWS!
http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=070128_Ne_A1_Tower31202#
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Towerview coming down
By TOM DROEGE World Staff Writer
1/28/2007
View in Print (PDF) Format
Owner has crew clearing the site
Opened in 1922, condemned in 2004 and gutted by fire a few weeks ago, the Towerview Apartments in downtown Tulsa began to come tumbling down on Saturday.
The structure, which sits in the shadow of the city's emerging arena, will take several days to remove, said officials with wrecking company DT Specialized Services.
As the four-story, brick structure met its dusty end, curious spectators stopped by throughout the day.
"It's pretty fascinating," said Jerry Pointer, watching the building collapse from the parking lot.
Workers were using bulldozers and a crane demolition tool to slowly cave in the structure. The debris will be hauled to a landfill.
Mark Schwartz, the attorney for the building's out-of-state owner, said the cornerstone from the Towerview Apartments will be saved to incorporate into a new development.
"We'll keep a little bit of Tulsa history," Schwartz said.
The owner, Luay Aljamal of Oregon, is considering lofts and retail space for the property, he said.
"My client is debating which kind of development he wants to proceed with," Schwartz said.
On Wednesday, a city board approved an
amendment to the Urban Renewal Plan to include the Towerview property. City Council approval of the amendment is required before the Tulsa Development Authority can acquire the property.
City Economic Development Director Don Himelfarb insists the city is not considering acquiring the property through eminent domain, despite conflicting claims by the owner's attorney.
"The city is not talking about eminent domain," Himelfarb said. "You've got a situation where the owner and his representative are trying to make it into something else."
Claiming the property through eminent domain because of a blight problem no longer is possible because the building will be gone soon, Schwartz said.
"Now that the building is being demolished, any claim that there is a blighted property for eminent domain . . . no longer stands," he said.
From a health and safety perspective, Himelfarb said it's a good thing that the old building is being torn down. Before it was closed, the Towerview offered pay-by-the-week lodging with few questions asked.
It was closed and boarded up in 2004 after the Tulsa City-County Health Department found a number of code violations that the owner would not repair.
After an early morning fire on Jan. 14, Schwartz said his client planned to raze the building.
While it's unclear what will replace the Towerview, one thing is certain: The city wants to have authority over the property's future. The nearby BOK Center is scheduled to open in 2008.
"Our position is very clear," Himelfarb said. "We are moving ahead to have the property put in the Urban Renewal Plan. It's one step at a time and we'll see where this leads."
The city economic development director doesn't know why there's so much interest in the Towerview.
"This is a non-story," he said. "There is so much else going on downtown." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Droege 581-8361
tom.droege@tulsaworld.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is good that this owner is trying to fight to keep his property. I think that it's neat that the owner is keeping the cornerstone above towerview's door. Lets see what plans are ahead. The lame excuse to take the building is gone and Don Himelfarb and Kathy Miller are a bunch of millionairs who say one thing and do another. This is a victory to the average Tulsans. Lets see what happens next.
------------------------------------------------
Average Tulsans or average Portlanders?
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Leah
This is good that this owner is trying to fight to keep his property. I think that it's neat that the owner is keeping the cornerstone above towerview's door. Lets see what plans are ahead. The lame excuse to take the building is gone and Don Himelfarb and Kathy Miller are a bunch of millionaires who say one thing and do another. This is a victory to the average Tulsans. Lets see what happens next.
------------------------------------------------
Average Tulsans or average Portlanders?
[/quote]
Tulsa, Portland, Chicago, New York, Indianopolis, Huston, Los Angelas, Seattle, Denver, Boise, Salt Lake City, Atlanta, Jackson, Columbus, Boston......And all the other city's. This is America Buddy! The second the government acquires property through Eminent Domain and hands it over to a private developer, we get closer and closer to turning into a dictatorship. Where is your patriotism?
quote:
Originally posted by Leah
This is good that this owner is trying to fight to keep his property. I think that it's neat that the owner is keeping the cornerstone above towerview's door. Lets see what plans are ahead. The lame excuse to take the building is gone and Don Himelfarb and Kathy Miller are a bunch of millionairs who say one thing and do another. This is a victory to the average Tulsans. Lets see what happens next.
If, by "average Tulsans," you mean local multi-millionaires who think it's alright to maintain rancid living conditions and treat paying tenants to overpriced substandard housing with no recourse, I suppose you're right.
The news is we're back to business as usual, whether the occupants of the mayor's office are southern hills republicans or limousine liberals...
For those consipiracy theorists who imply the city had something to do with the fire...
quote:
Claiming the property through eminent domain because of a blight problem no longer is possible because the building will be gone soon, Schwartz said.
"Now that the building is being demolished, any claim that there is a blighted property for eminent domain . . . no longer stands," he said.
So, who benefits most from that fire at the Towerview?
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by Leah
This is good that this owner is trying to fight to keep his property. I think that it's neat that the owner is keeping the cornerstone above towerview's door. Lets see what plans are ahead. The lame excuse to take the building is gone and Don Himelfarb and Kathy Miller are a bunch of millionairs who say one thing and do another. This is a victory to the average Tulsans. Lets see what happens next.
If, by "average Tulsans," you mean local multi-millionaires who think it's alright to maintain rancid living conditions and treat paying tenants to overpriced substandard housing with no recourse, I suppose you're right.
The news is we're back to business as usual, whether the occupants of the mayor's office are southern hills republicans or limousine liberals...
For those consipiracy theorists who imply the city had something to do with the fire...
quote:
Claiming the property through eminent domain because of a blight problem no longer is possible because the building will be gone soon, Schwartz said.
"Now that the building is being demolished, any claim that there is a blighted property for eminent domain . . . no longer stands," he said.
So, who benefits most from that fire at the Towerview?
Who? The bums who set it. I must have missed the implications that the city had anything to do with the torching. What would have been their motivation?
The police have a confession from a homeless person who has already been charged with a felony. Homeless people sometimes start fires in abandoned downtown buildings in the winter time to stay warm.
quote:
Originally posted by Leah
This is good that this owner is trying to fight to keep his property. I think that it's neat that the owner is keeping the cornerstone above towerview's door. Lets see what plans are ahead. The lame excuse to take the building is gone and Don Himelfarb and Kathy Miller are a bunch of millionairs who say one thing and do another. This is a victory to the average Tulsans. Lets see what happens next.
------------------------------------------------
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, but you've been consistent in that regard throughout the entire thread.
The reason this is victory for Tulsa has nothing in common with why you think this is a victory. It's a good thing because we don't have a blighted property gumming up potential development on land that is currently being wasted on surface parking across from our $180 million investment. If your buddy doesn't want to sell his cleared land for a reasonable price, then development will happen around it. The market will dictate what happens now without a blighted property muddying the waters.
just fyi, the easiest way that your Portland pal could have avoided all this would've been to do SOMETHING constructive with his property in the 2+ years since it was condemned. That way, it wouldn't have become so blighted as to warrant being added to the city's Urban Renewal Plan. Wow, what a concept.
Now.....
Everyone needs an Attorney/Lobbyist...
Even "slumlords" from Oregon...
[}:)]
[clip]
Mark Schwartz, the attorney for the building's out-of-state owner, said the cornerstone from the Towerview Apartments will be saved to incorporate into a new development.
"We'll keep a little bit of Tulsa history," Schwartz said.[end clip]
That is of course... unless the ebay reserve price is met...
Demolition started Saturday.
BREAKING, URGENT: quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
Demolition started Saturday.
That would be the REALLY LONG article on the top of this page, there, CP.
My Houstonian sister develops real estate with a nice man who finances and constructs urban lots near their downtown, putting in condos and what not (including renovating brownfield lots!).
Whom should she contact about the price of the land on the East side of Denver from the Arena?
Tim,
As an Internet publisher, I would think you would know the answer, TDA - Tulsa Development Authority, 110 South Hartford, Tulsa (918) 596-2600.
Also, www.TulsaToday.com posted some pictures of the "take down" today at http://www.tulsatoday.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1160&Itemid=2 (direct link to story) and we have another story on the Towerview due in the next few days.
All the best,
David
quote:
Originally posted by David Arnett
Tim,
As an Internet publisher, I would think you would know the answer, TDA - Tulsa Development Authority, 110 South Hartford, Tulsa (918) 596-2600.
MEOW! As an internet publisher, you are no fun!
I really do not give a poop, David. I wanted more to illustrate the fact that I have kinfolk that are really into this kind of thing.
Oh, by the way, I am a 'publisher' like Larry Flynt is an novelist. Good luck on putting together that 'article.' Yeah, that should take a few days.
Anyone come up with the Towerview's former owner yet?
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Anyone come up with the Towerview's former owner yet?
Shhhh! Those owners are hoping this all just blows away like the dust in the debris pile.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Anyone come up with the Towerview's former owner yet?
Shhhh! Those owners are hoping this all just blows away like the dust in the debris pile.
Now you know why I've become really curious.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Anyone come up with the Towerview's former owner yet?
Shhhh! Those owners are hoping this all just blows away like the dust in the debris pile.
Now you know why I've become really curious.
[:)]It may be like the Black Panthers used to say when asked about how many members they had, "Those who know, don't say. Those who say, don't know."
...like the Black Panthers when asked about how many members they had, "Those who know, don't say. Those who say, don't know." - waterydude
Must have been difficult to cater those B.P. events, eh?