The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

I've heard a rumor (unsubstantiated) that the Tulsa World is planning to demolish the downtown Arby's building (324 S Main) to avoid paying taxes and downtown improvement district fees.  

Does anyone know if this is fact or fiction?

Obviously, the TW does not have a good track record on preserving historic buildings.  And I would argue that they have caused more damage than good to downtown.

I don't want to spread a false rumor.  However, I also don't want to be caught off-guard by another weekend demolition of a historic building downtown.

So, does anyone have any actual knowledge out there?

I've heard this rumor too, and it really bothers me. For one, it's a decent (not great) looking building that adds to the urban, dense feel of main street. What worries me the most though is that I think it would just become another parking lot.

I would be perfectly okay if they were tearing this bring down to build something else. But if it's a parking lot or garage, then I hope not.

Since they tore down two other buildings and turned them into parking lots with the siting Mayor and a couple of thousand other people opposing it, if they want to, they'll do it.

The lack of trying to do ANYTHING with the upper floors is somewhat of an indicator.

That's actually a great looking building imo.  It seems to be in decent shape as well.  I can't imagine someone thinking of tearing it down. 

That hasn't seem to stop many in the past. Sad, isn't it?

 This evening has been the first in a while that I have actually been home early (before 9 or 10 pm) from working on the Art Deco Museum.  Been going there early in the mornings, Saturdays and Sundays for quite a while now, spending a lot of my own money (while not working my real job and thus not getting paid)... all while to try and create something positive for the city and downtown.  I know a lot of other people who are also working hard and risking money, time and effort to try and make a go of it downtown as well.  So I can't help but think, Why isn't the TW, who has a LOT more resources than little ol me, doing something with this building?  Why aren't they coming up with creative ideas to do something with it?  Why aren't they allowing others (YP start-ups and other creative types), to do something in the building? etc.  Imo, whats good for the city and others is good for me and my business and any other business potential or ideas I have in the future.  They have to know it would be good for them if they DO something positive with the building.  But I suppose that what is required is a modicum of time and creative thought in order to think slightly outside the "usual business model" box that they are used to and thus those potential ideas are simply unseen, unknowable quantities that never get a chance. 

Perhaps we need to make a big deal out of the fact that TW isn’t a good neighbor or corporate citizen.  Especially if they are knocking it down to lower their ballpark assessment as has been alleged.

Especially since they advocated for the ballpark to begin with, if I'm not mistaken.

From Google Street View, it would be a shame to tear it down.  Anyone know the inside condition?  What would it take to bring it up to code.......

No, I'm not in the market for a building.  I'm just curious about the financial decisions in a case like this.

I can't answer your question but I do know they are not interested in leasing the space. Well I should say they have not been interested in the last 6ish months.

On an unrelated note that Arbys should have the normal hours instead of the shorter ones. With a little promotion I am sure it would be a good move.

Raise the assessment and they can't afford to make it a parking lot. ;)

I think you have that backwards.  Isn't the assessment based on square footage?

Ok, tax the value of the land itself enough and they can't afford to make it a parking lot.

Now you are going to hurt little guy development too.

There needs to be a way to discourage surface parking but as long as people are willing to pay whatever it takes to park, it will be difficult.  It may be time for......... government regulation/zoning to prohibit new surface parking.  I would prefer a financial incentive but I just don't see it working.

No more tear downs. This seriously pisses me off.  >:( >:( >:(

One step forward and two steps back. By the time the Brady is fully infilled there won't be any buildings left in the CBD.

If true, this is mostly disappointing considering the message the newspaper has been espousing. They have (in print) been a champion of downtown development (although my suspicions are that they are a champion of the power that be, but that's for another day). Yet here they sit about to tear down another building. A building that fits in well. It will be ages before someone would come along and build something in that small of a footprint. Or something that looks half as good as this one does on the exterior.

Are residential renovations not that profitable in Tulsa yet? Can they not ask enough in rent? What do units in the Mayo 420 go for? That seems like a similar building to the Arby's bldg, although bigger. Why are all of these residential conversions falling apart when the ones that work appear to be so successful. Or are they?

Of the following are any struggling: Mayo Hotel Lofts, The Metro, Tribune Lofts, Philtower Lofts.

Downtown residential has been very successful in all of the buildings that you cite (The metro has a new smoke shop on the ground floor). More downtown residential is on its way: 141 new apartments at 2nd and Greenwood, 8Metro, GreenArch, Brady Flats, Riverbend, Bill White, and the YMCA at some point.  Something is going on in the Vandevers building too.

I understand there are quit a few in the works. Exciting, but many have been in the works and fallen through. Not being pessimistic, just not getting my hopes up. Only when they break ground will I truly believe that it will happen.

Is it just that Tulsa got started late (right before the credit crunch)? or are there just not enough people interested in living downtown to justify the increased supply?

The answer to stopping the demolition of buildings isn't to regulate it. It is to make it too valuable as a building than a parking lot. Now, that is easier said than done. But that is the only thing that will actually stop the senseless demolition of historic buildings.

I think you could regulate surface parking lots to make that a less attractive option.

The Tulsa World generally promotes what they see as being in the best interest of the paper first, best interest of the city at large second.

As would any good business I suspect. Nonetheless, I think they can discard any pretense of community leadership.

Big difference between a newspaper and say, a fin tube manufacturer as far as first and second priority.  Naturally, a newspaper has to keep the books in order to survive, but it should, by appearances, be an ambassador of a community.  I really don’t see that in the Lorton’s World.

We should not just let them take this building out. They need to reconsider. We do not need additional surface parking spots on Main Street and I disagree that tearing this building down is in their best interest.  

What’s the best way to drill that message home?  Do we need to get Councilor Ewing involved?

Councilor Ewing along with all of the other downtown activists and enthusiasts: Libby, Rusty, Elliott, Mary Beth and TN. Libby has a fairly sizable following on her Deco District updates.

Its important to state that coraboration of the rumor is the primary action.

Agreed.
No way should they tear it down. I love the pics on the wall and having an Arby's there as well.

Dear Mr Lorton,

 I recently heard a disturbing rumor that the Tulsa World plans to demolish the building at 324 S Main in favor of additional surface parking and in order to divest itself of the Downtown Tulsa Improvement fee. I hope that this rumor is unfounded and untrue. If it is true I sincerely ask you to reconsider. Tulsans have spent quite a bit of money on their downtown in an effort to make it a better place to work, live and play. Removing existing structures from the urban fabric without replacing them undermines those efforts. As you are aware downtown Tulsa was placed on a list of endangered assets due to all of the teardowns of the recent decades, but we seemed to have turned a corner thanks to new construction and announced project plans. I would hope that the Tulsa World would want to be part of the success of downtown and a part of its future instead of contributing to the ideals and practices of the past that took downtown to the brink of extinction.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely
Carlton Place
Tulsa Resident

Well written.  Send it.

yea, it is sent

Has anyone been keeping track of how many buildings have been closed, sold or demolished in order to avoid the Downtown Tulsa Improvement (ballpark) fee? 

The Assesment fee is a red herring. The Tulsa World came out in favor of the fee and the ball park.

There is also a difference in what the Lorton's do and what the editorial board does.

How did it come to be that the assessment was based off of square footage and not assessed value. If it were based on value at least those that benefited the most from the placement of the ballpark would have paid the most. Plus, if it were based off of value maybe it would discourage encourage tear downs (however much it may is debatable). I only say that because it would seem with all the tear downs that land downtown seems to more valuable as a parking lot.

Might be a good spot for another QuickTrip   >:(

If it were a new urban design with upper floors and only street or garage parking, that wouldn't be half bad. I don't recall that building being anything unique. While there's not really a need for a QT per se, it would tend to lend some legitimacy to downtown as a whole in certain circles.

Only if they can close the street.

I don't know if this rumor is true, but if so it is very disturbing.  While the editorial stance of the T.World is separate from its business side, this would be a public relations disaster for them (whether the buliding is owned by the T.World or some entity owned by the Lortons).  It would also be hard to take the T.World's editorial coverage seriously in the future on any matter related to downtown development.

Perhaps it was this rumor, and not just the Coney Island motel demo, that motivated Councilor Ewing to propose a temporary moratorium on downtown demos.  What is the status of that issue?

I’d like to think you are correct, but Tulsa has a short memory when it comes to this kind of stuff.

The "Arby's building" was originally Palace Clothiers.  It was built in 1917 as a 5-story building, and then later enlarged to 9 stories...

Here is a photo of the original 5-story building:
http://cdm15020.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15020coll1/id/204/rec/5 (http://cdm15020.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15020coll1/id/204/rec/5)
(http://cdm15020.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/ajaxhelper/?CISOROOT=p15020coll1&CISOPTR=186&action-2&DMSCALE=125&DMWIDTH=512&DMHEIGHT=453&DMX=0&DMY=0&DMTEXT=palace&DMROTATE=0)


And here it is in 1925...
http://cdm15020.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15020coll1/id/192/rec/15 (http://cdm15020.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15020coll1/id/192/rec/15)
(http://cdm15020.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/ajaxhelper/?CISOROOT=p15020coll1&CISOPTR=192&action-2&DMSCALE=65&DMWIDTH=357&DMHEIGHT=456&DMX=0&DMY=0&DMTEXT=palace&DMROTATE=0)

Edited: Well, darn, can't get the photos to appear here.  I think I got the links right, though.

I probably overstated my optimism - rarely a problem I have.  That said, I think downtown's recent success would draw a lot more attention to something like this than it would have a few years ago.  Plus, unlike the downtown motor lodge, this building is not an eye sore.

The building is right in the center of the CBD, there are  many thousands of people that work within a single block of the building. It’s three blocks from the BOK Center, four blocks from the Blue Dome and six blocks from the Brady. There’s a parking garage directly across the street. It’s an easy residential project

It's also a contributing building to the Oil Capitol Historic District that was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in December 2010.

This qualifies the building for both state and federal rehabilitation tax credits (unless our dear state legislators succeeded in screwing that pooch).  I believe the state tax credit survived, so this building would qualify for 20% state and 20% federal tax credits off the total cost of rehabilitation.  Basically, you can get 40% of your money back if you're willing to rehab the building.

And this is what happens if you don't look up, kids.

Great pics and I love the building having been in it when it was Globe but...the pic is from 1914 and it was already built, not 1917. I know, details, details..... :D

I'd trust the Tulsa County Property Assessor more than an undated photo from the BFC. The Assessor lists it as being built in 1917.

The Assessor also lists the building's name in one of its photos... The Excalibur Building.

To those who say there's nothing special about this building, you're wrong. Just look up. It's got some great deco details, and it's one of the oldest buildings in downtown. It could be used for anything, and is a great location for residential. Plus, it's got an awesome name. Aside from that, it's valuable because it is part of the existing urban fabric and street wall, and it's prime for redevelopment.

LIKE

FWIW, while researching my home the Tulsa Preservation Commission said to never trust the Assessor's date.

Interesting... Who can we trust?

The picture was taken in 1918.  I can tell from the pixels

(https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQFjInUHuAZejElP-iNcrvulowEVpOE_99i2kVC_BtqoIizaOiVzY2vmWJeNQ)

A buddy of mine, dependable for this kind of information, is unable to find anything out about the TW wanting to demolish the building.

I've also contacted someone with the World and have not heard back about it.

So I got bupkis.

Micro writing on the pixels?

Note the trolley tracks in the earlier picture and that they were gone by the second picture.

This Land has a story about our rumor.  Lorton says its not going to be demolished.

If the pixels are played backwards, are there satanic messages?

Well that's fantastic news.  

If any of them happen to read this thread.... how bout putting a really tall and wide simple loggia structure along that blank wall facing main street closest to the Hyatt.  The sidewalk is really wide there.  Would make the perfect place for some sort of farmers and artists market and would greatly help rebuild some pedestrian friendly nature along Main and make that area look a gazillion times better, offer some shade for pedestrians on hot days and protection from the rain, etc.   I will even design it (did some architectural design and engineering back in my Vo-Tech days before I went into the military) and chip in to help build it.  ;D

Its hard to trust either of them for accurate dates. A home in my neighborhood is a good example. The Assessor dates it as 1919 yet a phone book at the library shows a resident, a phone number and an occupation two years earlier.

Wait, you mean we spent 4 pages ranting about a rumor that's not true?

See, TN has influence ;)

Nice job by "This Land Press" for following up.  Here's the article in "This Land":
http://thislandpress.com/roundups/excaliber-building-wont-be-demolished-tulsa-world-says/ (http://thislandpress.com/roundups/excaliber-building-wont-be-demolished-tulsa-world-says/)

My favorite quote is:
..."Bobby Lorton Jr., publisher and CEO of the Tulsa World, told This Land in an email 'there is no planned demolition' of the Excaliber Building."

I hope there isn't an unplanned one, either.  I know a lot of folks who didn't PLAN on having kids...

Why do citizens find it necessary to inflict their desires on one of our most basic freedoms, property rights?

Belong to the clan huh?

Why is it that any change to the status quoe is seen as the "infliction of someone elses desires on our most basic freedoms" when the  status quoe itself is mearly an earlier "infliction of someone elses desires on our most basic freedoms"?  Try building whatever you want in your neighborhood and you may indeed see what those earlier "inflictions" are all about.  But try to get them changed and everyone else throws a fit.  (See...Pearl District Form Based Codes vrs the Zoning that was previously "inflicted").  See... minimum parking requirements, disallowing mixed use structures, height restrictions, not allowing accessory dwelling unit construction, funding going to parking garages vrs transit, etc. etc. etc. in 99% of the city destroying any chance of pedestrian friendly streets and transit working which creates the need for parking and voila a parking lot being possibly considered more economical or egads even more slightly desirable in the core than an urban mixed use building.  But thats not an infliction, thats "natural"? 

Whhaaaa? Arteest, having been a developer for 35 years I can only tell you that when confronted with THE CODE you MUST operate within those guidelines. And yes, there exists some flexibility. But please do not think you have any sticks in the bundle as a dreamer.... Redevelopment unfolds under the rules of the game....and the way a property gets developed is contingent upon municipality guidelines. Not the other way around.

Take your ball and go home if all you can do is tackle the landowner with your ideas about what he should do with his rights....need some cheese to go with that whine? Besides, district courts will side with the owner and not the nimby's IF there is no breaking of the law nor over stepping local ordinances.

You surprise me. All rights come with limitations, infringements, restrictions. The citizens "inflict" their desires because they share adjacent property, air, and freedom from abuse by others. Hence, we don't allow drilling in the city limits.

The same citizens, elected by the population or appointed by the city, inflict rules upon our property that were obviously designed to benefit developers like yourself. No citizen really asked for new developments to eliminate sidewalks and parks, make cul-de-sacs, pie shaped lots, ditches instead of drains, etc. You guys inflicted that upon the consumer then sold it as beneficial.

 

Actually, one of my best friends, a California/Colorado transplant specifically wanted a house on a cul-de-sac when he moved here.  He may have wanted sidewalks.  I don't know if he wanted parks or not.  Parks are not part of our discussions.

What if your next door neighbor was well-connected and wanted to build a five story Taj Mahal so he could get 18 hole coverage of the next U.S. Open played in Tulsa without ever having to turn on his/her TV?  At what point does a property owner’s rights supersede those of the surrounding neighbors?

I live on a mixed block in Lortondale so if someone bought one of the houses either side of me and wanted to build a more traditional house on that lot, it really wouldn’t be out of place.  Now if someone a few blocks to the north bought four lots in a back-to-back situation and wanted to erect a walled-in four story condo complex in the middle of a neighborhood, people are just supposed to be good with that because the new owner of the property has rights?  Look at the McMansions and Tuscan dreck scattered around Maple Ridge and Brookside.  Is that the sort of incongruous redevelopment we want coinciding next to more traditional homes for a given neighborhood era?

As long as they put in sidewalks, it would be acceptable.

I am not exactly sure you got my point lol.   For instance, isn't this.... (Redevelopment unfolds under the rules of the game....and the way a property gets developed is contingent upon municipality guidelines.) what I myself just said?


I am for allowing, and even promoting in certain areas, good, pedestrian friendly, urban development in Tulsa.   Presently it's illegal (Redevelopment unfolds under the rules of the game...) but wasn't always so. The exception is in downtown, but, that area being a tiny island can't work as a pedestrian friendly/transit friendly, urban space for the forces pushing for car centric culture all around it in the rest of the city will overwhelm it and continue to push it towards being car centric/suburban vrs urban (because the rules were changed and it's now illegal everywhere else). Think about areas like the Pearl District and Cherry Street.  What was once legal "contingent upon municipality guidelines" was changed and made illegal. (Redevelopment unfolds under the rules of the game...)  In order for a property owner to do what used to be legal, they have to go befor the board and beg for an exception.   The "laws/local ordinances" were changed once,,, why can't they be changed again, or gotten rid of to allow more freedom?  

Well, then because one of your friends wanted that, it makes it all different.

The thesis Tea sets forth is that property rights trump citizen complaints. That includes parks that were once required iof developers before developers took over the process and overrode citizen input. Same with lot sizes and shapes.

I was questioning your "No citizen really asked for" part of the statement.  If I know someone who wanted some of that stuff, there are likely to be many more.

There are people now who prefer them. There was no hue and cry for cul-de-sacs when they were rolled out. They were an effort to maximize the amount of housing that could be stuffed into a housing edition. Same thing with wildly meandering streets which created odd shaped lots, closed off additions which forced all traffic to enter/exit at fewer points and the elimination of sidewalks and parks. These were changes that police/fire/ambulance services did not want nor did they come from the general population.

They were marketed to the population with benefits like decreased traffic flow, lower lot cost, more efficient use of resources etc. Years later the deficiencies became known. Service providers like utility companies, police, fire and ambulance have to spend time learning the strange layouts and their response times suffer. If the buyers of homes on cul-de-sacs and French curve neighborhoods had understood that parking on them is nightmarish, views and access are diminished and you pay more per sq. foot for your lot than others...they wouldn't have sold quite as well.

edit: Hey, RA, I don't mean to sound rude or dismissive of you or the burbs. You know that. Just recounting the history like all us old farts tend to do. ;D

I am not personally a fan of cul-de-sacs.  I just call them dead-ends.  I'm not so sure they maximize the number of houses but they may minimize the amount of paving per house.  In some areas they are the result of geography but not so much here in the (mostly) flat lands.  If there are several houses per acre, you probably need sidewalks.  Out here where we are not so much. ( http://g.co/maps/p85xa , please ignore the SE quarter section)  I know my parents specifically did NOT want sidewalks (which we did have back east) along with the little over an acre lot they did want. Mildly meandering roads break up the monotony of a neighborhood.  Not having everything on a thru grid does cut down on traffic as drivers not knowing the neighborhood are less likely to cut through to avoid traffic elsewhere.  Wildly meandering roads can cause some of the problems you mention.  I was a volunteer fireman in my late teens (we were allowed to join at 16 but were not allowed in an actively burning structure until 18) in the township where I grew up.  Part of being a fireman was learning the streets.  Us young guys (quite a while ago now) spent time at the wall map learning the best ways to random addresses so when we became drivers we already knew the best way to anywhere in town.   Springfield, PA 19064 was about 8 square miles of mostly bedroom community. ( http://g.co/maps/phxyv ).  Our response time was pretty good and we had some of the lowest fire insurance rates in the area.  We also had serious training every Tuesday evening including both technical training and drills.  Springfield had some nice parks.  They were frequently in an area less convenient to develop into housing but gave us kids a place to be.  Parks are especially important when you don't have a back yard big enough to do anything in except mow the grass.

So when the "Excaliber" is torn down they are putting in a cul-de-sac with sidewalks?

This is Great News!

Because a piece of property is a part of the community. There are properties within that could lose value if there is not a certain standard keeping the basic fabric of their community intact. That's why.

Because we citizens have participated in the PlaniTulsa process to define how our city should look over the next 20 to 30 years.
Because we citizens have invested millions in our downtown.
Because we citizens have watched what happens when property owners neglect their property and then demolish it.
Because other developers are investing millions in downtown in the hopes that it will become dense and urbanized and will become a regional draw.

Having been a developer for 35 years you should recognize that demolition is not development.

Who are your clients?   A bunch of folks with grand visions of surface parking?
Does anyone ever come to you with a "dream" or even an idea of improving a piece of property?
As others have already said... Who develops and sets the codes?  I'm pretty sure it's folks that actually care about their community.   Folks like TheArtist thru a democratic process.

More likely the developers very quietly and over a period of years. There have been some encouraging movement on this issue here in Tulsa, but so far it still seems mostly developer driven. How very nice of them to saddle us with maintenance costs we can't afford on infrastructure that mainly benefits them. That's not to say I don't benefit by their restrictive zoning forcing land values and rents up. I'd rather have a sustainable city budget, though.

It is very funny to me whe people start talking about "freedoms", specifically 'fredom to do what I want with my land' (yeah I'm looking at you TTC).  Freedom is a vaccuuous word without a set of constraints against one can be considered free.  You're free to do what you want, as long as the zoning/building codes allow you.  What's that?  Your taste just happens to coincide with the extant building/zoning codes? and it's not just that you have gotten used to the way things are and you hate change, is it?  No!  wow what a freakin' coincidence!  Anything else?  Oh the music you heppen to like is the best because you like it? even though you are free to choose which music you like?

Zoning codes determined the shape of our city, not our 'freedoms' (whatever the hell that means).  Hopefully, one day the city will have the plums to stand up to people who want to knock down buildings.  Not in my lifetime though.

Glad to hear they don't plan to tear it down. Wonder what they do have planned. Not going to get into the property rights stuff its been done to death here. I will say I don't agree with Tea that anyone's rights have been violated, today anyway :P

Finally got a PM from FB Tulsa World.


Why do they keep saying "planned"?

It's a polite way of saying, "We're working on plans to develop this, but is all else fails, we'll just raze it, and turn it into parking for now."

I'm excited to see a lot of new development/businesses downtown.  Simultaneously, I'm amazed at how many buildings are sitting around doing little or nothing.  (The Renberg's Bldg on Main St is used as a parking garage, the red brick building on the corner west of McNellies is used to store light bulbs, many more buildings just sit vacant, or are used to store a boat or a couple cars, or whatever...)

I was talking to a downtown small business owner, and she was saying how it's actually pretty hard to get a space downtown.  In her opinion, the people who own the buildings act like they're going to be worth a ton in the future, so they're just sitting on their investments.  And, for whatever reason, they don't want to bother renting them out in the meantime.  (I assume because basic improvements/maintenance would be required--an investment they don't want to make?)  Another problem identified by another business owner was that a small handful of people own a large percent of downtown buildings.  So there's sort of a monopoly on the rental spaces that are available...and the other buildings are owned by people who aren't even interested in renting.

But if more people would be open to leasing their downtown properties, there would be more small businesses opening up.  And more excitement.  More foot traffic.  More synergies.  More value.  More investment.  And it seems like this is the QUICKEST way to help improve everyone's return on investment downtown.  So if you want to get a better sales price, isn't it logical to rent in the meantime?  Open up the market to young entrepreneurs who can't afford to purchase an entire building, but who can make something great happen?   

Yes, it is logical and reasonable, and a good idea... which is why the old curmudgeons that own the buildings will never do it.

It can't be that simple.

There has to be a better explanation as to why owners are unwilling to rent space.

Squatters have been speculating on downtown since the 70s, holding their surface lots and old buildings hostage, always thinking they'll make millions if they just cling to it a few years longer. Meanwhile, downtown became a ghost town. Now that it's coming back, they're still holding out for better deals. A great example of this is the giant 2-square-block parking lot across from Joe Momma's (and McNellie's, Fleet Feet, Dilly Deli, Lee's Bicycles, Back Alley Blues & BBQ, etc.). The owner of it is waiting until he can make a million or two off its sale.

Where did you ever get the idea that 'property rights' as a 'basic freedom' ever derived from any other source than the government of the time??   Going back hundreds if not thousands of years!  Governments have always maintained jurisdiction, either through direct military control/action or practice of hegemony, and then granted land use - 'ownership' - to people.  Think Indian tribal relations to the US Federal Government.

I like the phrase "imperialistic voyeurism", as I have used before.

If the delusion is rattling around your head that somehow you have "rights" to property - well, that is just a symptom of not understanding.

You do have the right to spend large amounts of money on structures and improvements - within guidelines established by the ruling governmental entity (zoning laws) - and benefit from those efforts if possible.  As long as you remit your "dues" to that entity.  Which brings us to another answer to a question posed by guido - yes, you are responsible to pay for educating other peoples children - by definition of the laws established regarding public education funding - property taxes.

Do you remember anything about the history of the aboriginal people of this country?  And their "most basic freedoms" - including property rights.  Or even life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

In school, Econ 101, they did a short blurb on real estate that seemed very counter-intuitive to me.  They made the case that analyzing cash flows, present/future values, and a wave of the magic wand, letting a commercial building set empty would somehow actually pay off over renting it out.  I never did really get it.  Maybe has to do with taking losses against other income?

Eastland should have made somebody a fortune, in that case!

Sounds like this building is toast:

From the World, due to damage from the quake last year the building is condemned. Arby's has closed and will not reopen.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20121226_11_0_Oklaho108344

  So wonder what the odds are of the next article being about how prohibitively expensive it would be to make repairs, and thus the building must be torn down?

Baracades are up.  The building is coming down (my guess, I have no inside info on that).

The Tulsa World/Lortons strike again!  When was the last time they BUILT anything in Tulsa?

They are blaming the 2011 Earthquake, but keep in mind that as of June 2012 they said there were no plans to demolish the building.  Recall:

http://thislandpress.com/roundups/excaliber-building-wont-be-demolished-tulsa-world-says/

I know a person who rented space in that building and everyone was evicted from the building.  The idea at the time, as I understand it, was to grab money to turn it into lofts.  That did not happen... so claim earthquake damage?  Correct me if I am wrong, but were any other buildings within 50 miles damaged by the earthquakes?

The rumor was they were looking for a way to repurposes this building years ago.  That fell through.  The rumor was then that they wanted to tear it down to save some money (instead of investing in it to make money).  They flat out denied that.  Now we have earthquake damage which gives them an excuse to tear it down, void their Arby's lease, subvert a new moratorium on surface parking, and (possibly) collect an insurance check.  I'm sure they are greatly saddened.

PLEASE INVEST in Downtown Tulsa.  You are the Tulsa  World yet other than TCC you have torn down more Tulsa buildings than anyone else in the last 15 years.  Don't destroy my world.  If you ahve to tear it down, build something in its place.  Show some vision, some leadership, some confidence in your City.

I thought that was said quite eloquently cannon_fodder.  I think it is cool building and would hate for it to be torn down.  

According to an article in the World this morning, the Arby's lease was up at the end of March and was "not expected to be renewed."  So a decision was coming on this building anyway.  I just really hope I am jumping the gun on the conclusion that it will become a surface parking lot.

Per the World Article:

1913: Built in 1913 - 1917.
1960: Palace Clothiers was the prime tenant for 50 years.  Out of business in 1960.
1997: Tulsa World bought in in 1997 (it was mixed office space).

2008: The tenants were all evicted in 2008 (or 2009?).
2011: Earthquake was on November, 6 of 2011 (5.6 Magnitude 75 miles SW of Tulsa) - no structural damage was reported in Tulsa (typically structural damage does not accure at all under 6.0 per the Tulsa World's article)
May 2012: Rumor that the World was planning on demolishing the building
June 2012: Tulsa World states that it has no plans to demolish the building (to This Land Press)
August 2012:  Tulsa World fears the buiding is unstable and comissions an engineering report
Dec. 24, 2012:  Engineering report declares the building unstable due to Earthquake Damage
Dec. 26 2012:  Building closed off

March, 2013:  Arby's lease set to expire, "was not expected to be renewed."


http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20121227_16_E1_TheNov173978


Maybe I'm just a cynic, but . . . .  I really hope I am wrong.  Would be great to see a new building there or to see this one repurposed.  ANYTHING but more surface parking.  For the love of God, there are more than a dozen surface parking lots and more than half a dozen parking garages within two blocks of there.  I can not stress enough how much surface parking kills an urban area.

Kudos to TLP for being on top of this one and likely causing the TW to try and wait 6-12 months so we wouldn't "catch on"

6 months.  That should be long enough before everyone forgets everything that Bobby Lorton said last summer.

Wonder who they paid to be the "engineering firm?"  Did the engineer say the damage was irreparable or did the Lorton family say that?  

Remember when they declared the Skelly Building to be "functionally obsolete," and the "highest best use" of the property ended up being... a 14 space surface parking lot?  This was not an opinion shared by the professionals I spoke with who had also inspected that building.

Ahhh.  The Tulsa World.  It would be better for downtown if they just moved their declining (should I say "functionally obsolete?") operation to some warehouse in a light industrial area of town.  We don't need them downtown, and there's no reason why they need an additional 14 space parking lot.

+1

The article mentioned pieces of pre-cast concrete and terra cotta having fallen off the building. That does give one pause when an engineering report shows damage to the base piers of the building. They did have some press equipment in the basement of that building iirc.

But I am skeptical as well. If this building showed earthquake damage to its underpinnings, its time to do an evaluation of ALL downtown buildings built in that time period that exceed two stories. That would give many downtown building owners a chance to trash their buildings too.

So why wasnt the World building evacuated when they found "structurally unsound" supporting columns in the common basement they share with the Excalibur?
If the columns were to give way, the closest hollow void is the connecting World building basement.
 

The bolded part is what makes me skeptical.  The timing and the excuses and the need for them all add up just too neatly to be coincidence.  They want to demolish a building that would be impossible or at least unpopular and this give them an excuse to do it.  "It's beyond our control I tells ya!"

Because it is BS.

No way earthquake damage of that magnitude took a year to find when no other building within 100 miles of the epicenter suffered any significant structural damage except the church that was within 10 miles of it.

The worst damage in Tulsa was small cracks in sheetrock and a couple poorly attached brick facades crumbling.

I think the city should mandate a third inspection with more than one inspector to validate this inspectors findings and until then, the Tulsa World building that shares the basement be evacuated to ensure their employees are safe.

If indeed this buildings piers were damage enough that there is a risk of collapse then the poster above is correct in that every structure over 5 stories within 75 miles of the epicenter should be re-inspected.

+1 Damon

I don't think downtown Tulsa was within 75 miles of the epicenter anyway. The epicenter was close to Norman and Shawnee.

I saw whom I've always assumed was the manager for this location outside the bldg today (redhead).
She showed no ill-will...  I told her a lot of people think the "earthquake damage" thing is a sham.
She says she's seen the damage and doesn't dispute it.
I asked her if they plan to relocate and got a "we hope so."

OK, 150 miles  :P

I took some photos this afternoon:

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-lYdC80IRo5A/UN96zsRpLsI/AAAAAAAAK6E/i5enU0-E4P4/s640/DEC_29_2012_ejwagner_228.jpg)

(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-3XGVQE_dgmo/UN96ynHazTI/AAAAAAAAK50/zDoJQ6IDq_o/s512/DEC_29_2012_ejwagner_225.jpg)

Now, I'm not entirely sure that all the elements are Art Deco.  This front entrance looks like Art Nouveau, but you have to remember, I'm a guy who wears Hawaiian shirts with plaid Bermuda shorts.  I don't know beans about art.

The rest of the photos are on my Google+ page at:

https://picasaweb.google.com/114874700548780474647/ArbySBuilding (https://picasaweb.google.com/114874700548780474647/ArbySBuilding)

It's about 60 miles from the epicenter to downtown Tulsa as the crow flies, as near as I can tell.

Here's the exact earthquake location info:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2011/usb0006klz/#details

Per Google Maps:

Using the coordinates in your link, it's only about 69 miles by car.  I-44 to Stroud, south on OK99 and US377 to a bit north of Prague then west to the coordinates.

This site agrees with your 60 statute miles for Great Circle Distance:
http://williams.best.vwh.net/gccalc.htm

I am not real big on conspiracy crap, and I would love to give a company the benefit of a doubt... however, I have been through 2 extremely large earthquakes within a very short period of time.  Specifically 6.7 and 7.9 in Alaska, back in Oct/Nov 2002.  We were about 90 miles from the epicenter and the most significant damage that occured on base was some cracks in the drywall of the dining facility.     

Honestly, this is just an easy excuse because there is a healthy fear of earthquakes here.

A friend of mine said someone has been sniffing around the old Schlotzky's location downtown. Seems a bit out of the way for most foot traffic, but maybe that is where Arby's could move. I seem to remember Schlotzky's always being busy when it was there.

Reunion center lobby is available.. across the street. And the owner has no intent to tear his own house down.

Please do not tear this building down. Sell to the Snyders for crying out loud.

Remember the excuses they gave for tearing down the Skelly Building? This excuse stinks worse than that did: "functionally obsolete". The same turn of events: first plans to rehab it into condos, failure, demolition.

Lorton told Lafortune back then what he will say now, it's theire property and they have no intent of selling it to anyone else.

The TW missed an opportunity to help the Brady when they sold that big lot south of the Brady Theater to an industrialist who parks milk trucks there now. I'm confused as to what the intent of TW holding property means. On one hand, they promote downtown. Then, there's their other hand....

They have nothing to gain by promoting downtown. Their actions speak much louder than their words, all of which are suspect.

Which hand is that?

Their dominate one.

I regret every penny I've spent on Tulsa World newspapers over the years. Their "journalistic integrity" (I know: oxymoron) is in question. Mr Lorton is willing to lie to Tulsans and thinks we are gullible enough to believe him.

Building Demolition Form
Section 8
1. What is wrong with your building? (Check all that apply)
[ ] Infested with zombies
[ ] Cosmic Rays
[ ] Southwestern earthquake damage
[ ] Temporal nexus epicenter
[ ] Oklahoma Democratic Headquarters

I used to work in the OTC (dirty ice cube) downtown. After the city moved in it seemed like it was infested with zombies.  ;D

TW FB post about Blake Ewing:


Go Blake.

Does that save this building? I can't even think about this proposed demolition it makes me so angry.

Not sure.  The Lorton's might claim it won't be surface parking.

If the Lorton's would replace it with a 2-3 story building with ground level retail, I'd be... well.. less angry.

Not very likely.

Ground parking needs to be banned from anywhere in the IDL.

At a minimum we need codes to enforce what surface parking should look like inside the IDL.
Demarcation from the street
Screening/Landscaping/sidewalk maintenance.
Lighting/signage
Curb cuts, entrances/exits

That kind of thinking will kill ground floor retail.

And the downtown assessment should at least equal that of the prior use.

How So?  I would think just the opposite.

Agreed. In an environment like downtown people on feet are much more likely to stop in than people on motors are.

So, you don't want any curbside parking in front of or at least across the street from your retail spot?

I believe they were referring to ground level parking lots.  (American Parking et al.)

Ditto.
Can we get a graph that plots the # of surface parking spots downtown and the amount of retail with time?
It seems to me they're inversely proportional.

One shop's surface parking can't be another shop, critical mass, walk-ability, preaching to the choir, etc

Wait, was rdj being satirical??

I read the word anywhere to be just that anywhere.  Regardless, I still think it is a mistake.  Surface level parking has a place in Tulsa's downtown.  Do I wish there was less of it?  Absolutely, but don't discount the need for doing business downtown to be convenient.

Here's an example, if I want to get carry out for the family dinner from Joe Momma's Pizza I can park on the street, the American Parking lot across the street or the pay parking lot on 2nd between Detroit & Elgin (I'll discount the parking between Dwelling Spaces & Lyons as those are reserved for those businesses and the junkyard behind El Guapo) while I run inside for a few moments to get my pizza.  If I have to deal with the time and expense of structured parking and walk a block or two how likely am I to get carryout?  If the street parking is available, which many times it is full, it is free for my dinner pick up and very convenient.  If not available and the product is good enough will I be willing to pay and walk across the street?  Probably, which as an aside American Parking has recently upgraded their pay technology and enforcement on the large Blue Dome lot.  Point is, having convenient ground level parking is essential for those patrons of downtown businesses that just want to run in.

The whole point is, surface parking serves a purpose in the urban area.  Would I like to see a good portion improved, yes, but don't take a hardline, no surface parking ever mentality.  It gets nothing accomplished.

Give a few on-street spots per block a 15 minute time limit. Problem solved.

Agree 100%.  That is the idea behind the proposal the city is making with American Parking.  The on-street parking is not turning over like it needs to for an effective parking system.  It varies in different parts of downtown, but it does appear much of the on-street parking is occupied by employees.

Someone count the number of ground-level Spots in the IDL.

Set that number as the maximum number of surface-level parking spots in the IDL.

Subtract 5% annually.

Yes.

I am a champion of curbside parking though.

The problems I have with surface level parking are:
1) Normally it only happens because the property owner found it cheaper to tear the building down and just pave it.
Undeveloped land in certain districts should have a higher tax rate than if they were developed. The slum lords wouldn't tear the buildings down since right now that's the only reason they do. Even old buildings in need of repair look better than a slab of asphalt. I don't blame business owners for this - they will always head towards the cheapest but most profitable route - that's business, so change that path for them.
2) It's ugly which is bad for the city in every way possible.
It's tough to sell Tulsa to new businesses when it's downtown looks like an asphalt lake. It's shows the local government is blind to it's history and it's future and probably getting kickbacks from the parking lot companies. It's tells me that if I want to do business here I better get ready to grease some local officials if I want to get anything done.
3) It takes needed revenue away from the city in two ways - parking fees and property tax losses.
When the city bothers to buy batteries for it's meters, downtown parking is a major source of constant and consistent revenue. Why allow competition especially at the cost of losing property tax revenue? Simple - kickbacks. Honestly the entire city government from the 60's and 70's and maybe later should be sued.

Of course I could ramble on for a few hours about this (can't we all) but enough threadjacking....  :P

So instead of having a lot that has businesses and or residences (pizza customers) the lot is available for you (pizza customers) to drive in and drive out.  

So instead of having a lot that has businesses and or residences with customers walking past, not just the pizza place, but other businesses, like mine,,, we have a lot where someone can drive into the pizza place, and drive out not walking past other businesses.

So instead of having a lot with businesses and or residences increasing the pedestrian friendly nature of downtown, we have a lot that decreases the pedestrian friendly nature of downtown thus taking away potential customers.  

So instead of having a lot with businesses and or residences adding density (aka customers), and to the pedestrian friendly nature of downtown which would help transit be effective (more customers),,, we have lots which hurt the creation and implementation of transit which then also takes more pedestrians (customers) off the street walking past numerous businesses/restaurants.  

(but at least YOU, get your pizza, screw everyone else and their lifestyle preferences and businesses)  

You can't have it both ways in one area.  Urban (pedestrian/transit oriented) and Suburban (car oriented) style developments will fight each other.  In a city where most development is suburban/car oriented, if you want to get areas that are truly urban, pedestrian/transit oriented, then you have to zone for that type of development.    

It's fine that people drive to downtown and park at street parking to do a quick errand, and we could increase the number of those parking spaces dramatically.  

It's also fine that people drive into downtown and park at the numerous parking garages to work,live, go to an event like a concert or ballgame, stay at a hotel, spend the day shopping/sightseeing,etc. and so on... but those people are far more likely to then walk past other businesses and restaurants and thus create more customers than those popping in for a pizza or quick errand and parking right by that pizza place or errand, then leaving.  

98% or more of my customers are people who are in downtown for some other reason than just to park by my front door and pop into my place only.  And being in my shop each day I can see that the best way to get more customers is to, not have more parking nearby (which there is ample plenty already), but to get the remaining empty buildings near me filled with businesses, shops, restaurants, and residences and to remove the pedestrian friendly killing gaps nearby by having them replaced with even more businesses, shops, restaurants, residences, etc. which will then help create more pedestrians who will drop into my shop.  Love that 2% that parks right nearby and pops in and out don't get me wrong, but there is no way in an urban, downtown model, that I can grow my business by primarily focusing on customers like that.  My main concern is the people coming into downtown who are there for longer periods, perhaps going to some other business, and then having them walking past mine... or conversely, coming to my business and then walking past my friends businesses down the street.  The more pedestrian friendly businesses and activities nearby the better for all of us. Less, hurts all of us.  

Our business is also a paying supporter of the new downtown "trolley" service which runs around downtown past oooodles of parking structures.  What I would like to see is not that it runs by the same, or more, number of surface parking lots that it does now, but LESS parking lots, aka, more businesses, restaurants, shops, interesting things to see and do, residences, etc. thus giving people even more reason to avail themselves of the "trolley" and stay downtown for longer periods = more potential customers for both me and the pizza place.  

Come sit at my shop with me one day for only a few hours perhaps.  Watch people walking by and driving by.  Talk to the customers that do come in.  Then tell me what you would rather see nearby.  Surface parking lots and or more of them, or more shops, businesses, restaurants, lofts, etc.   I am not in a suburban strip mall.  

I'm not advocating for more surface parking.  I'm simply saying there is a role for them in a healthy urban area.

I have been amazed recently the number of people I have mentioned this building too who roll their eyes at the earthquake story. This includes people who don't follow the news as closely as us forumites.

Me too.

You may be right, but there should be no doubt that downtown Tulsa as it is right now has way too much surface parking.  If 75-80% of what is now surface parking gets consumed by buildings and businesses, then lack of useful surface parking might become an issue.  I have access to the Central Parking garage behind the tower (next to the Jazz Depot).  I can get anywhere I want downtown from there with no problems whatsoever.

A very, very limited amount of it would be fine on some blocks where there is already open space, but only if it's screened from the street, preferably by a building. The lot between Arvest and BofA on the corner of 5th and Boulder is about as big as they should ever get, and that one only gets a pass because it's landscaped reasonably well.

The other thing we need to do going forward regarding parking is require that new garages have ground level rental space. Even with the trees, it's still dismal walking past the garage south of OneOk. Most especially on Cheyenne where you've got garages on both sides of you. There is nothing interesting there at all. Maybe we could convince St. John and OneOk to let someone paint some interesting murals or something.

Maybe like this, but in reverse?
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=16814.0

(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2010/20101223_e1paint1223p9.jpg)

Oy

I just spotted them in that space doing more than sniffing.

I walked by there at lunch on Friday and noticed the For Lease signs were down. Didn't look in the windows. So is there some clean up/remodel going on?

Interesting that this article discusses the 14 homes that were damaged but not the highrise building in downtown Tulsa.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/03/130329-wastewater-injection-likely-caused-quake/

¿There was a structure in Tulsa that was damaged?

Exactly.

Why yes, of course there was. http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/Downtown_building_closed/20121226_11_0_oklaho108344

Or, they just used carltonplace's demo form ;o)

Building Demolition Form
Section 8

1. What is wrong with your building? (Check all that apply)
[ ] Infested with zombies
[ ] Cosmic Rays
[ ] Southwestern earthquake damage
[ ] Temporal nexus epicenter
[ ] Oklahoma Democratic Headquarters

The crack in my dining room window got bigger, who do I call?                                     ;D

Ghostbusters.

Any news or rumors will the downtown Arbys will relocate to???

Not yet

I spoke with a source with the Sinclair building and they tried to lure them, he stated they are jot reopening downtown. Not sure if that was his impression, their excuse, or truth...

last rumor I heard was they were having difficulty finding a spot that could accommodate a fryer vent.

That a coming soon sign hasn't popped up yet speaks volumes.

Does the Sinclair bldg have any tenants?
Any plans for the building?

The Sinclair Building is owned by the same slumlord who, until a few days ago, owned the Tulsa Club.  I've talked to restaurant owners about locating in this building, and nobody wants to deal with Morony.... despite the perfect location on a prime corner in the heart of downtown.

Here's a quote from the recent Tulsa World article about the Tulsa Club auction:

Morony also owns the Sinclair Building at 6 E. Fifth St. He owes the city an additional $150,000 in unpaid Tulsa Stadium Improvement District assessments on that structure.

The city is pursuing foreclosure of its lien against the Sinclair Building to recoup the outstanding assessment fee.

The last ground floor tenant of that building moved out as well, the tailor shop.

Anyone know if this building is safe now?

http://www.tulsafrontier.com/tulsa-world-plans-apartments-in-former-arbys-building/

Wish they could've done this with the Goff building they demo'd at 4th & Boulder in 2004...

They didn't need that space, which is why they tore it down and are now putting a new building in it's place because they need the space.

How is no-one screaming from the rooftops about how they kicked Arby's out because their HVAC guy thought it was the only building in Green Country with earthquake damage but now suddenly is A-OK?

The TW is building on its lot at 4th & Boulder?

"The project also calls for constructing a 6,600-square-foot building above the Tulsa World’s guest parking lot directly west of the Arby’s building. The facility would be used to house newsprint."

What building was that? Do you have a picture?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skelly_Oil#/media/File:Skelly_Building,_Tulsa._OK.jpg

It will be all low income before its over with......

Different ownership.

Other than Arby's, were there any other tenants in this building when it was closed?  Did anyone ever really believe the earthquake damage story?

All-in-all, this is great news on many fronts - converting an empty/unused building to housing; adding some low-income housing downtown; adding to the number of people living along Main St; and building on a surface parking lot.

The site running the story, The Frontier, is run by the Lortons.

The engineer’s report stated that the most serious damage from the earthquake “was to the supporting columns in the Excalibur Building’s basement"

Since its apparently a common basement shared with the Whirled, they were kinda sticking their neck out.

I'm sure the structural issues only caused issues for beef-based retail establishments

Are you certain that's beef?

The sidewalk is still lined with scaffolding so I've been expecting the earthquake damage to make it start crumbling any minute.  Not sure how they can allow anyone to live in such an earthquake damaged structure.  [/endsarcasm]

The only theory that makes sense to me:

The Lortons were planning on selling out and moving on. At the end of 2013 they declared the Arby's building unsafe, and made an insurance claim or write off for tax purposes. Shortly thereafter they sold it to Berkshire Publishing (whatever) and moved on. Reeping some sort of reward for the fictionalized write off.

I never heard anyone who believed the "earthquake" damage report.

Once they were out of the picture, the new owners had the building examined by actual engineers and determined it could be put to some use.

They may have done it to avoid paying extra downtown assessment taxes too.... just a theory.

I would love to see them do this...

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/540/AKE83I.png) (https://imageshack.com/i/f0AKE83Ip)

They already have these "boxes" for retail on the ground floor. Just carve out the brick and put some glass. If they are using the ground floor area now there, they could always relocate it and add more space to the area they are adding on top of the guest lot. Or even build on the other parking lot they have at 3rd/Main and just continue the ground floor retail all the way between 4th and 3rd. This would make a HUGE different to the life of Main Street.

Its not like they need all of those print presses any more.

http://www.fox23.com/news/news/local/warren-buffett-plans-apartments-renovations-downto/nmwWy/

Would this 2 story building be built in the parking lot that was once the Skelly Building?

City councilors praised the plan that not only includes the restored building, but allows for the Tulsa World to expand its operations into a new two-story building.

Was it the destruction of the Skelly or Towerview that sparked TulsaNow in the first place?

The former.

TulsaNow predates both by several years. However, this forum rallied support of both and really got the whole "general public following development and demolition" thing.

Just think, one pizza slinger came to the forum trying to start a pizza place, got so involved he's now a city councilor. TulsaNow should go to extremes to take credit for things like some other groups do...

Like that time we defeated "the islands" all by ourselves.

Or did PlaniTulsa all by ourselves.

Or started the entire "public forum" thing that KRMG and everyone does now.

And lets not forget Vision2025. That was all us. Except for the loan to First Street Lofts, we said that was a bad idea to start with.

And single handedly start the revival of downtown.

Or when we saved Turkey Mountain.

Oh, and lets not forget that time we had a secret meeting and cured cancer... but then forget to write it down. So we do make mistakes.

[for the uninitiated, this is called hyperbole]

Pronounced "hyper-bole"

All those people that say "hi-per-bu-lee" bug the smile out of me.  ;D

Tulsa World gets approval for redevelopment of historical building

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/tulsa-world-gets-approval-for-redevelopment-of-historical-building/article_261937bc-5e6f-5dbf-9397-d92ee0ee531a.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/tulsa-world-gets-approval-for-redevelopment-of-historical-building/article_261937bc-5e6f-5dbf-9397-d92ee0ee531a.html)

I didn't see...

How much earthquake repair are they going to have to do?

Since public funds are on the table, the plans are probably available. If anyone finds out there is a speck of earthquake damage let me know. If anyone sends the Lorton's a card telling them they are liars, let me know.

Funny how new owners want the "damaged" building and to rebuild Skelly. Which they were careful to not point out...

We also defeated Vision2

You mean pointless bankrupt airline welfare.

The Tulsa World reports that construction on the Palace Building starts today.

Also construction is starting on the new TW building, a building they are calling The Podium Building.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/eedition/page-a/page_88f13446-854b-5135-859f-8066a54eb97e.html

Login required. 

Renovations are reportedly almost done.

Tulsa World had an article a few days ago:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/realestate/palace-building-moving-toward-completion-of-million-historical-renovation/article_d064fbd3-810b-550a-868c-aa035d527089.html


They have begun advertising the apartments as the Palace Apartments:
http://tulsapalace.com/

The website includes layouts that show a lot of one bedroom apartments. The two bedroom apartments are like modern college dorms, 2 bedrooms each with its own bathroom, a common living room and kitchen in the middle. The apartments seem to be customized to fit the space, so basically no two on a floor are alike and even every floor appears to be different.   500 to 860 square feet. 52 one bedroom, 8 two bedroom. 5000 sq feet of retail on the ground level.  

Features listed include rooftop deck with an outdoor kitchen, community room, granite counters, storage, parking across the street in the main mall garage (a walkway or tunnel would be nice, but would add lots of expense) for $116 per month (first car, second car half price).  

I couldn't find pricing, but it seems to be aimed at the gap we have been seeing lately.

[edit] Pricing is listed here:
https://www.apartments.com/palace-building-apartments-tulsa-ok/50sd6hq/

Studio   1 Bathroom   $790 - 840      510 - 542 Sq Ft   Studio   Mar 1      
1 Bedroom   1 Bathroom   $851 - 1,199      549 - 800 Sq Ft   1 Bedroom   Mar 1      
2 Bedrooms   2 Bathrooms   $1,057 - 1,166      813 - 885 Sq Ft   2 Bedroom   Mar 1      

Also they apparently allow pets with a $300 deposit
[/edit]

Thanks for posting the link, cannon_fodder.

The apartment layouts are customized to fit the space, the structural columns, and the exterior windows.  There might be some small variations, but Floors 3-7 appear to be very similar.  Floors 8 and 9 appear to be very similar, also.  Apartments A and B seem to be similiar on Floors 3-9.  

Inserting a new interior stair was a wise decision, replacing the old exterior fire escape (which has been removed from the west side of the building), and allowing good use of the window locations at the northwest and southwest corners of the building (if the windows have not been blocked, as the floor plans indicate).

I haven't checked it out yet, but the floor plans show that the windows on the north bedrooms of Apts #3G - #7G have been blocked.  Same for the kitchens in Apts #8E, #8F, #9E, and #9F.  I hope it's a graphical error on the website floor plans and the windows haven't been covered over on the interior.

The Palace Building is taller than the Tulsa World structure to the north.  On the 8th and 9th floors, there are some north-facing windows, above the roof level of the Tulsa World building.  That's why the layouts for 8th and 9th floors of the Palace Apartments have central corridors.  Floors 2-7 have corridors along the north wall.

The floor plan for Apt #2H seems a bit odd, with no window in the living/dining area.  I would have flipped the layout for #2H around, I think, placing the bedroom in the northwest (or northeast) corner of the unit and the living/dining/kitchen spaces to the south (or west) of the bedroom.

In my opinion, except for Apt #2H mentioned above, the D units on Floors 2-7 are the least desirable, due to the position of the entry door and long circulation path through the apartment to get to the south-facing windows.  In that regard, the C units are somewhat better with their entry door locations, and the E units are better yet, with entryway alcoves.

Overall, the A units would be the best for views, I think.  Apts #8A and #9A have windows facing north, east, and south.

TW posted that Taco Bueno and Burger King are going to be in the Palace building.

Said post:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/downtown/taco-bueno-burger-king-coming-to-palace-building-at-th/article_d672996d-a8d0-57db-ac74-7dda06c3a736.html

Wow, when was the last time a new Burger King opened?

I went to school with one of the franchisee's kids. Glad to see he's sticking around Tulsa.

I think they'll be great for downtown, especially if they are open in evenings. A good mix of fast food, cheap options, and of course availability in the heart of downtown/first floor of an apartment.

It is neat that it will be like a food court with common seating area. I foresee food-court type venues getting more common and steady in the future (like food truck parks, Fuel 66, the boxyard, Mother Road Market, etc). Those types of places have already been very common and successful in other larger cities.

1 tenant in a building or space by itself takes quite a large investment. By splitting up areas, sharing seating and sharing space, you can bring in a larger crowds so that everyone can find something they like. Although I'm not sure a lot of couples are split between taco bueno and burger king very often!

One of the keys to urban density is getting creative and using every nook and cranny in more diverse ways. Don't just have a bar: bring in food trucks, big decorative patio with another stage, outdoor games, etc. This type of thinking is really building up downtown Tulsa. Austin has this mastered with boxes, trailers and carts all over the place in any blank yard or corner full of shops and food places.

Someone's actually created a petition to stop this development
https://www.reddit.com/r/tulsa/comments/6vr9e9/i_created_a_petition_to_stop_the_development_of/
has 61 "signatures"

http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/realestate/taco-bueno-and-burger-king-to-open-downtown-locations-may/article_4a472183-e48b-5292-94bd-b26d8a8fa516.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/realestate/taco-bueno-and-burger-king-to-open-downtown-locations-may/article_4a472183-e48b-5292-94bd-b26d8a8fa516.html)

That looks like a nice new food court. I especially like the black and gold Art Deco wall art. Overall a nice place for fast food. The Taco Bueno looks especially nice.

I know it would be a stress test. But you would think you would like all the Mayfest business if you opened a week earlier.

Bueno/BK closing temporarily.


https://tulsaworld.com/business/local/burger-king-taco-bueno-downtown-eatery-announces-temporary-closing/article_5a26030e-5045-11eb-b2e0-139c0a0c92cf.html