The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/technology/developer-plans-new-downtown-apartments-completes-million-sale-apartment-complexes/article_4feb26a0-4263-5941-918e-abe7aba9b234.html

From TW:
In one of the biggest one-day apartment-property sale clusters in Tulsa County’s history, American Residential Group sold all four of its properties outside of the downtown area for a combined $95 million.
Thanks in part to the sale, American Residential is preparing to build two new properties downtown that could total well over 300 units.
The transactions, which closed Tuesday, hands them to Weidner Apartment Homes, a Seattle-based apartment management group that manages more than 38,000 units across the country.
Affected properties include Lincoln on Memorial at 7777 S. Memorial Drive; Villas on Memorial, located directly to the south of Lincoln on Memorial at 7877 S. Memorial Drive; Memorial Creek, located at 9602 S. Memorial Drive; and Woodland Park, located at 7350 S. Garnett Road.
All current employees of these communities will be retained by Weidner.
Jay Helm, president and CEO of American Residential, said the move is a combination of a redeployment of capital and a refocus.
“We decided we wanted to focus on urban development, not just here but in other cities,” Helm said.
That focus includes plans for two new developments in downtown Tulsa. The first, an unnamed project formerly known as Hartford Commons, will be $21 million in new construction at 215 S. Greenwood Ave., and will feature 162 units.
Steve Ganzkow, senior vice president at American Residential, said they’re in the process of bidding out the final details of construction and plan to begin construction by the end of December.
Tulsa businessman Elliot Nelson, developer of McNellie’s Public House and various other businesses in Tulsa and Oklahoma City, has a small interest in the development, said Ganzkow.
The second, to be located on the southeast corner of Elgin and Archer near ONEOK Field, would be a new building with between 160 and 220 units. Plans for that development have not yet been finalized, though Ganzkow said they hope to start construction in the middle of next year.
American Residential currently has the land for that development under contract from the Stadium Trust.
In addition, Ganzkow said they’d like to have a third project under development over the next three years. They’re currently investigating potential areas for development along Riverside Drive and the area between downtown and 21st Street.
Ganzkow said he felt the company’s non-downtown developments have been successful, but their passion lies closer to downtown.
“We’ve been involved with the suburban market and the urban market, and we’ve found that urban markets are very complicated and time-consuming,” he said. “But we believe that being able to give back something to the community and participate in the revitalization is exciting for us.”
The company is also considering building in the urban core of other cities, though they haven’t identified where yet.
American Residential Group’s downtown-area communities, which will remain with the company, include Lincoln Park at 18th Street and Carson Avenue, Renaissance Downtown at 11th Street and Denver Avenue, the Tribune Lofts at 20 E. Archer St., and the Metro at Brady at 10 E. Archer.
Lincoln Park was originally developed by Helm in 1984 for a different company, while the rest were built by American Residential. Tribune Lofts were made from the redeveloped former home of the Tulsa Tribune.
Helm said the properties were marketed for sale for four weeks before they entered into a contract with Weidner. He said the company received multiple offers, but went with Weidner because he felt the company would be a good fit for the residents and employees.
The purchase is Weidner’s first in the Tulsa area, though Helm said they’re looking for other communities in the area in which to buy.
In September, Weidner purchased Liberty Pointe Apartments near Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma City for $37.25 million.
All of Weidner’s Oklahoma transactions were brokered by Brandon Lamb and Tim McKay with Apartment Realty Advisors.

This is great news.

Are there renderings anywhere? With the former Hartford Commons starting next month someone has to have something.

Amazing news. 300 new apartments is a very nice augment..that is almost an additional third of the current apartment stock inside the IDL and it puts lots of new downtown residents in the East End and Greenwood Districts.  That and the aggressive start dates. Very good to hear this.

Can't wait to see the plan for the Greenwood apartments

Bring on the retail.

There was an artist's concept rendering in the Journal Record some time ago. Not sure if it's still relevant but here you go:

(http://journalrecord.com/files/2014/07/bb-elevations-07-18-14-300x159.jpg)

Updated: I just found this on the American Residential Group page, so the rendering above is still current as of July 2014.
The artist must like sports cars
http://www.argtulsa.com/pages/current-projects.asp (http://www.argtulsa.com/pages/current-projects.asp)

(http://www.argtulsa.com/pages/dynamic.asp?p=/uploaded/{03562A95-63A6-400F-98C7-1BB5725B931A}_Hartford1.jpg&w=1&mw=535&h=1&mh=265)

Great to have more living downtown.  As for retail, at least the Hartford Commons location, in that pic on their website, does not appear to have space for ground floor retail.  And that is fine, you don't want to have every building having ground floor retail space.  But this begs the question, Where are the retail corridors going to be?  

 Did a quick drive through the other day of some of the area near downtown OKC that has a lot of new development going in, including lots of housing.  What I noticed though is that scattered randomly throughout were a few small office buildings and some retail/restaurant offerings.  That is not going to work to create a vibrant street in any of those areas, nor will those retail/restaurants be able to do as well as if they were on a street with many shops/restaurants all along it.  You would see a row of apartments, then a shop, then more apartments, then perhaps an office building, then more apartments, then an isolated restaurant, a parking garage, etc.  Nobody walking around, because there is no real reason for them to walk around, no incentive, no "draw", etc.

Another city I was reading about a while back that is farther along development wise than we and OKC are were struggling with a new problem they were noticing.  They had already developed a good amount of new retail and restaurants in their downtown.... but had noticed that the developments were "spotty" and struggling and the street life they had hoped for still not materialize like they thought it would. Especially the retail component. They were looking at trying to come up with some ideas on how to connect these spotty developments and create a more thriving shopping/retail component for their downtown.

I want to expand in a couple years, open another location or a larger store.  Am glad to see these new developments go in, but still have no clue as to where the best place is going to be?  There is no zoning in our downtown to say "we would like this to be a thriving retail corridor".  My business, and those other shops scattered around downtown are not going to be able to reach their potential, staying isolated, scattered shops.  Every break in your retail/restaurant street fabric is essentially money lost.  I really really really wish we could zone, and or have incentives to encourage at least a few streets, at least 5 or 6 connected blocks worth, to be retail corridors.  Those will be the streets that will be super lively day in and day out and will be great corridors for any future transit connections.

Any idea what rent might be? I would love to live downtown. But 2 grand a month is a little out of reach.  :o

I was thinking about this not too long ago. The area around Home Depot seems like a natural urban retail corridor working its way both north along Elgin and into the East Village in the Nordam campus and West along 10th/11th towards TCC.

Actually there is plenty of room in the Home Depot parking lot to add additional (suburban style) retail.

I wish they were few stories taller (easy for me to spend someone else's money), but otherwise the design is ok.  I will be glad when more development pushes further south from the railroad tracks (as I type this, I can hear a train whistle blowing).

I noticed that the one story building at 2nd and Greenwood was demolished yesterday and that they are starting some dirt work on the lot where Hartford Commons will be. Not sure why I'm so excited about an apartment complex but I guess I am. Bring on the downtown dwellers!

2nd and Greenwood has "The Hartford Building" (or whatever the block long white building that we hoped would be TUs medschool and is owned by TDA is called now), Legends bar, and 2 emtpy lots.

Did you mean Greenwood and Archer?  If so, the single story building there was the Oklahoma Eagle - who's long time publisher died ~6 months ago.

Sorry, this was actually 2nd and Kenosha. The building faced Kenosha and is now a pile of rubble.

I would love to see this taller as well. The economics just aren't there for non wood apartment construction downtown yet. We are getting very very close though. Once that barrier is broke we should see some 10-15 story infill projects.

I'm at a loss of why the city isn't requiring them to put retail spaces in the corners along Greenwood at 2nd and especially 3rd. They are letting ARG create to much dead space.

I bet they aren't doing retail because I believe they've struggled with the retail in the Tribune projects.  But, I could be wrong.

Wouldn't surprise me. The difficulties of the retail at Tribune was due to them not knowing what they were doing. The depth is terrible, and the retail spaces have almost no visibility from Archer.

I think this new project should at least have one retail space at the corner of Greenwood and 2nd. It would be great for a corner store, coffee shop, or small bar. It would keep that entire area just being a dead space outside someone who is visiting someone there and has to park on the street and walk to the buildings front door.  :(

The AMLI Residential group in Austin builds a small C-store/bodega into everyone of their projects in and around downtown.  They carry a small amount of groceries and beer/wine.  I don't know why one of the downtown apartment buildings hasn't done this.  With the margin in multi-family (it is probably the best bet in CRE right now) currently I would have to think the carry cost of the complex owning and running a small store like this would work.  Obviously the beer/wine component won't work, but you could do at least low point beer.

Where exactly is this being built? I was driving around the area today and couldn't figure it out.

This isn't a bad idea to carry as an amenity to a property. Between rooftop pools, dog parks, and other very expensive things people build into projects, a corner store with staple items would be a great thing to include.


It's 2 blocks south of the Hogan Assessments building going up right now. There's kind of a crane thing sitting on the lot (at least there was last time I drove by). Urban 8 townhouses are going up on the corner of 3rd and Greenwood and the ARG project will be basically the rest of that block. They haven't poured any of the foundation or done much besides mix some of the dirt up.

Thanks. The framing is going up now on Urban 8. I was surprised at how significant the project looked. It will make a huge difference along 3rd. I can't wait to see this area when all the current projects are completed and occupied.

Dirt is moving!

That's really good news.

Now lets hope the slowing economy doesn't slow the second AR project at Archer and Elgin.

Sandworms!?

Could be...I see piles of dirt but not whatever piled it.

Moles and gophers.  They are abundant around here.   :(

Worm sign!

Walk without rhythm, it won't attract the worm ...

http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/realestate/massive-new-hartford-commons-apartment-complex-begins-construction-in-tulsa/article_34d0d004-0e3e-5431-9369-2fe02ab67408.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/realestate/massive-new-hartford-commons-apartment-complex-begins-construction-in-tulsa/article_34d0d004-0e3e-5431-9369-2fe02ab67408.html)

Yay! More customers!  Now if only it were a little more pleasant to walk from that part of downtown to mine.

Total units within the IDL of greater than two bedrooms seems to still hover around 0

Also looks like we're still sticking with the $1.5psf rent, but at 100% occupancy, one can imagine why.

Forms are being poured!

Has anyone walked around the new Edge at East Village project?  All-in-all, I'm tremendously excited about having more downtown housing going up on that site.  But the back of that building is truly terrible.  It's a huge, two decker parking garage with a long, low (like 50 feet) on ramp with bright flourescent lights and no attempt at beautification.  Most of it's back street frontage looks like an oversized shopping center loading dock.  It prettty much kills the future development potential for the lots to the north and east of the building, which is the natural spot for the next wave of growth in 5-10 years.  

Beyond that, like 50% of the lot is dedicated to that long, low, horribly ugly parking structure that doesn't even really look like a parking garage.  You could have easily fit an entire second apartment complex.  Or do something to conceal the parking structure.  Or at least give it a real streetwall, even if it is a parking garage, instead of this 50 foot on-ramp at a 15 degree incline.  Or do something to beautify the parking facility instead of just raw, poured concrete with hospital grade flourescent lighting.

It looks like the street landscaping will include trees which will help somewhat.

Then where should the "back of the building go for something that nearly fronts on four streets. I know Tulsa is no New York, but in New York for example there are loading docks and "back doors" all over the place on streets. It is a necessity. Not every single street in all of Manhattan is a commercial area. Now that being said, you will never see anything like this on any of the Avenues, or streets like 34th, 42nd & 57th. But on developments this large (entire city blocks) there has to be a back in most cases, particularly in commercial buildings.

yeah, even in Manhattan most of the side streets are pretty desolate.

There does need to be backs, but then again I feel like there are creative design solutions.  In the old part of downtown Tulsa and in places like Chicago you have the backs of buildings facing an alleyway where deliveries, garbage trucks, and city services can access the building (while the street front remains pleasant).  The building definitely needs a back and parking entrance, but does it have to be an entire 1/3 of a city block's street frontage?  

Especially because so much of that lot faces the back of Urban 8... you could have your parking garage on that side facing the back of the Urban 8 project rather than the street front on 2nd and Hartford.  You don't even have to lose any parking just resituate it on the site.

I doubt the sellers or buyers of Urban 8 would enjoy staring at the parking garage out the window of a $750,000 townhome.  Of the 4 sides of The Edge, the side with the parking garage is the least objectionable location for the parking.

Meh.  The view out of the back of those townhouses is their own parking lot anyway.  And it's better that the backward view from Urban 8 be the back of a garage vs the back of a building than the view from two blocks of street frontage be the garage. 

No, in Chicago they have the same thing, especially when the building fronts on several streets. In other words there are no alleys. Just like this development.

Here's one, many are directly accross the street from retail/restaurants. And all are pretty close to Michigan Avenue. That's just the way it will have to happen. It's not a bad problem to have. All though I would generally favor smaller much more granular developments, but hey, beggars can't be choosers.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8933812,-87.6210941,3a,75y,65.41h,85.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swwbCNl9ETRVNzI3pFzsn6w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8933812,-87.6210941,3a,75y,65.41h,85.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swwbCNl9ETRVNzI3pFzsn6w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8950751,-87.62547,3a,75y,72.81h,94.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxz8w56XT5DRIZOaggFfjLg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8950751,-87.62547,3a,75y,72.81h,94.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxz8w56XT5DRIZOaggFfjLg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.896073,-87.6254938,3a,75y,60.31h,82.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfeSrwj8Lsgj2QTnRcnDJxg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.896073,-87.6254938,3a,75y,60.31h,82.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfeSrwj8Lsgj2QTnRcnDJxg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)

Agreed. Certainly don't want to do 2nd or 3rd, and who in their right mind is going to design an apartment building that has its backside to the best views of the entire building? No brainer.

You can do something like this:

http://denverinfill.com/blog/tag/one-city-block

The building wraps around the entire city block.  The parking is internal on the ground level, accessed through a bay, and the interior courtyard is on the roof of the garage.  There's still a parking bay but the design hides 90% of the parking structure from the street. 

I haven't walked around them, does Hartford go through to 3rd or is that the entrance to the parking garage? 

That development has 100% underground parking. I'm no geologist, but that's not something that happens around here very often. I believe it has something to do with extremely shallow bed rock. Again, in my opinion this is a non-issue as Kenosha basically serves as an alley its entire length downtown.

and to SXSW, I believe Hartford between 2nd and 3rd has been eliminated entirely.

The Holiday Inn and Petroleum Club downtown both have underground parking. The municipal forum/courthouse area has a level (or two?) of underground parking (that is to say, under the top deck there is a layer that is really ground level. But under that there is another level or two of parking).  Otherwise, I can't think of any underground parking in Tulsa.

I hear different things on why we can't. I also see the above underground parking, basements, tunnels, and bowls that are below grade that don't seem to have issues. So maybe its a cultural or cost thing?

Underground parking is costly to construct, and it's costly to maintain, because it requires mechanical ventilation.

There's underground parking to the west of the Hyatt below Sampson Plaza and to the east below Williams Green.

ONEOK has underground parking in a garage between 6th-7th-Boulder-Cheyenne.

But I don't think the underground parking here is utilized to the magnitude it is in other places. For example I worked in a building in Dallas that has a  7 or 8 story underground garage. All be it this was the largest underground lot in the city, but there were plenty more 3, 4 or 5 story lots all over town.

I'm pretty sure all those places mentioned in Tulsa have no more than 2 levels and even some of those are utilizing fairly steep elevation grades.

It is drastically more expensive than above ground parking construction. But I still think it is a little more than market forces that limit this option in this area.

I don't think the Edge could support underground parking.  It's rare for a reason.  It's super expensive to build (around $100,000 per space) vs $20,000ish for garaged parking.

Boston has done a pretty good job of eliminating some of the scars on its downtown left by auto-centric infrastructure.  The Big Dig famously buried the interstate through downtown and turned it into an awesome linear park.  It only took like $20 billion in federal dollars and 20 years...

Also really neat is Post Office Square.  They tore down a parking garage and replaced it with an 8 story underground parking structure.  It's totally buried and almost completely hidden from the street.  On top of it is a very nice park and when you're on it you have no idea you're sitting on an eight story inverted parking garage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_Office_Square,_Boston

It's not possible in Tulsa (downtown Boston parking can cost you $60 per day) but still kind of cool.

Side note: Massachusettes also stopped accepting federal money for urban highway construction in the 1960s... all that money got turned towards building out the MBTA transit system and other improvements.  Pretty forward thinking for the time.  I wish we had done that. 

Is the garage entrance off 2nd then or a drive where Hartford used to be?

Garage entry is from Kenosha.

Bamboo is right, no entrance off 2nd. However, I think that is part of the rub, and even I'm a little on board with this. There is a considerable amount of garage that fronts 2nd street. Not wrapped in anything. That being said, to me it's not much different that the rest of the building as virtually none of the rest of the development has any commercial space anyway. SO in the end what's the difference. But that's the appalling part. 2nd street is a main commercial street. Yet, there is nothing on this development on 2nd street. And it's not far removed from all commercial activity. Even less removed once Santa Fe Square is completed. Doubly so if the building to the north is converted into whatever they were planning.

Meh. Not perfect. But in my opinion that block, and the projects on that block, are so dense that sometimes you sacrifice perfect urban design for purse density. As some people pointed out above, there are areas of great urban spaces that sacrificial this way for the density. That density then lends itself to the urban corridors that we love to inhabit.

Also worth pointing out that this garage is not in an area that is likely to be an urban corridor. Even if downtown continues to boom, areas will be left as backwaters. Which is fine! This parking garage has the back of the Hartford building just down the street, which then dead ends into Hogan Assessment and the tracks. Across the street is a grassy lot. Certainly the area can (and hopeful will) develop, but the East End has a few lots that can infill, down 3rd the lots around the Fur Shop will build in more and more (with the boxcars and redeveloped Channel 6), Santa Square will be a ton of infill the other way, the Nordam site... if the block across the street comes into that high of demand, the new development will need a lot or garage anyway.

So yeah, Hartford between 3rd and 1st downtown (its entire run), is not likely to be an attractive walking corridor - but I'm OK with that in the great scheme of things.

I believe the reason why so many are averse to underground parking in downtown is the same reason the Plymouth Fury capsule was full of water...the Arkansas river water table makes the soil in the area pretty slooshy...if that's a term.

I think it's better for the district to have the retail more clustered in this case along Elgin or on the periphery at 1st, 2nd and 3rd.  Elgin should be the "Main Street" though and eventually could be the main drag for entertainment downtown which connects to the ballpark and Brady, the other more arts-oriented entertainment area. 

Keep everything east of Greenwood residential or small commercial with the retail on the "east end" focused around 3rd & Kenosha which has formed kind of its own sub-district.

I went by earlier.  What's with the wide setback along Greenwood, for trees?  The Hartford building has some nice ones by the old parking lot there.  Hope they keep those when they build Hartford Commons.

It still feels isolated from the rest of downtown and Blue Dome.  Santa Fe Square should help pull this new development along Greenwood together.

The bank of the Arkansas River (Riverside Drive) is at about 640 feet. The Courthouse lawn is at 712 feet. The river is not getting in the way of parking garages downtown.
http://elevationmap.net/508-south-denver-ave-w-tulsa-ok-74103-usa?latlngs=(36.1495017639571,-95.99341750144958)

'

My point is that soil is a little like a sponge.  You don't have to go very deep to find water in that location.

I watched the digging of the basement of the Williams Tower - there was a lot of bedrock they got into, and it was a very deep hole.  Didn't see any groundwater seeps the times I went by there.  Would walk by from time to time since I worked downtown while they were building it.

Would be curious to know if they have water intrusion now....

Well, that and they hired a swimming pool contractor to build a vault.  Vaults generally keep water out, pools keep it in.  ;D

I've wondered about the setback myself.  I think it's a separate parcel, Lot 10 of the subdivision, about 40 feet wide.  Years ago, there was a thin building on the west side of the Midland Valley line, which ran through the site.  The building was either on the strip itself, or very near and parallel to it. 

According to the County Assessor's website, the TDA sold the strip of land in November 2015 for $88,000. 

In December 2014, the TDA sold the much larger parcel to the east of the strip along Greenwood.  Maybe, for some reason, the 11 months between those sales didn't allow enough time to incorporate the strip along Greenwood into the overall Edge and Urban 8 developments.  Or maybe the TDA had some special requirements for that strip of land pertaining to both developments.


Last time I looked, the Santa Fe Square proposal included a parking garage along Greenwood.  If it's built as the drawing indicates, the garage fronting a public sidewalk will not do much to improve walkability along Greenwood, except for providing some afternoon shade.  Blank garage walls along sidewalks don't enhance pedestrian friendliness.

Isn't the design still progressing for Santa Fe Square?  Hopefully they can add a retail space along Greenwood or at least design the garage in a way where it could be realistically added later on.  Or wrap the garage with apartments so even if there isn't retail on Greenwood there are "eyes on the street" and a more pleasant walk.


Maybe it could be made into a nicely landscaped pocket park.

I don't know.  Probably.  I'm basing my comment about the parking garage on the plan shown on page 2 of this pdf link (http://tulsanow.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Santa-Fe-Square-Retail-Brochure.pdf).


The Santa Fe Square garage needs at least one curb cut and driveway for access.  Except for any entries/exits, the garage should be wrapped, at least at sidewalk level as a minimum.  But I haven't seen any plans showing the proposed garage to be wrapped along Greenwood. 

It was for open space (and a few trees, according to the June 18, 2009 map shown on page 23 of Volume 2 of the Downtown Master Plan (https://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/109992/DAMPVolume2-11-1-10.pdf)).

The setback is a strip of land on the east side of Greenwood, forty feet wide, as I mentioned in a previous post.

The strip still may be intended as open space, but I don't know.  Since 2010, there have been various negotiations/agreements between the TDA and Land Legacy, and among the TDA, Tulsa Open Space Alliance (TOSA), Yvonne Hovell ( Urban 8 ), and The Edge developers.

In June 2015, it seems to me after reading this agreement (http://www.tulsadevelopmentauthority.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/6111-A-6-22-2015-TOSA-Urban8-Hartford-Commons-Agrmnt-1.pdf), both TOSA and the TDA agreed to the sale of the north 220 feet of the strip (abutting The Edge property) to The Edge owners and the south 80 feet of the strip (abutting the Urban 8 development) to Urban 8.

The June 2015 agreement refers to a Valentine's Day 2014 contract between the TDA and TOSA, which I've not seen.  However, the June 2015 agreement amended the February 2014 contract by deleting all references to "Construction Plans" in the 2014 TDA-TOSA contract.  (In the June 2015 agreement, see item 2.g.)  If "Construction Plans" in the 2014 TDA-TOSA contract related to plans for an urban park or open space or something similar, then those particular "construction plans" are no longer binding upon The Edge owners or Urban 8, as I see it.

If I can find the February 2014 TDA-TOSA contract, then I'll post what I discover.  There were at least four amendments to the contract, as best I can tell.

Anyway, the strip very well may become a small urban park, eventually.  From the assorted documents and World articles I've found online, for at least seven years, an urban park seems to me to have been the intended "development" there.  But I could be wrong, wrong, wrong about that.  25 years ago, I foolishly thought that Helmerich Park (http://www.tulsaworld.com/archives/it-s-officially-helmerich-park/article_929acc17-16fb-572f-94ed-6ef1fa838f2c.html) was intended to be a park, not an REI commercial development with a huge parking lot and buildings with blank walls facing the river.

Little did I know about Helmerich Park.  And little do I know about the 40 foot setback on the east side of Greenwood between 2nd and 3rd, but from what I've discovered today, I think issues related to buried fuel storage tanks and utility easements have arisen since the June 2015 agreement. 

A small parklet there would be nice.  At one time Land Legacy wanted to develop a linear park through the East End, not sure if this parcel was included or not.  But a few small parklets/green space like this could be or even one larger one with a playground for kids could help turn this into more of a family-friendly urban neighborhood.  Even the most urban neighborhoods in NYC have small parks with playgrounds.

I work for Land Legacy.

We had plans for lots of the East End of downtown. Most of it failed to materialize.

Any word on the sister project by American Residential over by ONEOK?  The View? 

I've heard that the project is complete, but it has been painted sort of an austere stealth-bomber, Empire-Strikes-Back black, so it's nearly impossible to see it.

Damn they're sneaky... that's some next level stuff.