The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Talk About Tulsa => Development & New Businesses => Topic started by: LandArchPoke on April 13, 2015, 08:47:29 pm



Title: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: LandArchPoke on April 13, 2015, 08:47:29 pm
I haven't seen a full rundown list of development projects in downtown, so thought I would create one - I don't think people really get how much construction is going on/planned downtown. Currently there's about $200 million in projects underway/in advanced planning stages.

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/540/HHAwu5.png) (https://imageshack.com/i/f0HHAwu5p)

Blue boxes highlight all the current infill sites.

Hogan Assessments Headquarters | 35,000 sq. ft. | $15 million

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/537/FdSNz4.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/exFdSNz4j)

Urban 8 | 8 row houses | $6 million

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/909/Prdd74.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/p9Prdd74j)

Hartford Commons | 162 Apartments | $25 Million

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/540/qT3psN.png) (https://imageshack.com/i/f0qT3psNp)

Gates Hardware Building Redevelopment | KSQ Architects Headquarters | $5.2 Million

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/538/05cfBs.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/ey05cfBsj)

Coliseum Apartments | 36 Apartments | $3 Million

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/673/1ZQduR.png) (https://imageshack.com/i/ip1ZQduRp)

Hartford Building Redevelopment | 90 Apartments | $20 Million

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/661/UViBYI.png) (https://imageshack.com/i/idUViBYIp)

International Harvest Building Redevelopment | Ross Group Headquarters | $9 Million

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/661/Cq2dKA.png) (https://imageshack.com/i/idCq2dKAp)

Fox Hotel & Universal Ford Building Redevelopment | 31 Apartments & Retail | $16 Million

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/913/arBpGE.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/pdarBpGEj)

Hampton Inn & Suites | 120 Rooms | $17 Million

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/673/CII0Zb.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/ipCII0Zbj)

Hilton Garden Inn | 134 Rooms | $17 Million

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/661/il2jfy.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/idil2jfyj)

Residence Inn | 100 Rooms | $9 Million

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/538/AfCDik.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/eyAfCDikj)

GreenArch Phase II | (N/A) Apartments | $(N/A) Million

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/538/rNhZIr.png) (https://imageshack.com/i/eyrNhZIrp)

The Dock (4th & Frankfurt) | 20,000 sq. ft. of Retail/Office | $(N/A) Million

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/911/mZpliN.png) (https://imageshack.com/i/pbmZpliNp)

Holiday Inn Express | (N/A) Rooms | $(N/A) Million

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/673/roptdk.png) (https://imageshack.com/i/iproptdkp)

YMCA Building Redevelopment | 82 units | $10 Million

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/537/JxVm3N.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/exJxVm3Nj)

Tulsa Central Library Renovation | $20 Million

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/540/ojF6rG.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/f0ojF6rGj)

Riverside Apartments - Bosamada Group | 240 units | 20+ Million

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/540/coZArp.png) (https://imageshack.com/i/f0coZArpp)

8:10 Building | 80,000 sq. ft. Office/Retail | $10 Million

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/538/ejbFuZ.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/eyejbFuZj)

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/537/U6mo38.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/exU6mo38j)

Harrington Lofts | ~20 units | $(N/A) Million

Central Park Development - 6th & Peoria | ~80 new units in phases

Brady Village Project - NWC Archer & Elgin | Mixed-use (Marriott Towneplace Suites, 24,000 sq. ft. Office, 18,000 sq. ft. Retail) | ~$20 Million

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/661/rUXHK0.jpg)

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/633/yx4KLg.jpg)

American Residential Group Project 2 - SEC Archer & Elgin | 200-250 Units | $20 Million +

OK POP! Museum | $20 Million

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/540/TY81KY.jpg)

Kanbar Properties | 300 Apartments | Transok Building, Adams Building, W 5th Street | Transok Building currently under construction

Transok Building
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/540/dVnF9O.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/f0dVnF9Oj)

111 W 5th Street
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/540/SZIk82.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/f0SZIk82j)

Adams Building
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/673/8ew4xW.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/ip8ew4xWj)

Best Western Select | 82 Rooms | $5 million

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/537/nHzcJ3.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/exnHzcJ3j)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: ZYX on April 13, 2015, 08:54:36 pm
Thank you! Several of the projects you've listed are new to me.

Is that Brady Village project the same one mentioned in a different thread?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: LandArchPoke on April 13, 2015, 09:01:14 pm
Thank you! Several of the projects you've listed are new to me.

Is that Brady Village project the same one mentioned in a different thread?

I have a rendering of this floating around somewhere - just can't seem to find it tonight. This is the Wil Wilkens project, I believe it has been talked about on here before. It has been a very long planning period for this project though, but I'm hopeful it will happen.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: davideinstein on April 13, 2015, 09:06:18 pm
Here comes the development hook from the Brady past Greenwood and into the east side of Downtown!


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on April 13, 2015, 09:43:09 pm
Went downtown Saturday afternoon looking for food.  Found huge crowds everywhere - I suspect the soccer championships contributed to that - but it is always busy even without.

There is so much to do/see/attend/experience downtown these days - we have nothing to be ashamed of and certainly aren't second fiddle to OKC.  And this shows that it should just keep getting better!





Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TheArtist on April 14, 2015, 07:21:39 am
I think you forgot the TransOk building redevelopment into apartments and retail which is underway right now.  The same group is also doing the Adams Building and 111 W Fifth. Also in the works is the Enterprise building.  Nice the other day I looked out from my store across the park and saw lights and work going on across the park and then noticed lights on in the Enterprise building as well. Would really like to see a new restaurant or two in that area, and of course a DECOPOLIS expansion within the next two years.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: carltonplace on April 14, 2015, 07:28:52 am
Saturday night downtown was insane. There were crowds at the Driller's game, at the BOK and the new Tiki Bar: the Saturn Room was packed.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on April 14, 2015, 08:13:23 am
Saturday night downtown was insane. There were crowds at the Driller's game, at the BOK and the new Tiki Bar: the Saturn Room was packed.


Went back to the suburbs....didn't want of fight it.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on April 14, 2015, 08:13:53 am
I have a rendering of this floating around somewhere - just can't seem to find it tonight. This is the Wil Wilkens project, I believe it has been talked about on here before. It has been a very long planning period for this project though, but I'm hopeful it will happen.

According to this article a few days ago, Wilkin’s new project is a 96 room Marriott TownePlace Suites with 24,000 square feet of office space and 18,000 square feet of retail and a 160 space parking garage.

http://www.ktul.com/story/28767307/development-home-runs-surround-oneok-field


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: rdj on April 14, 2015, 08:27:17 am
I didn't see First Street Lofts on the list?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: carltonplace on April 14, 2015, 10:01:05 am
I didn't see First Street Lofts on the list?

But POP Museum is. Very telling.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: ZYX on April 14, 2015, 10:18:24 am
The article mentions 200 residential units on Archer across from the ballpark that will break ground later this year. What is that project? I hadn't heard of anything.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on April 14, 2015, 10:23:51 am
The article mentions 200 residential units on Archer across from the ballpark that will break ground later this year. What is that project? I hadn't heard of anything.

Is that the other Green Arch?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DTowner on April 14, 2015, 10:33:49 am
Another planned hotel announced - on parking lot east of YMCA.  A lot of hotels are planned, but it will be interesting to see how many get built as long as oil price stays below $50.

Yet another new downtown Tulsa hotel planned, this time near Mayo Hotel

Posted: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 12:00 am | Updated: 9:35 am, Tue Apr 14, 2015.

By ROBERT EVATT World Business Writer | 6 comments


Future travelers may not lack for places to stay in downtown Tulsa, as six hotels are now under development.

The sixth entrant is a Residence Inn by Marriott. Tulsa County construction permits indicate that construction has been approved at 202 W. Fifth Street, which is now a parking lot behind the old YMCA building. The location is diagonally across the Fifth and Cheyenne Avenue intersection from the Mayo Hotel.


http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/downtown/yet-another-new-downtown-tulsa-hotel-planned-this-time-near/article_bfcef537-a412-54a2-b211-7a0255d0efe8.html



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on April 14, 2015, 11:00:40 am
The article mentions 200 residential units on Archer across from the ballpark that will break ground later this year. What is that project? I hadn't heard of anything.

That would have to be American Residential's next project. They said some time ago that after Hartford Commons got going (which it has) they would then work next on property they own by Oneok with a planned start date of summer 2015.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: carltonplace on April 14, 2015, 11:34:30 am
Another planned hotel announced - on parking lot east of YMCA.  A lot of hotels are planned, but it will be interesting to see how many get built as long as oil price stays below $50.

Yet another new downtown Tulsa hotel planned, this time near Mayo Hotel

Posted: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 12:00 am | Updated: 9:35 am, Tue Apr 14, 2015.

By ROBERT EVATT World Business Writer | 6 comments


Future travelers may not lack for places to stay in downtown Tulsa, as six hotels are now under development.

The sixth entrant is a Residence Inn by Marriott. Tulsa County construction permits indicate that construction has been approved at 202 W. Fifth Street, which is now a parking lot behind the old YMCA building. The location is diagonally across the Fifth and Cheyenne Avenue intersection from the Mayo Hotel.


http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/downtown/yet-another-new-downtown-tulsa-hotel-planned-this-time-near/article_bfcef537-a412-54a2-b211-7a0255d0efe8.html



The street presence of this hotel in the proposal is stunning. I hope it looks this good.
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/538/AfCDik.jpg)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DTowner on April 14, 2015, 02:00:49 pm
The lady in yellow dancing by herself will definitely add to the ambience!


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on April 14, 2015, 02:32:38 pm
The lady in yellow dancing by herself will definitely add to the ambience!

Doing the “Funky Chicken” no less!


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: ZYX on April 14, 2015, 03:01:06 pm
The street presence of this hotel in the proposal is stunning. I hope it looks this good.
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/538/AfCDik.jpg)

The TW is a little late to this, I've seen that rendering for months. But yes, I had the same reaction when I saw the rendering. It looks great. I'm glad to see that they've gotten permits and should begin construction soon.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: ZYX on April 14, 2015, 03:04:21 pm
Is that the other Green Arch?

I don't think so, the article said right across the street from the Oneok playground.
That would have to be American Residential's next project. They said some time ago that after Hartford Commons got going (which it has) they would then work next on property they own by Oneok with a planned start date of summer 2015.

I hope so. That would be fantastic for the Brady. I would have thought that we'd have seen renderings by now, however, and heard more about it.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on April 14, 2015, 03:13:14 pm
I don't think so, the article said right across the street from the Oneok playground.
I hope so. That would be fantastic for the Brady. I would have thought that we'd have seen renderings by now, however, and heard more about it.

I think it is, here's the article from last November on it:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/technology/developer-plans-new-downtown-apartments-completes-million-sale-apartment-complexes/article_4feb26a0-4263-5941-918e-abe7aba9b234.html

Quote
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.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: ZYX on April 14, 2015, 03:21:44 pm
Yeah, reading that article that makes total sense. Hopefully we see renderings soon.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: LandArchPoke on April 14, 2015, 07:33:41 pm
But POP Museum is. Very telling.

The POP Museum will likely be finished before First Street Lofts.

Artist - I didn't include the Kanbar projects (Transok, 5th Street, & Adams) just because I don't trust Kanbar as much as I don't trust Sager to do a legitimate project. I will have to walk by Transok to see if they are under construction there... I would be very happy if they are! I haven't heard about anything going on with the Enterprise building either, but that would be great if they are about to start construction on it too!

* Updated the original post - I found the renderings of the Brady Village Project, and higher quality 8:10 building renderings.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: ZYX on April 14, 2015, 09:20:55 pm

* Updated the original post - I found the renderings of the Brady Village Project, and higher quality 8:10 building renderings.

Wow, that looks great. The only thing that I would change is what appears to be an EIFS cap on the top, but really, that looks awesome.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: carltonplace on April 15, 2015, 06:54:29 am
LandArchPoke, you have the 120 Brady Village project listed at the NWC 1st and Greenwood but isn't this going in across from the Ball Park in front of the Rusty Crane at NWC Archer and Elgin? Then the ARG project 2 will be on the SEC of Archer and Elgin?

That Ball Park sure hasn't made any impact in this neighborhood has it?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: LandArchPoke on April 15, 2015, 07:29:25 am
LandArchPoke, you have the 120 Brady Village project listed at the NWC 1st and Greenwood but isn't this going in across from the Ball Park in front of the Rusty Crane at NWC Archer and Elgin? Then the ARG project 2 will be on the SEC of Archer and Elgin?

That Ball Park sure hasn't made any impact in this neighborhood has it?

Ah yes - my brain was thinking Archer/Elgin and wrote 1st/Greenwood. Thanks for pointing that out, and I changed it.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: carltonplace on April 15, 2015, 07:53:58 am
Speaking of the NWC of 1st and Greenwood. I saw a team working on the roof of that empty building.

I hope this means development.

(https://cbks1.google.com/cbk?output=thumbnail&cb_client=maps_sv&thumb=2&thumbfov=120&ll=36.157704,-95.985202&yaw=242.5&thumbpegman=1&w=300&h=118)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on April 15, 2015, 08:50:50 am
Speaking of the NWC of 1st and Greenwood. I saw a team working on the roof of that empty building.

I hope this means development.

(https://cbks1.google.com/cbk?output=thumbnail&cb_client=maps_sv&thumb=2&thumbfov=120&ll=36.157704,-95.985202&yaw=242.5&thumbpegman=1&w=300&h=118)

I saw this too.  It would be nice if all of the buildings on the block were functional.  The neighborhood is full of life with the Fleet Feet/Lee's redevelopment, Albert G's, and now Ross Group, and hopefully soon Hartford Building.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: carltonplace on April 15, 2015, 02:50:59 pm
And if that giant parking lot could be developed.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: ZYX on April 15, 2015, 03:17:52 pm
And if that giant parking lot could be developed.

Nevertheless, I'm glad that the parking lot is now the exception as opposed to the rule.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on April 15, 2015, 03:30:29 pm
And if that giant parking lot could be developed.

Bomasada or some such company will grab that before too long. It's too good a location.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on April 15, 2015, 04:09:54 pm
And if that giant parking lot could be developed.

I'd love to see a soccer stadium take over the lot.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: ZYX on April 15, 2015, 05:20:04 pm
I'd love to see a soccer stadium take over the lot.

I'm not sure there's any way that could be done without ruining the feel of the district IMO. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a soccer stadium near downtown, but I think it would go better somewhere outside the IDL, though I don't know where. The east part of downtown is turning into Tulsa's first real urban neighborhood. A large stadium would ruin the "neighborhood feel" of the area.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: LandArchPoke on April 15, 2015, 08:30:34 pm
Bomasada or some such company will grab that before too long. It's too good a location.

Rumor has it there is a large mixed-use project in talks to be built here. Office building (probably 200,000 sq. ft. or more) would go at the SWC of the parking lot @ 2nd/Elgin. Rest would be multi-family (ARG) and would build 600-700 units in phases with the first one being about 250 units. I personally haven't seen the renderings (I know people who have), but it wouldn't surprise me if this is further along than many people think. I've heard rumors the Laredo has been sniffing around for a new site downtown because they are extremely tired of dealing with Kanbar. I've also heard that Reasors is working on an urban concept store for either this site or for the Synder's Hartford building redevelopment.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on April 16, 2015, 07:06:56 am
Quote
I've also heard that Reasors is working on an urban concept store for either this site or for the Synder's Hartford building redevelopment.

Too bad they can't test out their urban concept store by building up to the sidewalk at 41st & Peoria.

Other store types I'd like to see converted to urban layouts for downtown, specifically that giant parking lot at 2nd & Elgin:

-A QuikTrip with the pumps behind the main store. Heck anything that sells cigarettes late at night. Which leads me too...

-Walgreens/CVS, or just a pharmacy.

-Bueno. Because why not.


Title: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: AdamsHall on April 16, 2015, 09:06:21 am
LAP, thanks for the thread and effort.  Nicely done.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: davideinstein on April 16, 2015, 02:05:58 pm
I'm not sure there's any way that could be done without ruining the feel of the district IMO. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a soccer stadium near downtown, but I think it would go better somewhere outside the IDL, though I don't know where. The east part of downtown is turning into Tulsa's first real urban neighborhood. A large stadium would ruin the "neighborhood feel" of the area.

Does Fenway ruin Boston?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: hello on April 16, 2015, 03:17:28 pm
Quote
I've also heard that Reasors is working on an urban concept store for either this site or for the Synder's Hartford building redevelopment.

Oh please let this happen!

I just moved into the Brady and love being able to walk everywhere (work and play). And while 15th and Lewis is not far from downtown it requires a car when I'd really like to be able walk to get my groceries as well.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on April 16, 2015, 04:02:53 pm
...I didn't include the Kanbar projects (Transok, 5th Street, & Adams) just because I don't trust Kanbar as much as I don't trust Sager to do a legitimate project... I will have to walk by Transok to see if they are under construction there... I would be very happy if they are!

I work near the TransOK and can happily report it is UNDER CONSTRUCTION. They have the door open most days and crews doing tear out. It appears they are taking pains to remove crap (aluminium studs, drywall, etc.) and save key elements (brass fixtures, elevators doors, etc.). At least so far.  It isn't gang busters or anything, but they have had a crew of 5-6 guys filing up haul-aways and recycling trucks (aluminium studs) at a steady place from what I can tell. The AC was running in the building the other day (or so it seemed from the cool air coming out of the open doors onto 6th).

Add it to the list!


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Aqxea on April 16, 2015, 07:23:57 pm
Anyone know the status of this building on the corner of 1st & Elgin?  I think it would be perfect for a grocery store. 

(http://i.imgur.com/Rnd9gLv.jpg)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on April 16, 2015, 07:41:33 pm
Anyone know the status of this building on the corner of 1st & Elgin?  I think it would be perfect for a grocery store. 

According to Amanda DeCort, executive director of the Tulsa Foundation for Architecture, it's currently used to store light bulbs.  Per this article: http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/realestate/full-of-promise-many-of-tulsa-s-empty-buildings-ripe/article_d4f83cf5-6333-5dbc-8ecc-72d2298001da.html


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: LandArchPoke on April 16, 2015, 07:44:57 pm
Too bad they can't test out their urban concept store by building up to the sidewalk at 41st & Peoria.

Other store types I'd like to see converted to urban layouts for downtown, specifically that giant parking lot at 2nd & Elgin:

-A QuikTrip with the pumps behind the main store. Heck anything that sells cigarettes late at night. Which leads me too...

-Walgreens/CVS, or just a pharmacy.

-Bueno. Because why not.

The big problem with the 41st & Peoria location is they don't own most of the street frontage there, Coney Islander does. Plus that building wasn't in terrible shape, so I doubt they even thought about demoing it to do new construction.

I work near the TransOK and can happily report it is UNDER CONSTRUCTION. They have the door open most days and crews doing tear out. It appears they are taking pains to remove crap (aluminium studs, drywall, etc.) and save key elements (brass fixtures, elevators doors, etc.). At least so far.  It isn't gang busters or anything, but they have had a crew of 5-6 guys filing up haul-aways and recycling trucks (aluminium studs) at a steady place from what I can tell. The AC was running in the building the other day (or so it seemed from the cool air coming out of the open doors onto 6th).

Add it to the list!

Awesome, thanks for the update. Glad they are following through on this. It is odd that out of most of their empty portfolio they've picked the Adams building to turn into apartments. I think this building is almost full of office tenants - so they will be kicking all of them out... just doesn't make sense to me. I've also heard they want to turn Philcade into residential - which would mean IBM would have to leave too.

* I updated the first post some too. Added pictures of the Kanbar buildings, and I forgot the Best Western Select that is about to open by OSU Medical Center.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: LandArchPoke on April 16, 2015, 07:45:49 pm
Anyone know the status of this building on the corner of 1st & Elgin?  I think it would be perfect for a grocery store. 

(http://i.imgur.com/Rnd9gLv.jpg)

Agreed. Or this would be a great location for a full CVS or Walgreens, and then turn the upper floor into office space.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: ZYX on April 16, 2015, 08:56:55 pm
Does Fenway ruin Boston?

This would be nowhere near as iconic as Fenway.

Besides, my point is that I don't think sticking a massive building that will just be dead space 90% of the time right in the middle of a neighborhood is a good idea. Oneok is off by the highway, BOK was put in a lot with almost no development around it. Northeast downtown is quickly becoming one of the most active areas in the city. It will fill in regardless, there's no need to "incentivize" development with another stadium.

I love soccer and would love to see us have a stadium, but not in Blue Dome.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: ZYX on April 16, 2015, 09:01:39 pm
Rumor has it there is a large mixed-use project in talks to be built here. Office building (probably 200,000 sq. ft. or more) would go at the SWC of the parking lot @ 2nd/Elgin. Rest would be multi-family (ARG) and would build 600-700 units in phases with the first one being about 250 units. I personally haven't seen the renderings (I know people who have), but it wouldn't surprise me if this is further along than many people think. I've heard rumors the Laredo has been sniffing around for a new site downtown because they are extremely tired of dealing with Kanbar. I've also heard that Reasors is working on an urban concept store for either this site or for the Synder's Hartford building redevelopment.

I'd like to see a developer continue Frankfort through the block, but close it to cars. It would help connect the two sides of the district and could have a cool atmosphere with outdoor patios, seating, etc.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on April 16, 2015, 10:04:04 pm
Does Fenway ruin Boston?


Fenway was not downtown when it was built.  Bad analogy.





Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: rdj on April 17, 2015, 07:11:21 am
Rumor has it there is a large mixed-use project in talks to be built here. Office building (probably 200,000 sq. ft. or more) would go at the SWC of the parking lot @ 2nd/Elgin. Rest would be multi-family (ARG) and would build 600-700 units in phases with the first one being about 250 units. I personally haven't seen the renderings (I know people who have), but it wouldn't surprise me if this is further along than many people think. I've heard rumors the Laredo has been sniffing around for a new site downtown because they are extremely tired of dealing with Kanbar. I've also heard that Reasors is working on an urban concept store for either this site or for the Synder's Hartford building redevelopment.

The Hartford Building has been the grocery store site from what I've heard.  Even with that opening, I still think the CBD/Deco District can support a bodega style grocery or two.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on April 17, 2015, 10:33:04 am
Rumor has it there is a large mixed-use project in talks to be built here. Office building (probably 200,000 sq. ft. or more) would go at the SWC of the parking lot @ 2nd/Elgin. Rest would be multi-family (ARG) and would build 600-700 units in phases with the first one being about 250 units. I personally haven't seen the renderings (I know people who have), but it wouldn't surprise me if this is further along than many people think. I've heard rumors the Laredo has been sniffing around for a new site downtown because they are extremely tired of dealing with Kanbar. I've also heard that Reasors is working on an urban concept store for either this site or for the Synder's Hartford building redevelopment.

With life completely surrounding it, I wouldn't mind seeing another Guthrie Green style park go in there, but maybe I'm getting greedy because I really love Guthrie Green.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on April 17, 2015, 10:34:27 am
Anyone know the status of this building on the corner of 1st & Elgin?  I think it would be perfect for a grocery store. 

(http://i.imgur.com/Rnd9gLv.jpg)

There's a tarp on part of the roof so it seems to be in need of work anyway.  It might be the most underutilized space in downtown.  You would think the property value is high enough now to entice the owner to sell or redevelop.  It can't be bringing in much income if its just storing lightbulbs.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: saintnicster on April 17, 2015, 10:49:39 am
You would think the property value is high enough now to entice the owner to sell or redevelop. 
Not really.  See - First Street Lofts as an example :(


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Townsend on April 17, 2015, 11:30:54 am
Not really.  See - First Street Lofts as an example :(

I've wondered if Sager has concerns of jail time if he does anything with that building but pretend to be working on it.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: SXSW on April 18, 2015, 04:24:20 pm
I'd like to see a developer continue Frankfort through the block, but close it to cars. It would help connect the two sides of the district and could have a cool atmosphere with outdoor patios, seating, etc.

Great idea especially if there is residential on both sides.  It could almost be like an alley but with pavers and trees.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Breadburner on April 19, 2015, 10:08:07 am

Fenway was not downtown when it was built.  Bad analogy.





Lol...Wut....Where do you come up with this $hit......


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on April 19, 2015, 07:04:58 pm
Lol...Wut....Where do you come up with this $hit......


Somewhere you have never experienced - in search of knowledge....



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: LeGenDz on April 20, 2015, 12:03:10 pm
Rumor has it there is a large mixed-use project in talks to be built here. Office building (probably 200,000 sq. ft. or more) would go at the SWC of the parking lot @ 2nd/Elgin. Rest would be multi-family (ARG) and would build 600-700 units in phases with the first one being about 250 units. I personally haven't seen the renderings (I know people who have), but it wouldn't surprise me if this is further along than many people think. I've heard rumors the Laredo has been sniffing around for a new site downtown because they are extremely tired of dealing with Kanbar. I've also heard that Reasors is working on an urban concept store for either this site or for the Synder's Hartford building redevelopment.

Look something like this? ;)

(http://s1.postimg.org/okq9503ny/downtown2.jpg)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on April 20, 2015, 12:15:15 pm
Look something like this? ;)

(http://s1.postimg.org/okq9503ny/downtown2.jpg)

Wow. Thanks

Any renderings of the AMR project by Oneok hidden anywhere?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: SXSW on April 20, 2015, 12:55:43 pm
Look something like this? ;)

(http://s1.postimg.org/okq9503ny/downtown2.jpg)

That is pretty cool, too bad Frankfort doesn't cut through but overall a nice plan.  Hopefully the Elgin and 2nd frontage will have retail space in the office building.  Keep Elgin the focus for additional retail/restaurant/entertainment options as we see more infill in that area and towards 5th.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on April 20, 2015, 01:03:32 pm
That is pretty cool, too bad Frankfort doesn't cut through but overall a nice plan.  Hopefully the Elgin and 2nd frontage will have retail space in the office building.  Keep Elgin the focus for additional retail/restaurant/entertainment options as we see more infill in that area and towards 5th.

I like that it hides the parking garage inside the residential sections. Even if a lot of the street frontage isn't retail, at least it's residential and not just the dead blank wall of a parking garage.



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TheArtist on April 20, 2015, 03:48:16 pm
That rendering looks great.  I kind of like where you can look down a street and see a building at the end, aka Boston Ave, makes it feel more urban and big city like, but I also like that they have given you two pedestrian corridors to still go through to the street on the other side without having to go too far around.  Oh, and the fountain at the end of Frankfort to add a nice end of street view is a a nice touch. If that corner spot were up in the next year or two I might be fighting for it as a place to expand DECOPOLIS.  



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: SXSW on April 21, 2015, 08:30:40 am
That rendering looks great.  I kind of like where you can look down a street and see a building at the end, aka Boston Ave, makes it feel more urban and big city like, but I also like that they have given you two pedestrian corridors to still go through to the street on the other side without having to go too far around.  Oh, and the fountain at the end of Frankfort to add a nice end of street view is a a nice touch. If that corner spot were up in the next year or two I might be fighting for it as a place to expand DECOPOLIS.  

It looks like outdoor seating next to that fountain the rendering.  So maybe there are a couple retail spaces on 2nd around this small "plaza" at Frankfort next to Lee's.  Elgin and Greenwood should definitely both have retail frontage.

Honestly if this project is built like shown it will completely change the entire feel of the Blue Dome.  That is a massive hole that would be filled with a lot of new residents a couple hundred office workers along with the new retail and enhanced streetscapes along Elgin, 1st, 2nd and Greenwood.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: bacjz00 on April 21, 2015, 09:50:04 am
Those renderings look great!!

Anyone know when they will do something more with the area to the north and east of McNellie's and Albert G's, that is currently gravel parking?   It looks like that whole block from Elgin to Greenwood south of the railroad tracks is owned by the same group, not sure if both McNellie's and Albert G's are leasing the space or how that works.  Would like to see some more restaurants in that area and with this new residential development it seems like a no-brainer.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on April 28, 2015, 09:27:00 am
"Additional projects on the horizon include the 40,000-square-foot Bacon and Son building at 1st Street and Lansing Avenue, recently purchased by local developer Michael Sager..."

http://gtrnews.com/greater-tulsa-reporter/13447/area-districts-see-development


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on April 28, 2015, 09:31:03 am
"Additional projects on the horizon include the 40,000-square-foot Bacon and Son building at 1st Street and Lansing Avenue, recently purchased by local developer Michael Sager..."

http://gtrnews.com/greater-tulsa-reporter/13447/area-districts-see-development

Developer? You must be kidding.

It's bad news when Sager is involved in a Project building. Damn thief needs to finish the First Street Lofts and pay the city back. He should be prosecuted at this point. I wonder how much in "management fees" he's taken out of that building.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: LandArchPoke on April 30, 2015, 12:44:50 am
"Additional projects on the horizon include the 40,000-square-foot Bacon and Son building at 1st Street and Lansing Avenue, recently purchased by local developer Michael Sager..."

http://gtrnews.com/greater-tulsa-reporter/13447/area-districts-see-development

He's bought 2-3 buildings in the Pearl District recently too.

If he has the equity to buy these properties why is the City not suing him over the Blue Dome property? The City really needs to stand up and do something about this - he is holding up funds that could be used for other downtown housing projects. He's 100% taking advantage of tax payers and he's calling the City's bluff, it's really sad.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: carltonplace on April 30, 2015, 10:15:22 am
He's not going to do anything with this building...he is just going to sit on it until the price doubles.



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: LandArchPoke on April 30, 2015, 02:23:04 pm
He's not going to do anything with this building...he is just going to sit on it until the price doubles.



He's still burning a lot of cash to buy these properties. Cash that should be going to repay the money he's stole from taxpayers. Again, I do not get why the city has not done something about this. Especially when he's so flagrantly throwing money at "other projects"


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: LandArchPoke on April 30, 2015, 02:27:51 pm
Also, the Enterprise building did sell recently - Rivercity Development bought it. So Artist, I think you said you saw people cleaning out the property - and it might be under construction soon. Supposedly it will be turned into lofts along with 400 S. Boston which is slated to become 48 units (which is owned by Rivercity too).

I'll update the front page shortly with the Davenport Lofts project too.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TheArtist on April 30, 2015, 04:53:59 pm
 So Sager, who as I gather, does not seem to like zoning and fights against it downtown because he owns property there, now owns property and has a say in the Pearl District zoning?  May not bode well.   


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TheArtist on April 30, 2015, 05:00:28 pm
Also, the Enterprise building did sell recently - Rivercity Development bought it. So Artist, I think you said you saw people cleaning out the property - and it might be under construction soon. Supposedly it will be turned into lofts along with 400 S. Boston which is slated to become 48 units (which is owned by Rivercity too).

I'll update the front page shortly with the Davenport Lofts project too.

I really want to talk to them before they get too far along with any plans on that ground floor space in the Enterprise Building.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: LandArchPoke on April 30, 2015, 07:16:16 pm
I really want to talk to them before they get too far along with any plans on that ground floor space in the Enterprise Building.


Give the guys at Rivercity Development a call. Give me a PM if you can't find any contacts for them and I'm sure I could dig them up for you.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: rdj on May 05, 2015, 07:41:07 am
Hunt Hawkins

http://www.rcdtulsa.com/


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on May 05, 2015, 11:05:48 am
I thought the Bacon and Son building was torn down? Some building in that area was within the last year or so.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on May 05, 2015, 11:19:38 am
I thought the Bacon and Son building was torn down? Some building in that area was within the last year or so.

Torn down, owned by Sager. Same difference.



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: bacjz00 on May 06, 2015, 09:27:12 pm
So...about that gravel parking lot east of McNellies/Albert G's and the building towards the east end of that same block.

Anyone have any ideas on if/how that may get developed?

Sorry to breakup the Sager hatefest


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: ZYX on May 06, 2015, 09:40:01 pm
So...about that gravel parking lot east of McNellies/Albert G's and the building towards the east end of that same block.

Anyone have any ideas on if/how that may get developed?

Sorry to breakup the Sager hatefest

Surely somebody has had some back door discussions about that lot. That space is quickly becoming prime.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: dsjeffries on May 07, 2015, 07:10:12 am
So...about that gravel parking lot east of McNellies/Albert G's and the building towards the east end of that same block.

Anyone have any ideas on if/how that may get developed?

Sorry to breakup the Sager hatefest

The McNellie's and Albert G's buildings and the gravel lot behind and beside the buildings are all on a single parcel, and that's owned by Team Properties LLC. According to the Secretary of State, that LLC is owned by Glenn Strobel, but the name is inactive.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: saintnicster on May 07, 2015, 01:38:23 pm
So...about that gravel parking lot east of McNellies/Albert G's and the building towards the east end of that same block.

Anyone have any ideas on if/how that may get developed?
I'm hoping that they hold onto it, and at least repair it.  It's the only lot inside the IDL that I'm aware of that isn't owned/managed by either American or Central.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: sgrizzle on May 07, 2015, 04:03:51 pm
My "If I had a billion dollars" idea involves buying out both companies, shuttering most lots and building limited garages. Easier to pull off when you control supply.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: carltonplace on May 11, 2015, 08:30:47 am
if the ground up construction momentum continues these surface lots won't make economic sense for much longer. if Central and American parking want to be a part of the future in downtown they will jump on the bandwagon and build some structured parking (they won't).

I think it's also important for the city to ratify one of the many downtown development plans or to create and implement some amalgam of the best parts of them. We will need parking and we will need shuttles of some sort from that parking to the event centers at a minimum.

I went to both concerts at the BOK this weekend and it is clear that the current free for all drive and park process is not sustainable. So glad that I live walking distance away and know to use the shuttle from the Ambassador Hotel to the BOK.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Townsend on May 11, 2015, 11:46:26 am
"Hail Mary Pass" Attempt for OKPops

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/hail-mary-pass-attempt-okpops (http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/hail-mary-pass-attempt-okpops)

(http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kwgs/files/styles/card_280/public/201303/OKPOP-2.jpg)

Quote
At the 11th hour of the legislative session, Senate President Pro-Tem Brian Bingman  of Sapulpa is considering legislation that would create an Oklahoma Museum of Popular Culture in Tulsa. It would be built in the Brady Arts District.

Bingman's plan would use revenue from the Oklahoma History Center bonds, once the center is paid for, to finance bonds for OKPops.

Bingman says his plan has no connection to the half-finished Indian Cultural Center in Oklahoma City. It still lacks $40-million to finish construction.

Bingman says OKPops has a good business plan, would be self-sustaining and would not need on-going state funding.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: sgrizzle on May 11, 2015, 03:11:54 pm
"Hail Mary Pass" Attempt for OKPops

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/hail-mary-pass-attempt-okpops (http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/hail-mary-pass-attempt-okpops)

(http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kwgs/files/styles/card_280/public/201303/OKPOP-2.jpg)


If approved, it opens in 3 years.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on May 11, 2015, 03:43:42 pm
if the ground up construction momentum continues these surface lots won't make economic sense for much longer. if Central and American parking want to be a part of the future in downtown they will jump on the bandwagon and build some structured parking (they won't).

I think it's also important for the city to ratify one of the many downtown development plans or to create and implement some amalgam of the best parts of them. We will need parking and we will need shuttles of some sort from that parking to the event centers at a minimum.

I went to both concerts at the BOK this weekend and it is clear that the current free for all drive and park process is not sustainable. So glad that I live walking distance away and know to use the shuttle from the Ambassador Hotel to the BOK.

I've been to plenty of shows and there is more than enough parking to accommodate BOK Center events.  The only people who complain either have some moral imperative that prevents them from paying to park and/or have a problem walking a few blocks.  The Central garage north of the BOK Tower never has more than a handful of spots taken and is only a few blocks walk.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TeeDub on May 12, 2015, 09:05:46 am
I've been to plenty of shows and there is more than enough parking to accommodate BOK Center events.  The only people who complain either have some moral imperative that prevents them from paying to park and/or have a problem walking a few blocks.  The Central garage north of the BOK Tower never has more than a handful of spots taken and is only a few blocks walk.

This is my experience as well.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: carltonplace on May 12, 2015, 10:23:14 am
I've been to plenty of shows and there is more than enough parking to accommodate BOK Center events.  The only people who complain either have some moral imperative that prevents them from paying to park and/or have a problem walking a few blocks.  The Central garage north of the BOK Tower never has more than a handful of spots taken and is only a few blocks walk.

Right, but everyone drives past the BOK to find parking which is what is causing the traffic craziness. We need to get them to park elsewhere and feel that they can safely get to their event and back again.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TeeDub on May 12, 2015, 10:41:06 am
Right, but everyone drives past the BOK to find parking which is what is causing the traffic craziness. We need to get them to park elsewhere and feel that they can safely get to their event and back again.

Have you ever been to any event/concert in another town that wasn't surrounded by traffic craziness?   

I thought that was just the nature of the beast.   Crowds mean traffic.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Weatherdemon on May 12, 2015, 12:17:01 pm
This is my experience as well.

They need to work on lighting and making that walk more inviting. It's short, but uncomfortable for those that don't come downtown often.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: carltonplace on May 12, 2015, 12:27:20 pm
Have you ever been to any event/concert in another town that wasn't surrounded by traffic craziness?   

I thought that was just the nature of the beast.   Crowds mean traffic.

So a few signs and directions wouldn't be of use. Waste of time.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on May 13, 2015, 09:58:59 am
They need to work on lighting and making that walk more inviting. It's short, but uncomfortable for those that don't come downtown often.

I would agree with this.  Even some additional street scaping would help.  Infill would be ideal but we're still a ways away from that.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Townsend on May 13, 2015, 11:13:33 am
Oklahoma Senate Committee OKs Bonds for Tulsa Pop Museum

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/oklahoma-senate-committee-oks-bonds-tulsa-pop-museum (http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/oklahoma-senate-committee-oks-bonds-tulsa-pop-museum)

(http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kwgs/files/styles/card_280/public/201303/OKPOP.jpg)

Quote
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — A proposal to issue $25 million in bonds to build the Oklahoma Museum of Popular Culture in Tulsa has passed its first legislative hurdle.

The Senate Joint Committee on Appropriations and Budget voted 27-13 Tuesday for legislation that would authorize funding for the museum, known as OKPOP. The bill now goes to the full Senate for consideration.

Senate President Pro Tem Brian Bingman of Sapulpa introduced the legislation on Monday. He says the $25 million in bonds will be matched with private funds and the proposed museum will be built in Tulsa on donated land.

State lawmakers have rejected funding for the proposed pop culture museum in previous years.

The committee also voted 33-0 for a voluntary compliance initiative to collect past-due state taxes.

Out of curiosity, where will this go awry?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: SXSW on May 13, 2015, 01:33:56 pm
It sounds like one the biggest drivers for this museum is the adjacent parking garage so they can charge for people to park in the Brady District.  If it means some of the other surface lots go away once it's built then it's a win plus it fills in one of the biggest lots still there on Archer between Boston and Cincinnati.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: tulsasdoubled on May 13, 2015, 01:52:13 pm
Look something like this? ;)

(http://s1.postimg.org/okq9503ny/downtown2.jpg)

Does this street improvement suggest this is coming or did the City put parking backwards on a one-way street
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/99359726/20150513_135602.jpg)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: carltonplace on May 13, 2015, 02:15:32 pm
RE: OKPOP, I can't believe there is movement on this finally. Cautiously optimistic.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on May 14, 2015, 06:55:32 am
Does this street improvement suggest this is coming or did the City put parking backwards on a one-way street
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/99359726/20150513_135602.jpg)

http://www.fox23.com/news/news/local/reverse-parking-spaces-coming-downtown-tulsa/nmGJg/


New parking spaces are coming to downtown Tulsa.

However, not everyone loves the idea. They are all spaces that you must back into.

The city is not getting rid of parallel parking but it will put in more reverse spaces on downtown streets.

“Where we have parallel parking you’ve got to stop and back out and do it two or three times in and out. This is actually easier to hit,” said City Engineer Paul Zachary.

The Mayor’s Office and city manager are testing out the spots on 2nd Street in the Blue Dome District to see how residents respond to them. If all goes well, you’ll see even more of them in the coming years.

“Not only does it give you more parking but it also has a traffic calming effect on cars,” Zachary said.

“I think it’s great. I pull in with this big bad truck everywhere and it’s a very easy way to park,” said resident Ryan Hansen.
City officials said they don’t plan to install parking meters in the spaces for at least the next 60 days.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: saintnicster on May 14, 2015, 07:58:38 am
Remembering how closely people follow in cars, I really doubt that these new spaces will work out all that well :-/


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Breadburner on May 14, 2015, 08:07:08 am
Remembering how closely people follow in cars, I really doubt that these new spaces will work out all that well :-/

Really....How do you parallel park.....I think its a great idea....


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on May 14, 2015, 08:15:16 am
It’s all great until you have to pull your car out from behind a crew cab dually and the oncoming traffic isn’t expecting your front bumper.  I can see some situations where this would create blind spots pulling out into traffic.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TylerBGoode on May 14, 2015, 08:53:48 am
It’s all great until you have to pull your car out from behind a crew cab dually and the oncoming traffic isn’t expecting your front bumper.  I can see some situations where this would create blind spots pulling out into traffic.

Kind of like when Zachary backs his "big bad truck" into one of those spots.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: saintnicster on May 14, 2015, 03:49:01 pm
Really....How do you parallel park.....I think its a great idea....

A lot of the time, if there's traffic behind me, I'll pass up that spot, maybe make a trip around the block. 

I'll also opt for walking further, as to not put my car at risk.

I'f I'm lucky, it'll be a spot with a bit of buffer around it and I can pull straight in and even out. I'd rather look like that kind of jackass, rather than trusting someone else is paying attention enough to "grant me" space to properly back into a spot that likely already has two extended cab trucks around it, or a sedan that is pulled all the way forward.

The backup camera in my car really helps things out, but I'd rather not play Russian roulette with a shaky hand and 3 loaded chambers.
It’s all great until you have to pull your car out from behind a crew cab dually and the oncoming traffic isn’t expecting your front bumper.  I can see some situations where this would create blind spots pulling out into traffic.
This is a more valid concern than mine, but I guess with this setup, you might have a bit better luck avoiding the cars than backing out of a space (assuming no backup camera)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TeeDub on May 15, 2015, 08:32:11 am
It’s all great until you have to pull your car out from behind a crew cab dually and the oncoming traffic isn’t expecting your front bumper.  I can see some situations where this would create blind spots pulling out into traffic.

I can't see it being any worse than backing out from behind that dually into oncoming traffic surprising them with your rear bumper.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on May 15, 2015, 09:49:37 am
I can't see it being any worse than backing out from behind that dually into oncoming traffic surprising them with your rear bumper.

Yep, same difference.  Really bad if you back out into an oncoming bicycle!


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on May 15, 2015, 01:53:21 pm
http://www.fox23.com/news/news/local/reverse-parking-spaces-coming-downtown-tulsa/nmGJg/


New parking spaces are coming to downtown Tulsa.

However, not everyone loves the idea. They are all spaces that you must back into.

The city is not getting rid of parallel parking but it will put in more reverse spaces on downtown streets.

“Where we have parallel parking you’ve got to stop and back out and do it two or three times in and out. This is actually easier to hit,” said City Engineer Paul Zachary.

The Mayor’s Office and city manager are testing out the spots on 2nd Street in the Blue Dome District to see how residents respond to them. If all goes well, you’ll see even more of them in the coming years.

“Not only does it give you more parking but it also has a traffic calming effect on cars,” Zachary said.

“I think it’s great. I pull in with this big bad truck everywhere and it’s a very easy way to park,” said resident Ryan Hansen.
City officials said they don’t plan to install parking meters in the spaces for at least the next 60 days.


I prefer the back-in angled to the nose-in.  I avoid nose-in angled parking along the curbs of streets because it's so difficult to see oncoming traffic (sometimes) when backing out of the space, especially if the street is crowned.  The back-in angled spaces have to be wider than the nose-in, so back-in is not as efficient as nose-in, but I think back-in is safer, overall.

North Boulder Avenue from Cameron to Easton could provide MANY angled parking spaces.  The City ought to consider back-in angled spaces on the east side of Boulder and nose-in spaces on the west side.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: davideinstein on May 15, 2015, 04:28:36 pm
Backed up spaces are better than the current option on Cherry Street. Protected bike lanes would have been better though.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Red Arrow on May 15, 2015, 05:13:08 pm
The back-in angled spaces have to be wider than the nose-in

Why?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: patric on May 15, 2015, 08:57:02 pm
I guess there's nothing stopping someone from pulling in nose-first from the opposing lane.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Breadburner on May 16, 2015, 09:47:15 am
Some of you hand ringers should hand in your driver's license......


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: davideinstein on May 16, 2015, 09:55:50 am
I've thought about this some more...

Can anyone answer the question as to why there are literally no protected bike lanes in Downtown? We're spending money putting in reverse spaces instead of parallel parking yet a bigger concern and want are bike lanes, right?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: ZYX on May 16, 2015, 10:57:26 am
Why does downtown need protected bike lanes? Traffic already travels pretty slowly for the most part. When I ride my bike downtown I can typically at least keep up with the cars.

What downtown does need is more places to park your bike.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: davideinstein on May 16, 2015, 01:21:59 pm
Why does downtown need protected bike lanes? Traffic already travels pretty slowly for the most part. When I ride my bike downtown I can typically at least keep up with the cars.

What downtown does need is more places to park your bike.

From my perspective it's bike safety for our Downtown location that has bike delivery. All three major incidents the car driver was at fault and I personally feel like protected bike lanes not only add safety but they make the community more aware of cyclist. It also invites people to bring their bike Downtown. I live right off of 4th Street and you would be amazed at the amount of bike riders I see on such a random bike lane that doesn't connect anywhere.

Agree on bike parking. Someone actually stole the bike rack in front of our 5th and Boston location last summer.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on May 16, 2015, 03:38:28 pm
The back-in angled spaces have to be wider than the nose-in...
Why?
I guess the back-in angled spaces don't necessarily HAVE to be wider, but it's a good idea when they ARE a bit wider, for a couple of reasons:

1. Some drivers have difficulty backing into the spaces.  I've noticed this on Riverside Drive near Houston Avenue, across from the Spotlight Theater.  Many newer vehicle have back-up cameras which allow the driver to see what's behind the vehicle, including the painted angled lines between stalls.  But most vehicles aren't equipped with back-up cameras, and I think most drivers can't see the painted lines well enough to park evenly between them.  There are about twelve back-in/head-out angled stalls across from the Spotlight.  What I've observed many times when all the spaces are empty is that the first driver to park in one of the stalls will not get the angle correct, probably because the lines can't be seen in the mirrors.  After the first vehicle is parked, the vehicles parked later will generally match the angle of vehicles already parked, more than the painted lines between stalls.  And the spaces usually are not used as efficiently as they could be, especially if they had been designated as nose-in/back-out stalls (because it's easier to see painted stall lines and adjacent vehicles when heading into a space, rather than when backing in).

2. On most vehicles, the rear overhang is greater than the front.  If vehicles are being backed up to a curb with adjacent poles, trees, or other objects, then the placement of stalls will need to be coordinated with the existing locations of objects near the curb.  Otherwise, drivers are more likely to back into them.  So, on many blocks downtown, either the width of back-in/head-out stalls would need to be increased, or some obstacles would need to be relocated.  Nose-in/back-out angled would be a little bit more efficient than back-in/head-out along the curbs of most blocks downtown, I think.

But in either case, angled parking is generally more efficient than parking parallel to the curb.  There are a few low-volume streets downtown, such as Ninth between Boulder and Elgin, Main between Sixth and Tenth, and North Boulder between Cameron and Easton (as mentioned in my earlier post), that are wide enough to have angled parking on both sides of the street. 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: carltonplace on May 18, 2015, 08:38:35 am
From my perspective it's bike safety for our Downtown location that has bike delivery. All three major incidents the car driver was at fault and I personally feel like protected bike lanes not only add safety but they make the community more aware of cyclist. It also invites people to bring their bike Downtown. I live right off of 4th Street and you would be amazed at the amount of bike riders I see on such a random bike lane that doesn't connect anywhere.

Agree on bike parking. Someone actually stole the bike rack in front of our 5th and Boston location last summer.

They took the rack? What kind of world do we live in?
Meanwhile Elote has a rack that is not tied down and has been left alone all ten years it has been there except to move from one side of the sidewalk to the other.

This weekend there were hundreds of bikes all over downtown and even with a dedicated bike parking service at Mayfest bikes were locked up to trees, parking signs, utility pipes and bike racks were all full. I saw lots of people just walking their bicycles along with them through the crowds. I love that more and more people are choosing to ride instead of drive.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on May 18, 2015, 09:32:49 am
http://m.tulsaworld.com/news/local/apartment-units-parking-garage-retail-to-come-to-oneok-field/article_44428e51-cd76-5003-8b65-76867f4c88d5.html?mode=jqm

Quote
Another new apartment development in downtown Tulsa means some Tulsans could now live within a home run of ONEOK Field.

American Residential Group, a developer of apartment properties that’s focused on downtown Tulsa, has announced The View, a 200-unit apartment development that could cost between $25 million and $30 million, immediately south of the downtown ballpark on the southeast corner of Archer Street and Elgin Avenue.

On top of that, The View will have 13,000 square feet of retail on its first floor, and an adjoining five-story parking garage for the use of residents and customers, said Steve Ganzkow, senior vice president at American Residential Group.

He said American Residential has had the site under contract since last summer for due diligence.

“We’re convinced there’s a strong demand for what we intend to do there.”

Ganzkow said the view will be new construction, and the existing buildings on the lot will be torn down.

In addition to the retail and parking components, Ganzkow said The View will stand out due to amenities including a pool, fitness center and clubhouse — all located on the roof.

“We intend to do some things with The View that hasn’t been done before in Tulsa,” he said.

American Residential has constructed multiple properties in downtown Tulsa, and has currently partnered with Nelson Stowe to build The Edge at East Village, a $26 million, 162-unit apartment development at 215 S. Greenwood. The Edge was previously known as Hartford Commons.

American Residential purchased the property to be used for The View for $3 million from the Tulsa Stadium Trust, which had purchased three properties near ONEOK Field during the ballpark’s development to help regulate the area’s development.

The property was the last owned by the trust. The trust had also sold the former Gates Hardware building at 216 North Elgin Avenue, which is being converted into a sports bar and brew pub collaboration between Elliot Nelson, head of the McNellie’s Group; and Eric Marshall, owner of Marshall Brewing Company.

Additionally, the trust sold the parcel at the southeast corner of Archer Street and Detroit Avenue to Promise Hotels, which will convert it into a 105-room Holiday Inn Express.

Money from the sale of the properties will go toward the continued maintenance and upkeep of ONEOK Field, said Stacy Kymes, chairman of the Tulsa Stadium Trust board of trustees.

Kymes said the trust’s strategy for the properties paid off.

“Obviously we wanted to control what would go in there and find suitable uses,” he said. “The projects absolutely fit within the master plan.”

Kymes said that, thanks to the collaboration of many individuals in the community, the ballpark itself as well as the area around it has surpassed everyone’s expectations.

Ganzkow said the retail component of The View was added at the urging of the trust.

“The trust was very interested on having some retail activity that would support their mission to have family-friendly atmosphere,” he said.

So the Hartford Commons is now called The Edge at East Village. ugh


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on May 18, 2015, 09:38:09 am
http://m.tulsaworld.com/news/local/apartment-units-parking-garage-retail-to-come-to-oneok-field/article_44428e51-cd76-5003-8b65-76867f4c88d5.html?mode=jqm

So the Hartford Commons is now called The Edge at East Village. ugh

The Edge, The View, The Metro

Too bad them The The is already taken
(http://www.johnny-marr.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/thethe_d-196x196.jpg)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Townsend on May 18, 2015, 11:55:26 am
Oklahoma Legislative Panels Pass Bond Plans for 2 Museums

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/oklahoma-legislative-panels-pass-bond-plans-2-museums (http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/oklahoma-legislative-panels-pass-bond-plans-2-museums)

(http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kwgs/files/styles/card_280/public/201303/OKPOP-2.jpg)

Quote
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Separate $25 million bond proposals have been approved by Oklahoma legislative committees to complete the unfinished American Indian Cultural Center and Museum in Oklahoma City and build the proposed Oklahoma Museum of Popular Culture in Tulsa.

The Senate Joint Committee on Appropriations and Budget voted 26-16 Thursday for the plan to complete the American Indian museum. The incomplete structure is on 67 acres along the banks of the Oklahoma River near downtown Oklahoma City.

And the House Joint Committee on Appropriations and Budget voted 16-8 for a separate $25 million bond plan to build the popular culture museum.

State lawmakers have rejected funding for both proposals in past years. Both projects are contingent on matching dollars from the private sector.

If both proposals come up for a vote, I'd recommend the Tulsa legislators suggest voting on the Oklahoma Museum of Popular Culture in Tulsa first.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on May 18, 2015, 02:36:06 pm
From my perspective it's bike safety for our Downtown location that has bike delivery. All three major incidents the car driver was at fault and I personally feel like protected bike lanes not only add safety but they make the community more aware of cyclist. It also invites people to bring their bike Downtown. I live right off of 4th Street and you would be amazed at the amount of bike riders I see on such a random bike lane that doesn't connect anywhere.

Agree on bike parking. Someone actually stole the bike rack in front of our 5th and Boston location last summer.

What do you envision for protected bike lanes? 

The main problem I see with them is they give some riders a heightened sense of security they really don’t have, especially at intersections and turn-ins with parking lots or garages.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: davideinstein on May 18, 2015, 06:49:57 pm
What do you envision for protected bike lanes? 

The main problem I see with them is they give some riders a heightened sense of security they really don’t have, especially at intersections and turn-ins with parking lots or garages.

In Downtown I'd like to see two lane roads with parallel parking as a buffer to the bike lane until an intersection. At the intersection I'd like us to mimic what they are doing in Salt Lake City in the article below.

ttp://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/05/why-salt-lake-city-chose-to-build-the-first-protected-intersection-for-bicycling-in-the-us/392702/ (http://ttp://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/05/why-salt-lake-city-chose-to-build-the-first-protected-intersection-for-bicycling-in-the-us/392702/)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Townsend on May 19, 2015, 07:14:26 am
Popular Culture Museum Plan Fails in Oklahoma Senate

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/popular-culture-museum-plan-fails-oklahoma-senate (http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/popular-culture-museum-plan-fails-oklahoma-senate)

Quote
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — A $25 million bond proposal for a planned popular culture museum in Tulsa fell one vote short of passage after a state senator said he mistakenly pressed the wrong button on his desk.

Republican Sen. Bryce Marlatt of Woodward says he was attempting to summon a legislative page Monday but mistakenly voted "no" just as the gavel fell on the vote for the bond issue.

The author of the bill, Republican Senate President Pro Tem Brian Bingman of Sapulpa used a procedural motion that will allow him to reconsider the vote on Tuesday. Marlatt says he intends to vote to yes.

The proposal is a divisive one for many members of the Republican caucus who oppose further bond debt.

This is generally where I make fun of someone not understanding how buttons work but I'll just say I hope it moves forward today.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: AdamsHall on May 19, 2015, 09:48:25 am
Too bad them The The is already taken
(http://www.johnny-marr.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/thethe_d-196x196.jpg)

The The is one of my favorites.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: BKDotCom on May 19, 2015, 10:34:10 am
Popular Culture Museum Passes State Senate

http://www.newson6.com/story/29102949/pop-culture-museum-plan-clears-oklahoma-senate-on-second-try

Quote
The bill now heads to the House, where there is considerable opposition from members of the Republican majority.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on May 20, 2015, 09:31:55 pm
From my perspective it's bike safety for our Downtown location that has bike delivery. All three major incidents the car driver was at fault and I personally feel like protected bike lanes not only add safety but they make the community more aware of cyclist. It also invites people to bring their bike Downtown. I live right off of 4th Street and you would be amazed at the amount of bike riders I see on such a random bike lane that doesn't connect anywhere.

Agree on bike parking. Someone actually stole the bike rack in front of our 5th and Boston location last summer.


Gonna be tough to get people to pay attention.  Lived at 11th and Pittsburg for a few years and rode my bike downtown, going up to 4th, then west.  Even then (40 years or so ago??) there was enough traffic that it was dangerous.  Had to keep the bike in the back of the building where I worked downtown.  Got room in back of your store for the bikes?

Later moved jobs to east 15th and house in BA - at that time could ride a bike up 145th to 11th and west to Yale area then south.  Not much traffic then.  Would be suicide today.

Amazing someone would steal a rack.  How did they do that?  Was it easy as turning a wrench?  Or cutters of some sort?



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: rdj on May 21, 2015, 09:19:06 am
What do you envision for protected bike lanes? 

The main problem I see with them is they give some riders a heightened sense of security they really don’t have, especially at intersections and turn-ins with parking lots or garages.

Agree completely.  Dedicated bike lanes are going away in many cities.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TheArtist on May 21, 2015, 03:58:39 pm
Well, guess the OK Pop museum failed to pass in the house.  Reason apparently....

Opponents say "the museum is not a core function of state government".

Well neither is fixing an old dilapidated building because it's historic and has art in it when it would have cost less to build a new, modern office building within which to "do the core functions of state government'.  Oh wait..... 

Tulsa doesn't get a museum to preserve and showcase its history and art, but if your arse is sitting in a building that does that, well it of course makes sense for the people of Tulsa and the rest of the state to spend a lot of their money to fix that.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Townsend on May 22, 2015, 08:00:09 am
Well, guess the OK Pop museum failed to pass in the house.  Reason apparently....

Opponents say "the museum is not a core function of state government".

Well neither is fixing an old dilapidated building because it's historic and has art in it when it would have cost less to build a new, modern office building within which to "do the core functions of state government'.  Oh wait..... 

Tulsa doesn't get a museum to preserve and showcase its history and art, but if your arse is sitting in a building that does that, well it of course makes sense for the people of Tulsa and the rest of the state to spend a lot of their money to fix that.


Yeah.  It's disappointing but not surprising at all. 

I hate to always shrug my shoulders but Oklahoma has managed to elect a bunch of short sighted morons to be our leaders.



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Ibanez on May 22, 2015, 08:44:59 am
Yeah.  It's disappointing but not surprising at all. 

I hate to always shrug my shoulders but Oklahoma has managed to elect a bunch of short sighted morons to be our leaders.



As with most things, if Tulsa wants it done Tulsa is going to have to do it on its own. The troglodytes in elected office will never do much to help Tulsa or the rest of the state outside of OKC.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: SXSW on May 22, 2015, 09:13:55 am
Considering how long it took for the state to bail out the American Indian Cultural Center, which is just sitting there unfinished and at one time had high hopes of being one of the premier cultural museums in the country, I didn't expect this to actually happen.  Maybe next year..

Honestly I'd rather have a really impressive science center downtown than a museum dedicated to Oklahoma pop culture.  Not that it wouldn't be a good addition but there are better options IMHO.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cbs on May 22, 2015, 10:36:59 am
Honestly I'd rather have a really impressive science center downtown than a museum dedicated to Oklahoma pop culture.  Not that it wouldn't be a good addition but there are better options IMHO.

Yeah I'm definitely disappointed in our legislature voting this down, but I also thought that an OK pop culture museum could be better suited as something else. However, I don't know of anyone proposing something different.

And one legislator mentioned Woody Guthrie's ties to communism? Is that seriously a reason against OKPOP? We have national halls of fame to the abject hedonism that is common in rock stardom...


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Weatherdemon on May 22, 2015, 11:28:08 am
Decision reversed!
It will be funded!

http://m.newsok.com/article/5421558?utm_source=NewsOK.com&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=ShareBar-Twitter


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Townsend on May 22, 2015, 11:40:18 am
Decision reversed!
It will be funded!

http://m.newsok.com/article/5421558?utm_source=NewsOK.com&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=ShareBar-Twitter

(http://i.imgur.com/BP5Opfd.gif)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on May 22, 2015, 11:43:41 am
(http://i.imgur.com/BP5Opfd.gif)

(http://media.giphy.com/media/BHIlhBLidJams/giphy.gif)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Townsend on May 22, 2015, 11:45:20 am
(http://media.giphy.com/media/BHIlhBLidJams/giphy.gif)

That's so creepy


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on May 22, 2015, 11:54:19 am
That's so creepy

Creepy Squared


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: davideinstein on May 22, 2015, 01:09:39 pm
Well, guess the OK Pop museum failed to pass in the house.  Reason apparently....

Opponents say "the museum is not a core function of state government".

Well neither is fixing an old dilapidated building because it's historic and has art in it when it would have cost less to build a new, modern office building within which to "do the core functions of state government'.  Oh wait..... 

Tulsa doesn't get a museum to preserve and showcase its history and art, but if your arse is sitting in a building that does that, well it of course makes sense for the people of Tulsa and the rest of the state to spend a lot of their money to fix that.


Amen.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DTowner on May 22, 2015, 01:33:23 pm
Wow, some Tulsa reps must have some blackmail worthy photos of someone.  Good outcome however it came about.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DTowner on May 22, 2015, 02:13:00 pm

Here is breakdown on today's vote - with some local reps voting against it even knowing that the additional money for the Indian museum had already passed.

YEAS:   51

    Banz               Fourkiller         Montgomery         Shoemake           

    Billy              Griffith           Morrissette        Stone             

    Brown              Henke              Mulready           Thomsen           

    Cannaday           Hoskin             Murdock            Virgin             

    Christian          Inman              Nelson             Walker             

    Cleveland          Joyner             Nollan             Wallace           

    Condit             Kirby              Peterson           Watson             

    Coody, A.          Kouplen            Proctor            Williams           

    Coody, J.          Leewright          Pruett             Wood               

    Cooksey            Lepak              Rousselot          Wright             

    Cox                Lockhart           Scott              Young             

    Denney             Loring             Shelton            Mr. Speaker       

    Dunnington         McPeak             Sherrer           

    NAYS:   40

    Bennett            Faught             McCall             Perryman           

    Biggs              Fisher             McCullough         Pfeiffer           

    Brumbaugh          Grau               McDaniel, R.       Ritze             

    Caldwell           Hall               Moore              Roberts, D.       

    Calvey             Hardin             Murphey            Rogers             

    Casey              Johnson            Newell             Sanders           

    Cockroft           Jordan             Ortega             Sears             

    Derby              Kannady            Osborn             Strohm             

    Dunlap             Kern               Ownbey             Vaughan           

    Echols             Martin             Park               Wesselhoft         

    EXCUSED:    8

    Enns               McDaniel, J.       Renegar            Russ               

    McBride            O'Donnell          Roberts, S.        Tadlock           


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: sgrizzle on May 22, 2015, 07:36:14 pm
I was looking to see if the native american center had passed the house yet and couldn't find it.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Weatherdemon on May 22, 2015, 08:33:24 pm
I was looking to see if the native american center had passed the house yet and couldn't find it.

That's why I was pissed.
That passed but not OK Pop.

Now...we're good!


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Townsend on May 29, 2015, 02:16:03 pm
Gov. Mary Fallin signs bill to fund OKPOP museum in Tulsa

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/capitol_report/gov-mary-fallin-signs-bill-to-fund-okpop-museum-in/article_ab4559b5-029f-5bfc-a456-cc54155b6841.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/capitol_report/gov-mary-fallin-signs-bill-to-fund-okpop-museum-in/article_ab4559b5-029f-5bfc-a456-cc54155b6841.html)

Quote
OKLAHOMA CITY — Gov. Mary Fallin on Friday signed a bill to build a museum of popular culture in Tulsa.

Senate Bill 829 by Senate President Pro Tem Brian Bingman, R-Sapulpa, will provide $25 million in bonds to build the facility that will be called OKPOP.

“The OKPOP Museum will be a tourism destination and a source of economic growth and development for the city of Tulsa,” Fallin said. “It’s another addition to a beautiful city that continues to grow every day.”

Fallin’s signature comes after the measure first failed first in each legislative chamber before being reconsidered.

Bingman said OKPOP will be a one-of-a-kind attraction and source of pride for the state.

"I'm pleased we were able to seize this rare opportunity to build something lasting and unique that will contribute to our state for decades to come," Bingman said.

The facility is expected to open on Nov. 16, 2018, with exhibits coming from donations by Oklahoma musicians, artists, entertainers, writers and others.

Oklahoma Historical Society Executive Director Bob Blackburn worked on the project for seven years.

He said that he appreciates Fallin’s support and looks forward to working with her and her staff “to make sure we do this quickly, efficiently and to the best of our ability.”

Tulsa Regional Chamber President and CEO Mike Neal called Friday a great day for the state, and especially for Tulsans.

“For generations to come, Oklahomans and visitors around the world will be able to celebrate our state’s contributions to popular culture,” Neal said. “From music and movies to authors and performers, thousands of entertainers have been influenced by this beautiful state. We’re ecstatic their stories and work will live in downtown Tulsa in the Oklahoma Museum of Popular Culture.

“Today’s bill signing is the culmination of years of steadfast, relentless pursuit made by Dr. Bob Blackburn, in addition to George Kaiser and the many private donors who stepped to the plate years ago making significant financial pledges toward this project.”


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Townsend on June 05, 2015, 11:27:28 am
Downtown Business Leaders Set Sights on Tulsa Farmer's Market

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/downtown-business-leaders-set-sights-tulsa-farmers-market (http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/downtown-business-leaders-set-sights-tulsa-farmers-market)

Quote
Downtown Tulsa boosters make a move to bring the Tulsa Farmer’s Market to Sixth and Main streets in 2016.

The market has to leave Cherry Street next April through October while road work is completed. The Downtown Coordinating Council will offer marketing help and up to $5,000 for workers to close streets.

County Commissioner Karen Keith is on the council and proposed that offer.

"Oh, I think it's a perfect fit for downtown," Keith said about the market. "Easy to ride your bike up to the park, and I just think it's a great idea."

The proposed space is Chapman Green. Keith said the under-used park is an ideal spot.

"Any of our visitors in our nearby hotels, the Atlas and some of the others, and then, of course, the residential that's right around there, they can all take advantage of it," Keith said. "And I think you'll see the folks from Cherry Street, Brookside area and all around converge there."

Daniel Regan is vice president of Kanbar Properties, which owns several downtown buildings, including Park Centre right across the street from Chapman Green. He supports bringing the market downtown.

"Ultimately, we're trying to help support them and help support grocery security and food security for people in Tulsa," Regan said.

The farmer’s market board has yet to vote on next year’s location. They’re also considering 11th Street and Lewis Avenue.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on June 05, 2015, 11:45:15 am
What are they doing to Cherry Street that will take seven months to complete?  I live right by Cherry Street and I hadn't heard of anything that major and lengthy.  It's a half mile stretch, how can it take seven months?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Townsend on June 05, 2015, 12:11:56 pm
What are they doing to Cherry Street that will take seven months to complete?  I live right by Cherry Street and I hadn't heard of anything that major and lengthy.  It's a half mile stretch, how can it take seven months?

Street widening, sidewalk removal and turn lanes.











just kidding.  no idea



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TheArtist on June 05, 2015, 12:15:39 pm
I of course would REALLY REALLY love to see the Cherry Street Market move to that area of downtown.  I think it would be a much better location than 11th & Lewis.  I even spoke to the people that own the parking garage above my shop right across from the park and they said they would lower the cost of parking, if that would help.  Plus there is plenty of on street parking, and unused parking lots around that area.  Soon many of the buildings around the park will have new residences in them and ground floor spaces fixed up and available for retail and restaurants. Plus with all the other residential activity going on downtown, this could be a great fit and I know those downtowners would be eager to support something like this.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TheArtist on June 05, 2015, 12:17:48 pm
Street widening, sidewalk removal and turn lanes.



just kidding.  no idea



And because of the increased traffic flow and higher speeds the widening will permit, they will have to remove the businesses alongside the street to create a safety zone and then put up large cement sound barrier walls.



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Townsend on June 05, 2015, 12:19:41 pm
And because of the increased traffic flow and higher speeds the widening will permit, they will have to remove the businesses alongside the street to create a safety zone and then put up large cement sound barrier walls.



Not worth keeping those businesses anyway...I can't find the parking lots for them.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Townsend on June 05, 2015, 12:21:55 pm
So I just looked at 11th and Lewis on streetview...what the hell are they thinking?

Of course it should go downtown at the park.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: AquaMan on June 05, 2015, 12:28:15 pm
Temporarily, fine. I also like using the Librarium area or the area around the old Bill White building. One would hope that this results in two farmers markets because the Cherry Street market gets lots of walk in traffic from the surrounding neighborhoods. Would hate to see it diminished or replaced.

11th and Lewis? Where exactly?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: patric on June 05, 2015, 12:46:38 pm
Temporarily, fine. I also like using the Librarium area or the area around the old Bill White building. One would hope that this results in two farmers markets because the Cherry Street market gets lots of walk in traffic from the surrounding neighborhoods. Would hate to see it diminished or replaced.

11th and Lewis? Where exactly?

The abandoned used car lot next to the railroad tracks, maybe?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Townsend on June 05, 2015, 01:22:02 pm
The abandoned used car lot next to the railroad tracks, maybe?

A scene straight out of a Vermont postcard.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TheArtist on June 05, 2015, 04:04:10 pm
Kathy Taylor wants it over there and I think is willing to build them some permanent structures and do some other things to sweeten the deal.  It may be a tough sell to get it downtown for her group is ahead of the game negotiations wise, but some of us in the Deco District are gonna do our best.  I know it would sure help my business and I would be willing to chip in what I could. 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: AquaMan on June 05, 2015, 05:55:32 pm
I can only guess that it is a location in the general area of 11th and Lewis. It is an area with some interesting housing. Perhaps she is thinking of some land closer to Hillcrest? West of Utica there is some vacant land and plenty of parking.

The only site close to the corner would be the former Pontiac dealership just west of the tracks. Curious thinking.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on June 05, 2015, 08:55:11 pm
Never thought I’d see the day in Tulsa when we fight over locations for farmer’s markets.

Nice to see the evolution!  I’d like to see more community gardens!


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: davideinstein on June 07, 2015, 03:58:05 am
Deco District is the best option.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: rdj on June 08, 2015, 08:13:49 am
Taylor purchased several buildings that formerly housed Tulsa Gamma Ray on the east side of Lewis between 12th & 11th.  They also own the building directly across the street.  The Renaissance Beer Brewery is scheduled to go in on the corner of 12th & Lewis.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on June 08, 2015, 10:37:55 am
  The Renaissance Beer Brewery is scheduled to go in on the corner of 12th & Lewis.

Any word on how that’s coming along?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Hoss on June 08, 2015, 10:43:37 am
More breweries coming?  Nice!

I know that the guys at Dead Armadillo are hoping to be in their new digs at 4th and Madison by the first of July.

yay for craft beer!


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Townsend on June 09, 2015, 03:16:09 pm
http://www.nelsonstowe.com/boxyard (http://www.nelsonstowe.com/boxyard)

The Boxyard to pack downtown restaurants, retail and live events into shipping containers

http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/retail/the-boxyard-to-pack-downtown-restaurants-retail-and-live-events/article_b7cce83e-ea6e-508f-b68e-69ee32414d86.html

Quote
Even with all the development going on in downtown Tulsa, the newest project announced by Nelson-Stowe stands out for two reasons.

First, The Boxyard is going to be retail-focused, rather than entertainment or restaurant-focused, said Casey Stowe, a partner with Nelson-Stowe along with Elliot Nelson.
And second, it'll be mostly composed of shipping containers. Specifically, the hulking metal boxes used to store cargo as it's shipped across the ocean.

"We very much wanted to use containers that have made trips across the ocean," Stowe said. "Some may have only gone once, and some may have gone 20 times or more."

The 30-odd containers will combine at the southeast corner of Third Street and Frankfort Avenue to provide space for dozens of small, local retailers, as well as a few small restaurants and service providers, Stowe said.

Inspiration for The Boxyard came from similar shipping container redevelopment projects in other cities. Stowe said the relatively small size of the undeveloped site of The Boxyard would make traditional development difficult, but he believes it's a perfect fit for shipping containers.

The majority of the containers will be pushed together to form a solid lower level, while the upper level will become a wooden boardwalk with space for communal gathering, live music and a few rooftop shipping container establishments.

“It’ll really create an interesting dynamic,” he said.

Tenants won't be doing business inside sweaty chambers of rust. Stowe said each of the 320-square-foot containers will be finished out and air-conditioned to create comfortable business spaces.

Nelson-Stowe is in the process of acquiring the land from the Tulsa Development Authority. The group submitted the winning RFP plan in the spring, and the final vote to transfer ownership will occur Thursday.

Stowe estimated The Boxyard will be open for business as soon as the first quarter of 2016.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on June 09, 2015, 03:22:09 pm
Any TN moles have insight on "Santa Fe Square"?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on June 09, 2015, 03:34:17 pm
Any word on how that’s coming along?


They keep their facebook updated about it:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Renaissance-Brewing-Company/654564741242829

I talked to Glenn recently. They plan to start moving dirt in the next month or two but it has been a slow process due to them funding it themselves. It will be good for the Renaissance neighborhood. There are a lot of new additions there and the residents and neighborhood association have put a lot of effort into improving the area.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on June 09, 2015, 03:41:18 pm
Any TN moles have insight on "Santa Fe Square"?

I wonder if it will be some kind of mixed-use area reminiscent of the Santa Fe plaza (but much smaller and less authentic). http://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g60958-d107439-Reviews-The_Plaza-Santa_Fe_New_Mexico.html (http://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g60958-d107439-Reviews-The_Plaza-Santa_Fe_New_Mexico.html)

After looking at the rendering this sounds unlikely though.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: LandArchPoke on June 09, 2015, 03:44:50 pm
Any TN moles have insight on "Santa Fe Square"?

All I can say is this is a very real project. A group was at ICSC promoting the development to retailers and ARG will be the apartment developer and will have around 300 units. Office building will be around 150,000 sq. ft. which is sorely needed. Likely this will be staged to where the Edge will deliver and give an 8 month lease up window and stabilization period, then the Ballpark development would likely deliver with a similar 8 month to 1 year lease up and stabilization period, then the Santa Fe Station apartments will come online.

It's likely that the surface parking lot by the PAC will be under development too around the same time with a retail component but not sure whether it will have office or multifamily at the moment.

Downtown will quickly be changing.

http://www.nelsonstowe.com/boxyard (http://www.nelsonstowe.com/boxyard)

The Boxyard to pack downtown restaurants, retail and live events into shipping containers

http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/retail/the-boxyard-to-pack-downtown-restaurants-retail-and-live-events/article_b7cce83e-ea6e-508f-b68e-69ee32414d86.html


I might be more excited about this than Santa Fe Station - this is AWESOME!!

I wanted to do something very similar here after seeing this: http://www.boxpark.co.uk
It's such a cool concept and shipping containers are very easy to convert for pop-up shops, small food places, and other longer-term small retailers. I hope they bring in some national brands to help test the waters for downtown retail.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: LandArchPoke on June 09, 2015, 03:45:42 pm
I wonder if it will be some kind of mixed-use area reminiscent of the Santa Fe plaza (but much smaller and less authentic). http://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g60958-d107439-Reviews-The_Plaza-Santa_Fe_New_Mexico.html (http://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g60958-d107439-Reviews-The_Plaza-Santa_Fe_New_Mexico.html)

I think (someone can correct me if I'm wrong) but the small building that exist now used to be Santa Fe Depot (old train station) which is where they are getting the name from.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: LandArchPoke on June 09, 2015, 04:46:37 pm
Looking at their website too... pulled these two photos.

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/908/W2KYKk.png) (https://imageshack.com/i/p8W2KYKkp)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/537/oRCfxA.png) (https://imageshack.com/i/exoRCfxAp)

I did noticed they re-aligned the axis to Frankfurt, which is very good! I would love to see something like the Millennium Bridge in Denver (below) built to connect the Blue Dome/Greenwood Brady area. It would serve as a focal point as well. Also interesting how they have a Salvatore Ferragamo sign on the storefront - if retailers like this were interested in downtown that would be huge as well, and no reason why they wouldn't be being adjacent to Maple Ridge and as successful as Utica Square is. From the commercial community and people who are close with H&P, they field enough calls from retailers they could triple the size of Utica Square and still have a waitlist.

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/673/bXjCAN.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/ipbXjCANj)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/673/49ZvCb.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/ip49ZvCbj)

This cost $7 million to build - would make a great addition to Vision2025 for downtown projects as well.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on June 09, 2015, 04:55:17 pm
Looking at their website too... pulled these two photos.

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/908/W2KYKk.png) (https://imageshack.com/i/p8W2KYKkp)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/537/oRCfxA.png) (https://imageshack.com/i/exoRCfxAp)


The top photo looks somewhat like the renderings recently posted for the lot flanked by McNellie's, Joe Mommas, Dilly Deli, and Hartford Building.  The upper right even looks like the existing building on the northwest corner of the lot.  Filling up that space would be awesome!


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: LandArchPoke on June 09, 2015, 06:03:59 pm
DowntownDan this is the same development that was posted earlier. The previous rendering was the hand sketch. They moved the axis point between 2nd/3rd to align with Frankfurt which is very smart. The only thing that concerns me is the huge parking garage along Greenwood. The parking needs to be wrapped by apartments or else you create a joint blank wall with no activity on the east 1/3rd of the development. Or better yet do underground parking, and use TIF monies to offset the added expense of underground parking (this is what TIF money should be used for, to better developments).

I've done a quick map showing all the changes on the East side of Downtown, it's really rather amazing.

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/661/cfupE0.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/idcfupE0j)

1. Brady Flats - long delayed but still supposed to be built.
2. OKPOP! - finally passed the state house/senate.
3. BOK Foundation Warehouse - rumored to be converted into office/retail mix.
4. Gates Warehouse - retail and KSQ Architects HQ.
5. 120 Brady Village - hotel, office, and retail with underground parking.
6. Holiday Inn Express
7. The View - ARG project, 200 units and 20,000 sq. ft. of retail.
8. GreenArch Phase II
9. Hogan Assessment HQ
10. Bacon & Sun Property - Sagar project so who knows what will happen, dinosaurs might be walking the earth by the time he does anything with this.
11. Hartford Building Redevelopment - Synders project, 90 units, retail (possible grocer), and office.
12. Santa Fe Square - Office, retail, 200 units, and possible hotel.
13. PAC lot redevelopment - Rumored and confirmed from multiple sources. Grocer is likely to be constructed here which might play into the delay of the Hartford building. Other mix of development would be built as well, but not sure the specifics on this.
14. Ross Group HQ
15. Boxyard - Retail in shipping containers, 320 sq. ft. spaces.
16. The Edge - ARG project
17. Urban 8
18. New Elliot Nelson concept (German food) - building permits have been filed and he bought this property several months ago.
19. The Dock - retail and possibly office.
20. Greyhound Station - recently bought by Larsen development. Likely to be redevelopment, not sure what into. Plans are on hold due to legal issues with site 22.
21. Core LLC - likely mixed-use development, it's currently in "concept" stage so this is likely to be a few years out. They have been in discussions with retail consultants. Rumors are also of a retailer buying this land and adjacent Nordam site for a new Tulsa location.
22. East End Village Lofts - delayed by lawsuits.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on June 09, 2015, 07:15:17 pm
Nice map, good work


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on June 09, 2015, 08:25:00 pm
Great map! But shouldn't 15 be between 14 and 19?

Also, did Nelson+Stowe remove the Santa Fe Sq. tease from their website? Guess they really weren't ready to talk about it.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: LandArchPoke on June 09, 2015, 10:09:00 pm
Great map! But shouldn't 15 be between 14 and 19?

Also, did Nelson+Stowe remove the Santa Fe Sq. tease from their website? Guess they really weren't ready to talk about it.

You are correct haha, I moved 15.

And it sure does look like removed the images haha. Maybe they read TulsaNow and thought oh no.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on June 10, 2015, 07:08:39 am
This is pretty incredible. I remember when someone on here pointed out that we were getting four straight blocks of construction from the Ubran 8 to GreenArch II. Now that's five straight blocks with the addition of #18; we have a second four block span from #12 to #21; and we almost have an east/west four-block span from #18 to #20; and we have all four corners of the intersection of 4th & Frankfurt.

And the planned (1, 2, 5, 6, 8 ), rumored (3), recently completed (GreenArch I), and underway (7) projects on Archer stretch seven blocks!


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on June 10, 2015, 07:45:24 am
When I saw the story on the box yard break yesterday, I was afraid it was another development like the proposed truck yard for the River West Festival park by an out of state developer.  I’m thrilled to hear it’s locally-based, and I like the opportunity it will provide for small retailers. 

Think how much different downtown might look right now if Elliot Nelson hadn’t taken an interest in it and taken all the risks he has.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cbs on June 10, 2015, 07:46:37 am
Can we all take a moment to reflect on this fantastic time in downtown Tulsa development? I grew up in this city when all my friends wanted to leave town because it "wasn't cool" and downtown was an empty wasteland. I'm so excited for our future as a Midwest/Southwest/South/whatever leader. Remember when it seemed like every few months another major company pulled their offices out of Tulsa? I think we're about to see a new age of companies bringing their businesses back into Tulsa. Cheers!


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: dsjeffries on June 10, 2015, 07:50:45 am
Here's an unmasked version of the Santa Fe Square rendering:

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/515/18677580351_a7a9c59d1b_z.jpg)

I really like the arcade / colonnade they've got along the east wall, and the whole interior plaza looks like a really nice place to be on foot.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on June 10, 2015, 09:19:17 am
That's so cool.  Love infill taking over surface lots.  Downtown is really coming together.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: hello on June 10, 2015, 10:54:39 am
That Santa Fe Square rendering is awesome. Sometimes walking in the Brady/Blue Dome is miserable because the trees that are there provide no shade and there aren't any awnings. Not fun when the sun is beating down.

Very excited for all the developments in Downtown  ;D


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Jeff P on June 10, 2015, 01:46:35 pm
Can we all take a moment to reflect on this fantastic time in downtown Tulsa development? I grew up in this city when all my friends wanted to leave town because it "wasn't cool" and downtown was an empty wasteland. I'm so excited for our future as a Midwest/Southwest/South/whatever leader. Remember when it seemed like every few months another major company pulled their offices out of Tulsa? I think we're about to see a new age of companies bringing their businesses back into Tulsa. Cheers!

Indeed.

I've been working downtown since 2000, and the transformation is really unbelievable.

My only regret is that all of this didn't start in the mid 1990s... but better late than never I guess.  :)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on June 10, 2015, 03:06:51 pm
Indeed.

I've been working downtown since 2000, and the transformation is really unbelievable.

My only regret is that all of this didn't start in the mid 1990s... but better late than never I guess.  :)

Meh, it gives us the opportunity to learn from OKC’s mistakes so we can talk about how much cooler our downtown is once it’s all said and done.  ;)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Townsend on June 10, 2015, 03:20:36 pm
Meh, it gives us the opportunity to learn from OKC’s mistakes so we can talk about how much cooler our downtown is once it’s all said and done.  ;)

You mean our children's children will be able to talk about how much cooler our downtown is once it’s all said and done. 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Red Arrow on June 10, 2015, 04:28:30 pm
You mean our children's children will be able to talk about how much cooler our downtown is once it’s all said and done. 

I have no kids, even grown ones.  I guess I'm doomed.
 
 ;D


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TheArtist on June 10, 2015, 05:02:02 pm
The arcade is excellent.  Hopefully something like that really does get built.  Looks like something I would have designed myself.  Those kinds of spaces connected right by other areas with some more shops/restaurants that are also pedestrian friendly can indeed become the kind of lively commercial corridor/transit destinations that I hope will happen in our downtown.  Really keeping fingers crossed for this one.

This weekend was with a group of friends who were at DECOPOLIS at 6th and Boston and we all then went to the Rusty Crane.  They suggested we walk!  I was happily surprised.  Then after dinner we all walked over to the 3rd Street East End area, and then later walked back to DECOPOLIS. Very enjoyable evening, nobody minded the walk, was neat to see the development already underway and imagining how that in itself would improve the walk and what may be coming in the near future will really begin to make downtown feel like a great place to be.  Last several times I have been able to get out and about downtown am really amazed at the crowds, not just in one area, but in many areas at the same time.  And its nice to already see people beginning to "park once" and spend the rest of the day on foot going to different areas of downtown.  

Frankly If most of the proposed developments happen downtown, I think our downtown will indeed surpass OKC's and that could be in just a few years not decades.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: carltonplace on June 11, 2015, 07:10:22 am
Nice map, good work

Hellzyea!
So exciting.

Any plans for the Nordam site?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: SXSW on June 11, 2015, 10:15:48 am
Any plans for the Nordam site?

Would Nordam ever want to move its HQ and engineering work downtown?  I realize a lot of their operation is manufacturing-based which is likely why they're currently located at the Cherokee Industrial Park.  A new corporate office spanning a couple of those blocks would really help anchor the south end of this district.



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: SXSW on June 11, 2015, 10:23:10 am
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/661/cfupE0.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/idcfupE0j)

Is All Souls no longer planning a move to the 6th & Frankfort site just south of #21?  I hadn't heard anything about that proposal in awhile but it sounded great because it would occupy that vacant grassy lot and the parking lot across the street.  


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: carltonplace on June 11, 2015, 11:03:00 am
Would Nordam ever want to move its HQ and engineering work downtown?  I realize a lot of their operation is manufacturing-based which is likely why they're currently located at the Cherokee Industrial Park.  A new corporate office spanning a couple of those blocks would really help anchor the south end of this district.



I'm referring to these buildings east of "project 21"...isn't this the old Nordam?

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/661/cfupE0.jpg)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: rdj on June 11, 2015, 11:25:13 am
Maybe Nelson-Stowe is pulling an end around with Simon and fooling everyone!

http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/city-indoor-malls-new-downtown-outlet-centers


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: LandArchPoke on June 11, 2015, 12:10:12 pm
I'm referring to these buildings east of "project 21"...isn't this the old Nordam?

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/661/cfupE0.jpg)

The parking lot to the west of the buildings is owned by CORE LLC... they are a group of local investors that have "plans" for a mixed-use development and have spoken with several consultants on what to do with the property. They own the old KOTV studio (which is why it is labeled 21 as well).

Nordam basically owns everything east of that, north of 6th street, and south of 4th street (except for the PSO substation). From what I've heard is Nordam is wanting way to much for the site - however, as the much development is going that direction I know what group that is in the process of trying to buy it, and not sure if it will be a good thing for Downtown if they do. That is far from a concrete plan, the deal hasn't closed, and would be a little while off before any announcement if it did happen.

Is All Souls no longer planning a move to the 6th & Frankfort site just south of #21?  I hadn't heard anything about that proposal in awhile but it sounded great because it would occupy that vacant grassy lot and the parking lot across the street. 

I assume they are still... the LLC that bought the land for them still owns that lot and the full block to the northwest. I had forgotten about them when I made this map. Someone on here before said it would still require fundraising for them to build on the site.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: SXSW on June 11, 2015, 12:14:18 pm
I'm referring to these buildings east of "project 21"...isn't this the old Nordam?

Does Nordam not still occupy at least part of that site?  It's listed on their website as the location for Nordam Prism, whatever that is.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: LandArchPoke on June 11, 2015, 12:46:13 pm
Does Nordam not still occupy at least part of that site?  It's listed on their website as the location for Nordam Prism, whatever that is.

They do, but they are willing sellers for a substantial amount. Not sure if they would consolidate what they do in the downtown site to other properties they have or if they would build a new building somewhere. I'm not entirely sure what they use the site now for either.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cbs on June 12, 2015, 09:57:21 am
I keep seeing that "East End Village lofts" (#22) are "delayed by lawsuits" or something? I know for a fact that people are currently living there. I toured the lofts/apartments myself a couple weeks ago and there are about 10 units that are currently occupied by residents in my estimate. I don't think they're that great of an option - it feels kind of like a college dorm hall. I was quoted $1050 for a 2 bedroom unit with no outside facing windows (there were 2 nice but small skylights) that seemed nice but wasn't what I was looking for. They also seemed to have started construction on the 2nd of the 2 buildings on that lot, so why do I keep hearing about lawsuits?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on June 12, 2015, 10:10:31 am
I keep seeing that "East End Village lofts" (#22) are "delayed by lawsuits" or something? I know for a fact that people are currently living there. I toured the lofts/apartments myself a couple weeks ago and there are about 10 units that are currently occupied by residents in my estimate. I don't think they're that great of an option - it feels kind of like a college dorm hall. I was quoted $1050 for a 2 bedroom unit with no outside facing windows (there were 2 nice but small skylights) that seemed nice but wasn't what I was looking for. They also seemed to have started construction on the 2nd of the 2 buildings on that lot, so why do I keep hearing about lawsuits?

One of the sub contractors has posted here a couple of times complaining about payment issues from the contractor.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: SXSW on June 13, 2015, 01:16:07 pm
They do, but they are willing sellers for a substantial amount. Not sure if they would consolidate what they do in the downtown site to other properties they have or if they would build a new building somewhere. I'm not entirely sure what they use the site now for either.

That would be huge for downtown.  New residential and mixed-use projects are great to see but big companies moving hundreds of employees downtown are needed to sustain that growth.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on June 30, 2015, 06:53:30 pm
(http://www.tulsafrontier.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Downtown-Topgolf-site.png)

http://www.tulsafrontier.com/hyperlocal-topgolf-looking-for-ace-location-in-tulsa/

Well here's one option on the drawing board for that Nordam site. Hello Topgolf, goodbye pedestrian lively.

They're also looking at the Mid-Continent Concrete plant site on the west bank of the river at 21st Street & Jackson. Expect zero interaction with the river—and not just because there won't be any water in it!


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: ZYX on June 30, 2015, 07:44:40 pm
Yeah...no thanks.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: LandArchPoke on June 30, 2015, 09:43:53 pm
Don't say I didn't tell you so. I believe a few people even told me "TopGolf will never go downtown - that's just stupid".

This TopGolf development would be devastating to downtown. Closing off a street along with a HUGE amount of surface parking. Would kill any hopes of the East Village turning into something special and would kill any hopes of connectivity via 6th Street/Pearl District into downtown.

The Westbank would be a better option, I think the FinTube site wouldn't be terrible either. It won't have any interaction with the River and will put more surface parking fronting those $300 million dams that are looking more and more and more like a huge waste of money if this is what we are going to except in terms of "economic development"


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on July 01, 2015, 08:39:45 am
40% of that development would be surface parking?  No thanks.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: carltonplace on July 01, 2015, 09:04:30 am
I hope the mayor hasn't seen this. All of that parking will make him so excited his cell phone might catch fire.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on July 01, 2015, 09:18:53 am
(http://www.tulsafrontier.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Downtown-Topgolf-site.png)

http://www.tulsafrontier.com/hyperlocal-topgolf-looking-for-ace-location-in-tulsa/

Well here's one option on the drawing board for that Nordam site. Hello Topgolf, goodbye pedestrian lively.

They're also looking at the Mid-Continent Concrete plant site on the west bank of the river at 21st Street & Jackson. Expect zero interaction with the river—and not just because there won't be any water in it!

Oh He!l no.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on July 01, 2015, 09:26:06 am
I would be okay with that location if done right, but they, of course, won't do it right.  By "right" I mean that parking lot on sixth street be infilled with shops or restaurants, and the same with the lots to the west all the way to Elgin.  Incorporate a parking garage somewhere (with retail on the bottom floor) for the district to share. Everything I just said would go in one ear and out the other though with the other based on history.

The reason the location is otherwise good is that it would attract people for an evening of downtown entertainment in the East Village.  A drink, some shopping, and some golf.  The top golfs in Dallas have started infill near them, though they are suburban in nature and a downtown Tulsa location would need to be different in design.  The point being that it attracts people, which is good.

As we've seen with REI, though, there seems to be little regard for these types of matters, and if Top Golf is willing to pay Nordam what they want, we're gonna be stuck with it.  I just hope that infill continues around the asphalt ocean by the right types of people.  


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: ZYX on July 01, 2015, 09:54:58 am
That site is completely ridiculous. Why is there no zoning downtown to prevent this type of development from happening? No one can go something build up to the street with minimal parking at 101st and memorial, so why is it perfectly legal for someone to build a huge suburban development with 4 acres of parking in downtown?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TheArtist on July 01, 2015, 12:04:47 pm
That site is completely ridiculous. Why is there no zoning downtown to prevent this type of development from happening? No one can go something build up to the street with minimal parking at 101st and memorial, so why is it perfectly legal for someone to build a huge suburban development with 4 acres of parking in downtown?

Because certain property owners downtown fight against there being any zoning and they get their way.  "Why take away peoples freedom to do what they want with their own property?"  "The free market will find the best solution, if something doesn't work, it won't last for what works will eventually be put in its place." etc. etc.

When I tried to get the zoning overlay potential for downtown into the new comprehensive plan.  Well the vote was last month, I did what I could.  The vote was one for (moi).... everyone else against.

I still think the most important thing we need to do or that even Tulsa Now could do, is to inform people in these positions what pedestrian friendly zoning and such is.  Many of the people on the DCC probably don't know much if anything about the issue and nobody asked questions.  Some came up to me afterwards and apologized saying they just didn't know enough about the issue, (though I thought I explained things as best I could) and felt bad. 

The zoning overlay potential would not have even put any zoning in downtown, but would have allowed property owners themselves to have zoning on their own property (after they went through a lengthy process and the zoning change was shown to advance the downtown master plan).  But even this minor thing was shot down. 

The only way to get zoning downtown is to write in to the Plan-Tulsa in support of it, and speak to your local city councilor and let them know you would support it.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: LandArchPoke on July 01, 2015, 07:16:21 pm
Unfortunately zoning wouldn't keep this from happening.

This goes back to an attempt that Blake Ewing tried to pass and was shot down - a moratorium on surface parking in the CBD (a.k.a. one of many thing's Denver did to turn their downtown around).

The only thing that would keep this from happening is an organized group of citizens who want to see smart growth in Downtown. Start a petition, get the word out. Write Top Golf and bombard them with emails about how you will never visit them if they are intent on destroying the downtown environment but would love to visit their site if they pick a better site or figure out a way to have no surface parking in the development (mixed-uses).

Also, I'm hoping some in the city will stand up to this and say no - this would require them to sell the ROW for Kenosha and 5th Street. This is such a HUGE mistake if it were to happen. I just can't see Blake being happy with this, and I commend him for trying to do things like the parking moratorium even when shot down. I think this is something that would be worth bringing up again Blake if you are reading. I think the environment in downtown is much different from when this was last proposed and I think it would see way more traction now than it did the first time.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on July 01, 2015, 08:18:27 pm
Unfortunately zoning wouldn't keep this from happening.

This goes back to an attempt that Blake Ewing tried to pass and was shot down - a moratorium on surface parking in the CBD (a.k.a. one of many thing's Denver did to turn their downtown around).

The only thing that would keep this from happening is an organized group of citizens who want to see smart growth in Downtown. Start a petition, get the word out. Write Top Golf and bombard them with emails about how you will never visit them if they are intent on destroying the downtown environment but would love to visit their site if they pick a better site or figure out a way to have no surface parking in the development (mixed-uses).

Also, I'm hoping some in the city will stand up to this and say no - this would require them to sell the ROW for Kenosha and 5th Street. This is such a HUGE mistake if it were to happen. I just can't see Blake being happy with this, and I commend him for trying to do things like the parking moratorium even when shot down. I think this is something that would be worth bringing up again Blake if you are reading. I think the environment in downtown is much different from when this was last proposed and I think it would see way more traction now than it did the first time.

It closes a street, it's got to have approval.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: LandArchPoke on July 01, 2015, 08:42:25 pm
It closes a street, it's got to have approval.

Exactly. If no one speaks up though - it will be approved before you can blink. I have no idea who has to "approve" the sale/closing of a street and ROW, but we've all seen what has happened with city land at 71st and Riverside.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on July 02, 2015, 11:36:31 am
I keep seeing that "East End Village lofts" (#22) are "delayed by lawsuits" or something? I know for a fact that people are currently living there. I toured the lofts/apartments myself a couple weeks ago and there are about 10 units that are currently occupied by residents in my estimate. I don't think they're that great of an option - it feels kind of like a college dorm hall. I was quoted $1050 for a 2 bedroom unit with no outside facing windows (there were 2 nice but small skylights) that seemed nice but wasn't what I was looking for. They also seemed to have started construction on the 2nd of the 2 buildings on that lot, so why do I keep hearing about lawsuits?

There's been some activity this week and their facebook has been posting pretty consistently over the last two weeks.  Has there been a resolution?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: natedog784 on July 02, 2015, 09:53:21 pm
It closes a street, it's got to have approval.

The streets within the boundaries of the site plan were closed years ago.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on July 02, 2015, 10:05:14 pm
The streets within the boundaries of the site plan were closed years ago.

Seriously.

Another Tulsa fail.


Title: Re:
Post by: saintnicster on July 03, 2015, 10:28:27 am
Kenosha is closed between 4th and 6th?  Could've fooled me


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: natedog784 on July 04, 2015, 11:56:01 am
It's private property, yes.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: SXSW on July 05, 2015, 02:56:51 pm
I'm curious to see what Top Golf's riverfront plan looks like.  I just don't see it happening in the East Village.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on July 05, 2015, 08:09:09 pm
I'm curious to see what Top Golf's riverfront plan looks like.  I just don't see it happening in the East Village.

(http://www.tulsafrontier.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/West-Bank-Topgolf-site.png)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: SXSW on July 06, 2015, 12:31:50 pm
^ I'd rather see this on the river.  I've always envisioned the west bank concrete plant redeveloped as a riverfront sports park so this could fit in well with that.  Similar to what OKC has done with their riverfront south of downtown with the boathouses and zip line.

I wonder which site is the frontrunner?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on July 06, 2015, 12:35:25 pm
^ I'd rather see this on the river.  I've always envisioned the west bank concrete plant redeveloped as a riverfront sports park so this could fit in well with that.  Similar to what OKC has done with their riverfront south of downtown with the boathouses and zip line.

I wonder which site is the frontrunner?

Based on the $50 million the owners of that property would have gotten in the ’07 River Tax package I’d think the land cost would be a deal breaker for something like this, but again, I have no clue about Topgolf’s business model.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: SXSW on July 06, 2015, 03:33:02 pm
Based on the $50 million the owners of that property would have gotten in the ’07 River Tax package I’d think the land cost would be a deal breaker for something like this, but again, I have no clue about Topgolf’s business model.

That is "Test Fit Plan #4".  The Nordam site was "Test Fit Plan #2".  I wonder what #1 and #3 are?   ???


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on July 06, 2015, 08:20:07 pm
That is "Test Fit Plan #4".  The Nordam site was "Test Fit Plan #2".  I wonder what #1 and #3 are?   ???

They probably trashed the one on Turkey Mountain.  :o


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: carltonplace on July 07, 2015, 08:24:00 am
Based on the $50 million the owners of that property would have gotten in the ’07 River Tax package I’d think the land cost would be a deal breaker for something like this, but again, I have no clue about Topgolf’s business model.

Conan, this site plan shows south of 21st St which is COT owned land...I thinhk you are referring to the Midcontinent land which is north of 21st.

I don't want this downtown...but I still think this is a lazy, shortsighted, weak sauce project to place at the river where the view of downtown is best and where the impound keeps the river full(ish).

Why not "A Gathering place II" at this site and add living and retail?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: AquaMan on July 07, 2015, 08:43:33 am
It looks like the map is south of 21st but ends before the concrete plant land at 23rd. Lots of folks get confused with it being 23rd street west of the river. Mid continent is now out of place at that location. Much like the car wash was on Cherry street. Add in the nearby subsidized housing and it's a tough sale for non industrial development.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: SXSW on July 07, 2015, 09:15:02 am
Why not "A Gathering place II" at this site and add living and retail?

I like that idea.  It would basically double the size of the River West Festival Park.  Maybe they would be more interested in the COT land south of the bridge.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on July 07, 2015, 12:36:29 pm
The 23rd west bank site might work.  Would be nice if they could incorporate a restaurant/cafe/bar abutting the trail.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Breadburner on July 07, 2015, 12:45:38 pm
They best put this in South Tulsa.....


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on July 07, 2015, 02:07:54 pm
They best put this in South Tulsa.....

Put it where LaFortune is now.  Heh.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on July 07, 2015, 02:16:07 pm
Conan, this site plan shows south of 21st St which is COT owned land...I thinhk you are referring to the Midcontinent land which is north of 21st.

I don't want this downtown...but I still think this is a lazy, shortsighted, weak sauce project to place at the river where the view of downtown is best and where the impound keeps the river full(ish).

Why not "A Gathering place II" at this site and add living and retail?

Nope, look again.  That overlay is on the northernmost part of the concrete plant north of 23rd St., not the COT M & E compound.  Easy to pick out the overflow parking for Riverwest Festival Park on the west side of Jackson.  As well, the entrance to RWFP is aligned with 21st St, that is on the northern boundary of the map.  Pretty fresh image on Google, it shows the improvements underway at RWFP.

(http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q55/71conan/Screenshot%202015-07-07%2015.12.48_zps2rngit20.png)




Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: carltonplace on July 08, 2015, 07:11:50 am
Nope, look again.  That overlay is on the northernmost part of the concrete plant north of 23rd St., not the COT M & E compound.  Easy to pick out the overflow parking for Riverwest Festival Park on the west side of Jackson.  As well, the entrance to RWFP is aligned with 21st St, that is on the northern boundary of the map.  Pretty fresh image on Google, it shows the improvements underway at RWFP.

(http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q55/71conan/Screenshot%202015-07-07%2015.12.48_zps2rngit20.png)




Ahh. I see it now. Still, if the Mid Continent lot is in play now then combine this with the COT yard and create AGPFT West as long as we are dreaming.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on July 08, 2015, 07:37:20 am
I’d rather see Topgolf on the river than downtown and I have to agree with Aqua Man, the concrete plant isn’t much of a fit anymore.  I’m assuming it was originally located there as they used to run sand dredges right off that location on the river.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on July 08, 2015, 11:16:42 am
Here is an image of it from September 1967

(http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p309/kallsop2/Concrete%20plant_zpsl6ydxvgb.jpg)

http://cdm15020.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p16063coll3/id/28/filename/29.pdf (http://cdm15020.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p16063coll3/id/28/filename/29.pdf)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TeeDub on July 08, 2015, 01:48:58 pm

Weird...   What is all that stuff in the river?   Oh right, water...


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on July 08, 2015, 01:53:51 pm
Even weirder, click on that link and scroll up to downtown. Look at all those buildings!


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on July 08, 2015, 02:02:01 pm
Posted this before, here is the site with the USGS maps for Tulsa from 1967.

http://www.batesline.com/archives/2014/03/north-of-downtown-tulsa-1967.html (http://www.batesline.com/archives/2014/03/north-of-downtown-tulsa-1967.html)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on July 09, 2015, 11:02:55 am
I posted this in a new topic. Please let me know if I should delete that and post it here only:

New Hampton Inn & Suites to be built just east of BOK Center at "One Place"

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/new-hampton-inn-suites-to-be-built-just-east-of/article_d6e74d29-1dff-5e2b-b3f0-6ea97786d9e1.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/new-hampton-inn-suites-to-be-built-just-east-of/article_d6e74d29-1dff-5e2b-b3f0-6ea97786d9e1.html)

Quote
Physical development on the planned Hampton Inn & Suites at the One Place development just east of the BOK Center will soon break ground.
The nine-story, 125-room hotel will be constructed by Promise Hotels at a cost of $17.3 million, and will be finished by the end of 2016.
The construction site at the northwest corner of Third and Cheyenne is now surrounded by fencing in preparation for construction.
Thursday’s construction announcement included speakers Mayor Dewey Bartlett; Mike Neal, president and CEO of the Tulsa Chamber; and Ray Hoyt, President of VisitTulsa.
Promise Hotels is in the process of developing two other hotel projects in downtown Tulsa. One is a $15 million to $16 million, 105-room Holiday Inn Express planned for the southeast corner of Archer Street and Detroit Avenue.

That hotel is now set for 105 rooms and a mid to late-summer construction start date, said, Pete Patel, CEO of Promise Hotels. Because it’s a smaller project, construction will go somewhat faster than the Hampton Inn & Suites.
Promise Hotels also announced a $20 million, 134-room Hilton Garden Inn that will wrap around the Oil & Gas Journal building on the southeast corner of Second Street and Cheyenne Avenue.
Physical development on those two hotels has not yet begun.
One Place is a block-sized development that also includes the 17-story One Place Tower occupied by Cimarex Energy Co., and the adjacent, five-story Northwestern Mutual building. Both buildings have retail space on the bottom.
The Hampton Inn announcement follows several other recent announcements of developments in a revitalized Tulsa downtown.
A development dubbed "The Boxyard" was unveiled a month ago for construction at Third Street and Frankfort Avenue. The concept is to stack large cargo containers next to each other and create a retail-oriented environment, along with a few small restaurants and service providers.
Housing projects also are on the way:
The Edge at East Village, a $26 million 162-unit development at 215 S. Greenwood.
The View, a $25 million to $30 million 200-unit development on the southeast corner of Archer Street and Elgin Avenue.
Davenport Urban Lofts, a 24-unit development at 405 N. Main St.
Coliseum Apartments, a 36-unit development at 635 S. Elgin Ave.
Harrington Apartments, a 24-unit development at Eighth and Main Streets.
Additionally, John and Stuart Price of KPM Management have announced they intend to develop 183 units in the TransOK Building at 2 W. Sixth St., the 111 W. Fifth Building and the Adams Building at 403 S. Cheyenne Ave.
Several hotel projects also have focused on downtown.

Lots of new hotels planned downtown. I wonder if they will just siphon business from other parts of town (all the power to them, especially taking in guests who might stay at the BA/I44 interchange) or create new business which otherwise wouldn't come to Tulsa. They will certainly have to compete with each other and existing hotels already downtown. Does anyone have numbers for occupancy rates for any hotels downtown? I

Obviously this would be a great location for people coming in town to go to the BOK center. It is much better use of the parking lot that exists there currently.

There are currently 9 hotels downtown (including the Ambasador) and another 7 in development based on the link in the above article to the previous new downtown hotel announcement:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/downtown/yet-another-new-downtown-tulsa-hotel-planned-this-time-near/article_bfcef537-a412-54a2-b211-7a0255d0efe8.html

So after 2016/2017 there will be 16 downtown hotels plus a bed-n-breakfast, not to mention the dozens of Airbnbs in and  around the IDL. I wonder if demand will keep up. I certainly hope so.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on July 09, 2015, 04:10:19 pm
Top Golf Locations are pretty much cookie cutter. Surface parking for 200-400 cars, then 50-60k square feet of inside space, a couple tiers for driving, and a few acres to whack balls into. Here are their locations in Dallas, OKC, Overland Park, Kansas, Chicago, Austin, Houston, Tampa...

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Topgolf+Dallas/@32.8691412,-96.7451904,388m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x11aaadd900785a1!6m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Topgolf+Oklahoma+City/@35.6025536,-97.53443,375m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x87b21c1aa9fc4a73:0xf8260b12ff14a10a!6m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Topgolf+Overland+Park/@38.9367136,-94.6464481,718m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x41becfca28099d21!6m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Topgolf+Chicago/@41.9843218,-87.9956342,686m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x880fb1f660b2e0d1:0x7ed07c7c39099376!6m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Topgolf+Austin/@30.398256,-97.719166,796m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x8644cc734b862887:0x9fa52087722fe7ad!6m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Topgolf+Houston+-+Katy/@29.786738,-95.6503265,401m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0xa341eb692fec7f1e!6m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Topgolf+Tampa/@27.9295916,-82.3336518,816m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x8716b6986713c1e2!6m1!1e1


Tulsa's will be exactly the same. Msot are on the outskirts of town, the design might vary by having the parking lot go this way or that, but that's it.

I like the idea that it draws in 250,000 people a year. And people looking to go out and do something. Parties, groups, etc. It can also be something that people in town for something else might go do. This is a good thing.

I hate that it is a cookie cutter with acres of surface parking.

It would fit very well at the Fintube site OR the abandon area north of Caines (the "abandoned stairways" area). Areas that are close to "where its at" but wouldn't disrupt the growth of existing areas. It is a good fit, from a purely space consideration, on the concrete plant on the west bank also. While it would be an improvement over the concrete plant - it is a waste of riverfront property and would have no synergy with anything else. Not like they are going to go there, then walk over to BlueRose for a night cap.

It also fits really well on the David L. Moss cite... maybe they want to throw money at it, move the Jail, and build it there?

I'm glad they desire to be near the heart of the City, but it seems out of character for them.

I don't think the East Village cite would be a disaster, probably a better use than semi occupied old factory buildings that are turning to dust. But, like the river location, it seems like a waste of potential.

I'd be happy if it went in the Fin Tube site. Guess I'd wouldn't be thrilled, but I wouldn't be too upset with the other locations on the whole. If it was downtown AND had structure parking I'd be back to being happy. Fintube can have its surface lots...


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on July 10, 2015, 09:29:17 am
14 downtown development projects you should know about:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/photovideo/slideshows/downtown-development-projects-you-should-know-about/collection_2e50248b-80c7-57a5-aa0d-5668c2f1d07b.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/photovideo/slideshows/downtown-development-projects-you-should-know-about/collection_2e50248b-80c7-57a5-aa0d-5668c2f1d07b.html)

Nothing that hasn't already been discussed on here, but adding it as it is a nice visual representation of many new things. It only goes over maybe half of the major planned developments. (Pop Museum, Route 66 museums & Urban 8 absent for example). It is the top story on TW right now so hopefully that will help draw even more interest downtown.



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on July 10, 2015, 09:45:48 am
It only goes over maybe half of the major planned developments. (Pop Museum, Route 66 museums & Urban 8 absent for example). It is the top story on TW right now so hopefully that will help draw even more interest downtown.

But they included Sager!



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: patric on July 10, 2015, 09:48:04 am
It is the top story on TW right now so hopefully that will help draw even more interest downtown.

And while I know crime downtown is often overblown, this week seems to be adding fuel to the flames.  Was reading where Co. Ewing was also hit.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on July 10, 2015, 09:55:37 am
But they included Sager!

Specifically, they said work "will begin soon." To be more specific, they again said work will begin soon.

Otherwise, great little overview. Helped put some of the projects in perspective and in their proper locations for me.

Still confused on why the new ONePlace Hampton Inn has no pictures, designs, or plans associated with any of the press releases. Spending $15+mil on a new building and no show-off pictures to raise excitement? Their website has a rendering I don't think I've seen before:

(http://www.promisehotels.com/files/cache/9396be86b82e911aaf6fe30c1071ae1e_f185.jpg)


As well as a rendering of the HOliday Inn in the brady:

(http://www.promisehotels.com/files/cache/7ffa6a9db9f75a13b1cca0e348ef260d_f103.jpg)

Obviously not finalized plans, but both are OK if realistic. Some life off of Cheyenne would be nice for the OnePlace one, even if we don't get the "walk able courtyard draw people in" thing originally planned. The Holiday Inn in the Brady will fit in nicely with the area keeping the Red Brick theme going and necessarily having life on nearly the entire frontage of Archer.

Amazing how much is coming. Amazing how much the haters continue to hate.

- - -

Quote from: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN
And while I know crime downtown is often overblown, this week seems to be adding fuel to the flames.  Was reading where Co. Ewing was also hit.

I'm confused. Who was referencing crime downtown? What was counselor Ewing hit with? I need context.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: patric on July 10, 2015, 10:26:31 am

I'm confused. Who was referencing crime downtown? What was counselor Ewing hit with? I need context.

There were a smattering of incidents posted on nextdoor.com


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: dsjeffries on July 16, 2015, 10:19:59 am
Does this street improvement suggest this is coming or did the City put parking backwards on a one-way street
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/99359726/20150513_135602.jpg)

The City is adding more back-in angled parking in downtown by the end of August. Where? Along the east side of Cincinnati from 4th to 8th Streets, and in the Blue Dome and Brady Districts.

This is a smart move. It's adding more parking spaces, yes, but it's also putting our downtown streets on a much-needed road diet. Cincinnati is 55 feet wide and includes four lanes of one-way traffic and parking on both sides. The new parking scheme will remove a lane from that mix, reducing the crossing distance for people on foot by 30-40%, and slowing down traffic.

I hope the success of back-in parking means they will attempt other pilot projects in downtown, including adding protected bike lanes and protected intersections. All these things can make walking, biking and driving downtown safer and more pleasant.

If we could extend sidewalks to the edge of those new parking spaces and plant some more trees (and flowers), it would be even better.

Fox 23 article on Back-in Parking (http://www.fox23.com/news/news/local/tulsa-expand-back-angled-parking/nmzXx/)
Quote
The City of Tulsa will expand its back-in angle parking program to other parts of downtown and the Brady District.
The city installed trial spaces on 2nd Street between Elgin and Greenwood downtown last May to see how drivers would react.

Tulsa City Engineer Paul Zachary said the city has not received a single complaint about the spaces since they were installed.

Now, the city hopes to install more on the east side of Cincinnati from 4th to 8th and in the Brady and Blue Dome Districts.
They want to have them available for use by the end of August.

Officials said the parking spot layout is safer for pedestrians and drivers alike.

Since the spaces will be permanent, Zachary said parking meters will be added to the spaces.

He said the spaces in the Blue Dome area were being offered free of charge so drivers would feel encouraged to try them out and get used to them.
It is unknown when the meters will be installed. Officials said there are other priorities for street crews that will take precedent.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: SXSW on July 16, 2015, 02:16:00 pm
There were a smattering of incidents posted on nextdoor.com

What type of incidents? 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: davideinstein on July 17, 2015, 09:58:13 pm
The City is adding more back-in angled parking in downtown by the end of August. Where? Along the east side of Cincinnati from 4th to 8th Streets, and in the Blue Dome and Brady Districts.

This is a smart move. It's adding more parking spaces, yes, but it's also putting our downtown streets on a much-needed road diet. Cincinnati is 55 feet wide and includes four lanes of one-way traffic and parking on both sides. The new parking scheme will remove a lane from that mix, reducing the crossing distance for people on foot by 30-40%, and slowing down traffic.

I hope the success of back-in parking means they will attempt other pilot projects in downtown, including adding protected bike lanes and protected intersections. All these things can make walking, biking and driving downtown safer and more pleasant.

If we could extend sidewalks to the edge of those new parking spaces and plant some more trees (and flowers), it would be even better.

Fox 23 article on Back-in Parking (http://www.fox23.com/news/news/local/tulsa-expand-back-angled-parking/nmzXx/)

Bike lanes are a better option.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Vision 2025 on July 21, 2015, 09:23:15 am
Bike lanes are a better option.
Yea but there kind of skinny to park in.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: CharlieSheen on July 21, 2015, 09:53:58 am
I keep seeing people complain about REI and strip malls and all that.  Am I the only one kind of annoyed that companies are starting to build their corporate headquarters downtown while we still have quite a few office buildings that sit empty?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on July 21, 2015, 10:09:49 am
I keep seeing people complain about REI and strip malls and all that.  Am I the only one kind of annoyed that companies are starting to build their corporate headquarters downtown while we still have quite a few office buildings that sit empty?

Other than the Tulsa Club what decent sized office building downtown is empty that isn't in some stage of conversion to residential?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: CharlieSheen on July 21, 2015, 10:45:24 am
Other than the Tulsa Club what decent sized office building downtown is empty that isn't in some stage of conversion to residential?

The Parker Drilling Building (61,000 sq ft) and you can get about 11 floors at an average of 5k sqft a floor
Corner of 6th and Boston could probably be purchased.
302 S Boston has 31,838 SF available
Midco building has 13,500 sqft available.
Williams tower has 36,000 sqft available

But other than that 142,000 sqft of empty space there is nothing.  Not including the Tulsa club obviously.


Just found out sharp sold the 522 S BOSTON AVE in January of this year.



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: dsjeffries on July 21, 2015, 12:07:12 pm
Bike lanes are a better option.

We can have both back-in angled parking and protected bike lanes (and protected intersections, for that matter).


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on July 21, 2015, 12:18:24 pm
The Parker Drilling Building (61,000 sq ft) and you can get about 11 floors at an average of 5k sqft a floor
Corner of 6th and Boston could probably be purchased.
302 S Boston has 31,838 SF available
Midco building has 13,500 sqft available.
Williams tower has 36,000 sqft available

But other than that 142,000 sqft of empty space there is nothing.  Not including the Tulsa club obviously.


Just found out sharp sold the 522 S BOSTON AVE in January of this year.



That is not much as at all. If China's economy doesn't tank and oil recovers as expected, we will need a lot more office space downtown very soon.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: CharlieSheen on July 21, 2015, 12:34:41 pm
That is not much as at all. If China's economy doesn't tank and oil recovers as expected, we will need a lot more office space downtown very soon.

That stuff has been vacant for quite a while. Even when oil was higher and China was chugging along.  As of an August 2014 Tulsa world article downtown is about 20% vacant.  That sqft was just what I found listed on a website.  I'm sure there is more available.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DTowner on July 21, 2015, 12:42:45 pm
The Parker Drilling Building (61,000 sq ft) and you can get about 11 floors at an average of 5k sqft a floor
Corner of 6th and Boston could probably be purchased.
302 S Boston has 31,838 SF available
Midco building has 13,500 sqft available.
Williams tower has 36,000 sqft available

But other than that 142,000 sqft of empty space there is nothing.  Not including the Tulsa club obviously.


Just found out sharp sold the 522 S BOSTON AVE in January of this year.

As I recall, most of the available space downtown is Class C space. 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DTowner on July 21, 2015, 12:44:03 pm
That is not much as at all. If China's economy doesn't tank and oil recovers as expected, we will need a lot more office space downtown very soon.

That may depend in part on the outcome of the Williams auction.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: CharlieSheen on July 21, 2015, 12:58:11 pm
As I recall, most of the available space downtown is Class C space.  

You are right that it isn't the best space.  You would think renovating the space would be more efficient than building an entirely new building.  Now the rub on that is the tenants don't own the building.  So its on the owner to give reduced rates or pay for the renovations.  Things like the Cimarex building I'm all for.  Its just the office buildings over by blue dome getting built.  I think it would be nice to have some retail space over there in about 1-2 years.  But instead we are going to have office buildings on prime real estate in an entertainment district for decades.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: rdj on July 21, 2015, 01:19:09 pm
You are right that it isn't the best space.  You would think renovating the space would be more efficient than building an entirely new building.  Now the rub on that is the tenants don't own the building.  So its on the owner to give reduced rates or pay for the renovations.  Things like the Cimarex building I'm all for.  Its just the office buildings over by blue dome getting built.  I think it would be nice to have some retail space over there in about 1-2 years.  But instead we are going to have office buildings on prime real estate in an entertainment district for decades.

The floor plates are bad for the latest version of the modern office.  To start moving them around leads to a near never-ending spiral of updates ranging from abatement to sprinkler systems to ADA concerns.  Based on current land and construction costs much easier to build 40,000 ft than it is to renovate the same or less.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on July 21, 2015, 01:42:27 pm
You are right that it isn't the best space.  You would think renovating the space would be more efficient than building an entirely new building.  Now the rub on that is the tenants don't own the building.  So its on the owner to give reduced rates or pay for the renovations.  Things like the Cimarex building I'm all for.  Its just the office buildings over by blue dome getting built.  I think it would be nice to have some retail space over there in about 1-2 years.  But instead we are going to have office buildings on prime real estate in an entertainment district for decades.

Uh, jerbs er what feeds erterternment & rerterl distercts.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: dsjeffries on July 21, 2015, 01:43:41 pm
You are right that it isn't the best space.  You would think renovating the space would be more efficient than building an entirely new building.  Now the rub on that is the tenants don't own the building.  So its on the owner to give reduced rates or pay for the renovations.  Things like the Cimarex building I'm all for.  Its just the office buildings over by blue dome getting built.  I think it would be nice to have some retail space over there in about 1-2 years.  But instead we are going to have office buildings on prime real estate in an entertainment district for decades.

Keep in mind, these new buildings are (mostly) replacing surface parking lots. I'll take an office building with first-floor retail any day over a surface parking lot. Even those that don't have ground-floor retail space have the potential to build out that space in the future.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on July 21, 2015, 05:33:05 pm
The City is adding more back-in angled parking in downtown by the end of August. Where? Along the east side of Cincinnati from 4th to 8th Streets, and in the Blue Dome and Brady Districts.

This is a smart move.
Fox 23 article on Back-in Parking (http://www.fox23.com/news/news/local/tulsa-expand-back-angled-parking/nmzXx/)

I agree.  North Boulder Ave between Cameron and Easton has tons of space for angled parking.  It's about 56 feet between curbs.

Ninth Street between Boulder and Elgin could have angled parking.  There's no need for two moving vehicular lanes in each direction on Ninth.  Same for Main between Sixth and Tenth...


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: SXSW on July 21, 2015, 09:37:14 pm
That may depend in part on the outcome of the Williams auction.

I would imagine Williams would still have a sizable Tulsa operation even if merged with ETE or KinderMorgan.  Hopefully they can stay independent though.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: carltonplace on July 22, 2015, 07:07:04 am
When is Boulder Ave going to be changed to two-way? The current configuration is dumb now that there is a two way bridge at First St.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: rdj on July 22, 2015, 07:37:14 am
Noticed the new "East Village" signs on stop signs downtown this weekend.  Didn't fully realize how close that "districts" boundaries came to the Blue Dome "District."  Will be interesting to see how the "sunny side of downtown" develops.  Lots of air quotes in this post.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on July 22, 2015, 08:44:26 am
What companies are erecting new office buildings downtown?  The only ones I'm aware of in recent years are Cimarex, KOTV, and Hogan.  Did I miss some announcements?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: CharlieSheen on July 22, 2015, 02:08:03 pm
What companies are erecting new office buildings downtown?  The only ones I'm aware of in recent years are Cimarex, KOTV, and Hogan.  Did I miss some announcements?

Not sure who.  1st and Greenwood has a new office building and the building next to Legends is getting converted into offices from what I understand.  That space would have made a great brew pub :( Wish we had somebody big enough to grab it.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: carltonplace on July 22, 2015, 02:11:50 pm
That building is being renovated into office for the Ross Group.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: CharlieSheen on July 22, 2015, 02:18:50 pm
That building is being renovated into office for the Ross Group.

Its going to do wonders for the blue dome restaurants during lunch.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on July 22, 2015, 02:24:49 pm
Its going to do wonders for the blue dome restaurants during lunch.

Between them, Hogan, and the hundreds of residents who will be moving into the apartments, demand for food is going to increase pretty strongly, including dinner crowds.  Hopefully the new residents will make a grocery store viable too.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: CharlieSheen on July 22, 2015, 02:26:19 pm
Between them, Hogan, and the hundreds of residents who will be moving into the apartments, demand for food is going to increase pretty strongly, including dinner crowds.  Hopefully the new residents will make a grocery store viable too.

I'd be interested to see how many people work downtown eat dinner downtown.  We've had downtown restaurants that close at lunch for quite a while now over on Main.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on July 22, 2015, 03:09:29 pm
When is Boulder Ave going to be changed to two-way?
I've been wondering myself.

Here's the City's press release for the conversion of three blocks of Main Street two years ago:

https://www.cityoftulsa.org/news/news-stories/2013/main-street8-7-13.aspx (https://www.cityoftulsa.org/news/news-stories/2013/main-street8-7-13.aspx)

The cost then for three blocks was about $80,000.  Not being a traffic expert, but just using about $30,000 per block, the cost to convert Boulder from 10th to 1st would be about $270,000.  And the amount of time might be about 8 weeks, just extrapolating from the 2013 Main Street numbers.

But I think Boulder will be more complex because of the existing garage access points on the west side of the 600 and 700 blocks, and crossing the 7th/8th one-way pair feeding the east and west legs of the IDL.  I'm guessing that the garage entries on the east side of Boulder (200 block, 400 block, 500 block, and 600 block) won't be a problem in a two-way conversion, because the traffic flow in and out won't really change. 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TheArtist on July 22, 2015, 05:02:46 pm
I think one of the biggest things for downtown will be good transit.  A couple of downtown only circulator busses that have 10-15 minute arrival times that ran most days, plus bus rapid transit that connected to the Pearl, Brookside, Cherry Street and the Gathering Place, along with rail to OKC, would be part of a dream scenario.

With good transit Whole Foods, Reasors, and Trader Joes on Brookside would essentially become downtown grocery stores.  Not optimal, but very doable.  Until we do get a grocery store downtown I would love to be able to tell visitors that come into my store and ask where to get.... that all they have to do is hop on the BRT and they can be there in a few minutes, and also do a little shopping and dining there as well. 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on July 23, 2015, 03:15:32 pm
So the lot next to the PAC is looking for developers.  My guess is that we'll get a pretty drawing like One Place and end up with something crappy like the Cimarex building.

http://www.newson6.com/story/29612127/downtown-tulsa-parking-lot-looking-for-developers


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DTowner on July 24, 2015, 10:53:12 am
The RFP requires that the development contain 296 parking spaces currently on the lot and include additional parking required by the new development.  That really ignores the large surface lots adjacent to and near this spot.  Also, given the short window to respond, how realistic is it that an interesting, creative, and well thought out plan can be put together and submitted?

http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/griffin/NEWSon6/PDF/1507/PACdevelopment.pdf



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: CharlieSheen on July 24, 2015, 12:48:14 pm
The RFP requires that the development contain 296 parking spaces currently on the lot and include additional parking required by the new development.  That really ignores the large surface lots adjacent to and near this spot.  

True, but can they count on that being there in the future?  Hopefully not.  They would have to purchase the lots if they don't already own them.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DTowner on July 24, 2015, 01:16:10 pm
True, but can they count on that being there in the future?  Hopefully not.  They would have to purchase the lots if they don't already own them.

Hopefully not, but that’s the point - every downtown development should not have to provide its own mximum use parking as if it were a suburban strip mall.

My office looks out over this parking lot and I see that it is never full during the day.  Same with the other lots on 3rd from Boston to Detroit.  The lot next to the PAC is usually only full on the nights of large PAC events - or about 25-30 nights a year.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: AdamsHall on July 31, 2015, 12:31:11 pm
That would have to be American Residential's next project. They said some time ago that after Hartford Commons got going (which it has) they would then work next on property they own by Oneok with a planned start date of summer 2015.

Appears the start date has arrived as ArcWrecking is out there doing their thing.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on July 31, 2015, 01:29:33 pm
I think one of the biggest things for downtown will be good transit.  A couple of downtown only circulator busses that have 10-15 minute arrival times that ran most days, plus bus rapid transit that connected to the Pearl, Brookside, Cherry Street and the Gathering Place, along with rail to OKC, would be part of a dream scenario.

With good transit Whole Foods, Reasors, and Trader Joes on Brookside would essentially become downtown grocery stores.  Not optimal, but very doable.  Until we do get a grocery store downtown I would love to be able to tell visitors that come into my store and ask where to get.... that all they have to do is hop on the BRT and they can be there in a few minutes, and also do a little shopping and dining there as well. 


Critical need!!

We have gone downtown more and more over the last 5 - 6 years and enjoy it a lot!  Until this year....more people are having the same thoughts, so traffic and parking has become such a hassle that I bet we haven't been there more than 8 or 10 times this year...way down from previous.


And China is building a high speed rail for ONE event - the winter Olympics!!  For crying out loud, they are essentially building this to go from "New York" to "Coweta"!!  For a few weeks worth of use!!  Why the blue blazes can't we get decent transit for full time use for decades??  The psychosis in this state is mind numbing!!



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Townsend on July 31, 2015, 02:10:07 pm
Appears the start date has arrived as ArcWrecking is out there doing their thing.

I just looked out there.  Are you talking about something in addition or the buildings that were just removed?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on July 31, 2015, 07:35:13 pm
Traffic and parking a hassle downtown?

I assume you avoid Brookside, Cherry Street, 71st, a Riverside, well... Anywhere with stuff to do. Plus Norman, Stillwater and 11th on game day. Basically, stick to Skiatook and you'll have no problems.

Or... Park 6 blocks away and no issues pretty much anywhere (game day exception in college towns).


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: AdamsHall on August 01, 2015, 02:40:51 pm
I just looked out there.  Are you talking about something in addition or the buildings that were just removed?

No, just that they are finishing up the building removal.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on August 03, 2015, 10:33:38 am
Traffic and parking a hassle downtown?

I assume you avoid Brookside, Cherry Street, 71st, a Riverside, well... Anywhere with stuff to do. Plus Norman, Stillwater and 11th on game day. Basically, stick to Skiatook and you'll have no problems.

Or... Park 6 blocks away and no issues pretty much anywhere (game day exception in college towns).


You seem to kinda make it sound like dealing with hassles are a virtue...??  Badge of Courage thing....

Brookside yes.  Cherry street no.  Downtown - sort of - down to 8 or 10 this year.  Norman/Stillwater - never.

That's the whole point to creating/having a transit system - to facilitate the movement of people in a smooth fashion - make it easier, remove the hassles.  As we have been discussing here for a while.  Make it easier for more people to move around to the places of interest so more will come, creating more business opportunities, entertainment for more people, etc.  Like the people-moving systems in all the science fiction stories - and the Atlanta airport!!

You go right to an interesting phenomenon on this site - there is a huge focus here on all the new stuff that is going on downtown and all the venues you mention - and almost a trivial amount of focus on the movement of all the people who are going to be using that new stuff.  Traffic getting worse is NOT inevitable - except perhaps here in Oklahoma - if one plans for and implements the movement infrastructure to go with everything else - we should be building the infrastructure FASTER than the new restaurants, housing, entertainment venues!  And our City Council takes an even more trivial approach to the idea!  Maybe we could get them to paint some "bike lanes" on the side of the streets...



And Skiatook is getting too busy...gonna have to move to Nelagoney....drove through over the weekend on the way to the Tallgrass Prairie, and it was fairly quiet.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T1s7uMtgJs



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on August 04, 2015, 09:24:50 am

You seem to kinda make it sound like dealing with hassles are a virtue...??  Badge of Courage thing....
. . .
You go right to an interesting phenomenon on this site - there is a huge focus here on all the new stuff that is going on downtown and all the venues you mention - and almost a trivial amount of focus on the movement of all the people who are going to be using that new stuff.  Traffic getting worse is NOT inevitable. . .we should be building the infrastructure FASTER than the new restaurants, housing, entertainment venues!  And our City Council takes an even more trivial approach to the idea!  Maybe we could get them to paint some "bike lanes" on the side of the streets...
. . .
And Skiatook is getting too busy...gonna have to move to Nelagoney....drove through over the weekend on the way to the Tallgrass Prairie, and it was fairly quiet.

You raise great points. I was merely trying to point out that the congestion isn't THAT bad. If you are willing to walk a bit, you can get in and out with minimal problems.

But you are absolutely correct, it will inevitably get worse unless better planning is implemented. As it becomes more of a hassle, the self feeding growth will grind to a halt and become self defeating growth --- unless better transit options are available.

Very well put.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TheArtist on August 04, 2015, 01:10:53 pm
What will really kill it is if what we mostly get is car traffic and not pedestrian traffic.

Walt Disney was showing a reporter around the just about to be completed Disney World and said something to the effect of... "Just wait till you see this when the main attraction gets here!"  The reporter asked what this attraction was going to be.  Walt replied "The people".  Walt knew what he was talking about.

Sidewalks full of people are the main attraction (and business driver, in many cities the "pedestrian count" is part of the formula for gauging property values)  We don't even do pedestrian counts, nor do we consider pedestrians when putting in infrastructure like transit, parking garages, etc.  right now we focus on cars. But if all we end up with is traffic and no pedestrians, well it will be like the 80s all over again and downtown will not be attractive or competitive or economically viable for things like retail. 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: sgrizzle on August 04, 2015, 02:42:24 pm

Critical need!!

We have gone downtown more and more over the last 5 - 6 years and enjoy it a lot!  Until this year....more people are having the same thoughts, so traffic and parking has become such a hassle that I bet we haven't been there more than 8 or 10 times this year...way down from previous.

I live near 71st. Traffic is up everywhere and downtown is still a breeze.


And China is building a high speed rail for ONE event - the winter Olympics!!  For crying out loud, they are essentially building this to go from "New York" to "Coweta"!!  For a few weeks worth of use!!  Why the blue blazes can't we get decent transit for full time use for decades??  The psychosis in this state is mind numbing!!



China also pays like a nickel a day for labor and no union-negotiated benefits.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on August 04, 2015, 05:29:42 pm
You raise great points. I was merely trying to point out that the congestion isn't THAT bad. If you are willing to walk a bit, you can get in and out with minimal problems.

But you are absolutely correct, it will inevitably get worse unless better planning is implemented. As it becomes more of a hassle, the self feeding growth will grind to a halt and become self defeating growth --- unless better transit options are available.

Very well put.


We usually intentionally park at least a couple of blocks from where we are going - get some exercise and get to "sight see".  One exception is Spaghetti Warehouse - we will park in their lot, then when done eating, walk a few blocks around just to look at stuff.


Ideally, would park south of TCC in the new 15 level parking garage on that entire block (6 levels underground, 9 above), then hop on the shuttle/bus/train to get to central core downtown.  Then hop on again for trip back.  Or Cherry Street.  Or Brookside.  Etc...




Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: carltonplace on August 05, 2015, 01:06:26 pm
Besides the demolition at Archer and Elgin on the site of the future ARG project there is a construction fence at 5th and Cheyenne for the Marriott Residence Inn. I think the entrance will be on 5th St which is going to make that interection look really cool with two handsome hotels catty-corner from each other.
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/538/AfCDik.jpg)

(http://www.tulsahotels.com/hotels_images/PrimaryImages/102_Mayo%20Exterior.jpg)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TheArtist on August 05, 2015, 04:22:23 pm
Besides the demolition at Archer and Elgin on the site of the future ARG project there is a construction fence at 5th and Cheyenne for the Marriott Residence Inn. I think the entrance will be on 5th St which is going to make that interection look really cool with two handsome hotels catty-corner from each other.
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/538/AfCDik.jpg)

(http://www.tulsahotels.com/hotels_images/PrimaryImages/102_Mayo%20Exterior.jpg)

Kewl, I think that is one of my old photos.  Years and years ago I went around town taking photos and posted them online, free for anyone to use.  Funny how even today I still see them crop up here and there.  ;D


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on August 06, 2015, 09:44:51 am
Awesome.  I try not to get too excited about projects until dirt starts moving.  We've been burned too many times.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: carltonplace on August 13, 2015, 05:01:18 pm
"The Edge" Apartment complex by ARG is putting up the fourth floor today, they are crushing it.

 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on August 18, 2015, 04:01:03 pm
All I can say is this is a very real project. A group was at ICSC promoting the development to retailers and ARG will be the apartment developer and will have around 300 units. Office building will be around 150,000 sq. ft. which is sorely needed. Likely this will be staged to where the Edge will deliver and give an 8 month lease up window and stabilization period, then the Ballpark development would likely deliver with a similar 8 month to 1 year lease up and stabilization period, then the Santa Fe Station apartments will come online.

It's likely that the surface parking lot by the PAC will be under development too around the same time with a retail component but not sure whether it will have office or multifamily at the moment.

Downtown will quickly be changing.

I might be more excited about this than Santa Fe Station - this is AWESOME!!

I wanted to do something very similar here after seeing this: http://www.boxpark.co.uk
It's such a cool concept and shipping containers are very easy to convert for pop-up shops, small food places, and other longer-term small retailers. I hope they bring in some national brands to help test the waters for downtown retail.

Update on the Boxyard Tulsa: http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/downtown/dwelling-spaces-masa-to-be-anchor-tenants-for-the-boxyard/article_80d5d2a2-0ecd-585f-802d-21a9d39dd920.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/downtown/dwelling-spaces-masa-to-be-anchor-tenants-for-the-boxyard/article_80d5d2a2-0ecd-585f-802d-21a9d39dd920.html)


Quote
Dwelling Spaces and Joebot’s Coffee Bar, along with Masa restaurant, will be the anchor tenants for The Boxyard development, it was announced Tuesday.
The Boxyard is named for shipping containers that will be retrofitted with an urban chic design to house each retail and restaurant space. It will be located on the southeast corner of Third Street and Frankfort Avenue, and is scheduled to open in spring 2016.
Dwelling Spaces and Joebot’s Coffee Bar will occupy five shipping containers totaling 1,600 square feet. They will relocate to The Boxyard from their existing space at Second Street and Detroit Avenue, which opened in 2006.
Masa, which will expand from its current food truck operation to a permanent site at The Boxyard, also will occupy five of the 8-foot-by-30-foot containers.
Mary Beth Babcock, owner of Dwelling Spaces, will serve as the property’s programming manager. She will plan a variety of events, such as live entertainment, book launches, arts and crafts workshops and movie screenings.
“Our goal with The Boxyard is to bring together quality local businesses in a unique space to create a retail experience that you can’t find anywhere else in Tulsa,” developer Casey Stowe said in a release.
“Taking time to curate prospective tenants and working with Mary Beth to bring interesting programming to The Boxyard allows us to create something truly transformative for downtown.”
Dwelling Spaces is a gift shop with a heavy emphasis on Oklahoma styles and products. Joebot’s Coffee Bar is a high-end espresso bar located inside Dwelling Spaces.
“It’s a dream to work with such talented entrepreneurs on a visionary, creative project like The Boxyard,” Babcock said. “I’ve been playing retail ever since I was 8 years old, and I’ve always looked for ways to be different and give the customer a unique experience.”
Masa, owned by Robert Carnoske and Chad Wilcox, specializes in South American cuisine with dishes such as empanadas, Cuban sandwiches and arepa (corn bread).
Masa recently added inside dining space at its kitchen at 7996 S. Sheridan Road.
“We are very excited about opening a location at The Boxyard as part of our expansion from our food truck to permanent locations,” Carnoske said.”The Tulsa community is eager for new and different culinary options, and we enjoy helping people experience the South American cuisine we love so much.”

I recently visited the Downtown Container Park in Veagas (downtowncontainerpark.com (http://downtowncontainerpark.com)). It was really neat. Very interesting and eclectic with a notable lack of large corporation influence. In other words, not at all what Vegas is known for. I hope Tulsa's is remotely close. It was a great atmosphere and had several good bars/restaurants.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: carltonplace on August 19, 2015, 07:40:32 am
So far our downtown has a notable lack of corporate retail/restaurant and it's the local folks that are driving the growth and filling the needs.
In downtown we have three subways, a dominos, arbys, supercuts and a bunch of chain hotels
Everything else that I can think of is either a Tulsa original or a local owned franchise.

Not a single starbucks, but tons of coffee choices. I don't believe that any other comparable downtown can make this claim.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: rdj on August 19, 2015, 07:54:33 am
So far our downtown has a notable lack of corporate retail/restaurant and it's the local folks that are driving the growth and filling the needs.
In downtown we have three subways, a dominos, arbys, supercuts and a bunch of chain hotels
Everything else that I can think of is either a Tulsa original or a local owned franchise.

Not a single starbucks, but tons of coffee choices. I don't believe that any other comparable downtown can make this claim.

That is because the demographics when pulled by real estate folks don't fit the minimum standards of the national chains.  The per-capita income of the residents within the downtown census blocks needs to increase along with traffic counts and you'll see some of the chains start moving in.  This is typical of "gentrification", the local groups have the vision and invest their capital, drive the demographics and traffic counts up and the national money seeking an less risky investment follows suit driving the prices up and the local groups out, local groups then move on to the next spot and you rinse and repeat. 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on August 19, 2015, 08:31:24 am
That is because the demographics when pulled by real estate folks don't fit the minimum standards of the national chains.  The per-capita income of the residents within the downtown census blocks needs to increase along with traffic counts and you'll see some of the chains start moving in.  This is typical of "gentrification", the local groups have the vision and invest their capital, drive the demographics and traffic counts up and the national money seeking an less risky investment follows suit driving the prices up and the local groups out, local groups then move on to the next spot and you rinse and repeat. 

There's also the Jimmy John's which seems to be pretty picky on locations. I'm guessing they went in for the 9-5 crowd. They close much earlier than others (one on 11th open til 3am).

Overall I love the small privately-own  businesses more than chains. Certain chains have interesting enough places or good enough products to still add to an interesting urban vibe (Trader Joes, Jimmy Johns, H&M). I hope Tulsa entrepreneurs continue to embrace the risk of opening downtown as the population increases so that the atmosphere keeps improving.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on August 19, 2015, 10:42:41 am
I wonder what will go in to the current Dwelling Spaces.  It's a large space and good location, especially if they develop the PAC lot.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on August 19, 2015, 03:32:13 pm
I wonder what will go in to the current Dwelling Spaces.  It's a large space and good location, especially if they develop the PAC lot.

I heard it was a Norstroms or a Fresh Market or even an REI  :P

That's a good question. That should be a great spot for someone. I'm glad Dwelling Spaces is moving to the Boxyard. Good tenants should anchor it.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TheArtist on August 19, 2015, 04:12:21 pm
I am actually ok with the big retail chains not coming in just now.  I am using the "breathing space" so to speak to learn and grow and get my ducks in a row so that I can be more competitive once the other guys do come in.  Course the other notion would be, that if a unique "draw" type retailer were to enter downtown that pulled in people from all over to shop, that could help. 

This Box Car thing puts me into an interesting thought process.

  Do I stay where I am at and slowly split off sections of my store to expand and create other stores in my area, and in effect try to create another shopping area?  (would the process be too slow and leave my area lagging behind and losing) Or should I perhaps inquire about having a small shop in one of the Box Car spaces?  That area, if the bigger players continue to add more retail spaces and work to add more retail tenants, could really anchor in retail wise and become "the place to shop downtown".  Not sure I could manage doing both at this time.   


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: sgrizzle on August 19, 2015, 07:29:11 pm
I wonder what will go in to the current Dwelling Spaces.  It's a large space and good location, especially if they develop the PAC lot.

It's actually not that big. Like half a Jimmy Johns.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on August 19, 2015, 10:28:36 pm
Just an aside to the article for purely nonsensical reasons:

My company outfits shipping containers and semi trailers with portable boiler rooms on a regular basis.  I’ve had fits trying to get 8 x 30 containers.  I can find all the 8 x 20 and 8 x 40, but can never seem to get the 30’s.  The broker I work with puts it this way: “A 30 ft. container is like a happy wife.  I’ve heard of them at least once, but never seen one of them personally.”





Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on August 21, 2015, 08:20:26 am
So far our downtown has a notable lack of corporate retail/restaurant and it's the local folks that are driving the growth and filling the needs.
In downtown we have three subways, a dominos, arbys, supercuts and a bunch of chain hotels
Everything else that I can think of is either a Tulsa original or a local owned franchise.

Not a single starbucks, but tons of coffee choices. I don't believe that any other comparable downtown can make this claim.

Well that didn't last long....

Quote from: KOTV
Starbucks is coming to the Central Library in downtown Tulsa. Central Library is undergoing an extensive renovation project and is scheduled to reopen in summer 2016.

According to a news release, the Starbucks will be located on the ground floor at the southeast corner of the building, near South Denver Avenue and East Fifth Street. The 1,483 square-foot store will have its own entrance and will include indoor seating as well as a patio.

“We look forward to partnering with Starbucks, which has strong brand recognition, a large customer-base, successful operational record, and an extensive training process,” said Tulsa City-County Library Chief Executive Officer Gary Shaffer.

The Starbucks' hours aren't final yet, but will be probably be consistent with other Starbucks locations in the area, the release says. The coffee shop will be able to operate even when the library is closed.

The shop is expected to employee 18 people who will work for Starbucks and not the library system.

http://www.newson6.com/story/29846249/starbucks-coming-to-downtown-tulsa-library

Tulsa World is calling it the world's first public library Starbucks, which I find dubious...

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/world-s-first-public-library-starbucks-coming-to-downtown-tulsa/article_29eb37f8-0e8e-583b-98e5-937436e99b88.html


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on August 21, 2015, 08:45:54 am
Well that didn't last long....

http://www.newson6.com/story/29846249/starbucks-coming-to-downtown-tulsa-library


I laughed when I saw that having read that comment before. Perfect timing carlton!


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DTowner on August 21, 2015, 09:53:50 am
Well that didn't last long....

http://www.newson6.com/story/29846249/starbucks-coming-to-downtown-tulsa-library

What an odd location choice.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Townsend on August 21, 2015, 11:04:39 am
What an odd location choice.


They know things that are in the works that we don't know.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: BKDotCom on August 21, 2015, 11:19:32 am
They know things that are in the works that we don't know.

Coffee subsidies for the homeless


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Townsend on August 21, 2015, 12:23:33 pm
Coffee subsidies for the homeless

SOCIALISM


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: LandArchPoke on August 22, 2015, 07:59:45 pm
Here's some details on the PAC RFP. In total 3 submitted plans:

Flaherty and Collins (Indianapolis)
http://flco.com

12 stories of apartments, a 35,000-square foot Reasors grocery store, parking and civic space solely for use by the PAC.

Milhaus Development (Indianapolis)
http://www.milhaus.com

Team with a Tulsa architecture firm to build ground-floor retail and restaurant space with luxury apartments above.

G4 LLC (Tulsa)
LLC is registered by a Jayesh Jain who looks to be a hotel developer.

Envisions a hotel/condo mix, shops, a grocery store, parking garage and the addition of a theater above Cincinnati.

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/673/wwBpOn.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/ipwwBpOnj)

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/537/zGxDAe.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/exzGxDAej)

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/540/348SZl.png) (https://imageshack.com/i/f0348SZlp)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: LandArchPoke on August 23, 2015, 10:05:51 am
Some additional pictures I pulled from the Newson6 story:

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/673/ajITZg.png) (https://imageshack.com/i/ipajITZgp)

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/661/wyN42G.png) (https://imageshack.com/i/idwyN42Gp)

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/540/S4aK5E.png) (https://imageshack.com/i/f0S4aK5Ep)

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/537/V3QcyV.png) (https://imageshack.com/i/exV3QcyVp)

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/673/vNG6S4.png) (https://imageshack.com/i/ipvNG6S4p)

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/538/e444PZ.png) (https://imageshack.com/i/eye444PZp)

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/537/3NkfQh.png) (https://imageshack.com/i/ex3NkfQhp)

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/905/PnXNfW.png) (https://imageshack.com/i/p5PnXNfWp)

Not terribly impressed with the Milhaus proposal - they essentially have placed a giant parking garage next to the PAC. The other two seem to be very interesting and a decent use of this parking lot. My only comments would be on the Flaherty and Collins one to get rid of the skybridge and the G4 LLC one needs to engage the street level a bit better. At the end of the day these are just concepts though so let's hope the PAC trust hold whichever developer they select to a high standard and don't let them scale anything down.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: SXSW on August 23, 2015, 02:46:50 pm
What is the timeline for selection and starting construction?  If one of these proposals and the Santa Fe Square project go as planned that would be absolutely huge for this end of downtown.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: LandArchPoke on August 24, 2015, 09:21:06 pm
What is the timeline for selection and starting construction?  If one of these proposals and the Santa Fe Square project go as planned that would be absolutely huge for this end of downtown.

The selection will likely be made very quickly. This has been in the works for some time. One of these projects is very close to being shovel ready - if it's the one that gets selected. I would suspect we'll hear something about the selection of a developer in the next month with hopefully a ground breaking towards the first of 2016.



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on August 25, 2015, 09:43:50 am
(https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlf1/t31.0-8/q85/s720x720/11952779_1124626474233782_2818433958810434773_o.jpg)

This is gonna be pretty awesome.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TeeDub on August 25, 2015, 09:53:04 am

That Fassler Hall image reminds me of the layout of the Empire Bar on 15th.   Always loved their outside area.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on August 25, 2015, 12:16:26 pm

This is gonna be pretty awesome.

I thought I saw that closed off and under construction. Looks nice! I'm all for more patio areas at Tulsa's best bars, especially when it replaces a parking lot! Inner Circle Vodka bar has done a good job with theirs (across from Cain's). Some outdoor games and an inviting environment!


On their facebook thread, people have posted early progress pics. I hope it is ready in time for their Oktoberfest celebration. Having a closed in area with trees will add to the Bier Garten environment.
https://www.facebook.com/fasslerhall (https://www.facebook.com/fasslerhall)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on August 25, 2015, 01:30:12 pm
Hopefully the fence facing the road will be low enough that people can see the life inside.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: carltonplace on August 27, 2015, 01:27:55 pm
Dirt is moving at 5th and Cheyenne for the Residence inn!


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on August 31, 2015, 08:53:04 am
With the Palace Building conversion starting by my count that makes 21 projects under construction in downtown Tulsa right now:

  • Tulsa Central Library   5th and Denver   Complete Rehab of Central Library
    Urban 8   2nd and Kenosha   8 Residential for Sale Units
    Avanti Building   810 S Cincinnatti    Reconstruction of Office Building
    YMCA Lofts   5th and Denver   Residential Conversion of former YMCA
    East End Village   2nd and Kenosha   Residential Conversion of Bill White Chevy Dealership
    Harrington's Lofts   7th and Boston   Residential Conversion of former Department Store
    Main and Cameron Lofts   Main and Cameron   Residential Conversion of Former Warehouse
    Hampton Inn   3rd and Cheyenne   New Construction Hotel
    The Edge at East Village   215 S Greenwood   New Residential Building
    Hogan Assessments HQ   NE Corner of 1st and Greenwood   New Office Building
    Mincks-Adams Hotel Building   403 S Cheyene   Residential Conversion of office building on national register of historic places
    Transok Building   2 W. Sixth St   Residential Conversion of hotel on national register of historic places
    111 W 5th Building   111 W 5th   Residential Conversion of office building
    Rehabilitation Center   13th and Trenton   New Construction Rehab Center by Hillcrest Hospital
    Dead Armadillo Brewery   1004  E 4th   Microbrewey in converted warehouse space
    Fox Hotel/Universal Ford Building   Main and Brady   Retail/Residential Conversion
    International Harvester Building   2nd and Frankfort   Conversion to Office Space
    Gates Hardware Building   Elgin and Brady   Conversion to Office Space  and Retail
    400 S Boston Building   4th and Boston   Conversion to Residential
    Palace Building   4th and Main   Conversion to Residential
    Residence Inn   5th and Cheyenne   New Construction Hotel



The site for the 22nd project, The View at Greenwood, just finished demo work and should start very soon. These 22 projects have a total 869 residential units, 230 hotel rooms, 50,000 sq ft of retail and 325,000 sq ft of office space.

Have I missed anything?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on August 31, 2015, 09:13:45 am

The site for the 22nd project, The View at Greenwood, just finished demo work and should start very soon. These 22 projects have a total 869 residential units, 230 hotel rooms, 50,000 sq ft of retail and 325,000 sq ft of office space.

Have I missed anything?

Quite a big list! It is neat to see all of that.  Thanks for updating!


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on September 03, 2015, 11:49:39 am
Some additional pictures I pulled from the Newson6 story:

Not terribly impressed with the Milhaus proposal - they essentially have placed a giant parking garage next to the PAC. The other two seem to be very interesting and a decent use of this parking lot. My only comments would be on the Flaherty and Collins one to get rid of the skybridge and the G4 LLC one needs to engage the street level a bit better. At the end of the day these are just concepts though so let's hope the PAC trust hold whichever developer they select to a high standard and don't let them scale anything down.

An update on the PAC lot developments:


Quote
Early pitch for developing Performing Arts Center parking lot includes grocery store
An early concept for developing a downtown parking lot includes a long-sought grocery store.
A developer’s pitch for the parking lot next to the Tulsa Performing Arts Center would bring 12 stories of apartments, various retail sites and a new Reasor’s grocery store to downtown.
The pitch was one of three recently reviewed by the Tulsa Performing Arts Center Trust Authority.
The parking lot eyed for development, between Cincinnati and Detroit avenues south of Second Street, is controlled by the Performing Arts Center Trust Authority, which is in the early stages of seeking ideas and proposals to possibly develop the land.
The authority reviewed conceptual plans from three firms seeking to be considered for future development.
The board is now awaiting full formal proposals, which will be revealed and evaluated in October, said trust chairman Stanton Doyle.
Doyle said all proposals are being considered until the next stage, when a proposal could be accepted or get eliminated all together.
Three concepts for the property were reviewed by Doyle and other trust members before they decided to move into the phase of formally accepting proposals.
The grocery store concept was in only one of the proposals.
Brent Edstrom, spokesman for Reasor’s, said the Oklahoma grocery store chain lent its name to the concept and has become “familiar” with the developers.
Edstrom said a downtown Tulsa grocery has been a long-time interest for Reasor’s.
The other two proposals were also for multi-use developments that involved retail and residential housing, but included other features like an additional theater for the Performing Arts Center.
The developers are Indianapolis-based Flaherty and Collins Properties, who pitched the idea that included a Reasor’s, Indianapolis-based Milhaus Development and local company G4 Llc.
G4 pitched an attached theater that would straddle Cincinnati Avenue and a hotel, Scott said.
John Scott, Performing Arts Center director, said officials have been looking to add a particular size theater for years.
The gap between the PAC’s largest theater and the next size down precludes Tulsa from hosting some performances, Scott said.
“There’s been this issue with us all along that we don’t have any theater that’s between those sizes,” he said.
Scott said another issue is parking. Putting a development in the area without parking would cost the center a great deal of easily accessed spaces.
“Obviously, if there is a development there we would lose the 300 spaces there for us and our events,” Scott said.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/early-pitch-for-developing-performing-arts-center-parking-lot-includes/article_2d87d77b-09ac-5d2d-8b76-ea44c2811630.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/early-pitch-for-developing-performing-arts-center-parking-lot-includes/article_2d87d77b-09ac-5d2d-8b76-ea44c2811630.html)

I like the part that says "a downtown Tulsa grocery has been a long-time interest for Reasor’s." With the new Brookside concept, maybe they could make a smaller urban version. With a combo of a wider selection of cheap hot foods than at 15th and a much larger selection than what was at the "Folks Urban Market", it seems like it could be marketable, especially after the ~900 downtown apartments are finished and occupied.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DTowner on September 03, 2015, 02:14:29 pm
In reading the tea leaves of the article, it looks like the proposal with the Reasor’s faces an uphill battle because it is the only one without any new theater space for the PAC.  That would be too bad because this location really is most central location for the bulk of the current and planned downtown housing.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on September 03, 2015, 02:32:24 pm
In reading the tea leaves of the article, it looks like the proposal with the Reasor’s faces an uphill battle because it is the only one without any new theater space for the PAC.  That would be too bad because this location really is most central location for the bulk of the current and planned downtown housing.

Channel 6 reported two proposals have space for a Grocery store. The site plan for Santa Fe Square also has a single 28,000 sq ft retail space that I am sure would work perfectly for a Reasor's.

If Reasor's decides they are ready for a downtown location developers will fall all over themselves to make sure they have space for a store.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on September 03, 2015, 03:29:05 pm
In reading the tea leaves of the article, it looks like the proposal with the Reasor’s faces an uphill battle because it is the only one without any new theater space for the PAC.

Actually maybe not.  In this interview with Studio Tulsa, Stanton Doyle, the same guy evaluating the proposals, explains that they held onto the lot east of the PAC for years because they were considering building that midsize theater there. Now they want to build the new theater on the west side, expanding into the Williams Green.

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/vision-funding-appeal-expand-and-refurbish-tulsa-performing-arts-center

And here's his presentation to the city council asking for vision money to do just that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNsieaG5AcQ

So it does seem we may get our theater and our grocery store—just on opposite sides of the PAC.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on September 04, 2015, 07:34:53 am
Actually maybe not.  In this interview with Studio Tulsa, Stanton Doyle, the same guy evaluating the proposals, explains that they held onto the lot east of the PAC for years because they were considering building that midsize theater there. Now they want to build the new theater on the west side, expanding into the Williams Green.

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/vision-funding-appeal-expand-and-refurbish-tulsa-performing-arts-center

And here's his presentation to the city council asking for vision money to do just that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNsieaG5AcQ

So it does seem we may get our theater and our grocery store—just on opposite sides of the PAC.

To me that is worse than adding a theatre on the empty lot. Why destroy most of the Williams Green? That was recently renovated nicely and is a nice park space which is sort of a center piece of downtown and great for Mayfest. It looks like there's room on the empty lot for a mid-sized theatre and retail, especially if the parking garage is setup to be mostly on 2nd floors and up.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on September 04, 2015, 07:49:12 am
To me that is worse than adding a theatre on the empty lot. Why destroy most of the Williams Green? That was recently renovated nicely and is a nice park space which is sort of a center piece of downtown and great for Mayfest. It looks like there's room on the empty lot for a mid-sized theatre and retail, especially if the parking garage is setup to be mostly on 2nd floors and up.

Time to start the Tulsa Urban Williams Green Coalition.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on September 04, 2015, 08:15:07 am
To me that is worse than adding a theatre on the empty lot. Why destroy most of the Williams Green? That was recently renovated nicely and is a nice park space which is sort of a center piece of downtown and great for Mayfest. It looks like there's room on the empty lot for a mid-sized theatre and retail, especially if the parking garage is setup to be mostly on 2nd floors and up.

Actually it would only encroach on the Green by about 50 feet, which I don't think "destroys most of it." And the artists' renderings and discussion make imply that it won't be a giant concrete wall (like the east side) that fronts the Green, but a glass atrium, an inviting "lantern" that would interact with the Green.  At least that's what the say...

And yeah it's good for mayfest but that's one weekend a year.  Many of events and activities that would make use of a downtown outdoor space have shifted to another "Green" a few blocks north.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: rdj on September 04, 2015, 08:35:14 am
Maybe they can move the monstrosity that is the Rotary monument to make way for more green space if they expand into the Williams Green.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Oil Capital on September 04, 2015, 09:22:08 am
Actually it would only encroach on the Green by about 50 feet, which I don't think "destroys most of it." And the artists' renderings and discussion make imply that it won't be a giant concrete wall (like the east side) that fronts the Green, but a glass atrium, an inviting "lantern" that would interact with the Green.  At least that's what the say...

And yeah it's good for mayfest but that's one weekend a year.  Many of events and activities that would make use of a downtown outdoor space have shifted to another "Green" a few blocks north.

Combined with what they previously took to build the Westby Pavilion addition, it appears we will be left with about 1/2 of the original Williams Green.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: SXSW on September 04, 2015, 10:14:42 am
To me that is worse than adding a theatre on the empty lot. Why destroy most of the Williams Green? That was recently renovated nicely and is a nice park space which is sort of a center piece of downtown and great for Mayfest. It looks like there's room on the empty lot for a mid-sized theatre and retail, especially if the parking garage is setup to be mostly on 2nd floors and up.

What if they instead expanded on the surface lot across the street to the south?  Or do they want it to be contiguous with the rest of the PAC?  That would preserve what's left of Williams Green and take out another parking lot in the area.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DTowner on September 04, 2015, 10:30:28 am
My office looks out at the Williams Green.  If they take another 50 feet of it for the PAC, it will reduce the green space by at least 1/3, maybe closer to 1/2.  This park gets a lot of use throughout the day, but even more so during the noon hour.  It would be a shame to build over a park with all the surface parking lots within one block of the PAC.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on September 04, 2015, 12:21:55 pm
My office looks out at the Williams Green.  If they take another 50 feet of it for the PAC, it will reduce the green space by at least 1/3, maybe closer to 1/2.  This park gets a lot of use throughout the day, but even more so during the noon hour.  It would be a shame to build over a park with all the surface parking lots within one block of the PAC.

Exactly. This is what I meant originally. If you look at the satellite view of Williams Green, 50 feet will take out almost about half of the grass and takes out almost that entire grassy/landscaped area on the east. They should do anything they can to build that theatre in one of those parking lots.

I marked the space of the PAC expansion in red (scale is on bottom right showing 50 feet):

(http://imgur.com/SEoK7OK.jpg)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on September 04, 2015, 12:24:39 pm
Actually it would only encroach on the Green by about 50 feet, which I don't think "destroys most of it." And the artists' renderings and discussion make imply that it won't be a giant concrete wall (like the east side) that fronts the Green, but a glass atrium, an inviting "lantern" that would interact with the Green.  At least that's what the say...

And yeah it's good for mayfest but that's one weekend a year.  Many of events and activities that would make use of a downtown outdoor space have shifted to another "Green" a few blocks north.

So Guthrie Green is a good excuse to let them nearly destroy other parks downtown? Without that 50 feet of grass and landscaping, it is almost all brick walkway and a fountain.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on September 04, 2015, 12:56:58 pm
So Guthrie Green is a good excuse to let them nearly destroy other parks downtown?

I'll just appeal to the good sense of the other readers here. Is that what I said?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on September 04, 2015, 02:48:25 pm
I'll just appeal to the good sense of the other readers here. Is that what I said?

After defending the addon removing a huge chunk of the landscaped/grassy area, you said:
Quote
And yeah it's good for mayfest but that's one weekend a year.  Many of events and activities that would make use of a downtown outdoor space have shifted to another "Green" a few blocks north.

Just because currently Guthrie Green might have become the most popular park for events right now doesn't mean there won't be more demand for another outdoor green space in the future. They are each like neighborhood parks. With more population density, they'll both be used more and some events will need to be held at Williams Green. Williams Green needs all the grass it has or it'll look pretty much like a brick park with a little bit of landscaping around the edges.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on September 11, 2015, 08:26:55 am
Food truck court opens this weekend:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/tulsa-s-first-food-truck-court-gets-ready-for-grand/article_8194b968-a233-50c9-83c5-9439323204b7.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/tulsa-s-first-food-truck-court-gets-ready-for-grand/article_8194b968-a233-50c9-83c5-9439323204b7.html)

Quote
Food truck court
Park in the Pearl
What: Opening weekend
Where: 418 S. Peoria Ave
When: 11 a.m.-10 p.m. Saturday and noon-6 p.m. Sunday
For information, www.theparkinthepearl.com or the park's Facebook page.

Will be interesting to see what it looks like completed and to see if Tulsans support it. There is another pop-up food truck court at 11th and Atlanta which will be open for all TU home football games this year: Fuel 66 www.fuel66tulsa.com/ (http://www.fuel66tulsa.com/)
It is a great setup for taligating witih 3 huge screens, gazebo, a few quality food trucks (including my favorites Lone Wolf and Bohemian Feast) and they had Marshall beer. Will the Park in the Pearl create sort of a Bier Garten atmosphere or will it feel kind of bland in a weird spot? I went to the trial and it was bare but had a neat downtown view. They've added more stuff to make it permanent.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: carltonplace on September 15, 2015, 10:23:48 am
Combined with what they previously took to build the Westby Pavilion addition, it appears we will be left with about 1/2 of the original Williams Green.

I got the impression from the KWGS interview with the PAC principles that the Westby pavilion would either be removed or greatly altered in the new plan (and it seemed implied that the Westby Pavilion was a mistake). I don't think they are taking much of the William's Green. Putting additional space adjacent to the current footprint removes the need for a skywalk across Cincy Ave.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on October 02, 2015, 08:28:25 am
Quote
Vision 2025 sparked $921 million in downtown Tulsa real estate development, report says

There’s no way around it. Vision 2025 is responsible for the surge in downtown development projects.

Approximately $254 million of Vision 2025 funds went to downtown Tulsa. That was in September 2003.

Since the BOK Center arena and other projects were finished in 2008, they have been joined by an additional $921 million in planned or completed private real estate developments that are bringing living options, shops, restaurants, bars and other attractions to the area, according to a new report from CB Richard Ellis.

Of that $921 million, $400 million are completed projects, $321 million are projects that have been announced or are currently under construction and $200 million are in the conceptual stages.

The report stated these unannounced projects are “large mixed-use projects in conceptual stages, not yet announced publicly, that will dramatically alter the landscape of downtown.”
Cody Brandt, author of the report, said Vision 2025 was largely responsible for all these new developments.

“I think it would have been a lot more difficult for many of these projects to get off the ground,” he said. “They were a changing point for Tulsa and put the focus back downtown.”
The report noted there are 30 different projects currently under construction or announced. These run the gamut of offices, hotels, multi-tenant dwellings, retail or combinations of the four.

The biggest of these by far is the recently announced Santa Fe Square, which Brandt called the largest construction project for downtown since the Williams Tower in the 1970s. That $180 million development in the Blue Dome District would bring 600,000 square feet of retail, office and apartments, along with a 105-room hotel.

Other especially large projects include the $25 million Edge at East Village, a collection of 162 apartments; the $20 million Hartford Building redevelopment, which is set to include 90 apartment units and 20,000 square feet of retail in the East Village; and the $25 million The View, which includes 200 apartment units and 13,000 square feet of retail by ONEOK Field.

All told, there have been 450 apartment units created in downtown Tulsa since 2008, with 1,100 more under construction or announced.

Brandt said the units under development won’t have any problem finding tenants.

“Demand for living downtown has been extraordinary,” he said. “Nearly all the places downtown have long waiting lists.”

Most of the development has been focused on residential or retail, but there’s even been a smattering of office development. Hogan Assessments is building new headquarters in the East Village, Ross Group is converting an old car dealership into its headquarters and KSQ Architects is building its new home office by ONEOK Field.

Other than the renovation of the 810 Building in the south of downtown and the office space at Santa Fe Square, there hasn’t been any speculative office creation in the area, Brandt said.

All the new development has made it more expensive to rent space in the area, as the average rates have gone up from $12 per square foot to $22 per square foot over the past six years, said Ben Ganzkow, a commercial retail property specialist with CB Richard Ellis. The increases have been especially high in the Brady District and Blue Dome areas.

Even with all the development that’s come out of Vision 2025, Brandt said real estate professionals and developers are hoping voters have the opportunity to approve a new Vision 2025 package with even more civic development in the area.

“I would hope that we’d continue to see these big civic investments to help drive development into different parts of downtown,” he said. “If we could do something in the south part of downtown, that would help drive development there.”
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/realestate/vision-sparked-million-in-downtown-tulsa-real-estate-development-report/article_2cd7edf1-ae74-5e33-8d24-0ff556dbf460.html

Quote
The report stated these unannounced projects are “large mixed-use projects in conceptual stages, not yet announced publicly, that will dramatically alter the landscape of downtown.”

(http://mbadbkweb.famp-art.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/excited-spongebob.jpg)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: AquaMan on October 02, 2015, 09:24:41 am
Sounds sort Trump-ish. "It going to be big, and great and we're going to be impressed!"

I hear old people are still being allowed to frequent, purchase and even live in the Brady District, though. Got to stop that nonsense.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on October 02, 2015, 09:42:01 am

I hear old people are still being allowed to frequent, purchase and even live in the Brady District, though. Got to stop that nonsense.



Yeah....get them outa there !  Who do they think they are, trying to enjoy life at their age!!  Everyone knows they can no longer contribute in any meaningful way!  What is the world coming to....?




Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on October 02, 2015, 11:23:50 am
Sounds sort Trump-ish. "It going to be big, and great and we're going to be impressed!"

I hear old people are still being allowed to frequent, purchase and even live in the Brady District, though. Got to stop that nonsense.

(https://oldspouse.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/getoffmylawn.png?w=300&h=300)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Red Arrow on October 02, 2015, 05:03:36 pm
I hear old people are still being allowed to frequent, purchase and even live in the Brady District, though. Got to stop that nonsense.

The older I get, the older old gets.  I guess I can show up if I want.
 
 ;D


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: saintnicster on November 12, 2015, 01:29:24 pm
Another addition to The Boxyard -
http://www.stemcelltulsa.com/
Quote
The STEMcell will be a hands-on scientific store located in a repurposed shipping container in The Boxyard in downtown Tulsa, OK.
Part store, part laboratory, The STEMcell will provide a unique shopping/learning experience–the first of its kind in the region.

They've currently got an indiegogo campaign (https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-stemcell-more-than-a-science-store) up to help raise some of the initial funds
Quote
Why Crowdfunding?
We want to know what you think. When opening an entirely new type of business in an area it’s important to determine if the business is even wanted in the area. By contributing and sharing this campaign, not only are you voting in favor of The STEMcell, but also in favor of:

  • A more educated Tulsa.
  • Keeping scientific dollars local.
  • Establishing Tulsa as a regional pillar in the STEM community.

Keep in mind, we aren’t asking for a hand-out. Your money is not a donation. Rather, you’ll be purchasing quality products–the same products which you can expect to find at The STEMcell–at a one-time discounted rate.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on November 12, 2015, 03:38:46 pm
Another addition to The Boxyard -
http://www.stemcelltulsa.com/
They've currently got an indiegogo campaign (https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-stemcell-more-than-a-science-store) up to help raise some of the initial funds

What exactly is a scientific store?  Will they sell beakers or body parts?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Townsend on November 12, 2015, 03:59:30 pm
What exactly is a scientific store?  Will they sell beakers or body parts?

Hotdog guy might stand outside yelling about Jesus


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: stemcelltulsa on November 12, 2015, 07:54:20 pm
What exactly is a scientific store?  Will they sell beakers or body parts?

Beakers, of course! A scientific store is where anyone can get professional research and experimentation equipment–from beakers to telescopes. While technically it will be a STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) store, that acronym still isn't universally known, so I went with the more familiar descriptor.

Opening a store like this has been something I've wanted to do for years now, and The BoxYard provided the perfect opportunity.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on November 12, 2015, 08:39:24 pm
Beakers, of course! A scientific store is where anyone can get professional research and experimentation equipment–from beakers to telescopes. While technically it will be a STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) store, that acronym still isn't universally known, so I went with the more familiar descriptor.

Opening a store like this has been something I've wanted to do for years now, and The BoxYard provided the perfect opportunity.

I dig the concept, give it a shot!

Oh, and thanks for signing up and posting.  Welcome aboard!


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on November 13, 2015, 08:57:46 am
Beakers, of course! A scientific store is where anyone can get professional research and experimentation equipment–from beakers to telescopes. While technically it will be a STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) store, that acronym still isn't universally known, so I went with the more familiar descriptor.

Opening a store like this has been something I've wanted to do for years now, and The BoxYard provided the perfect opportunity.

Welcome!

My son goes to Riverfield (Sophomore) and is addicted to science and engineering (technology and math are just tools he has to learn to get to the science and engineering).  We are looking forward to your store for easy gift ideas for him!


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on November 13, 2015, 01:14:06 pm
Beakers, of course! A scientific store is where anyone can get professional research and experimentation equipment–from beakers to telescopes. While technically it will be a STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) store, that acronym still isn't universally known, so I went with the more familiar descriptor.

Opening a store like this has been something I've wanted to do for years now, and The BoxYard provided the perfect opportunity.

I like the idea and would definitely plan to go there and support it. I like the play on words,  but am not sure how that name will go over with the general public. If you're aiming for the demographic who will appreciate the pun/science name without being offended, that may not matter. Just a thought.

I am really interested in 3D printing and the 3D printer options on Indiegogo are intriguing! I hope you gather the support you need and get this started!

I was already excited about the Boxyard, but this piques my interest even more.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: stemcelltulsa on November 13, 2015, 07:27:32 pm
I like the play on words,  but am not sure how that name will go over with the general public. If you're aiming for the demographic who will appreciate the pun/science name without being offended, that may not matter. Just a thought.

I know what you mean. I tossed the name around for several months, unsure of how it would be received–especially to those unfamiliar with the acronym, or who only get their stem cell info from the news. But after gathering opinions from various demographics, I only heard concerns similar to yours: "I like it, but I'm sure somebody out there won't."

I just can't bring myself to pass on a great name for political-correctness' sake. Rather, I'm happy to educate people on what stem cells actually are and why they themselves aren't controversial.

My son goes to Riverfield (Sophomore) and is addicted to science and engineering (technology and math are just tools he has to learn to get to the science and engineering).  We are looking forward to your store for easy gift ideas for him!

As a science & engineering addict myself, I look forward to meeting you both.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TheArtist on November 14, 2015, 12:02:46 am
I think the concept has a lot of potential.  Best bet in my opinion is to have a mix of everything from really fancy high end things like some super duper telescope, all the way down to quirky fun little science related gifts.  That will make it enjoyable for everyone, for science nerds at all levels and ages, and just the general public.  Look forward to seeing it and am really excited about more retail going in downtown!

The trick with retail in an urban environment is that you really need to have a good chunk of it in one area to make it thrive.  If you have a downtown that has a cluster of shops here, and a cluster there (Cleveland has run into this problem) then your retail will just kind of hang in there at best. But if you have an area or strip with multiple blocks and hundreds of stores, then you got something (Denver as an example)

Tidbit from an article I was reading recently.

Land use in the CBD may be considered as a network of pedestrian traffic generators separated by varying distances. Where related land uses are far apart, the effect may be to discourage walking between them. In the case of retail operations, which rely directly on pedestrian traffic for business, the distance between stores has vital economic ramifications. A recent survey of pedestrian habits in Washington, D.C., for example, revealed that there was greater mutual exchange of pedestrians between stores in a large retailing concentration than in a dispersed retail area.10 And a background study for Cleveland's downtown plan noted that the separation of the two major shopping store concentrations created intervening pedestrian dead spots where nonretail functions failed to channel large numbers of shoppers-on-foot.11

Right now we are at the phase of development where people are excited to see just about anything go in, and it's easy to put things into vacant spots and empty buildings, compared to say when most everything is filled in so to speak.  Then if you do not have a shopping corridor with lots of foot traffic (foot traffic is what you want in an urban area just like you want vehicular traffic in a suburban one, you want thousands of people walking by your shop in an urban area, in a suburban one you want thousands driving past)  Problem is we have no way in our downtown to create those shopping corridors like other cities do (the landowners fought against it, still do not know why really) though we are perfectly fine with having zoning and rules outside downtown that encourage and enable auto centric retail corridors to develop there. 



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 17, 2015, 02:07:36 pm
Beakers, of course! A scientific store is where anyone can get professional research and experimentation equipment–from beakers to telescopes. While technically it will be a STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) store, that acronym still isn't universally known, so I went with the more familiar descriptor.

Opening a store like this has been something I've wanted to do for years now, and The BoxYard provided the perfect opportunity.


Ya gonna have one of these??  And will it be something I can rent, like equipment at Home Depot...??


http://www.totalkustom.com/




Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: stemcelltulsa on November 17, 2015, 11:12:21 pm

Ya gonna have one of these??  And will it be something I can rent, like equipment at Home Depot...??

That's pretty great...unfortunately no, we don't have that.

But with an Arduino board, a good pump, and big enough gantry, that might be a good weekend (or two) project.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TheArtist on November 20, 2015, 01:26:31 pm
Anyone know right off who owns the Thompson Building?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Hoss on November 20, 2015, 02:24:59 pm
Anyone know right off who owns the Thompson Building?


Thompson?

Sorry, I couldn't resist...


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: LeGenDz on November 20, 2015, 05:06:29 pm
Anyone know right off who owns the Thompson Building?


Michael H. Vaughn I think


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on November 23, 2015, 09:34:03 am
Michael H. Vaughn I think

He is the registered agent of the owner, FIFTH STREET CORRIDOR L L C, which lists its address as the Thompson building and may or may not be controlled by Vaughn.  He has been interviewed in the past concerning the building and listed as being with KWB Oil Property Management, which manages the building and has been in that building for like 50 years.  Vaughn is an attorney and runs his own small practice out of the building.

https://www.questia.com/newspaper/1P2-35038013/tulsa-s-vandever-building-project-faces-lawsuit
http://www.assessor.tulsacounty.org/assessor-property.php?account=R00500920139700


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on November 23, 2015, 04:25:37 pm
Update on the old YMCA building:

Downtown YMCA renovation looking forward to residents in May
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/realestate/downtown-ymca-renovation-looking-forward-to-residents-in-may/article_298ed7ed-6851-51d5-84e9-e45e55d24a86.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/realestate/downtown-ymca-renovation-looking-forward-to-residents-in-may/article_298ed7ed-6851-51d5-84e9-e45e55d24a86.html)

Quote
When historic downtown Tulsa buildings are repurposed, owners frequently mold their designs around the original shape of the building.
That's definitely the case with the former downtown YMCA, which is being transformed into 82 apartments by Brickhugger LLC. Shelby Snyder, president of Brickhugger, said the redevelopment has taken longer than anticipated as the company sought historic tax credits and worked to most effectively use areas such as a basketball court and a racquetball court.
“With historical buildings, you’re given a daunting task but a unique opportunity to make some unique spaces,” she said.
Brickhugger's definitely on its way to that goal. When the YMCA building at Sixth Street and Denver Avenue is ready in May, its first residents will have a variety of apartments to choose from. Now, the 82 units will range from 450-square-foot studio units to 2,200-square-foot units.
Snyder said every unit will be unique in some way — some will have patios, some will be tucked into cozy corners and some will sprawl over three floors of the seven-story building.
Although the design was a challenge, she said the varying units should offer a little something for everyone and go beyond the downtown-dweller stereotype.
“It’s not just empty-nesters or young professionals," Snyder said. "We have a wide array of people who want to live downtown. You have to have something for everybody.”
The former YMCA will also feature an underground parking garage with 91 spaces — nine more than the number of units.
The current plan is to have the first three floors ready by May, while the others will follow shortly after, Snyder said. She estimated the rooms will rent for $1 to $1.40 per square foot.
The Snyder family and a number of other investors originally bought the vacated YMCA building in 2011 for $625,000. Shelby Snyder said Brickhugger LLC is now the sole owner of the building, having bought out the other partners' shares as development progressed.
Since Brickhugger plans to use historic tax credits, the renovation will keep the exterior of the 62-year-old building looking exactly the same, from the terra-cotta tiles to the colorful YMCA mural on the east side, Snyder said.
The interior will integrate plenty of features from the building's old days as an athletic center.
"We're keeping all the existing basketball goals, signs and wood floors from basketball court," Snyder said.
Brickhugger, either through a partnership or sole ownership, has rehabilitated a growing number of downtown buildings, including the Mayo Hotel, the Aloft Hotel that once served as City Hall, the Best Western Plus that was previously a city government office and the Vandever Lofts.
Brickhugger and its partners are still looking to redo the vacant Hartford building at 110 S. Hartford Ave. Although the group is exploring a number of options, it will likely have a residential component.
“We’re excited for that property," Snyder said. "It’s in an up and coming area with a lot of residential development around it.”


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: LeGenDz on November 23, 2015, 04:40:57 pm
He is the registered agent of the owner, FIFTH STREET CORRIDOR L L C, which lists its address as the Thompson building and may or may not be controlled by Vaughn.  He has been interviewed in the past concerning the building and listed as being with KWB Oil Property Management, which manages the building and has been in that building for like 50 years.  Vaughn is an attorney and runs his own small practice out of the building.

https://www.questia.com/newspaper/1P2-35038013/tulsa-s-vandever-building-project-faces-lawsuit
http://www.assessor.tulsacounty.org/assessor-property.php?account=R00500920139700


I was going by this.. 

http://www.perfectleads.com/company/17289395/Fifth-Street-Corridor-Llc


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on November 23, 2015, 05:35:19 pm
I was going by this.. 

http://www.perfectleads.com/company/17289395/Fifth-Street-Corridor-Llc

Appears to be a decent resource, but you don't need to list "founder" on your LLC registration. I presume that is just whomever signed the certificate, which can be a member or a non-member (e.g., their attorney). So I do not have 100% confidence he is the owner. But there is a good likelihood (that word doesn't look right...). 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TheArtist on November 23, 2015, 10:15:26 pm
He is the registered agent of the owner, FIFTH STREET CORRIDOR L L C, which lists its address as the Thompson building and may or may not be controlled by Vaughn.  He has been interviewed in the past concerning the building and listed as being with KWB Oil Property Management, which manages the building and has been in that building for like 50 years.  Vaughn is an attorney and runs his own small practice out of the building.

https://www.questia.com/newspaper/1P2-35038013/tulsa-s-vandever-building-project-faces-lawsuit
http://www.assessor.tulsacounty.org/assessor-property.php?account=R00500920139700


Interesting to see those property valuations. Would think a large building like that would be worth more.  The landscaping alone in the house I have been working on recently cost more than that building.  Interesting.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on November 24, 2015, 07:58:06 am
William, you need to realize that most of the people and houses you work on are not part of what we refer to as "the real world." If the landscaping cost is $2.3mil+, that person is paying more for landscaping than the average Oklahoman will earn in his/her entire working career. Seriously, more on landscaping than the average workers lifetime earnings (not the average landscape worker, the average of all workers).

But yeah, some of the valuations seem way off. The FMV per the assessor to buy the building is $17 sq/ft. But they rent space in that building for $12-16 per year. I don't know their costs or occupancy, but just seems low. Then again, assessed value is a strange beast. Would be interested to see an actual valuation report on those buildings.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on November 24, 2015, 08:52:28 am
The FMV on the two houses I own in Tulsa seem tied to the original purchase price I paid for each property.  The first property was bought in 2009 and it still shows the same FMV on the 2015 rolls.  What I could sell it for on a quick sale is about 40% higher than the FMV.

The second was bought in 2014.  In 2015, the assessor adjusted the FMV down by 8% to reflect the sales price of that property even though a reasonable sales (i.e. not a quick sale) price is about 20% higher than that.

I got very good deals on both properties and put a fair amount of sweat equity into each one.  Interesting that they would adjust down the FMV upon sale even when the square footage and comparable sales in the same neighborhood would suggest otherwise.  Not that I’m complaining about having a lower FMV.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: carltonplace on November 25, 2015, 02:40:09 pm
I haven't seen it mentioned here but Mcnellies Group is deveolping the old BRIX office supply building on 3rd St to house their coporate offices. I got a peak at the work going on inside and it is very cool, including a beautiful cast iron stairway.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: AdamsHall on November 28, 2015, 12:33:07 pm
I haven't seen it mentioned here but Mcnellies Group is deveolping the old BRIX office supply building on 3rd St to house their coporate offices. I got a peak at the work going on inside and it is very cool, including a beautiful cast iron stairway.

Looks like a complete redo.  It is amazing how much better the building front looks after they removed the concrete block from the window spaces and installed glass.

I had heard they were also locating a German themed restaurant in the space?  That did not make sense to me considering the proximity to Fassler Hall.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: ElTurnado on November 29, 2015, 06:40:54 pm
It's my understanding that the upstairs will be the corporate office of McNellie's Group and the downstairs will be an Event Center.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: BKDotCom on November 29, 2015, 11:01:02 pm
Way back when this was announced I believe they stated it would also serve as a consolidated bakery for the McNellies group?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on December 10, 2015, 11:25:09 am
An update on the Hogan building. It is interesting to see all of the features they added in. Nice to see the effort (and probably high expense) they put into making the building attractive, unique and useful for employees. Hopefully more businesses follow suit in Tulsa to provide a premium location and experience for employees rather than cutting costs to move to cheaper real estate.

New Hogan Assessments building combines elements of downtown’s past and future

Quote
Hogan Assessments faced a happy problem — its business in personality-based assessments had been going so well, the company had outgrown its longtime office in a multi-tenant building near 21st Street and Lewis Avenue.
Blake Loepp, a spokesman for the company, said there was plenty of office space available across the city that Hogan Assessments could have used.
But then they saw the empty plot of land at Greenwood Avenue and Archer Street in downtown.
“We just couldn’t pass it up,” he said.
Hogan Assessments used that land at 11 S. Greenwood Ave. to construct a $15 million, two-story office building with numerous details that not only provide a more productive environment for employees but also create a striking greeting to those entering downtown from the northeast, said Aaron Tracy, chief operating officer of Hogan Assessments.
“This building introduces you to the architecture of Tulsa,” he said.
Hogan Assessments began moving into the 35,000-square-foot building in November and is marking its grand opening Thursday.
The building, designed with the assistance of Selser Schaefer Architects, combines many elements of downtown’s past and future, said Hank Spieker of Selser Schaefer. For example, the exterior walls feature glass as a reflection of City Hall, charcoal panels that celebrate the area’s manufacturing, and classic brick that honors the historic buildings along Greenwood and elsewhere downtown.
One feature won’t be finished for some time: A metal grid fence along the eastern edge of the property will be the framework for a “living green fence” as plantlife grows within it, Spieker said. It will also seclude the parking lot in the back.
The company’s new headquarters also features art commissioned just for the company. Visible from Greenwood within the public entrance is Cristallum, a creation by local artists Chris Wollard, Andrew Harmon and R.C. Morrison, Tracy said.
This mostly transparent work is teardrop-shaped with a solid circular hemisphere near the top. At night, it shifts through more than a million colors and often causes cars to slow down as the drivers stare at it, Tracy said.
But employees have taken to calling it “The Iceberg.”
“The iceberg is a strong analogy for our business,” Tracy said. “I might see the surface of you, but beneath the surface there’s many more aspects of you I might not be aware of at first glance.”
Within the building are multiple white walls decorated by Shantell Martin, an English artist known for her stream-of-consciousness drawing. Spieker said some of these walls, arranged in broken right angles, separate the kitchen and lounge area from the rest of the office.
“Beyond being great art pieces, they’re a dividing space between work and play,” he said.
As currently configured, the office areas on the first and second floors completely lack cubicles. Instead, the extended desktops feature padded surfaces to encourage co-workers to sit down and talk.
But the desks don’t have trash cans. Employees are encouraged to use a central trash area designed to almost look like another desk.
Tracy said the entire design encourages collaboration.
“We find ways to have random collisions between employees throughout the day,” he said.
Though the outer areas of the office follow the lines of the walls, the interior takes these right angles and rotates them a few degrees. Spieker said that’s to represent the true directions of north, south, east and west — the roads of downtown are all oriented a few degrees off in order to follow the railroad.
Some areas are more enclosed, such as a number of “phone booths” where one or more employees can go for privacy. There’s also numerous conferences that now allow the company to hold its training events and partner seminars on-site.
The Hogan Assessments headquarters has a number of unusual features in order to make it more energy-efficient. Seventy geothermal wells wrap around the north of the building, and all the lighting are on banks of sensors — rather than turn off all the lights when the sun’s out, banks of them dim just enough to provide uniform light through the office.
And unlike nearly all modern construction, the air conditioning is blown in through vents on the floor, not the ceiling, Spieker said.
“This type of air distribution is the most efficient way to cool an area with a high ceiling, rather than trying to force air down,” he said.
Perhaps the most striking area of the building is the rooftop. In addition to restrooms and a catering kitchen for the large patio area, the roof also has a rock garden with waving stripes of three types of rock, which is itself surrounded by sedum plants, Spieker said.
“These plants are active year-round, and bloom in different colors as the months go by,” he said.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/realestate/new-hogan-assessments-building-combines-elements-of-downtown-s-past/article_196eee8f-2070-5ba8-b129-57efac281d67.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/realestate/new-hogan-assessments-building-combines-elements-of-downtown-s-past/article_196eee8f-2070-5ba8-b129-57efac281d67.html)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on December 15, 2015, 09:21:47 am
Quote
The OKPOP Museum is another step closer to reality as architects will receive requests for development proposals for the $40 million museum planned for Tulsa's Brady District.
It’s being called a huge step forward for the long-term project that will be not only an economic boost but a way to highlight Tulsa's past and where it is going.

Tulsan Ken Busby said, “It really shows everyone that concrete progress is being made, that this is reality, this is going to happen.”

For years, Busby and others have been part of the OKPOP Museum discussions.

“Tulsa matters and has a big story to tell,” he said.

This week, architecture firms from around the state will receive an official request for design ideas for the Oklahoma Museum of Popular Culture - set to be built in the Brady Arts District.

OKPOP Executive Director, Jeff Moore, said, “We’re hoping that they will lend their creativity to the creativity of the topic of pop culture and make something that is uniquely Oklahoma and very special.”

Aside from that, the sky is the limit for what designs could be submitted for the blank canvas.

It’s an exciting time for everyone who has been involved in the concept over the last eight years, and they are ready to get the collections on display.

Moore said, “There is not a single topic in pop culture that there is not an Oklahoman directly involved with.”

The design process is expected to take about a year - with ground broken on the lot in 2017 and an opening date of fall 2019.

"Hopefully, people from all over the world will come to attend and see what amazing stories Oklahoma has to offer,” Moore said.

Busby said, "Right here in the heart of the Brady, an OKPOP statement could be spectacular. I can't wait to see what they come up with.”

The $25 million for construction itself is secured through bonds and private donations; the $15 million left for the displays will come from fundraisers and other private contributions.

One thing you might learn see in the museum is that the original comic books for the Star Wars series - published in 1977 - were written by Tulsan Archie Goodwin while an editor at marvel.

http://www.newson6.com/story/30749816/okpop-takes-next-step-seeks-development-proposals


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Laramie on January 11, 2016, 04:34:15 pm
My son loves Tulsa!  He became fascinated with the Riverside Parks area when I took him and his brother fishing from the converted trestle fishing pier.

Would like to see some companies like Williams &/or Bank of Oklahoma put in another skyscraper in Tulsa.   Bank of Oklahoma & Devon Energy has started construction on a new 27-story (433 ft. high), 700,000-square-foot building to be named BOK Park Plaza.

(http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/edmondsun.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/7/1b/71b55f9a-581d-11e5-937d-8bd3f6a7ecdc/55f222d66e0d4.image.jpg)

Downtown uprising is underway as BOK Park Plaza's groundbreaking occurs in downtown Oklahoma City | News OK (http://newsok.com/article/5461178)

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/1e/88/62/1e8862fde86586b671af97452809b2b7.jpg)_________________ (http://www.talonatoc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/5599125_G.jpg)
OG&E possible one tower headquarter development.        The original four planned towers (Clayco development) has been put on hold.

Depressing oil prices has put on hold 4 towers (25-26 stories) proposed by OKC OG&E corporation who planned a development on the demolished Stage Center site  (included in the above link video).  OG&E (Oklahoma Gas & Electric) will probably have to settle for one tower instead of 4 (2 office towers/2 residential towers); those will probably be scrapped.



 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on January 11, 2016, 04:43:29 pm
Awesome. Downtown OKC is really coming into its own. Glad the momentum is continuing.

Tulsa has been doing really well with the low and midrise developments that really add to the urban landscape, OKC kept more of that downtown than Tulsa did. Towers are great for a skyline and hopefully to keep a business anchored, but they empty out after 5pm and just look pretty on weekends. Small cities (Tulsa/OKC) are doing better with that now than we did in the 70s-90s, when anything over 6 stories just had an entrance and glass on the front (if you were lucky). But still, en entire block of 3-5 stories does much more for an urban environment than 1/4 block with a 20 story tower and 3/4 surface parking lot.

There were whispers running around that BOK was thinking of building a new tower in Tulsa, I'm guessing with Williams going away any thought of that is on indefinite hold.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on January 11, 2016, 04:50:07 pm
Agreed.  Tulsa needs infill, not high rises.  Also, we know how this works.  OKC gets this

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/1e/88/62/1e8862fde86586b671af97452809b2b7.jpg)


We get this

(http://www.bourncompanies.com/wp-content/uploads/1-View-from-NE-LARGE1-460x310.jpg)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: LandArchPoke on January 11, 2016, 05:58:13 pm
Agreed.  Tulsa needs infill, not high rises.  Also, we know how this works.  OKC gets this

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/1e/88/62/1e8862fde86586b671af97452809b2b7.jpg)


We get this

(http://www.bourncompanies.com/wp-content/uploads/1-View-from-NE-LARGE1-460x310.jpg)

To be fair OKC is getting nothing. OGE will not be building a single structure on that site (for now). They will be "beatifying it" until a proper development can be found to be built there - i.e. they will plant grass and a few trees. They also torn down one of the most architecturally significant structures in the city as well... just for some pretty pictures.

This is what was originally proposed.

(https://localtvkfor.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/new-tower2.jpg?w=620)

The only way OKC was going to get the other project was for 100 million in TIF subsidies. I'd actually take the Cimarex horribly ugly infill project that was on a surface parking lot over the stunt OGE just pulled in OKC.

Also, BOK Park Plaza leveled an entire block of historic buildings that were previously occupied. The new footprint for that block will be nearly 50% parking garages. It will also have a skybridge connecting to Devon's HQ tower. Not sure how that project is great outside of an addition of a shiny tall glass box to the skyline. That entire block will be dead on weekends and after 5pm. They have also requested to remove bike lanes in order to accommodate additional traffic that will be coming in/out of those new parking structures too... yikes.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Laramie on January 11, 2016, 07:20:09 pm
OKC has sacrificed a lot of its historic buildings.  People here are fed up with the destruction and the replacement with glass boxes.  There are a few developments in OKC that didn't require destruction of historic buildings.

The Criterion Concert Hall is under construction in Bricktown (DT) District of OKC:

(http://journalrecord.com/files/2015/01/mf-bricktown-meeting-ctsy-4-1-15-15.jpg)
The largely brick building would be 39,606 square feet with a u-shaped upper mezzanine and a capacity of 4,200, coincidentally the exact same as the Brady Theater in Tulsa.

(https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjj_OPWiqPKAhVJ2mMKHW1DCAEQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftulsapac.com%2F&psig=AFQjCNEy9lXFenHsx4PwCjnOecdN41qnsQ&ust=1452647070392401)(http://midwestmusicscene.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Three-days-grace-tulsa-fans.jpg)
Brady Center Theater (interior)
(http://www.405magazine.com/September-2012/Pursuits-September-CivicCenter-002.jpg)
Civic Center Music Hall (interior)

Now, the Brady Center has seats much like Oklahoma City's Civic Center Music Hall.  The Criterion Concert Hall will be more in line with Tulsa's Cain's Ballroom.  The two venues, Cain's in Tulsa and the Criterion in OKC should bring more concerts to the Sooner State since both venues should attract great acts & entertainment; some may overlap, however the 91 mile stretch of the Turner Turnpike will give us alternatives.


(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/d9/cf/93/d9cf93bc5c6ba0332ca05d9b57413fea.jpg) (http://www.cainsballroom.com/files/2013/01/IMG_228501.jpg)
Tulsa Performing Arts Center & Cain's Ballroom are real jewels.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: LandArchPoke on January 11, 2016, 08:51:41 pm
Oklahoma City has a lot of great infill projects. The Steelyard and the 21c Hotel & surrounding loft/apartment developments are two examples. Everyone seems to always get caught up with tall buildings, when in realty they usually do little for creating good urban environments. They are typically more harmful than good.

BTW cannon_fodder, you mentioned BOK rumored to be looking into building a new tower - they have been planning and evaluating it for a few years. Here's a video that even shows it on Cyntergy's Vimeo page. It's "planned" for the parking lot that they own in the Brady, that will be next to the OKPOP Museum. My thinking is the parking structure that's part of the Museum will allow them to free up that surface lot for their new HQ Tower. Now, things can and do change. There's rumors ETE will sell the tower to BOK and reduce it's footprint in the tower (layoff people) which would allow BOK to consolidate into the tower. BOK's current loan's should frighten anyone, because nearly 30% of their current loans are to energy related businesses and is one of the most exposed large banks in the U.S. currently to energy related loans (source: Wall Street Journal). So who knows what will happen. Frankly I don't think it'd be smart of ETE to sell the tower, they should work on consolidating leased properties from other markets in an asset they own in a prime location in a low cost market... but I'm not an oil exec so what do I know.

https://vimeo.com/57485948

BOK Building: 0:15-0:33 (@0:22 you can see the BOK logo middle right), 1:26-1:35 (you can even see the current Williams/BOK Tower in this part & the BOK logo again), 2:37-2:52

Here's a link to a 3 min overview of the project study: https://vimeo.com/48392143


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Laramie on January 11, 2016, 10:16:24 pm
Awesome video.  

Would be great for Tulsa if these developments come to fruition.   Is that a proposed new bridge over the Arkansas River with low water dams and a giant hole bigger than the one in Dallas' Turtle Creek?

The price of oil (per barrel) has slowed, downsized or put on hold a lot of proposed developments in Tulsa & OKC; the state's oil industry has lost more than 13,000 jobs. While many of those workers have found work in other industries, the new jobs often pay less. Lower production and commodity prices also have slashed royalty payments to mineral owners throughout the state.

Look for the oil industry to rebound; not to the levels of 2008 but to the point where you will see more developments in Tulsa & OKC.   Tulsa has some magnificent churches (Boston Avenue, Holy Family Cathedral...)

(http://www.bourncompanies.com/wp-content/uploads/1-View-from-NE-LARGE1-460x310.jpg)
Impressive development with a beautiful facade. Is that parking on the lower levels?



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: erfalf on January 12, 2016, 08:39:53 am
OKC kept more of that downtown than Tulsa did.

I think you may need to do a little more reading about the destruction of downtown Oklahoma City. Tulsa has lost much of the periphery of downtown, but OKC lost it's core back in the early 70's. It is the quintessential example most often cited of what not to do to rehabilitate an area. Just google the "Pei Plan" and be prepared to be horrified. The city wasn't able to regain favor for 20 years until Maps came along.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: erfalf on January 12, 2016, 08:49:13 am
Also, I understand OKC is a much bigger metro area, but the thing that is concerning (less so now with a few projects finally kicking off) is that Tulsa is not getting many of the 3-5 story apartment projects. Now recently in the East Village things are moving in addition to the completion of the GreenArch project. But OKC has quit a few of these completed and in progress. The void NE of Bricktown is now one of the most happening neighborhoods. As much as I think Tulsa still has an edge when it comes to complete urban districts (East Village/Blue Dome/Brady/Brookside) and still has the best urban district in the state (Cherry Street), it is falling behind drastically in the roof count, especially downtown. And on that front, if things continue at there current pace, I see Auto Alley surpassing Cherry Street as the premier urban district in the state.

But I will agree, everyone wants to see high rises. But I think you will find that even those in OKC are biting their tounges about these recent developments (BOK/Devon/OG&E) hoping it will lead to bigger and better things. I'm not saying Cimerex is awesome either, but I will say that as ugly as it is, it only took up about 1/4 of a block and at that it was surface parking to begin with. Those two items alone possibly make this more attractive than either of the two high rises in OKC.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on January 12, 2016, 10:28:07 am
(http://www.talonatoc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/5599125_G.jpg)
OG&E possible one tower headquarter development.        The original four planned towers (Clayco development) has been put on hold.

Depressing oil prices has put on hold 4 towers (25-26 stories) proposed by OKC OG&E corporation who planned a development on the demolished Stage Center site  (included in the above link video).  OG&E (Oklahoma Gas & Electric) will probably have to settle for one tower instead of 4 (2 office towers/2 residential towers); those will probably be scrapped.


This entire project has been scrapped. OG&E is taking possession of the land and isn't building anything right now.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: erfalf on January 12, 2016, 10:31:42 am
This entire project has been scrapped. OG&E is taking possession of the land and isn't building anything right now.

Just saw that. I've heard it called the "Pei Plan Part 2". Honestly Tulsa has come out better than OKC in every regard when it comes to demolishing history.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on January 12, 2016, 11:43:00 am
That move by OG&E is dirty, glad their rate hike was denied.  They were granted permission to destroy a treasure with assurances that they were going to build something new and shiny, then, after tearing down the building, told the City they would only build new and shiny if they were given $100,000,000 or they'd leave an empty lot.  That's called blackmail.


Re Bank of Oklahoma (really BOKF), they are highly exposed to the energy industry. 19% of their outstanding loans are related to the energy sector. However, they also have 100 years of experience with the booms and busts of the energy cycle - and often come out stronger as their direct competition takes a beating. Do accomplish this they avoid lending to the energy services sector, which rapidly lose money in a downturn. They also capped collateral at $85 a barrel - still a stiff loss if they have to take control, but not near the exposure of $145 BBL that many Texas banks face. Finally, they are conservative on their reserves... which is what gives them the position to continue buying the competition. At the moment, they have $2.5B in energy exposure and cash of $3.2B.

Certainly the energy crash is a cause for concern, but in the past this has ended well for BOKF.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/02/17/10-banks-with-significant-exposure-to-the-oil-indu.aspx

I don't share the same optimism for Williams. Tulsans have heard the "significant presence" speech before.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Laramie on January 13, 2016, 12:03:28 pm
This entire project has been scrapped. OG&E is taking possession of the land and isn't building anything right now.

You're correct, Swake.  The latest I've heard is that are going back to square one; meanwhile, green space will go in place.   OG&E currently has its employees scattered over multiple building sites.  Their goal is to build that new headquarters.

OKC still have a downtown central park, cable street car system, new convention center & conference hotel to build as apart of the MAPS III initiative ($777 million public works and redevelopment plan).  Let's hope they can get it right.

Stage Center (damaged by flood waters) was demolished to make room for the OG&E headquarters.  The energy companies are experiencing an economic downturn.

Let's hope the economies in Tulsa & OKC can rebound; both cities are much more diversified than the 80s bust.

Tulsa has managed to maintain many of its iconic historic structures; whereas, OKC has lost many jewels like the old Criterion Theater, Baum Building and Biltmore (Oklahoma) Hotel.

(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/movies/2ndtime_criterion.jpg)
Criterion Theater, gone but not forgotten...


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: hello on January 13, 2016, 04:22:06 pm
Tulsa has managed to maintain many of its iconic historic structures

Not really.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on January 13, 2016, 04:35:09 pm
Tulsa has managed to maintain many of its iconic historic structures...

That depends on which are considered to be "iconic."  The Ritz and Orpheum theatres are gone.  Hotel Tulsa and the Bliss Hotel are gone.  The Coliseum burned down.  The Brown-Dunkin building is gone.  The Medical Arts, Halliburton-Abbott, and Genet Furniture buildings are all gone. 

In the twelve-block area between Archer and 3rd, Boulder and Cincinnati, only two significant historic buildings remain, and those twelve blocks were once the heart of Tulsa.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on January 13, 2016, 04:38:47 pm
Continental Theater is gone.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on January 13, 2016, 04:44:08 pm
Skelly Building is gone.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Laramie on January 13, 2016, 06:10:35 pm
Mayo Hotel would be considered historic & iconic.  Love the art decor & facade of that building, a true landmark.

(http://weddingmapper.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/photos/23/41/266287_l.jpg) 
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Mayo_Hotel_Tulsa.jpg)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on January 13, 2016, 06:19:00 pm

Mayo Hotel would be considered historic & iconic.  Love the art decor & facade of that building, a true landmark.


Agreed: The Mayo Hotel is iconic & historic.

Others:  Mid-Continent Tower, Philtower, 320 S Boston bldg, Boston Avenue Methodist Church.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TheArtist on January 13, 2016, 08:23:42 pm
Mayo Hotel would be considered historic & iconic.  Love the art decor & facade of that building, a true landmark.

(http://weddingmapper.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/photos/23/41/266287_l.jpg) 
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Mayo_Hotel_Tulsa.jpg)

It's not Art Deco (or art decor)  it's Beaux Arts, kind of an "imperial Rome" touch to its features.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Laramie on January 13, 2016, 11:15:41 pm
It's not Art Deco (or art decor)  it's Beaux Arts, kind of an "imperial Rome" touch to its features.

Beaux Arts? Thanks for the history injection.  Okay, neoclassical architectural style (Imperial Rome); anyway the Mayo is impressive. Really fascinated with many of the structures in Tulsa; especially, the older style buildings.  Philbrook Museum (one of my favorites) and the beautiful Tulsa Rose Garden.

Tulsa has always given me that eastern port city feel.  Peoria street has always been festive as you enter Tulsa; especially in the late 70s.  Has that close knit community feel; people take pride with the upkeep of their homes & lawns.

Really miss seeing the old Camelot Inn--attended a number of conferences there.

Holy Family Cathedral; attended many Sunday Mass services there, largest Roman Catholic Cathedral in the OKC Archdioceses.

Trying to read up on some of the postings on this thread.  Seems there are a host of knowledgeable posters that really love & believe in Tulsa.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on January 14, 2016, 08:12:34 am
Tulsa does have many fantastic buildings left. Unfortunately, we hold the distinction of destroying the most art deco buildings in the world and for having the worst surface parking lot deserts downtown.  Seriously, we won an award for that.

Focus on the positives!  We have many neat buildings left and some of those surface lots are turning into new condos, hotels, and office buildings!


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Laramie on January 14, 2016, 09:57:14 am
Tulsa does have many fantastic buildings left. Unfortunately, we hold the distinction of destroying the most art deco buildings in the world and for having the worst surface parking lot deserts downtown.  Seriously, we won an award for that.

Focus on the positives!  We have many neat buildings left and some of those surface lots are turning into new condos, hotels, and office buildings!

How unfortunate...   That award belongs to Oklahoma City!

OKC's Deep Deuce area where greats like Jimmy Rushing, Charlie Christian and the infamous Blue Devils band called home; also encounters with legendary performers like Duke Ellington, Ella Fitzgerald and Count Basie is totally an unrecognizable district today.  Deep Deuce was comparable to Tulsa's Greenwood district.

We should have gotten that award  :(    :(   ;D


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on January 14, 2016, 10:47:55 am
Some good news and an update to newly renovated office space:

First Presbyterian's 8:10 Building in demand in downtown Tulsa

http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/realestate/first-presbyterian-s-building-in-demand-in-downtown-tulsa/article_fbe1e41f-efcf-5f4b-b5ce-4ffb86cee907.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/realestate/first-presbyterian-s-building-in-demand-in-downtown-tulsa/article_fbe1e41f-efcf-5f4b-b5ce-4ffb86cee907.html)

Quote
The biggest downtown Tulsa speculative office renovation project in years didn’t come from a traditional developer or a real estate investment trust. It came from a church.

Bob Pielsticker, a broker with CB Richard Ellis in Tulsa, said First Presbyterian’s transformation of the Avanti building at 810 S. Cincinnati Ave. into the 8:10 Building turned out better than anyone expected, since it’s already 80 percent occupied. “We’re a year and a half ahead of where we thought we’d be,” Pielsticker said.

Today, the six-story building is now full aside from a 2,401-square-foot suite on the first floor and the 14,364-square-foot fourth floor, which is still being completed. Architecture, engineering and construction management firm Cyntergy was the first to move in late last year, followed by accounting firm Eide Bailly.
Pielsticker said a 5,290-square-foot suite on the first floor was just leased this month, although the tenant isn’t ready to be identified.
Steve Caldwell, director of operations for First Presbyterian, said the strong interest required the church to put more resources into the $6 million renovation faster than anticipated.
“Our leasing went so well, it outpaced our funding,” he said. “We needed to pursue improvements for tenants.”
The 8:10 Building, named after the Bible verse Nehemiah 8:10, is now the fourth major property owned by the church. Beyond the original church building at 709 S. Boston Ave., the church purchased the Bernsen Community Life Center immediately to the west in 2002 and the Powerhouse building east of the church in 2006.
Although First Presbyterian’s previous acquisitions helped the church expand its own services — and in the case of Bernsen Community Life Center, provide affordable office space for nonprofit agencies — the 8:10 Building is different in that it’s purely an investment, Caldwell said.
“It’s a mission endowment for the church,” he said.
Caldwell said that when First Presbyterian purchased the vacant building in February 2013 for $2.1 million from Kanbar Properties, church officials retained Cyntergy to help develop a new direction for the building.
One year later, the project wasn’t speculative any longer, as Cyntergy signed up to be the first tenant, said Ken Hirshey, senior principal and chairman of Cyntergy.
Hirshey said the firm found plenty of good potential options when its lease at the 320 S. Boston Ave. Building came up, but the potential perks of 8:10 were too good to pass up.
“We were able to design our own space, and the fact that the profits from the rent goes to good causes was a factor,” he said.
Tom Goekeler, a partner with Eide Bailly, said the 8:10 Building was a happy find when Eidge Bailly merged with Sartain Fischbein & Co., and the combined 70 employees needed a bigger footprint.
“Even though we needed more space, the idea of this building was perfect,” he said.
Inspired by the building’s past as a Studebaker dealership, Cyntergy and the church decided to gut the building and give it an open, warehouse feel that tenants could fill in as they wished.
But removing decades of paint wasn’t easy, Pielsticker said.
“We had to use a pecan shell water blast to remove it,” he said.
The exterior now features large banks of open windows throughout, including on the lower levels. Cyntergy took one of the suites to use as a common gathering area, complete with a kitchenette, televisions, couches and banks of tables with troughs that can hold beer bottles, Pielsticker said.
“Sometimes people drive by and wonder if this is a sports bar,” he said.
While Eide Bailly designed their space with a clean, traditional look, Cyntergy went with exposed ductwork and clusters of wires in metal frames, open common areas and exposed raw concrete support pillars.
Even with the recent additional expenses needed to accommodate the influx of tenants, Caldwell said he expects the building will generate money for the church this year.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: erfalf on January 14, 2016, 10:56:14 am
When I mentioned that OKC got it worse than Tulsa, I should have elaborated a bit more. OKC core (center of downtown) got it WAY worse than Tulsa did. The Pei plan literally flattened several blocks in the center of town (where Devon tower is now) that for the better part of two decades were parking lots (and the Myriad Gardens so not a total loss). The center of Tulsa was generally spared this destruction. However, the periphery of the core in Tulsa was devastated. Hence the parking crater contest win. I would dare to say that not near as much history was lost as with the Pei plan debacle, but still it was significant in that it literally cut the vein and made Tulsa more disconnected. Only now is that starting to heal (not south of downtown unfortunately). OKC was able to maintain a large amount of building stock in the areas immediately surrounding the downtown core.

So in short, Tulsa snipped it's veins, OKC blew up its heart.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on January 14, 2016, 11:04:34 am
When I mentioned that OKC got it worse than Tulsa, I should have elaborated a bit more. OKC core (center of downtown) got it WAY worse than Tulsa did. The Pei plan literally flattened several blocks in the center of town (where Devon tower is now) that for the better part of two decades were parking lots (and the Myriad Gardens so not a total loss). The center of Tulsa was generally spared this destruction. However, the periphery of the core in Tulsa was devastated. Hence the parking crater contest win. I would dare to say that not near as much history was lost as with the Pei plan debacle, but still it was significant in that it literally cut the vein and made Tulsa more disconnected. Only now is that starting to heal (not south of downtown unfortunately). OKC was able to maintain a large amount of building stock in the areas immediately surrounding the downtown core.

So in short, Tulsa snipped it's veins, OKC blew up its heart.

You can blame that nice big Catholic cathedral for a lot of the destruction that created the south downtown parking crater, along with TCC they are the biggest villains. The other downtown churches contributed too, but Holy Family and TCC were the worst. The most maddening part is most of TCC's parking need is at night and the church parking lots are basically only full on Sundays. All times when the parking for downtown workers is mostly empty.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on January 14, 2016, 01:54:41 pm
I'm not sure how to say this without sounding like sarcasm, but I truly do like how this has become a "who tried to destroy their urban core the most" competition. It shows that there are people in both communities who have recognized mistakes in the past. 

That said, the outskirts of OKC do have plenty of sparse areas. But the core seems relatively intact. Even before Devon, there were just a few lots in the core area.  Tulsa still suffers from serious asphalt deserts that divide populated urban areas:

(https://tulsalab.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/tulsa-parking-lots1.jpg)

(http://usa.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2013/04/Boston-Ave-20051.jpg)

(http://usa.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2013/05/Picture-111111.png)

Some surface lots near the BOk Center have been filling in (but those were just created when the BOk Center was built), also lots of progress in north and northeast sections of downtown. But south portion of downtown remains award winning in its expanses of asphalt. They actually have grown in the last couple of years (thanks to TCC), but it seems the Churches in the area have recognized the value of old buildings and that source of destruction is now a source of creation.

The tide is turning. Good things are happening.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on January 14, 2016, 03:35:54 pm
Downtown business owners contemplating future parking enforcement past 5 p.m.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/downtown-business-owners-contemplating-future-parking-enforcement-past-p-m/article_9c9b8fd0-6763-5ed7-93b2-0b6260800e3f.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/downtown-business-owners-contemplating-future-parking-enforcement-past-p-m/article_9c9b8fd0-6763-5ed7-93b2-0b6260800e3f.html)

Quote
Downtown officials and business owners discussed a concern Wednesday that could lead to parking enforcement past 5 p.m. in some parts of downtown.
Currently, metered spots are free and clear after 5 p.m. as downtown workers head home.
The concern is that in several years, as a number of housing developments fill up, people coming home to downtown will anchor spots in front of businesses from 5 p.m. through the next morning.
The discussion came at a Downtown Coordinating Council meeting, where future issues facing downtown such as parking are frequently a topic.
The solution — although it wouldn’t be necessary for several years — may be to extend parking enforcement in certain areas past 5 p.m., said Libby Billings, vice chairwoman of the Downtown Coordinating Council.
“I’m not advocating that we extend it past 5 o’clock yet,” Billings said. “It’s just that I think that as the Deco District is so densely populated with homes … that we will get to a point where people who don’t work downtown but do live downtown figure out the system.”
William Franklin, a DCC member who owns Decopolis at 502 S. Boston Ave., said parking issues such as this have evolved over the past decade.
“Ten years ago, you could go down Boston Avenue in the evening and there was hardly any cars,” he said. “Now, there’s more and more, and we’re noticing that they’re moving less and less.”
Billings, who owns Elote Cafe and Catering at 514 S. Boston Ave., said the issue would, at first, only be a problem on blocks like hers where residents and nighttime businesses coexist.
City Councilor Blake Ewing said he envisions the potential problem growing along with downtown, but only a few blocks would be affected for years to come.
“The anticipated problem is that as more people move downtown and have to find a place to keep their car overnight that they end up parking curbside on the street,” Ewing said. “Then the businesses and retailers who do business after 5 p.m. don’t have ample parking for customers.”
Ewing said districts such as Blue Dome and Brady shouldn’t ever run into that issue, so would likely not be affected.
“The real hope is to drive people — the long-term parkers — to the parking garages,” Ewing said. “The on-street parking system is generally designed to support come-and-go business.”

This type of discussion has come up on these boards before. Night parking meters seems like an inevitability in the denser parts of downtown. Personally I have never had issues parking within a block of Decopolis, Elote, Mods, etc. Even during big events downtown, it seems easy to find street parking at night within a few blocks (Mayfest, parade, etc).

I wish they could come up with a way to distinguish the resident cars from the occasional customers. Or just have much lower parking meter rates with a 3-4 hour limit at night to discourage overnight parking but not discourage customers.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on January 14, 2016, 06:20:30 pm
Downtown business owners contemplating future parking enforcement past 5 p.m.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/downtown-business-owners-contemplating-future-parking-enforcement-past-p-m/article_9c9b8fd0-6763-5ed7-93b2-0b6260800e3f.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/downtown-business-owners-contemplating-future-parking-enforcement-past-p-m/article_9c9b8fd0-6763-5ed7-93b2-0b6260800e3f.html)

This type of discussion has come up on these boards before. Night parking meters seems like an inevitability in the denser parts of downtown. Personally I have never had issues parking within a block of Decopolis, Elote, Mods, etc. Even during big events downtown, it seems easy to find street parking at night within a few blocks (Mayfest, parade, etc).

I wish they could come up with a way to distinguish the resident cars from the occasional customers. Or just have much lower parking meter rates with a 3-4 hour limit at night to discourage overnight parking but not discourage customers.

I live south of the downtown area, and it takes me about 15 minutes to walk from my home to 5th & Boston.  When I drive downtown, I've had very few issues with parking.  It's usually easy to find a space on the street.  More angled parking would help in the most congested areas.  Also, long-term meters at the fringes of the CBD would help.  A few years ago, there were 10-hour meters near 9th & Main.  It was possible to park there all day, then walk to the core, to lunch, etc.  I think those have been replaced with one-hour or two-hour meters.

Ninth Street from Elgin to Boulder could have angled parking on both sides.  North Boulder from Cameron to Easton could have angled parking on both sides.  If there's enough demand to install meters, then the single meters are much easier to use than the multi-space meters. 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: saintnicster on January 14, 2016, 07:31:18 pm
Downtown business owners contemplating future parking enforcement past 5 p.m.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/downtown-business-owners-contemplating-future-parking-enforcement-past-p-m/article_9c9b8fd0-6763-5ed7-93b2-0b6260800e3f.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/downtown-business-owners-contemplating-future-parking-enforcement-past-p-m/article_9c9b8fd0-6763-5ed7-93b2-0b6260800e3f.html)

This type of discussion has come up on these boards before. Night parking meters seems like an inevitability in the denser parts of downtown. Personally I have never had issues parking within a block of Decopolis, Elote, Mods, etc. Even during big events downtown, it seems easy to find street parking at night within a few blocks (Mayfest, parade, etc).

I wish they could come up with a way to distinguish the resident cars from the occasional customers. Or just have much lower parking meter rates with a 3-4 hour limit at night to discourage overnight parking but not discourage customers.
Do we think that the City would actually be willing to pay people to do the enforcement "after hours"?

How many tickets need to be written (and paid, mind you) to support the additional manpower in this initiative?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TheArtist on January 15, 2016, 12:11:04 am
The feeling is for me, especially now that I am in the new location that we have this small little "core" of shops and restaurants right around 5th and Boston and outside of that 1 block area is a dead zone of sorts.  Then add to that more living going in and you imagine perhaps more cars parking on the streets for blocks around and staying there all night after 5.   Well, it's a different matter for places like the Blue Dome and Brady Arts with their destinations and larger concentration of night life things where people will tend to walk further to get to "more stuff".  I don't know if someone say driving down Boston Avenue at night and seeing my store for instance will then park 4 or 5 blocks away and walk to my store past dark office buildings along the way.

Hopefully we will see more retail and restaurants go into our area and make it more of a draw.  What I would hate to see is that once many of the empty building that are being turned into lofts for instance or filling back up with offices perhaps, end up with office type places on the ground floor that close at 5.  This would leave our little island of shops and restaurants more isolated. 

Like I said in the article, not a problem now, but you can see a pattern emerging of more and more cars "anchored in" to spots along Boston Avenue all night and slowly spreading outward over time as more residential and such happens.  Extrapolate that out over what is currently going in residential and hotel wise and even more late evening office workers, and you can see where it could become a problem. 

Just something to keep our eye out for and be thinking of solutions for that possibility. 

Also, there is talk of having residential medallions for cars and we were curious as to what locations those automobiles would be able to park and what the price of the medallions would be. 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Laramie on January 15, 2016, 11:12:28 am
That's probably a nationwide trend especially in many large city central core parking.  There are parking garages going up in OKC faster than you can blink.  Some of these structures aren't very pretty.
 
In Bricktown, one of the largest surface parking lots is set to be developed as a 7-story parking structure with ground level retail.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CX-jmnPUEAArl7N.jpg)
Could this be the new trend in Tulsa & OKC for design approval.

Personally, I've never been a fan of parking garages.  Have had to get adjusted to parking garages because of the time spent at the OU Medical Center research area.  Citizens want more sleek exterior decor with the garages.



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on January 15, 2016, 11:34:33 am
That's probably a nationwide trend especially in many large city central core parking.  There are parking garages going up in OKC faster than you can blink.  Some of these structures aren't very pretty.
 
In Bricktown, one of the largest surface parking lots is set to be developed as a 7-story parking structure with ground level retail.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CX-jmnPUEAArl7N.jpg)
Could this be the new trend in Tulsa & OKC for design approval.

Personally, I've never been a fan of parking garages.  Have had to get adjusted to parking garages because of the time spent at the OU Medical Center research area.  Citizens want more sleek exterior decor with the garages.



Parking will always be necessary in this part of the country.  Something like this needs to be the standard.  Aesthetics and ground floor infill are the key to dealing with parking demands while pursuing urban development.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: SXSW on January 15, 2016, 02:10:56 pm
If you're going to build a parking garage making it look like that or wrapping it with offices/apartments is the way to go.  Downtown Tulsa could use something similar near Blue Dome to free up development of the remaining surface lots.  The block between Detroit/Elgin and 4th/5th is a good location for such a garage with retail on all sides especially Elgin.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on January 15, 2016, 04:13:14 pm
If you're going to build a parking garage making it look like that or wrapping it with offices/apartments is the way to go.  Downtown Tulsa could use something similar near Blue Dome to free up development of the remaining surface lots.  The block between Detroit/Elgin and 4th/5th is a good location for such a garage with retail on all sides especially Elgin.

I got the perfect tenant for the ground floor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sbDBXOk7KA


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on January 21, 2016, 10:18:36 am
Nice article focuses primarily on the Universal Ford Building and Fox Hotel building in the Brady with a nice slideshow sidebar:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/photovideo/slideshows/downtown-development-projects-you-should-know-about/collection_2e50248b-80c7-57a5-aa0d-5668c2f1d07b.html?mode=jqm

Quote
Massive building renovations in Brady District near completion

Photo gallery: 19 downtown development projects you should know about

All told, it’s taken three years of careful planning and hard construction to get the Hotel Fox and Universal Ford buildings back into shape, said Anne Pollard James, property manager for the buildings.

But now, those efforts are paying off.

“It’s been exciting to see this building spring up and get populated,” James said.

The new entrepreneurial incubator 36 Degrees North is about to mark its grand opening Monday, although it’s just one component among restaurants, apartments and other office space.

The George Kaiser Family Foundation acquired the buildings along Main Street between M.B. Brady and Cameron streets, and the $16 million conversion began January of last year.

Although traditional businesses make up much of the conversion, some of it has been set aside to support the area’s artistic and young entrepreneur communities, James said.

The most visible portion of that is the 11,500-square-foot, sprawling business hub of 36 Degrees North, which takes up much of the Universal Ford building’s first floor. Dustin Curzon, executive director of the program, said it’s quickly reached its initial goals even before it opened.

“It’s been amazing,” he said. “We wanted 100 members, and I think we’ll hit that number on Monday.”

Open to all workers looking for advice, work space or both, 36 Degrees North features flexible spaces for workers to occasionally drop in, hold a specific desk or occupy a small office in exchange for a monthly fee, Curzon said.

Among the first companies now operating out of 36 Degrees North are four local employees of Mozilla, a developer of software including the Firefox web browser; Mother Road Travel, a new shuttle bus service that takes people between Tulsa and Oklahoma City; Shipzen, a Tulsa and Los Angeles-based maker of warehouse logistics software; and Resolute PR.

Curzon said the space was designed to provide private spaces, including a Skype room and space for breastfeeding, as well as collaboration in its lounge areas and conference rooms — one of which was carved out of a former freight elevator.

“A lot of the people here have worked out of coffee shops, and they’ve been telling me they appreciate being around other people,” he said. “They had no idea there were people doing these kinds of work in Tulsa.”

The space will also host regular workshops on various aspects of running a business, and various professionals from outside areas, including Silicon Valley, have offered to become mentors, Curzon said.

“We want to connect Tulsa to the greater economic community around the world,” he said.

Both buildings also have apartments built above them — 23 above the Ford building and eight above the Fox. James said some of these have been reserved for the Kaiser Foundation’s Teach for America and Tulsa Artists Fellowship programs, but all of them have been rented out.

“We’ve got some people living here who work downstairs,” she said. “That’s a short commute.”

One of the tenants is Nathan Young, a multimedia artist who focuses on Native American imagery. Although the Tulsa Artists Fellowship gave him the option to fulfill his residency in his hometown of Tahlequah, he said he gladly moved into a studio apartment in the Ford Building.

“I wanted to be here with all the other artists,” he said. “The art studios nearby are amazing.”

The apartments range from 500 to 900 square feet, and rent for between $1.15 and $1.20 per square foot. James said the goal was to make the spaces affordable.

The Ford apartments retain the wide banks of windows from the original construction, along with exposed wires and the original raw concrete columns. By contrast, the Fox apartments have more discrete windows and wood trim for a more traditional feel.

Of the three restaurants, Antoinette Baking Co. became the first tenant of the development in October when the bakery moved from its Brookside location.

Molly Martin, co-founder of the bakery, said the move allowed them to triple the size of their kitchen and include more mixers and a walk-in kitchen. They’ve also been able to increase Antoinette’s already-considerable following.

“There’s been a great energy, and we’ve gotten a lot of new customers,” she said.

Upscale eatery The Tavern, part of the McNellie’s Group of restaurants, was a tenant before the conversion and temporarily moved to 305 E. Archer St. as renovations progressed.

While much of the new Tavern will be familiar to long-time diners, it now has an additional 5,000 square feet for an expanded kitchen, private dining rooms and a wine cellar.

And although McNellie’s Group employees decline to publicly acknowledge it, rumors persist of a new speakeasy-style lounge with a piano in the space behind Antoinette.

The last of the three restaurants, the Prairie Artisan Ales brew pub, is still slated to open in February, James said. The pub is the brainchild of R Bar developers Paul Sorrentino, Josh Royal and Bill Grant.

The beer taps, which will include 20 different kinds of beer made in-house and five guest taps for local beers, will circle around a giant wine barrel. The space will retain the white floor tile from when the building was originally constructed 110 years ago.

Finally, an array of established businesses will have offices with a shared common space above the Fox building, including Art Alliance Tulsa, Lilly Architecture — the architecture firm behind the Ford and Fox renovation, and James’ own office, Pollard & Associates Realtors.

robert.evatt@tulsaworld.com
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/realestate/massive-building-renovations-in-brady-district-near-completion/article_77b063ab-2108-5b39-abaa-0129c266336d.html?mode=story


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on January 21, 2016, 01:05:17 pm
And although McNellie’s Group employees decline to publicly acknowledge it, rumors persist of a new speakeasy-style lounge with a piano in the space behind Antoinette.


I found this part interesting considering the fact that the Lounge speakeasy has been  open for weeks. Maybe they want to keep it word of mouth as already, you have to call ahead or get on a sometimes long wait list. It is an incredible space though. Really well done. Just the 10 light fixtures over the tables cost $2000-$3000/each (so $20k-$30k just on those!). They must have put some serious cash into this.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on January 21, 2016, 01:07:34 pm
Upscale eatery The Tavern, part of the McNellie’s Group of restaurants, was a tenant before the conversion and temporarily moved to 305 E. Archer St. as renovations progressed.

While much of the new Tavern will be familiar to long-time diners, it now has an additional 5,000 square feet for an expanded kitchen, private dining rooms and a wine cellar.


I saw the Tavern walking by and wondered what the rennovations were. That makes more sense. Does anyone know if they did anything to the main/original dining/bar areas? They look exactly the same.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: rdj on January 21, 2016, 02:57:01 pm
I've dined there once and had dessert & drinks at "The Lounge" on a couple occasions.  It is a fantastic addition to downtown Tulsa.  The staff told me when I called to make a reservation opening weekend there would be no website, no social media, no marketing of any kind.  They want it truly word of mouth.  There isn't a real sign in the alley, just a bronze bull hanging above the door.  It's a pricey meal, but if you can scrape together $100 a plate it is worth it. 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on January 21, 2016, 03:06:44 pm
So you can call and make a reservation?  Is there a secret password?  Might need to surprise my wife on her birthday.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on January 21, 2016, 11:01:21 pm
I've dined there once and had dessert & drinks at "The Lounge" on a couple occasions.  It is a fantastic addition to downtown Tulsa.  The staff told me when I called to make a reservation opening weekend there would be no website, no social media, no marketing of any kind.  They want it truly word of mouth.  There isn't a real sign in the alley, just a bronze bull hanging above the door.  It's a pricey meal, but if you can scrape together $100 a plate it is worth it. 

If the $20 fish & chip FAIL I had at The Tavern the other night is any indication, I think I’ll pass on $100 a plate in the speakeasy.

McNellie’s Group has cool spaces, great drinks, and usually really good service.  But their food is consistently very pedestrian no matter the concept.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on January 22, 2016, 09:31:01 am
If the $20 fish & chip FAIL I had at The Tavern the other night is any indication, I think I’ll pass on $100 a plate in the speakeasy.

McNellie’s Group has cool spaces, great drinks, and usually really good service.  But their food is consistently very pedestrian no matter the concept.

Their burgers and fries are awesome. I also love the deviled egg trio. I think this bad experience was an exception. I've always had great food there and have only heard good things from there. The Lounge was also very good even though it was somewhat pricy.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on January 22, 2016, 09:56:24 am
Their burgers and fries are awesome. I also love the deviled egg trio. I think this bad experience was an exception. I've always had great food there and have only heard good things from there. The Lounge was also very good even though it was somewhat pricy.

I admit, my wife and I are food snobs but we really aren’t usually that hard to please.

We had a fried chicken special at Temp Tavern a few months ago and it was truly crave-able food so that set my expectations pretty high for when the Tavern re-opened.

My wife and mother weren’t that impressed with the burgers.   I had a bite of my wife’s and thought it was really good, it would be a great value at the $6.50 price after 9pm.  I simply don’t believe it belongs in the realm of other $10-$15 burgers I’ve had in my travels.

To me, it looked as if they were compensating for poor value in the burgers and fish by piling on a heap of potatoes which simply makes it look as if they are trying to create value by the plate overflowing with potatoes.

I have had the same issue with McNellie’s fish & chips and finally gave up on ordering them.  The fish is dry and flavorless and I guess I’m too much of a traditionalist, I like potato planks with my fish & chips not shoestring potatoes.  Either there is a provisioning issue for their fish or they don’t have anyone who knows how to do it properly.

It’s a cool place to go for a drink and I’d give some of the other bar grub a try. 

Maybe they did have an off night in the kitchen, this is the exact reason you need to hit your marks every night.  You get one chance to impress a first time visitor and there’s a ton of competition in the Tulsa market.  Most people won’t say anything, they simply won’t return.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on January 22, 2016, 10:40:20 am

Maybe they did have an off night in the kitchen, this is the exact reason you need to hit your marks every night.  You get one chance to impress a first time visitor and there’s a ton of competition in the Tulsa market.  Most people won’t say anything, they simply won’t return.

Yeah, maybe it was an off night. I hope you give it a try some other time. I love that place and go back every few months or so.

You are right, there is a lot of competition and most at better prices. Because there are so many great places (like Fat Guys, Dilly Diner, the Vault, the Bramble, Burn Co, Laffa and others), we only make it to each one about once every 2-3 months as we sort of rotate which ones we go to or haven't been to in awhile. First world problems! Too many great places and only so much room in my belly!


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Red Arrow on January 22, 2016, 06:02:26 pm
You get one chance to impress a first time visitor and there’s a ton of competition in the Tulsa market. 

No second chance to make a first impression?
 
 ;D


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: CharlieSheen on January 25, 2016, 09:15:18 am
Maybe they did have an off night in the kitchen, this is the exact reason you need to hit your marks every night.  You get one chance to impress a first time visitor and there’s a ton of competition in the Tulsa market.  Most people won’t say anything, they simply won’t return.

I feel like a lot of people think things are good because they are expensive.  Its the same thing with beer and wine.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on January 25, 2016, 11:08:11 am
I feel like a lot of people think things are good because they are expensive. 

The Tavern isn't expensive depending on what you get, especially after 10pm (burger and friess is $6.50). Last couple times I went, the total for 2 was $30-$40 including drinks and a meal. Nowhere near places like Juniper or the Chalkboard.

It is priced about right for the quality which is a bit better than most places.


Its the same thing with beer and wine.

You cannot seriously believe Bud/Miller/Coors are anywhere even close to the quality of craft breweries like Prairie, Marshall, COOP or Left Hand! Most of those aren't even expensive ($8-$10/6-pack). The worst craft beers are still far better than the rice-brews Bud puts out.

If you don't like craft beer, that is one thing, but don't falsely claim that a $0.50/can of mass-produced beer is anywhere close to as good as the $1+ brews.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: CharlieSheen on January 25, 2016, 11:48:24 am
The Tavern isn't expensive depending on what you get, especially after 10pm (burger and friess is $6.50). Last couple times I went, the total for 2 was $30-$40 including drinks and a meal. Nowhere near places like Juniper or the Chalkboard.

It is priced about right for the quality which is a bit better than most places.


You cannot seriously believe Bud/Miller/Coors are anywhere even close to the quality of craft breweries like Prairie, Marshall, COOP or Left Hand! Most of those aren't even expensive ($8-$10/6-pack). The worst craft beers are still far better than the rice-brews Bud puts out.

If you don't like craft beer, that is one thing, but don't falsely claim that a $0.50/can of mass-produced beer is anywhere close to as good as the $1+ brews.

I'm not really a miller guy.  But Bud and Coors make good lagers.  There is a reason why they have been around for 140+ years. It is just declining in popularity vs other craft styles.  Maybe sometime we can have a beer and you can tell me about craft beer.  There are some hoppy lagers that would probably beat them out in blind taste tests though.  Everybody wants IPAs and stouts now.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on January 25, 2016, 12:01:34 pm
I'm not really a miller guy.  But Bud and Coors make good lagers.  There is a reason why they have been around for 140+ years. It is just declining in popularity vs other craft styles.  Maybe sometime we can have a beer and you can tell me about craft beer.

Different tastes I guests. If you have tried a Left Hand Sawtooth Ale or Marshall Big Jamoke or El Cucuy, I think you'd definitely see the difference.

The recipes of Bud have changed over the years. They use rice to make alcohol cheaper now. I prefer full-wheat/barley beer. I do love a good lager or pilsner. There are many German/Austrian beers who make great lagers and pilsners about the same way as they did over a hundred years ago (Koestriker, Stiegl), but not in the US among the big breweries. Some craft breweries make great pre-prohibition style lagers. Marshall makes good German style pilsners.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on January 25, 2016, 12:48:53 pm
I did not see this posted on here and wanted to share especially since the construction is set to begin soon and some might want to know about the road construction in the Brady District:

New Plan Aims To Better Connect Downtown Tulsa Districts

Quote
TULSA, Oklahoma - Downtown Tulsa's many different districts have a lot to offer people who live there and a lot for those who visit.
But many of those areas are spread too far apart, especially for pedestrians; but there is a new plan to better connect the Brady and Greenwood districts.

There is no arguing the Brady and Greenwood districts are booming, unfortunately, a lack of walkability has caused some to miss hidden gems, like the John Hope Franklin Park, but that’s about to change.

Program Officer with the George Kaiser Family Foundation, Aaron Miller, said, “Streetscaping has really built up this neighborhood. It has made it feel warm and inviting and welcoming.”

The view of Guthrie Green from Cincinnati and Cameron is top notch, but that stops once you try to venture across Cincinnati.

Traffic whizzes by and crosswalks are all but absent, so the area will get a brand new streetscape, paid for by portions of property and sales taxes in the Brady District.

It will bring pedestrians directly and safely to John Hope Franklin Reconciliation Park and the front door of the Greenwood District.

John Hope Franklin Executive Director, Jocelyn Lee Payne said, “Tulsa is becoming a walking city, and we appreciate that and we are happy to be on one of the most busy connecting places and busy thoroughfares of the city.”

The sidewalks along Cameron will be widened with dozens of streetlights and trees; angled parking spots will also be included.

Payne said, “So, if we get them down this pretty lighted street and to the intersection of Cameron and Detroit, then they get to play dodge car.”

But not anymore. With the plan, there will be street lighting on the corner and brand new crosswalks, making it easier and safer for people to get to the park.

“It is a shame people don’t realize when they're visiting the Guthrie Green, that they are only one block away from this treasure,” Miller said.

There are plans for similar streetscaping all the way down Brady and along Cheyenne, eventually connecting to the BOK Center, but the details are still being ironed out.

“In order to attract more tourists and new residents downtown, walkability is the key factor,” Miller said.

The park has a number of events and performances scheduled for the months ahead.

Construction on the connector is set to begin around January and be wrapped up by the end of April.

http://www.newson6.com/story/30591367/new-plan-aims-to-better-connect-downtown-tulsa-districts (http://www.newson6.com/story/30591367/new-plan-aims-to-better-connect-downtown-tulsa-districts)

Sounds like good changes! I agree that Cameron in front of the Gypsy could use a facelift and better connect the 2 parks. The future plans to connect Brady and the BOK center with a walkable streetscape will be great (Could encourage more bicycling/walking and pedicabs to bring more BOK Center patrons to Brady).


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on January 25, 2016, 06:45:53 pm
I did not see this posted on here and wanted to share especially since the construction is set to begin soon and some might want to know about the road construction in the Brady District:

New Plan Aims To Better Connect Downtown Tulsa Districts

http://www.newson6.com/story/30591367/new-plan-aims-to-better-connect-downtown-tulsa-districts (http://www.newson6.com/story/30591367/new-plan-aims-to-better-connect-downtown-tulsa-districts)

Sounds like good changes! I agree that Cameron in front of the Gypsy could use a facelift and better connect the 2 parks. The future plans to connect Brady and the BOK center with a walkable streetscape will be great (Could encourage more bicycling/walking and pedicabs to bring more BOK Center patrons to Brady).

No rough pavement in crosswalks or on sidewalks, please!

No acorn light fixtures, please!

ADA-compliant curb ramps, please!

If the plan incorporates the same type of details built around Guthrie Green, then it will be far better than what has been built in other neighborhoods, such as Brookside, Blue Dome, etc. (glaring acorn lights, rough pavers in crosswalks and on sidewalks, non-ADA-compliant curb ramps).

It would also help to neck down the pedestrian crossings.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: hello on January 26, 2016, 07:52:14 am
This is awesome. Walking around the Brady can be dicey sometimes, especially when workers from the BOK tower leave. I imagine soon there will be new crosswalk signs like there are in Brookside now, since pretty much no one yields to pedestrians in the crosswalks. 

And I'm glad to see Cheyenne is being spruced up too! It will make walking to the BOK a much more pleasant experience.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: carltonplace on January 26, 2016, 09:57:51 am
This is awesome. Walking around the Brady can be dicey sometimes, especially when workers from the BOK tower leave. I imagine soon there will be new crosswalk signs like there are in Brookside now, since pretty much no one yields to pedestrians in the crosswalks. 

And I'm glad to see Cheyenne is being spruced up too! It will make walking to the BOK a much more pleasant experience.

I hope they don't pull up the bricks on Cheyenne Ave.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on January 26, 2016, 10:46:28 am
I hope they don't pull up the bricks on Cheyenne Ave.

They should restore the bricks in Brady and Greenwood where ever possible.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: carltonplace on January 26, 2016, 12:32:07 pm
They should restore the bricks in Brady and Greenwood where ever possible.

Bricks tend to calm traffic.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on January 26, 2016, 02:04:12 pm
Elgin and Greenwood also could use some good creative street scaping to connect OneOk Field with the Blue Dome District.  I say "creative" because crossing train tracks seems awkward, but pretty it up and add better lighting and it'll create a more walkable environment between two big districts.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on January 26, 2016, 03:09:45 pm
Elgin and Greenwood also could use some good creative street scaping to connect OneOk Field with the Blue Dome District.  I say "creative" because crossing train tracks seems awkward, but pretty it up and add better lighting and it'll create a more walkable environment between two big districts.

I thought there was a plan in place for that at some point, once all the development has been completed in the area. 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on January 26, 2016, 03:53:11 pm
I thought there was a plan in place for that at some point, once all the development has been completed in the area. 

I have seen such a plan, but I don't think it even had Oneok in it, it was old. I think TDA? did it?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on January 26, 2016, 04:01:33 pm
They worked on the intersection at 1st and Elgin last year and I think widened the sidewalk going north.  The apartments will take up a large part of that and I'm hoping will provide streetscaping from the tracks to the ballpark.  Then its just the dirt parking lot behind McNellies and the white building that looks like it houses some city vehicles or something.  I think the biggest thing is to ease the senses while crossing the tracks.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on January 26, 2016, 10:04:48 pm
A ped bridge over the tracks would be nice, but at what cost?  It is a rather bleak walk from Oneok to the south. 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: SXSW on January 26, 2016, 11:59:18 pm
They worked on the intersection at 1st and Elgin last year and I think widened the sidewalk going north.  The apartments will take up a large part of that and I'm hoping will provide streetscaping from the tracks to the ballpark.  Then its just the dirt parking lot behind McNellies and the white building that looks like it houses some city vehicles or something.  I think the biggest thing is to ease the senses while crossing the tracks.

Any chance a bridge is ever built at Elgin? 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on January 27, 2016, 07:49:11 am
Any chance a bridge is ever built at Elgin? 

No.

First, it would have to start at Archer on the north, and 1st on the south, cutting a good number of properties off from access to any road. Second, it would be expensive. And third, it would utterly disrupt the urban landscape with a block long stretch of nothingness.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on January 27, 2016, 09:38:20 am
No.

First, it would have to start at Archer on the north, and 1st on the south, cutting a good number of properties off from access to any road. Second, it would be expensive. And third, it would utterly disrupt the urban landscape with a block long stretch of nothingness.

A pedestrian bridge wouldn’t require that much of a run-up though.  I’m envisioning something similar to ones crossing I-244 east of downtown and 56th & Harvard.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: saintnicster on January 27, 2016, 11:03:52 am
A pedestrian bridge wouldn’t require that much of a run-up though.  I’m envisioning something similar to ones crossing I-244 east of downtown and 56th & Harvard.

Oooh, another twirly bridge for the Fleet Feet running programs :D  That'd be fun for the downtowners


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: BKDotCom on January 27, 2016, 02:56:20 pm
Pedestrian bridges tend to look ghetto (IMO).
There's usually either chain-link or graffiti involved

Ideally the railway would be sunk / cut into the ground (like the south leg of the IDL)..   the crossing roads/bridges wouldn't need the huge elevation changes / runs.. which essentially kill road/sidewalk access from those streets  (the parking garages use the bridges as ramps to get to their 2nd levels).    Would also help with noise abatement.
Anyone have a billion $?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on January 27, 2016, 04:21:30 pm

Anyone have a billion $?


The city council is working on arranging for $1 billion I hear.

I like the idea of a sunken railway, but there’s no way to recoup that investment from an economic standpoint.  All the redevelopment has happened in spite of ground level tracks.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on January 27, 2016, 06:49:52 pm
I'd love if they could go vertical and add a couple of floors to the bankruptcy court with consistent architecture.  It's and awesome building.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: BKDotCom on January 28, 2016, 09:13:59 am
I'd love if they could go vertical and add a couple of floors to the bankruptcy court with consistent architecture.  It's and awesome building.

which bldg is this?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: carltonplace on January 28, 2016, 09:35:51 am
Pedestrian bridges tend to look ghetto (IMO).
There's usually either chain-link or graffiti involved

Ideally the railway would be sunk / cut into the ground (like the south leg of the IDL)..   the crossing roads/bridges wouldn't need the huge elevation changes / runs.. which essentially kill road/sidewalk access from those streets  (the parking garages use the bridges as ramps to get to their 2nd levels).    Would also help with noise abatement.
Anyone have a billion $?

They don't have to
(http://www.veritassteel.com/images/DesMoines-IA-44th-bridge.jpg)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on January 28, 2016, 09:50:45 am
which bldg is this?

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1534303,-95.9924955,3a,75y,245.1h,98.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suQXMktpqFqm9koadSbvTww!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on January 28, 2016, 10:14:57 am
They don't have to
(http://www.veritassteel.com/images/DesMoines-IA-44th-bridge.jpg)

If it can be done uniquely and creatively, it could be a really neat connector.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: BKDotCom on January 28, 2016, 01:25:28 pm
They don't have to
(http://www.veritassteel.com/images/DesMoines-IA-44th-bridge.jpg)

I found a
Sept 2015 photo (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5913795,-93.6780435,3a,90y,261.38h,76.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbftYcqBN9Ltq68O3Pbav0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)  and it's still holding up.    It does have a "chain link" type fence (square mesh as opposed to diagonal mesh)..  just hard to see in the glamour shot.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on January 28, 2016, 02:48:14 pm
You will note there is no one on that bridge in that photo. Nor is there anyone on the bridge from the Google maps from the north side. Or from the south side. In fact, run a google search for the Rider Way Pedestrian Bridge, or just Des Moines I-235 pedestrian bridge... and try to find people on them. It is much like finding someone on any of the I-244 pedestrian bridges - rare.

At $3,000,000.00 (http://www.rosalespartners.com/docs/projectSheets/pedestrian/R+P_i-235-pedestrian-bridges.pdf) I'm confident that the bridge would never pay for itself with a $1 toll, even with a school on the other side of the highway from a nice neighborhood. 

Waiting for the train to get to a baseball game is a mild annoyance sometimes, but a 10 minute one if you're too lazy to walk over to the Cinci bridge. It just doesn't make sense to spend $3mil to take care of a problem that barely exists, IMO.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: carltonplace on February 01, 2016, 08:35:13 am
I'm not saying we need a pedestrian bridge at Elgin...of course we don't. I was just responding to that bridges don't need to be fugly. We just choose to build them that way.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on February 01, 2016, 09:25:38 am
Michael Overall’s opinion on what is still needed downtown. Sounds like a TNF lurker.  ;D

http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/michael-overall-things-downtown-tulsa-still-needs/article_a2fb2019-e95d-5524-9c8a-078ea1fd3f7c.html

Quote
Michael Overall: 3 things downtown Tulsa still needs

Watching downtown revitalization is kind of like finding gray hairs in the mirror. If you had told me 10 years ago that I’d be seeing so much of it, I wouldn’t have believed it.

I knew, of course, it was bound to happen. Eventually. But not so soon. Not so fast.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m very happy about it. The revitalization, I mean. But it takes some getting used to, after putting so much time and energy into complaining about downtown. It was virtually a hobby of mine — a day just didn’t feel complete without some snide remark about tumbleweeds outnumbering pedestrians on Main Street, or passing a vacant Art Deco masterpiece and mentioning what a great parking lot it was going to make someday.

I miss that thrill of self-righteous indignation. So for old time’s sake, let me suggest a few things that, despite all the progress, downtown still doesn’t have.

I won’t mention a brew pub, because we have not one but two set to open soon in the Brady District. And a grocery store appears to be on the horizon. I’m talking about things that still seem hopelessly far off. Although who knows what Tulsa will see when it looks in the mirror 10 years from now.

1. A third convention-sized hotel: The Tulsa World recently counted no fewer than five hotel projects under construction or in the advanced stages of planning. But we’ll still be left with only two that have more than 400 rooms, the magic number for attracting business conventions. Tourism officials believe we could support a third one and that it would make Tulsa an attractive option for bigger events.

2. Affordable family housing: Downtown Tulsa will have more than 2,100 housing units by the end of this year, according to a recent estimate from the Downtown Coordinating Council. But the vast majority of apartments are either too small or too expensive for the average family. The age demographic pretty much skips straight from young and single to retired empty-nesters. It’s time to share downtown with the rest of us.

3. Retail shopping: Yes, there is some shopping already, and more on the way — most notably at the upcoming Boxyard development at Third Street and Frankfort Avenue. But most of these retailers are hoping to capture foot traffic from people who have come downtown for something else — maybe for work or for dinner or for a concert. Downtown is a long way from competing with Utica Square or Brookside as a destination for shoppers.

It will happen. Eventually. I just hope I’m not totally gray by then.

michael.overall@tulsaworld.com


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on February 01, 2016, 10:04:37 am
A series of smaller parks ("pocket parks") downtown also would be big if family living is being pursued.  The only problem with having kids in an urban setting is lack of your own yard.  Would be nice to go a block or two for kids to have grass to play on during the week.  Maybe Guthrie Green is good enough, but something closer to the new apartments in Blue Dome District would be nice.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: carltonplace on February 01, 2016, 10:09:26 am
We've been saying these same things true...but he missed our need for a real transportation option in downtown. The ridiculous weekend MTTA party bus does not fulfill our need. If we can create a park and ride solution then the surface parking lots can become a thing of the past.

SantaFe Square should bring a lot of retail options right?
I'd like to see some basic retail needs filled with an urban Target or other home store for downtown dwellers.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on February 01, 2016, 01:25:23 pm
We've been saying these same things true...but he missed our need for a real transportation option in downtown. The ridiculous weekend MTTA party bus does not fulfill our need. If we can create a park and ride solution then the surface parking lots can become a thing of the past.

SantaFe Square should bring a lot of retail options right?
I'd like to see some basic retail needs filled with an urban Target or other home store for downtown dwellers.

Santa Fe Square should add more retail to make it more of a destination/retail hub if they succeed. However, didn't the BOK tower used to be somewhat of a mall back when they had the ice skating rink and it all declined and went under after the 80's oil bust and now is still mostly empty? If there is a demand to put a lot of retail downtown (enough to justify the $200+ million Santa Fe Square development), why wouldn't the BOK tower work? Tons of empty retail/office space downtown as-is. Existing parking garage which is under-utilized during weekends and within a few blocks of many of the new apartments going in.

I can understand the Boxyard (Cheaper and more versatile to allow for unique startups, similar to the "Made"/pop-up stores at 5th and Boston) and on a scale which fits the area right now. Santa Fe Square looks great and would definitely improve the walkability of the area. I wonder if it is too much for the near future.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on February 01, 2016, 01:30:20 pm
We've been saying these same things true...but he missed our need for a real transportation option in downtown. The ridiculous weekend MTTA party bus does not fulfill our need. If we can create a park and ride solution then the surface parking lots can become a thing of the past.


I wonder if the center of the universe hub and transit will help with this. More funds for public transit should help with this.

It would be great if downtowners could rely on a shuttle being at the stop at 4th and Boston at 11am sharp which could bring them to Guthrie Green and then know it will be at the park at 11:55pm to go back. Even better if they could rely on that to go to Cherry St or Brookside.

Also, there is a bicycle-share program coming to Tulsa (11 kiosks to start near key parts in and near downtown with plans to expand).


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on February 01, 2016, 02:37:33 pm
Santa Fe Square should add more retail to make it more of a destination/retail hub if they succeed. However, didn't the BOK tower used to be somewhat of a mall back when they had the ice skating rink and it all declined and went under after the 80's oil bust and now is still mostly empty? If there is a demand to put a lot of retail downtown (enough to justify the $200+ million Santa Fe Square development), why wouldn't the BOK tower work? Tons of empty retail/office space downtown as-is. Existing parking garage which is under-utilized during weekends and within a few blocks of many of the new apartments going in.

I can understand the Boxyard (Cheaper and more versatile to allow for unique startups, similar to the "Made"/pop-up stores at 5th and Boston) and on a scale which fits the area right now. Santa Fe Square looks great and would definitely improve the walkability of the area. I wonder if it is too much for the near future.

I was told the old skating rink and mall area was turned into office/tech space.  No idea if that is correct or not.  The rink managed to hang on into the 1990’s, I don’t recall though when it finally closed.

Downtown was pretty much at the pit of its decline in the late 1970’s/early 1980’s when the Williams Forum opened.  Seems like they also had a movie theater there.

It was a great idea which was either 35 years after or before it’s time.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Dspike on February 01, 2016, 02:41:06 pm
The World had a great nostalgia piece on the Forum last year. Covers the tenants, the movie theater, the closing, etc.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/blogs/news/throwbacktulsa/throwback-tulsa-the-forum-tried-to-lure-people-downtown-with/article_a0aa5182-7877-5a29-a584-297635ac6e26.html



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on February 01, 2016, 02:59:38 pm
I was told the old skating rink and mall area was turned into office/tech space.  No idea if that is correct or not.  The rink managed to hang on into the 1990’s, I don’t recall though when it finally closed.

Downtown was pretty much at the pit of its decline in the late 1970’s/early 1980’s when the Williams Forum opened.  Seems like they also had a movie theater there.

It was a great idea which was either 35 years after or before it’s time.


In high school we would drive from Booker T. to The Forum almost every day for lunch. Mazzio's had $1 slices of pizza right next to an arcade. Sometimes you could get the workers at Schlozsky's to sell you beer. There was the Williams Center Forum Cinema there. The only movie theater in town that served booze.

My wife worked there in the early 90s on the 3rd floor of The Forum in what was a men's clothing store. It was pretty strange, she was working for Wiltel right after they got bought by LDDS and they had set up cubicles in the former retail stores throughout the mall. They even left the doors into her area from when it was as store I think was called Orbach's? Big wood and brass doors and display windows leading into a cube farm. Very strange.

When LLDS (then Worldcom) moved to the Cherokee Industrial Park in the Telex building Williams ripped out the entire mall space for office space and an energy futures trading floor. There's nothing left in that building that at all resembles the mall that it started as.



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: BKDotCom on February 01, 2016, 03:52:07 pm
Can confirm that the former BOK tower mall and ice-skating) were converted to office space aprox 20 years ago.
It's been remodeled a handful of times since the the mall.

The former food court and ice-rink is now a cafeteria/dining, fitness center, and a credit union.   This area flooded a few years ago from a water main break..  which also knocked out power to a good chunk of downtown

Two retail stores remain from the mall days.   A Halmark store, and a Florist.

It's all somewhat "public" space.  Connected to the hotel via a sky bridge...   which connects to 302 S Boston via parking garage and tunnel...   which connects to the MidCon tower via tunnel..


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on February 01, 2016, 04:17:36 pm
Can confirm that the former BOK tower mall and ice-skating) were converted to office space aprox 20 years ago.
It's been remodeled a handful of times since the the mall.

The former food court and ice-rink is now a cafeteria/dining, fitness center, and a credit union.   This area flooded a few years ago from a water main break..  which also knocked out power to a good chunk of downtown

Two retail stores remain from the mall days.   A Halmark store, and a Florist.

It's all somewhat "public" space.  Connected to the hotel via a sky bridge...   which connects to 302 S Boston via parking garage and tunnel...   which connects to the MidCon tower via tunnel..

Thanks for the history and info! I guess it won't really be a great option for converting back to a mall, but it still would be cheaper than a brand new $200+ million development if the owners ever wanted to diversify again. If I were them I would at least talk to some retail experts and potentially Nelson about creating destination retail downtown.

There is so much wasted potential downtown and then a lot of developments get thrown out because they are cost-prohibitive (I could see Santa Fe being scaled back substantially, especially the parking garage). Meanwhile there is still plenty of unused building space and empty lots owned by people wanting to cash in years down the line.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TheArtist on February 01, 2016, 04:53:48 pm
Thanks for the history and info! I guess it won't really be a great option for converting back to a mall, but it still would be cheaper than a brand new $200+ million development if the owners ever wanted to diversify again. If I were them I would at least talk to some retail experts and potentially Nelson about creating destination retail downtown.

There is so much wasted potential downtown and then a lot of developments get thrown out because they are cost-prohibitive (I could see Santa Fe being scaled back substantially, especially the parking garage). Meanwhile there is still plenty of unused building space and empty lots owned by people wanting to cash in years down the line.

One of the main reasons there is a renaissance in people moving back to downtown and a lot of us new shops and restaurants opening is because we want to live in and help create enjoyable, walkable, pedestrian friendly urban spaces, on the streets and sidewalks like you can see everywhere else on the planet.  An indoor, suburban style shopping mall disconnected from any street life is the antithesis of that and what we want to get away from.  70's and 80s downtown buildings and developments were a bomb for a reason imho.  The fad was to "turn your back back to and hide away inside from the scary old city/world outside" ala Logans Run.  That's NOT what people want in a downtown anymore.  What they do want are real cities that look like and work like real cities.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: carltonplace on February 02, 2016, 07:32:29 am
Santa Fe Square should add more retail to make it more of a destination/retail hub if they succeed. However, didn't the BOK tower used to be somewhat of a mall back when they had the ice skating rink and it all declined and went under after the 80's oil bust and now is still mostly empty? If there is a demand to put a lot of retail downtown (enough to justify the $200+ million Santa Fe Square development), why wouldn't the BOK tower work? Tons of empty retail/office space downtown as-is. Existing parking garage which is under-utilized during weekends and within a few blocks of many of the new apartments going in.

I can understand the Boxyard (Cheaper and more versatile to allow for unique startups, similar to the "Made"/pop-up stores at 5th and Boston) and on a scale which fits the area right now. Santa Fe Square looks great and would definitely improve the walkability of the area. I wonder if it is too much for the near future.

Apples and oranges. The BOK was an indoor suburban type mall (now offices and fitness center) and Santa Fe Square will be integrated into the Blue Dome as a walkable destination.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on February 02, 2016, 08:26:40 am
Also worth noting - The Boxcars is NOT a cheaper development. From what I have heard, they will be the most expensive retail spaces downtown, and rivaling the most expensive retail spaces in town.

They should be cheaper to build than a typical building. Also, cheaper baseline rent for a startup to get a 320 square foot container ($750/month) than to rent an entire ~1500 ft2 place which are typically well over $2000/month. So perhaps more expensive per square foot, but cheaper overall and good for startups who won't need as much room.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on February 02, 2016, 08:34:16 am
One of the main reasons there is a renaissance in people moving back to downtown and a lot of us new shops and restaurants opening is because we want to live in and help create enjoyable, walkable, pedestrian friendly urban spaces, on the streets and sidewalks like you can see everywhere else on the planet.  An indoor, suburban style shopping mall disconnected from any street life is the antithesis of that and what we want to get away from.  70's and 80s downtown buildings and developments were a bomb for a reason imho.  The fad was to "turn your back back to and hide away inside from the scary old city/world outside" ala Logans Run.  That's NOT what people want in a downtown anymore.  What they do want are real cities that look like and work like real cities.

I agree, but Woodland Hills Mall and Utica Square are suburban style malls that are filled with cars and shoppers while many downtown retail places remain somewhat sparse. There is still a big market for a suburban style malls in Tulsa and based on the downsizing/purchase of Williams and talk of a brand new $200 million investment (even if it focuses on outside), making that space into a premium mall could siphon some of those dollars from other malls around the area and create a unique experience that those couldn't compete with. It could bring in a different demographic and boost downtown a bit more. There are only so many people in Tulsa who want a real vibrant/walkable downtown. Most just want certain stores and easy parking (which the BOK Tower has, especially on weekends). With the BOK center, many more of those people make it to downtown and a mall would give them an excuse to stick around.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TheArtist on February 02, 2016, 08:51:08 am
I agree, but Woodland Hills Mall and Utica Square are suburban style malls that are filled with cars and shoppers while many downtown retail places remain somewhat sparse. There is still a big market for a suburban style malls in Tulsa and based on the downsizing/purchase of Williams and talk of a brand new $200 million investment (even if it focuses on outside), making that space into a premium mall could siphon some of those dollars from other malls around the area and create a unique experience that those couldn't compete with. It could bring in a different demographic and boost downtown a bit more. There are only so many people in Tulsa who want a real vibrant/walkable downtown. Most just want certain stores and easy parking (which the BOK Tower has, especially on weekends). With the BOK center, many more of those people make it to downtown and a mall would give them an excuse to stick around.

I think there is still a big market for urban style retail in downtown.  We just don't have it yet.  A half dozen shops scattered around disparate areas of downtown is not going to do squat.  What we need is an area with hundreds of stores and restaurants in a pedestrian lively/friendly area.  Indeed there are plenty of suburban style mall and strip mall type options in Tulsa for those who want that, but there are ever more people wanting urban retail spaces and the best we have are the small strips along Cherry Street and Brookside.  If we want to see good growth downtown getting a good urban setting going would be just the catalyst.  Putting in an enclosed suburban shopping center in downtown that people drive to, that is disconnected from the streetscape  and then stay isolated inside, does not make for a lively downtown.  It didn't do that back in the day and it wouldn't today either.  


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: dsjeffries on February 02, 2016, 11:22:09 am
...making that space into a premium mall could siphon some of those dollars from other malls around the area and create a unique experience that those couldn't compete with. It could bring in a different demographic and boost downtown a bit more. There are only so many people in Tulsa who want a real vibrant/walkable downtown. Most just want certain stores and easy parking (which the BOK Tower has, especially on weekends). With the BOK center, many more of those people make it to downtown and a mall would give them an excuse to stick around.

Another difference that's being overlooked, though, is that Santa Fe Square is not a mall. It's a 600,000 square foot mixed-use project with 80,000 square feet of retail space. Retail only makes up 13.3% of the development.

The remaining 86.6% is composed of: a) A 105-room hotel; b) 170,000 square feet of office space; c) 291 apartments; and d) a 1450-stall parking garage.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on February 02, 2016, 11:40:11 am
Another difference that's being overlooked, though, is that Santa Fe Square is not a mall. It's a 600,000 square foot mixed-use project with 80,000 square feet of retail space. Retail only makes up 13.3% of the development.

The remaining 86.6% is composed of: a) A 105-room hotel; b) 170,000 square feet of office space; c) 291 apartments; and d) a 1450-stall parking garage.

The BOK Tower is also not a mall. It is also mixed use.

There still remains plenty of vacant office and retail space downtown and although the demand for hotels remains high at peak times, there are 5+ planned. I am all for it and hope it gets built. I was just wondering why existing retail spaces won't work. I see plenty of vacant store fronts facing the streets all around downtown and plenty of listings for retail/office space.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on February 02, 2016, 11:56:44 am
Another difference that's being overlooked, though, is that Santa Fe Square is not a mall. It's a 600,000 square foot mixed-use project with 80,000 square feet of retail space. Retail only makes up 13.3% of the development.

The remaining 86.6% is composed of: a) A 105-room hotel; b) 170,000 square feet of office space; c) 291 apartments; and d) a 1450-stall parking garage.

The retail might only make up 13.3% of the development, but if it is anything like urban centers around the country, often times the street-facing retail in dense urban areas pay the majority of the rent of 3-4 story buildings. In one place I stayed at in West Village, the upper 3 floors of a small 4-story corner building rented for about $4000/month while the bottom floor was over $20k/mo.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on February 02, 2016, 12:37:12 pm
The retail might only make up 13.3% of the development, but if it is anything like urban centers around the country, often times the street-facing retail in dense urban areas pay the majority of the rent of 3-4 story buildings. In one place I stayed at in West Village, the upper 3 floors of a small 4-story corner building rented for about $4000/month while the bottom floor was over $20k/mo.

Lets not get ahead of ourselves. What happens in Manhattan real estate generally doesn't translate to the rest of the continent. 1/4 owning a car, if you limit it to below the park that number drops to 15%. Floods of people coming in without cars to the already dense urban area on a daily basis. Huge throngs of tourists. Add in a willingness to build UP on a continuous basis for 140 years, and yeah... in select areas the ground floor is $3,000/sq.

Huge captive audience with a limited supply of ground floor retail.  That's why 5th Ave. and Madison Ave. are the #1 and #2 most expensive places for retail. Throw in Time's Square for fun, and you have 3 of the top 10 most expensive retail in the US. Many other areas are really high too... but from the top it drops way, WAY, WAAAAAY down quickly. Outside of NYC there isn't a space consistent renting above $500/sq. Outside of the top 5, there isn't anywhere above $200.

Including Tulsa.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on February 02, 2016, 02:17:38 pm
Lets not get ahead of ourselves. What happens in Manhattan real estate generally doesn't translate to the rest of the continent.


I am talking about proportions, not just the dollar amount. I said " often times the street-facing retail in dense urban areas pay the majority of the rent of 3-4 story buildings." That is true in many cities. My apologies for listing West Village as an example, but the point was ground floor retail brought in more than the upper 3 stories for the same square footage. Obviously Tulsa is not at that density yet and will be far lower dollar amounts.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: erfalf on February 02, 2016, 04:58:35 pm
I am talking about proportions, not just the dollar amount. I said " often times the street-facing retail in dense urban areas pay the majority of the rent of 3-4 story buildings." That is true in many cities. My apologies for listing West Village as an example, but the point was ground floor retail brought in more than the upper 3 stories for the same square footage. Obviously Tulsa is not at that density yet and will be far lower dollar amounts.

I would imagine it would nearly be inverse here. Rents downtown I would guess start around $1.50/sq/ft/month. $1,000 for about 700 sq ft sounds about right if not on the low. It obviously goes up from there. To equate to commercial space that is $18/sf. That's topping out in most cases for most buildings downtown I would think. I understand what you are saying, but the dynamics in Tulsa are no where near that scanario. In Bartlesville it's even more exacerbated. I remember several years ago they couldn't find takers for downtown commercial space @ $7/sf on the main street. At the same time residential space above those same spaces were going for over $12/sf. There seems to be a far greater demand for residential space downtown than commercial it would seem. Hopefully that bodes well for both communities.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsa Zephyr on February 02, 2016, 07:03:17 pm
Loved the mall in the BOK tower.  There was a 1979 movie "The Electric Horseman" which starred Robert Redford, Willie Nelson, Jane Fonda and Valerie Perrine which was filmed in Tulsa and included some great scenes of the mall, including the ice rink.  That was a great space which is really missed.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TheArtist on February 02, 2016, 07:49:22 pm
The BOK Tower is also not a mall. It is also mixed use.

There still remains plenty of vacant office and retail space downtown and although the demand for hotels remains high at peak times, there are 5+ planned. I am all for it and hope it gets built. I was just wondering why existing retail spaces won't work. I see plenty of vacant store fronts facing the streets all around downtown and plenty of listings for retail/office space.

For retail to work downtown you will need both a concentration of it and foot traffic.  

A concentration of it so that an area becomes a shopping destination.  One or two shops here and there will struggle, thats why you see so many empty spaces because its tough being the first few in. (trust me I know)  There is a lot of land out on Highway 75 towards Glenpool (empty shop spaces) but if you get a concentration of them like Tulsa Hills your better off than if your some random store here and there along the highway.  

Foot traffic, in a downtown environment people expect it to be urban and pedestrian.  It's attractive to have lots of people out walking down a street, which attracts more people and businesses and more businesses can attract more people, etc.  Bustling sidewalks are the "highways full of cars" of an urban area.

But again if you have say parking right next to to many spread out things, it cuts down on pedestrians which cuts down on that attractor, which hurts businesses, which are trying to compete with suburban type developments which are cheaper because they are not having to pay for as expensive parking costs or building costs etc. etc.

If we had as trip of retail and restaurants like Brookside or Cherry Street that would be a good start.  Places like Denver for instance zone certain downtown streets to encourage them to be urban retail, transit and pedestrian friendly, and some streets not.   You don't want office space and dead zones between too many shops for again that breaks up the concentration and pedestrian nature, those go on the "not" retail streets.  You wouldn't put a Kohls of in the middle of a mile of homes, then another store over by some apartments, then another in an industrial area, another by a field, etc. and wonder why they are not doing as well as Tulsa Hills or the mall where there are lots of shops and restaurants all together.  But that is exactly what is happening downtown.  A smattering of shops split up by blank walls, empty spaces, office spaces, living, etc.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on February 02, 2016, 08:59:35 pm
For retail to work downtown you will need both a concentration of it and foot traffic.  
 

Balderdash!!!

All you need is a massive monolithic structure and acres and acres of surface parking which 75% goes un-used 99% of the year.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Red Arrow on February 02, 2016, 10:12:59 pm
Balderdash!!!
All you need is a massive monolithic structure and acres and acres of surface parking which 75% goes un-used 99% of the year.

That must be why the Christmas stuff is put out before Halloween instead of waiting for Thanksgiving.
 
 ;D



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: erfalf on February 03, 2016, 08:59:01 am
I would imagine it would nearly be inverse here. Rents downtown I would guess start around $1.50/sq/ft/month. $1,000 for about 700 sq ft sounds about right if not on the low. It obviously goes up from there. To equate to commercial space that is $18/sf. That's topping out in most cases for most buildings downtown I would think. I understand what you are saying, but the dynamics in Tulsa are no where near that scanario. In Bartlesville it's even more exacerbated. I remember several years ago they couldn't find takers for downtown commercial space @ $7/sf on the main street. At the same time residential space above those same spaces were going for over $12/sf. There seems to be a far greater demand for residential space downtown than commercial it would seem. Hopefully that bodes well for both communities.

I hate to quote myself, but I just wanted to expand somewhat. The most recent development in downtown Bartlesville is the renovation of an old two store commercial building. It will include both commercial downstairs and residential up. BUT nearly 30% of the first floor will be residential as well. So in effect, the developers are trying to maximize residential space (higher returns) and making the commercial spaces much smaller, which also seems to be a vary desired trait in our area. Many businesses cannot afford to rent 2,000 + square feet, but they can handle 500 and it's really better for them anyway.

This is just a further illustration that residential is in higher demand downtown than commercial. Again, this can be a good thing. More rooftops downtown will lead to more demand for retail and services in the end.

And on the mall front. William (correctly) keeps pointing out that a slew of retail in a focused area is a necessity. Which is exactly what a mall is (minus acres of parking lots). If we could just divorce the two and make it a new age mall what is the problem with that. Think Southlake Square or any other modern mall. Or is that not something that could be worked into the framework of an existing downtown. I am being serious. Aside from the obvious issue of it being nearly impossible to acquire the amount of contiguous land to make something like that happen, what about this is bad for a truly urban area?

I will certainly agree that Tulsa seems to have a disjointed development pattern. Hopefully in the future it will all come together. Of course part of me likes having all the unique districts. New York has the same. There are stretches (even in Manhattan) that are more residential in nature and far less of a draw to the shopper in between the high impact shopping areas. It doesn't mean those areas are any less important. But for Tulsa (specifically inside the IDL) even the different districts seem to be sort of all over the place. There isn't a Cherry Street/Brookside going through any one of them, stuff is spread all over. Is this good or bad?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on February 03, 2016, 09:06:05 am
I would imagine it would nearly be inverse here. Rents downtown I would guess start around $1.50/sq/ft/month. $1,000 for about 700 sq ft sounds about right if not on the low. It obviously goes up from there. To equate to commercial space that is $18/sf. That's topping out in most cases for most buildings downtown I would think. I understand what you are saying, but the dynamics in Tulsa are no where near that scanario. In Bartlesville it's even more exacerbated. I remember several years ago they couldn't find takers for downtown commercial space @ $7/sf on the main street. At the same time residential space above those same spaces were going for over $12/sf. There seems to be a far greater demand for residential space downtown than commercial it would seem. Hopefully that bodes well for both communities.

In that case, I'm not sure Tulsa's downtown is ready for the additional 80,000 ft2 of retail Santa Fe Square would provide, especially considering that the developer is charging near the top of the market per sq ft for the Boxyard. Yes, it will be a couple years before it is built anyway, but still. The hotel and residential would be great right there. Eventually, it would help anchor the Blue Dome as a shopping hub (with the Boxyard, Indian Store, Fleet Feet, whatever replaces Dwelling Spaces).

I was looking at numbers and $2/ft2/month probably wouldn't be feasible for Santa Fe Square if it costs $200 million. The loan repayment (assuming a typical current mortgage interest which is unrealistically low) would make the payment $1,280,000/mo. You would need $2.13/ft2 average from the 600,000 ft2 to break even (The hotel could make up quite a bit of that in terms of high revenue per sq ft, but 105 rooms is only ~30-40k sq feet). The parking garage would bring in some good cash too - lets say $100/spot for 1000 spaces, so $100k/mo. With the hotel operating at full capacity and the parking garage, they would need $1.54/sq ft/mo. from the remaining ~540,000 sq ft to break even which sounds more realistic, but no profit margin. I think this size of development would still demand $2/ft2 for the other areas to get a respectable profit margins and pay the interest which I drastically underestimated. It would be tough to get $2/ft2 from residential and sounds like currently retail would be tough at that too.

I am guessing they will be planning on getting ~$30/sq-ft/year for retail and selling it as a breakthrough/visionary urban mall with capacity to draw huge crowds. That would be awesome if they can pull it off, even if it was in stages.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TheArtist on February 03, 2016, 05:57:28 pm
I hate to quote myself, but I just wanted to expand somewhat. The most recent development in downtown Bartlesville is the renovation of an old two store commercial building. It will include both commercial downstairs and residential up. BUT nearly 30% of the first floor will be residential as well. So in effect, the developers are trying to maximize residential space (higher returns) and making the commercial spaces much smaller, which also seems to be a vary desired trait in our area. Many businesses cannot afford to rent 2,000 + square feet, but they can handle 500 and it's really better for them anyway.

This is just a further illustration that residential is in higher demand downtown than commercial. Again, this can be a good thing. More rooftops downtown will lead to more demand for retail and services in the end.

And on the mall front. William (correctly) keeps pointing out that a slew of retail in a focused area is a necessity. Which is exactly what a mall is (minus acres of parking lots). If we could just divorce the two and make it a new age mall what is the problem with that. Think Southlake Square or any other modern mall. Or is that not something that could be worked into the framework of an existing downtown. I am being serious. Aside from the obvious issue of it being nearly impossible to acquire the amount of contiguous land to make something like that happen, what about this is bad for a truly urban area?

I will certainly agree that Tulsa seems to have a disjointed development pattern. Hopefully in the future it will all come together. Of course part of me likes having all the unique districts. New York has the same. There are stretches (even in Manhattan) that are more residential in nature and far less of a draw to the shopper in between the high impact shopping areas. It doesn't mean those areas are any less important. But for Tulsa (specifically inside the IDL) even the different districts seem to be sort of all over the place. There isn't a Cherry Street/Brookside going through any one of them, stuff is spread all over. Is this good or bad?

There is nothing wrong with having a "roof over your shopping" downtown versus not, as long as its connected to the rest of the fabric of the downtown, aka the pedestrian parts that do not have a roof over it. The Williams Center was and would be the opposite of that. It was a horrible design to begin with and I don't see how your could fix it.

You also seem to acknowledge that having a slew of retail in a focused area would be helpful for retail, but then wonder if having "stuff spread all over" is good or bad?  

I look at the 3rd street area with its small cluster of shops and am noticing all the residential now going in around it.  That small strip of retail/restaurant may get cut off and left behind.  I have seen small strips like that in many many other cities around the world and the businesses there more often than not end up being the little neighborhood places that barely eek out a survival.  Some may be great, but if you want to grow as a business you know you will need to move.  Especially if we do end up getting a good concentration of shops somewhere that then becomes a bustling draw.  If that 3rd street strip had grown with developments next to it that had more retail on the ground floor versus living or office, then you would see those businesses already there doing better and better as the area grew.  As it is the more isolated it gets, the more, well, isolated the businesses will get and the more they will struggle as another area grows.  Problem is, we can only hope that at least one area downtown will get that "critical mass" of shopping in order to become a healthy retail corridor that will then be able to be attractive enough to grow organically on its own.  Right now there is no area you can look at downtown that you could say, yes thats a great place to put a store.  Uness you are a big box store or the kind of store that is an attraction in and of itself.  Then once that went in, other spaces next to it would be more viable to be turned into retail spots. 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: PonderInc on February 04, 2016, 09:36:42 am
The most recent development in downtown Bartlesville is the renovation of an old two store commercial building. It will include both commercial downstairs and residential up. BUT nearly 30% of the first floor will be residential as well. So in effect, the developers are trying to maximize residential space (higher returns) and making the commercial spaces much smaller, which also seems to be a vary desired trait in our area.
They may also want residential on the ground floor due to ADA requirements.  Depending on how many units they have, putting residential on the ground floor allows you to provide accessible units without installing elevators, etc to make the upper units ADA compliant.  I'm not sure if the ADA requirement for % of accessible residential applies when you're converting an old building, but I'm pretty sure it applies when you're building new ones if you exceed a certain number of units.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: erfalf on February 04, 2016, 11:42:09 am
They may also want residential on the ground floor due to ADA requirements.  Depending on how many units they have, putting residential on the ground floor allows you to provide accessible units without installing elevators, etc to make the upper units ADA compliant.  I'm not sure if the ADA requirement for % of accessible residential applies when you're converting an old building, but I'm pretty sure it applies when you're building new ones if you exceed a certain number of units.

Possibly. I have only noticed the ground floor residential on the most recent proposed developments. About ten years ago a couple of old buildings were rehabbed. Apartments were made out of the 2nd and 3rd floors of these two buildings (12 & 6 units in each) but the entire ground floor of each was commercial. There is no elevator in either building that I am aware of. Could the policies have changed in that time frame? And is this a city policy or federal?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: erfalf on February 04, 2016, 11:55:12 am
You also seem to acknowledge that having a slew of retail in a focused area would be helpful for retail, but then wonder if having "stuff spread all over" is good or bad?  

Well, what I meant was (relating to your A street B street theories) that even with Brady or Blue Dome, there doesn't seem to be a focused development pattern around a "main street" so to speak. BUT after taking a moment to really look again, it seems that there is a bit of pattern. They all have a main North South and East West street. For example:

Brady - Main & Brady appears to the the epicenter of the area and consumer focused development seems to front those two streets.
Blue Dome - Because of one ways, there are three main streets. Elgin & 1st & 2nd.
CBD - Again one ways, Main & Boston and 5th.

I do think it is good to have multiple areas. They all have different personalities. It increases the odds of someone finding a home in one. And to that end the new residents spending will spill into the other districts, not just their own.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: hello on February 05, 2016, 12:07:05 pm
Does anyone know what is going in the old Mason's place in the Brady? They're finally removing stuff after the bar sat closed for a couple months. The location has a nice patio but it's hard to sit there with the people puffing on their cigars next door.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on February 05, 2016, 02:29:47 pm
Does anyone know what is going in the old Mason's place in the Brady? They're finally removing stuff after the bar sat closed for a couple months. The location has a nice patio but it's hard to sit there with the people puffing on their cigars next door.

Did they close? Not open very long.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on February 05, 2016, 03:32:00 pm
Did they close? Not open very long.

They were there a couple years and I am surprised it lasted that long. They originally sold Masons as a sports bar. "Great!" I thought, "Just what downtown needs!" I gave it multiple shots, but the food was bad and the beer selection was awful and we thought they made lousy mixed drinks as well (the whole trifecta!). They served me cold wings and it took a long time. Furthermore, the atmosphere was lacking and it was always mostly empty. Lots of wasted space and most the TVs were not on sports, even during a big football game day. Then I went there about a year ago and they said they hadn't had food in a long time. How is it a sports bar if they don't have food? 

If they would've just had a mediocre sports bar, they would've done great. It was awful and everything they did, they did poorly or completely failed to do.

Now Leftys has been great every time I've been there. It is on the opposite end of the spectrum: Plenty of TVs with sports on, amazing atmosphere, really good food and their mixed drinks were good also.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on February 05, 2016, 04:24:46 pm
They were there a couple years and I am surprised it lasted that long. They originally sold Masons as a sports bar. "Great!" I thought, "Just what downtown needs!" I gave it multiple shots, but the food was bad and the beer selection was awful and we thought they made lousy mixed drinks as well (the whole trifecta!). They served me cold wings and it took a long time. Furthermore, the atmosphere was lacking and it was always mostly empty. Lots of wasted space and most the TVs were not on sports, even during a big football game day. Then I went there about a year ago and they said they hadn't had food in a long time. How is it a sports bar if they don't have food? 

If they would've just had a mediocre sports bar, they would've done great. It was awful and everything they did, they did poorly or completely failed to do.

Now Leftys has been great every time I've been there. It is on the opposite end of the spectrum: Plenty of TVs with sports on, amazing atmosphere, really good food and their mixed drinks were good also.

I never had the food, but I had the same experience otherwise the two times I went there.  The beer selection sucked, and it wasn't a sports bar.  They had a guy playing vinyl records and they had a tv or two and I don't remember if sports were on.  It had no identity whatsoever.  If you're gonna be a sports bar, be a sports bar.  If you're gonna be something else, be something else.  And beer selection is kind of a big deal these days.  It's a great spot and will do well with the right people in charge.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Breadburner on February 05, 2016, 05:12:40 pm
Lefty's wasn't going to be a sports bar either but I think they are seeing the light.......


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: saintnicster on February 06, 2016, 09:26:31 am
Lefty's wasn't going to be a sports bar either but I think they are seeing the light.......
Since when were they not going to be a sports bar?  http://www.tulsaworld.com/businesshomepage1/lefty-s-bar-and-restaurant-to-debut-soon-in-downtown/article_13490281-3104-5d8a-a99c-d34c3c406cb2.html


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on February 06, 2016, 02:05:58 pm
I must have hit Lefty’s on an off day.  Their breaded pork sandwich was really dreadful.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: carltonplace on February 08, 2016, 08:17:43 am
Did they close? Not open very long.

The few times that I went we were the only people there and it was clear that the bartender didn't really want us there either.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: PonderInc on February 09, 2016, 02:27:58 pm
I must have hit Lefty’s on an off day.  Their breaded pork sandwich was really dreadful.
I eat at Lefty's fairly often, and I think it has some of the best "bar food" downtown. I haven't had the breaded pork, but I've been happy with everything from salmon to salads to hot wings.

I also love the diverse clientele, which is something to treasure in Tulsa. 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on February 12, 2016, 09:28:05 am
Quote
City plans major road rehab, will make Cheyenne and Boulder avenues downtown two-way
Projects will take place in phases over the coming years.


Posted: Friday, February 12, 2016 12:01 am | Updated: 1:18 am, Fri Feb 12, 2016.
By JARREL WADE World Staff Writer | 3 comments
Boulder and Cheyenne avenues downtown will change to two-way streets in coming years, city officials said Thursday.
The reconstruction and rehabilitation of both roadways will include work on sidewalks and infrastructure, incorporating aspects of the city’s Complete Streets policy, said Paul Zachary, the city’s director of engineering services.
Connectivity along the corridor from downtown to Veterans Park and the Arkansas River would be multimodal, including access for cars, bicycles, pedestrians and public transit.
The change to two-way traffic would help access between downtown and the Gathering Place for Tulsa park on Riverside Drive, Zachary said.
The Complete Streets design elements also include landscaping and lighting.
Zachary reported to Tulsa city councilors that the road construction and signs would be done in several phases.
The start date for downtown road construction will depend on getting final decisions on the approach to the project, but Zachary said work is slated to begin this year on Fifth Street, with additional phases taking at least several years to complete.
If approved as currently designed, Boulder Avenue and then Cheyenne Avenue would change to two-way configurations from First Street to 10th Street.
The plan came from traffic studies performed in 1997 that cited the need for Boulder Avenue to be two-way due to parking facilities and general downtown access, Zachary said.
“It specifically identified Boulder Avenue as a two-way, two-lane street in each direction,” he said.
Recent studies on traffic counts have backed up the nearly 20-year-old study, Zachary said.
Zachary said the funding comes substantially from the Improve Our Tulsa tax but would include other sources.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/city-plans-major-road-rehab-will-make-cheyenne-and-boulder/article_530fdc74-855f-54e0-95de-0970d1fea2d3.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/city-plans-major-road-rehab-will-make-cheyenne-and-boulder/article_530fdc74-855f-54e0-95de-0970d1fea2d3.html)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on February 12, 2016, 11:49:34 am
"The plan came from traffic studies performed in 1997 that cited the need for Boulder Avenue to be two-way due to parking facilities and general downtown access, Zachary said."

It took 20 years for them to implement a street repair?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: carltonplace on February 12, 2016, 01:43:46 pm
It took 20 years for them to implement a street repair?

I know...who thought they could implement so quickly?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: PonderInc on February 12, 2016, 02:34:00 pm
It took 20 years for Charles Hardt to retire.  Years ago, the quote I heard was that he said he would change downtown streets to two-way "over my dead body."  So, yay, he finally retired.  Now the constraint is $$.  Over the years, there's been some 3rd Penny sales tax money for this, but only enough to do a couple streets at a time.  As it turns out, installing signalized intersections and signage is ridiculously expensive, and you have to do this at every block.  

Sadly, once they make the streets two way, it appears they leave the timing "one way."  Because if you drive on the new direction, you'll hit every red light on every block.  Why can't downtown just have sensors like other intersections in town, so if you're the only vehicle there at 10 PM on a Tuesday, you don't have to sit through all the lights?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Townsend on February 12, 2016, 02:57:44 pm

Sadly, once they make the streets two way, it appears they leave the timing "one way."  Because if you drive on the new direction, you'll hit every red light on every block.  Why can't downtown just have sensors like other intersections in town, so if you're the only vehicle there at 10 PM on a Tuesday, you don't have to sit through all the lights?

It's so you can window-shop while you are stopped at the intersections.  It's a retailer conspiracy.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Red Arrow on February 12, 2016, 03:20:52 pm
It's so you can window-shop while you are stopped at the intersections.  It's a retailer conspiracy.

It also gives one time to answer their text messages.



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Townsend on February 12, 2016, 03:24:34 pm
It also give one time to answer their text messages.

Damned fine point, Red.  Damned fine


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Red Arrow on February 12, 2016, 03:30:28 pm
Sadly, once they make the streets two way, it appears they leave the timing "one way."  Because if you drive on the new direction, you'll hit every red light on every block.

How would you have them timed when there is traffic in both directions?  I don't believe it possible to keep both directions moving at the same time.

Quote
 Why can't downtown just have sensors like other intersections in town, so if you're the only vehicle there at 10 PM on a Tuesday, you don't have to sit through all the lights?
Downtown does not  have a monopoly on waiting at a light with no traffic.  The traffic lights on Memorial between 101st and 111th often let scores of nonexistent cars out of shopping areas while traffic on Memorial waits.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: PonderInc on February 12, 2016, 03:51:03 pm
How would you have them timed when there is traffic in both directions?  I don't believe it possible to keep both directions moving at the same time.
You use sensors (that respond to bikes, too).  That way, when there's lots of southbound traffic, the lights stay green longer in that direction.  When there's lots of northbound traffic, the lights stay green longer in that direction, etc, etc.  Typically downtown traffic has a primary flow at any given time.  People are either coming in or going out based on workday schedule, concerts, ballgames, etc.  Why not just respond to these natural ebbs and flows as they occur, rather than relying on timers?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cynical on February 13, 2016, 10:14:48 am
Sensor-controlled signals are just stop signs with pretty lights. Everyone stops.

For sheer entertainment value, they should just remove all of the controls like they do in many European intersections. A default rule ("priority of the right") is used to sort out responsibility for the damages. This has the advantage of being far more libertarian than Big Gubmint traffic control devices. Incidentally, we already have that as a default rule, but almost no one is aware of it. 47 OS Sec. 11-401(B) provides that "When two vehicles enter or approach an intersection from different highways at approximately the same time, except as provided in subsection A of this section, the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on the right." Subsection A establishes a hierarchy of different roads, with the highways having priority over county roads, etc. Since downtown streets look about the same, we don't need to fuss over such details. Just let 'er rip and sell tickets.

Merchants could provide sidewalk cafe tables so that customers could enjoy the demolition derby. With appropriate protections in place, of course.

Seriously, the advantage to going 2-way on a street with one-way synchronization is that drivers at least have the option of going the other way if it is more convenient than going two or more blocks out of their way. They have to stop, but not for very long. Meanwhile, traffic flow is still facilitated by the synchronized lights, assuming that the city bothers to maintain them.

You use sensors (that respond to bikes, too).  That way, when there's lots of southbound traffic, the lights stay green longer in that direction.  When there's lots of northbound traffic, the lights stay green longer in that direction, etc, etc.  Typically downtown traffic has a primary flow at any given time.  People are either coming in or going out based on workday schedule, concerts, ballgames, etc.  Why not just respond to these natural ebbs and flows as they occur, rather than relying on timers?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on February 13, 2016, 02:53:13 pm
For sheer entertainment value, they should just remove all of the controls like they do in many European intersections. A default rule ("priority of the right") is used to sort out responsibility for the damages. This has the advantage of being far more libertarian than Big Gubmint traffic control devices. Incidentally, we already have that as a default rule, but almost no one is aware of it. 47 OS Sec. 11-401(B) provides that "When two vehicles enter or approach an intersection from different highways at approximately the same time, except as provided in subsection A of this section, the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on the right." Subsection A establishes a hierarchy of different roads, with the highways having priority over county roads, etc. Since downtown streets look about the same, we don't need to fuss over such details. Just let 'er rip and sell tickets.

Merchants could provide sidewalk cafe tables so that customers could enjoy the demolition derby...

Seriously, the advantage to going 2-way on a street with one-way synchronization is that drivers at least have the option of going the other way if it is more convenient than going two or more blocks out of their way. They have to stop, but not for very long. Meanwhile, traffic flow is still facilitated by the synchronized lights, assuming that the city bothers to maintain them.

The City could try 4-way stops and see how traffic flows before spending big bucks on synchronized lights at every intersection.  That's what was done a few years ago on Fourth Street:

at Denver Ave (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1511507,-95.9942539,3a,90y,79.67h,73.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sV9lC5OIeWdLVTmBy3tPggQ!2e0!7i3328!8i1664)

at Cheyenne (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1515828,-95.993015,3a,75y,61.3h,70.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIAJxetbPArywN-a2GjAyYg!2e0!7i3328!8i1664)

at Boulder (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1519828,-95.9918556,3a,75y,61.94h,72.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srY1kDNM7iQToa-rrfmm1kQ!2e0!7i3328!8i1664)

at Main (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1524345,-95.9905717,3a,75y,43.82h,68.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgSil28sxLqQNh64doKjjww!2e0!7i3328!8i1664)

at Boston (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.152823,-95.9895143,3a,75y,63.55h,89.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWV9atVCglLnAaTQODqNWpg!2e0!7i3328!8i1664)

at Cincinnati (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1532472,-95.9881908,3a,75y,62.31h,96.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sG39FMZWTgjfzfN6o9ET2RQ!2e0!7i3328!8i1664)

And simple stop signs are used now at several intersections in the Mathew B. Reconciliation Way Arts District, the Greenwood area, at Third and Kenosha, at Twelfth and Houston, etc.  I've seen very few wrecks at the all-way stops.

The timing of the signals downtown is designed for smooth traffic flow on the one-way pairs with access to/from the IDL, such as 1st/2nd, 7th/8th, and Cincinnati/Detroit.  


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: carltonplace on February 15, 2016, 07:50:39 am
It took 20 years for Charles Hardt to retire.  Years ago, the quote I heard was that he said he would change downtown streets to two-way "over my dead body."  So, yay, he finally retired.  Now the constraint is $$.  Over the years, there's been some 3rd Penny sales tax money for this, but only enough to do a couple streets at a time.  As it turns out, installing signalized intersections and signage is ridiculously expensive, and you have to do this at every block.  

Sadly, once they make the streets two way, it appears they leave the timing "one way."  Because if you drive on the new direction, you'll hit every red light on every block.  Why can't downtown just have sensors like other intersections in town, so if you're the only vehicle there at 10 PM on a Tuesday, you don't have to sit through all the lights?

Boulder and Cheyenne have 16 existing traffic light controlled intersections between them that would have to be changed. If they just do Boulder Ave first then that is only 8. I'll never understand why they made Boulder a one way street, it makes no sense.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Ibanez on February 15, 2016, 02:32:11 pm
How would you have them timed when there is traffic in both directions?  I don't believe it possible to keep both directions moving at the same time.
Downtown does not  have a monopoly on waiting at a light with no traffic.  The traffic lights on Memorial between 101st and 111th often let scores of nonexistent cars out of shopping areas while traffic on Memorial waits.

I fear it will soon be like that all the way to 151st since someone in the City of Bixby seems hell bent on installing traffic lights every 150 feet along Memorial.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on February 15, 2016, 02:57:26 pm
I fear it will soon be like that all the way to 151st since someone in the City of Bixby seems hell bent on installing traffic lights every 150 feet along Memorial.

Between 91st & 111th on Memorial is bucking awful.  I feel sorry for people who have to drive that every day.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on February 15, 2016, 04:03:42 pm
It also gives one time to answer their text messages.




Isn't that supposed to be illegal now?   Guess not...I see just as many texting as before...


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on February 15, 2016, 04:04:42 pm
How would you have them timed when there is traffic in both directions?  I don't believe it possible to keep both directions moving at the same time.



Overpasses....


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on February 15, 2016, 04:19:56 pm

Isn't that supposed to be illegal now?   Guess not...I see just as many texting as before...


Just like how gun control laws in certain states have been so useful at curbing gun violence with those specific types of weapons.  ::)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Hoss on February 15, 2016, 04:35:19 pm
Between 91st & 111th on Memorial is bucking awful.  I feel sorry for people who have to drive that every day.

It reminds me of living in Houston in the early 90s.  Westheimer between 610 westbound to Gessner.  Every 200 feet a signal.  And this was on a (mainly) eight lane (yes, eight) arterial.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Red Arrow on February 15, 2016, 05:47:25 pm
Between 91st & 111th on Memorial is bucking awful.  I feel sorry for people who have to drive that every day.

Thank you.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on February 15, 2016, 06:47:36 pm
I'll never understand why they made Boulder a one way street, it makes no sense.

The one-way traffic flow scheme was conceived in the 1940s, or perhaps even earlier, as quick access to the proposed expressway system.

The one-way streets worked in pairs.  Boulder was paired with Cheyenne.  The Boulder/Cheyenne idea was to provide a route to/from the Tisdale access ramps at Fairview St.  Cheyenne also provided access to the east-bound on-ramp on the south leg of the IDL and on to the BA Expressway.

Cincinnati/Detroit provide access to the north leg and the southeast IDL interchange.  1st/2nd provide access on the east and west legs, as do 7th/8th.

The intersections are mostly 380 feet apart.  By alternating the directions of the one-way streets pairs, traffic signals in the downtown core could be coordinated (most of the time) for relatively smooth traffic flow.

A two-way Boulder will need re-designed signals at 2nd, 7th, 8th, and 10th, at a minimum.  6th also probably has enough traffic to require a signal, maybe 3rd, too.  But 4th and 5th?  Stop signs on the those streets might work. 

A two-way Cheyenne will need re-designed signals at 1st, 2nd, 7th, and 8th, at a minimum.  5th St is one-way west-bound at Cheyenne; 4th is one-way east-bound. Three stop signs would probably work at both of those intersections.  3rd & Cheyenne and 6th & Cheyenne don't seem to me to have much traffic, although I don't know what the counts are.  The City could try 4-way stops at 3rd and at 6th, at least initially.

If the goal is to have smooth flow of vehicular traffic, then paired one-way THROUGH streets with synchronized signals work well.  But if it's not important for cars to be able to roar through the downtown without stopping, then a few more relatively cheap stop signs would probably work almost as well as very expensive signals.  Many times, I've seen cars stopped at 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th, waiting for a light to turn green, without any cross traffic at all.

For pedestrian crossings, I think the one-way streets with the synchronized signals work the best.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: dsjeffries on February 16, 2016, 10:43:31 am
Team Soundpony posted the following on their Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/TeamSoundpony) yesterday:


CYCLIST NEWS ALERT:
Wednesday, March 2, 1:30pm,
15th Floor Boardroom at City Hall,
One Technology Center, 175 E. 2nd Street.

The City of Tulsa Gov commissioned The GO Plan (http://"http://tulsatrc.org/goplan/") to utilize best practices for bicycles and pedestrians. Now, when it is time to use the recommendations, they are ignoring it.

Boulder Ave and Cheyenne Ave are being converted to 2-way traffic. The GO Plan (http://"http://tulsatrc.org/goplan/") calls for a cycle track on Boulder. The city, however, is planning to only paint sharrows on the street, which means bicyclists would have to share the lane with cars - read, no dedicated space for bicyclists.

Basically, where the GO Plan calls for the best bike infrastructure the city is planning to give us the worst bike infrastructure.

If we can't get a cycle track on Boulder, a very low traffic street, we will be hard pressed to get a cycle track installed anywhere in this city.

The DCC has already approved the sharrows design, but are willing to reconsider and hear us out. It would be great to have a huge group of supporters in attendance wearing bicycle pins and/or bicycle shirts. If we get a large group of people to show up, it will be that much harder for the DCC to vote down the cycle track option.

Please consider supporting local cyclists on March 2nd if you are able.

(https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlt1/v/t1.0-9/12742388_1153081404703429_7559651848541262366_n.png?oh=010ab6e3e50a7b4df9d91292ef0af788&oe=576C67B9)



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TheArtist on February 16, 2016, 03:03:32 pm
Interesting.  I need to find last months agenda.  I just barely remember the topic.  Seems like it was a "fait accompli" item on the agenda presented to us without much fan-fair and little discussion, along with the list of other items on the agenda.  "Here is the plan for this... any comments? Everyone in favor? Next item...." 

Guess I need to do more research on these different plans that are out there which may affect downtown.  But some of this may go to my usual frustration that it seems like we commission and spend money on plans and "professional advice" then its all ignored.  But then again, what sometimes seems to be the case is that the plan has no legal weight to it, no reason for someone to follow it.  Just because its a plan doesn't mean anything, and if someone doesn't like whats in the plan or there is the slightest difficulty in implementing a part of it, then they will point that out and you might as well not have had the plan at all.   

Have no idea what happened here and don't remember the discussion at the last meeting but will look into it.  If someone had mentioned that we had commissioned a plan The Go Plan" that we were supposed to follow, and that what was being presented to us was different from that, it might have caused my radar to light up and ask a few questions. 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Weatherdemon on February 16, 2016, 03:26:04 pm
It reminds me of living in Houston in the early 90s.  Westheimer between 610 westbound to Gessner.  Every 200 feet a signal.  And this was on a (mainly) eight lane (yes, eight) arterial.

Or Owasso.
It takes as much time to get to Skiatook's football stadium as Owasso's from German Corner.
Owasso is aiming for 4-5 stoplights on each 4 lane road on and between 76th-96th and Garnet -145th.
Some are on sensors but half of those don't work.
The rest are timed so you sit for 2-3 minutes with no cross-traffic in front of you during off peak hours.

Driving by the HS on 129th is fun at night as your headlights while on 129th will set off the E/W street sensor so you get to stop there all the time to wait for phantom cars pulling out of the parking lots:(


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on February 16, 2016, 05:36:07 pm
Team Soundpony posted the following on their Facebook page (http://"https://www.facebook.com/TeamSoundpony") yesterday:



(https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlt1/v/t1.0-9/12742388_1153081404703429_7559651848541262366_n.png?oh=010ab6e3e50a7b4df9d91292ef0af788&oe=576C67B9)


The sidewalks, identified as six feet wide, are actually ten feet wide on most blocks.  That's assuming the curbs remain where they are now, and accounting for the two one-foot-wide strips along each curb, as shown in the diagram.  Team Soundpony and any other supporters should be ready to answer questions about the true width of the sidewalks, various marked lanes, and the one-foot-wide strips along the curbs.  Are those strips for trees as shown in the diagram?  If so, that's not wide enough.  The new street trees have been planted in a special engineered soil, developed at Cornell University, I think.  The planting strips are about four feet wide.

What happens to the six-foot-wide north-bound bike lane and the four-foot-wide buffer to the west of it at the southeast and northeast corners of 3rd and 4th, at the southeast corner of 1st, and at the northeast corner of 2nd?  At those six locations, there are existing curbs and rough pavers which conflict with Team Soundpony's diagram.  Those curbs and rough pavers are about ten years old, or newer.  Does Team Soundpony expect the City to remove those relatively new curbs and re-work the design the of the street so a bike lane and a buffer can be installed?  If so, who will be expected to pay to remove pavement that has been in place for less than a decade?

Update:  Thanks to a photo posted by PonderInc on different topic:  Here's another radical thought: Protected bike lanes on every main road (http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=21269) -- There's a "solution" to the "problem" of the relatively new curb extensions I mentioned on Feb 16, 2016...

Here are a few photos, so cyclists can dream of other places to live...

(http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/image2-e1456169489426-1024x742.jpg)



This type of offset could be used to avoid the existing curb extensions on the east side of Boulder at 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Streets.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: carltonplace on February 17, 2016, 08:42:15 am
Boulder Ave is huge, it has four lanes of traffic and two lanes of parking. 

Why not cut it down to two lanes with a middle turn lane and a bike lane (heck, even a bus lane if you put all of the parking on one side).


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on February 17, 2016, 09:45:28 am
My objection is not to "sharrow" or bike share lanes, my objection is that yet again we invested time, energy, and resources into appearing like we were studying an issue. We then reached a conclusion and decided to implement what we declared to be best practices. Then when it came time to actually do it, we go the lazy way and do what we always do.

Small area plans. PlanITulsa. Bike lanes. Whatever...

Maybe we can just eliminate the planning department, stop having studies done, and fly by the seat of out pants. Would probably save money to get to the same place. Plus, if I'm wholly ignorant of what we declare "best practices" to be, maybe I will stop caring when the bait and switch comes along.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TeeDub on February 17, 2016, 09:49:48 am

If you don't do studies then who will employ your cousins?   Also, without performing a study, then your true intentions of ignoring the problems of the minority will be obvious.

I mean really, there has to be at least 50-100 bike riders that would have been furious (as opposed to the thousands of motorists who are indifferent.)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on February 23, 2016, 11:25:58 am
I heard of another development by the GKF going in the Brady District between Boulder & Cheyenne, south of Easton. Something about converting the old factories to a mixed use development or maybe building new. Has anyone else heard of this?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on February 23, 2016, 04:11:42 pm
Just like how gun control laws in certain states have been so useful at curbing gun violence with those specific types of weapons.  ::)


Yep.

Like outlawing 'assault weapons' for crimes committed using pistols.  Or knives.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: davideinstein on February 24, 2016, 11:16:44 pm
I wish that meeting wasn't at 1:30pm.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: LandArchPoke on March 22, 2016, 05:12:18 pm
Someone mentioned in the Meridia page wondering why the Hilton Garden Inn project was so far behind... I think I figured out why. It's grown significantly in scale, will now be 15 stories and include 50+ apartments.

(http://s7.postimg.org/gi0cuglkr/Screen_Shot_2016_03_22_at_6_01_10_PM.png)

From GH2's website:

HILTON GARDEN INN

Collaborating with our client, the Hilton brand and community stakeholders, we designed this iconic downtown urban development as an adaptive reuse of a prominent, busy corner in Downtown Tulsa.

When complete, this dynamic structure will house both a Hilton Garden Inn and 53 upper-scale apartments, within a total of 309,150 SF and 15 stories. The available amenities, including an indoor pool and spa, fitness center, bar and dining area, and meeting rooms, will be shared between the hotel and apartments.

The building's design is inspired by its context within the heart of Tulsa's Downtown, an engaging architectural blend of both Tulsa's historical past and the newer, more contemporary BOK Center. A sky bridge on the north side of the building spans 2nd Street, connecting the hotel to a parking garage. We recently completed the Conceptual Design phase, and the project is scheduled to be completed in 2017.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: BKDotCom on March 22, 2016, 07:36:14 pm
very cool
will believe it when I see it.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on March 22, 2016, 08:37:33 pm
Someone mentioned in the Meridia page wondering why the Hilton Garden Inn project was so far behind... I think I figured out why. It's grown significantly in scale, will now be 15 stories and include 50+ apartments.

(http://s7.postimg.org/gi0cuglkr/Screen_Shot_2016_03_22_at_6_01_10_PM.png)

From GH2's website:

HILTON GARDEN INN

Collaborating with our client, the Hilton brand and community stakeholders, we designed this iconic downtown urban development as an adaptive reuse of a prominent, busy corner in Downtown Tulsa.

When complete, this dynamic structure will house both a Hilton Garden Inn and 53 upper-scale apartments, within a total of 309,150 SF and 15 stories. The available amenities, including an indoor pool and spa, fitness center, bar and dining area, and meeting rooms, will be shared between the hotel and apartments.

The building's design is inspired by its context within the heart of Tulsa's Downtown, an engaging architectural blend of both Tulsa's historical past and the newer, more contemporary BOK Center. A sky bridge on the north side of the building spans 2nd Street, connecting the hotel to a parking garage. We recently completed the Conceptual Design phase, and the project is scheduled to be completed in 2017.

That looks really good. The project growing is better than shrinking. I hope it happens.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on March 22, 2016, 11:11:00 pm
It is an interesting design. Some of the elements to it remind me of other buildings in Tulsa, but I just can't picture which ones. I hope that it comes close to the rendering, I think it would look good on that corner.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on March 23, 2016, 03:27:41 am
Looks like it still destroys, rather than incorporates, the Art Deco Oil & Gas Journal building, right?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: BKDotCom on March 23, 2016, 07:56:49 am
Looks like it still destroys, rather than incorporates, the Art Deco Oil & Gas Journal building, right?
Different property / different project.
This is across the street, immediately to the south of the new Cimarex bldg


Edit:  It appears I'm wrong... huge change from
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/661/il2jfy.jpg)

I find it hard to believe there is so much demand for "upscale" apartments downtown..   when's the midscale coming?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaRufnex on March 23, 2016, 10:22:29 am
Yeah, nothing going on at the site (that I can see)... Hampton Inn & Suites is progressing nicely, though.
As for affordable housing, wonder what the price point is going to be for those downtown YMCA building apts?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on March 23, 2016, 10:30:19 am
Yeah, nothing going on at the site (that I can see)... Hampton Inn & Suites is progressing nicely, though.
As for affordable housing, wonder what the price point is going to be for those downtown YMCA building apts?

It's the same company doing both hotels.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Oil Capital on March 23, 2016, 10:37:29 am
Very cool.  But did they really call this "adaptive reuse"?   That's pretty funny.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on March 23, 2016, 10:56:11 am
Very cool.  But did they really call this "adaptive reuse"?   That's pretty funny.

I hope this new rendering is the reverse side of the building from the original image. Even so this looks like at most keeping part a facade of the original buildings, not a real "reuse".



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: BKDotCom on March 23, 2016, 11:28:09 am
I hope this new rendering is the reverse side of the building from the original image. Even so this looks like at most keeping part a facade of the original buildings, not a real "reuse".

Both images taken at same angle.   The skywalk connects to the parking garage.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on March 23, 2016, 11:43:04 am
Both images taken at same angle.   The skywalk connects to the parking garage.

Ah, the city garage, not the OnePlace garage. I get the angle now. Looks like the Journal Building is toast.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on March 23, 2016, 11:53:13 am
Definitely removes more of the character of the existing building, but this is one of those instances where I say progress marches on.  It is an ambitious project in a key location where they already own the land. Preservationists will hate on me - but I'd rather have the rendering than the empty building that sits there now. 

Of course, I'd rather have 4 new 4 story buildings occupying an empty lot somewhere, but...

- - -

Re the continue explosion of high price point apartments. The markup is better. The "renowned" that comes with building high price point items is better. Even if Best Western makes more money than the Waldorf (I don't know that to be true), the guy that brags about owning the Waldorf is seen as more impressive.

And if you think about the scale, it really isn't that much. It is a lot in the context of downtown - but there are a town of houses, apartments, and rentals that cost more around town. Luckily, we are at the point where certain people are happy to be a one car family, or live in a condo they can safely abandon for the winter when the go to Florida, or are willing to pay a premium just to be downtown. Lets exploit that while we can, and the more modest price point should fill in as we go along (though, nationally, that isn't happening in most housing markets).


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: shavethewhales on March 23, 2016, 12:23:46 pm
Unless I've got the corner completely wrong I don't see any buildings there that I'd get upset about losing. This is a much better building, and will do a ton to energize the arena area. When they say the project is scheduled to be complete, are they including construction, or are they just talking about the design phase? If it's the former than they better start yesterday.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on March 23, 2016, 12:36:04 pm
Unless I've got the corner completely wrong I don't see any buildings there that I'd get upset about losing. This is a much better building, and will do a ton to energize the arena area. When they say the project is scheduled to be complete, are they including construction, or are they just talking about the design phase? If it's the former than they better start yesterday.

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1533776,-95.993856,3a,75y,77.87h,86.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5MSJJ6Kb7O-hKhwriwDxBQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1533776,-95.993856,3a,75y,77.87h,86.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5MSJJ6Kb7O-hKhwriwDxBQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: takemebacktotulsa on March 23, 2016, 04:08:09 pm
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1533776,-95.993856,3a,75y,77.87h,86.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5MSJJ6Kb7O-hKhwriwDxBQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1533776,-95.993856,3a,75y,77.87h,86.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5MSJJ6Kb7O-hKhwriwDxBQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en)
What about the yellow and red art deco building to the south? Is that one toast as well?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TheArtist on March 23, 2016, 06:25:09 pm
What about the yellow and red art deco building to the south? Is that one toast as well?

In an early on conversation with Patel, he was looking at trying to see if the front facade of the deco building could be incorporated in the lobby/entrance to the hotel.  Would be great if this could be done. Can't tell if thats the case in the rendering but I get the feeling not.

I so wish we had our Art Deco Museum started so we could perhaps save the facade and put it there, but at least we can maybe reproduce it if we get some samples of the material. 

Believe it or not this is one of my favorite Art Deco Buildings.  I love its simplicity and bold coloring.  There aren't any other examples of this type in Tulsa or this region of the country.  It's a great example of some of the, how do you say it, basic, fundamental design language of Art Deco.  I love seeing these types of buildings as they are records that show us how "modernity" got its start.  They were the first iteration of what we can now look back on and see as being the beginnings of the modern style of art and architecture, yet they still have a unique design language.

I think I will call them up again and if the developers and designers are taking it down, will coerce/guilt them make a donation to the National Art Deco Museum effort as penance.  8)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: LandArchPoke on March 23, 2016, 08:50:36 pm
While it is unfortunate if they don't incorporate the facades of the deco buildings into this project... I will say at least it's a significant project in terms of scale/impact. The city just better tie the demo permits to construction permits. Don't pull an OKC with Stage Center and let them be knocked down before the developer have construction docs, permits, and financing ready to go. The height of this project would only be a few floors shorter than the Cimarex Tower.

As for the mid-market or affordable apartments downtown... it will never happen. That's why areas like the Pearl, Brady Heights, etc. are so important. Those will fill in a void of more affordable housing/mid-market housing. Urban centers are just too expensive to develop for people with incomes under $50,000 in Tulsa. Unless the city wants to subsidize housing, you just aren't going to see anything new built for people who can't afford $1,000 or more a month for rent downtown. There will be a handful of the Coliseum type properties, but that's it - just the reality of housing costs in the U.S. anymore. Incomes have been stagnant for way too long (not trying to start a political debate) and construction costs have gone up with inflation, makes building "affordable" units very difficult.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: hello on March 24, 2016, 11:21:41 am
What are the chances a movie theater comes to Downtown?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Ibanez on March 24, 2016, 12:16:15 pm
What are the chances a movie theater comes to Downtown?

I have heard that question quite a bit lately.

In fact my wife and I were downtown last weekend and the couple next to us in a bar were talking about how they wished there was a theater downtown. After talking with them for a bit we found out that they are from Enid and drive to Tulsa once a month to stay downtown to go out. I asked if they ever went to OKC for the same purpose and they looked at me like I had snakes for hair. The girl said "Ewww, no. We hate Oklahoma City!" I bought them a round of drinks just for that.

 ;D


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on March 24, 2016, 12:21:01 pm
In an early on conversation with Patel, he was looking at trying to see if the front facade of the deco building could be incorporated in the lobby/entrance to the hotel.  Would be great if this could be done. Can't tell if thats the case in the rendering but I get the feeling not.

I so wish we had our Art Deco Museum started so we could perhaps save the facade and put it there, but at least we can maybe reproduce it if we get some samples of the material. 

Believe it or not this is one of my favorite Art Deco Buildings.  I love its simplicity and bold coloring.  There aren't any other examples of this type in Tulsa or this region of the country.  It's a great example of some of the, how do you say it, basic, fundamental design language of Art Deco.  I love seeing these types of buildings as they are records that show us how "modernity" got its start.  They were the first iteration of what we can now look back on and see as being the beginnings of the modern style of art and architecture, yet they still have a unique design language.

I think I will call them up again and if the developers and designers are taking it down, will coerce/guilt them make a donation to the National Art Deco Museum effort as penance.  8)

I like the building too, but in looking at it, there's not much to save, the deco aspects are in the brickwork of the building itself, mostly with the variations in the brick color. There really isn't any ornamentation that I can see to save.

In the end, it's a small building surrounded by more important examples of deco.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on March 30, 2016, 12:28:12 pm
No real details other than looks to be NORDAM properties.

http://www.newson6.com/story/31601748/brickhuggers-plans-development-on-11-acres-in-tulsas-east-village


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on March 30, 2016, 01:22:25 pm
No real details other than looks to be NORDAM properties.

http://www.newson6.com/story/31601748/brickhuggers-plans-development-on-11-acres-in-tulsas-east-village

11 acres of downtown property is really significant.  If I didn’t hate the cliche’ so much I’d say it’s a real potential game-changer.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on March 30, 2016, 01:32:33 pm
100% with Conan. That is a huge chunk of Nordam's downtown property holdings. I'm so glad the announcing party is Brickhugger. I can't see them doing a suburban apartment complex there and they have a great feel for the Tulsa market. Have they ever announced a project that didn't happen in the manner advertised?

I looked up Nordam's downtown holdings and mapped the same. Also pulled Tulsa County Land Records for the properties and didn't see anything had actually been transferred yet.

(http://i.imgur.com/3N6ruTKl.jpg)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on April 21, 2016, 12:53:41 pm
More details on the new GKFF development with Magic City Books:

Lone Wolf to open a restaurant and bar in the Brady District
Quote
Lone Wolf, known in Tulsa for its popular food truck, will open a restaurant and bar in the Brady District in 2017.
The restaurant will be part of a development at Archer Street and Martin Luther King Boulevard, said Lone Wolf owner, Philip Phillips. The site being restored by the George Kaiser Family Foundation and will include multiple businesses, including Magic City Books.
“It is going to be our first brick-and-mortar, full-service restaurant,” he said. “It is going to be fast-casual, and we will be updating the menu a little bit.”
Fans will be able to get Lone Wolf’s specialty items, such as the banh sandwiches and kimchi fries, but other dishes will be added, such as appetizers, to adapt the menu for restaurant service. Because the building has to be renovated, the restaurant is expected to open in the first or second quarter of 2017.
“We are incredibly excited. We feel like it is time,” Phillips said. “Tulsa has been patient with us. We have grown from a food truck where people had to sit on the curb to eat, to a take-out business, to a restaurant.”
“We want to have a place where people can come and enjoy themselves and spend some time.”
The building is not currently occupied, and Phillips had plans to meet this week with contractors about the development.
Lone Wolf launched its first food truck in Tulsa in September 2012. Tulsans immediately loved the signature dishes, and customers had no qualms about waiting in long lines.
Lone Wolf operates out of a commissary kitchen at 37th Street and Harvard Avenue, and it launched carryout service at that site at the end of last year.
The truck makes regular lunch stops at places such as Guthrie Green and the Oklahoma Jazz Hall of Fame, as well as dinner and Sunday brunch at The Fur Shop, 520 E. Third St. The brunch menu is different than the regular menu.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/scene/food/lone-wolf-to-open-a-restaurant-and-bar-in-the/article_90c614f7-b5c3-505b-b0f8-85a1d5860a73.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/scene/food/lone-wolf-to-open-a-restaurant-and-bar-in-the/article_90c614f7-b5c3-505b-b0f8-85a1d5860a73.html)

More great news for downtown and the Brady District! It is really becoming a hub of the best of Tulsa!


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on April 25, 2016, 10:25:07 am
Does anyone know what is being built next to the YMCA lofts at the NW corner of 5th and Cheyenne?

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1503316,-95.9934416,3a,39.1y,143.93h,85.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sT0oNA4qtLlK7iuB57irgqQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1503316,-95.9934416,3a,39.1y,143.93h,85.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sT0oNA4qtLlK7iuB57irgqQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)

I'm guessing a parking garage for the YMCA lofts. It was previously a parking lot so anything would be an upgrade. There are a lot of PVC pipes sticking up which could be for drainage for the garage.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: AdamsHall on April 25, 2016, 11:25:27 am
Does anyone know what is being built next to the YMCA lofts at the NW corner of 5th and Cheyenne?

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1503316,-95.9934416,3a,39.1y,143.93h,85.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sT0oNA4qtLlK7iuB57irgqQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1503316,-95.9934416,3a,39.1y,143.93h,85.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sT0oNA4qtLlK7iuB57irgqQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)

I'm guessing a parking garage for the YMCA lofts. It was previously a parking lot so anything would be an upgrade. There are a lot of PVC pipes sticking up which could be for drainage for the garage.

I was thinking it was part of the hotel that is going in next door, but can't say for sure.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on April 25, 2016, 11:36:47 am
I was thinking it was part of the hotel that is going in next door, but can't say for sure.

It's a Marriott Residence Inn

(http://www.anishhotelsgroup.com/media/TulDTResidenceInn/Tulsa%20Downtown%20Residence%20Inn.jpg)

http://www.anishhotelsgroup.com/pages/new-developments.php



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on April 25, 2016, 11:55:47 am
(I was posting this and took a call... but will post it just the same)

202 W. 5th is going to be a ~110 room extended stay Residence Inn by Marriott, $8.8mil permit was taken out by Sheridan Properties (rumored to be owned by Anish Hotel Group, that owns the South Tulsa Aloft and 8 other hotels in the region). 253,000 Square Feet.  Anish doesn't list anything about the project directly and I couldn't find anything about Sheridan Properties.

July 2015. Tulsa World.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/downtown/yet-another-new-downtown-tulsa-hotel-planned-this-time-near/article_bfcef537-a412-54a2-b211-7a0255d0efe8.html

Building permit is on page 3:
https://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/453519/commercial_public_apr_2015.pdf

The Journal Record indicates it is to be 5 stories tall:
http://www.anishhotelsgroup.com/media/The%20Journal%20Record%20Article.pdf

They filed an addendum on Nov. 13, 2015 and a change of dimension on February 11, 2016. The architect is John Sanford.
Info on the permit:
https://www.buildzoom.com/property-info/202-w-5th-st-s-tulsa-ok

Info from the owner:
http://www.anishhotelsgroup.com/media/The%20Journal%20Record%20Article.pdf


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Ibanez on April 25, 2016, 12:08:53 pm
Has anyone heard about possible development on the Borden truck lot, for lack of a better term, between Boulder & Main on Cameron? I was downtown this weekend with some friends from New Mexico and one of them mentioned what an eyesore that was while we were walking to the Inner Circle. After drinks we walked back down to Laffa for dinner and the subject came up again. A guy, no idea on his name, at the table next to us said he had heard overtures have been made about purchasing the lot but that the dairy were asking for a totally unrealistic price for it.

I have to agree with my out of town friends on this, that lot is an eyesore. It sure would be nice if someone could get that land and develop it.

I'm not sure what the story is with the grassy area just South of Inner Circle and North of that truck lot is either, but someone needs to get on top of mowing it.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: johrasephoenix on April 25, 2016, 12:22:04 pm
That dairy lot is listed on Loopnet for about $3,000,000.  That's around $70/sf and a pretty steep price for Tulsa on a 1 acre lot (especially because it is adjacent to a big empty lot to the north and an active industrial site across the street).


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on April 25, 2016, 12:34:56 pm
Thank you for the thorough response!

That looks like a good addition. Glad to see several big buildings going in around there.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on April 25, 2016, 12:42:02 pm

I'm not sure what the story is with the grassy area just South of Inner Circle and North of that truck lot is either, but someone needs to get on top of mowing it.

I was over there when an outdoor concert was going on and I can't imagine well-off baby boomers being to happy living next to that in the Davenport lofts!

That big empty lot has lots of potential! It could be anything! It would be neat to see that and the industrial buildings right next to Inner Circle developed into something. It would be neat if an old warehouse downtown could be converted into something like the Grand Central Market in LA: http://www.grandcentralmarket.com/ (http://www.grandcentralmarket.com/)

It looks like a relatively low startup for the warehouse part of it and then the restaurants have an indoor year-round place for a lot less than a building and a lot more stable/dependable environment than a food truck.
https://www.google.com/search?q=grand+central+market+la&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiAmfrpt6rMAhUBLyYKHYwMB8cQ_AUICSgD&biw=1117&bih=741&dpr=0.67 (https://www.google.com/search?q=grand+central+market+la&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiAmfrpt6rMAhUBLyYKHYwMB8cQ_AUICSgD&biw=1117&bih=741&dpr=0.67)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on April 25, 2016, 12:59:33 pm
Or something like Eastern Market in DC
http://www.easternmarket-dc.org/

https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1600&bih=799&q=eastern+market+dc&oq=eastern+market+dc&gs_l=img.3..0l4j0i8i30l3j0i24l3.308.2472.0.2848.17.14.0.3.3.0.141.925.11j2.13.0....0...1ac.1.64.img..2.15.818.u-7BJ8dNybU


Or Reading Terminal Market in Philly
http://www.readingterminalmarket.org/

https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1600&bih=799&q=reading+terminal+market&oq=reading+termina&gs_l=img.3.0.0l10.609.2637.0.3350.15.12.0.3.3.0.163.917.9j3.12.0....0...1ac.1.64.img..1.14.817.buhKnzM6Rwk

Or Eataly in NYC
https://www.eataly.com/

https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1600&bih=799&q=eataly&oq=eataly&gs_l=img.3..0l10.542.1641.0.1961.6.5.0.1.1.0.50.190.5.5.0....0...1ac.1.64.img..0.6.193.iDkLQXqeidQ


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on April 25, 2016, 01:18:13 pm
A guy, no idea on his name, at the table next to us said he had heard overtures have been made about purchasing the lot but that the dairy were asking for a totally unrealistic price for it.

Peter Mayo has told me the same thing.  Sooner or later someone will want the dirt bad enough they will pay the price.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on April 25, 2016, 01:20:28 pm
Or something like Eastern Market in DC
http://www.easternmarket-dc.org/

https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1600&bih=799&q=eastern+market+dc&oq=eastern+market+dc&gs_l=img.3..0l4j0i8i30l3j0i24l3.308.2472.0.2848.17.14.0.3.3.0.141.925.11j2.13.0....0...1ac.1.64.img..2.15.818.u-7BJ8dNybU


Or Reading Terminal Market in Philly
http://www.readingterminalmarket.org/

https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1600&bih=799&q=reading+terminal+market&oq=reading+termina&gs_l=img.3.0.0l10.609.2637.0.3350.15.12.0.3.3.0.163.917.9j3.12.0....0...1ac.1.64.img..1.14.817.buhKnzM6Rwk

Or Eataly in NYC
https://www.eataly.com/

https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1600&bih=799&q=eataly&oq=eataly&gs_l=img.3..0l10.542.1641.0.1961.6.5.0.1.1.0.50.190.5.5.0....0...1ac.1.64.img..0.6.193.iDkLQXqeidQ

Yes! Those all look great and very similar to the LA one. Those are a good use of old industrial buildings in urban areas.

The Chelsea Market in NYC is another: https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1600&bih=799&q=reading+terminal+market&oq=reading+termina&gs_l=img.3.0.0l10.609.2637.0.3350.15.12.0.3.3.0.163.917.9j3.12.0....0...1ac.1.64.img..1.14.817.buhKnzM6Rwk&safe=active#safe=active&tbm=isch&q=chelsea+market+nyc (https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1600&bih=799&q=reading+terminal+market&oq=reading+termina&gs_l=img.3.0.0l10.609.2637.0.3350.15.12.0.3.3.0.163.917.9j3.12.0....0...1ac.1.64.img..1.14.817.buhKnzM6Rwk&safe=active#safe=active&tbm=isch&q=chelsea+market+nyc)
The Chelsea Market also had an area similar to the popup shops at 6th and Boston with the MADE store in Tulsa but was more open air (no walls). It was sort of a perpetual version of the Tulsa Flea Market (but better quality) where vendors had tables and really basic setups for selling art and homemade stuff.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on April 25, 2016, 01:25:46 pm
Quote
A guy, no idea on his name, at the table next to us said he had heard overtures have been made about purchasing the lot but that the dairy were asking for a totally unrealistic price for it.
Peter Mayo has told me the same thing.  Sooner or later someone will want the dirt bad enough they will pay the price.

I know it is their right and is perhaps a smart thing to do for them, but it sucks when landowners hinder progress by sitting on a property and doing nothing with it waiting for a big payday (which will ultimately be thanks to all of the hard work many others have put into the Brady District). They could at least do a call for proposals and see if any developers might create an idea which would boost the land value and the area.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on April 25, 2016, 01:51:02 pm
Peter Mayo has told me the same thing.  Sooner or later someone will want the dirt bad enough they will pay the price.


I know it is their right and is perhaps a smart thing to do for them, but it sucks when landowners hinder progress by sitting on a property and doing nothing with it waiting for a big payday (which will ultimately be thanks to all of the hard work many others have put into the Brady District). They could at least do a call for proposals and see if any developers might create an idea which would boost the land value and the area.

The elderly man who owns the old Ford building on North Main that GKFF has put all the money into renovating refused to sell that building countless times.  My understanding is, he still did not sell it but GKFF entered into a very long term lease.

That’s always a solution.  Are they not still using this lot to store trailers and such?  Seems like that would still be suiting someone’s purpose for the land if they are.

Edit:  According to the Assessor’s web site, the owners apparently are in St. Louis.  There are four tracts which comprise this trailer lot, combined, they are assessed $1916 per year in property tax.  Now there’s an example of property the city should be bending over backwards to attract a buyer for rather than promoting a knock-down and re-do at 15th & Utica with something which doesn’t fit the SAP and will only raise the property taxes by $1000 or so a year.

Also noticed the blank lots to the north of that are owned by Peter Mayo.  I’ll mention he needs to go mow it.  ;D


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on April 25, 2016, 02:47:17 pm
The elderly man who owns the old Ford building on North Main that GKFF has put all the money into renovating refused to sell that building countless times.  My understanding is, he still did not sell it but GKFF entered into a very long term lease.

That’s always a solution.  Are they not still using this lot to store trailers and such?  Seems like that would still be suiting someone’s purpose for the land if they are.

Edit:  According to the Assessor’s web site, the owners apparently are in St. Louis.  There are four tracts which comprise this trailer lot, combined, they are assessed $1916 per year in property tax.  Now there’s an example of property the city should be bending over backwards to attract a buyer for rather than promoting a knock-down and re-do at 15th & Utica with something which doesn’t fit the SAP and will only raise the property taxes by $1000 or so a year.

Also noticed the blank lots to the north of that are owned by Peter Mayo.  I’ll mention he needs to go mow it.  ;D

Interesting. I wonder how long of a lease considering the massive reno.

Sounds like it's time for a reassessment! Only $1916 yet it is for sale for $3 million! Are they not allow to reassess the value until after it sells? Even if they *only* assess it at $1 million, that would still be about 8 times as much property tax.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on April 25, 2016, 03:23:05 pm
Interesting. I wonder how long of a lease considering the massive reno.

Sounds like it's time for a reassessment! Only $1916 yet it is for sale for $3 million! Are they not allow to reassess the value until after it sells? Even if they *only* assess it at $1 million, that would still be about 8 times as much property tax.

I’m assuming all four parcels are for sale for $3 mil, I’ve not looked this up on Loopnet personally.  If $3mm is the price only for the east lot which is 21,000 square feet then someone in St. Louis really is huffing paint.

The current assessed value of all parcels and improvements is $560,000, ($13/square foot) which is probably about right.  The fact they are asking a little less than six times that amount is irrelevant in calculating their taxes.  They can ask all they want, but it doesn’t impact their tax bill.  That is the next owner’s problem.

Just FYI, those four properties consist of 42,000 square feet of land.  There’s a 2484 square foot building on one parcel which is deemed to have a value of $32,000.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on April 29, 2016, 08:11:32 am
Quote
Lassalle's to move to larger space downtown

Lassalle’s New Orleans Deli, a popular lunch spot at 601 S. Boston Ave., is moving to the Pythian Building in mid summer.

“It’s a larger location at the Pythian Building where the former Quiznos was,” said Chris West, who owns Lassalle’s with his wife, Amanda.

“We will be adding a significant amount of new menu items and will have a full-point beer license. Our emphasis will be on Louisiana and Oklahoma breweries.”

Among Lassalle’s most popular items are muffulettas, a variety of po’ boys, red beans and rice, gumbo, jambalaya, Amaretto bread pudding, chocolate chip cookies and sugar cookies.
West said the target date for the move is late July.

“We also will be adding Friday nights at the start to our hours of operation and more nights in the future according to how business goes,” he said.

The Wests are natives of New Orleans. They settled in Tulsa in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and opened Lasalle’s in 2014.

The ornate Pythian Building, 423 S. Boulder Ave., is known for its two-story lobby with colorful tile patterns, metal work, chandeliers and a fluted glass skylight.


http://www.tulsaworld.com/blogs/scene/restaurants/table-talk-lassalle-s-to-move-to-larger-space-downtown/article_bd058c46-e0d4-5ff5-a31a-d0dfaba1ca9d.html




Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: AquaMan on April 29, 2016, 08:51:11 am
Peter Mayo has told me the same thing.  Sooner or later someone will want the dirt bad enough they will pay the price.


I know it is their right and is perhaps a smart thing to do for them, but it sucks when landowners hinder progress by sitting on a property and doing nothing with it waiting for a big payday (which will ultimately be thanks to all of the hard work many others have put into the Brady District). They could at least do a call for proposals and see if any developers might create an idea which would boost the land value and the area.

You need to know their motives before you consider them hindering progress in hopes of a big payday. It is not uncommon for a property owner to attach an unreasonable price to a property simply to dissuade buyers. They may have other uses planned for the property or it may be financially wise for them to hold it for later sale. Especially out of town owners. If someone does want to pay that price then fine, otherwise their interests probably have little to do with ours.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on April 29, 2016, 09:31:30 am
You need to know their motives before you consider them hindering progress in hopes of a big payday. It is not uncommon for a property owner to attach an unreasonable price to a property simply to dissuade buyers. They may have other uses planned for the property or it may be financially wise for them to hold it for later sale. Especially out of town owners. If someone does want to pay that price then fine, otherwise their interests probably have little to do with ours.

If they want to dissuade buyers, they could just take the for sale listing down. Whether it is their intent or not, if they have big empty lots in one of the hottest areas in town and they don't sell it or have plans to develop it, they are hindering progress. If they had plans to develop it, why would they have it listed for sale?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on May 02, 2016, 08:08:07 am
If they want to dissuade buyers, they could just take the for sale listing down. Whether it is their intent or not, if they have big empty lots in one of the hottest areas in town and they don't sell it or have plans to develop it, they are hindering progress. If they had plans to develop it, why would they have it listed for sale?


Ahhh...growth for growth's sake....

Hindering progress - one of the worst "4 letter words" around.  And the attitude that goes with it. 


Listing it for sale the way they have is called "fishing" - if they can get someone to bite, like AquaMan said, then they will be very happy to let it go and let "Progress" proceed.  If no one is willing to pay the price, then the people who are "in the market" to buy are actually the one's hindering progress because they are not willing to pay the owner's desired price - it's like if I go into a Honda dealer and say I want an Accord.  But since the dealer is unwilling to sell me a new one for $2,500, he is hindering progress - of me getting what I want...sounds like a Communist plot.  The dealer should be punished!  Raise his taxes!  Charge him fees!!  Do something so I can have my way....!!









Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: AquaMan on May 02, 2016, 08:54:05 am
The concrete plant on West Bank has been accused of the same. But they bought the land fair and square and have use for it. If you want it you'll have to pay them not just the value of the land, but the inconvenience of having to relocate, having to pay todays prices and probably include a healthy profit. If the city/county finds it is indeed hindering the public good, they have a process to wrench it out of their hands called eminent domain. CF made good points about why they may have listed it which don't include that they really want to sell it. In fact, it may be trolling by the realtor.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on May 02, 2016, 09:02:05 am
The concrete plant on West Bank has been accused of the same. But they bought the land fair and square and have use for it. If you want it you'll have to pay them not just the value of the land, but the inconvenience of having to relocate, having to pay todays prices and probably include a healthy profit. If the city/county finds it is indeed hindering the public good, they have a process to wrench it out of their hands called eminent domain. CF made good points about why they may have listed it which don't include that they really want to sell it. In fact, it may be trolling by the realtor.

Not really. The Oklahoma Supreme Court said in Muskogee County v. Lowery that eminent domain cannot be used for private economic development. It violates the Oklahoma constitution. Even if everyone on this forum really really wants to see some new lofts and shops built there, commercial uses are not truly public uses. Even contributing to a wider tax base (a public purpose) is not a public use. It would have to be taken for something like a road, or a bridge, or a government building. And just as well.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on May 02, 2016, 11:26:32 am

Ahhh...growth for growth's sake....

Hindering progress - one of the worst "4 letter words" around.  And the attitude that goes with it. 


Listing it for sale the way they have is called "fishing" - if they can get someone to bite, like AquaMan said, then they will be very happy to let it go and let "Progress" proceed.  If no one is willing to pay the price, then the people who are "in the market" to buy are actually the one's hindering progress because they are not willing to pay the owner's desired price - it's like if I go into a Honda dealer and say I want an Accord.  But since the dealer is unwilling to sell me a new one for $2,500, he is hindering progress - of me getting what I want...sounds like a Communist plot.  The dealer should be punished!  Raise his taxes!  Charge him fees!!  Do something so I can have my way....!!


Wow! I am continuously amazed by how just about every comment I make on here gets dissected and attacked. Any comments which aren't dismissed are completely ignored. Starting to wonder what the point of "discussion" on this board is.

I said nothing like the above and that is a ridiculous argument and a stupid comparison. If a Honda dealership was charging double/triple the market value for cars, that would anger buyers and the manufacturer and would be a big hindrance on progress. I specifically said "I know it is their right and is perhaps a smart thing to do for them, but it sucks when landowners hinder progress by sitting on a property and doing nothing with it waiting for a big payday".

Putting an unrealistically high sell price just to see if there is a bite is perhaps smart for them. It might not be great for the area and will no doubt dissuade potential developers of those lots. The ROI for downtown projects is currently at a level where it often takes tax incentives or non-profits stepping in to make it worthwhile or doable (ONEOK Field, BOK Center, Santa Fe Square, all of the many GKFF developments). I don't see demand for an overpriced empty lot to be high enough for someone to pay far above market value any time soon. No big deal, it will just stay empty for many more years.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on May 02, 2016, 12:05:35 pm
Wow! I am continuously amazed by how just about every comment I make on here gets dissected and attacked. Any comments which aren't dismissed are completely ignored. Starting to wonder what the point of "discussion" on this board is.

I said nothing like the above and that is a ridiculous argument and a stupid comparison. If a Honda dealership was charging double/triple the market value for cars, that would anger buyers and the manufacturer and would be a big hindrance on progress. I specifically said "I know it is their right and is perhaps a smart thing to do for them, but it sucks when landowners hinder progress by sitting on a property and doing nothing with it waiting for a big payday".

Putting an unrealistically high sell price just to see if there is a bite is perhaps smart for them. It might not be great for the area and will no doubt dissuade potential developers of those lots. The ROI for downtown projects is currently at a level where it often takes tax incentives or non-profits stepping in to make it worthwhile or doable (ONEOK Field, BOK Center, Santa Fe Square, all of the many GKFF developments). I don't see demand for an overpriced empty lot to be high enough for someone to pay far above market value any time soon. No big deal, it will just stay empty for many more years.


Not actually trying to dissect and attack.  Definitely try to dissect, analyze, and discuss.  My naturally brusque nature and possible lack of 'politically correct filter' may make it seem like attack, but it's not.  You will absolutely have no doubt if I 'attack'....it won't just "seem" like an attack.  Ask Breadburner about some of his more outrageous comments and my replies.  And he has some I agree with from time to time, too, where I don't attack.

As for other posts - I never ignore yours...or pretty much anyone else around here either.  If I don't jump in to say something, it's MOST likely because I agree with whatever it is you say - so for all those posts you have made where I made no reply, it was a friendly gesture of agreement.  Or maybe I just don't have a strong enough opinion to make a comment.  As a Tulsa U alum, and fan of Golden Hurricane, I am naturally a little more inclined to be "friendly" just due to your name...


Example is still good.  Excellent in fact!  Be it a new Honda, an old Rolex, or a mint Honus Wagner - or a piece of downtown land.  Any item of real property.  It isn't "hindering progress" - your words - for the owner to keep it no matter what his motivations are - his property, his reasons.   Just because you, I, some real estate agents, and even a thousand other people have opinions on what we THINK the market value is - the owner's belief of what the market value is rules - if it happens to be close to what anyone else thinks, well, a sale will ensue.  If not, then we can look elsewhere for something more suitable to our opinions.  The REAL - ACTUAL - market value is whatever someone, somewhere is willing to pay - not what we "think" it should be, especially just because we think he should conform to our "group-think"...

It's not like there aren't other pieces of land for dollars per sq foot that someone is very enthusiastically trying to sell.  No matter what any outside party thinks.  His progress goals may be just perfectly in line with the wait - this could be a retirement, or cash out event to come for the company, same thing for individual owner.  It doesn't matter.   Don't have a "busy-body" attitude....you are too young to develop one of those, with too much life ahead to live with it all that time!  (gentle admonishment, not an attack.)



One very important comment you made, buried in the last paragraph, goes to a question that should have a bigger presence - and this is not directed just at you - it is a general broadcast/question/comment - just happens to relate to our talk;

The ROI for downtown projects is currently at a level where it often takes tax incentives or non-profits stepping in to make it worthwhile or doable....

If the ROI isn't good enough to justify commercial developments, then how on God's green earth can they be justified using even relatively short term tax incentives??  Doesn't the whole concept of "not justifiable on ROI" pretty much mean that it ISN'T worth tax incentives?   So why would the public get involved at all??  It certainly isn't for some nebulous non-valid "payback" of those lost taxes - they are lost.  Meaning gone.

Rather than sitting around and everyone nodding their "bobble-head" affirmatives for every silly thing that comes along - stop and think about it.  Our most recent vote has some non-productive, non-contributing components that should have had better thought.




Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on May 02, 2016, 12:51:52 pm

The ROI for downtown projects is currently at a level where it often takes tax incentives or non-profits stepping in to make it worthwhile or doable....

If the ROI isn't good enough to justify commercial developments, then how on God's green earth can they be justified using even relatively short term tax incentives??  Doesn't the whole concept of "not justifiable on ROI" pretty much mean that it ISN'T worth tax incentives?   So why would the public get involved at all??  It certainly isn't for some nebulous non-valid "payback" of those lost taxes - they are lost.  Meaning gone.

Rather than sitting around and everyone nodding their "bobble-head" affirmatives for every silly thing that comes along - stop and think about it.  Our most recent vote has some non-productive, non-contributing components that should have had better thought.




Ok fair enough. Thank you for the clarification!

I meant the ROI for the developer. The projects looked too risky for private businesses to fund them fully so taxpayers took the risk and funded them (some call it corporate welfare). Look at Santa Fe Square. They said the project would not be possible without that TIF (so not worth the risk  based on the ROI they wanted). So the taxpayers will be providing incentive via unrealized taxes. Will the ROI for the city be greater than the tax discount? That is to be seen (and maybe impossible to determine), but regardless those tax gains are gone and will fund that development.

If it works out, it should be a net positive for the area and for downtown, but will it just discourage the same type of buildings being built elsewhere outside of a TIF? Will it encourage others pursuing similar TIFs? Or will it create a new urban mall that creates a large thriving shopping district that pulls in regional visitors and promotes even more development? (I think this is what those who bought in are hoping for).

The cost per square foot of new urban construction is so high in comparison to the demand for space downtown, especially retail. Residential makes more sense but is limited (e.g. no new "affordable" condos for sale). If the lot is $70/sf to begin with, the building will have to be pretty tall to distribute that cost out between enough tenants. So maybe you can argue they're helping progress by assuring that whatever is built there is a massive building!  ;D


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on May 02, 2016, 01:39:22 pm
Tax incentives make sense for rehab of old buildings.  The cost of rehabbing old buildings is more expensive than new construction.  But the city and its citizens don't want buildings to be left vacant and not rehabbed, and in the current climate, we are trying to save many of them from the wrecking ball.  In those situations, I think it's fair for the city and its citizens to chip in to account for the increased cost to the developer and the benefit the city gets by reusing existing space and preventing demolition. 

Santa Fe Square is a bit different but I think I'm okay with it because of its scale.  It is a literal game changer for downtown similar to the BOK Center and ONEOK field.  There is room for debate on this one, but I'm for it.  I think the city will benefit more than its costs in tax relief.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: BKDotCom on May 02, 2016, 01:48:17 pm
I think it's fair for the city and its citizens to chip in to account for the increased cost to the developer and the benefit the city gets by reusing existing space and preventing demolition. 

Commie corporate welfare


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on May 02, 2016, 02:08:28 pm
Ok fair enough. Thank you for the clarification!

I meant the ROI for the developer. The projects looked too risky for private businesses to fund them fully so taxpayers took the risk and funded them (some call it corporate welfare). Look at Santa Fe Square. They said the project would not be possible without that TIF (so not worth the risk  based on the ROI they wanted). So the taxpayers will be providing incentive via unrealized taxes. Will the ROI for the city be greater than the tax discount? That is to be seen (and maybe impossible to determine), but regardless those tax gains are gone and will fund that development.

If it works out, it should be a net positive for the area and for downtown, but will it just discourage the same type of buildings being built elsewhere outside of a TIF? Will it encourage others pursuing similar TIFs? Or will it create a new urban mall that creates a large thriving shopping district that pulls in regional visitors and promotes even more development? (I think this is what those who bought in are hoping for).

The cost per square foot of new urban construction is so high in comparison to the demand for space downtown, especially retail. Residential makes more sense but is limited (e.g. no new "affordable" condos for sale). If the lot is $70/sf to begin with, the building will have to be pretty tall to distribute that cost out between enough tenants. So maybe you can argue they're helping progress by assuring that whatever is built there is a massive building!  ;D



In general, TIF's don't seem to be much more than corporate welfare (like BKDotCom facetiously stated.)  Santa Fe in particular, I suspect there would be much better/greater return to society on that investment (and more), over a much longer time if money used for a public transit, or education funding.   It is likely a big benefit to the insider's getting the break.  Will it help the city?  Probably some.  Will it hurt the city?  Probably some - a little more.  At best, I think it is a small loss.

These things are used as a semi-private "sandbox" for political patronage.  Like the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority is used on a statewide scale.  We as an electorate justify the ugly side of it by rationalizing that "jobs", "economic activity", etc....






Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on May 02, 2016, 03:12:31 pm


In general, TIF's don't seem to be much more than corporate welfare (like BKDotCom facetiously stated.)  Santa Fe in particular, I suspect there would be much better/greater return to society on that investment (and more), over a much longer time if money used for a public transit, or education funding.   It is likely a big benefit to the insider's getting the break.  Will it help the city?  Probably some.  Will it hurt the city?  Probably some - a little more.  At best, I think it is a small loss.

These things are used as a semi-private "sandbox" for political patronage.  Like the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority is used on a statewide scale.  We as an electorate justify the ugly side of it by rationalizing that "jobs", "economic activity", etc....


This one is much more worthwhile in that there is a direct increase in the developed value of the land which will out-strip the annual exemption for the TIF.  Add in new convention business which might come here due to the increased hotel space in the development and you are now importing sales tax dollars.  It also has the “rising tide” effect on all properties within a few blocks and increases their assessed value.

I was skeptical & jaded on this one as well at first, but looking at the wisdom behind it, it’s a slam dunk great deal for the tax base and it benefits local rather than out of state developers.  The developers on this have already invested millions upon millions in downtown prior to this and on other current projects they are working on.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: johrasephoenix on May 02, 2016, 04:49:01 pm
If the City of Tulsa did it's math right then the total up front subsidy given to the developer is less than the net present value of the increase in property tax receipts on that property (the "increment") over the life of the TIF.  The idea is that if Santa Fe Square requires a $36m subsidy up front but generates revenues with a present value of $50m over the life of the TIF then the city is a winner.  It even gets some extra money to throw around. 

That math is a little bit of black magic that can be massaged, of course, but if the economic development people at City Hall got it figured out then the city shouldn't be losing money on this. 

It also depends on how they structure the TIF financing.... is it a direct cash subsidy?  Is it a zero interest loan so that the city gets back its money minus inflation?  That may be publicly available info but I honestly don't know. 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on May 03, 2016, 06:12:29 am
I will defend the use of incentives. For full disclosure, I have been an advocate of rehabbing old buildings in Tulsa since they destroyed the Skelly Building because they didn't need the space (that they are now rebuilding). I also have some professional interest in some development in and around Tulsa that can benefit from such incentives. But I don't think my bias in favor of incentives is misplaced or skewed by my interests.

Economics operates on many different scales but we are basically talking  about metro area economics here. Should I have my company downtown, or should I have my company in the suburbs, or points in between? Each comes with its own decision tree for the business and for the City of Tulsa (in where to encourage this development).

For the business, it will consider what the location does for its image, employee commute times,  work environment, closeness to synergies/customers, and what kind of investment return might be expect if it owns the facility. Overall, redevelopment wants to affect the image of the companies that move there --- that's why an office suite on 5th Avenue in NYC is so expensive. But it doesn't really play into individual decisions of the business (I want to move to 5th Ave because if everyone else does it would be so cool!). Same with various synergies, it happens on the macro and not in an individual decision. The element that is easiest to influence for an individual decision is the economics of it.

And this logic applies not only to convince a business to move somewhere on its own, but for a developer to build space to rent to a business. And, of course, to lure in residential customers too. The particular decision trees may be somewhat different. But cost is the easiest element to influence from the cities perspective.

Now, the City has to make choices too. It will choose how and where it chooses to influence development behavior. (yes, I realize many other factors come into play, like State/Federal funding for highways... but this isn't a thesis, it's an internet ramble)

If it builds wide and fast arterial streets and freeways to usher traffic to far flung reaches - it has spent money to give an incentive to build outside the core of the city (the year the Broken Arrow Expressway opened BA had ~6,500 people, 20 years later it had 45,000 people...and the miles in between went a long way towards filling in). As a result of that decision we will need to subsidize new or wider roads, sewers, water lines, police coverage, fire stations, schools located near the new subdivisions and the maintenance that goes along with all of those city services. And that's just fine with the developer, because it is usually cheaper to build a new structure on empty land than it is to redevelop a space downtown. The developer doesn't have to pay for the highways, road widening projects, or other increased infrastructure or city services... so sprawl away!

As a result, the incentive for the developers can natural be to continue building out and building new, even if the new construction seems to outstrip actual demand. If the demand lags for the core, it begins to rot as it is replaced with newer (cheaper) development. Very rarely will it rot away entirely, but the overall density will decline as the city still has to provide the same city services and infrastructure. Making for reducing return as the ongoing costs remains stable, or even rise (as infrastructure approaches replacement age).  The city is left with a added costs for developments on the fringes and stable costs with lower revenues for existing development, and what results is a death spiral whereby the city cannot keep up with infrastructure demands and faces budget crisis after budget crisis as it tries to grow itself out of the spiral. Of course that doesn't work, no small part is that much of the new development isn't self sustaining, but also because suburbs prevent a core city from growing in that manner indefinitely.

The idea of incentives is to encourage behavior that ends up being positive for the city economically and for the community that may not naturally occur in the market. One can view this as correcting market irregularities caused by other subsidies (as mentioned above) or simply as an investment to capitalize on the sunk cost of existing infrastructure and underutilized assets.  While Tulsa may not gain as much directly from the project because it is deferring tax revenue, it also hasn't had to invest much (if any) money in the project because it is utilizing existing infrastructure. Tulsa may have to do some improvements to support rehabilitating the Tulsa Club building, but it won't have to widen any streets, it won't add pressure to add another fire station or more police to the area, it won't be extending water or sewer lines, and it won't add to drainage issues or freeway traffic.

That argument, of course, buys into the "but for" logic of the incentives. "But for this incentive, they wouldn't build it." If you do not ascribe to that statement, then Tulsa is giving away too much and has negotiated poorly. It has given away tax revenue it may have been able to capture.

But I say it is worth the risk. Because in addition to increasing revenues from existing infrastructure, we are working towards the other factors in the decision tree we discussed above. Each new development increases the potential for synergies, for image enhancement, for work environment, and expected return on investment. How many art galleries moved into the Brady in the last 5 years because everyone else was there? How about incubators and start ups? How many apartments have been built because the one before it was successful? Bringing life and vitality to an area adds value for projects to come. And we can use the incentives to influence what those projects are.

Finally, I say its worth it because it is buttressing a competitive advantage Tulsa has over every other city in our region: an urban core. If a young person or a company wants to move to a suburban environment with a prefab Applebees, a Walmart, affordable mid-level subdivisions, and easy access to a freeway --- Tulsa is in competition with Owasso, Broken Arrow, Bixby, and even Muskogee.  And they have more open land to build on, which is cheaper for developers to build on. Eventually, Tulsa runs out of the ability to compete in that market.  I assume the incentives that allow Owasso (Hwy 169), Broken Arrow (51), and Jenks (75) to continue growing with ever more cheap land aren't going away anytime soon.

What they don't have is an urban core. If we let ours rot away, we have given up a huge competitive advantage. If it takes incentives to hold on to that advantage, so be it.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on May 03, 2016, 07:55:26 am
Well said cannon!

When I see the horrible traffic on the BA to downtown, I wonder how much more those commuters will put up with before moving closer. Waiting 40 minutes in traffic for a few months would be enough to convince me to move closer to make it a 5 minute commute. It is a shame the "free market" encourages sprawling growth.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on May 03, 2016, 08:05:45 am
If the City of Tulsa did it's math right then the total up front subsidy given to the developer is less than the net present value of the increase in property tax receipts on that property (the "increment") over the life of the TIF.  The idea is that if Santa Fe Square requires a $36m subsidy up front but generates revenues with a present value of $50m over the life of the TIF then the city is a winner.  It even gets some extra money to throw around. 

That math is a little bit of black magic that can be massaged, of course, but if the economic development people at City Hall got it figured out then the city shouldn't be losing money on this. 

It also depends on how they structure the TIF financing.... is it a direct cash subsidy?  Is it a zero interest loan so that the city gets back its money minus inflation?  That may be publicly available info but I honestly don't know. 

Even if it's not a perfect match and the city losses some revenues, I'd still be okay with it within reason.  It improves our quality of life and civic pride and is a much smarter and cheaper investment that subsidizing professional sports franchises like larger cities are forced to do.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on May 03, 2016, 08:06:26 am
Does anyone know why the View has been stagnant for so long? They emptied the lots last year and put signs up and there has been no sign of progress since October.

American Residential Group's only other active project is the Edge at East Village. I wonder if that is exceeding costs so they've put the View on hold or if demand for leases has decreased (oil downturn/Williams) has caused that or something else. They have a great portfolio of urban properties. The view has 200 units and 13000 sqft of retail so it could be a neat addition to the area.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: johrasephoenix on May 03, 2016, 08:49:24 am
They said in a news piece a while back that they are finishing The Edge first and want it 60% leased before starting on The View.  I get the impression they just don't have the capacity to develop two projects of that size simultaneously. 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on May 03, 2016, 09:15:04 am
Does anyone know why the View has been stagnant for so long? They emptied the lots last year and put signs up and there has been no sign of progress since October.

American Residential Group's only other active project is the Edge at East Village. I wonder if that is exceeding costs so they've put the View on hold or if demand for leases has decreased (oil downturn/Williams) has caused that or something else. They have a great portfolio of urban properties. The view has 200 units and 13000 sqft of retail so it could be a neat addition to the area.

I think the plan always was to start on The View as The Edge wrapped up.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on May 03, 2016, 09:24:09 am
If the City of Tulsa did it's math right then the total up front subsidy given to the developer is less than the net present value of the increase in property tax receipts on that property (the "increment") over the life of the TIF.  The idea is that if Santa Fe Square requires a $36m subsidy up front but generates revenues with a present value of $50m over the life of the TIF then the city is a winner.  It even gets some extra money to throw around.  

That math is a little bit of black magic that can be massaged, of course, but if the economic development people at City Hall got it figured out then the city shouldn't be losing money on this.  

It also depends on how they structure the TIF financing.... is it a direct cash subsidy?  Is it a zero interest loan so that the city gets back its money minus inflation?  That may be publicly available info but I honestly don't know.  

That’s the beauty of a TIF.  No cash changes hands from the city to developer.  In exchange for what is basically a period of partial tax abatement for the developer, the city gets increased property tax value and higher ad valorem receipts from the surrounding area.  The city also realizes the benefit of any transient sales tax generated by the development.  With this being in downtown, near ONEOk Field, and in a major entertainment area, I suspect this will generate a good deal of transient sales tax from the suburbs and from out-of-state business travelers.

A great example is all the other development which the $16 million TIF for Tulsa Hills helped create.  There’s been an explosion of new housing development and other retail and commercial development in SW Tulsa as a direct result of that center going in.

One argument we used in the TUWC against Simon’s proposed Turkey Mountain development was what was known to be a $30 million TIF request to pay for a new bridge over W. 61st St.  Since Tulsa Hills had pretty well stoked all the other development in the area, it would have been diminishing returns for Simon’s project.  Simon is the largest mall developer in the world and the largest REIT in the United States.  For them, they could raise the cash to complete their project without a TIF, but it’s simply the game they choose to play.  

If not for the pending TIF request, I might have stayed out of that fight as it would have been a completely private transaction between buyer and seller.  In my opinion, the TIF put it under public scrutiny at that point (unless you were a legit neighbor who had traffic or other concerns).


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on May 03, 2016, 09:37:49 am
They said in a news piece a while back that they are finishing The Edge first and want it 60% leased before starting on The View.  I get the impression they just don't have the capacity to develop two projects of that size simultaneously. 

Ok that makes sense. Thank you!

Seeing the demolition made me think they had planned to start on it earlier. I guess they got the demolition out of the way early so that wouldn't be a hold up and they can start as soon as the Edge is done.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: dsjeffries on May 03, 2016, 10:51:44 am
From News on 6 (http://www.newson6.com/story/30995647/not-complete-but-east-village-apartments-filling-up-fast)
The Edge is the first of two new properties American Residential is building in the East Village.

Meagan: “Are you experimenting with this before you start on The View at all?”
Ganzkow: “Yeah. This one, The View, which is our next one, is 200 units across from the ballpark is a different concept than this one.”

Most likely pricier, he said, but the volatile oil industry is something that can't be ignored.

“Things are going to slow down and we would like to find out exactly what’s going to happen with Williams’ merger and so forth,” he said.

Ganzkow said they have a goal of filling 100 of the 160 units at The Edge before even starting on The View.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: hello on May 03, 2016, 11:29:26 am
I hope they adjust their plans to make more affordable (that is, around $900-1200) a month rent. Rents at the Metro are insane.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on May 03, 2016, 11:35:55 am
This one is much more worthwhile in that there is a direct increase in the developed value of the land which will out-strip the annual exemption for the TIF.  Add in new convention business which might come here due to the increased hotel space in the development and you are now importing sales tax dollars.  It also has the “rising tide” effect on all properties within a few blocks and increases their assessed value.

I was skeptical & jaded on this one as well at first, but looking at the wisdom behind it, it’s a slam dunk great deal for the tax base and it benefits local rather than out of state developers.  The developers on this have already invested millions upon millions in downtown prior to this and on other current projects they are working on.


I can live with that...am not so wholly invested in being "anti-Santa Fe" that I can't wait and see.  That would be good....no, that would be great!



You almost lost me at the "rising tide", though...that has always been the plaintive bleat of BS'ers everywhere...the Republicontins that started us down the Reagan Fantasy Voodoo Economics Trail.....



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on May 03, 2016, 11:41:23 am

These things are used as a semi-private "sandbox" for political patronage.


I'm not "anti-Santa Fe Square" either, but I concur with your previous opinion.  Rising tides aside, these types of deals primarily benefit a few, not the public at large. 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on May 03, 2016, 11:53:05 am
If the City of Tulsa did it's math right then the total up front subsidy given to the developer is less than the net present value of the increase in property tax receipts on that property (the "increment") over the life of the TIF.  The idea is that if Santa Fe Square requires a $36m subsidy up front but generates revenues with a present value of $50m over the life of the TIF then the city is a winner.  It even gets some extra money to throw around. 

That math is a little bit of black magic that can be massaged, of course, but if the economic development people at City Hall got it figured out then the city shouldn't be losing money on this. 

It also depends on how they structure the TIF financing.... is it a direct cash subsidy?  Is it a zero interest loan so that the city gets back its money minus inflation?  That may be publicly available info but I honestly don't know. 


Ok, so let's give them 36, they give us back 50 over a long time.  Sounds like a small, but real net return.  Hopefully.



So, with that in mind - giving $3.6, and getting $5 back - let's take a little trip away from Crazytown, USA where so many "group-think" Republicontins live and take a quick ROI glance at something that Oklahoma as well as most of the nation have resisted mightily for eternity.  If we wanna get something back for a public investment of funds, then why not do something time proven and absolutely reliable.  As well as being good for many more members of society than just the truly "entitled few" - the 1%'ers?  

If giving $3 and getting $5 is good, then one would logically understand that giving $1 and getting back $7.5 would be an even BETTER trade... wouldn't one?   Unless, one were of that pesky, under-educated, ignorant masses of Republicontins who are fighting so hard to resist the idea of paid college tuition.  The "Long Live Trump/Cruz" crowd.  And spewing lies, hatred, accusations, and calling derogatory names....

THIS is the "rising tide" that floats ALL boats!!

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/44oi29/evidence_shows_free_college_pays_a_613_return_on/



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on May 03, 2016, 11:54:52 am
I'm not "anti-Santa Fe Square" either, but I concur with your previous opinion.  Rising tides aside, these types of deals primarily benefit a few, not the public at large.  


Whoa!!  I have just stepped into a Bizarro World that I am not sure I understand....I think I kind of like it, but it is so strange and different, I am not now exactly sure how to react...

Someone agrees with me!!!

How weird is that....?

Thanks!  It's a good feeling.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on May 03, 2016, 12:20:11 pm

Thanks!  It's a good feeling.


O frabjous day!   ;)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on May 03, 2016, 12:27:13 pm

Ok, so let's give them 36, they give us back 50 over a long time.  Sounds like a small, but real net return.  Hopefully.



So, with that in mind - giving $3.6, and getting $5 back - let's take a little trip away from Crazytown, USA where so many "group-think" Republicontins live and take a quick ROI glance at something that Oklahoma as well as most of the nation have resisted mightily for eternity.  If we wanna get something back for a public investment of funds, then why not do something time proven and absolutely reliable.  As well as being good for many more members of society than just the truly "entitled few" - the 1%'ers?  

If giving $3 and getting $5 is good, then one would logically understand that giving $1 and getting back $7.5 would be an even BETTER trade... wouldn't one?   Unless, one were of that pesky, under-educated, ignorant masses of Republicontins who are fighting so hard to resist the idea of paid college tuition.  The "Long Live Trump/Cruz" crowd.  And spewing lies, hatred, accusations, and calling derogatory names....

THIS is the "rising tide" that floats ALL boats!!

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/44oi29/evidence_shows_free_college_pays_a_613_return_on/


If everyone had access to free tuition, would those numbers stay the same? Would the value of a degree remain what it is now? Degrees seem to be declining in value and increasing in price. Still far better than no degree (depending on which degree).


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on May 03, 2016, 01:08:11 pm
I'm not "anti-Santa Fe Square" either, but I concur with your previous opinion.  Rising tides aside, these types of deals primarily benefit a few, not the public at large. 

I disagree this doesn’t benefit the public at large.

This is one though which manages to:

-Eliminate two city blocks worth of surface parking and adds stacked parking for public use in addition to tenant use
-Benefits local developers so profits go back into Tulsa’s economy, not Dallas, Charlotte, New York, etc.
-More shopping, dining, hotel space, and convenient living space for people who wish to live and work within the IDL
-Creates denser development which (in an ideal world) means less money spent to maintain sprawling infrastructure and more money for education and public safety.

Here’s where it could hurt: higher property values and demand to live in the IDL may mean there may not be affordable housing in the IDL any longer.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: erfalf on May 03, 2016, 01:43:28 pm

Ok, so let's give them 36, they give us back 50 over a long time.  Sounds like a small, but real net return.  Hopefully.



So, with that in mind - giving $3.6, and getting $5 back - let's take a little trip away from Crazytown, USA where so many "group-think" Republicontins live and take a quick ROI glance at something that Oklahoma as well as most of the nation have resisted mightily for eternity.  If we wanna get something back for a public investment of funds, then why not do something time proven and absolutely reliable.  As well as being good for many more members of society than just the truly "entitled few" - the 1%'ers?  

If giving $3 and getting $5 is good, then one would logically understand that giving $1 and getting back $7.5 would be an even BETTER trade... wouldn't one?   Unless, one were of that pesky, under-educated, ignorant masses of Republicontins who are fighting so hard to resist the idea of paid college tuition.  The "Long Live Trump/Cruz" crowd.  And spewing lies, hatred, accusations, and calling derogatory names....

THIS is the "rising tide" that floats ALL boats!!

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/44oi29/evidence_shows_free_college_pays_a_613_return_on/



SO because all these more people will go to college they will also get jobs that pay commensurate with the current graduating flock and at the same time make available all these extra seats that would be desired? I've got a bridge to sell you buddy.

Belongs in the politics section. However, you make a good point on another front. An entity like the city/state claiming this is a good investment usually makes me think it is just the opposite. And it usually is.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on May 03, 2016, 02:23:08 pm
O frabjous day!   ;)


Hah!!   You have been peeking at the little picture under my name!


Yassss.... dino yassss!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emA-IK2RcKY



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on May 03, 2016, 06:45:31 pm

I disagree this doesn’t benefit the public at large.


What heironymouspasparagus posted (with a couple of my grammatical/spelling corrections):


In general, TIF [districts] don't seem to be much more than corporate welfare (like BKDotCom facetiously stated.)  Santa Fe in particular, I suspect there would be much better/greater return to society on that investment (and more), over a much longer time if money used for a public transit, or education funding.   It is likely a big benefit to the insiders getting the break.  Will it help the city?  Probably some.  Will it hurt the city?  Probably some - a little more.  At best, I think it is a small loss.

These things are used as a semi-private "sandbox" for political patronage...


What I posted, in general agreement with heironymouspasparagus's post above:


I'm not "anti-Santa Fe Square" either, but I concur with your previous opinion.  Rising tides aside, these types of deals primarily benefit a few, not the public at large.
 

I'm not saying that the public at large will not benefit from the Santa Fe Square development.  But the prime beneficiaries are the few people directly connected with the development, not the general public.

A few more comments/corrections:


This is one though which manages to:

-Eliminate two 1.44 city blocks worth of surface parking and adds stacked parking for public use in addition to tenant use
-Benefits local developers so profits go back into Tulsa’s economy, not Dallas, Charlotte, New York, etc.
-More shopping, dining, hotel space, and convenient living space for people who wish to live and work within the IDL
-Creates denser development which (in an ideal world) means less money spent to maintain sprawling infrastructure and more money for education and public safety.

Here’s where it could hurt: higher property values and demand to live in the IDL may mean there may not be affordable housing in the IDL any longer.


-Parking:  In the designs I've seen, the proposed parking garage along Greenwood Avenue is not wrapped with pedestrian-friendly frontage.  It ought to be, especially if the project is using TIF.

-Benefits local developers:  I agree!  A few developers and their associates will benefit!

-Creates denser development which (in an ideal world) means... 

In my opinion, Frankfort ought to be re-opened to vehicular traffic, especially if the project is using TIF and if 1st and 2nd remain as one-way streets. 

In one of the project renderings, I counted about thirty acorn lights.  Thirty -- and that's just along Elgin and Second.  Thirty more acorn lights might be planned along Greenwood and First, too, as far as I know.  The streets surrounding the development ought to have zero acorn lights, especially since its funding is relying on TIF.

In one of the project brochures, a "brick-paved pedestrian plaza" is touted.  I'm not saying that won't work or can't work in Tulsa, but brick (and brick-like) pavements for pedestrians have failed almost everywhere they've been installed here.  The bricks subside, creating uneven/hazardous walking surfaces.  The sidewalks around Guthrie Green are some of the best quality brick pavements installed for pedestrians in Tulsa.  But even at Guthrie Green, some of the bricks are failing already.  They wouldn't pass an ADA standards test because they're too uneven.           


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on May 04, 2016, 07:17:53 am
Riding past OneOK field last night it occurred to me: In the 7 years since the City/TDA took control of land for and around the stadium, I don't think any of the City owned land has been developed for anything other than reconciliation park. Rusty Crane opened. Redevelopment of the old bar across from the stadium is ongoing. The new apartments were built. A lot has gone on in the Brady, but I don't think any of the land that was transfer to the City/TDA as part of the stadium deal has been developed at all.

Is that accurate?

I see the TDA has issued a RFP on the lots between Rusty Crane the the stadium:
http://www.tulsadevelopmentauthority.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Block-44-RFP.pdf



- - - - - -
re college graduates:  Boston, Manhattan, the research triangle, San Fran, Minneapolis, etc. all seem to do just fine with high levels of college graduates. So does Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, etc. I don't think you hit a magic number of college graduates and suddenly wages drop because there are too many educated people. The available examples seem to indicate otherwise.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on May 04, 2016, 07:50:06 am
Riding past OneOK field last night it occurred to me: In the 7 years since the City/TDA took control of land for and around the stadium, I don't think any of the City owned land has been developed for anything other than reconciliation park. Rusty Crane opened. Redevelopment of the old bar across from the stadium is ongoing. The new apartments were built. A lot has gone on in the Brady, but I don't think any of the land that was transfer to the City/TDA as part of the stadium deal has been developed at all.

Is that accurate?

I see the TDA has issued a RFP on the lots between Rusty Crane the the stadium:
http://www.tulsadevelopmentauthority.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Block-44-RFP.pdf

I thought one of the Patel hotels was going there.

Edit: yeah it's the Holiday Inn Express, right? http://www.newson6.com/story/28088686/tulsa-developer-booming-downtown-in-need-of-new-hotels


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on May 04, 2016, 08:11:55 am
I thought one of the Patel hotels was going there.

Edit: yeah it's the Holiday Inn Express, right? http://www.newson6.com/story/28088686/tulsa-developer-booming-downtown-in-need-of-new-hotels


The Holiday Inn Express site is across Archer from this lot, they are still saying that will break ground this year. This is the lot Will Wilkins was going to build "120 Brady Village", a mixed use hotel and office building. I guess that fell through.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on May 04, 2016, 08:15:22 am
The Holiday Inn Express site is across Archer from this lot, they are still saying that will break ground this year. This is the lot Will Wilkins was going to build "120 Brady Village", a mixed use hotel and office building. I guess that fell through.

That's right. Sorry for the misinformation.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on May 04, 2016, 09:22:14 am
SO because all these more people will go to college they will also get jobs that pay commensurate with the current graduating flock and at the same time make available all these extra seats that would be desired? I've got a bridge to sell you buddy.

Belongs in the politics section. However, you make a good point on another front. An entity like the city/state claiming this is a good investment usually makes me think it is just the opposite. And it usually is.



Certainly not my or anyone's opinion in any way, shape, or form.  It is fact based on observation of the empirical evidence shown by doing exactly that in this country on a limited scale in the US immediately after WWII and beyond for several decades.  The TRUE "rising tide" phenomena.  It's not conjecture as so much of the Murdochian Fantasy World would have us believe - it is proven fact.  And that doesn't even begin to cite the examples from other countries around the world - our own example is more than adequate.  It is literally what gave us the standard of living we have in this country today.   Those with intellect can now only imagine what is possible if we went back to that approach.  Instead, we are in a headlong rush in the opposite direction - as proven by Oklahoma spending trends on education in the Failin' era.

As for being in politics - yeah, it would fit there, but it goes directly to the discussion here about the relative benefits of one form of "socialist entitlement" versus another.  "Socialist entitlement" for a wider range of people in the form of tuition assistance.  Versus socialist corporate welfare for a small number of people in the form of TIF's - the Santa Fe example given as a wonderful way to spend money - by spending $3.60 to get $5.00.

Which situation would YOU personally rather participate in?  If you give me $3.50, I will give you back $5.00.

OR - if you give me $1.00, I will give you back $7.50??

And we all know what the honest answer is....



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on May 04, 2016, 09:37:20 am

In my opinion, Frankfort ought to be re-opened to vehicular traffic, especially if the project is using TIF and if 1st and 2nd remain as one-way streets. 

In one of the project renderings, I counted about thirty acorn lights.  Thirty -- and that's just along Elgin and Second.  Thirty more acorn lights might be planned along Greenwood and First, too, as far as I know.  The streets surrounding the development ought to have zero acorn lights, especially since its funding is relying on TIF.


Why would you want Frankfort reopened? There are plenty of streets around. There will be walkable plazas within Santa Fe square and keeping it closed allows for more room to develop. I'd rather there be development than a street.

What is wrong with acorn lights? I think they beautify an area and light it up nicely. The atmosphere of TU's campus was completely transformed after they added nice acorn lights all around. It was like the finishing touch on all the upgrades.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on May 04, 2016, 09:48:39 am

What is wrong with acorn lights?


They direct light toward the sky, where it's not needed.  Horizontal cutoff fixtures which direct light downward are more efficient and provide better safety for pedestrians.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on May 04, 2016, 10:07:37 am
They direct light toward the sky, where it's not needed.  Horizontal cutoff fixtures which direct light downward are more efficient and provide better safety for pedestrians.

What about ones with a cap on them?

(http://hangarlighting.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/LED-post-top-street-parking-lighting.jpg)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on May 04, 2016, 10:19:37 am
What about ones with a cap on them?

(http://hangarlighting.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/LED-post-top-street-parking-lighting.jpg)

Marginally better, but still very wasteful of light and energy.  With or without caps, the City shouldn't install any more of them, anywhere.  Look for patric's explanations about photometrics elsewhere on this forum.

The light fixtures I've seen in the Santa Fe Square renderings are acorns without caps, btw.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Townsend on May 04, 2016, 11:34:10 am
They direct light toward the sky, where it's not needed.  Horizontal cutoff fixtures which direct light downward are more efficient and provide better safety for pedestrians.

(http://physics.fau.edu/observatory/Images/IDA_2lots.jpg)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on May 04, 2016, 12:05:22 pm
(http://physics.fau.edu/observatory/Images/IDA_2lots.jpg)

But we're Tulsans and Tulsans love our glare!

(http://vid.adlala.com/directv/the-settlers-are-providers-commercial/poster.jpg)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on May 04, 2016, 01:00:39 pm
Marginally better, but still very wasteful of light and energy.  With or without caps, the City shouldn't install any more of them, anywhere.  Look for patric's explanations about photometrics elsewhere on this forum.

The light fixtures I've seen in the Santa Fe Square renderings are acorns without caps, btw.

Some places still use gas lights for the effect which is incredibly inefficient. Acorn lights are similar to that. They create a certain atmosphere which is worth the extra cost in some areas if it can make the place more of an experience. Santa Fe will be a nice shopping/urban area and nicer lighting is similar to paying more to decorate or having fancier-designed architecture. Acorn lights look far better than the car lot lights Townsend posted. I bet they'll be a fraction of the cost of what it will cost to make the outside of the buildings look quaint.

If we shouldn't have acorn lights there, maybe because of the TIF, they should change the building designs to match the Cimarex building across from the BOK Center. And, to save additional costs and increase potential tax revenue, they should eliminate the courtyards so they can add more space to rent out.  ;) After all, the original plans for that lot across from BOK looked very reminiscent of Santa Fe Square.   

Seriously though, TU before and after acorn lights was completely different. It turned from just a campus into more of an intriguing little village. I started going there just to see it and experience the atmosphere whereas even when I was a student and for a while after, I had no interest in walking or bicycling around campus, especially at night (I would bike around Renaissance/Florence Park all the time because I like seeing those neighborhoods). The campus was a more sterile boring atmosphere before the fancy lights.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: carltonplace on May 04, 2016, 01:41:12 pm
There are lots of old timey looking lights that are aesthetic and at the same time not wasteful.
(http://www.gatewaytosedona.com/images/sedona-dark-skies-series/dark-sky-compliant-sedona-roadway-light-fixture.jpg)

Not a great example, but look at the lights installed on the new I244 bridge over the river...they put the light on the roadway where instead of just blasting it out into space.



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Townsend on May 04, 2016, 02:05:37 pm

If we shouldn't have acorn lights there, maybe because of the TIF, they should change the building designs to match the Cimarex building across from the BOK Center. And, to save additional costs and increase potential tax revenue, they should eliminate the courtyards so they can add more space to rent out.  After all, the original plans for that lot across from BOK looked very reminiscent of Santa Fe Square.   


Ugh...that's a bummer to think about.  Now I have all the faith in the world that this new development will look like the Cimarex building.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on May 04, 2016, 02:35:21 pm
Quote
After all, the original plans for that lot across from BOK looked very reminiscent of Santa Fe Square. 

Ugh...that's a bummer to think about.  Now I have all the faith in the world that this new development will look like the Cimarex building.

Way to ruin my day


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Hoss on May 04, 2016, 02:37:49 pm
There are lots of old timey looking lights that are aesthetic and at the same time not wasteful.
(http://www.gatewaytosedona.com/images/sedona-dark-skies-series/dark-sky-compliant-sedona-roadway-light-fixture.jpg)

Not a great example, but look at the lights installed on the new I244 bridge over the river...they put the light on the roadway where instead of just blasting it out into space.



I also think the ones mounted in the center of the new stretch of recently-rehabbed I-244 through town is done the same.  LED lights that appear to my untrained eye to direct light to the roadway and it appears the fixtures cut off upward light.  Am I correct there?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Red Arrow on May 04, 2016, 09:33:20 pm
Some places still use gas lights for the effect which is incredibly inefficient. Acorn lights are similar to that. They create a certain atmosphere which is worth the extra cost in some areas if it can make the place more of an experience. Santa Fe will be a nice shopping/urban area and nicer lighting is similar to paying more to decorate or having fancier-designed architecture. Acorn lights look far better than the car lot lights Townsend posted. I bet they'll be a fraction of the cost of what it will cost to make the outside of the buildings look quaint.

Acorn lights look great, during the daylight hours when the bulbs aren't lit.  Acorns with a bulb that duplicates the original gas light might be acceptable for setting an atmosphere but with regular bulbs they are just glare bombs.

We have way too much sky light pollution around here.  I used to be able to see the stars to the north of 111th  & Memorial but now I cannot see any stars below about 30º above the horizon to the north.  Terrible, especially since it is just wasted light.  I agree with others here, check out Patric's threads on lighting.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Red Arrow on May 04, 2016, 10:11:45 pm
Here’s where it could hurt: higher property values and demand to live in the IDL may mean there may not be affordable housing in the IDL any longer.

I thought everybody wanted higher property values.  Higher property values is the justification for almost everything in urban (and even suburban) development.

In the cities I have visited, "affordable housing" is stuff that used to be nice but is now a bit long in the tooth. The stuff being built now will be affordable housing in maybe 50 years.   :(


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Red Arrow on May 04, 2016, 10:15:13 pm
If everyone had access to free tuition, would those numbers stay the same? Would the value of a degree remain what it is now? Degrees seem to be declining in value and increasing in price. Still far better than no degree (depending on which degree).

Access to free tuition would increase the freshmen class size.  I expect it would only marginally increase the size of the graduating class.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Red Arrow on May 04, 2016, 10:32:02 pm
When I see the horrible traffic on the BA to downtown, I wonder how much more those commuters will put up with before moving closer. Waiting 40 minutes in traffic for a few months would be enough to convince me to move closer to make it a 5 minute commute. It is a shame the "free market" encourages sprawling growth.

I expect it depends on what those commuters want outside of their life at "the job".


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: erfalf on May 05, 2016, 06:26:00 am
If everyone had access to free tuition, would those numbers stay the same? Would the value of a degree remain what it is now? Degrees seem to be declining in value and increasing in price. Still far better than no degree (depending on which degree).

This is purely for comedic effect mind you, but I once heard someone say that "the way to make college truly worthless, is to give it away for free."


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on May 05, 2016, 07:33:29 am
Access to free tuition would increase the freshmen class size.  I expect it would only marginally increase the size of the graduating class.


The ratio stays the same, as shown by decades of past experience.



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on May 05, 2016, 07:47:04 am
This is purely for comedic effect mind you, but I once heard someone say that "the way to make college truly worthless, is to give it away for free."


NOW we are getting close to a real discussion.  Good!  What type of college is of value?  Most of them.  There was - and probably still is - massive scorn and derision heaped upon the idea of someone going to college to get a degree in 'basket weaving'.  Not that it actually existed, but the meme is strong!  In reality, we know, also from massive amounts of past experience, just how important the arts are to learning and improvement in overall academics.  So the ones heaping derision are actually the same type as those running the state of Oklahoma right now.  Gutting the whole system of public education in this state.  Trying hard to 'dumb-down' the electorate.  And look around you...Failin', Kern, Inhofe, and their ilk keep getting elected, so it's working tragically well.

As for free...well, it should have conditions.  Like successful completion and ongoing progress toward the ultimate goal - a degree in something.  And successful means a C or better average.  Should arts be included?  Absolutely.  Along with all the prerequisites that a typical curriculum contains.  STEM...ok, sure, why not?   I don't imagine there would be more than what we have now - there is only about 1% of the population (if that) who are suited to that type of education/work, but lets give it a try and even start earlier in the school program to get people thinking in STEM terms sooner.

The big problem is that this would bring about a better educated, more well-rounded person, who would be less susceptible to the Murdochian Fantasy World View of things, as well as the "Koch-a Kola" brand of nonsense spewed around the country today, and that would be anathema to the existing power structure.

How about political science?   Well, starting with the initial big lie in the title - there is no science, notwithstanding Hari Seldon's conjectures, I would say we got enough societal parasites, so no, poli-sci would not be eligible for free education.




Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on May 05, 2016, 07:48:50 am
I move to go start a thread somewhere on free college.


Back to the downtown discussion:

If you missed the talk last night from Jeff Speck, you missed a lot.
http://www.jeffspeck.com/

There are two types of development: neighborhoods or sprawl. Everything else and all the troubles that come with it, are the details.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: johrasephoenix on May 05, 2016, 09:28:43 am
Jeff Speck's book is awesome.  I read it to get myself hyped up for planning school last summer.

I'm really glad to see that Tulsa leadership is starting to really get these issues.  It seems like each time an old city official retires the new blood that steps in "gets it" - hence finally getting 2 way streets after waiting 15 years for the old city works director to retire.  There's a generational shift at City Hall that's doing T-Town loads of good.  This seems to be the case for a lot of the city council too.

The only exception, of course, is the Big Guy in the driver's seat.  I don't think he's particularly opposed to the stuff we advocate for on this forum but I also don't think he "gets it" and thus hasn't pushed for it or done much to advance it.  When you think a Chili's on 81st is a great urban space its hard to fight the good fight for downtown.

Once we get turnover at our highest office I think we'll see some major changes fast.  All of Dewey's last three opponents seem to "get it" - Tom Adelson, Kathy Taylor, GT Bynum, etc.  I honestly don't know who keeps voting him back in but hopefully the country-wide anti-establishment mood will help us out.  I can see how Kathy and Tom lost because of the big "D" next to their name that is the Mark of Satan for a lot of Tulsa voters, but GT has an "R" which gives me high hopes.   

 

 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on May 05, 2016, 09:51:44 am
I move to go start a thread somewhere on free college.


Back to the downtown discussion:

If you missed the talk last night from Jeff Speck, you missed a lot.
http://www.jeffspeck.com/

There are two types of development: neighborhoods or sprawl. Everything else and all the troubles that come with it, are the details.


Starting with the first video on his site.  Great stuff!!



One thing glaringly obvious - we will never be a Portland!  Ever!



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on May 05, 2016, 11:22:55 am
In Walkable City, he gets right to the gut of the matter - page 17.  Failin', Doobie, and all the other "growth for growth's sake" crowd are always bleating with great agony, wringing of hands, and gnashing of teeth....   "How can we attract companies and get jobs...?"

I have known intuitively for decades some of the symptoms (education, infrastructure, etc) that has aggravated the problem, and thought that the question just seems out of sync somehow.  Jeff clarified it on that page.  It's the wrong question.

The Correct Question is, "How can we keep our children from leaving?  How can we keep our grandchildren from leaving?".  Answers to those questions are what will get us on the right path.



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on May 05, 2016, 11:55:53 am

One thing glaringly obvious - we will never be a Portland!  Ever!


Tulsa probably won't ever be a Portland, but I'd never say never.  In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Tulsa and Portland were more similar than they are now.  There were some proposals to establish urban growth limits around Tulsa, as there are around Portland.  Other than the size of P's and T's downtown blocks and street grids, I'd say the biggest difference between the two cities is that Portland implemented their urban plans.  In contrast, Tulsa has continued to host planning workshops, conduct traffic studies, hold meetings, create plans, revise plans, and talk about urban design -- but it has been mostly talk, with very little coordinated or cohesive action, other than installing thousands of brick-like unit pavers and hundreds of glaring acorn lights.

Perhaps Tulsa never will be a Portland, but we do have our own Pearl District.  I know this for a fact, because there's a sign identifying Tulsa's Pearl District at the corner of 11th & Utica, way out in front of the sea of paving surrounding the "pedestrian friendly" Pearl District QT.  I've seen the "Pearl District" sign, fairly recently, so I'm assuming that Tulsa still has a Pearl District, or at least has a sign with "Pearl District" on it...unless the sign has been removed during the last week or so.  I don't pass by Tulsa's "Pearl District" sign every day, but the last time I looked, it seemed (to me) to be substantial -- constructed with masonry with the words "PEARL DISTRICT" in capitalized letters. 

A few years ago, Tulsa had a Lawrence Halprin fountain -- that was common thread shared with Portland.  Unfortunately, Tulsa's fountain has been replaced a couple of times during the last decade.  And what we have now, in its place, perplexed Jeff Speck last night!  He couldn't seem to figure out what it was, other than a low obstruction in the middle of the intersection at 5th & Main.   


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: erfalf on May 05, 2016, 12:26:59 pm
In Walkable City, he gets right to the gut of the matter - page 17.  Failin', Doobie, and all the other "growth for growth's sake" crowd are always bleating with great agony, wringing of hands, and gnashing of teeth....   "How can we attract companies and get jobs...?"

I have known intuitively for decades some of the symptoms (education, infrastructure, etc) that has aggravated the problem, and thought that the question just seems out of sync somehow.  Jeff clarified it on that page.  It's the wrong question.

The Correct Question is, "How can we keep our children from leaving?  How can we keep our grandchildren from leaving?".  Answers to those questions are what will get us on the right path.



I'm am with you. How to keep children from leaving is an excellent question. However study after study (which I don't put much stock in) tells our leaders that our young people want Targets & trendy fast casual restaurants that tend to be situated in large canyons of parking lots. Bartlesville city leaders over and over again claim that the way to retain young talented people is to have brand new shiny things (basically). Nearly every survey indicates a massive desire for a Target, Chick-fil-A, Olive Garden, etc. And Bartlesville literally already has a mirror image of these places in existence already (albeit much more local in many cases). But apparently young people want big, shiny & new. Even Bartlesville schools poll as performing below our peers in the Tulsa metro, when it is nearly the exact opposite in reality. Again, not as shiny and new as Owasso/Skiatook/Bixby/BA/Jenks new facilities. See a trend.

I personally think Bartlesville is a phenomenal town to live in to raise a family. Which fortunately for us includes a huge swath of the population. I feel like my own city is going to turn itself upside down in order to please a relatively small portion of the population, that in the end, if they are working here anyway, will likely grow to find the community much more desirable, for reasons entirely different than they would have considered when they were single and 23 years old. I'm not saying that demo should not be considered, but it is hard to take it seriously sometimes when the opinions seem so divorced from reality. Probably similar to when you hear people complain about the "parking problem" downtown.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on May 05, 2016, 12:50:38 pm

Why would you want Frankfort reopened?
 

1. It would create more options for vehicles and pedestrians to circulate around the area between 1st & 3rd, Elgin and Greenwood -- especially if 1st and 2nd remain one-way.

2. It would help to create a direct connection across the railroad to the ballpark and the Greenwood District (even if it became a pedestrian-only connection across the tracks).

3. One block of Frankfort between 1st & 2nd, with two-way traffic and on-street parking allowed on both sides of the street, would create a safer and more active pedestrian environment on the abutting sidewalks.

4. If there happened to be a wreck, a parade, an arts festival, a fire or another emergency, a bike race, a marathon, road construction, utility work, or similar obstructions on another street in the vicinity, then Frankfort could provide an alternate path for vehicles and pedestrians.

5. Smaller blocks and finer-grained grids make for safer pedestrian environments. 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: erfalf on May 05, 2016, 01:32:33 pm
In regards to extending Frankfort. There is already no rail crossing for Frankfort. I really don't see the benefit, and I totally understand that smaller blocks are better. But I believe there will actually be pedestrian way through the development even. Putting a stop sign/signal @ Greenwood would do just as much for perceived pedestrian safety. It would slow down the entrance/exit traffic from the highway. I would think this would be planned for already...hopefully.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on May 05, 2016, 01:53:06 pm
1. It would create more options for vehicles and pedestrians to circulate around the area between 1st & 3rd, Elgin and Greenwood -- especially if 1st and 2nd remain one-way.

2. It would help to create a direct connection across the railroad to the ballpark and the Greenwood District (even if it became a pedestrian-only connection across the tracks).

3. One block of Frankfort between 1st & 2nd, with two-way traffic and on-street parking allowed on both sides of the street, would create a safer and more active pedestrian environment on the abutting sidewalks.

4. If there happened to be a wreck, a parade, an arts festival, a fire or another emergency, a bike race, a marathon, road construction, utility work, or similar obstructions on another street in the vicinity, then Frankfort could provide an alternate path for vehicles and pedestrians.

5. Smaller blocks and finer-grained grids make for safer pedestrian environments. 

It looks like the Santa Fe Square plan does extend Frankfort, but only to pedestrians.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on May 05, 2016, 02:10:12 pm

In regards to extending Frankfort. There is already no rail crossing for Frankfort. I really don't see the benefit, and I totally understand that smaller blocks are better. But I believe there will actually be pedestrian way through the development even. Putting a stop sign/signal @ Greenwood would do just as much for perceived pedestrian safety. It would slow down the entrance/exit traffic from the highway. I would think this would be planned for already...hopefully.



It looks like the Santa Fe Square plan does extend Frankfort, but only to pedestrians.


A railroad crossing at Frankfort, even if pedestrian-only, would be beneficial in connecting the areas north and south of the tracks, just as the street crossing at Greenwood, the Detroit Avenue bridge, the Boston Avenue bridge, and the Boulder Avenue bridge are beneficial.

The planned pedestrian way through Santa Fe Square would be improved if it included lanes for vehicles:  two-way traffic, with parking on both sides of the street, as stated in my previous post.  See Walkable City by Jeff Speck, pages 97-99 and page 165.

There are stop signs at Greenwood already.  There are limited sight lines at Greenwood and 2nd, around Legends.  Converting both 1st and 2nd to two-way streets would improve actual pedestrian safety, not just perceived safety.  If 1st and 2nd remain one-way streets, then I agree that a stop sign on the east side of Greenwood at 1st and another on the west side of the street at 2nd would improve pedestrian safety along Greenwood, both perceived and actual.  But my post was about re-opening Frankfort between 1st and 2nd in response to TulsaGoldenHurriCAN's question, not about Greenwood.    


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on May 05, 2016, 02:17:56 pm
Tulsa probably won't ever be a Portland, but I'd never say never.  In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Tulsa and Portland were more similar than they are now.  There were some proposals to establish urban growth limits around Tulsa, as there are around Portland.  Other than the size of P's and T's downtown blocks and street grids, I'd say the biggest difference between the two cities is that Portland implemented their urban plans.  In contrast, Tulsa has continued to host planning workshops, conduct traffic studies, hold meetings, create plans, revise plans, and talk about urban design -- but it has been mostly talk, with very little coordinated or cohesive action, other than installing thousands of brick-like unit pavers and hundreds of glaring acorn lights.

Perhaps Tulsa never will be a Portland, but we do have our own Pearl District.  I know this for a fact, because there's a sign identifying Tulsa's Pearl District at the corner of 11th & Utica, way out in front of the sea of paving surrounding the "pedestrian friendly" Pearl District QT.  I've seen the "Pearl District" sign, fairly recently, so I'm assuming that Tulsa still has a Pearl District, or at least has a sign with "Pearl District" on it...unless the sign has been removed during the last week or so.  I don't pass by Tulsa's "Pearl District" sign every day, but the last time I looked, it seemed (to me) to be substantial -- constructed with masonry with the words "PEARL DISTRICT" in capitalized letters. 

A few years ago, Tulsa had a Lawrence Halprin fountain -- that was common thread shared with Portland.  Unfortunately, Tulsa's fountain has been replaced a couple of times during the last decade.  And what we have now, in its place, perplexed Jeff Speck last night!  He couldn't seem to figure out what it was, other than a low obstruction in the middle of the intersection at 5th & Main.   


Could be...I don't have any reference (friends/family) living in the area until after about 1975.  By then, progress was starting to change the town.  It was always much more progressive - as in able to envision, discuss, and implement, progress than we have been.  Progress to us was ending prohibition by 1960.  Somewhere along the line if ya wanna have progress, ya gotta start with progressive thought.  As demonized so thoroughly in Okrahoma by the Koch Brothers and Murdochian mentalities.

Our "progress" was to tear down the old buildings so we could cater to the Williams Brothers and then sit around waiting for something to happen.




Broken Arrow is getting a big dose of stupid...they had a nice little farmer's market that was only a few years old and was probably starting to outgrow the space a little bit.  Solution?  Tear it up and put in a splash pad.   Just like Tulsa...  No apparent intellect or thought or cohesive plan.  But it's people who moved to BA and took their Tulsa "solutions" with them....





Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on May 05, 2016, 04:32:39 pm

I thought everybody wanted higher property values.


Property owners who are wanting to sell or lease, along with associated real estate professionals generally want the highest property values and appraisals.

On the other hand, owners who are holding real estate for long terms generally want low property values until they're ready to sell or lease or develop or renovate or whatever.  That's why some of property owners in downtown Tulsa have actually lowered the values of their own land by demolishing buildings or other improvements.  Lower property values result in lower ad valorem taxes.  Less square footage of built improvements results in lower stadium district assessments.

Within the IDL, parking lots are prevalent because they're lucrative -- or, they're less expensive to own and operate than non-productive buildings, at least.  The stadium assessment downtown really works in opposition to what many of us on this forum would like to see:  fewer parking lots and more buildings.  But the stadium assessment rewards those who want to demolish their buildings and convert their land to parking lots.  That's the way the City Council and Kathy Taylor devised the assessment district.     


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: johrasephoenix on May 06, 2016, 09:34:10 am
The current incentive structure has favored surface parking lots over preservation for decades.  That should have been changed a long time ago.

1) Ban surface parking as a primary land use inside the IDL (this is what Denver did in the early 80s to stop the spreading plague). 

2) Existing surface parking should also be taxed at a much higher rate per assessed $ than other uses.  As is, there are prime development lots inside the IDL that are paying $1,000ish in property tax per year, providing the owners with no incentive to do anything except sit on their land and wait.  For instance, if commercial property is taxed at $25 per $1,000 in assessed value, surface parking should be taxed at $75 per $1000 in assessed value.  That should help incentivize speculators to sell to someone who will build something on the property.

3) City staff should have marching orders to make life hell for land speculators or people wanting to create surface lots.  You want to have a surface lot on prime developable land?  Then every single city ordinance and code will be enforced 100% at all times.  People like CJ Moroney should be driven out of the city.  This is probably too far, but Chicago has even taken to threatening eminent domain when developers leave marquee real estate vacant for too long (in our case the Sinclair Building, in Chicago the old Post Office and seizing Northerly Island to build a park).

The first two are urban planning at its best - managing incentives and externalities so that the private market provides the city's desired outcome.  Conservatives should love it to because there is no direct interference in the market and no city money spent.

The last is maybe a little too big city political hardball for Tulsa, but still an interesting thought experiment.



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on May 06, 2016, 09:44:19 am
The last is maybe a little too big city political hardball for Tulsa, but still an interesting thought experiment.

No it's not. Eminent domain abuse for private economic development is actually pretty sickening.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: johrasephoenix on May 06, 2016, 10:49:43 am
It can be.  Note Pfizer and New London, CT.  Or Omaha and ConAgra. 

But CJ Moroney is scum.  I'm not overly concerned with his right to sit on a beautiful historic building and allow it to fall into disrepair until it is unsalvageable. 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DTowner on May 06, 2016, 11:37:32 am
It can be.  Note Pfizer and New London, CT.  Or Omaha and ConAgra.  

But CJ Moroney is scum.  I'm not overly concerned with his right to sit on a beautiful historic building and allow it to fall into disrepair until it is unsalvageable.  

Moroney has the right to sit on beautiful buildings and do nothing with them because he bought them.  What he does not have a right to do is not pay taxes or assessments or violate codes and ordinances.  Fair and even-handed enforcement of codes, regulations and taxes are the best defense against real estate vultures like Moroney.  Unfortunately, as he has shown, the bankruptcy system and courts can be used to slow things down to a snail’s pace.  

I do not want to live in a city that targets for harassment those property owners that are deemed to be “scum” or are not using their property the way I would like to see it used.  We may all agree Moroney is scum, but such tactics once unleashed inevitably will get used on someone we do not all agree should be loathed and run out of town.



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on May 06, 2016, 11:55:48 am
Moroney has the right to sit on beautiful buildings and do nothing with them because he bought them.  What he does not have a right to do is not pay taxes or assessments or violate codes and ordinances.  Fair and even-handed enforcement of codes, regulations and taxes are the best defense against real estate vultures like Moroney.  Unfortunately, as he has shown, the bankruptcy system and courts can be used to slow things down to a snail’s pace. 

I do not want to live in a city that targets for harassment those property owners that are deemed to be “scum” or are not using their property the way I would like to see it used.  We may all agree Moroney is scum, but such tactics once unleased inevitably will get used on someone we do not all agree should be loathed and run out of town.



I disagree, he should not have that right. He has the right to be compensated, but buildings like the ones he owns/owned are community assets and if they are not being cared for, they can and should be taken from him. But the public has to pay him for what is taken.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cynical on May 06, 2016, 12:09:04 pm
Not one of those cases involve Oklahoma, which has the unique provision in its Constitution that the public/private character of the intended use is exclusively a judicial question. Taking for private purposes is not going to happen. And as has already been mentioned in this discussion, "economic development" has been ruled out as a public use by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. In Oklahoma, land cannot be taken from one private entity to be handed over to another for a private development. There are gray areas involving things like pipelines to supply gas to private power plants, but not to take buildings simply because the owner chooses not to do what the city fathers would have him do.

Your concern about Moroney's buildings is beside the point.

It can be.  Note Pfizer and New London, CT.  Or Omaha and ConAgra. 

But CJ Moroney is scum.  I'm not overly concerned with his right to sit on a beautiful historic building and allow it to fall into disrepair until it is unsalvageable. 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cynical on May 06, 2016, 12:13:59 pm
Who decides what is and is not a "community asset?" In New London, CT, it was the city council, whose finding was entitled to judicial deference until the Supremes stepped in to impose reason. In Oklahoma, it is the judiciary. The fact that a building is of interest to you or anyone else does not make it a "community asset." At least not in Oklahoma. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has been on both sides of some of these questions, but its more recent decisions cast considerable doubt that "preservation of an architecturally interesting building" or "elimination of an eyesore" would, in the absence of evidence that the property is a public nuisance, justify a taking.

I disagree, he should not have that right. He has the right to be compensated, but buildings like the ones he owns/owned are community assets and if they are not being cared for, they can and should be taken from him. But the public has to pay him for what is taken.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on May 06, 2016, 12:22:45 pm
Moroney has the right to sit on beautiful buildings and do nothing with them because he bought them.  What he does not have a right to do is not pay taxes or assessments or violate codes and ordinances.  Fair and even-handed enforcement of codes, regulations and taxes are the best defense against real estate vultures like Moroney.  Unfortunately, as he has shown, the bankruptcy system and courts can be used to slow things down to a snail’s pace. 

I do not want to live in a city that targets for harassment those property owners that are deemed to be “scum” or are not using their property the way I would like to see it used.  We may all agree Moroney is scum, but such tactics once unleased inevitably will get used on someone we do not all agree should be loathed and run out of town.

Amen!

Look, I love downtown Tulsa and it makes me upset to see the Sinclair building in mothballs. But Swake and johrasephoenix, the problem with taking the Sinclair building and handing it to someone else is that it has no limiting principle. Everything can be replaced with something nicer. What you're proposing is rather uncivilized and gruesome.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on May 06, 2016, 12:49:15 pm

The current incentive structure has favored surface parking lots over preservation for decades.  That should have been changed a long time ago.


The current Stadium Improvement District has not been around for decades.  Kathy Taylor and the City Council were in a big, big hurry to establish the stadium trust and real estate assessments less than ten years ago.

Yes, the parking lot "incentive" structure could have and should have been changed a long time ago, but even recently, in 2009, when our elected officials (former mayor Kathy Taylor and the City Council) had the opportunity to change it for the better, they chose to change it for the worse.  The assessments, as approved by Kathy Taylor and the City Council at the time, are favorable to downtown property owners who choose to demolish existing buildings and replace them with parking lots.  The assessments, as approved by Kathy Taylor and the City Council, provide an incentive for owners of existing parking lots downtown to keep them as parking lots, rather than construct new buildings.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DTowner on May 06, 2016, 01:04:01 pm
The current Stadium Improvement District has not been around for decades.  Kathy Taylor and the City Council were in a big, big hurry to establish the stadium trust and real estate assessments less than ten years ago.

Yes, the parking lot "incentive" structure could have and should have been changed a long time ago, but even recently, in 2009, when our elected officials (former mayor Kathy Taylor and the City Council) had the opportunity to change it for the better, they chose to change it for the worse.  The assessments, as approved by Kathy Taylor and the City Council at the time, are favorable to downtown property owners who choose to demolish existing buildings and replace them with parking lots.  The assessments, as approved by Kathy Taylor and the City Council, provide an incentive for owners of existing parking lots downtown to keep them as parking lots, rather than construct new buildings.

I don’t think there is any doubt that an unintended consequence of the stadium district assessment was to further incentivize tearing down significantly underutilized buildings.  While unintended, it should have been recognized by the mayor and council.  Unfortunately, given that the assessment was already facing some significant opposition, adding any provision prohibiting tear downs or having a higher assessment rate for surface parking would have likely killed the deal and left us with no ONEOK Field.  As it was, I recall that Kathy Taylor had to fly one the councilors back on her private jet to cast the deciding vote.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on May 06, 2016, 01:29:32 pm

I don’t think there is any doubt that an unintended consequence of the stadium district assessment was to further incentivize tearing down significantly underutilized buildings.  While unintended, it should have been recognized by the mayor and council.  Unfortunately, given that the assessment was already facing some significant opposition, adding any provision prohibiting tear downs or having a higher assessment rate for surface parking would have likely killed the deal and left us with no ONEOK Field.  As it was, I recall that Kathy Taylor had to fly one the councilors back on her private jet to cast the deciding vote.


The Mayor and the City Council had thirty years to observe the "parking lot incentive" consequence of a downtown assessment based on square footage of building.  I think there would have been a baseball stadium, but one that relied more on private investment and less on real estate assessments.  Kathy Taylor and the Council were in a huge hurry to get the trust and assessments in place.  Of course there was significant opposition:  The assessments are not fair because they're not related to proximity to the ballpark or to any proportional benefit derived from it.

Plus, a sizable chunk of the assessment went to control property surrounding the ballpark, most or all of which, as cannon_fodder noted two days ago on this thread, has not been developed at all.  That's land sitting vacant, which results in a poor urban environment, low ad valorem taxes, and the lowest stadium assessment possible.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DTowner on May 06, 2016, 02:56:18 pm
I think there have been a lot of economic incentives and issues that contributed to a lot of Tulsa’s significantly underutilized buildings becoming surface parking lots over the years - the stadium assessment was simply one more.

And, for what it’s worth, I never liked the idea of the stadium trust controlling the land around ONEOK Field.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on May 06, 2016, 03:27:07 pm

I think there have been a lot of economic incentives and issues that contributed to a lot of Tulsa’s significantly underutilized buildings becoming surface parking lots over the years - the stadium assessment was simply one more.


True, there have been factors and incentives for many years (other than the stadium assessment) resulting in downtown parking lots.  However, I tried to respond to johrasephoenix's following post:


The current incentive structure has favored surface parking lots over preservation for decades.  That should have been changed a long time ago.


The current parking lot incentive structure has not been in place for even one single decade, yet.  My point is that the situation could have been improved in 2009 --- BUT --- Kathy Taylor and the City Council, in their haste, made it worse (because the current assessments are not tied to relative value derived from the existence of the ballpark).  And the City Council and Kathy Taylor approved the parking lot incentive assessment for another thirty years.

I'm not buying the "unintended consequence" line.  If a government wants more of something (such as buildings), then the associated taxes/fees/assessments should be lowered, not raised.

If a government wants less of something (surface parking lots, for example), then the associated taxes/fees/assessments should be higher, not lower.

Kathy Taylor and the City Council were cautioned about their ill-advised stadium assessment scheme and the likely consequences.  The warnings and the arguments didn't matter to them.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: johrasephoenix on May 06, 2016, 05:22:27 pm
Great points, all.  It's worth reading the saga of Chicago's truly enormous Old Main Post Office, one of the greatest development opportunities in Chicago's booming downtown.  British developer Bill Davies bought it in 2009 for $24m and then sat on it with lots of proposals that came to nothing.  Mayor Emmanual started leaning on the developer hard, eventually threatening legal action to seize the property if Bill Davies didn't do something with it (calling it a civic embarrassment).  The political heat got to the point that it "motivated" Bill Davies to sell to 601W, a big boy developer out of NYC with the resources to put the Post Office back into play. 

There's lots of philosophic arguments to be made on either side.  But at the end of the day Chicago is getting an art deco glory restored.

But apparently its beside the point in OK so no use arguing about it. 

Something else Chicago did while I was there is publish a public list of the city's worst and most notorious slumlords.  The city nailed them for every code violation and went after them hard for every fine and tax dollar.  If a slumlord saw the error of their ways and fixed the problem, they got taken off the list and everything went back to normal.  It was mostly for the worst exploiters of the Section 8 system but it was applicable across the city.  I imagine someone like CJ Moroney would be in the top 5 of Tulsa's list.

Sorry for all the Chicago examples.  It's where I lived most recently and the city I know second best after Tulsa. 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: johrasephoenix on May 06, 2016, 05:52:20 pm
Also - I really value the opportunity to throw around big picture ideas about how to make downtown better.  Even though people have very different political / philosophical / value positions on how to get there, everyone loves Tulsa's urban core and we all want to see it restored.

Just sayin'.  


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on May 07, 2016, 05:20:05 am
Also - I really value the opportunity to throw around big picture ideas about how to make downtown better.  Even though people have very different political / philosophical / value positions on how to get there, everyone loves Tulsa's urban core and we all want to see it restored.

Just sayin'.  

Hear, hear for that!


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: davideinstein on May 07, 2016, 09:37:17 am
Also - I really value the opportunity to throw around big picture ideas about how to make downtown better.  Even though people have very different political / philosophical / value positions on how to get there, everyone loves Tulsa's urban core and we all want to see it restored.

Just sayin'.  

#TulsaSoccerStadium and we could potentially finance it via the $26M in net assets from the Stadium Trust.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: rdj on May 09, 2016, 09:16:44 am
Riding past OneOK field last night it occurred to me: In the 7 years since the City/TDA took control of land for and around the stadium, I don't think any of the City owned land has been developed for anything other than reconciliation park. Rusty Crane opened. Redevelopment of the old bar across from the stadium is ongoing. The new apartments were built. A lot has gone on in the Brady, but I don't think any of the land that was transfer to the City/TDA as part of the stadium deal has been developed at all.

Is that accurate?


I don't think Tulsa Stadium Trust has any land left other than the ballpark itself.  They sold a piece to the Gates Building group (Marshal Brewpub & KSQ), they sold the land at Archer & Elgin for "The View", the land at Archer & Detroit to Patel and I believe that is at they had.  The remainder was owned by TDA or Greenwood Chamber.

The original intention was for a single developer to come in and develop all of the land.  The hope was the developer that completed the KC Power & Light district among other similar developments in Baltimore and Louisville.  While popular with many David Cordish's developments reek of faux urbanism to me.  His group passed after a site visit to Tulsa, but the hope was still there for that to happen.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on May 09, 2016, 09:23:46 am
While popular with many David Cordish's developments reek of faux urbanism to me.

I had to look him and his development up just now. And you're completely right. Ew.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: johrasephoenix on May 09, 2016, 09:53:45 am
Yeah - developments like that feel great in the short term because you get the goods all at once.

In the long term, though, that faux-ness and propensity for Buffalo Wild Wings like storefronts kills it.  The slow, incremental urbanism we're seeing in downtown Tulsa is agonizingly slow for us mere mortals but in the long term the product is much, much better. 

Kind of sucks for us but our grandkids will think its awesome if they even recognize it.  Much like how I think of an area with buildings from 1915-1935 as a cohesive "district" but for the generation that built it there must have been all kinds of gaps and empty spaces that just bugged the crap out of people on the 1925 version of Tulsa Now. 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on May 09, 2016, 10:19:11 am
^^That’s funny everyone else got that too.  KC P&L, while a nice development, has always felt too contrived to me.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on May 09, 2016, 11:31:15 am
Yeah - developments like that feel great in the short term because you get the goods all at once.

In the long term, though, that faux-ness and propensity for Buffalo Wild Wings like storefronts kills it.  The slow, incremental urbanism we're seeing in downtown Tulsa is agonizingly slow for us mere mortals but in the long term the product is much, much better.  

Kind of sucks for us but our grandkids will think its awesome if they even recognize it.  Much like how I think of an area with buildings from 1915-1935 as a cohesive "district" but for the generation that built it there must have been all kinds of gaps and empty spaces that just bugged the crap out of people on the 1925 version of Tulsa Now.  


Plus teardowns and probably a few fires that eliminated a building, with another taking it's place.

2nd and Main.  circa 1894.

http://www.tulsaokhistory.com/photogallery/2ndandmain1.jpg



http://www.tulsaokhistory.com/photogallery/hallstore.jpg


Some very cool pictures there.  Dawson - old coal mine!  About Pine and Harvard -ish.




Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: patric on May 09, 2016, 01:47:08 pm
Some places still use gas lights for the effect which is incredibly inefficient. Acorn lights are similar to that. They create a certain atmosphere which is worth the extra cost in some areas if it can make the place more of an experience...

Seriously though, TU before and after acorn lights was completely different. It turned from just a campus into more of an intriguing little village. I started going there just to see it and experience the atmosphere whereas even when I was a student and for a while after, I had no interest in walking or bicycling around campus, especially at night (I would bike around Renaissance/Florence Park all the time because I like seeing those neighborhoods). The campus was a more sterile boring atmosphere before the fancy lights.

There is simply no comparison between gas Acorn lights and the current-day high-intensity faux Acorns, other than its "dayform" (i.e., not on in the daytime) aesthetic.

Trying to judge a streetlight without seeing how it performs at night is a flawed, yet too-often done practice of past city planning.
Gas-lighted streets a century ago were no where near the intensity we have today, and while those levels would be suitable now for many residential areas, we demand more to improve safety, convenience, nighttime utility and visual acuity of public areas like entertainment districts and sports fields.

Trying to make the optics of a fixture meant for an incandescent gas flame corral the welding-arc brightness of a Metal Halide lamp (or blue-rich LEDs) is never going to work, especially if your plan is to "outrun the glare" by making the light source brighter and brighter.

Once you understand Acorns were meant for moderate-intensity ambiance, they can be really attractive, but if you try to use them as the sole means to throw a few dozen footcandles of light on a street, you become the electric utility's best customer.

Caps on top?  They dont do squat for glare, especially if the dome is frosted or refractive (scatter light). 

My position is to re-fit the Acorns with warm-white sources analogous to the color and intensity of gas or early electric incandescent, and do the work of actual street lighting with shielded, high-mounted luminaires.
You maintain the dayform aesthetic and have warm, inviting well-lit streets at night.
 
Its like having your cake and eating it, too.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on May 11, 2016, 09:57:19 am
Not "development or new business" but still a cool addition to downtown: https://www.facebook.com/steve.liggett.52/posts/10156912133085427


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on May 12, 2016, 08:06:11 am
Update on the OKPOP museum (added emphasis for key points):

Quote
Tulsa architect to lead OKPOP design team

A team led by local architect Chris Lilly has been tentatively chosen to design and ultimately build the Oklahoma Museum of Popular Culture in Tulsa, state officials said Wednesday.
The decision is contingent upon final contract negotiations between the state and the design team. State officials hope to break ground on OKPOP, as the museum will be known, in the fall of 2017 and open in 2019.
“Every member of the team is A-list,” said Oklahoma Historical Association Director Bob Blackburn.
Lilly, who has been involved in several Brady Arts District projects, including the Woody Guthrie Center, Guthrie Green and Zarrow Arts Center, will be architect of record for OKPOP.
The primary designer, however, will be Overland Partners of San Antonio. That firm’s projects include the Chickasaw Cultural Center in Sulphur and several wings and buildings for the San Antonio Museum of Art.
Also signed on are Tulsa structural engineer Tom Wallace and international consulting firm Arup, whose clients have included the Sydney Opera House and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Headquarters.
Arup’s expertise includes acoustics, something OKPOP Director Jeff Moore said is important to this project.
“We plan to have an in-house studio for recording some of the music we’ll be curating,” he said.
Blackburn and Moore said no conceptual drawings have been presented because the design will be a collaboration among the team, the Oklahoma Historical Society and its financial supporters, which include the George Kaiser Family Foundation.
The design also depends to some extent on location — which, contrary to previous indications, apparently has not been settled.
“We are looking at several pieces of land in (Tulsa),” Blackburn said. “The location is so important, because this museum has to be self-supporting.”
Blackburn said the parcel at Archer Street and Boston Avenue identified a year ago as the museum’s future home is still a possibility but is not the only one.

He and Moore said a decision will have to be made this summer.
Most importantly, Moore and Blackburn said, the design must capture the essence of OKPOP as a “Crossroads of Creativity. … The (Oklahoma History Center) is very traditional in its design,” said Blackburn. “This celebrates creativity. The design has got to be creative.”

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/tulsa-architect-to-lead-okpop-design-team/article_30319384-541b-5614-a37a-ca684623515b.html
 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/tulsa-architect-to-lead-okpop-design-team/article_30319384-541b-5614-a37a-ca684623515b.html)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on May 12, 2016, 08:19:06 am
I don't understand this. BOk donated the land already, the financial plan was that it was to have a parking garage at that location that would generate revenue to help support the museum. The location has great symmetry with the other museums and arts centers right there. What's up?   


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: LandArchPoke on May 12, 2016, 08:26:39 am
I don't understand this. BOk donated the land already, the financial plan was that it was to have a parking garage at that location that would generate revenue to help support the museum. The location has great symmetry with the other museums and arts centers right there. What's up?   

My understanding is that there is a group of lawmakers outside of Tulsa who do not like Kaiser (liberals are bad) and they threw a huge fit that the parking garage that would be built for the museum would allow BOK employees to park there. They have vowed to fit the museum if this happens and bring it under investigation for "back room deal that benefits a Tulsa booster" to give them free parking, and could result in them trying to defund or block the museum. Parts of this were in the news sometime last year.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on May 12, 2016, 08:51:47 am
My understanding is that there is a group of lawmakers outside of Tulsa who do not like Kaiser (liberals are bad) and they threw a huge fit that the parking garage that would be built for the museum would allow BOK employees to park there. They have vowed to fit the museum if this happens and bring it under investigation for "back room deal that benefits a Tulsa booster" to give them free parking, and could result in them trying to defund or block the museum. Parts of this were in the news sometime last year.

Our state legislature just plain sucks. The block of land BOk is donating is worth 2-3 million dollars, that's a lot of parking.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DTowner on May 12, 2016, 08:54:51 am
My understanding is that there is a group of lawmakers outside of Tulsa who do not like Kaiser (liberals are bad) and they threw a huge fit that the parking garage that would be built for the museum would allow BOK employees to park there. They have vowed to fit the museum if this happens and bring it under investigation for "back room deal that benefits a Tulsa booster" to give them free parking, and could result in them trying to defund or block the museum. Parts of this were in the news sometime last year.

Perhaps I’m too cynical after years of watching Tulsa get screwed by the legislature, but I wonder if this effort to derail the OKPOP museum is really due to OKC’s failure to fulfill its obligations to access the latest state bond funding for the Indian Cultural Center in OKC.  It seems like some legislators simply cannot stand the idea of Tulsa getting state money for something if OKC doesn't also get a cut (never mind the 3 previous tranches of state bond funding that boondoggle received that dwarf what OKPOP is receiving).

The parking garage was always disclosed as a key component of this project and was touted as the way in which the museum would be financially self-sufficient.  The real fraud was perpetrated by the backers of the OKC Indian museum who knowingly designed and started construction on something they never had adequate funding to complete.



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on May 12, 2016, 10:12:11 pm
OKC wants OK POP basically, or as dtowner said, the legislature is feeling remorse on the Indian museum debacle.  Too bad they did not see this coming and were too heavily dependent on state funding.  This was a perfect project for the Vison Tulsa package.   Or perhaps too much emphasis was given to Gilcrease.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on May 13, 2016, 07:58:23 am
No surprise.  Our governor and legislature doing this petty BS are the same Clown Show that just cut the Earned Income Tax Credit.  Punishing low income people by taking away the average of about $200 a year that they were getting from it.  While leaving the tax cuts for the richest of the rich in place - letting them keep their extra thousands of dollars a year in tax breaks.  All while gutting the public education system so they can get their outstretched hands on some of the money that will flow due to vouchers, charter schools, and private schools.

And yet, we keep on electing this trash.



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Ibanez on May 13, 2016, 08:03:14 am
Perhaps I’m too cynical after years of watching Tulsa get screwed by the legislature, but I wonder if this effort to derail the OKPOP museum is really due to OKC’s failure to fulfill its obligations to access the latest state bond funding for the Indian Cultural Center in OKC.  It seems like some legislators simply cannot stand the idea of Tulsa getting state money for something if OKC doesn't also get a cut (never mind the 3 previous tranches of state bond funding that boondoggle received that dwarf what OKPOP is receiving).

The parking garage was always disclosed as a key component of this project and was touted as the way in which the museum would be financially self-sufficient.  The real fraud was perpetrated by the backers of the OKC Indian museum who knowingly designed and started construction on something they never had adequate funding to complete.



I really wish Tulsa and parts of Eastern Oklahoma could separate itself from the rest of the state. So tired of seeing our side of the state, Tulsa in particular, get screwed over in favor of OKC.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on May 13, 2016, 09:05:31 am
I really wish Tulsa and parts of Eastern Oklahoma could separate itself from the rest of the state. So tired of seeing our side of the state, Tulsa in particular, get screwed over in favor of OKC.

I really enjoy the fight at the capitol over the $3 million a year in Amtrak funding for OKC. The argument being made actually attempts to gain Tulsa’s support for the train by saying that if the Heartland Flyer didn’t get its subsidy then the Eastern Flyer would never happen. Seriously. The state has been promising that passenger service was coming soon to Tulsa since the Heartland Flyer started in 1999. The last news article I found from last year said the Eastern Flyer was delayed but was going to start in May 2016. Well, it’s May 2016 and predictably, nothing.


Reality is that Tulsa hasn’t had rail service in 50 years and if the state actually cared about that, Tulsa would have service, but we don’t. We don’t have a state university, we don’t have free interstates, we don’t have rail service, the list can go on and on.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on May 13, 2016, 10:41:23 am
I really enjoy the fight at the capitol over the $3 million a year in Amtrak funding for OKC. The argument being made actually attempts to gain Tulsa’s support for the train by saying that if the Heartland Flyer didn’t get its subsidy then the Eastern Flyer would never happen. Seriously. The state has been promising that passenger service was coming soon to Tulsa since the Heartland Flyer started in 1999. The last news article I found from last year said the Eastern Flyer was delayed but was going to start in May 2016. Well, it’s May 2016 and predictably, nothing.


Reality is that Tulsa hasn’t had rail service in 50 years and if the state actually cared about that, Tulsa would have service, but we don’t. We don’t have a state university, we don’t have free interstates, we don’t have rail service, the list can go on and on.



Like the song says.....


And when we say
Yeow! A-YIP-I-O-EE-AY
Were only say-in "you're doing fine Oklahoma
Oklahoma your OK"




Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on May 18, 2016, 09:48:31 am
Update on YMCA lofts:

Quote
Former downtown YMCA building project incorporates old and new
It’s the perfect marriage of old and new elements

People who treasure nostalgia will appreciate the work being done at the former downtown YMCA building at 515 S. Denver Ave.
From repurposed glass, brick and steel to the terra-cotta tile skin, developers behind the property’s roughly $9 million conversion into 79 apartments are using many of the elements that made the structure a residential and recreational staple for generations.
“When you’re talking about being green, the worst thing you can do is tear down a building,” said Shelby Snyder, president of Brickhugger LLC, the project’s developer. “The best thing you can do is work with what you have.”
Snyder on Tuesday took the Tulsa World on a tour of the transformation — which is about two-thirds complete — and the marriage of the old and new is reflected throughout.
One long corridor will incorporate two basketball goals from the Y’s large gymnasium, and two split-level apartments will feature the hardwood (including striping), 25-foot ceilings and a basketball hoop from the smaller gym. Even the scoreboard and white porcelain drinking fountains will remain.
“An existing building for me is more fun to work with — working with all the unique spaces, utilizing some awkward corners for some galley kitchens and things like that,” Snyder said. “We did the same with the Mayo. A lot of our apartments are really unique because of the corners and the way we had to lay out the building.”
The Snyder family has bankrolled some of downtown’s largest restoration and preservation projects, including the Mayo Hotel, Vandever Lofts and the former City Hall, which is now an Aloft hotel. The Snyders and a number of other investors originally bought the vacated YMCA building in 2011 for $625,000.
For the 150,000-square-foot conversion of the 63-year-old Y, about 76,000 square feet are being used for apartments with the rest taken up by common space and parking, said Bob Jack, one of the project’s partners.
The units will range in size from 450 to 2,500 square feet, with the cost per square foot in the $1 to $1.40 range, Snyder said.
One second-floor apartment will have a patio looking onto Sixth Street. The building’s four racquetball courts will be swallowed into three-tiered apartments with doors on each level, Snyder said.
“Basically, we found that a lot of people want to have roommates because it pretty much can split all your expenses,” she said. “So we’re trying to make it where they can still have their own privacy but also be sharing the common spaces like the living room and kitchen.”
Phillips Slaughter Rose, which has partnered with Brickhugger previously, is the architect for the project, which is using historic tax credits to help with funding. Pre-leasing is set for next month and completion for late fall, said Snyder, adding that a perk of the property will be the underground parking.
“Parking downtown is so difficult,” she said. “The biggest struggle is having enough for everybody. We actually have 91 beds in this property and 91 parking spaces. So technically, if everyone wanted a parking space, we would be able to provide it.”

http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/realestate/former-downtown-ymca-building-project-incorporates-old-and-new/article_52cea274-7241-5970-b151-c510543aa090.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/realestate/former-downtown-ymca-building-project-incorporates-old-and-new/article_52cea274-7241-5970-b151-c510543aa090.html)

This place is half a year on since a previous update (http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=21006.330 (http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=21006.330)) and still looks pretty far from finished. That update said it would be finished in May. Slow and steady wins the race I guess. Sounds like they had to do some strange things to retrofit this (racquetball courts to 3-story apartments). Good the parking is below ground!


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on May 18, 2016, 10:50:21 am
The story Channel 6 ran on it last week quoted Snyder as saying pre-leasing would start at the end of June.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: carltonplace on May 18, 2016, 11:04:38 am
The story Channel 6 ran on it last week quoted Snyder as saying pre-leasing would start at the end of June.

This is going to be a cool place to live. I understand that the Olympic pool and basketball court are going to be available, anyone heard different?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on June 02, 2016, 10:56:51 am
Looks like The Boxyard is actually happening.  From my office window you can see they've started moving dirt (sorry for the grainy picture, iphone + distance).  Pretty sure this is the location.  Next door to the Fur Shop, behind Ross Group.  Pretty exciting.

(http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e136/saxmanosu/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsit7hxoa3.jpeg)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: BKDotCom on June 02, 2016, 12:19:56 pm
Looks like The Boxyard is actually happening.  From my office window you can see they've started moving dirt (sorry for the grainy picture, iphone + distance).  Pretty sure this is the location.  Next door to the Fur Shop, behind Ross Group.  Pretty exciting.

Yup
http://www.newson6.com/story/32119144/construction-begins-on-the-boxyard-in-tulsas-east-village


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: davideinstein on June 02, 2016, 09:16:51 pm
Looks like The Boxyard is actually happening.  From my office window you can see they've started moving dirt (sorry for the grainy picture, iphone + distance).  Pretty sure this is the location.  Next door to the Fur Shop, behind Ross Group.  Pretty exciting.

(http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e136/saxmanosu/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsit7hxoa3.jpeg)

Fur Shop is such a killer design.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TheArtist on June 03, 2016, 06:21:32 am
Neat concept, but I didn't realize it was going to be that far off the beaten path.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on June 03, 2016, 07:07:42 am
Neat concept, but I didn't realize it was going to be that far off the beaten path.

Where would you say the beaten path is? It's diagonally one block from 2nd & Elgin (ok two block I guess since you have to walk along orthogonal streets), the epicenter of the Blue Dome district. It's one block from the Urban 8 and the Hartford Commons, and one block past that is the East Village hub. In another couple years, all these little areas will cease to be a disjointed archipelago and will instead be a solid urban fabric. To the extent the Box Yard is off the beaten path (and it isn't) it's beating a new path. This is how urbanism works, incrementally and organically.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on June 03, 2016, 08:05:37 am
Realistically, it would be hard to acquire land that is more "on the beaten path" than this location. Almost everything is spoken for with some kind of plan for it. The few that are not, I have to imagine, have some sort of entanglement keeping them static (regulatory, owner not interested in developing yet, price too high, or ambitious plans waiting in the wings).

Looking at the map, this is smack dab in the middle of a ton of development. Within 3 blocks you have:

A ton of existing businesses:
The fur shop
Fassler hall
Legends
Juniper
Dust Bowl
Dilly Diner
Fleet Feet
Lee's Bicycles
I2e
GuruStu
OK Eq (and Pride!)
East End Pizzeria
a Winery
A theater building
a credit union
Arnies
Woody's
A new Corporate HQ
Albert Gs
McNellies
El Guapos
Rib Crip
A liquor store
Enso
Joe mommas
STG Pizza
Yokozuna
Dozens of units of new condos and apartments
...and a ton of other industries/commercial shops

Within the next 2 years you will have:
A new hotel
A huge parking garage
A hundred new residential units
Tons more retail
New grade A office space

Sometime in the not too distant future you will have:
A HUGE new development by the Snyder family 1 block to the south.
Opportunities on the few remaining lots and under utilized buildings.
And possible another anchor development 2 blocks down the street (the PAC lot).


This is a great, forward thinking placement IMHO. The lot was not used for parking (that is, no current revenue so it probably helped the deal), they didn't tear down an existing structure, it doesn't interfere with the known investors existing operations (by cannibalizing their existing parking, etc.), AND... as you said William, is it is a block off the beaten path so it expands the pedestrian zone.

Go Box Yard Go!


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on June 03, 2016, 08:52:28 am
Amen


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on June 03, 2016, 09:05:22 am
Neat concept, but I didn't realize it was going to be that far off the beaten path.

Not really off the beaten path when you consider all the development going on to the north, south, and east of the project.  It’s actually kind of an epicenter of all that new development.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TheArtist on June 03, 2016, 09:25:20 am
I got ya.  I was just thinking of several factors retail wise.

1.  It will be several years till many of those things happen and the retail that is going in there now will have to "hang in there", though of course they will get a big boost right off because of the newness factor and all.

2.  Dwelling Spaces is one of the anchor tenants and I would say their current location would be more in the center of things than this new one.

3.  The club next door will not be good for retail for it will be a dead spot during the day and mostly kick in late at night and they aren't the buying crowd, which is one reason its hard even in the Blue Dome district now because the late crowd is not as much a buying crowd.

4.  "Contiguous" retail frontage is VERY important for downtown retail.  And there are a lot of gaps in-between this development and others, for instance the Architecture firm that will be right in front of the box yard "actually its facing the back of it".   The optimal thing for retail is for it to be facing more retail across the street, in many cities that are trying to nurture retail in an urban environment for instance, they make it illegal to have office on the ground floor in their retail corridors.

Pedestrians are finicky.  My sales have gone up over 40% just by moving one block over, on the same street!  You can step out the door and see both locations from the other.  But the old location was near a small gap in the urban fabric which made it much tougher.

Also that new living, unless it has retail on the ground floor can also act as a gap.  That development on 3rd street, Urban 8,... another pedestrian gap. 16 people or so that will live in it will not be enough to boost sales nearby, but that development is a big enough gap to hurt retail on either side or facing it.  Especially once competition kicks in.  

If Mods and the Candy Castle moved away from being opposite me, or Jimmy Johns or Elote being almost next door left.... it would be death to my business.  I will do whatever I can to try and help the building owners in my area get other tenants across from and next to me that are retail/restaurant so that my business will do better.  If more office goes in, or a club thats only open at night, not any good for my business.

The other thing I noticed is that there seems to only be a "front" to the Boxyard and lots of blank walls on many other sides which will hamper pedestrian activity.

Again, hopefully more retail/restaurant will go in immediately nearby, but that will take time and there are already some "settled in" gaps like the Ross group offices directly right across.  That right there puts this retail development at a competitive disadvantage to one that has retail/ retaurant opposite it.

Pedestrians are finicky, downtown is not like suburbia.  I hear the prices for the Boxyard are a WHOLE lot more than what I am paying in my location, which though not great, is currently doable.  And I do hope that both locations will get better.  Just have to be very careful at this point of what else goes in and where.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on June 03, 2016, 02:36:26 pm
Points well-taken.  With multiple tenants moving in and the nature of it being made from repurposed shipping containers, I think this will have great tourism interest and be a shopping destination.  Once Santa Fe Square is complete, there’s a good ring of retail just a block north.  I get that there are gaps in retail in that area, but I think they can make it work.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on June 06, 2016, 03:51:17 pm
Old Channel 6 building will be redeveloped.  Part of it will be demolished.  More good news for downtown.

http://www.newson6.com/story/32157082/big-changes-coming-to-another-location-in-downtown-tulsa


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on June 07, 2016, 08:26:32 am
Always fun to be surprised by something like that I didn't know was coming.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on June 07, 2016, 08:32:21 am
This is dumb: http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/michael-overall-someday-tulsa-will-face-dilemma-of-too-much/article_f0802d6e-1ed6-5783-8d8d-ca58ebd61dde.html


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on June 07, 2016, 09:26:53 am
This is dumb: http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/michael-overall-someday-tulsa-will-face-dilemma-of-too-much/article_f0802d6e-1ed6-5783-8d8d-ca58ebd61dde.html


Throwaway op-ed.  Michael must have been one story short to get his paycheck.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: erfalf on June 07, 2016, 10:32:30 am
Throwaway op-ed.  Michael must have been one story short to get his paycheck.

Everyone of his pieces has been terrible. Nothing new here. Someone on this board (in 5 minutes) could write better downtown pieces than he does.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on June 13, 2016, 05:22:11 pm

I see the TDA has issued a RFP on the lots between Rusty Crane the the stadium:
http://www.tulsadevelopmentauthority.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Block-44-RFP.pdf


OKPOP Museum submitted a proposal (http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/okpop-museum-submits-proposal-to-build-on-land-across-from/article_476dea6e-4b63-5c2e-9ce3-97648ae87dcf.html) to the TDA for that site.  I wonder what happened to the mixed-use proposal  (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/realestate/brady-district-mixed-use-structure-planned-by-developer/article_f013439a-d81b-56f2-bfdb-bc24910284ac.html) for hotel/retail/office/underground parking announced in July 2013 ... discussed on the "New Hotel in the Brady/Greenwood area" (http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=20125.0) topic thread.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on June 13, 2016, 05:55:26 pm
The old mixed use/hotel developer couldn't deliver.  He'd contracted the parcel from the Tulsa Development Authority to build on it many years ago in the late 2000s.  He never delivered though and the land was vacant.

If my read is right the TDA got wise after some not-so-good deals back in the day and included a clawback cause if the developer doesn't build in a certain time frame.  I think the TDA gave the guy like 6 or 7 years and eventually gave up and took the land back.  There was an RFP on the site a few months back from the TDA and it looks like OKPOP was the best proposal.

Was that a Wil Wilkins project which was not completed or even started or someone else?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: johrasephoenix on June 13, 2016, 06:22:44 pm
I think it was the Wilkins project.  They've filed all kinds of lawsuits against the TDA trying to hold onto the parcel.  But there's only so long you can let prime ballpark real estate sit empty


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on June 13, 2016, 06:36:09 pm

Was that a Wil Wilkins project which was not completed or even started or someone else?


It was a Wilkins project.  I think johrasephoenix is correct in that Will Wilkins and his mom could not deliver, but completely incorrect about the timing.

In August 2008, the TDA ended negotiations with the Wilkinses (http://www.tulsaworld.com/archives/tulsa-development-authority-ends-negotiations-on-project-in-proposed-ballpark/article_a1556514-bf96-505d-911a-4185bc80c6a9.html), so johrasephoenix's read that "the TDA gave the guy like 6 or 7 years and eventually gave up" is 100% wrong.

According to the July 26, 2013 World article (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/realestate/brady-district-mixed-use-structure-planned-by-developer/article_f013439a-d81b-56f2-bfdb-bc24910284ac.html):

Quote

"The [mixed-use development] announcement marks the Wilkinses' second attempt to build on the property. They had entered into negotiations with TDC [sic] for the property in 2008, but the TDC [sic] terminated negotiations months later. The property was within the area earmarked for the master plan for what would become ONEOK Field.

The Wilkinses filed suit alleging breach of contract, and TDC [sic] approved a $46,000 offer to settle in 2010."


Something must have happened since July 2013.  Perhaps the Wilkinses could not put the deal together, but it has been less than three years, not six or seven.  The Wilkinses wanted to develop the property about eight years ago, before the current ballpark location was proposed.  The TDA suddenly changed their minds, and the TDA chose to let prime ballpark real estate sit empty rather than continuing negotiations with the Wilkinses.  


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on July 12, 2016, 06:39:00 pm
And now another proposal for the half block on the west side of Elgin between Mathew B. Reconciliation Way and Archer Street (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1590328,-95.9882408,3a,75y,292.77h,88.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svU40Bc-g80KvoDUZrtP48g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656):

(http://mediaweb.fox23.com/photo/2016/07/12/bcfranklin169_20160712154841811_5403363_ver1.0_640_360.jpg)

Tulsa World article (http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/nine-story-commercial-building-contends-with-okpop-for-prime-spot/article_d2450de1-a380-5516-a4da-7da4dca1289d.html)

News on 6 link (http://www.newson6.com/story/32426360/tulsa-development-authority-looks-at-okpop-museum-retail-development-for-brady-district)

Fox 23 News link (http://www.fox23.com/news/developers-fight-for-proposed-okpop-museum-lot/397940810)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: godboko71 on July 12, 2016, 06:53:10 pm
And now another proposal for the half block on the west side of Elgin between Mathew B. Reconciliation Way and Archer Street (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1590328,-95.9882408,3a,75y,292.77h,88.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svU40Bc-g80KvoDUZrtP48g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656):


Tulsa World article (http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/nine-story-commercial-building-contends-with-okpop-for-prime-spot/article_d2450de1-a380-5516-a4da-7da4dca1289d.html)

News on 6 link (http://www.newson6.com/story/32426360/tulsa-development-authority-looks-at-okpop-museum-retail-development-for-brady-district)

Fox 23 News link (http://www.fox23.com/news/developers-fight-for-proposed-okpop-museum-lot/397940810)

I would rather this site for this proposed commercial development than the OKPOP Museum and people get over the fact the other land OKPOP could use is owned by BOK. I would stipulate that if this commercial development project could not be shovel ready within a year that TDA could withdraw the sale of land to this developer and pursue new proposals.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TheArtist on July 12, 2016, 10:15:21 pm
I think it would be a good spot for the Ok Pop museum.

If I am thinking "long term/where would I put stuff if I could plan out things"...

1.  It would be nice to have a couple of attraction type things in one area to maximize future parking and transit stops.  
2.  Retail right across from the ballpark, well I would not put a shop there for the ballpark is a dead zone most of the time and I would rather have my shop/restaurant across from more shopping/restaurants.
3.  Combining the above two.  By having both attractions in the same area if you strategically place parking structures, say only a block or two away and THEN that connecting corridor has shops along it, THEN that would help the retail.  And having both there would maximize use of a transit stop being nearby, and retail being nearby as well.

Just to give an example.  I noticed in London that often you would see, say a large museum, near a main transit stop.  Between the transit stop and the museum/attractions, would be a retail corridor.

Which of all of that came first, who knows.  But the basic "logic" of it still worked on many levels.

People would hopefully go to an actual retail corridor in the area regardless, but by having the ballpark and museum nearby, and with parking and transit also appropriately placed, that would help the retail corridor be much stronger lively and vital.  

But this is Tulsa so lets watch and see how they screw up all those opportunities.

Having said that though, there would likely be little harm done if the office/retail development went in there.  It just won't be any big deal and the retail, if there is any after a while, would likely struggle and be lackluster.  But, the development would still add at least "something" to the area and  someplace else downtown will work out for the OK Pop.

I wish we would work on nurturing/planning "pedestrian flows" downtown as much as we plan development/infrastructure around "traffic flows".  I would love for us to figure out how to create a "pedestrian highway" downtown by placing the optimal "things" in the right spots. I wonder if the TDA is even thinking about this? 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: SXSW on July 12, 2016, 11:12:32 pm
Something mixed-use would be better for this site.  Hopefully the final design has more brick.  BOK is going to donate their parking lot, why turn them down?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: dsjeffries on July 13, 2016, 07:25:55 am
Something mixed-use would be better for this site.  Hopefully the final design has more brick.  BOK is going to donate their parking lot, why turn them down?

"It became problematic because the owner, Bank of Oklahoma Financial, offered to donate the land if slots in the project’s planned parking garage were reserved for BOK, whose controlling stockholder is George Kaiser. This created legal and political difficulties OHS and GKFF want to avoid." (Tulsa World (http://"http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/nine-story-commercial-building-contends-with-okpop-for-prime-spot/article_d2450de1-a380-5516-a4da-7da4dca1289d.html"))


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on July 13, 2016, 07:37:07 am
Rumor has it OK Pop is also considering the lot across from 46 Bar, directly south of the Brady Theater. That would serve as a neat bookend to Brady and bring the surrounding empty/under used buildings under pressure to develop sooner rather than later.  The lot across from the Ballpark is already under pressure to develop sooner.

I have no strong opinion on any of the three sites for the OK Pop, but I think the original BOK location would be best for the reasons mentioned above. Let commercial interests take advantage of the Ballpark traffic. The museum is a draw unto itself.

That said, I think OK Pop gets the nod on this land over the new development. It isn't shovel ready and needs a 40% pre-sale/lease before it can start. That's a lot unless there is already an anchor lined up. So TDA locks up the land, then sits and hopes the deal happens. The Museum is funded and ready to rock. Just based on that, I think the TDA gives it to the Museum.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: SXSW on July 13, 2016, 10:05:24 am
Does anyone have a rendering or site plan for the museum on this site?  The only one I've ever seen is the red one with the massive video board and Leon Russell. 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on July 13, 2016, 10:11:52 am
Does anyone have a rendering or site plan for the museum on this site?  The only one I've ever seen is the red one with the massive video board and Leon Russell. 

(http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/images/10971621_G.jpg)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Townsend on July 13, 2016, 11:52:48 am
(http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/images/10971621_G.jpg)

Sweet God...seriously?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: erfalf on July 13, 2016, 12:45:39 pm
Sweet God...seriously?

This literally went through my head when I saw it.

(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view5/3818911/sweet-fancy-moses-o.gif)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Ibanez on July 13, 2016, 01:13:07 pm
(http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/images/10971621_G.jpg)
 

Sponsored by Lego?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Hoss on July 13, 2016, 01:15:36 pm
Sweet God...seriously?

Agreed.  That.Is.Horrific.

This is the view I'm used to and like.

(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t35.0-12/11294436_10204441218373425_1648318465_o.jpg?oh=3ba4330726bb7e32b30a8c325456b037&oe=5788573E)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: ZYX on July 13, 2016, 01:15:44 pm
That is a gorgeous building. It would look great in the abundance of skyline pictures taken from seats in the ballpark.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Hoss on July 13, 2016, 01:17:52 pm
That is a gorgeous building. It would look great in the abundance of skyline pictures taken from seats in the ballpark.

To each their own, but I cannot agree with that assessment.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cbs on July 13, 2016, 01:25:25 pm
If OKPOP turns out like that rendering I'm predicting all-out brawls in the streets over whether it's the most beautiful building ever vs an absolute disgrace.

I'll be stuck in the middle.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Weatherdemon on July 13, 2016, 01:41:41 pm
(http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/images/10971621_G.jpg)

Me likey!


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: erfalf on July 13, 2016, 01:59:21 pm
Will go well with this.

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/03/07/26643FE500000578-2984355-image-a-12_1425758437753.jpg)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Ibanez on July 13, 2016, 03:14:11 pm
Sure, build the big duct tape tornado to go with our stainless steel cinammon roll and the bizarre OKPOP building. Then if we could get the big Indian built somewhere inside the IDL, Tulsa would have to be tops in the country for the most pancakes architecture within a downtown area.



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: SXSW on July 13, 2016, 04:01:47 pm
I like it, though the scale seems off for the Brady District.  Something 4 stories would be less overpowering than 6 stories as shown. 

Does any part of downtown have an architectural review board?  If not are there any parts that you think should?  I know OKC has one for Bricktown to keep that same scale and aesthetic, same goes for Lodo in Denver.  Is it worth keeping the Brady looking like a brick warehouse district even with the new development or should it not be restricted?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Red Arrow on July 13, 2016, 04:34:11 pm
(http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/images/10971621_G.jpg)

My first impression of the POP Center was wow, how ugly can it get.

That is still my impression.  It would look good somewhere where no one in the Tulsa Metro would ever have to look at it.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on July 13, 2016, 04:45:35 pm
I like it too, the exterior surfaces are going to be important to the overall success of the building.

Not everything has to look the same.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on July 13, 2016, 05:11:25 pm


(http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/images/10971621_G.jpg)


Sweet God...seriously?


So, Townsend, from that vantage point, I'm guessing that you (and Ibanez and Hoss and erfalf and Red Arrow) do NOT feel as though the OKPOP museum building is giving you a hug across right field?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on July 13, 2016, 05:14:26 pm

My first impression of the POP Center was wow, how ugly can it get.

That is still my impression.  It would look good somewhere where no one in the Tulsa Metro would ever have to look at it.
 

Easy solution:  Increase the setback distance from Elgin (by a few miles).    :)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Ibanez on July 13, 2016, 05:15:21 pm
Sweet God...seriously?



So, Townsend, from that vantage point, I'm guessing that you (and Ibanez and Hoss and erfalf and Red Arrow) do NOT feel as though the OKPOP museum building is giving you a hug across right field?

No, that building is a punch right to the baby maker.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Hoss on July 13, 2016, 06:17:56 pm
Sweet God...seriously?



So, Townsend, from that vantage point, I'm guessing that you (and Ibanez and Hoss and erfalf and Red Arrow) do NOT feel as though the OKPOP museum building is giving you a hug across right field?

It looks like a giant Lego monster.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TheArtist on July 13, 2016, 08:21:17 pm
I love it.  ;D

But yes, the kind of finishes will make a big difference and also interested to see how the first floor meets the sidewalk (lots of windows versus blank walls etc).  When you have a museum like this you will have a lot of blank wall space somewhere in order to have all the neat displays and such inside, but you don't have to have blank walls all the way around at ground level.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: johrasephoenix on July 13, 2016, 09:15:52 pm
Looks pretty interesting.  But William's right - what matters for the experience of "being" in the Brady is how it interacts at the street level - which at this point we don't know.  

It's also worth noting that the folks backing the Oklahoma Historical Society have a pretty solid track record of pulling off awesome projects.  Universal Ford, Philbrook downtown, AHHA, Guthrie Green, are all pretty awesome.  I'd lean towards benefit of the doubt.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on July 13, 2016, 09:39:01 pm
I love it.  ;D

But yes, the kind of finishes will make a big difference and also interested to see how the first floor meets the sidewalk (lots of windows versus blank walls etc).  When you have a museum like this you will have a lot of blank wall space somewhere in order to have all the neat displays and such inside, but you don't have to have blank walls all the way around at ground level.

Yeah, I want the base, the first floor, to be brick and glazing right to the sidewalk like the older buildings in the area, and have the modern elements and surfaces grow out of and above the brick. It has real potential.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: ZYX on July 13, 2016, 09:45:16 pm
Yeah, I want the base, the first floor, to be brick and glazing right to the sidewalk like the older buildings in the area, and have the modern elements and surfaces grow out of and above the brick. It has real potential.

I think that's how it is currently designed. At least, that's how it appears from the renderings above.

It's a (or appears to be a) very nice building representing an architectural style not really seen in Tulsa. It's certainly much better looking than the other proposal.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Red Arrow on July 13, 2016, 10:19:04 pm
Easy solution:  Increase the setback distance from Elgin (by a few miles).    :)

OK, just as long as those few miles don't put it anywhere near Bixby.



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Red Arrow on July 13, 2016, 10:34:19 pm
So, Townsend, from that vantage point, I'm guessing that you (and Ibanez and Hoss and erfalf and Red Arrow) do NOT feel as though the OKPOP museum building is giving you a hug across right field?

To me it has all the grace of a Pontiac Aztec.



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on July 14, 2016, 08:05:36 am
I think that's how it is currently designed. At least, that's how it appears from the renderings above.

It's a (or appears to be a) very nice building representing an architectural style not really seen in Tulsa. It's certainly much better looking than the other proposal.

It's a very European style merging old and new.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on July 14, 2016, 02:58:20 pm

I like [the OKPOP design], though the scale seems off for the Brady District.  Something 4 stories would be less overpowering than 6 stories as shown.
 
Is it worth keeping the Brady looking like a brick warehouse district even with the new development or should it not be restricted?
 


Something mixed-use would be better for this site.  Hopefully the final design has more brick.


Hmmm....

Four stories, mixed-use with retail at sidewalk level, more brick to blend with the existing warehouse district...

Something like this proposal (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/tulsabusiness/business_news/partnership-to-build-lofts-retail-in-brady-district/article_a7af0975-3ead-59fc-9101-977a9d5e949f.html)?



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on July 14, 2016, 03:21:12 pm
Will go well with this.

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/03/07/26643FE500000578-2984355-image-a-12_1425758437753.jpg)

you know, if you take some sand from the riverbed, and built a couple of arched flat sided mounds on either side with a shallow valley in the middle............


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: carltonplace on July 15, 2016, 09:56:23 am
I think it's amazing that our downtown has progressed to the point that we get to argue about what goes where instead of begging and wishing that someone would just build something already.

I like the OK POP design, it is iconic and unique, but I really want it to be next the AHHA for simple arts district cohesion.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on July 15, 2016, 03:32:21 pm
I think it's amazing that our downtown has progressed to the point that we get to argue about what goes where instead of begging and wishing that someone would just build something already.

I like the OK POP design, it is iconic and unique, but I really want it to be next the AHHA for simple arts district cohesion.

I agree that is a better location.

Now I don't like the design of the BC Franklin building or the fact it's mostly office space. It's a great idea to honor Mr Franklin but that building is pretty ugly and a building that large and monolithic would block views of and from the stadium. Plus that much office space in that location in the middle of an entertainment district that would be dead at night and on weekends is a bad idea. There are other, better, lots in Greenwood for this building, hopefully with a little better design. Really, both projects would be better elsewhere. That lot should be hotel and/or residential space above commercial.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: davideinstein on July 15, 2016, 03:44:05 pm
I think it's amazing that our downtown has progressed to the point that we get to argue about what goes where instead of begging and wishing that someone would just build something already.

I like the OK POP design, it is iconic and unique, but I really want it to be next the AHHA for simple arts district cohesion.

True story.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on July 15, 2016, 09:29:21 pm

There are other, better, lots in Greenwood for this [proposed B.C. Franklin] building, hopefully with a little better design. Really, both [the B.C. Franklin and the OKPOP] would be better elsewhere. That lot [along Elgin across from ONEOK Field] should be hotel and/or residential space above commercial.
 

2008 proposal:  The Lofts @ 120 - residential above commercial (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/tulsabusiness/business_news/partnership-to-build-lofts-retail-in-brady-district/article_a7af0975-3ead-59fc-9101-977a9d5e949f.html)

2013 proposal:  hotel rooms above office above retail above parking (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/realestate/brady-district-mixed-use-structure-planned-by-developer/article_f013439a-d81b-56f2-bfdb-bc24910284ac.html)

Housing is what the district needs to become a true neighborhood, not a museum about popular culture, and not a nine-story building containing mostly office space.  Housing should be woven into the district wherever feasible and possible, especially wherever parking garages are built.

Of the four proposals I've seen for the TDA Elgin site since 2008, I think The Lofts @ 120 is still the best.

OKPOP would work better on the BOK parking lot site along Archer.  It's a waste of the TDA Elgin site to construct a six-story museum tower with large areas of blank walls facing ONEOK Field.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on July 15, 2016, 09:45:21 pm
2008 proposal:  The Lofts @ 120 - residential above commercial (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/tulsabusiness/business_news/partnership-to-build-lofts-retail-in-brady-district/article_a7af0975-3ead-59fc-9101-977a9d5e949f.html)

2013 proposal:  hotel rooms above office above retail above parking (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/realestate/brady-district-mixed-use-structure-planned-by-developer/article_f013439a-d81b-56f2-bfdb-bc24910284ac.html)

Housing is what the district needs to become a true neighborhood, not a museum about popular culture, and not a nine-story building containing mostly office space.  Housing should be woven into the district wherever feasible and possible, especially wherever parking garages are built.

Of the four proposals I've seen for the TDA Elgin site since 2008, I think The Lofts @ 120 is still the best.

OKPOP would work better on the BOK parking lot site along Archer.  It's a waste of the TDA Elgin site to construct a six-story museum tower with large areas of blank walls facing ONEOK Field.
I agree, Pop needs to be at the original location and the Franklin building should be either next to the train tracks (no one wants freight trains passing 50' from their bed at 2:00 am) or maybe even north of the IDL on some of the empty OSU land. North of the IDL would still be a walkable office from a residence in the Brady, which is good.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on July 15, 2016, 10:41:06 pm

Rumor has it OK Pop is also considering the lot across from 46 Bar, directly south of the Brady Theater. That would serve as a neat bookend to Brady and bring the surrounding empty/under used buildings under pressure to develop sooner rather than later.  The lot across from the Ballpark is already under pressure to develop sooner.

I have no strong opinion on any of the three sites for the OK Pop, but I think the original BOK location would be best for the reasons mentioned above. Let commercial interests take advantage of the Ballpark traffic. The museum is a draw unto itself.


I think the BOK parking lot location is the best (of the three you mentioned).  According to the Tulsa World, the Oklahoma Historical Society and the George Kaiser Family Foundation want to avoid creating "legal and political difficulties" with a land-for-dedicated-parking swap.

My suggestion:  BOK could split its parking lot and sell a portion on the east side to OKPOP while retaining a portion on the west side for BOK parking and for future mixed-use development.  A simple 60-40 split would provide 54,000 sq ft for OKPOP (which is 28% more land than the TDA Elgin Avenue site).  36,000 square feet would be reserved for BOK parking and future development. 

Assuming, for the sake of this discussion, that the Tulsa County Assessor's fair market values are truly "fair" and proportional, the value of 60% of BOK's parking lot would be $687,000 (or $194,000 less than the value of TDA's Elgin site).  28% more land for $194,000 less sounds like a good deal to me (for a public museum operated by the financially pinched State of Oklahoma).

The Artist mentioned that museums require generous expanses of blank wall space for displays.  That's correct, and the BOK parking lot site would allow opportunities for blank walls and a parking garage to face the railroad tracks and the Cincinnati bridge abutment.  More active and open facades could face the streets.  With a simple 60-40 split, OKPOP would have 180 feet of frontage along Archer and 300 feet along Cincinnati.  I think the slope of Cincinnati would provide fairly easy access to more than one level of a parking garage.  Any vehicular entries/exits along Cincinnati would work well with the one-way traffic as it is now, and access points wouldn't be affected very much if the City wanted to convert to two-way traffic in the future (because the west lanes adjacent to the garage still would be south-bound lanes).

Housing would fit nicely on BOK's 40% of the block, along Boston, perhaps with some retail space at the corner of Archer.  Depending on how much parking BOK wants/needs, it could be in a garage below and behind the housing.  It would make sense for BOK to share its parking garage with the housing above, because BOK's workforce demand will peak during the daytime Mon-Fri, when the demand for residential parking is lowest.  Housing would fit nicely along Archer, on the upper stories of OKPOP, as well.  Apartments would provide "eyes on the street" and help utilize the OKPOP parking garage more efficiently.  Some OKPOP employees might choose to live there, walk a few feet to work, walk a few feet to restaurants, and walk four blocks to Reasor's in the PAC development on Third Street.  Who knows?



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: johrasephoenix on July 16, 2016, 08:38:13 am
The state legislators are really looking a gift horse in the mouth when they nixed the BOK land gift...

Can that much new, Class A office space get pre-leased?  Class A rents at the Williams Tower II & III are $16ish/sf (mortgage all paid off) and its hard for new construction to compete with that.  Do we have any big anchor corporate tenants looking to move downtown from the burbs or South Tulsa?  It's kind of robbing Peter to pay Paul if we move one big corporate tenant from one downtown skyscraper to another. 

That said, I hear there is unmet demand for Class A office downtown especially in the Brady.  But unless they can prelease it nothing is going to get built. 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on July 16, 2016, 03:53:07 pm

The state legislators are really looking a gift horse in the mouth when they nixed the BOK land gift...


It wasn't really a "gift" offer, but an exchange of land for BOK parking spaces in OKPOP's future garage.

The OHS's and the GKFF's apprehension about the "gift" (or trade) is understandable, in my opinion.

However, if BOK sold a portion of its parking lot to the OHS at a fair market value (or less), then leased spaces in the OKPOP garage at a fair market rate (or higher), that would be better than a wink and nod "gift."  Also, if BOK kept a portion of its parking lot for BOK use, then BOK would have some surface parking, as they do now.  A separate BOK garage could be built later.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: johrasephoenix on July 21, 2016, 02:55:16 pm
Is that Residence Inn at 5th & Boulder by Anish Hotels still happening?  It looks like they've laid the foundation but I walk by there all the time and never see anyone on the site...  The construction fence has literally fallen over and nobody has even set it back up.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on July 25, 2016, 08:48:58 am


Is that Residence Inn at 5th & Boulder by Anish Hotels still happening?  It looks like they've laid the foundation but I walk by there all the time and never see anyone on the site...  The construction fence has literally fallen over and nobody has even set it back up.


I'm not a hotel construction expert, self-appointed or otherwise, but I walk by 5th & Boulder frequently.  Did you mean 5th & Denver or 5th & Cheyenne?  I'm not aware of any hotel construction at 5th & Boulder.

This morning I saw about eight men on the construction site near 5th & Cheyenne, but I don't know what work they were doing there -- preparing for some concrete* placement, perhaps.

*Note:  I'm not a concrete expert, self-appointed or otherwise.  However, I do know the difference between contraction and expansion.  Also, I know the purpose of control joints (not to be confused with expansion joints, which are not the same as control joints).
  


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: LeGenDz on July 25, 2016, 02:56:06 pm
You're right. The hotel is on 5th and Cheyenne.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: LandArchPoke on July 27, 2016, 03:52:34 pm
Is that Residence Inn at 5th & Boulder by Anish Hotels still happening?  It looks like they've laid the foundation but I walk by there all the time and never see anyone on the site...  The construction fence has literally fallen over and nobody has even set it back up.

There has been people walking around on this site the last several days again finally. I'm assuming it's probably a timing issue of when they can start going vertical/bringing in materials for staging until the YMCA project wraps up - which that date has been pushed back, and pushed back, and pushed back. That's my best guess.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on July 29, 2016, 12:14:48 pm
Quote
Fifth Street extension opens downtown at Civic Center plaza
The long-planned and long-awaited Fifth Street extension into the Civic Center plaza will open to traffic Friday afternoon.
The project has been looked at for years to give better access to the plaza's Tulsa County Courthouse, Aloft Tulsa Downtown Hotel and Tulsa Central Library, which also has a long-awaited grand re-opening that is still pending.
The West Fifth Street extension is a two-way, two-lane concrete street with a roundabout at Elwood Avenue, according to a press release.
The roadway is built above the existing parking garage and has five-minute parking drop-off areas in front of the courthouse and library, according to the release.
Driveways connected to the road also lead to a new parking garage for the library and the Aloft hotel.
As part of the $5.9 million project, the supporting columns underneath the plaza have been strengthened to support traffic including fire trucks.
The project was funded through multiple sources including the city, the 2008 Fix Our Streets tax package, Tulsa County, Tulsa City-County Library and the Aloft Hotel.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/fifth-street-extension-opens-downtown-at-civic-center-plaza/article_133f0a3a-ed7c-54eb-b957-b57b60e15adc.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/fifth-street-extension-opens-downtown-at-civic-center-plaza/article_133f0a3a-ed7c-54eb-b957-b57b60e15adc.html)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on August 05, 2016, 08:37:56 am
Quote
Open records claim complicates OKPOP, office building developments

An 8-year-old dispute between a Tulsa builder and the Tulsa Development Authority could put the skids to plans for the Oklahoma Museum of Popular Culture and a competing proposal for city-owned land near ONEOK Field.
Will Wilkins, his mother Cecilia Wilkins and their companies Novus Homes and W3 Development, have asked a Tulsa County District Court judge to void actions stemming from an April 7 request for proposal issued by TDA.
The suit could delay a decision on about a half-block on North Elgin Avenue, between Archer and Brady streets, and could put a proposal by the Wilkinses back into play.
The April 7 action resulted in two proposals, both of which were heard at TDA’s July meeting. The Oklahoma Historical Society wants to build the so-called OKPOP museum on the site, while Houston developer Michael Smith envisions a nine-story commercial building.
The Wilkinses are challenging the process by which those proposals were solicited, and ultimately want their own plans for the property reconsidered.
The city and the Wilkinses have wrangled over the site since 2008, when efforts to build a downtown ballpark shifted abruptly from an area several blocks south to the current location.
At that time, the TDA canceled a contract with the Wilkinses to develop the property, and said it and other real estate surrounding the ballpark would be bought up by a trust formed for that purpose.
The Wilkinses sued the city and then-mayor Kathy Taylor, charging that Taylor improperly intervened in TDA decisions related to the property. The Wilkinses’ lawsuit prevented the ballpark trust from acquiring the surrounding land as planned, and a 2013 settlement included a stipulation that the Wilkinses’ be granted another development contract for the site.
In late 2015, according to court documents, the TDA notified the Wilkinses they were in default of that agreement, and in March voted to terminate it.
The Wilkinses disputed the default finding, and were granted a hearing on April 7 to present financing arrangements for a $25 million mixed-use development.
The TDA rejected the proposal, and voted to issue a new request for proposals for the property.
The Wilkinses’ suit alleges that vote violated the state Open Records Act because it was not listed as a potential action item on that day’s agenda.
The agenda did include an item for possible action authorizing TDA staff to prepare a request for proposal on the property.
“Our ultimate goal is to hold the TDA accountable,” Will Wilkins said Thursday. “We want the earlier actions invalidated, and we want to make them do it the right way.”
By voting to issue requests for proposals instead of authorizing staff to prepare RFPs, Wilkins said, the TDA effectively shortened the process by at least a month and caught potential developers off-guard.
Wilkins declined to say whether he thought the move was intended to aid the OKPOP project, but in 2008 he had strong words for the George Kaiser Family Foundation and other nonprofit organizations that essentially ramrodded the ballpark project.
The same coalition is supportive of OKPOP, although its precise participation is unclear.
Some $25 million in state revenue bonds have been pledged to the museum.
Representatives of the TDA did not respond to requests for comment on Thursday.


http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/open-records-claim-complicates-okpop-office-building-developments/article_02a3b43d-6cc5-5eda-a8e5-c37bc97a3c0c.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/open-records-claim-complicates-okpop-office-building-developments/article_02a3b43d-6cc5-5eda-a8e5-c37bc97a3c0c.html)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on August 05, 2016, 08:42:09 am
Quote
Opening of Tulsa's renovated Central Library within sight as preparations begin
Preparations begin for main facility downtown to reopen after update.

Patrons of the Tulsa City-County Library will see some changes in the next month as preparations begin for the reopening of the Central Library on Oct. 1.
Since the Central Library closed in the fall of 2013 for renovation, the Librarium at 11th Street and Denver Avenue has served as temporary housing for a downtown branch. Collection materials will be moved from the Librarium on Aug. 22, but it will remain open for computer access and pickup of hold items.
The Librarium will officially close at 5 p.m. Sept. 2.
The $55 million Central Library is set to be the jewel of the city-county library system, with improvements ranging from energy-saving utility systems to expanded learning centers and a Starbucks coffee shop. The funding came from $25 million in property taxes and other public funding, and the rest from private donors.
Other changes during the transition of moving into the new library are:
Genealogy Center will be located at Hardesty Regional Library, 8316 E. 93rd St.
The Research Center is not available. Library officials suggest patrons with research needs call the AskUs Hotline at 918-549-7323 for information or check with the McFarlin Library at the University of Tulsa.
Unrelated to the Central Library move is the temporary closing of the Peggy Helmerich Library, 5131 E. 91st St., for renovation. The facility is expected to be shut down for several weeks. Items placed on hold to that location will be moved to the Hardesty Regional Library.
The Oct. 1 grand opening of the Central Library will feature family activities such as musical performances, interactive learning centers for children and demonstrations of the digital learning lab and the maker-space area.



http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/state/opening-of-tulsa-s-renovated-central-library-within-sight-as/article_0ce2141b-5e38-55be-80c1-d491bdd1c793.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/state/opening-of-tulsa-s-renovated-central-library-within-sight-as/article_0ce2141b-5e38-55be-80c1-d491bdd1c793.html)

Finally! Another Tulsa construction project that took far longer than it should have. 3 years is just ridiculous. Is that just how Tulsa construction companies do business? Is it the developers? Or maybe all of them work together to make each and every construction project take far longer than it should.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on August 05, 2016, 08:51:33 am

Finally! Another Tulsa construction project that took far longer than it should have. 3 years is just ridiculous. Is that just how Tulsa construction companies do business? Is it the developers? Or maybe all of them work together to make each and every construction project take far longer than it should.




It's a means to level employment - keep from peaks and valleys.  ODOT and OTA use it for road construction - if you have a little bit of mediocre road work, just slopping some asphalt down over a few miles at a time, then you have to keep doing it forever.  If the job was completed in a timely fashion and done to last, ya might not get another one for quite a while.


Aerospace doesn't use that - there are some big contracts going on at Tinker AFB and every company associated with the base, as well as AF, is trying to hire engineers.  And at the end of the contracts, thousands will face layoff.  Probably a 3 to 5 year cycle....based on past experience.








Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TheArtist on August 05, 2016, 04:00:02 pm
Anyone know anything about the rumor a chain movie theater is coming to downtown Tulsa?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on August 05, 2016, 06:58:02 pm
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/state/opening-of-tulsa-s-renovated-central-library-within-sight-as/article_0ce2141b-5e38-55be-80c1-d491bdd1c793.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/state/opening-of-tulsa-s-renovated-central-library-within-sight-as/article_0ce2141b-5e38-55be-80c1-d491bdd1c793.html)

Finally! Another Tulsa construction project that took far longer than it should have. 3 years is just ridiculous. Is that just how Tulsa construction companies do business? Is it the developers? Or maybe all of them work together to make each and every construction project take far longer than it should.

Flintco may be based in Tulsa, but they are far from just a local construction company. They are a large regional builder with offices across this part of the US. They aren't as large as Manhattan, but they are a large company.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: davideinstein on August 05, 2016, 08:30:59 pm
Anyone know anything about the rumor a chain movie theater is coming to downtown Tulsa?

From 2-3 years ago. What did you hear?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cynical on August 05, 2016, 08:35:49 pm
There is possibly a deal in place to relax the pace in return for a lower price. Around 1970, TU tore down old Kendall Hall and began construction on its replacement. After excavation of the basement, it sat in limbo for so long we began calling it "Kendall Hole." The explanation I heard was that TU had a deal with the contractor that in return for a reduced rate, surplus crew would be used to build the building. If there weren't any surplus crew, there would be no building going on. It was eventually finished.

Perhaps something like this is going on with the library.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/state/opening-of-tulsa-s-renovated-central-library-within-sight-as/article_0ce2141b-5e38-55be-80c1-d491bdd1c793.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/state/opening-of-tulsa-s-renovated-central-library-within-sight-as/article_0ce2141b-5e38-55be-80c1-d491bdd1c793.html)

Finally! Another Tulsa construction project that took far longer than it should have. 3 years is just ridiculous. Is that just how Tulsa construction companies do business? Is it the developers? Or maybe all of them work together to make each and every construction project take far longer than it should.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TheArtist on August 06, 2016, 06:53:09 am
From 2-3 years ago. What did you hear?

A friend was commenting on a Facebook post made by someone associated with Circle Cinema who was ranting a bit saying something like "Hear some "chain theater" is moving into downtown, people should support the local theaters, good luck with that and finding parking," etc.  

I will see if I can ask the person who was recounting it to me to find the post and who it was.  I didn't ask for specifics or anything for I figured that kind of rumor would quickly be all over the internet if true.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on August 06, 2016, 08:55:00 am
A friend was commenting on a Facebook post made by someone associated with Circle Cinema who was ranting a bit saying something like "Hear some "chain theater" is moving into downtown, people should support the local theaters, good luck with that and finding parking," etc.  

I will see if I can ask the person who was recounting it to me to find the post and who it was.  I didn't ask for specifics or anything for I figured that kind of rumor would quickly be all over the internet if true.

The Circle offers something much different than chain theaters.  They screen films that the major theaters would never screen and hold all sorts of neat events there. 

Absolutely no competition.  It’s like saying Coca-Cola is competition for Coors.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Breadburner on August 06, 2016, 09:34:51 am
Alamo Draft House...


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on August 06, 2016, 10:02:26 am
Alamo Draft House...

That's been tossed around for seven years. After that much time I have a hard time believing it will ever be built.

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=13508.0 (http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=13508.0)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: davideinstein on August 06, 2016, 11:39:51 am
The Circle offers something much different than chain theaters.  They screen films that the major theaters would never screen and hold all sorts of neat events there. 

Absolutely no competition.  It’s like saying Coca-Cola is competition for Coors.

Yep! Sometimes they overlap, but Circle plays the stuff I enjoy.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: davideinstein on August 06, 2016, 11:40:16 am
A friend was commenting on a Facebook post made by someone associated with Circle Cinema who was ranting a bit saying something like "Hear some "chain theater" is moving into downtown, people should support the local theaters, good luck with that and finding parking," etc.  

I will see if I can ask the person who was recounting it to me to find the post and who it was.  I didn't ask for specifics or anything for I figured that kind of rumor would quickly be all over the internet if true.

Tons of parking! Ha.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Breadburner on August 06, 2016, 11:49:57 am
That's been tossed around for seven years. After that much time I have a hard time believing it will ever be built.

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=13508.0 (http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=13508.0)

You don't think the demographics in downtown have changed in 7 years....???


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: davideinstein on August 06, 2016, 12:07:28 pm
You don't think the demographics in downtown have changed in 7 years....???

On the downside in some districts.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Breadburner on August 06, 2016, 12:18:39 pm
On the downside in some districts.

Lol...Right...


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: davideinstein on August 06, 2016, 12:33:50 pm
Lol...Right...

I'm serious. Energy prices have trickled down to retail/service.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: davideinstein on August 06, 2016, 12:34:28 pm
Brady being the exception to the rule.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on August 06, 2016, 04:46:38 pm
You don't think the demographics in downtown have changed in 7 years....???

I'm sure they've changed and some of it's positive, but this has been discussed to the point that the bones from the dead horse are now fertilizer. Not saying that something like Alamo or the one in Moore won't happen, it just seems like there is a lot of reaching with nothing happening. As for selling low point beer at a theater, the old Williams Center Theater did that back in the early 80's when they had the Three Stooges film festival, the Beatles festival and the showing of the movie FM.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: davideinstein on August 06, 2016, 09:02:26 pm
New development: Pokestops

Awesome for downtown.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on August 08, 2016, 07:41:19 am
Quote
No retail license or permit to sell low-point beer shall be issued for any establishment that functions as a motion picture theater. If an establishment, which has functioned for some other purpose, has been licensed to sell such beverages and subsequently is operated as a motion picture theater, the license or permit shall be revoked.
37 OS 163.25
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?id=78022&hits=329+234+208+124+95+49+23+



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: saintnicster on August 08, 2016, 08:39:09 am
37 OS 163.25
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?id=78022&hits=329+234+208+124+95+49+23+


How do the Warren Theatres get around this?  No low point, just the high stuff? :)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on August 08, 2016, 08:53:58 am
37 OS 506

Quote
23. "Motion picture theater" means a place where motion pictures are exhibited and to which the general public is admitted, but does not include a place where meals, as defined by this section, are served, if only persons over twenty-one (21) years of age are admitted;

They serve food and restrict the top level to 21 and up.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on August 08, 2016, 09:23:57 am
37 OS 506

They serve food and restrict the top level to 21 and up.

What about Circle Cinema?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on August 08, 2016, 12:27:00 pm
To the best of my knowledge they do not hold an OTC or ABLE license. If someone else is using the space as a venue, they could serve alcohol under their license (art opening, private party, etc.). But as far as I am aware, a license could not be issued to the theater unless it met the above exception.

Unless you are talking about the $2 TU student nights. I'm not entirely sure the alcohol being consumed is sanctioned. Or, well, a lot of other nights too probably...  ;)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: johrasephoenix on August 08, 2016, 02:44:53 pm
Stupid law.

Grabbing beers with a movie at the Alamo Drathouse when I lived in Austin was incredible.  Can do the same thing at the Somerville Theater in Boston.  

Amazing movie-going-experience enhancer.  Especially if you're watching a crap movie like Battleship.

I do wonder who wrote these stupid nanny state liquor laws.  And how did Texas, which is just as conservative as OK, and Massachusettes, which has Puritan inspired booze regulations, mange to get rid of them?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on August 08, 2016, 03:33:49 pm
Stupid law.

Grabbing beers with a movie at the Alamo Drathouse when I lived in Austin was incredible.  Can do the same thing at the Somerville Theater in Boston.  

Amazing movie-going-experience enhancer.  Especially if you're watching a crap movie like Battleship.

I do wonder who wrote these stupid nanny state liquor laws.  And how did Texas, which is just as conservative as OK, and Massachusettes, which has Puritan inspired booze regulations, mange to get rid of them?

Texas is more open minded and forward thinking. They understood attracting businesses on a national and global scale while Oral Roberts was doing tent revivals.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on August 08, 2016, 06:11:27 pm
Stupid law.

Grabbing beers with a movie at the Alamo Drathouse when I lived in Austin was incredible.  Can do the same thing at the Somerville Theater in Boston.  

Amazing movie-going-experience enhancer.  Especially if you're watching a crap movie like Battleship.

I do wonder who wrote these stupid nanny state liquor laws.  And how did Texas, which is just as conservative as OK, and Massachusettes, which has Puritan inspired booze regulations, mange to get rid of them?

I believe it was 1985 when Texas got a bit more restrictive with their alcohol laws due to Federal mandates directed at curbing drunk driving crashes.  Up to that time, IIRC, drinking age was 19 and open container in a vehicle was legal.  They also had (and may still have) drive through liquor stores at that time.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Hoss on August 08, 2016, 06:21:15 pm
I believe it was 1985 when Texas got a bit more restrictive with their alcohol laws due to Federal mandates directed at curbing drunk driving crashes.  Up to that time, IIRC, drinking age was 19 and open container in a vehicle was legal.  They also had (and may still have) drive through liquor stores at that time.

When I was living in Houston in the early 90s, there were no drive through liquor stores.

First time I ever saw one of those was in Casper Wyoming in the late 80s.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: AquaMan on August 08, 2016, 07:35:10 pm
They had them in Dallas in 1970 when we drove down there to a Texas/OU game. I was stunned. Came back and told my manager at McDonalds that we should install a drive-through at our store. He said no one would ever use it and told me to do my job and stop thinking!

Didn't we have a drive through for kegs on Brookside at one time?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on August 08, 2016, 08:42:56 pm
They had them in Dallas in 1970 when we drove down there to a Texas/OU game. I was stunned. Came back and told my manager at McDonalds that we should install a drive-through at our store. He said no one would ever use it and told me to do my job and stop thinking!

Didn't we have a drive through for kegs on Brookside at one time?

Yep, Beer Time, seems like it was on the east side of the road about 47th st. or so.  Might be where the fancy car wash is now or one of the lube places.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Markk on August 08, 2016, 08:49:02 pm
Wasn't Beer Time south of 51st?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: rebound on August 09, 2016, 06:46:02 am
I believe it was 1985 when Texas got a bit more restrictive with their alcohol laws due to Federal mandates directed at curbing drunk driving crashes.  Up to that time, IIRC, drinking age was 19 and open container in a vehicle was legal.  They also had (and may still have) drive through liquor stores at that time.

I grew up down in SW OK across the border North from Wichita Falls, and we used to make drinking runs to TX all the time.   It was about '85 when TX went from 19 to 21 for everything, but the open container law didn't change until 2001.  There were several drive through places in Wichita Falls well up through the early 2000's.  The law was (and is, as far as I know) a little ambiguous on "open".  Even about 10 years ago, there was at least one place down there that sold wine-based smoothies via drive-through.  They would take the styro-cup (with plastic lid and straw already in it...), stick the whole thing in a clear plastic bag and heat-seal the bag, and that made it no longer "open".


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DTowner on August 09, 2016, 09:01:46 am
For a while, females in Oklahoma could buy 3.2 beer at 18, but men had to be 21.  That law was struck down in 1976 as unconstitutionally discriminatory against men.  Then the feds forced everyone to go to 21 or lose federal highway dollars (thanks, Libby Dole).

Oklahoma state law requires the liquor ordinances of municipalities and counties to conform to the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, and prohibits local jurisdictions from enacting penalties more severe than those of the state law.  As a result, there can be no dry cities or counties in Oklahoma.

As for Texas, things are pretty quirky - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dry_communities_by_U.S._state#cite_note-VA_ABC_2013-113

Of Texas's 254 counties, 7[110] are completely dry, 194[110] are partially dry or "moist", and 53 are entirely wet. The vast majority of entirely wet counties are in southern border regions of Texas near Mexico, or in the south central portion. The patchwork of laws can be confusing, even to residents[citation needed]. In some counties, 4% beer is legal. In others, beverages that are 14% or less alcohol are legal. In some "dry" areas, a customer can get a mixed drink by paying to join a "private club," and in some "wet" areas a customer needs a club membership to purchase liquor by-the-drink, reports the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.
A bill passed in 2003 by the Texas Legislature allows for Justice of the Peace precincts to host alcohol option elections. To date, this law has allowed many JP precincts, particularly in East Texas, to allow a vote that has resulted in many previously dry counties becoming "moist" and allowing sales of beer and wine, but not liquor.[112]
Texas law prohibits off-premises sale of liquor (but not beer and wine) all day on Sunday, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, and New Year's Day. Off-premises sale of beer and wine on Sunday is only allowed after 12:01 pm.
Texas law also prohibits the sale of alcohol in any "sexually oriented business" in a dry county. Strip clubs in these dry counties often sell "set ups" (a cup with coke, ice, and a stirrer to which one can add their own alcohol) and have a BYOB policy to allow patrons to bring their own alcohol into the establishment.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Oil Capital on August 09, 2016, 09:28:02 am
When I was living in Houston in the early 90s, there were no drive through liquor stores.

First time I ever saw one of those was in Casper Wyoming in the late 80s.

There were drive through liquor stores in Houston in the early 90s and there are still drive through liquor stores in Houston today.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Hoss on August 09, 2016, 09:51:48 am
There were drive through liquor stores in Houston in the early 90s and there are still drive through liquor stores in Houston today.

I lived there and didn't see any.  Sorry.  I went to a bunch too.  I'm not saying there aren't any, I just didn't see them.

Remember how big that city is.  I didn't spend a lot of time looking around in it.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: BKDotCom on August 09, 2016, 10:02:43 am
Stillwater had the Beer Barn in '92   
still there (https://www.google.com/maps/uv?hl=en&pb=!1s0x87b10a41b362de0b:0x83522ab51311b120!2m5!2m2!1i80!2i80!3m1!2i100!3m1!7e115!4s/maps/place/stillwater%2Bbeer%2Bbarn/@36.1168931,-97.0693445,3a,75y,278.52h,90t/data%3D*213m4*211e1*213m2*211sDafaJ7YE9ltC890JjItRQQ*212e0*214m2*213m1*211s0x0:0x83522ab51311b120!5sstillwater+beer+barn+-+Google+Search&imagekey=!1e2!2sDafaJ7YE9ltC890JjItRQQ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwip4LfQ2rTOAhUKHGMKHV3SAcwQpx8IcDAK)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: erfalf on August 15, 2016, 08:15:55 am
Stillwater had the Beer Barn in '92   
still there (https://www.google.com/maps/uv?hl=en&pb=!1s0x87b10a41b362de0b:0x83522ab51311b120!2m5!2m2!1i80!2i80!3m1!2i100!3m1!7e115!4s/maps/place/stillwater%2Bbeer%2Bbarn/@36.1168931,-97.0693445,3a,75y,278.52h,90t/data%3D*213m4*211e1*213m2*211sDafaJ7YE9ltC890JjItRQQ*212e0*214m2*213m1*211s0x0:0x83522ab51311b120!5sstillwater+beer+barn+-+Google+Search&imagekey=!1e2!2sDafaJ7YE9ltC890JjItRQQ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwip4LfQ2rTOAhUKHGMKHV3SAcwQpx8IcDAK)

The liquor store and beer drive through are separate in this case actually. Same owner, but completely different stores. Kegs must be purchased from the liquor store as well.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on August 15, 2016, 08:51:54 am
The liquor store and beer drive through are separate in this case actually. Same owner, but completely different stores. Kegs must be purchased from the liquor store as well.

I helped pick up plenty of 3.2 kegs from the drive thru.  I think only the higher point kegs have to be done inside, and even then, they'd role it out for you and help you load it.  Is Calvin still going strong?  He was pretty old when I was there 10 years ago.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: erfalf on August 15, 2016, 10:05:27 am
I helped pick up plenty of 3.2 kegs from the drive thru.  I think only the higher point kegs have to be done inside, and even then, they'd role it out for you and help you load it.  Is Calvin still going strong?  He was pretty old when I was there 10 years ago.

You are right. I did not specify high point, but that is true. I honestly don't know about Calvin, 10 years for me as well.



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Townsend on August 23, 2016, 11:36:51 am
Renovated Central Library to Reopen this Fall

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/renovated-central-library-reopen-fall (http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/renovated-central-library-reopen-fall)

Quote
On October 1st, the renovated Tulsa Central Library will reopen. The $55 million, three-year,  project is nearly complete. Library Director Gary Shaffer says that means the'Librarium' in the old Safeway/Homeland store downtown will be closing.

The Librarium opened in September 2013 to serve downtown residents, students and business professionals during Central Library’s renovation, Librarium will close its doors for the last time Sept. 2 at 5 p.m.  Library staff will begin moving the Librarium’s collection to Central Library on Aug. 22.  Customers will still have access to computers and Wi-Fi during the transition.  Beginning Monday, Aug. 29, materials on hold can be picked up at the Brookside Library, 1207 E. 45th Place.

The Librarium, a 22,000-square-foot building, serves as a showcase for the latest in new library services, technology and equipment to meet the changing needs of the 21st-century library customer.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on August 23, 2016, 02:18:28 pm
There were drive through liquor stores in Houston in the early 90s and there are still drive through liquor stores in Houston today.


We have always been pretty casual about availability and use of alcohol in automobiles...freedom of the open road, etc...drive through liquor stores....1957 Cadillac with a built in bar...

https://www.google.com/search?q=57+cadillac+eldorado+bar+option&sa=X&biw=1376&bih=713&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ved=0ahUKEwjI6OWdrdjOAhXkHpoKHRAkAWoQsAQISw
 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on August 24, 2016, 07:28:37 am
Renovated Central Library to Reopen this Fall

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/renovated-central-library-reopen-fall (http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/renovated-central-library-reopen-fall)


Now that unlocks the old Homeland space as a development opportunity for downtown.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Townsend on August 24, 2016, 11:35:37 am
Now that unlocks the old Homeland space as a development opportunity for downtown.

I feel that would be more likely if something was done across Denver


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: BKDotCom on August 25, 2016, 08:10:35 am
Downtown Reasors update

http://www.newson6.com/story/32838650/plans-for-downtown-tulsa-reasors-moving-forward

blah blah..  "Indianapolis-based Flaherty and Collins will unveil these new plans to the PAC Trust Thursday afternoon"


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DTowner on August 25, 2016, 11:07:24 am
Downtown Reasors update

http://www.newson6.com/story/32838650/plans-for-downtown-tulsa-reasors-moving-forward

blah blah..  "Indianapolis-based Flaherty and Collins will unveil these new plans to the PAC Trust Thursday afternoon"

Good news that this is still moving forward and even better news that Reasor’s appears officially on board.  Even with all the usually caveats about believing in a downtown development when dirt starts getting moved, this level of progress towards a real downtown grocery store would normally light up this board.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Townsend on August 25, 2016, 11:56:15 am
Good news that this is still moving forward and even better news that Reasor’s appears officially on board.  Even with all the usually caveats about believing in a downtown development when dirt starts getting moved, this level of progress towards a real downtown grocery store would normally light up this board.

I think, given the history of announced development, this board lives by the Missouri motto.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on August 25, 2016, 11:57:58 am
Good news that this is still moving forward and even better news that Reasor’s appears officially on board.  Even with all the usually caveats about believing in a downtown development when dirt starts getting moved, this level of progress towards a real downtown grocery store would normally light up this board.

I bet people are a bit burned out on grocery store downtown news. Reasors being officially involved and recognizing the new residents will create a new demand for a grocery store is what caught my attention.

Still probably 2+ years from being a reality (which sucks), but at least there will be 2 new donut places soon to go downtown to go along with existing Daylight Donuts which will go quite nicely with the 5+ pizza places. Also 2 new ramen places.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: rebound on August 25, 2016, 01:34:42 pm
I bet people are a bit burned out on grocery store downtown news. Reasors being officially involved and recognizing the new residents will create a new demand for a grocery store is what caught my attention.

Still probably 2+ years from being a reality (which sucks), but at least there will be 2 new donut places soon to go downtown to go along with existing Daylight Donuts which will go quite nicely with the 5+ pizza places. Also 2 new ramen places.

And we wonder why there is an obesity epidemic...


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: BKDotCom on August 25, 2016, 01:51:53 pm
5+ pizza places.

Bohemian
Domino's
Hey Mambo
Joe Momma's (coming soon)
Mazzio's
STG
Elgin Park (not yet open - thanks hello)

edit:  this was originally a "what's pizzeria number 5?" post.
Decided to use the Google..  found #5 and #6


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on August 25, 2016, 02:00:33 pm
And we wonder why there is an obesity epidemic...


High fructose corn syrup.

Added to the changes that wheat has gone through in the last 45 or so years.




Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: hello on August 25, 2016, 02:01:22 pm
Plus Elgin Park


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DTowner on August 25, 2016, 02:44:29 pm
I bet people are a bit burned out on grocery store downtown news. Reasors being officially involved and recognizing the new residents will create a new demand for a grocery store is what caught my attention.

Still probably 2+ years from being a reality (which sucks), but at least there will be 2 new donut places soon to go downtown to go along with existing Daylight Donuts which will go quite nicely with the 5+ pizza places. Also 2 new ramen places.

I included the caveats about waiting to see dirt moving and I get people being burned out by discussing how we need/want a grocery store downtown, but this is the first real serious proposal that has a known grocery store brand included.  In light of the gloomy economic overlay, keeping this project moving forward is news and a good thing.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on August 25, 2016, 03:07:14 pm
Bohemian
Domino's
Hey Mambo
Joe Momma's (coming soon)
Mazzio's
STG
Elgin Park (not yet open - thanks hello)

edit:  this was originally a "what's pizzeria number 5?" post.
Decided to use the Google..  found #5 and #6

And Naples Flatbread. So that is 8! I didn't consider Elgin Park and had forgotten about Domino's but "5+" is still accurate  ;)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: SXSW on August 25, 2016, 08:48:02 pm
Are there any new renderings from today's announcement?  Crossing my fingers this and Santa Fe Square make it out of ground by this time next year.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: saintnicster on August 25, 2016, 11:50:12 pm
Santa Fe Square make it out of ground by this time next year.

Lol, that'll be the day.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on August 26, 2016, 07:43:27 am
Lol, that'll be the day.

Why wouldn't it?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on August 26, 2016, 07:44:56 am
Are there any new renderings from today's announcement?  Crossing my fingers this and Santa Fe Square make it out of ground by this time next year.

Yes, in today's article about it: http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/developer-reasor-s-unveil-more-details-of-planned-downtown-grocery/article_950a9ecc-fd8b-5d25-b0d6-b6b0460705f0.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/developer-reasor-s-unveil-more-details-of-planned-downtown-grocery/article_950a9ecc-fd8b-5d25-b0d6-b6b0460705f0.html)

Quote
Developer, Reasor's unveil more details of planned downtown grocery store, mixed-use project
New apartments, retail and a restaurant are also part of the proposed project


A developer and Reasor’s officials gave Tulsa Performing Arts Center Trust board members a preview of what a downtown grocery store could look like and how it could change the fabric of downtown Tulsa during a Thursday meeting.
Flaherty & Collins, an Indianapolis-based developer, wants to build a mixed-use development called the “Annex” at the performing arts center’s parking lot, an area hemmed by Cincinnati and Detroit avenues and Second and Third streets.
Renderings show a 12-story building with ground floor retail next to what would potentially be the Reasor’s. The building would have 312 beds and 240 units of apartments.
The meeting was another step in what has been an almost two-year process. Ryan Cronk of Flaherty & Collins said his company specializes in public-private partnerships, looking for unique situations where there’s a need for their type of development.
Cronk, in a presentation to the board and assembled members of the public, explained that people are “moving back into the urban core” and that large corporations are moving back into downtown to be near their workers.
“A grocery store is what all residents want,” said Cronk.
The project would also feature a multi-story parking garage with 636 spaces. Shoppers would be able to present a receipt and park for free.
Millennials are renting much longer and want to live an urban area, Cronk said. Corporations are following them, and urban areas are seeing a need for a grocery store.
It would be a Reasor’s store “unlike any other” in the market, he said, noting that urban format grocery stores are quite different than a typical suburban store.
A potential move to downtown would be another pivot from Reasor’s, which prides itself on using its smaller size and local roots to outmaneuver larger competitors such as Wal-Mart. It’s also another move toward upscale after it unveiled a revamped 50,000-square-foot Reasor’s in Brookside last summer.
Brent Edstrom, COO of Reasor’s, said the store would get a chance to learn from its Brookside location and its restaurant. The timeline of the project would give them to work out the “kinks” they’re experiencing in Brookside.
Edstrom said in an interview with the World that it’s not definite that Reasor’s is coming downtown. It depends on the approval of the plan, he said.
It’s a unique project but not unlike developments Flaherty & Collins have done in other larger cities. In Indianapolis, they developed a Marsh supermarket on the bottom of hundreds of apartments.
According to their website, they’re developing another grocery store-anchored mixed use project in Indianapolis that will feature a Whole Foods Market.
There would also be room for a 6,000-square-foot restaurant and 8,000 square feet of additional retail space.
If the PAC Trust board approves the plan and the developer secures a Tax Increment Financing district from the city of Tulsa, downtown Tulsa would gain its sought-after grocery store. Interest and demand for such a store has steadily risen as construction of residential units downtown has ticked up over the past five years.
According to real estate firm CBRE, there are about 6,000 permanent residents in downtown Tulsa with about 1,000 more beds under construction.
Commercial real estate experts say a grocery store is a key step in order for downtown to gain a critical mass of retail.
The board members could vote on accepting the proposal and then move forward with agreeing to a contract at their next meeting in September.



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on August 26, 2016, 07:58:23 am
Quote
In Indianapolis, they developed a Marsh supermarket on the bottom of hundreds of apartments.

So why are they, here, building the one story Reasor's off to the side? Slide that under the apartment building, make it 13 floors, and still keep that half of the block available for something else.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on August 26, 2016, 08:05:28 am
Lol, that'll be the day.

If they haven't broken ground on Santa Fe square by this time next year, that will look pretty bad on their part. They have the TIF. Yes, it is a huge complicated project, but they should plan to at least start one of the buildings by then at least for perception of their competence and perceived demand for that much new space. If they still haven't started by then, that would make me think that they don't think it will be leased/profitable any time soon. Similar to the delay on building "The View" until the Edge is ~80% leased (And it still hasn't started).

It seems some of these downtown projects have slowed or been put on the back burner. Probably oil & gas downturn is to blame (and potential Williams merger), but it has been down for 2 years now and if that industry comes back to life in a couple years, building now will put those companies in prime position to profit from all of the new demand to come. Additionally, the overall US economy is still good and the demand for urban life is increasing rapidly across the US and Tulsa is still far far behind in downtown housing options.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on August 26, 2016, 08:30:57 am
So why are they, here, building the one story Reasor's off to the side? Slide that under the apartment building, make it 13 floors, and still keep that half of the block available for something else.

It looks like in part, it is because the parking garage takes up the entire "1st floor" at the reasors elevation (as shown in photo of presentation slideshow). Looks like there will be retail on 2nd street under the parking garage (or or the parking garage ends before then).

Mostly, I am guessing it is the economics of it. They want to make it mixed use, with a parking garage and retail, but the cost of making the Reasors part more than 2 stories and having the 12-story tower probably exceeds the budget the Tulsa PAC wanted.

Which would you rather have: 6-story building around the whole block or 12-story for half and 2 story for the other half? It was probably more economical to design it like this, where the steel high-rise structure is limited to less than half the block as opposed to a steel structure for the entire block that is half as tall.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Vision 2025 on August 26, 2016, 09:00:25 am
So why are they, here, building the one story Reasor's off to the side? Slide that under the apartment building, make it 13 floors, and still keep that half of the block available for something else.
My guess would be that this is driven by mechanical load issues, since grocery stores require HUGE amounts of cooling for the store and the plethora of refrigerators and freezers that roof top cooling is viewed as the efficient way.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: SXSW on August 26, 2016, 09:42:02 am
My guess would be that this is driven by mechanical load issues, since grocery stores require HUGE amounts of cooling for the store and the plethora of refrigerators and freezers that roof top cooling is viewed as the efficient way.

It would be awesome to see some kind of green roof on top of Reasor's. 

I think they consider the Brookside location their "flagship" store.  I wonder if this takes that title when it's finished.  If done right it can be a true downtown destination like the Whole Foods in downtown Austin or Cosentino's in downtown KC.

Cosentino's in KC
(http://www.powerandlightdistrict.com/images/photo_gallery/l2.jpg)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on August 26, 2016, 09:55:26 am
An as an update on what I would call "affordable" downtown housing you can buy, Urban 8 are still listed at $580k-$690k. The Davenport Lofts are now listed on the MLS from $525k to $868. i.e. not even close to affordable for ~95% of people. According to zillow, if you have basically zero other debts, you can afford a $580k place if you make $150k/yr. Realistically, you probably need to be making $230+ to afford that. That is the top 5% of income earners and cuts out most young professionals, even with both spouses working relatively lucrative jobs, and that's at the low end of the listings!

I know wealthy retirees and upper class is what they are aiming for but do you think many in that category will be ok with the downsides of living in these areas? Late-night bar crowd, concerts and noise, homeless, living in multi-unit places, extremely tough to resell, parking is tough for friends/parties, not the best environment for children, no yard, neighboring buildings that can see in (The Edge), both places still feel a bit dark/creepy at night (especially for old/wealthy people with misconceptions of scary downtown).

Urban 8:
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/613-E-3rd-St-Tulsa-OK-74120/2098764906_zpid/ (http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/613-E-3rd-St-Tulsa-OK-74120/2098764906_zpid/)
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/605-E-3rd-St-Tulsa-OK-74120/2098764905_zpid/ (http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/605-E-3rd-St-Tulsa-OK-74120/2098764905_zpid/)

Davenport:
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/405-N-Main-St-5B-Tulsa-OK-74103/2097466338_zpid/ (http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/405-N-Main-St-5B-Tulsa-OK-74103/2097466338_zpid/)
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/405-N-Main-St-5D-Tulsa-OK-74103/2097469187_zpid/ (http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/405-N-Main-St-5D-Tulsa-OK-74103/2097469187_zpid/)

Check out this 2154 sqare foot place which sold for $300k recently right off of Cherry St which has much higher walkability ratings than downtown:
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1405-S-Quincy-Ave-Tulsa-OK-74120/22102120_zpid/ (http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1405-S-Quincy-Ave-Tulsa-OK-74120/22102120_zpid/)

Another one by there that is much nicer with 2000 sq feet and garage apartment just for $400k after being up for a couple days:
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1411-S-Rockford-Ave-Tulsa-OK-74120/89358526_zpid/ (http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1411-S-Rockford-Ave-Tulsa-OK-74120/89358526_zpid/)

Either of these is better urban living now and at a price point the downtown condos can't compete with and these are both better at just about every disadvantage I listed above (private parking garage with 3+ spaces, quiet, private, more established resale market, great yards). If I was looking to buy something like that, I would look at walk ability scores and overall amenities nearby along with what you get for the price. Cherry St is rated much better right now and more consistently lively overall. Downtown to cherry st is the minimum cab fare (~$3.5-$5), will be connected via rapid transit and only a few minute drive or 10-minute bike ride.

If I were buying urban now, I would be happier living in Cherry St a couple years and moving to downtown after a lot of the big items are completed and the urban 8s are being foreclosed on. Seriously though, downtown has a major shortage of affordable condos in the $100-$350k range (there are zero in the IDL besides Central Park condos which are bad). Why can't any developer build a condo building with housing people working normal great jobs can afford to buy? There would certainly be a market for that.

If you developed a 100-unit place at an average of $200k/listing and at a price of $150/ft2, you could have each unit average 1,333 ft2 (3  bed/2  bath). That would be a much more reasonable price point and amount of space, even $200/ft2 and you'd have 1000ft2 places which is absolutely doable for many young professionals wanting to live in an urban area (2 bed/1 bath) along with retirees wanting to live a simple urban life. Davenport is charging $336-$380/ft2 (ridiculous!). Urban 8 is about $215/ft2.

Does anyone know why no one has plans for affordable condos downtown? Seems like an untapped niche market.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on August 26, 2016, 09:58:40 am
It would be awesome to see some kind of green roof on top of Reasor's. 


The plans show rooftop patios over Reasors. Although those might be for restaurants. Would be cool if you could get a quick lunch at Reasors deli and eat on the roof. Would be pretty unique for downtown (Lots of quick ready takeout options and a roof terrace).


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on August 26, 2016, 10:18:55 am

Davenport:
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/405-N-Main-St-5B-Tulsa-OK-74103/2097466338_zpid/ (http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/405-N-Main-St-5B-Tulsa-OK-74103/2097466338_zpid/)
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/405-N-Main-St-5D-Tulsa-OK-74103/2097469187_zpid/ (http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/405-N-Main-St-5D-Tulsa-OK-74103/2097469187_zpid/)

If you developed a 100-unit place at an average of $200k/listing and at a price of $150/ft2, you could have each unit average 1,333 ft2 (3  bed/2  bath). That would be a much more reasonable price point and amount of space, even $200/ft2 and you'd have 1000ft2 places which is absolutely doable for many young professionals wanting to live in an urban area (2 bed/1 bath) along with retirees wanting to live a simple urban life. Davenport is charging $336-$380/ft2 (ridiculous!). Urban 8 is about $215/ft2.


Davenport has all the prices and availability listed (note the sq footage includes balconies):
http://davenportlofts.com/index.php/availability (http://davenportlofts.com/index.php/availability)

That is 24 units at a total price of $17 million for 48,000 square feet of living space (including balconies but excluding retail space and parking/common areas). Obviously the parking garage is very expensive and adds a lot of cost. Also, common areas and a rooftop terrace are expensive, especially when divided by just 24 units.

Only 7 are reserved after marketing for for well over a year with a dedicated sales office. They were originally going to be $400k+ but they changed it up to $525k+, going the wrong direction to appease a richer clientele. Doesn't seem to have worked for them thus far. I bet the rent on that office is pricey!

I was hopeful for this place despite the proximity to music venues, but this is frustrating to see. Even with midtown property demand strong, reaching new highs all the time  (largely with people wanting to be closer to downtown/urban areas), they can't get a clue on designing a marketable condo that people can/will actually buy.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: SXSW on August 26, 2016, 10:50:24 am
The plans show rooftop patios over Reasors. Although those might be for restaurants. Would be cool if you could get a quick lunch at Reasors deli and eat on the roof. Would be pretty unique for downtown (Lots of quick ready takeout options and a roof terrace).

Green roof and outdoor patio for an in-store cafe would be awesome.  The view will be great up there.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on August 26, 2016, 10:51:53 am
My guess would be that this is driven by mechanical load issues, since grocery stores require HUGE amounts of cooling for the store and the plethora of refrigerators and freezers that roof top cooling is viewed as the efficient way.


Another approach is to have dedicated mechanical equipment floors.  Probably not so great for only 12 or 13 floors, but works well for space constrained places.  Even 13 floors makes the rooftop stuff nonviable for the grocery.  

Maybe they could use a corner of the store...but then they have to do something with all that air flow going in/out of the place.  And chillers are painful for that size installation....


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: johrasephoenix on August 26, 2016, 11:55:38 am
It does indeed suck.  I really want to live downtown when I get back to Tulsa but it's hard to justify paying 200% - 300% of the rent if you live just a few blocks outside the IDL.

It's just hard to build new, mid-priced construction without it looking cheap/crappy, especially in an urban setting (that's why most new mid-priced condos/apartments are that garden cheap construction stuff).  Also, existing downtown landowners sell land to developers priced for highest and best use.  The guys who own the vacant land are selling it priced for a luxury condo tower to go on top.  It's why so much land remains undeveloped despite huge demand for downtown living.  I've seen some cities like Atlanta intentionally downzone entire core districts like Midtown to reduce the value of land so landowners will actually sell to developers, instead of all of them holding out for the next Williams Tower.  

In just about every city your mid-priced urban core apartments are formerly expensive apartments that got old and worn down.  In 30 years all today's expensive places will be tomorrow's mid-priced places.  Unfortunately, downtown Tulsa has almost no old apartment buildings still standing in the cool/sweet/awesome parts of downtown in the CBD/Blue Dome/Brady.

I know Urban 8 is seriously struggling but I suspect in 2030 we'll be kicking ourselves for not getting in on the ground floor (it's a shame they're so ugly because the location is incredible).  That area could be completely transformed 10-20 years from now and you would have a no-sh*t single family house right in the middle of apartment towers and nightlife.  It would be incredible.  


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Red Arrow on August 26, 2016, 07:03:03 pm
In just about every city your mid-priced urban core apartments are formerly expensive apartments that got old and worn down.  In 30 years all today's expensive places will be tomorrow's mid-priced places.  Unfortunately, downtown Tulsa has almost no old apartment buildings still standing in the cool/sweet/awesome parts of downtown in the CBD/Blue Dome/Brady.

I do believe you have figured it out.

High property values, high taxes and building costs make building new "affordable" places with all the goodies a bit of an oxymoron.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TheArtist on August 27, 2016, 07:30:16 am
It does indeed suck.  I really want to live downtown when I get back to Tulsa but it's hard to justify paying 200% - 300% of the rent if you live just a few blocks outside the IDL.

It's just hard to build new, mid-priced construction without it looking cheap/crappy, especially in an urban setting (that's why most new mid-priced condos/apartments are that garden cheap construction stuff).  Also, existing downtown landowners sell land to developers priced for highest and best use.  The guys who own the vacant land are selling it priced for a luxury condo tower to go on top.  It's why so much land remains undeveloped despite huge demand for downtown living.  I've seen some cities like Atlanta intentionally downzone entire core districts like Midtown to reduce the value of land so landowners will actually sell to developers, instead of all of them holding out for the next Williams Tower.  

In just about every city your mid-priced urban core apartments are formerly expensive apartments that got old and worn down.  In 30 years all today's expensive places will be tomorrow's mid-priced places.  Unfortunately, downtown Tulsa has almost no old apartment buildings still standing in the cool/sweet/awesome parts of downtown in the CBD/Blue Dome/Brady.

I know Urban 8 is seriously struggling but I suspect in 2030 we'll be kicking ourselves for not getting in on the ground floor (it's a shame they're so ugly because the location is incredible).  That area could be completely transformed 10-20 years from now and you would have a no-sh*t single family house right in the middle of apartment towers and nightlife.  It would be incredible.  

Actually I think the location is part of the problem.  With no zoning to speak of downtown you have no idea whats going to go in across from you.  Just look at what is nearby Urban 8 and you see parking garages, blank walls, ugly.  (it is interesting to note that on their website they say the design fits the character of the neighborhood)  Who wants to invest in a home only to risk stepping outside one day and your view be an ugly wall or parking garage? And the guy who fought hardest against having pedestrian/transit friendly zoning is the one who built Urban 8.   


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on August 29, 2016, 07:27:27 am
I do believe you have figured it out.

High property values, high taxes and building costs make building new "affordable" places with all the goodies a bit of an oxymoron.

The mil rate for an apartment complex downtown is often lower than for apartments out south. But the cost is so much higher they pay nearly twice as much per square foot in taxes. But that's like complaining about the cost of midtown, it isn't the taxes that make it more expensive.

A good comparison:

GreenArch: 1 acre, 80K square feet of building, valued at $7.7mil, taxes $7,115, goes up to $21k when abatements run out. 64 units + 6 commercial spaces.
http://www.assessor.tulsacounty.org/assessor-property.php?account=R00500920131010&return=close

Springs at Woodland South (~75th and Mingo): 19.3 acres, 286k square feet ofbuilding, valued at $9.2mil, taxes $45k, goes up to $138k when abatements run out.  288 units.
http://www.assessor.tulsacounty.org/assessor-property.php?account=R77140840728730&return=close


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on August 29, 2016, 09:44:18 am
The mil rate for an apartment complex downtown is often lower than for apartments out south. But the cost is so much higher they pay nearly twice as much per square foot in taxes. But that's like complaining about the cost of midtown, it isn't the taxes that make it more expensive.

A good comparison:

GreenArch: 1 acre, 80K square feet of building, valued at $7.7mil, taxes $7,115, goes up to $21k when abatements run out. 64 units + 6 commercial spaces.
http://www.assessor.tulsacounty.org/assessor-property.php?account=R00500920131010&return=close

Springs at Woodland South (~75th and Mingo): 19.3 acres, 286k square feet ofbuilding, valued at $9.2mil, taxes $45k, goes up to $138k when abatements run out.  288 units.
http://www.assessor.tulsacounty.org/assessor-property.php?account=R77140840728730&return=close

Why is there a tax abatement for an apartment complex at 75th and Mingo?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on August 29, 2016, 10:03:17 am
I do believe you have figured it out.

High property values, high taxes and building costs make building new "affordable" places with all the goodies a bit of an oxymoron.

I disagree. As stated above, the higher taxes isn't an issue. Furthermore, Minneapolis, Houston, Dallas and even Denver (in comparison to the Denver market) have plenty of what I would consider "affordable" nice newer condos ($100-$350k) in the more walkable urban areas of town. They tend to be pricey compared to suburbs, but not outlandishly priced like in Tulsa. There are many in Minneapolis that, were they in downtown Tulsa, I would be seriously interested in. Once you consider the overall higher prices of real estate in those cities, it is even more frustrating that they have plenty of urban condos regular young professionals can afford while Tulsa has virtually zero.

http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Minneapolis-MN/pmf,pf_pt/condo_type/5983_rid/0-350000_price/0-1228_mp/45.026404,-93.189211,44.905922,-93.344393_rect/12_zm/ (http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Minneapolis-MN/pmf,pf_pt/condo_type/5983_rid/0-350000_price/0-1228_mp/45.026404,-93.189211,44.905922,-93.344393_rect/12_zm/)

How do those cities, with much higher property values and mostly higher real estate tax have so many nice condos for cheaper (per sq ft) than the 50 new condos we've been talking about in Tulsa? Economics of scale. Build a 100 unit complex and you can cut the cost per square foot down considerably. Plus the competition lowers prices.

Maybe the Tulsa developers thought that no competition = charge as much as possible without realizing that no one has to buy them. I hope a company will step up with a plan to build a big condo building so downtown can turn into a real neighborhood with homeowners rather than just a short term rental stop.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on August 29, 2016, 10:39:32 am
Why is there a tax abatement for an apartment complex at 75th and Mingo?

I'm not entirely sure there is. But on both properties it shows a drastic increase in taxes for next year. I assumed there was some abatement in place for each this year, but stand to be easily corrected. It could just be that this is year one for both and an adjustment goes into effect next year. T'was a quick and dirty assessment, I admit!


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on September 01, 2016, 09:27:12 am
Interesting article from KOTV on developments in the Brady District:

The big one is that the Kaiser Foundation has purchased the old warehouses at 424 N Boulder north of the Brady Theater and are asking for almost a million dollars from the Brady District TIF for streetscaping around an undisclosed project at the site.

The long stalled Flats on Archer are asking for $225,000 in Brady TIF money

The planned Holiday Inn Express at Archer and Detroit is now being built by the Ross Group and they are asking for the $112,000 in Brady TIF money

http://www.newson6.com/story/32946944/kaiser-foundation-other-groups-plan-for-brady-district-development


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on September 01, 2016, 02:48:54 pm
Interesting article from KOTV on developments in the Brady District:

The big one is that the Kaiser Foundation has purchased the old warehouses at 424 N Boulder north of the Brady Theater and are asking for almost a million dollars from the Brady District TIF for streetscaping around an undisclosed project at the site.

The long stalled Flats on Archer are asking for $225,000 in Brady TIF money

The planned Holiday Inn Express at Archer and Detroit is now being built by the Ross Group and they are asking for the $112,000 in Brady TIF money

http://www.newson6.com/story/32946944/kaiser-foundation-other-groups-plan-for-brady-district-development


Is this photo from the article "The Flats on Archer" which is described as the lot next to Hey Mambo?

(http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/images/11636404_G.jpg)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on September 01, 2016, 03:16:46 pm
In other downtown news, the Boxyard announced many new tenants:

Quote
Announced tenants for The Boxyard
• Abelina's
• Beau & Arrow
• Citizens Bank
• Dwelling Spaces & JoeBots Coffee
• Hodges Bend patio bar
• Modern Mess
• Rose Rock Microcreamery
• The STEMcell
• The Sweet Boutique

Quote
Rose Rock Microcreamery coming downtown to The Boxyard

A cold front is coming to the East Village.
Rose Rock Microcreamery is scheduled to bring super premium ice cream by mid-October to The Boxyard, a $2.5 million shipping container development going up at Third Street and Frankfort Avenue, Rose Rock owner Jason Decker said.
“It’s going to be super dense, super creamy, super delicate,” said Decker, 47, of Tulsa.
“I have traveled this country eating ice cream. I can tell you who does it really well and who probably needs some assistance. Hopefully, that experience will help us create a product that Tulsa can be excited about and be proud to have here.”
Rose Rock Microcreamery, named after Oklahoma’s state rock, is among the new Boxyard tenants announced this week by project developer Casey Stowe, a principal in Nelson-Stowe along with Elliot Nelson. The others are Hodges Bend patio bar; Sweet Boutique, a gourmet candy and nuts store; and three businesses that specialize in women’s clothing: Abelina’s; Modern Mess and Beau & Arrow.
The Boxyard will be spread over a 14,000-square-foot lot in East Village. A total of 39 shipping containers, some stacked on one another, will be spread over the property, which will focus on local retail but also include restrooms, a restaurant and service providers, he said.
Other announced businesses in The Boxyard are Dwelling Spaces and Joebot’s Coffee Bar, The STEMcell and Citizens Bank, Stowe said. The Boxyard will have staggered openings throughout October and early November with a grand-opening scheduled sometime in mid-November, he said.
“I’m very excited about the diversity and quality level of the tenants we have lined up for The Boxyard,” Stowe said in an email. “The response has been overwhelming and it has been exciting to hear about all of the concepts out there. I have tried to be pretty selective in my tenant choices, and I think Tulsa will be pleased with what we are putting together.
“I have said before that this will be the densest retail in Oklahoma, but I also believe it will be the most exciting.”
About 75 percent of the available space is spoken for, and “given our current negotiations,” the development expects to open at or near capacity, Stowe said.
“Everybody thinks that shipping containers are an inexpensive way to build, that you just kind of set them down and sheet rock and you’re done,” he said in a telephone interview.
“There’s a significant amount of work that goes into taking something that’s not designed for humans and making it built to code,” he said. “We’ve worked with the city to make sure these are fully compliant. That makes it not as economical as everyone would think.”
Billed as Oklahoma’s first microcreamery, Rose Rock will specialize in small-batch ice cream made 2½ gallons at a time and of 100 percent natural ingredients, Decker said. It will contain butterfat of 16 percent and no more than 30 percent air. For a frozen dessert to be labeled ice cream, it must contain at least 10 percent milkfat and less than 50 percent air.
Besides traditional flavors such as chocolate and strawberry, the year-round, primarily seven-day-a-week store also plans to showcase such varieties as lemongrass buttermilk, Mexican vanilla and salted caramel.
The business, which will operate out of the center of the development, also will have vegan options, he said.
“I love creativity,” said Decker, a former Sport Clips franchise owner. “I wish I had the skill to be an artist. I love colors. I love flavors. I love the visual aspect.
“Ice cream gives us that. It gives us the ability to say, ‘What do we want to make today?’”

http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/smallbusiness/we-all-scream-for-it-rose-rock-microcreamery-coming-downtown/article_baff633b-12a6-599c-9775-7ef6b04a0242.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/smallbusiness/we-all-scream-for-it-rose-rock-microcreamery-coming-downtown/article_baff633b-12a6-599c-9775-7ef6b04a0242.html)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on September 01, 2016, 04:13:59 pm
Shipping container development....  geez....


Well, if they weld them together properly, at least there could be some built in tornado sheltering there maybe...


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on September 02, 2016, 07:01:12 am
Interesting development that should provide a unique space, so bully for that I suppose. More retail begets more retail. But it does seem like a strange space for a bank...


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: MostSeriousness on September 02, 2016, 07:16:48 am
It's worked in Vegas. A little different style of shipping container development (I guess it's a thing), but it's been a pretty cool little development.

https://www.yelp.com/biz_photos/downtown-container-park-las-vegas-2?select=8AzoAWOvwguVP5HVECMPKA  (https://www.yelp.com/biz_photos/downtown-container-park-las-vegas-2?select=8AzoAWOvwguVP5HVECMPKA)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on September 02, 2016, 08:28:41 am
Interesting article from KOTV on developments in the Brady District:

The big one is that the Kaiser Foundation has purchased the old warehouses at 424 N Boulder north of the Brady Theater and are asking for almost a million dollars from the Brady District TIF for streetscaping around an undisclosed project at the site.

The long stalled Flats on Archer are asking for $225,000 in Brady TIF money

The planned Holiday Inn Express at Archer and Detroit is now being built by the Ross Group and they are asking for the $112,000 in Brady TIF money

http://www.newson6.com/story/32946944/kaiser-foundation-other-groups-plan-for-brady-district-development


The TIF money for these three projects was approved, all this money is from landscaping around the projects.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/kaiser-foundation-focusing-on-residential-and-business-development-to-anchor/article_672c4d67-c3c4-530b-9957-792a78d4a1e3.html

The World has some more information on the new Kaiser Foundation project:
Quote
Ken Levit, GKFF executive director, said plans are still coming together, but the hope is to have residential and office uses for the property in the 400 block of North Boulder Avenue, currently home to the Western Supply warehouses.
“GKFF owns the land and is planning a development consistent with our goals of creating a vibrant district that is attractive for young, creative people to live and work in Tulsa,” Levit said. “We are studying various options and hope to accommodate both residential and office uses on the property and do so in a way that can help define the northern edge of the (Brady) Arts District.”

Quote
Roy Peters, development authority chairman, said details he has heard about the project show it will rise well above the current one-story structure there today.




Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: BouldinDomer on September 02, 2016, 12:46:31 pm
I'm not sure how old these drawings are, or if they are still relevant, but here are some drawings of the "Brady District Flats" from the Sikes-Abernathie website. 

http://www.sikesabernathie.com/portfolio-image31.html


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on September 02, 2016, 01:28:57 pm


I'm not sure how old these drawings are, or if they are still relevant, but here are some drawings of the "Brady District Flats" from the Sikes-Abernathie website. 

http://www.sikesabernathie.com/portfolio-image31.html


Thanks, BouldinDomer.  Those are the drawings I remember seeing, but I don't remember when or where.

Looking south on Boston toward M.B. Archer Street:
(http://www.sikesabernathie.com/images/portfolioimages/m-co/img31c-l.jpg)

Looking northwest at Boston and Archer:
(http://www.sikesabernathie.com/images/portfolioimages/m-co/img31a-l.jpg)

Looking toward the entry from M.B. Archer Street and north along the west side of Boston:
(http://www.sikesabernathie.com/images/portfolioimages/m-co/img31b-l.jpg)



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: SXSW on September 03, 2016, 11:54:26 am
That's some great infill right there!


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: johrasephoenix on September 03, 2016, 03:02:23 pm
Awesome!  I always thought this project had died a slow death.  This will really add to the neighborhood.

That's a lot of progress for the Brady.  If we can ever get the BOK parking lots developed Archer could eventually become one of Tulsa's best streets. 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: SXSW on September 03, 2016, 05:56:27 pm
Awesome!  I always thought this project had died a slow death.  This will really add to the neighborhood.

That's a lot of progress for the Brady.  If we can ever get the BOK parking lots developed Archer could eventually become one of Tulsa's best streets. 

Cough, OKPop, cough...


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on September 03, 2016, 06:32:47 pm
Cough, OKPop, cough...

That still upsets me.

But, with the Kaiser foundation redoing the warehouse, these lofts, the Holiday Inn Express and The View,  Archer St. is still going to be completely remade.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: SXSW on September 05, 2016, 10:37:37 am
When is the TDA supposed to make their decision for the half block lot by the ballpark?  And isn't there a streetscape project planned for Archer and Brady? 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on September 20, 2016, 07:35:52 am
Potentially good for downtown:

Quote
Vic Regalado considering sale of Sheriff's Office building to fund transfer of operations to embattled training center
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/vic-regalado-considering-sale-of-sheriff-s-office-building-to/article_b722fd5c-a61b-5492-b836-fe88c391e7d8.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/vic-regalado-considering-sale-of-sheriff-s-office-building-to/article_b722fd5c-a61b-5492-b836-fe88c391e7d8.html)

Funny, I was over there a couple weeks ago laughing about how terrible most of the properties surrounding the BOK Center are currently are for pedestrians. Not that a huge event center adds to walkability or needs to be in a walkable area, but would be nice if the area offered a bit more for pedestrians and to help the image of downtown. Going counterclockwise from One Place, it is surrounded by a huge parking lot, a big electrical substation, the Sheriff's Office (And the Avalon Correctional Center and Juvenile Detention Center going in north of that),  a huge storage building, American Cold Storage, Veolia Energy warehouse, parking garage, parking lot, USPS, and then the more walkable elements arrive: bus station, parking lot with MixCo bar in back. parking lot with hotel going in and the only pleasant part of surroundings the BOK Center, One Place which is a shell of what was proposed.

There is a nice 4300 sq ft house west of the BOK Center which was listed at $554k for sale for over a year and is an example of how unwalkable/low-demand the area is (The same place would easily fetch that price or more in most midtown neighborhoods). Perhaps good they picked an area like that for the BOK rather than the Blue Dome or Brady.

I don't see the Sheriff's Office being easy to retrofit into something walkable or a mixed use facility but at least it could be open to the market for that.  I also heard that USPS might be considering selling their downtown property.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DTowner on September 20, 2016, 09:41:47 am
Potentially good for downtown:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/vic-regalado-considering-sale-of-sheriff-s-office-building-to/article_b722fd5c-a61b-5492-b836-fe88c391e7d8.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/vic-regalado-considering-sale-of-sheriff-s-office-building-to/article_b722fd5c-a61b-5492-b836-fe88c391e7d8.html)

Funny, I was over there a couple weeks ago laughing about how terrible most of the properties surrounding the BOK Center are currently are for pedestrians. Not that a huge event center adds to walkability or needs to be in a walkable area, but would be nice if the area offered a bit more for pedestrians and to help the image of downtown. Going counterclockwise from One Place, it is surrounded by a huge parking lot, a big electrical substation, the Sheriff's Office (And the Avalon Correctional Center and Juvenile Detention Center going in north of that),  a huge storage building, American Cold Storage, Veolia Energy warehouse, parking garage, parking lot, USPS, and then the more walkable elements arrive: bus station, parking lot with MixCo bar in back. parking lot with hotel going in and the only pleasant part of surroundings the BOK Center, One Place which is a shell of what was proposed.

There is a nice 4300 sq ft house west of the BOK Center which was listed at $554k for sale for over a year and is an example of how unwalkable/low-demand the area is (The same place would easily fetch that price or more in most midtown neighborhoods). Perhaps good they picked an area like that for the BOK rather than the Blue Dome or Brady.

I don't see the Sheriff's Office being easy to retrofit into something walkable or a mixed use facility but at least it could be open to the market for that.  I also heard that USPS might be considering selling their downtown property.

The Sheriff’s office faces the BOK loading dock, so I don’t see how much of anything is going to make that side walkable.  The courthouse/post office is really unfortunately, but nothing will happen to that building until a plan for a new federal courthouse is in place.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: patric on September 20, 2016, 10:54:29 am

I don't see the Sheriff's Office being easy to retrofit into something walkable or a mixed use facility but at least it could be open to the market for that. 

"Parts of the Faulkner Building, 303 W. First St., have stood since the early 1900s, Regalado said"
Lead pipes, asbestos...


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on September 20, 2016, 11:24:25 am
The Sheriff’s office faces the BOK loading dock, so I don’t see how much of anything is going to make that side walkable.  The courthouse/post office is really unfortunately, but nothing will happen to that building until a plan for a new federal courthouse is in place.


How is the entrance to the BOK center "walkable" in terms of things that would make an area pedestrian lively? While at times it brings in lots of people, most of the time the doors are closed and locked with nothing going on. Being by the loading dock is more unsightly than the front but shouldn't be much of a hindrance for office space and while not ideal could be ok for some other types of businesses and maybe even residential.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Vision 2025 on September 20, 2016, 01:50:21 pm
One of the reasons the BOK Center was sited there is because as a class of facilities, arenas make lousy neighbors and due to their size do not fit easily into walkable or wannabe walkable areas and the loading dock and back of house parts are specifically towards less pedestrian friendly properties.   


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Oil Capital on September 20, 2016, 02:11:42 pm
One of the reasons the BOK Center was sited there is because as a class of facilities, arenas make lousy neighbors and due to their size do not fit easily into walkable or wannabe walkable areas and the loading dock and back of house parts are specifically towards less pedestrian friendly properties.  

Those issues can be (could have been) obviated by placing the arena at the edge of a walkable district, much like the placement of Oneok Field.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on September 20, 2016, 02:48:42 pm
Those issues can be (could have been) obviated by placing the arena at the edge of a walkable district, much like the placement of Oneok Field.

The placement of BOK is pretty well to the westernmost edge of what is walkable downtown.  With all the curb cuts, the tire store, front end shop and whatever else was there as well as the parkade at the Cox/Civic Center, it was anything but an ideally walkable environment before they put the arena there.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on September 20, 2016, 03:18:21 pm


How is the entrance to the BOK center "walkable" in terms of things that would make an area pedestrian lively?


It isn't.

The City of Tulsa made the area very unfriendly for pedestrians by closing four blocks of public streets and creating a super-block with a perimeter of 2,720 feet -- more than half a mile. 

Other less "walkable" aspects of the BOK Center design:

1. Rough unit pavers used for the sidewalks.
2. The general lack of shade trees and the trees around the perimeter of the site are planted on the wrong side of the sidewalks.
3. Lack of on-street parking on Frisco Avenue.
4. Huge setbacks.
5. No ground floor retail space facing outward toward Denver, as was shown on the conceptual drawings.
6. A shiny building exterior.
 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DTowner on September 20, 2016, 03:39:40 pm
How is the entrance to the BOK center "walkable" in terms of things that would make an area pedestrian lively? While at times it brings in lots of people, most of the time the doors are closed and locked with nothing going on. Being by the loading dock is more unsightly than the front but shouldn't be much of a hindrance for office space and while not ideal could be ok for some other types of businesses and maybe even residential.

Fair enough, the front is only "walkable" when events are going on.  But it's always more desirable to look at from surrounding businesses than a loading dock.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on September 20, 2016, 04:21:38 pm


Fair enough, the front is only "walkable" when events are going on.


The front is not "walkable."  No side is "walkable" or pedestrian-friendly.  The site isn't pedestrian-friendly.


But it's always more desirable to look at [the front] from surrounding businesses than a loading dock.


Not necessarily.  It depends on the weather, the time of day, the season, and what's going on.  The building is shiny.  On clear summer evenings, the dock area can be horribly hot, with the sun setting on the northwest side of the building.

On clear summer mornings, the entry side can be horribly hot.
 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on September 21, 2016, 02:32:44 pm
Quote
New homes planned for The Villages at Central Park

The Pearl District is re-polishing one of its real estate gems.
Construction is scheduled to start in about a month on a new phase of The Villages at Central Park, adjacent to Centennial Park, west of Peoria Avenue between Seventh and Eighth streets.
Sam Rader, chairman of Coldwell Banker Select, is set to invest from $10 million to $12 million into about 50 Georgian-style townhomes over the next two to three years, said Stephen Meltzer, project manager and real estate agent with CB Urban, a division of Coldwell Banker Select.
Rader is purchasing the property for the project from Jamie Jamieson and Kathy Henry, the husband-and-wife team who developed the first roughly 50 townhouses at The Villages at Central Park, as well as several other real estate developments in the Pearl District.
“The kind of people who moved in, they could see the vision to repopulate the core of the city,” Jamieson said of the current Village, which is 100 percent occupied. “It was particularly baby boomers who have come in, people who have been around a bit, with a number of them with the confidence of having run their own businesses. And quite a few of the people are from out of town. It’s a very tight community.”

The new phase will feature ground-floor single units (866 square feet) with an enclosed garage, and upstairs units (1,442 square feet) with a private deck. The two-story homes (2,233 square feet) will have interior staircases and rooftop decks.

The units will range from $200,000 to $496,000, Meltzer said.

“If the sales go heavily toward one particular model versus another, then, of course, we’ll respond to the market,” he said.
“It is a green, pedestrian-friendly community. To make it pedestrian-friendly, you can’t have lengthy blocks of row houses like you would see in New York City. At regularly spaced intervals, there are division between the blocks, and those have sidewalks and landscaping so you can navigate the community and the adjacent Centennial Park quite easily on a bike or by walking.”
Jamieson built the first homes in the 2001, and construction stopped about five years later after the economy began to cool, he said.
The project is modeled after Georgetown, a historic neighborhood, commercial, and entertainment district located in northwest Washington, D.C.


http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/realestate/new-homes-planned-for-the-villages-at-central-park/article_37c6c115-69ee-5400-9a04-319e658fa4af.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/realestate/new-homes-planned-for-the-villages-at-central-park/article_37c6c115-69ee-5400-9a04-319e658fa4af.html)

Maybe not technically downtown as it's just outside the IDL. These prices seem expensive per square foot (~$230/ft2) but good to see more housing for purchase downtown.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on September 21, 2016, 02:42:20 pm
Hard to imagine a 2,233 sq ft townhouses can sell for $496k while the 2,713 sq ft Urban 8 are stagnant at $580k even inside the IDL. Must be more to it at Urban 8 (as others have suggested, you have to finish the inside yourself at that price).

And the Villages development investment is $10-$12 million for 50 units so that is at least 50,000 sq ft of housing they are putting in (probably much more - 60k-100k sq ft). Good to see the Pearl District becoming solidified as an urban/residential area. I have always liked the aesthetics of the Villages and Central Park and how the trail goes through. Nice view of downtown there too.

This seems like a big enough project to add to the comprehensive list of major developments in downtown.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: johrasephoenix on September 21, 2016, 08:29:44 pm
I used to run through there all the time and those townhouses are awesome.  That said, I wish they were connected to Peoria or were across the street actually in the neighborhood.  As is it has a bit of a subdivisiony feel because the whole development has only one access road (I think).


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on September 22, 2016, 07:12:30 am
I used to run through there all the time and those townhouses are awesome.  That said, I wish they were connected to Peoria or were across the street actually in the neighborhood.  As is it has a bit of a subdivisiony feel because the whole development has only one access road (I think).

I think that has more to do with building the development on under utilized land near downtown than by design. It is boxed in by a park, a cemetery, and a Family and Children Services. There are 8 lots to the north of Family and Children Services that front Peoria that are owned by Pearl Development LLC, but I do not know how that entity relates to the Village at Central Park development.

In any event, you can access the development from 8th or from the parking lot off of Peoria.

Looking at Tulsa County Assessor and Zillow, it appears the current units are mostly 2367 sq ft, 3 bedroom 2.5 bath, and are valued between $285 and $350k.  
http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Central-Park-Tulsa-OK/250248_rid/village-at-_att/globalrelevanceex_sort/36.151968,-95.975552,36.148962,-95.980358_rect/17_zm/

It appears fron tmerely counting lots that there are currently ~50 units, there are something like 35 lots left open (plus the 8 on Peoria).


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DTowner on September 22, 2016, 08:31:56 am
Hard to imagine a 2,233 sq ft townhouses can sell for $496k while the 2,713 sq ft Urban 8 are stagnant at $580k even inside the IDL. Must be more to it at Urban 8 (as others have suggested, you have to finish the inside yourself at that price).

While the price is high, these townhouses have a big advantage over Urban 8 because they are in an established market.  This development has been around over a decade.  Multiple units have turned over, so there is a lot more comfort to a buyer that he/she can sell down the road with a reasonable appreciation.  Plus, the Pearl District is much more developed now that it was even five years ago.  That said, I think the last few units built (which were not built by the original developer) were much higher priced than the original development and ended up selling well below the original asking price.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Townsend on September 30, 2016, 03:08:18 pm
I just noticed the shipping container space next to Fur Shop is well under way. 

From my vantage point, it looks like someone took a loaded pier and placed it there...I'm going to assume the containers will be prettied up a bit once the placement is completed.

If not, then maybe they can play loud seagull noises, ship's horns and some yard workers screaming obscenities.

Is it supposed to look like this?

(http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/images/8023046_G.jpg)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Red Arrow on September 30, 2016, 05:00:21 pm
I just noticed the shipping container space next to Fur Shop is well under way. 

From my vantage point, it looks like someone took a loaded pier and placed it there...I'm going to assume the containers will be prettied up a bit once the placement is completed.

If not, then maybe they can play loud seagull noises, ship's horns and some yard workers screaming obscenities.

Is it supposed to look like this?

(http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/images/8023046_G.jpg)


Sounds wouldn't be to difficult.  The smell of the ocean would be a bit tougher to duplicate properly.



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: johrasephoenix on October 03, 2016, 07:35:16 am
Maybe it will be an ode to Tulsa's storied maritime history...

Last time I read the Oklahoma Republican Party platform I recall it specifically saying that the Great State of Oklahoma refuses to recognize the International Law of the Sea.  There was something about it being an infringement on our sovereign rights (presumably to hang pirates on Lake Keystone) and a step towards global government, the ruination of Old Glory, etc. 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on October 03, 2016, 08:37:00 am
We have a coast guard here because of the Port of Catoosa.  The Jade Helm types are probably worried about them taking over the city and executing citizens in the shipping channel.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on October 07, 2016, 05:00:42 pm

This afternoon I noticed three "cranes in the air" -- one on Third, near Cheyenne, for the new Hampton Inn & Suites construction site:


Hampton Inn & Suites | 120 Rooms | $17 Million

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/673/CII0Zb.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/ipCII0Zbj)


Another crane was set up in Fourth Street, on the hill between Boulder and Main, for the Palace Building project:

(http://tulsanow.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Palace-1-750x450.jpg)

A third crane was on Sixth Street near Main, probably for the Art Deco Lofts and Apartments (http://artdecoloftsandapartments.com/) in the old PSO/Transok Building:


Transok Building

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/540/dVnF9O.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/f0dVnF9Oj)


Parking for the Art Deco Lofts and Apartments appears to be in the basement of the buildings fronting Main Street, with the garage ramp access from Seventh Street.
 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: SXSW on October 09, 2016, 11:42:09 am
We have a coast guard here because of the Port of Catoosa. 

And the largest most inland ice-free river port in the country.  :)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Oil Capital on October 09, 2016, 01:29:43 pm
And the largest most inland ice-free river port in the country.  :)

Sorry, but no we don't have the largest most inland ice-free river port in the country.   It is one of the largest most inland ice-free river ports.  But it is neither the largest, nor most inland, nor the largest most inland ice-free river port. (Pretty sure that title goes to St. Louis, which is ice-free, more inland, and handles about 12 times as much cargo volume as the Port of Catoosa.)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on October 10, 2016, 09:01:25 am
Sorry, but no we don't have the largest most inland ice-free river port in the country.   It is one of the largest most inland ice-free river ports.  But it is neither the largest, nor most inland, nor the largest most inland ice-free river port. (Pretty sure that title goes to St. Louis, which is ice-free, more inland, and handles about 12 times as much cargo volume as the Port of Catoosa.)

Believe it or not, POC is second behind Duluth, Mn, not St. Louis.  I’m pretty sure Duluth freezes so the claim as POC being the furthest inland ice-free may well be accurate.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Oil Capital on October 10, 2016, 10:06:56 am
Believe it or not, POC is second behind Duluth, Mn, not St. Louis.  I’m pretty sure Duluth freezes so the claim as POC being the furthest inland ice-free may well be accurate.

By what metric is POC second behind Duluth, MN?  (And FWIW, I don't think Duluth is even considered an "inland port". Duluth

And how can the claim be accurate when we know that St. Louis is (1) ice-free, (2) further inland than Tulsa, and (3) roughly twelve times the size of POC?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on October 10, 2016, 10:55:54 am
Believe it or not, POC is second behind Duluth, Mn, not St. Louis.  I’m pretty sure Duluth freezes so the claim as POC being the furthest inland ice-free may well be accurate.


They used to have ice-breakers that kept it open even when a lot of ice - surely they would not stop that....!?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on October 10, 2016, 01:23:01 pm
By what metric is POC second behind Duluth, MN?  (And FWIW, I don't think Duluth is even considered an "inland port". Duluth

And how can the claim be accurate when we know that St. Louis is (1) ice-free, (2) further inland than Tulsa, and (3) roughly twelve times the size of POC?

Quote
Located at the western end of the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway (GLSLS), it is the farthest-inland freshwater seaport and one of the leading bulk cargo ports in all of North America. By far, the largest and busiest on the Great Lakes, the Port of Duluth-Superior handles an average of 38 million short tons of cargo and nearly 1,000 vessel visits each year...connecting the heartland of the U.S. and Canada to the rest of the world.
http://www.duluthport.com/port.php

It is slightly over 1000 miles from POC to NOLA:

Quote
The waterway travels 445 miles along the Verdigris River, the Arkansas River, the Arkansas Post Canal and the White River before joining the Mississippi at Montgomery Point. New Orleans is 600 miles south.

http://tulsaport.com/navigation-system/

I cannot find the exact river mileage from STL to NOLA, but I-55 is just under 700 miles.  Throwing out a liberal figure for a meandering river, let’s call it 800 miles.  With the POC being 1045 miles via the river, that makes the POC further inland.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Oil Capital on October 10, 2016, 02:04:53 pm
http://www.duluthport.com/port.php

So that quote might make Duluth #1.  But it is a LONG way from making the POC number 2. St. Louis still beats the POC and if we're going to count Duluth (which you acknowledged may not even be ice-free) there are a whole bunch more ports along the Great Lakes that are both further inland and larger than the POC.  FWIW, Duluth doesn't even meet the threshhold criteria for our "largest, most-inland, ice-free port" competition because, "... while the Seaway shipping season is limited to nine months, domestic shipping lanes are typically kept open for nearly ten months with the help of tugboats and Coast Guard icebreakers. (http://... while the Seaway shipping season is limited to nine months, domestic shipping lanes are typically kept open for nearly ten months with the help of tugboats and Coast Guard icebreakers.)"

It is slightly over 1000 miles from POC to NOLA:

http://tulsaport.com/navigation-system/

I cannot find the exact river mileage from STL to NOLA, but I-55 is just under 700 miles.  Throwing out a liberal figure for a meandering river, let’s call it 800 miles.  With the POC being 1045 miles via the river, that makes the POC further inland.

From the mouth of the Arkansas River to St. Louis is approximately 540 river miles.  As your post mentioned, from the mouth of the Arkansas River to the POC is 445 river miles.  So St. Louis is almost 100 river miles further inland than the POC.  (FWIW, as the crow flies, it's about 354 miles from the mouth of the Arkansas to St. Louis; 319 miles to the POC.  It's about 625 miles from St. Louis to the nearest point in the Gulf of Mexico, as the crow flies; about 475 miles from the POC to the nearest point of the Gulf of Mexico.  By any measure, St. Louis is further inland.



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Oil Capital on October 10, 2016, 03:03:58 pm
Dup


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: SXSW on October 10, 2016, 07:49:09 pm
Sorry I brought it up.  Let's just say our port is one of the largest inland river ports and leave it at that.  Back to downtown development...


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on October 11, 2016, 11:17:28 am

This morning, I noticed Hampton Lumber being used to construct the new Marriott at 5th & Cheyenne.  :)


Residence Inn | 100 Rooms | $9 Million

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/538/AfCDik.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/eyAfCDikj)



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on October 11, 2016, 12:56:27 pm
This morning, I noticed Hampton Lumber being used to construct the new Marriott at 5th & Cheyenne.  :)


Does that mean they will use Marriott lumber for the Hampton then?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on October 11, 2016, 06:02:08 pm


Does that mean they will use Marriott lumber for the Hampton then?


lol

I've not heard of Marriott lumber.  Is it a common building material?
 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on October 11, 2016, 06:11:19 pm
lol

I've not heard of Marriott lumber.  Is it a common building material?
 

No, but for grins I decided to Google it and I did get a hit for Marriott Lumber in Scranton, Pa.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on October 11, 2016, 06:19:46 pm


No, but for grins I decided to Google it and I did get a hit for Marriott Lumber in Scranton, Pa.


lol

I Googled "Marriott Lumber" before I posted my reply, and I didn't see any Marriott Lumber in Scranton.  What's their street address?



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: saintnicster on October 13, 2016, 01:44:09 pm
https://www.readfrontier.com/spotlight/tulsa-parking-authority-buys-land-brady-district-new-parking-facility/

Quote
Tulsa Parking Authority buys land in Brady Arts District for new parking facility
By KEVIN CANFIELD| OCTOBER 11, 2016
TPA Director Peyton Haralson said the authority purchased the land in part to allay concerns prospective business owners in the Brady District might have about available parking.

The Tulsa Parking Authority recently purchased a 45,000-square-foot property that runs along the north side of East Cameron Street from Boulder Avenue to Main Street.

Looks like something's finally going to happen with the Borden/Truck lot


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Ibanez on October 13, 2016, 01:59:57 pm
https://www.readfrontier.com/spotlight/tulsa-parking-authority-buys-land-brady-district-new-parking-facility/

Looks like something's finally going to happen with the Borden/Truck lot

I know this is too much to hope for, but it sure would be nice if they built a parking garage rather than a surface lot.

Hell, while we are dreaming let's make the first floor of the parking structure be retail.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: erfalf on October 13, 2016, 02:06:52 pm
I know this is too much to hope for, but it sure would be nice if they built a parking garage rather than a surface lot.

Hell, while we are dreaming let's make the first floor of the parking structure be retail.

Why not just build a single story shallow building in front of the lot (king of like the Fairfield)? I'm sure there are a ton of people looking for small spaces anyway.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Townsend on October 13, 2016, 02:09:46 pm
I know this is too much to hope for, but it sure would be nice if they built a parking garage rather than a surface lot.

Hell, while we are dreaming let's make the first floor of the parking structure be retail.

They'll purty up the surface parking lot with poles...with lights!  They really break up the space.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Townsend on October 13, 2016, 03:21:20 pm
Casa Laredo is closing


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on October 13, 2016, 03:26:23 pm
Casa Laredo is closing

It was quiet as a morgue anytime we ate dinner there which were non-show nights so I didn’t expect it to be overly busy but it made you wonder.  Were they doing very good lunch business?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Dspike on October 13, 2016, 04:11:59 pm
Update on Residence Inn progress. Walls started going up this week. Here's what it looks like today:

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/922/elTRx3.jpg)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: SXSW on October 13, 2016, 05:45:47 pm
Does the Residence Inn go all the way to the corner of 5th & Denver?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Dspike on October 14, 2016, 07:06:37 am
Yes, I believe so. The concrete slab definitely reaches the entire block.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on October 14, 2016, 09:37:28 am
This morning, I noticed Hampton Lumber being used to construct the new Marriott at 5th & Cheyenne.  :)


The loggers, truck drivers, rail workers, and mills of the PNW say thank you for using our lumber.

http://www.hamptonaffiliates.com/subcontent.aspx?SecID=124 (http://www.hamptonaffiliates.com/subcontent.aspx?SecID=124)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: SXSW on October 14, 2016, 11:47:07 am
Yes, I believe so. The concrete slab definitely reaches the entire block.

That's good I wasn't sure when they were first doing site work.  That will create a nice street wall along Denver with the YMCA lofts and along 5th.  Is that surface parking along Boulder to 6th and is it shared by the YMCA and the hotel?

5th from Detroit to Boulder is one of my favorite streets downtown.  It still has a couple gaps and retail vacancies but is more "complete" than most downtown streets.  Would love to someday see the Arvest and the parking lots next to it redeveloped into something that better fits the character of the surrounding buildings.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on October 14, 2016, 11:49:16 am
That's good I wasn't sure when they were first doing site work.  That will create a nice street wall along Denver with the YMCA lofts and along 5th.  Is that surface parking along Boulder to 6th and is it shared by the YMCA and the hotel?

5th from Detroit to Boulder is one of my favorite streets downtown.  It still has a couple gaps and retail vacancies but is more "complete" than most downtown streets.  Would love to someday see the Arvest and the parking lots next to it redeveloped into something that better fits the character of the surrounding buildings.

I thought the parking for the YMCA lofts was going to be in the basement.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on October 25, 2016, 08:01:12 am
So the Residence Inn along Denver is a 3-4 foot of foundation then a wall above it.  Why are Tulsa developers so loathe to include street level retail space in their buildings?  We talk a lot about walkability on this board and there are groups that meet that are into that sort of thing but the developers won't do it.  Very frustrating.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on October 25, 2016, 08:03:51 am
Simply put, the market rate for street level retail hasn't yet hit the level that it makes the hassle of tenants worth it to many developers unless they share our vision, plan for the future, or think that it adds something else to their development.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: erfalf on October 25, 2016, 08:13:58 am
Simply put, the market rate for street level retail hasn't yet hit the level that it makes the hassle of tenants worth it to many developers unless they share our vision, plan for the future, or think that it adds something else to their development.

Is the perception that it never will hit that level, or do developers not think past the next ten seconds?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: johrasephoenix on October 25, 2016, 09:10:48 am
It's because they can't rent the first floor retail space currently and there's currently a ton of retail vacancy.  Look at the American Residential apartments downtown - Tribune, Metro at Brady, the Edge at East Village - none of them have first floor retail.  The Metro kind of smartly has work/live office loft things on the first floor that kind of mimic the transparency of retail but aren't real storefronts (except for that one on the corner). 

The reality is that the economics of small footprint retail is brutal without tons of foot traffic, which downtown currently does not have.  The new Meridia and TransOK buildings have first floor retail and let's see if they can find tenants.

That said, it can definitely be done.  Elliot Nelson and the Hodges Bend folks have shown that if you have a great product you can attract customers anywhere. The GKFF properties have put in amazing tenants. 

To me, the big problem is that downtown can currently support first floor retail tenants when you land something visionary that becomes a destination like Antoinette's or Elote.  But there's not that many of those to go around.  Hopefully all those apartments going up will get us to where we can support things like a corner falafel shop or 7-11 that aren't city-wide destinations but a place for folks to snag a Diet Dr Pepper.  That's how we get to a point where developers start adding ground floor retail as the default.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: johrasephoenix on October 25, 2016, 09:17:43 am
Also - design problem that was briefly discussed by ULI.

Retail is currently not supported by the market downtown, but it will be in the next decade or so.  Once it is, retail generates a lot more income for landlords than the housing above it (and infinitely more than just lobby space that some developments currently have).  

How can we design first floor spaces that can easily change uses 10 years down the road?  Maybe today the first floor is a small office or apartment, but 15 years out when the market changes it can easily be converted into retail space.  That way we avoid the "VACANT - FOR RENT" signs that currently make walking in some parts of downtown so depressing while the market absorbs vacant inventory.

My biggest, wettest dream for all of Tulsa is that one day Boston Avenue will be the city's retail/entertainment/lifestyle destination from the Williams Tower to 6th street, maybe even by the time my grandkids die from the tower to the Boston Avenue Methodist Church.  I love all the other downtown districts but Boston Avenue is the only place in Oklahoma with the opportunity to be truly magnificent, like a smaller version of Michigan Avenue in Chicago or Copley Square in Boston.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: SXSW on October 25, 2016, 12:48:02 pm
I share your same vision for Boston Ave as a retail district from 3rd to 6th and eventually further south.  I would add Main St as well.  A good mix of retail and restaurants, especially ones open in the evenings and not just for the lunch crowd. 

As for entertainment we already have that covered in the Blue Dome and Brady, and events at the BOK.  I would love to see a similar "strip" of bars/restaurants form along Elgin from 1st to 6th extending over to Detroit between 1st and 3rd, in the Blue Dome and continue to build up Main from Archer to Cain's in the Brady.

Regarding the Residence Inn at least one retail space should've been put in at the corner of 5th & Boulder.  If Boulder is ever a streetcar route it will need more mixed uses since it has currently very few.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: erfalf on October 25, 2016, 01:28:34 pm
My biggest, wettest dream for all of Tulsa is that one day Boston Avenue will be the city's retail/entertainment/lifestyle destination from the Williams Tower to 6th street, maybe even by the time my grandkids die from the tower to the Boston Avenue Methodist Church.  I love all the other downtown districts but Boston Avenue is the only place in Oklahoma with the opportunity to be truly magnificent, like a smaller version of Michigan Avenue in Chicago or Copley Square in Boston.

I see Boston Avenue being much more like State Street in Chicago. More historic, not nearly as touristy. Besides Boston Avenue is the epicenter of the business district as well.

https://goo.gl/maps/ZGcAkip1C292

(http://img2.10bestmedia.com/Images/Photos/290495/Shopping-on-State-Street_54_990x660.jpg)
(http://loopchicago.com/_files/images/ssa_statestreet.jpg)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on October 25, 2016, 02:08:27 pm
But where will everyone park?  Won't someone please think of the parking!!


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: dbacksfan 2.0 on October 25, 2016, 02:26:14 pm
But where will everyone park?  Won't someone please think of the parking!!

They have these multi-story buildings called publc parking garages.

https://goo.gl/maps/5t5X1e4Kcun (https://goo.gl/maps/5t5X1e4Kcun)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on October 25, 2016, 02:42:17 pm
They have these multi-story buildings called publc parking garages.

https://goo.gl/maps/5t5X1e4Kcun (https://goo.gl/maps/5t5X1e4Kcun)

Doesn't count.  Tulsans need to see an ocean of surface parking to feel comfortable.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on October 26, 2016, 08:42:00 am
I wish everyone would realize that there is a parking problem! In a respectable retail area no more than 1/3rd of parking should usually be used, and no more than 75% should be used at the busiest moment of the entire year. Preferably never getting about 50%. That's science.

And there is a solution. With just a few modifications and some targeted demolitions, we could add ample parking around the core of Boston Avenue to make it a real shopping destination for the area. People from Jenks to Collinsville would feel comfortable coming downtown, finding a parking space, and shopping in our beautiful, dense, walkable, urban city core. I took the liberty of commission a top notch architect to create the following detailed plans and rendering:

(http://i.imgur.com/I5Aghbb.png)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: SXSW on October 26, 2016, 09:26:54 am
^ What's funny is that is exactly how most new "town center" retail developments are built.  One urban strip with big parking lots on both sides.  Boston already is like that south of 8th, hopefully that area eventually fills in but it's probably 5-10 years from happening.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on October 26, 2016, 10:06:06 am
^ What's funny is that is exactly how most new "town center" retail developments are built.  One urban strip with big parking lots on both sides.  Boston already is like that south of 8th, hopefully that area eventually fills in but it's probably 5-10 years from happening.

Exactly what Simon Properties wanted to do to Turkey Mountain.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TheArtist on October 27, 2016, 08:57:27 pm
Want to support retail downtown? 

Shop at DECOPOLIS this Christmas!

I am putting my heart and soul into this thing, help me and my team out and we will keep trying to grow and be better. I will need to do at least $80,000 in sales during December alone in order to break even for the year (and thats me working all year and not making a dime from the store but putting everything into the business. Thank goodness for my day job lol). That amount is nothing for a mall store, but like everyone has pointed out, its still tough as heck to make it in our downtown! But if I can make it, and I can keep improving and growing, I really hope to make something truly magical and wonderful that we can all be proud of and that you all will love and enjoy.  I promise.

Also per retail downtown, they really need to be requesting lower rents at this point.  Many are wanting too much and spaces sit empty.  I am probably paying more than what my space is currently really worth.  I can fight through it with a LOT of creativity, work and determination, but I am not your average person, and we are not the average store, so can pull it off (hopefully).  Jeff Speck when he was in town also mentioned that as a problem he saw. Get a concentration of retail going and then gradually raise the rates as the critical mass/attraction builds. 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: johrasephoenix on October 27, 2016, 09:34:17 pm
Keep fighting William!

Unlike a mall, downtown has lots of landowners with lots of buildings each trying to maximize their own income.  At a mall or retail center, you have a single landlord who mix and matches rents to draw the right mix of shops and thus draw the biggest crowds.  In a stroke of genius, when Gerald Hines was developing Houston's mega-famous Galleria he pretty much gave Neiman Marcus their space for free, and then charged the heck out of the little shops and restaurants that lined the pedestrian walkways to Neiman Marcus.  I think a lot of big department stores still get deals like that when they anchor malls and shopping centers.

It's not actually possible, but I do wonder if you had a single motivated owner of all the first floor retail spaces on Boston Avenue if he/she could fine tune rents to attract the right tenant mix.  Maybe in my dream world the first floor retail could be owned separately from the office above, with a single retail specialist developer coordinating tenant attraction. 

Other than parking, etc, it's one of the reasons I've been told that downtown shopping historically couldn't compete with regional malls.   


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: davideinstein on October 27, 2016, 11:43:12 pm
Thompson Building is fairly priced.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on October 28, 2016, 07:46:23 am
Thompson Building is fairly priced.

Quick! What building is Decopolis in...

Thompson building is currently advertising $12.50 a square for street retail:
http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/14172309/20-E-5th-St-Tulsa-OK/

(But maybe not... poster below points out it appears to be mislabeled office space:

Space 220
Rental Rate   
$12.50 /SF/Year
Max. Contiguous   2,200 SF
Space Available   2,644 SF   Space Type   Street Retail
Min. Divisible   2,200 SF   Lease Type   Full Service)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: davideinstein on October 28, 2016, 10:49:25 pm
Quick! What building is Decopolis in...

Thompson building is currently advertising $12.50 a square for street retail:
http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/14172309/20-E-5th-St-Tulsa-OK/

Steal.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TheArtist on October 31, 2016, 09:45:23 pm
Quick! What building is Decopolis in...

Thompson building is currently advertising $12.50 a square for street retail:
http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/14172309/20-E-5th-St-Tulsa-OK/

Well seeing as there is no available street retail in the Thompson building that may give you a clue that that is not correct.  We had to negotiate down to "more than that" and it goes up each year thereafter.  (They wanted $18 after 4 years in our old spot, which was why we left. The new spot is a much nicer space) I inquired about the Meridia and they were wanting $24 per sq foot ground floor retail space.

Again, may not be bad for office or restaurant, but retail it's still tricky for the traffic isn't there just yet.

I need to do a minimum of $14,000 in sales per month just to break even and keep the doors open (thats not me making anything or much of anything for an advertising budget, etc.) per the hours we are open. 6 days per week x 4= 24 days per month = about $600 in sales per day.  Then days like Mondays are really slow (average about $250 currently), Tuesdays are a tad better, so then other days you need to do hundreds more in sales.  Next year the rent goes up again so will need to have better sales.

So far we are doing it and here is to hoping we have a good Christmas! But I am really going to have to improve my game if I want to make money myself with the store.  It's tough work! 4 years in now and not a dime made (Perhaps I just have lousy product selection if you all think the rent is so cheap?) But hopefully next year we turn the corner and have our costs down, product selections refined, order timing down pat, get a little more traffic,  etc.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on November 01, 2016, 07:20:31 am
Now when I follow the link I don't see any street level retail listed. Maybe I saw it wrong or the listing has been updated? The office space is listed as $12.50 a square, one would expect the street level retail to be higher (in a mature urban city way, way higher).  In any event - seemed low to me too.

The WayBack Internet Archive shows an advertising for $17.00 for street level retail on the corner:
https://web.archive.org/web/20131027211801/http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/14172309/20-E-5th-St-Tulsa-OK/

(Space 103
Space Available:
5,650 SF
Rental Rate:
$17 /SF/Year
Space Type:
Restaurant
Additional Space Types:
Institutional/ Governmental
Office Building
Creative/Loft
Min. Divisible:
2,532 SF
Lease Type:
Modified Gross
Lease Term:
60 Months
Located in Deco District with entrance off Boston. Soaring ceilings, great exposure at 5th & Boston. Partial Mezzanine available)

I suppose it would depend on build out and the like too...


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Oil Capital on November 01, 2016, 09:21:56 am
Now when I follow the link I don't see any street level retail listed. Maybe I saw it wrong or the listing has been updated? The office space is listed as $12.50 a square, one would expect the street level retail to be higher (in a mature urban city way, way higher).  In any event - seemed low to me too.

The WayBack Internet Archive shows an advertising for $17.00 for street level retail on the corner:
https://web.archive.org/web/20131027211801/http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/14172309/20-E-5th-St-Tulsa-OK/

I suppose it would depend on build out and the like too...

It's still there.  The first of 11 spaces listed as available in your link:

Space 220
Rental Rate    

    $12.50 /SF/Year

   Max. Contiguous    2,200 SF
Space Available    2,644 SF    Space Type    Street Retail
Min. Divisible    2,200 SF    Lease Type    Full Service


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: saintnicster on November 01, 2016, 10:06:25 am
It's still there.  The first of 11 spaces listed as available in your link:

Space 220
Rental Rate    

    $12.50 /SF/Year

   Max. Contiguous    2,200 SF
Space Available    2,644 SF    Space Type    Street Retail
Min. Divisible    2,200 SF    Lease Type    Full Service

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, though. Suite 220 generally means second floor, and it even shows up on the 2nd floor listing.  There's no street level entrance on that map (http://x.lnimg.com/attachments/9EA00CFF-0A2E-4492-BA00-568666C2691C.pdf)

Going to this site, you can get a marketing flyer for a mezzanine that has the first floor, showing JJ, Decopolis, and that Farmers/whatever firm between Decopolis and Elote.  http://www.showcase.com/property/20-E-5th-Street/Tulsa/Oklahoma/1048316 (map (http://ahprdcdn4.costar.com/attachments/get.ishx?x=84B938583EBFC522AEE36FFB791CC7FF1CD1C916930EA13F615C4CE97B070D2A6FF5FBFD0809062FB73341CB749B010F2CD2D29DE1CD8C4D8C22A3F130DE2E85ACFC2E56D4B4E00481DDF20663887E4B10C4D19ABC3B79BF57AC1952B36A6E574FE3349CB43ADD57E15D0B636590C250EA118B3BAE0883E78DD1D8B05C463D09F3FBAA1DAA326507465372C818DB3D5609C784BF6CC6967D928A7310E8191C27))

EDIT - yeah, and looking at my second link, it verifies the $17 for decopolis's space, while listing 220 as office space. LoopNET's listing is mis-classified, probably has been for years.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TheArtist on November 01, 2016, 03:54:44 pm
I believe my ground floor space is "Suite 102" and it's about 3,450 sq feet.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: johrasephoenix on November 01, 2016, 07:39:10 pm
William - thanks for doing your good work!  We need visionaries like you who keep downtown alive.  I have your sweet "Goddess of Oil" poster in my apartment.

I had a conversation with some folks-in-the-know who said downtown developers need $25/sf to make retail work on the first floor for new construction parking garages, apartments, etc.  That matches up with what the Meridia is charging.  It's really hard to justify though with current downtown foot traffic.  What does rent cost in a more established small footprint retail district like Brookside or Cherry Street?

Hopefully the demand side of the equation will change as all those apartments come on line.  It's residential that drives retail and will ultimately take downtown to the next level.  

I'm really curious how the retail cluster going into the Archer Warehouse will work out.  


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 02, 2016, 09:24:12 am
Well seeing as there is no available street retail in the Thompson building that may give you a clue that that is not correct.  We had to negotiate down to "more than that" and it goes up each year thereafter.  (They wanted $18 after 4 years in our old spot, which was why we left. The new spot is a much nicer space) I inquired about the Meridia and they were wanting $24 per sq foot ground floor retail space.

Again, may not be bad for office or restaurant, but retail it's still tricky for the traffic isn't there just yet.

I need to do a minimum of $14,000 in sales per month just to break even and keep the doors open (thats not me making anything or much of anything for an advertising budget, etc.) per the hours we are open. 6 days per week x 4= 24 days per month = about $600 in sales per day.  Then days like Mondays are really slow (average about $250 currently), Tuesdays are a tad better, so then other days you need to do hundreds more in sales.  Next year the rent goes up again so will need to have better sales.

So far we are doing it and here is to hoping we have a good Christmas! But I am really going to have to improve my game if I want to make money myself with the store.  It's tough work! 4 years in now and not a dime made (Perhaps I just have lousy product selection if you all think the rent is so cheap?) But hopefully next year we turn the corner and have our costs down, product selections refined, order timing down pat, get a little more traffic,  etc.


You are smashing headlong into that huge rock wall of what so many small retailers run into!   Had some grandparents who tried retail in Owasso long, long ago and it was astounding how even when you do everything "right" it can still be less than thriving.   The times I have been in (usually Saturdays) there seems to be a good number of people walking around looking and many of them buying.  I have a couple of those "off the wall" watches you sell - I haven't been in for a while, so assuming you still sell them - and love them!  Even the reactionaries I work with react favorably to them!  
 




Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TheArtist on November 02, 2016, 03:23:14 pm
William - thanks for doing your good work!  We need visionaries like you who keep downtown alive.  I have your sweet "Goddess of Oil" poster in my apartment.

I had a conversation with some folks-in-the-know who said downtown developers need $25/sf to make retail work on the first floor for new construction parking garages, apartments, etc.  That matches up with what the Meridia is charging.  It's really hard to justify though with current downtown foot traffic.  What does rent cost in a more established small footprint retail district like Brookside or Cherry Street?

Hopefully the demand side of the equation will change as all those apartments come on line.  It's residential that drives retail and will ultimately take downtown to the next level.  

I'm really curious how the retail cluster going into the Archer Warehouse will work out.  

Thanks! We will keep trucking!  I think for Brookside it can range from around $14 per square foot closer to 41st then as you get to the "hot spot" area it can be around $30 per square foot. 

The cluster around Archer Warehouse should have a little easier time of it for Kaiser wants to see that area succeed and they can through various means "including Guthrie Green" help promote that.  Unfortunately for the Deco District we don't have anything like that it's up to us small businesses to do what we can.

Oh and thanks for purchasing the poster!


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TheArtist on November 02, 2016, 03:30:49 pm

You are smashing headlong into that huge rock wall of what so many small retailers run into!   Had some grandparents who tried retail in Owasso long, long ago and it was astounding how even when you do everything "right" it can still be less than thriving.   The times I have been in (usually Saturdays) there seems to be a good number of people walking around looking and many of them buying.  I have a couple of those "off the wall" watches you sell - I haven't been in for a while, so assuming you still sell them - and love them!  Even the reactionaries I work with react favorably to them!  
 




Thanks!  And yes, I know the watches your talking about they are fun. we still have them plus a few more new designs.

I wonder about retail in our downtown. On the one hand I wonder if places like the Brady Arts, Santa Fe and Boxyard will pull all the people to them and leave us in the Deco District as an outlier.  But if I put a positive spin on it, I hope that by having some lively successful retail areas in downtown it will help make downtown in general more of a draw for shopping and help us all out.   But, who knows.  I do know that when I look at my numbers for First Fridays for instance, that Friday is our slowest for everyone goes to that part of downtown.  Who knows what it will be like when we get more areas that will be competing for attention and people.  So yes, you can do everything right, even be exceptional in your own way, but....


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: RecycleMichael on November 02, 2016, 05:43:01 pm
William - thanks for doing your good work!  We need visionaries like you who keep downtown alive.  I have your sweet "Goddess of Oil" poster in my apartment.

I have William's Golden Driller poster in my office.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on November 02, 2016, 06:36:51 pm
Thanks!  And yes, I know the watches your talking about they are fun. we still have them plus a few more new designs.

I wonder about retail in our downtown. On the one hand I wonder if places like the Brady Arts, Santa Fe and Boxyard will pull all the people to them and leave us in the Deco District as an outlier.  But if I put a positive spin on it, I hope that by having some lively successful retail areas in downtown it will help make downtown in general more of a draw for shopping and help us all out.   But, who knows.  I do know that when I look at my numbers for First Fridays for instance, that Friday is our slowest for everyone goes to that part of downtown.  Who knows what it will be like when we get more areas that will be competing for attention and people.  So yes, you can do everything right, even be exceptional in your own way, but....

Balance with on-line sales!  We’ve had this conversation, it’s a must for a business like yours!


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TheArtist on November 03, 2016, 03:24:20 pm
Balance with on-line sales!  We’ve had this conversation, it’s a must for a business like yours!

Indeed we are working on doing just that and hopefully will get that underway first of the year.

 It took us a while just to find a program that worked with our Quick Books inventory program so that when we sell something online we can keep track both of what we have on hand in the store and whats available to sell online (and what we sell in the store also updates the online availability).   And finding a platform that will help us and the customer with the cost of mailing different weight/size items to different places in the country.  Then we will have to set up a shipping department and have all the  different size boxes, etc. and packing material.  Write up a procedure manual for everything.  Design the website so its attractive (people smiling, pretty pictures and backgrounds) and is user friendly,  products searchable under different categories, nicely pose and photograph and crop/photoshop aaall the items, etc. etc. whew!

Yea definitely waiting till after the chaos of the holidays to do all that.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: davideinstein on November 03, 2016, 03:53:00 pm
$500 in sales per day to keep a spot in the Thompson Building is absolute steal. No?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: davideinstein on November 03, 2016, 03:54:42 pm
Balance with on-line sales!  We’ve had this conversation, it’s a must for a business like yours!

Agree with this. Visiting family soon and will buy their gifts from Decopolis. I'd be shopping online right now actually...and I literally work right next door.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on November 03, 2016, 04:20:04 pm
Isn't Conan in that business?   I would think for a high visibility, very high profile business here on the forum, they would be interested in a serious advertising opportunity, at low or no cost, for what they do...??   (William, trying to help put the 'touch' on them for some free/cheap software here....)



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TheArtist on November 03, 2016, 06:49:09 pm
$500 in sales per day to keep a spot in the Thompson Building is absolute steal. No?

I hope so! We shall see!

On those days when all you sell are a few greeting cards, a couple of books and toys, a keychain or two, a poster and a couple t-shirts... means you have to sell a LOT more than that on the other days.  Now if I were selling sandwiches... hmmm... 

The key is getting more people in the doors.  We have a decent "sell rate per person" I think. But not a lot of walk by traffic on that street just yet.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on November 03, 2016, 08:22:07 pm
Indeed we are working on doing just that and hopefully will get that underway first of the year.

 It took us a while just to find a program that worked with our Quick Books inventory program so that when we sell something online we can keep track both of what we have on hand in the store and whats available to sell online (and what we sell in the store also updates the online availability).   And finding a platform that will help us and the customer with the cost of mailing different weight/size items to different places in the country.  Then we will have to set up a shipping department and have all the  different size boxes, etc. and packing material.  Write up a procedure manual for everything.  Design the website so its attractive (people smiling, pretty pictures and backgrounds) and is user friendly,  products searchable under different categories, nicely pose and photograph and crop/photoshop aaall the items, etc. etc. whew!

Yea definitely waiting till after the chaos of the holidays to do all that.

MC and I can offer a lot of guidance on setting up shipping.  It doesn’t have to own you or be terribly difficult.  I also have a couple of very reliable vendors for shipping supplies. We ship about 400-425 parcels a month so MC has figured out ways to make it simpler.

I would like to also chat with you about the inventory program you are using, we are trying to streamline our inventory management so let’s try to get together in the near future.  I’ll send you a message.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TheArtist on November 03, 2016, 08:56:32 pm
MC and I can offer a lot of guidance on setting up shipping.  It doesn’t have to own you or be terribly difficult.  I also have a couple of very reliable vendors for shipping supplies. We ship about 400-425 parcels a month so MC has figured out ways to make it simpler.

I would like to also chat with you about the inventory program you are using, we are trying to streamline our inventory management so let’s try to get together in the near future.  I’ll send you a message.

Sounds Good!


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: davideinstein on November 03, 2016, 09:43:42 pm
I hope so! We shall see!

On those days when all you sell are a few greeting cards, a couple of books and toys, a keychain or two, a poster and a couple t-shirts... means you have to sell a LOT more than that on the other days.  Now if I were selling sandwiches... hmmm... 

The key is getting more people in the doors.  We have a decent "sell rate per person" I think. But not a lot of walk by traffic on that street just yet.

Walking traffic is down for us this year during the day but it's still slightly growing at night. Day time is the energy business which is boom or bust, but I'm very happy to see walking traffic at night maintaining.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on November 04, 2016, 12:08:59 pm
From the BOK Tower, a lot of the lunch crowd goes north now into the Brady and less so south into the Deco District.  Lots of good stuff opening to the north.  The key to continued downtown development will be night time business.  The lunch scene is pretty saturated.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: davideinstein on November 04, 2016, 03:40:02 pm
From the BOK Tower, a lot of the lunch crowd goes north now into the Brady and less so south into the Deco District.  Lots of good stuff opening to the north.  The key to continued downtown development will be night time business.  The lunch scene is pretty saturated.

In our situation we aren't competing with the people going out to lunch, since our gig is speed/time. I'd like to see a report on just how many jobs have been lost in the past year. Completely agree on the night time business.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: johrasephoenix on November 07, 2016, 09:59:11 pm
PAC parking lot redevelopment with apartments and Reasor's just got green lighted by the PAC Trust.  The developer can still back out if they don't get subsidized public financing.

I'm surprised the PAC sold it instead of ground leasing but as long as I get my downtown grocery store I'm all good. 

At first I thought "I'll believe it when shovels hit dirt" but it looks like Flaherty & Collins has actually developed a lot of downtown projects in mid-sized cities.  So I have hope that it'll actually happen.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: SXSW on November 08, 2016, 08:04:11 am
PAC parking lot redevelopment with apartments and Reasor's just got green lighted by the PAC Trust.  The developer can still back out if they don't get subsidized public financing.

I'm surprised the PAC sold it instead of ground leasing but as long as I get my downtown grocery store I'm all good. 

At first I thought "I'll believe it when shovels hit dirt" but it looks like Flaherty & Collins has actually developed a lot of downtown projects in mid-sized cities.  So I have hope that it'll actually happen.

That's a good first step.  I'm hopeful too.  This and Santa Fe Square are game changing projects for downtown that need to happen to continue building momentum for even more and larger projects. 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on November 08, 2016, 08:51:16 am
The old Folks Market spot has a permit posted for an applicant called "The Oil Can Sports Bar LLC."  Anyone know what that's about?  Is another sports bar coming to downtown?

(http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e136/saxmanosu/permit_zpswa5lp8rv.jpg)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DTowner on November 08, 2016, 09:55:09 am
That's a good first step.  I'm hopeful too.  This and Santa Fe Square are game changing projects for downtown that need to happen to continue building momentum for even more and larger projects. 

Each by itself is a game changer, if both happen it will be transformative.  Additionally, both happening will really tilt the downtown development wheel to the northeast.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DTowner on November 08, 2016, 09:58:53 am
The old Folks Market spot has a permit posted for an applicant called "The Oil Can Sports Bar LLC."  Anyone know what that's about?  Is another sports bar coming to downtown?

(http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e136/saxmanosu/permit_zpswa5lp8rv.jpg)


It seems like "sports bar" has become the restaurant equivalent of "farm to table" - a catch-phrase that doesn't carry much meaning anymore.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on November 08, 2016, 10:23:19 am
It seems like "sports bar" has become the restaurant equivalent of "farm to table" - a catch-phrase that doesn't carry much meaning anymore.

I tend to agree in some respects, but a "sports bar" in Tulsa can't really serve the same purpose as a sports bar in a larger more diverse city like Dallas or Chicago.  In those cities you have large populations of people who moved in from other places with loyalties to their hometown pro teams and/or who graduated from various colleges.  Sports bars in these cities need to be prepared to find the game for a Vikings fan, or a Bears fan, or an Ohio State fan, who is looking for a place to see their team play.  In Tulsa you have OU and OSU, and fairly sizable loyal fan bases for the Dallas Cowboys, Chiefs, and St. Louis Cardinals.  Other than that, there really isn't a sizeable population of outsiders.  I doubt that Elgin Park or even Buffalo Wild Wings gets asked very often to tune into the 49ers or Packers or Florida State games.  A sports bar in Tulsa needs, first and foremost, good food, drinks, and service.  They also need plenty of TVs, the broadest sports package available, and a staff that is prepared to find any game available even if those requests are fairly rare.  The latter is where I think local sports bars lack.   


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on November 08, 2016, 07:15:33 pm


Residence Inn | 100 Rooms | $9 Million

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/538/AfCDik.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/eyAfCDikj)


November 8, 2016 Tulsa World online article by Rhett Morgan (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/realestate/residence-inn-part-of-downtown-hotel-renaissance/article_dac0c741-1110-57ab-b57a-30488f1d1255.html), with in-progress construction photos and a project update



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: davideinstein on November 08, 2016, 07:24:42 pm
I tend to agree in some respects, but a "sports bar" in Tulsa can't really serve the same purpose as a sports bar in a larger more diverse city like Dallas or Chicago.  In those cities you have large populations of people who moved in from other places with loyalties to their hometown pro teams and/or who graduated from various colleges.  Sports bars in these cities need to be prepared to find the game for a Vikings fan, or a Bears fan, or an Ohio State fan, who is looking for a place to see their team play.  In Tulsa you have OU and OSU, and fairly sizable loyal fan bases for the Dallas Cowboys, Chiefs, and St. Louis Cardinals.  Other than that, there really isn't a sizeable population of outsiders.  I doubt that Elgin Park or even Buffalo Wild Wings gets asked very often to tune into the 49ers or Packers or Florida State games.  A sports bar in Tulsa needs, first and foremost, good food, drinks, and service.  They also need plenty of TVs, the broadest sports package available, and a staff that is prepared to find any game available even if those requests are fairly rare.  The latter is where I think local sports bars lack.   

Go to Leftys or Elgin Park on Sunday, tons of transplants including myself.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: DowntownDan on November 08, 2016, 08:01:19 pm
Go to Leftys or Elgin Park on Sunday, tons of transplants including myself.

I'll check it out.  I was somewhat unimpressed with my first few visits there but will give it another shot.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: davideinstein on November 08, 2016, 08:02:41 pm
I'll check it out.  I was somewhat unimpressed with my first few visits there but will give it another shot.

It's not like other towns, but transplants are here for sure.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on November 08, 2016, 08:18:17 pm
I have a three tap kegerator with either craft or home-brew in it at all times, a well-stocked beer fridge in the garage, and a big screen TV.  My wife is a fantastic cook and I know my way around a kitchen, grill, and smoker pretty well.

What is this “sports bar” thing you guys keep yammering on about?  ;D


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: davideinstein on November 08, 2016, 11:37:30 pm
I have a three tap kegerator with either craft or home-brew in it at all times, a well-stocked beer fridge in the garage, and a big screen TV.  My wife is a fantastic cook and I know my way around a kitchen, grill, and smoker pretty well.

What is this “sports bar” thing you guys keep yammering on about?  ;D

Place to save money on the NFL ticket for me...


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Red Arrow on November 09, 2016, 12:24:04 am
I have a three tap kegerator with either craft or home-brew in it at all times, a well-stocked beer fridge in the garage, and a big screen TV.  My wife is a fantastic cook and I know my way around a kitchen, grill, and smoker pretty well.

What is this “sports bar” thing you guys keep yammering on about?  ;D

I know where you live, tax roles.  All I need now is an invitation.
 
 ;D



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on November 09, 2016, 12:41:57 am
I know where you live, tax roles.  All I need now is an invitation.
 
 ;D



I think we are at a New Mexican stand-off.  We can always trade out a lunch at Enrique's or a lift out to Raton to hang out at our Cimarron place for a few days.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on November 09, 2016, 12:43:17 am
Place to save money on the NFL ticket for me...

Add up your bar and food tab and I bet NFL ticket is a ton cheaper...and the food a lot better for you at home


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Red Arrow on November 09, 2016, 02:32:26 am
I think we are at a New Mexican stand-off.  We can always trade out a lunch at Enrique's or a lift out to Raton to hang out at our Cimarron place for a few days.

The plane is in process of its annual inspection but we can come up with something in a while.
 
 ;D


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Vision 2025 on November 09, 2016, 02:05:37 pm
I think we are at a New Mexican stand-off.  We can always trade out a lunch at Enrique's or a lift out to Raton to hang out at our Cimarron place for a few days.
I'll join in the fight if it means and excuse for a lunch trip to Enrique's...


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Bamboo World on November 09, 2016, 06:13:55 pm


I just noticed the shipping container space next to Fur Shop is well under way.

(http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/images/8023046_G.jpg)


November 9, 2016 Tulsa World online article by Rhett Morgan (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/realestate/the-boxyard-expected-to-open-downtown-dec/article_0d507325-ecbd-54e0-b3f6-0dab53ad4385.html), with in-progress construction photos and a project update



Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: davideinstein on November 09, 2016, 10:07:37 pm
Add up your bar and food tab and I bet NFL ticket is a ton cheaper...and the food a lot better for you at home

It's cheaper to go out because more than half of the games are on local/national TV.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on November 09, 2016, 11:24:05 pm
It's cheaper to go out because more than half of the games are on local/national TV.

How many games do you watch at once?


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: davideinstein on November 09, 2016, 11:27:04 pm
How many games do you watch at once?

Just Panthers as a priority for the Ticket.

/thread drift

Sorry guys, back to sports bars!


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: TulsaGoldenHurriCAN on December 02, 2016, 08:42:37 am
Quote
More economical apartments needed in downtown Tulsa, developer tells board
Y Lofts partner tells urban renewal board affordable downtown apartments are in demand

Affordability should be a driver for multifamily residential projects downtown, a developer told an urban renewal board Thursday.
Bob Jack is a partner in the Y Lofts, a $9 million conversion of the former downtown YMCA building into apartments by Brickhugger LLC.
During a Tulsa Development Authority meeting Thursday, Jack updated the progress of the Y Lofts, saying about 83 applications for its 79 units have been received and 15-20 leases have been signed.
The first residents are scheduled to move in the second or third week of January, he said.
The Y Lofts’ price point, from about $1 to $1.40 per square foot, has kept sales brisk, Jack said.
“We’re seeing the people that are in that $25,000, $35,000, 40,000 (annual) wage range,” Jack said. “They can’t afford a $1,000, $2,000 apartment. They are great apartments. They look great. But they are not affordable. That’s the issue.”
The lofts will range from 500 to 2,200 square feet, with some featuring living areas on two and three levels.
“All the other properties that John (Snyder) and I own are all filled, and they have waiting lists on them,” Jack told the TDA. “If that (rent) number is low, they are going to get filled pretty fast. The absorption rate is going to be reflective of the price point.”
Exiting, under-construction or planned residential units within the Inner Dispersal Loop (IDL) total 2,458, according to the Tulsa Regional Chamber.
A CBRE survey of downtown apartment buildings with 35 or more units indicated an average rent of $1,375 per month, according to a Tulsa World story published in March. That same survey showed that 94.5 percent of downtown apartments were occupied, compared to a 92 percent rate for apartments in the Tulsa area.
“(Developers) think they want to create glorious facilities that look really, really good, but the problem is it costs a lot of money to do that,” Jack said during a phone interview Thursday. “And when it costs a lot of money, you have to run that rent up.
“You have to play to that group that’s in that $20,000 to $40,000 salary range because that’s what you need downtown to stock restaurants, clean buildings, do clerical. You need those people in your toolkit to be able to run businesses in downtown Tulsa. That’s the group we’re trying to attract.”
Aaron Miller is a program officer with the George Kaiser Family Foundation, which has about 80 apartments in the Brady Arts District for teachers, artists and entrepreneurs.
“The first ones to go are always the smaller, less expensive units,” he said in a phone interview. “That’s where we see a dearth.
“The size of the units sometimes pushes the price up when really the demand might be geared more toward a smaller space. The neighborhood is the amenity. So if you can get people into the neighborhood, I believe you could house more people downtown.
“If people have the chance to live inside the IDL for right around $500 a month, that demand is there.”
GKFF has worked with Teach For America teachers since 2009, helping them live in the Brady Arts District. Teachers who reside in downtown Tulsa stay beyond their two-year TFA commitment 66 percent of the time, compared to 44 percent for those living elsewhere in Tulsa, Miller said.
“We firmly believe that living in downtown Tulsa is helping keep talent in Tulsa,” he said. “If you don’t allow your young workforce the opportunity to have that quality-of-life experience, you’re going to have a harder time keeping them. Our corporations could probably do more to get involved in the housing game.”

http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/realestate/more-economical-apartments-needed-in-downtown-tulsa-developer-tells-board/article_cd280f3d-0d47-5ce0-802f-112dd61cdcce.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/realestate/more-economical-apartments-needed-in-downtown-tulsa-developer-tells-board/article_cd280f3d-0d47-5ce0-802f-112dd61cdcce.html)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: johrasephoenix on December 02, 2016, 10:09:46 am
It is really, really hard to build to those low price points even when land is very cheap.  In a lot of up and coming urban neighborhoods, the new stuff is expensive, the old stuff cheaper, and everyone can find a rent they like.  Downtown Tulsa, unfortunately tore down pretty much all of its old housing stock so all there is is new construction.  It makes it a lot harder to provide a diversity of rents. 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: saintnicster on December 02, 2016, 03:12:39 pm
It is really, really hard to build to those low price points even when land is very cheap.  In a lot of up and coming urban neighborhoods, the new stuff is expensive, the old stuff cheaper, and everyone can find a rent they like.  Downtown Tulsa, unfortunately tore down pretty much all of its old housing stock so all there is is new construction.  It makes it a lot harder to provide a diversity of rents. 

$1/sq ft for rental wasn't that bad for me when I lived at GreenArch.  The fact that almost all of the units were in excess of 1000 square feet was the issue. They had a couple of units that were like 800sqft, but those went super quick.  It would have been nice so see them more-evenly divide the space up.

I would think that smaller units would encourage people to get out more, to enjoy the night life, etc.  Do you really need a single bedroom apt the size of some midtown houses?  Maybe something more along the lines of the Coliseum Apartments.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: johrasephoenix on December 03, 2016, 10:28:31 am
That's true.  I've lived in some shoebox apartments in my time and they were great.  Many young folks just need a place to sleep.  You get challenges with parking, etc if you boost the number of units but its definitely something apartment builders should be looking at.  The Coliseum is fully rented out and isn't even in the best location.  If you put something like that in the middle of the Brady or Blue Dome it would sell out instantly. 

I think downtown could also do with a lot more small/mid-sized apartment buildings.  Instead of whole city-block style developments like the Edge, take some of the vacant oddly shaped lots and slap in a 10 unit building or an 8 unit building.  A little 6 or 8 flat only requires as much land as a house. 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Conan71 on December 03, 2016, 11:21:00 am
I lived at Center Plaza Apartments before they became Central Park Condos.  My first unit was a studio in the south building.  I want to say it was about 400-500 sq. feet or so and with nothing more than my desk, dining table, hide-a-bed sofa, and TV/stereo stand was plenty big enough for me when I was 21.  It had ample closet space.  Rent at that time was $305/month in 1987.

Second apartment was same building one bedroom after I got married, about 700 ft. for I think $595 a month.  All things considered without running a COL index over the last 30 years I would guess that would have been somewhat close to paying $1 to $1.10/ft. in today’s money.

You can probably broker a better deal with someone else’s condo who is desperate for a renter in Central Park or Liberty Tower than you can with one of the apartments, but you aren’t in the middle of downtown at that point.  Central Park is close to the Civic Center and court building if someone worked either place, but it’s still a bit of an outlier with most of the other construction being much further east and north with the exception of Y Lofts.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on December 03, 2016, 11:22:25 am
I think downtown could also do with a lot more small/mid-sized apartment buildings.  Instead of whole city-block style developments like the Edge, take some of the vacant oddly shaped lots and slap in a 10 unit building or an 8 unit building.  A little 6 or 8 flat only requires as much land as a house. 

More of those in the residential neighborhoods of midtown would be nice, too. In many cities they have a mix of single family-detached homes and small apartment buildings that are tastefully done and nearly unnoticeable as they blend into the neighborhood.

Good examples from Swan Lake (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1376742,-95.9707674,3a,75y,246.49h,86.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPY00G7XkyDroST5PU5WnCw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), Cherry Street (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1397755,-95.9707829,3a,75y,88.7h,85.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swp4nsTMj8mYHu6ddbMjSpQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), Washington, DC (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8842826,-77.0009051,3a,75y,173.83h,81.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srs-4G7kleNWhrjQnwNrAlw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). What amazes me is that I don't see anything like that tucked in off to the sides of Brookside. It seems like the perfect place for small apartments creating a more gradual transition from the retail/entertainment to single homes. And you'd think it would do wonders for the foot traffic in the area.  


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Red Arrow on December 03, 2016, 12:47:23 pm
I want to say it was about 400-500 sq. feet or so...   Rent at that time was $305/month in 1987.

Second apartment was same building one bedroom after I got married, about 700 ft. for I think $595 a month.  All things considered without running a COL index over the last 30 years I would guess that would have been somewhat close to paying $1 to $1.10/ft. in today’s money.

Google "Inflation Calculator" to get this:
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

$305 in 1987 is $649 now. Using 500 ft2 you get $1.30/ft2.

$595 in 1990 (You didn't say when you got married so I figured a few years was a good guess.) is $1100 now.  700 ft2 would be $1.57/ft2.

(It looks like the superscript function is not working.)


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: johrasephoenix on December 03, 2016, 07:49:59 pm
More of those in the residential neighborhoods of midtown would be nice, too. In many cities they have a mix of single family-detached homes and small apartment buildings that are tastefully done and nearly unnoticeable as they blend into the neighborhood.

Those are hands down my favorite neighborhoods in Tulsa.  It's a shame that a) little apartment complexes built later (say after WWII) blend in a lot less well, and b) NIMBY's don't allow that any more.  I imagine there would be a rebellion on your hands if you proposed a 10 unit little apartment complex in a wealthy neighborhood today.

Wasn't there something like that proposed on a vacant lot in Brady Heights a few years back and it got shot down because local NIMBYs didn't want "those people" living nearby?  


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: Tulsasaurus Rex on December 03, 2016, 08:23:05 pm
Wasn't there something like that proposed on a vacant lot in Brady Heights a few years back and it got shot down because local NIMBYs didn't want "those people" living nearby?  

This?

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/residents-not-all-on-board-with-proposed-brady-heights-apartments/article_0424a455-db63-5855-9db9-e116dbbe85fd.html


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: SXSW on December 04, 2016, 02:25:43 pm
Anyone know what the new 2 story building at 4th & Boulder next to the Palace Building is for?  It looks like a new entrance and maybe has a rooftop deck? 

I'm glad to see this little parking lot gone but wish they could've saved the Goff building that was there before. 


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: swake on December 04, 2016, 03:03:07 pm
Anyone know what the new 2 story building at 4th & Boulder next to the Palace Building is for?  It looks like a new entrance and maybe has a rooftop deck? 

I'm glad to see this little parking lot gone but wish they could've saved the Goff building that was there before. 

It's parking and storage for the World


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: cannon_fodder on December 05, 2016, 08:35:04 am
$1 a square foot rents for new construction is difficult to justify if someone is looking to make money -  maybe if you could ignore land costs, which we have recently seen at $50 a square by themselves.  But if new construction costs just $100 sq ft, a 30 year note just to cover the mortgage would be ~60 cents a square per month on a 30 year note (the per square is a weird metric, but it fits into this conversation).  20 cents per square would be a reasonable operating cost (less early in the buildings life, more later). 5 cents for taxes and assessment. 5 cents a square for management fees or broker fees. And 10 cents for vacancies (which run at 5% downtown, but your plan better not call for best case scenario).

Play with the numbers. Look up cost of construction and cost of land.  Think through some of the expenses.  It gets hard to do in neighborhoods that are in demand.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: johrasephoenix on December 05, 2016, 10:31:55 am
Yah.... to get rents that low on a non-slum quality building you generally need some kind of subsidy, usually a low income housing credit.  You could probably get rents around there with a 9% LIHTEC deal, but then the housing is in a special pool of income restricted housing. distributed through a lottery or long waitlist. and doesn't do anything to effect the market rate rents available for most people.


Title: Re: Downtown Development Overview
Post by: saintnicster on December 05, 2016, 02:15:55 pm
$1 a square foot rents for new construction is difficult to justify if someone is looking to make money -  maybe if you could ignore land costs, which we have recently seen at $50 a square by themselves.  But if new construction costs just $100 sq ft, a 30 year note just to cover the mortgage would be ~60 cents a square per month on a 30 year note (the per square is a weird metric, but it fits into this conversation).  20 cents per square would be a reasonable operating cost (less early in the buildings life, more later). 5 cents for taxes and assessment. 5 cents a square for management fees or broker fees. And 10 cents for vacancies (which run at 5% downtown, but your plan better not call for best case scenario).

Play with the numbers. Look up cost of construction and cost of land.  Think through some of the expenses.  It gets hard to do in neighborhoods that are in demand.
Yah.... to get rents that low on a non-slum quality building you generally need some kind of subsidy, usually a low income housing credit.  You could probably get rents around there with a 9% LIHTEC deal, but then the housing is in a special pool of income restricted housing. distributed through a lottery or long waitlist. and doesn't do anything to effect the market rate rents available for most people.

So I may not have been super clear.  I understand that living downtown warrants a premium price point.  I just think that the developers aren't doing themselves any favors by excluding anyone that can't easily afford over $1k a month for a rental.  Downsizing the average square footage on a unit seems like it could be a step in the right direction.  Squeeze more units in that same space - even something as simple as designing 3 600sqft units where 2 1k square foot units would have been.  Granted, it's fuzzy math, but the idea is there.  And the total rent on those 3 units wouldn't equal the cost of two, you're likely making more there.  What's the economic feasibility?

SEMI-EDIT - blegh, and now I just looked at East End and The Edge's price and I just give up.   There is seemingly no middle ground with development.