Tulsa is quickly becoming overdeveloped much worse than in 1981.
The announcement by Dixie Development to construct 4-500,000 sq. ft. mixed use shopping/entertainment with another 66 acres across Elm for a "lifestyle center" on the BA at Elm near Bass Pro is the tipping point.
We will see many many years of infill redevelopment. But these enormous undertakings will eventually lead to major strains throughout Tulsa on pricing and value.
Already on 71st street between Memorial and Garnett, big boxes lay empty. And the TIF driven highway 75 and 71st is not even opened yet.
Add to it the housing slow down, lack of growth, and "full" employment and this all adds up to trouble.
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
Already on 71st street between Memorial and Garnett, big boxes lay empty. And the TIF driven highway 75 and 71st is not even opened yet.
Ther only vacant "big box" is homeplace which I believe has a tenant.
HW75 and 71 seemed open 30 minutes ago when I drove through. Unless you are referring to Tulsa Hills which opens in 2008.
Tulsa has always been a very retail-friendly town. Where else would people get a second job working retail so they can spend more money at retail stores?
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
Tulsa is quickly becoming overdeveloped much worse than in 1981.
The announcement by Dixie Development to construct 4-500,000 sq. ft. mixed use shopping/entertainment with another 66 acres across Elm for a "lifestyle center" on the BA at Elm near Bass Pro is the tipping point.
We will see many many years of infill redevelopment. But these enormous undertakings will eventually lead to major strains throughout Tulsa on pricing and value.
Already on 71st street between Memorial and Garnett, big boxes lay empty. And the TIF driven highway 75 and 71st is not even opened yet.
Add to it the housing slow down, lack of growth, and "full" employment and this all adds up to trouble.
yeah, the housing thing, Tulsa is going to set another record this year for new home building.
Maybe it's just the economy here is actually getting better?
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
Already on 71st street between Memorial and Garnett, big boxes lay empty. And the TIF driven highway 75 and 71st is not even opened yet.
Ther only vacant "big box" is homeplace which I believe has a tenant.
HW75 and 71 seemed open 30 minutes ago when I drove through. Unless you are referring to Tulsa Hills which opens in 2008.
Tulsa has always been a very retail-friendly town. Where else would people get a second job working retail so they can spend more money at retail stores?
No.
Rates have declined already in the corridor. when rates decline, value follows.
What about Mervyn's? Lots of gaps in the tenancy all around there. Theatre at 68th now closed?
Vacancies have now moved to 91st and Memorial....
Yes, Tulsa Hills....I did not realize there was other retail development there.
When the banks decide to stop being liberal, which the Feds have already tried to do by tightening regs, you will see more of a fallout.
And as far as the local housing situation goes, Tulsa seems to always find out when it's too late. But hey, maybe I am wrong. Records mean nothing. There is already strain in the marketplace. But to the "field of dreams" crowd, numbers mean nothing.
BTW, I imagine Target is the lead tenant at Bass area. Free land. Tough on the developer.
I find myself doing more and more purchasing on the internet.
Let's see. What would a "lifestyle" center look like in BA?
quote:
I find myself doing more and more purchasing on the internet.
Well stop it!!!!
What theatre are you talking about?
quote:
Originally posted by In_Tulsa
What theatre are you talking about?
I'm guessing the one that is now a Wal-Mart supercenter? Bizarre argument indeed
And it's closing had more to do with AMC's introducing stadium seating to town and the older theaters unable to compete. Apples and Oranges.
Plus the MPAA has been crying about declining ticket sales, piracy, internet, video games, etc...
quote:
Originally posted by BKDotCom
quote:
Originally posted by In_Tulsa
What theatre are you talking about?
I'm guessing the one that is now a Wal-Mart supercenter? Bizarre argument indeed
And it's closing had more to do with AMC's introducing stadium seating to town and the older theaters unable to compete. Apples and Oranges.
Plus the MPAA has been crying about declining ticket sales, piracy, internet, video games, etc...
Try the dollar cinema across from the WalMart in with .... well, not many recognizable names....Jo Anns is the only thing that comes to mind in that catastrophe of a development.
You seem to want to focus on the narrow rather than the overall city situation.
quote:
BTW, I imagine Target is the lead tenant at Bass area. Free land. Tough on the developer.
I find myself doing more and more purchasing on the internet.
Let's see. What would a "lifestyle" center look like in BA?
Nope Target at The Park at Adams Creek
If you want to see how the look well follow this link and all your answers are solved...
http://okmet.org/bb/index.php?board=5.0 (//%22http://okmet.org/bb/index.php?board=5.0%22)
And don't forgot Old Navy is looking for a place in BA... What about Bixby-- Whole diffrent story...
The Village shopping center was a huge mistake. It hasn't been occupied in the almost 2 decades it's been open.
Fontana and Movies 8 may be closed, Eton Square Cinema is reopening however. Don't forget that Movies 8 is a cinemark theater who relocated to 71st and Garnett several years ago. The fact that movies 8 hung around for years as a dollar theater should be considered good.
Either way, there is 1 vacancy on 71st. The rest are on the west side of memorial which has been problematic for awhile. 91st & memorial is being targeted for redevelopment. That's why homeland was ushered out.
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
Try the dollar cinema across from the WalMart in with .... well, not many recognizable names....Jo Anns is the only thing that comes to mind in that catastrophe of a development.
overall city situation.
If it has closed, nobody's told Cinemark yet. Here's today's movie times (//%22http://www.cinemark.com/theater_showtimes.asp?theater_id=29%22)
On the other hand the automated phone-# doesn't pick up..
There are only so many dollar cinemas, hair salons, coffee shops, etc. that can fill the small spaces where developers see upside potential.
If I were a lender for construction I would be real careful...
Some of us recall what being red-lined means.
Movies 8 did NOT close.
quote:
Originally posted by In_Tulsa
Movies 8 did NOT close.
Well, there's something else Aox got wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by In_Tulsa
Movies 8 did NOT close.
Well, there's something else Aox got wrong.
List them..... ahead of your curve.
Lots of wondering on this thread.
Try to stay on topic.
If the thread dies from lack of decent participation, so be it...
aoxamaxoa,
You've made a good point here. Doesn't Tulsa have a habit of being caught by surprise when recession roles around. And it's going to again sometime. A good habit would be to stay lean and mean during growth and then use recession to expand (when bargains are to be had) and capture market share (when our competitor cities are down on their knees). Instead of being a victim of economic cycles it would be smart to work the cycles to our advantage and plan with recession and growth cycles in mind.
Movies 8 did NOT close.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
aoxamaxoa,
You've made a good point here. Doesn't Tulsa have a habit of being caught by surprise when recession roles around. And it's going to again sometime. A good habit would be to stay lean and mean during growth and then use recession to expand (when bargains are to be had) and capture market share (when our competitor cities are down on their knees). Instead of being a victim of economic cycles it would be smart to work the cycles to our advantage and plan with recession and growth cycles in mind.
Good.
But there is no way to put brakes and pedals on these type cycles. Our heritage is one of boom bust dating back to the early oil field gamblers.
Supposedly Tulsa was actually the big winner in the state for adding more jobs. Yes, Tulsa's economy is definately improving. The lifestyle center and residential additions should be supported I think. Even if the economy was still in shambles there would still be sprawl. That's just how it is.
As far as boom and bust goes, Tulsa is not so bad. You all could be OKC. That cycle had to come to a screeching halt the minute we were in any position to do some economic development...
quote:
Originally posted by SoonerRiceGrad
Supposedly Tulsa was actually the big winner in the state for adding more jobs. Yes, Tulsa's economy is definately improving. The lifestyle center and residential additions should be supported I think. Even if the economy was still in shambles there would still be sprawl. That's just how it is.
As far as boom and bust goes, Tulsa is not so bad. You all could be OKC. That cycle had to come to a screeching halt the minute we were in any position to do some economic development...
I don't understand. Sorry.
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
quote:
Originally posted by SoonerRiceGrad
Supposedly Tulsa was actually the big winner in the state for adding more jobs. Yes, Tulsa's economy is definately improving. The lifestyle center and residential additions should be supported I think. Even if the economy was still in shambles there would still be sprawl. That's just how it is.
As far as boom and bust goes, Tulsa is not so bad. You all could be OKC. That cycle had to come to a screeching halt the minute we were in any position to do some economic development...
I don't understand. Sorry.
SRG says sprawl exists in a vacuum and is not a direct tie to boom-or-bust as it occurs during both. He also says Tulsa is really coasting through whereas OKC has had much bigger valleys.
Just went through Wenmoor hadnt driven through there in a while. I am still amazed at the number of 1-5+ million dollar homes being built there and in other places. I do know at least a couple of people I have worked with there are from out of town and from Cali. One lady said her home cost her 3 mill here but would have easily been 10 mill in California. Its kind of like the grapes of wrath but in reverse lol.
When Oregon was overrun by Californians the natives said that their state had been Californicated.
Californicated?... mmm... red hot chili peppers... good eatin'...
"Psychic spies from china
Try to steal your minds elation
Little girls from sweden
Dream of silver screen quotations
And if you want these kind of dreams
Its californication
Its the edge of the world
And all of western civilization
The sun may rise in the east
At least it settles in the final location
Its understood that hollywood
Sells californication"
First signs.....
Construction Slopes Downward: Housing starts fall 33 percent
http://www.tulsaworld.com/BusinessStory.asp?ID=061109_Bu_E1_Paces34884
Real Estate: September Slump: Home sales, prices drop
http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=061108_Bu_E1_Homes34986
Keep in mind that a home starts in at least part of broken arrow are on hold right now to address flooding issues. Also, we are in a slow time of the year for housing.
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
First signs.....
Construction Slopes Downward: Housing starts fall 33 percent
http://www.tulsaworld.com/BusinessStory.asp?ID=061109_Bu_E1_Paces34884
Real Estate: September Slump: Home sales, prices drop
http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=061108_Bu_E1_Homes34986
First,
These are monthly numbers, don't get too excited about monthly numbers.
Second, this is bad sensational journalism. Sales of existing homes may be down a little, but when you add contracts pending plus sales completed the numbers are still up from a year ago, even if down from last month. Also, while home starts were down for the month, 2006 is still on pace to set an all time record for new home starts.
Tell me Aox, has the Riverwalk been repo'd? And how many buildings has Kanbar sold? I know you love to spread doom and gloom and you at least have real stats here, but a deeper and more reasoned look tells us that the sky is not falling. If in the spring we have three or four more months with numbers showing a real downward trend then we can have this conversation again.
Nobody said the sky is falling....what kind of a reactionary are you?
BTW, if they could find a buyer, they'd be gone.
Riverwalk ? Go by there and tell me the other additional acreage is being constructed for Kohl's and Barnes and Noble and all that bs.
Swake, get over it .... I have not been proven right nor wrong on my predictions. Nor do I care.
Food for thought is all I provide. I sense what is happening and I have a feeling times will get tougher as we move forward. More than 4 or 5 months...
I only reprint what I see through the links. I do not originate the journalism. You should not attack me for not playing along with the "mister goodie two shoes isn't this great" attitude. I am a counter balance... I represent the devil's advocate in a "heavenly" city.
What part of the cycle do you think we are in?
Don't be a flake, Swake.
I tend to side with aox as far as the local housing market is concerned.
Four years of historically low interest rates and relaxed lending requirements have caused houses to be built and bought at a much higher rate than usual. In other words, the normal amount of homes were sold the past several years plus an additional few years worth. Since markets tend toward equilibrium, the Tulsa area market is in for a downward trend. And like all cycles, it will bottom out and start all over again - eventually.
From 2002-2005, the Tulsa area had a net population growth of minus 7,250, yet managed to build new homes at record levels (4,000+ new homes a year). The math does not work out.
I can see the commercial market being overextended also. There are new commercial developments in Owasso that still have plenty of spaces available post construction. The area in Tulsa with the new Best Buy sits largely vacant. Etc...
I have been noticing the slow but steady development of office and some retail space on the NW corner of 91st and yale. I like the design and layout of the buildings. Looks like the developer is clearing the way for a new batch of buildings just to the west of the ones he has already. Its actually turning out to be a decent sized development all together. It would be nice if he does something on the SW corner when the road construction is done perhaps a shopping type version of what he has already done, would really anchor that corner and give it a unique sense of place.
quote:
Originally posted by sendoff
I tend to side with aox as far as the local housing market is concerned.
Four years of historically low interest rates and relaxed lending requirements have caused houses to be built and bought at a much higher rate than usual. In other words, the normal amount of homes were sold the past several years plus an additional few years worth. Since markets tend toward equilibrium, the Tulsa area market is in for a downward trend. And like all cycles, it will bottom out and start all over again - eventually.
From 2002-2005, the Tulsa area had a net population growth of minus 7,250, yet managed to build new homes at record levels (4,000+ new homes a year). The math does not work out.
???? From 2002-2005, the Tulsa area (which I presume means the Tulsa metropolitan area), had a net population growth of
plus 12,000, not minus 7,250. (The minus 7,250 number is for only the city of Tulsa, not the Tulsa area.)
However, your larger point seems good. Adding only 12,000 people in 3 years, while building an additional 4,000+ houses per year means we've been adding more than one new house for every new person in the Tulsa metro area. That seems like it would add up to market saturation and over-supply.
To put that in perspective, it takes 3 years for our entire metro area to gain the same number of people Phoenix does in 4 months. Phoenix had over 60,000 home building permits in 2005.
This has some easy to see graphs for population and home growth etc. for Tulsa.
http://www.localmarketmonitor.com/Sample/Tulsa.pdf#search='2005%20Tulsa%20home%20permits'
This is interesting, guessing its for 2004 or 2005 year.
(http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/6900/tulsahousingby5.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by sendoff
I tend to side with aox as far as the local housing market is concerned.
Four years of historically low interest rates and relaxed lending requirements have caused houses to be built and bought at a much higher rate than usual. In other words, the normal amount of homes were sold the past several years plus an additional few years worth. Since markets tend toward equilibrium, the Tulsa area market is in for a downward trend. And like all cycles, it will bottom out and start all over again - eventually.
From 2002-2005, the Tulsa area had a net population growth of minus 7,250, yet managed to build new homes at record levels (4,000+ new homes a year). The math does not work out.
???? From 2002-2005, the Tulsa area (which I presume means the Tulsa metropolitan area), had a net population growth of plus 12,000, not minus 7,250. (The minus 7,250 number is for only the city of Tulsa, not the Tulsa area.)
However, your larger point seems good. Adding only 12,000 people in 3 years, while building an additional 4,000+ houses per year means we've been adding more than one new house for every new person in the Tulsa metro area. That seems like it would add up to market saturation and over-supply.
Actually we're both wrong. The Census Bureau shows total population in the Tulsa metro from 2002-2005 to be +19,481. However, most of that gain is from births outnumbering deaths.
Taking out the gain from births over deaths, the net increase in metro population from new people moving in (including international immigration) for 2002-2005 is +261. Without international immigration we are at the -7,256 I originally indicated.
Tulsa population history (//%22http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/popm/pm8560.htm%22)
Ok lol, your all wrong.[:P]
2000 pop Tulsa county= 563,299
2005 pop Tulsa county= 560,431
2000 housing units= 243,892, occupied units= 226,892
2005 housing units= 256,321, occupied units= 230,058
So the population went down by about 3,000 but the # of occupied units went up by about 3,000
Plus the number of OWNER occupied houses went up about 18,000 units during the same time....
It appears that a cities population does not have to get larger in order for it to still have housing growth and more owner occupied homes or even more nicer homes being built and bought. Also most of the statistics I have looked at about population and especially job growth for Tulsa shows that 2006 is the year that we have turned the corner to having more jobs etc. than we did at our peak before the recession. Lets hope that growth continues.
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=&geo_id=05000US40143&_geoContext=01000US%7C04000US40%7C05000US40143&_street=&_county=tulsa&_cityTown=tulsa&_state=04000US40&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=050&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=ACS_2005_SAFF&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null®=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry=
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
To put that in perspective, it takes 3 years for our entire metro area to gain the same number of people Phoenix does in 4 months. Phoenix had over 60,000 home building permits in 2005.
Closer to home, it takes the Tulsa area 3 years to gain the same number of people Dallas-Fort Worth gains in approx. every 36 days. For Houston, every 43 days.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Ok lol, your all wrong.[:P]
2000 pop Tulsa county= 563,299
2005 pop Tulsa county= 560,431
2000 housing units= 243,892, occupied units= 226,892
2005 housing units= 256,321, occupied units= 230,058
So the population went down by about 3,000 but the # of occupied units went up by about 3,000
Plus the number of OWNER occupied houses went up about 18,000 units during the same time....
It appears that a cities population does not have to get larger in order for it to still have housing growth and more owner occupied homes or even more nicer homes being built and bought. Also most of the statistics I have looked at about population and especially job growth for Tulsa shows that 2006 is the year that we have turned the corner to having more jobs etc. than we did at our peak before the recession. Lets hope that growth continues.
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=&geo_id=05000US40143&_geoContext=01000US%7C04000US40%7C05000US40143&_street=&_county=tulsa&_cityTown=tulsa&_state=04000US40&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=050&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=ACS_2005_SAFF&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null®=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry=
We have not been speaking of Tulsa County population. We've been speaking of Tulsa metro population.
quote:
Originally posted by sendoff
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by sendoff
I tend to side with aox as far as the local housing market is concerned.
Four years of historically low interest rates and relaxed lending requirements have caused houses to be built and bought at a much higher rate than usual. In other words, the normal amount of homes were sold the past several years plus an additional few years worth. Since markets tend toward equilibrium, the Tulsa area market is in for a downward trend. And like all cycles, it will bottom out and start all over again - eventually.
From 2002-2005, the Tulsa area had a net population growth of minus 7,250, yet managed to build new homes at record levels (4,000+ new homes a year). The math does not work out.
???? From 2002-2005, the Tulsa area (which I presume means the Tulsa metropolitan area), had a net population growth of plus 12,000, not minus 7,250. (The minus 7,250 number is for only the city of Tulsa, not the Tulsa area.)
However, your larger point seems good. Adding only 12,000 people in 3 years, while building an additional 4,000+ houses per year means we've been adding more than one new house for every new person in the Tulsa metro area. That seems like it would add up to market saturation and over-supply.
Actually we're both wrong. The Census Bureau shows total population in the Tulsa metro from 2002-2005 to be +19,481. However, most of that gain is from births outnumbering deaths.
Taking out the gain from births over deaths, the net increase in metro population from new people moving in (including international immigration) for 2002-2005 is +261. Without international immigration we are at the -7,256 I originally indicated.
Tulsa population history (//%22http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/popm/pm8560.htm%22)
No, only you are wrong. ;-) The population estimate for 2002 was 819,350. The population estimate for 2005 was 831,123. So, from 2002-2005, the growth was, 11,773 (rounded to 12,000). (The numbers you gave us show the growth from 2001-2005), and the components of the growth aren't terribly important for this particular topic.)
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
To put that in perspective, it takes 3 years for our entire metro area to gain the same number of people Phoenix does in 4 months. Phoenix had over 60,000 home building permits in 2005.
This has some easy to see graphs for population and home growth etc. for Tulsa.
http://www.localmarketmonitor.com/Sample/Tulsa.pdf#search='2005%20Tulsa%20home%20permits'
This is interesting, guessing its for 2004 or 2005 year.
(http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/6900/tulsahousingby5.jpg)
That "market monitor" chart is interesting. But I wonder on what they base their "1,956 units absorbed by population growth". In
oneyear??? If we assume just an average of just 3 people per housing unit, that allows for a population growth of almost 6,000. As we have seen, that's 1 1/2 years' worth of population growth for the Tulsa metro area.
This might be a little taboo, but couldn't you make a guess that some of the old housing being left behind for new construction (supposedly then creating a glut of places to live) is being filled up by undocumented illegal immigrants?
Why is Kanbar selling?
quote:
Originally posted by hazleton
Why is Kanbar selling?
Vodka....too much? Or money, too much?
From 11-29-06 Wallstreet Journal
an article on the
opportunity presented investors
from distressed real estate via rising home foreclosures.
"Williams and Williams a Tulsa
based auctioneer says it's sales
of foreclosed homes will
nearly double this year to about 5060.
Dean Williams, Chief Executive
of the auction firm, expects
another near doubling
of sales in 2007."
The article went on to
compare areas outside
our city and said that
in Dallas the number
of sales of homes
foreclosed was
up %23 4800.
The problem is that
the market for foreclosed
homes here is not busy.
The article clearly points
out the busiest markets
are in Michigan,Indiana,
Pennsylvania, Texas,
and Colorado.
Overbuilt?
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
Overbuilt?
Overbought.
Rates were low, banks were pushing more house than people could afford. People were buying more than they could afford.
quote:
Originally posted by BKDotCom
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
Overbuilt?
Overbought.
Rates were low, banks were pushing more house than people could afford. People were buying more than they could afford.
Good point. What happens next?
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
Tulsa is quickly becoming overdeveloped much worse than in 1981.
The announcement by Dixie Development to construct 4-500,000 sq. ft. mixed use shopping/entertainment with another 66 acres across Elm for a "lifestyle center" on the BA at Elm near Bass Pro is the tipping point.
We will see many many years of infill redevelopment. But these enormous undertakings will eventually lead to major strains throughout Tulsa on pricing and value.
Already on 71st street between Memorial and Garnett, big boxes lay empty. And the TIF driven highway 75 and 71st is not even opened yet.
Add to it the housing slow down, lack of growth, and "full" employment and this all adds up to trouble.
It's called growth.
quote:
Originally posted by SoonerRiceGrad
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
Tulsa is quickly becoming overdeveloped much worse than in 1981.
The announcement by Dixie Development to construct 4-500,000 sq. ft. mixed use shopping/entertainment with another 66 acres across Elm for a "lifestyle center" on the BA at Elm near Bass Pro is the tipping point.
We will see many many years of infill redevelopment. But these enormous undertakings will eventually lead to major strains throughout Tulsa on pricing and value.
Already on 71st street between Memorial and Garnett, big boxes lay empty. And the TIF driven highway 75 and 71st is not even opened yet.
Add to it the housing slow down, lack of growth, and "full" employment and this all adds up to trouble.
It's called growth.
Pretty random unsophisticated growth....
Sounds like a simplistic frat girl stab. Growth is not good when money is lose on the town. We are not even through phase one of the winding down of home building. When the secondary market folds, then things will get rough.
The local entertainment venues are already reflecting an interesting turn except our casinos.