I've heard that Mr B is planning a development at 15th and Troost. Anyone have details?
I heard that rotten SOB now owns the remaining properties on Victor between 15th and 16th.
Anyone got a dollar that says it won't be an "Italianate" six story eyesore?
You can make all those personal attacks on John and Chris but they seem to be doing some fine developments. The one you are alluding to has been on the board for several years. Too bad they don't own land in near east downtown....
No personal attack
I don't think changing the face of 15th and Utica avenue from tight urbanism to parking lot waste land is "fine" development. Chewing up pieces of an HP area against the wishes of the neighborhood is also not "fine". Introducing legislation to wrest control from the noisy neighbors and their voice on the city council is not "fine". Altering the look of Cherry Street with overscaled buildings that stick out like a sore thumb is also not "fine". The only thing that was fine is that there is no longer a giant cow on the corner, but now I wish I could set it on top of his bank.
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
No personal attack
I don't think changing the face of 15th and Utica avenue from tight urbanism to parking lot waste land is "fine" development. Chewing up pieces of an HP area against the wishes of the neighborhood is also not "fine". Introducing legislation to wrest control from the noisy neighbors and their voice on the city council is not "fine". Altering the look of Cherry Street with overscaled buildings that stick out like a sore thumb is also not "fine". The only thing that was fine is that there is no longer a giant cow on the corner, but now I wish I could set it on top of his bank.
I loved the cow. And the giant toaster. Where did they go?
I like his development on 21st and Utica.
As for parking, hopefully other midtown developments will have either parking behind or parking underneath if the development is large enough to make it feasable. Bring on the 6 story "Italianate" buildings. lol Not sure what is already on 15th-16th and Troost. Will reserve judgment till I see what his new development is. I for one was sooo glad to see that ragged shopping center with the chain link fence around it removed. His development may not have been the best for that spot, but it was an improvement IMO. Overscale and sticking out like a sore thumb?... The ruin that was there before stuck out like a sore thumb even worse and in time if he continues with more developments, as I think he wants to, that development will connect to the developments on 21st and Utica. Eventually it will all then "fit in". I would have liked the building on 15th and utica to have had a bit more detail and quality architectural elements to bring the scale down and add interest. But its not supposed to be authentic but is reflective of the time having a more contemporary, minimalist, bent.
I also think when the Utica Place is done that it will be a great example of midtown development. I would give my eye teeth to be able to live there. I think it is going to be beautiful, stylish addition to the area. I wish he could do something akin to that where the Helmerich and Payne headquarters were going to be, but with a long high loggia along 21st, shops and businesses on the ground floor and living above.
I truly hope he has a different vision for Cherry Street, but unfortunately I haven't seen anything small or understated from this developer.. 15th and Troost has a nice little one story brick building (painted green) that is in scale with the rest of the shopping district and neighborhood. Anything taller than two stories is going to dwarf everything around it, especialy the homes on Troost. I'm not against large development as long as it's in its place. Cherry Street is small and quaint and comfortable...great big does not fit here.
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
I truly hope he has a different vision for Cherry Street, but unfortunately I haven't seen anything small or understated from this developer.. 15th and Troost has a nice little one story brick building (painted green) that is in scale with the rest of the shopping district and neighborhood. Anything taller than two stories is going to dwarf everything around it, especialy the homes on Troost. I'm not against large development as long as it's in its place. Cherry Street is small and quaint and comfortable...great big does not fit here.
So you're saying a Walmart is out of the question? :)
Kidding of course, lets hope I didn't jinx the area.
But on the topic of Cherry street, why has no one done anything with the properties north of 15th on Peoria? That is the best view of downtown there is, yet there are tons of run down old buildings of no particularly great use there (Not talking about the church on the corner). Someone with some money needs to buy off the Whataburger and A&W and do something useful with that plot of land as well.
Those old apartment buildings are actualy very cool, just a little run down. They could easily be converted into condos.
This is a perfect example of the need for "form-based" codes that would require new development to be in harmony (scale, setbacks, hidden parking, etc) with existing buildings. Then, we wouldn't have to worry about whether new construction would dwarf it's neighbors or destroy the ambiance of the human-scaled, pedestrian-friendly, shop-front neighborhood street that we love. We could just relax and enjoy the new development without so much anxiety and fear.
^ True dat. However it was my understanding that this developer was wanting to build mainly towards 21st and Utica. His aim was to emulate the Plaza area in KC around the 21st and Utica area.
My first choice, and it would seem to be the most obvious for what he is wanting to persue, would be for him to develop on 21st. Those little medical offices, banks, etc. across from Chicos and the tall condo tower would be prime spots for his type of developments. Businesses are already there, no need to tear down any architecturally interesting homes, and would best add to and compliment that area.
Second choice would be along Utica between 21st and 15th, but no further.
On the one hand I like a continuity of styles and scale. But many seem to argue that one of the things they like about Cherry Street is the mish mash of different styles in the area.
Are we saying we like just scale, set backs, and hidden parking for Cherry Street, with no concern for the look or style of a building?
When MLofts was building those modern structures in the area and I complained that I didnt like that particular style for that area, everyone jumped down my throat.
Yes....But I will not tell....
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
No personal attack
I don't think changing the face of 15th and Utica avenue from tight urbanism to parking lot waste land is "fine" development. Chewing up pieces of an HP area against the wishes of the neighborhood is also not "fine". Introducing legislation to wrest control from the noisy neighbors and their voice on the city council is not "fine". Altering the look of Cherry Street with overscaled buildings that stick out like a sore thumb is also not "fine". The only thing that was fine is that there is no longer a giant cow on the corner, but now I wish I could set it on top of his bank.
I loved the cow. And the giant toaster. Where did they go?
To the highest bidder.....
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
This is a perfect example of the need for "form-based" codes that would require new development to be in harmony (scale, setbacks, hidden parking, etc) with existing buildings. Then, we wouldn't have to worry about whether new construction would dwarf it's neighbors or destroy the ambiance of the human-scaled, pedestrian-friendly, shop-front neighborhood street that we love. We could just relax and enjoy the new development without so much anxiety and fear.
I am getting really sick of form based codes being a cure all for the zoning problems in Tulsa. Riddle me this, how will form based codes give us pedestrian friendly drive through banks or how about a pedestrian friendly, walkable car wash? Use still needs to play a role in zoning. I would prefer a hybrid version of form based codes that incorporates use as well as aesthetics.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
This is a perfect example of the need for "form-based" codes that would require new development to be in harmony (scale, setbacks, hidden parking, etc) with existing buildings. Then, we wouldn't have to worry about whether new construction would dwarf it's neighbors or destroy the ambiance of the human-scaled, pedestrian-friendly, shop-front neighborhood street that we love. We could just relax and enjoy the new development without so much anxiety and fear.
I am getting really sick of form based codes being a cure all for the zoning problems in Tulsa. Riddle me this, how will form based codes give us pedestrian friendly drive through banks or how about a pedestrian friendly, walkable car wash? Use still needs to play a role in zoning. I would prefer a hybrid version of form based codes that incorporates use as well as aesthetics.
Maybe the city should combine the use of form based codes with design guides.
We have them in the UK. Here is an example from a county outside London Design Guide (//%22http://www.kent.gov.uk/publications/council-and-democracy/kent-design-guide.htm%22)
A building failing to meet the design guide is likely to not be granted planning permission. This way buildings meet the form and the design standards.
I'd be interested to see what people think of this.
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
You can make all those personal attacks on John and Chris but they seem to be doing some fine developments. The one you are alluding to has been on the board for several years. Too bad they don't own land in near east downtown....
You know you're the last person I would have thought would be defending someone like Bumgarner who lives by the Golden Rule(he who has the gold makes the rules). If John Bumgarner was on fire I wouldn't even piss on him to put him out. As a matter of fact, I'd probably roast marshmallows over him and sing kumbaya.
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
Anyone got a dollar that says it won't be an "Italianate" six story eyesore?
Not without a bloody bitter fight. At least this time he won't have the benefit of having the city Councilor in his back pocket to do his bidding.
I would like to know how form based codes will help this area and the properties around it?
Tulsa isnt swimming in developers wanted to get into the mix, so I dont think it would be wise to attempt to restrict too much those that actually want to invest.
In Tulsa, such a move would simply further encourage people to build on open land to the South... like everyone else. Perhaps the market says that a small two story structure on that lot wont make money - do we just let it sit empty then?
Cities like Sante Fe and San Francisco and other areas where demand is high can do such things. But areas that are struggling to get investment cannot dictate extreme terms unless they want Joe taxpayer to fund most of the projects. The property near Cherry Street is worth developing precisely because of the qualities you mentioned. If they go too far and destroy those qualities they have lost the value they bought into and will be stuck with condos no one wants.
I disagree. There is no reason that new development can't peacfully co-exist with existing structures. As long as the new is to scale and appropriate to the area. If the rest of the neighborhood is one and two story structures with 0' setback, then new buildings should blend not try to overpower. If Mr B plans to build a two-story brick with parking in the rear, that does not displace any existing structure with merit, or devalue anyone's home, then Bless him.
I do agree with you that over-development can strip away what made the area comfortable or desirable in the first place.
quote:
If Mr B plans to build a two-story brick with parking in the rear, that does not displace any existing structure with merit, or devalue anyone's home, then Bless him.
From what I have seen this would be near to impossible for them to even consider.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Tulsa isnt swimming in developers wanted to get into the mix, so I dont think it would be wise to attempt to restrict too much those that actually want to invest.
In Tulsa, such a move would simply further encourage people to build on open land to the South... like everyone else. Perhaps the market says that a small two story structure on that lot wont make money - do we just let it sit empty then?
Cities like Sante Fe and San Francisco and other areas where demand is high can do such things. But areas that are struggling to get investment cannot dictate extreme terms unless they want Joe taxpayer to fund most of the projects. The property near Cherry Street is worth developing precisely because of the qualities you mentioned. If they go too far and destroy those qualities they have lost the value they bought into and will be stuck with condos no one wants.
If their developments are suburban style auto oriented projects, I would rather they build that trash out in South Tulsa. Want to see a development that is in harmony with the Neighborhood? Check out the Early Education Center being built at Marquette.
^I liked the apartment building better than the big block without windows.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
No personal attack
I don't think changing the face of 15th and Utica avenue from tight urbanism to parking lot waste land is "fine" development. Chewing up pieces of an HP area against the wishes of the neighborhood is also not "fine". Introducing legislation to wrest control from the noisy neighbors and their voice on the city council is not "fine". Altering the look of Cherry Street with overscaled buildings that stick out like a sore thumb is also not "fine". The only thing that was fine is that there is no longer a giant cow on the corner, but now I wish I could set it on top of his bank.
I loved the cow. And the giant toaster. Where did they go?
I heard the cow was bought by a steak restaurant. I wonder what happened to the horse & sheep.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Tulsa isnt swimming in developers wanted to get into the mix, so I dont think it would be wise to attempt to restrict too much those that actually want to invest.
In Tulsa, such a move would simply further encourage people to build on open land to the South... like everyone else. Perhaps the market says that a small two story structure on that lot wont make money - do we just let it sit empty then?
Cities like Sante Fe and San Francisco and other areas where demand is high can do such things. But areas that are struggling to get investment cannot dictate extreme terms unless they want Joe taxpayer to fund most of the projects. The property near Cherry Street is worth developing precisely because of the qualities you mentioned. If they go too far and destroy those qualities they have lost the value they bought into and will be stuck with condos no one wants.
Ditto. I'm not the biggest fan of the bank at 15th and Utica - it looks like a horrible, cheap version of what was done at 21st and Utica, but it beats what was there - a run down concrete block strip center with parking along the main street rather than in back. A developer isn't going to come in and develop things that harmonize "just because". He's here to make money. I'm not saying that there aren't ways for him to do both. But for instance, the bank at 15th and Utica - the bank has a budget. They want the location, and they've paid a premium for that land, I'm sure...so for this thing to be profitable, they have to have the bank be a minimum size, and they decide that it's not worth it without adding some leasable space upstairs. Well, the codes dictate that the square footage of the building is what determines the size of the parking lot (which they actually put behind the building). Now, I'm not going to get into all the debate about the HP zoning, etc., because I don't know enough about it, but what was the alternative for this site? You literally had a concrete block strip mall surrounded by a razor wire fence. For the price that the land is worth, it probably wouldn't have been profitable for someone to come in and renovate. It definitely would not have worked as a bank. So what was the alternative?? That "THEY" should have built a more suitable buldign for the site - well, that might not have provided the square footage they needed to turn a profit. I'm not saying that Bumgarner is a great guy, I have actually only heard negative things about him, but at least he's trying to do stuff in midtown. Ideals of a walkable city, redevelopment, and all that stuff are great, but until an actual idealist comes up with the cash, then we're getting what we're getting. It seems that we have a lot of people on here who want to complicate our zoning to the point of absurdity - dictating that something has to fit the scale and feel of a neighborhood. What city bureaucrat will be the decisionmaker on that? I work as an architect, and believe me, that would grind things to a dead stop! The problem isn't the zoning, it's the market. People in Tulsa aren't willing (or able?) to pay for premium, high quality, small scale development. Until that day comes, we are stuck with either the occasional bad project, or we are stuck with dilapidated properties throughout midtown. We could try to force it by zoning, but that will simply fuel sprawl. So for now, I will encourage those that create positive developments, and when someone does something like the thing at 15th and Utica, while it makes me wince from the architectural standpoint, I will at least be glad that it is overall a positive not a negative, and I will pray that things get better "next time".
The bank does not own the land or the building......
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
^I liked the apartment building better than the big block without windows.
I'm glad you said that. I totally agree. Maybe when the building is done it will be more in harmony. But not yet.
Is the Arvest bank better than the strip center that was there? meh.
Is the parking lot behind it better than the two little cottages that were there? No.
Is the Stilwater bank better thant the little Tudor style shopping center? No.
Is the PeiWei and adjacent parking lot better than the Utica Apartments? No.
Is there a better use for the Spotnot carwash on 15th St or the two little converted houses between Troost and Trenton. Possibly, but I'd rather have these things than a monolithic 7 story suburban structure. Go ahead and build, its great and its good for the local economy. But why not build a long term legacy instead of just something for now.
Tulsa is special because of areas like Cherry Street and Brookside. It is special because of all of the older homes and apartments in their varying architectural styles. These are things we should be able to pass on to the next generation. But we won't be able to. Not if we rip them all down and replace them with Dryvit stucco and psuedo tile roofs as far as the eye can see.
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
Is the Arvest bank better than the strip center that was there? meh.
Is the parking lot behind it better than the two little cottages that were there? No.
Is the Stilwater bank better thant the little Tudor style shopping center? No.
Is the PeiWei and adjacent parking lot better than the Utica Apartments? No.
I'm assuming you mean the Te Kei's?
I don't know the historical significance of rectangular buildings made from brick, but in actuality most of these places taken out were slums. You might have thought rennovation was the best option, but more than likely market pricing and financial reasoning led to them being taken out. Having visited those properties in the times near their demise I must confirm that they were pretty much all prime examples of destitution and poverty at their finest. They ended up being out of place for the neighborhood after decades of decline (much like the apartments demolished to make way for the Utica Place development)
While I'm ranting, doesn't Cherry street pretty much end at Utica? It is all office buildings east of Utica, so what is the big deal with that intersection being developed in a different style? Are people mad because they want Cherry Street to grow to the east? Do you really think the successfully utilized and fairly nice office/medical buildings east of Utica would sell for any price that would make quaint little two story businesses even 1/10th of the way to being profitable? Nothing short of arson would make some people on this board's dreams an actual possibility.
(Keep in mind I'm 24, so my nostalgia factor is very low, but I do know how the properties at 15th & utica as well as the Te Kei's and the Utica Place areas were at the end of their lifespan)
YT, just because a building is derelict today doesn't mean it will always be. Look at the old Piggly Wiggly on 15th, or the Old Lincoln Elementary; both are living new lives and I bet no one would argue that either should be removed. The apartments that you hated, could have been the coolest condos (yes I did mean Te Kei's) with a little imagination and money, now they are a parking lot.
Pat Fox Posted this thread of Utica Avenue pictures. It amazes me that it looked like this less than 10 years ago. Utica Avenue Pictures (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4093%22)
I'm not opposed to development at all. My point is that if we just look the other way, before you know it unique Tulsa will be gone and everytown USA will take its place.
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
. . . a monolithic 7 story suburban structure.
Seems a little oxymoronic. I don't know of many 7 story banks in the suburbs. Do you?
I like the corner. Seems like good urban design to me. I think it's important to separate this thread into two potential complaints and realize there's really only one to be made against Bumgarner's development style.
Complaint #1: The Preservationist's. What was there before is by its nature better than most anything you can put there now. "Older faux-Tudor style buildings are superior to newer faux-Tuscan style buildings because they have been there longer."
Complaint #2: The Urbophile's. A given development is only an improvement if it follows a general form-based, urban aesthetic. "Newer lofts and buildings built to the curb are superior to older run-down houses and retail centers with frontage parking."
It seems like the complaints on this thread follow the Preservationist line while claiming to be upset that given developments aren't "urban" enough. I think we all agree that tearing down older structures to put in sprawl is bad. Where we may differ is on the question of tearing down older structures to add density.
I am open to the latter, assuming responsible balancing of historical significance and commercial renewal. This is why I like the Stillwater National Bank. I think it's a lovely building, which compliments the intersection without overwhelming it and anchors Cherry Street. It's too bad about the old 15th and Utica and some of the memories that have been lost, but there's a valid argument to be made that what we've gained is greater.
(I won't defend Tei Kei. That's butt ugly and a sad loss of residences).
^Well put.
Sometimes I drive around that area and wonder just where some people would say its ok to build something new. If we want to have a more urban, dense, walkable area and growth, how do we get there from here? I look around and according to many thoughts on this thread there are exceedingly few places someone could build anything.
Now the first rebuke I can hear from that is, "There are plenty of vacant lots downtown etc, that people could build things on." True, But there are two basic ways that things grow in the city. 1. Infill in areas that are already nice, often with that nice area slowly expanding outwards on its fringe. Cherry Street, Brookside, and Utica Square areas as examples. 2. The developer that goes into a run down or vacated area as the trailblazer hoping to start a new "nice area". The village and Pearl district, Blue Dome and Brady Districts as examples.
Now if I am the type of developer that wants to build say in the Utica/Cherry street area and I read this thread, I would wonder just where I could build. I only have those few vacant lots to consider? The whole area basically has to freeze just as it is? Take the corner where the Arvest now is. I hear people complain that the shopping center and homes were better, and then I hear people complain that it was the style, or scale. Which was it? If it was that all the old things have to stay and be fixed up, well we arent going to see much change in that area. Its as urban as its going to get. If it was the style,,, well where is the uproar about the that new addition and remodel of the old building just a block or two away on Utica, the new one story medical building thats "Italian"? Or is it the scale? He could have taken out the old shopping center and put in a small Italianate structure and it would have been fine? It just doesnt seem like there is any consistancy.
If it was about scale and design or style, there shouldnt be a peep said from anyone about the shopping center or the apartments behind Utica Square, being taken out. The complaints should only be about scale and design, the "form based codes". Otherwise it just doesnt seem to make sense and as a developer, or someone like me driving around and trying to imagine where someone could build something new, you end up just scratching your head and thinking, wow these people are nuts. I will either end up being able to do nothing in the area or ignore them and do whatever I want, so I am gonna do whatever I want.
Just a question,,,
Where along the section around 21st, Utica, and Cherry Street do people think it would be ok to build something, like more mid-rise condos/business structures? Give me specific lots and buildings that it would be ok to take out if ya need to. And or let us know just what style you think is ok to use for these new buildings. Tudor, Italian, Modern, something else?
Here's a great example, there was a lot for sale at 11th and Lewis at the same time Bumgarner acquired HL Moss, the Arvest Branch would have fit in much better there and would have been welcomed by the neighborhood(not to mention the momentum it could have given to the Pearl District and Route 66 improvements). Chew on that. I think the eastern part of Riverview would be a good location for the type of development you are talking about.
11th and lewis? Might as well say there was a lot near 71st and Memorial or Pine and Sheridan.
There are reasons developers want to place things in certain areas and not just randomly wherever there is an available lot or where the "neighbors would welcome" something. (not to mention socio-economic reasons, traffic flows, and accessibility, for placing things in one location versus another. Look at why gas stations often thrive or flounder in some locations versus another. Whether you fail or succeed can merely depend on the side of the street you are on.) 11th and Lewis is not like 15th and Utica. Mr Bumgarner, if what I have heard is correct, has a vision to develop the area around Utica and Utica Square into something like around the Plaza in KC. Each of his developments and future developments are meant to eventually compliment each other. As more and more developments go in, the over all vision will start to become more obvious and the hoped for effect will be that the properties will thus become even more valuable and complimentary. In that context the 11th and Lewis location might as well be Broken Arrow to Bumgarner.
We all hope for good development in every part of town. But if you have a vested interest in a particular part of town, like JJ has for the Pearl, Bumgarner has for Utica, etc. You will of course focus on that area to reinforce those previous investments and forward your hopes and vision for that particular area. There are many ways to do that and one way to control who your neighbors are and to make sure they keep their yard in order is to BE the neighbor lol. Another way is form based codes...
The people who live in the area don't share Bumgarners vision for their neighborhoods. It's their negihborhoods, not Bumgarners.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
The people who live in the area don't share Bumgarners vision for their neighborhoods. It's their negihborhoods, not Bumgarners.
Isn't there an existing process for the neighborhoods to protest the Bumgarners? If you are unhappy with the outcome of that process then you are either wrong from the communities standpoint or should endeavor to change the process.
I lived in the midtown area when there was very little modern services available to our neighborhoods. No Albertsons, No Walgreens, No Office Supplies, No hardware /lumber stores etc. No great variety of restaurants/clubs either unless you liked Cardo's and Black Forest on a saturday night. Basically, no convenience. It is a trade off we had to make to allow some "ugly" and some "greedy" to come over here to serve us. The payback has been increased interest from the city, higher property values and better schools. Development to allow even more to enjoy this lifestyle is a good idea to me. I loved the area the way it was but that is past.
If we had used your argument and put it to a vote of the neighbors it may not have happened at all. Your rent would be cheaper though.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
The people who live in the area don't share Bumgarners vision for their neighborhoods. It's their negihborhoods, not Bumgarners.
Its his neighborhood just as much as anyone elses. I don't know who you are talking with but pretty much everyone I have ever talked to that live in the area like most of what he has done. If there is a majority of people in the area that don't, why don't they do something about it? Wouldn't placing some form of formed based codes or zoning overlay be a way for them to make sure future growth fit their vision? I can only suspect, since some type of form based codes or zoning overlay has not happened, that there isn't a majority or at least a majority that is willing to put the effort into their vision. Someone sitting around whining that their vision isn't happening can't compete against someone who is getting up and doing something about theirs. If you have the majority, laws can be changed.
does bumgartner own like all the land in this town or something? He cant seem to get the South Town Square dev off the ground.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
The people who live in the area don't share Bumgarners vision for their neighborhoods. It's their negihborhoods, not Bumgarners.
Its his neighborhood just as much as anyone elses. I don't know who you are talking with but pretty much everyone I have ever talked to that live in the area like most of what he has done. If there is a majority of people in the area that don't, why don't they do something about it? Wouldn't placing some form of formed based codes or zoning overlay be a way for them to make sure future growth fit their vision? I can only suspect, since some type of form based codes or zoning overlay has not happened, that there isn't a majority or at least a majority that is willing to put the effort into their vision. Someone sitting around whining that their vision isn't happening can't compete against someone who is getting up and doing something about theirs. If you have the majority, laws can be changed.
We had HP protection, and you can see what good that did us against a well funded developer with bought politicians, Incog staffers, and ABC members. Artist, I think you are full of sh#*t, many people in the neighborhood opposed that development. Maybe you should go back and watch the council meeting and see how many neighbors spoke in favor of it and how many spoke against it.
(quote)
We had HP protection.....
(end quote)
Then what you are saying is that you had jack...
I have said before and I will say it again...
"Form Based Codes, HP Overlay, etc., etc., etc...
You are going to have to demonstrate to the developers in this City that there is money to be made from change.
I suggested to the Board of Tulsa Now that they hold a forum inviting developers from other parts of the Country that had made MONEY$$$$ from implementing these changes in their developments..
Invite the local "developers and major land owners" such as Bumgarner, Butts, Buford, and others..
They are not the enemy..hard for many to believe... maybe... But true none the less.
Profit in the status quo development strategy is the enemy..
You might as well invite a Brick wall to that meeting, because it would absorb what you have to say much better than these folks. I remember how the rules of the Mid Town Redux study were manipulated to favor these interests, or how about HB 2559, remember that? Are you really naive enough to believe they will suddenly see the light and actually give a s*#t about anyone's concerns besides their own? If I wanted to be patronized and have my intelligence insulted, I'd watch a replay of the President's SOTU.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
I remember how the rules of the Mid Town Redux study were manipulated to favor these interests...
Do tell. Specifically who are you accusing of corruption on the Redux study?
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
. . . a monolithic 7 story suburban structure.
Seems a little oxymoronic. I don't know of many 7 story banks in the suburbs. Do you?
I like the corner. Seems like good urban design to me. I think it's important to separate this thread into two potential complaints and realize there's really only one to be made against Bumgarner's development style.
Complaint #1: The Preservationist's. What was there before is by its nature better than most anything you can put there now. "Older faux-Tudor style buildings are superior to newer faux-Tuscan style buildings because they have been there longer."
Complaint #2: The Urbophile's. A given development is only an improvement if it follows a general form-based, urban aesthetic. "Newer lofts and buildings built to the curb are superior to older run-down houses and retail centers with frontage parking."
It seems like the complaints on this thread follow the Preservationist line while claiming to be upset that given developments aren't "urban" enough. I think we all agree that tearing down older structures to put in sprawl is bad. Where we may differ is on the question of tearing down older structures to add density.
I am open to the latter, assuming responsible balancing of historical significance and commercial renewal. This is why I like the Stillwater National Bank. I think it's a lovely building, which compliments the intersection without overwhelming it and anchors Cherry Street. It's too bad about the old 15th and Utica and some of the memories that have been lost, but there's a valid argument to be made that what we've gained is greater.
(I won't defend Tei Kei. That's butt ugly and a sad loss of residences).
Why can't one be both a preservationist and an "urbophile"?
Tulsa had real density in Downtown, uptown, 11th St and on Utica. Because of social perceptions and sprawl many of these areas became abandoned or blighted. The IDL, need for parking and shortsightedness allowed many homes and building to be taken out. Now old structures are desirable again, but the stock is already depleted. In retrospect it would have been better to preserve the density we had then to try to recreate it now. I'll post a before and after pic of 15th and Cheyenne to help make my point. The difference 30 years made will floor you.
dif sub: I don't have a problem with the Stilwater bank building, but I prefered the walk up feel of the old tudor. Utica Avenue used to feel like a neighborhood, now it feels like a corridor. Cherry Street is just about as walkable and cozy as it gets in Tulsa; that's why its a popular destination. How much of that are we willing to risk for the sake of development?
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
I remember how the rules of the Mid Town Redux study were manipulated to favor these interests...
Do tell. Specifically who are you accusing of corruption on the Redux study?
You know as well as I do that that special concessions were made to developers in regards to parking issues. Or how about advertising the study as specific to one area of town, only to have it changed to be a hypothetical area when the participants arrived? Maybe you should talk to the Neighborhood Reps who participated and ask them if they are happy with the process, most of the ones I've spoken with are not.
In a country based on the free-market and the rights of property owners the best way to protect ones property is to put your money where your mouth is. If the neighborhood *REALLY* doesnt want a bank to go in at a certain location get together and by the lot from them. Better yet, incorporate the neighborhood association and deed covenants into all of the lots.
While we do need government to step in and lay down the law from time to time, gripes including "it doesnt look nice there" shouldn't be enough for the government to infringe on someones property rights.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
I remember how the rules of the Mid Town Redux study were manipulated to favor these interests...
Do tell. Specifically who are you accusing of corruption on the Redux study?
You know as well as I do that that special concessions were made to developers in regards to parking issues. Or how about advertising the study as specific to one area of town, only to have it changed to be a hypothetical area when the participants arrived? Maybe you should talk to the Neighborhood Reps who participated and ask them if they are happy with the process, most of the ones I've spoken with are not.
There are only about 27,000 misconceptions floating around out there about what the study was and wasn't supposed to be. Your assertions above are pretty high on that list.
Hate to break this to you, but of all the people I've spoken to about the study (probably 200+), it's developers who are the least happy about it.
No different than the Metro Lofts.
quote:
Hate to break this to you, but of all the people I've spoken to about the study (probably 200+), it's developers who are the least happy about it.
What have they said?
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Just a question,,,
Where along the section around 21st, Utica, and Cherry Street do people think it would be ok to build something, like more mid-rise condos/business structures?
Artist-
I live near 21st and Utica and I would LOVE to see them do something with the parking lot/open area that is fenced off on the NW corner of 21st and Utica. I believe Utica Sq (which correct me if I am wrong is owned by one of the Helmrichs) owns this area as they have storage of materials and I often see the Utica Sq Security vehicles parked over there. I am keeping my fingers crossed that once Utica Place is complete they will do a similar scaled development (mid-rise with residential/retail/restaurant mix use) to enhance/expand on Utica Square. I think the existing parking structure could be utilized/expanded on as it never seems to have many cars in it (maybe they just aren't there when I am walking by?).
My 2 cents.
quote:
Originally posted by jtcrissup
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Just a question,,,
Where along the section around 21st, Utica, and Cherry Street do people think it would be ok to build something, like more mid-rise condos/business structures?
Artist-
I live near 21st and Utica and I would LOVE to see them do something with the parking lot/open area that is fenced off on the NW corner of 21st and Utica. I believe Utica Sq (which correct me if I am wrong is owned by one of the Helmrichs) owns this area as they have storage of materials and I often see the Utica Sq Security vehicles parked over there. I am keeping my fingers crossed that once Utica Place is complete they will do a similar scaled development (mid-rise with residential/retail/restaurant mix use) to enhance/expand on Utica Square. I think the existing parking structure could be utilized/expanded on as it never seems to have many cars in it (maybe they just aren't there when I am walking by?).
My 2 cents.
The large building that was there was torn down so that Helmrich and Payne could build their new headquarters there. They moved downtown during the interim. Rumor has it that they may now stay downtown, which I am sure would be good for downtown. I also recall someone saying that the Helmrich people dont like the Utica Place people lol, so I have no idea what is now to become of that property.
But I am in agreement with you, that is a prime spot for a great development. Business on the ground or first few floors and living above, perhaps a hotel. A high loggia fronting the whole property along 21st would be stunning and would definitely make the area feel very European and walkable. That one property if done right could make that part of town into a stunning asset and a wow feature.
Something along these lines would do nicely.[:D][:D]
(http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/4277/loggiavittoriodc4.jpg)
If only they would put me in charge.[:P]
What is the empty little patch of land on the west side of Utica just north of Swan Lake (I think at the corner of 17th Pl.) - Someone likely owns it, looks like something was cleared off of it?
It was the contractor staging area for the St. John's construction. Now that the expansion is finished, I assume St. John's owns it. No idea what is planned . . .
That piece of property is owned by Hinkle the dentist. He has had plans to build a large clinic. I do not know where it stands. Does anyone ?
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
You can make all those personal attacks on John and Chris but they seem to be doing some fine developments. The one you are alluding to has been on the board for several years. Too bad they don't own land in near east downtown....
mkay... see, I just don't think the locals by-and-large know what "walkable urbanity" looks like. And they shouldn't be trusted to do the work that needs to be done to make that "walkable urbanity" option attractive to more than just the
childless downtown luxury condo crowd and their massive amounts of disposable income...
Interesting to read your take on the people who had actual hands-on experience with a project like Gallery Place in DC...
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
Well DUH! Told you so. Promoters! Brokers! Shicksters!
"She (mayor) said one appealing aspect of the East End project is that Global is working with a local group that knows what the scene should be downtown." NOW THAT'S FUNNY!!!!!
Looks like the Nordam bunch likes lawsuits. They must have given up on the prospect being able to perform to sue them for the earnest deposit money. Was some other party waiting in the wings? doubtful.... just greed.
All hail the victorious status quo... [}:)]