These signs are popping up all over midtown. Excellent!
The dilemna for legacy homeowners is whether to bother fixing up their properties before putting them on the market (particularly in high-interest neighborhoods). If the real value is the property and not the house, when the house is going to be demolished anyway, why landscape, fix it up at all? Legacy homes just deteriorate.
Repeat after me: 'Tuscan architecture is eeeeeeevil, Tuscan architecture is eeeeevilllll . . .'
Preserve Midtown (//%22http://preservemidtown.com%22)
Thanks for the link! It's nice to see that a group is working together not just for one specific neighborhood but in such a large area of town.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
These signs are popping up all over midtown. Excellent!
The dilemna for legacy homeowners is whether to bother fixing up their properties before putting them on the market (particularly in high-interest neighborhoods). If the real value is the property and not the house, when the house is going to be demolished anyway, why landscape, fix it up at all? Legacy homes just deteriorate.
Repeat after me: 'Tuscan architecture is eeeeeeevil, Tuscan architecture is eeeeevilllll . . .'
Preserve Midtown (//%22http://preservemidtown.com%22)
Yes, they need to tear down that nasty Philbrook immediately. Completely out of scale with the homes next to it and that gawd awful "faux Iitalian" knock off look is wearing thin.
Funny thing happened today. Finished driving a friend around downtown and telling him about this and that building, was headed south on Utica, stopped at the 21st and Utica intersection. He points at that "faux italian monstrosity" so many people on here seem to hate and goes "Oooh what building is that? Its very nice." I think he must have thought it was an actual old building or something. I laughed remembering how so many on here have spewed scorn at it. Just think, soon there will be a whole generation of young people who wont remember the gas station that used to be there and will think of that building as being part of the familiar natural charm and beauty of the area. lol
Well, Arteest, if it is revealed that Phillie is made with faux beams, drywall, cheap pine, the back half is slat and boards, and squeezed on a lot like Kristie Alley in jeans, then DOWN SHE GOES!! [:)]
SHOCKING that a true arteest cannot distinguish between the classical symmetry of Italian Renaissance and the randomness of the faux Tuscan countryside farmhouses. The disaster on Utica is akin to a gargantuan bungalow, or gigantic cottage. [:D]
Give me a boring ol' ranch house (which so many here seem to hate) anyday . . .
I can distinguish between the two very well thank you. My point was to try and inject a point of caution. I hear people making blanket proclimations of "No tear downs" and I think there are some homes that could actually be replaced with more appropriate ones, (not Philbrook btw) Or people scream "No homes of inappropriate size." here again too general, you can build a larger home that doesn't squeeze onto a lot, has similar wall height, architecural scale,mass, etc. People holler, "No faux Italian or Tuscan architecture." While there are plenty of older examples of both in the historic parts of town. They usually have wall height, wall planes, architectural details, windows, etc. that are to scale and proportional with other nearby homes. If your beef is about the materials used, then work to have regulations on that, don't diss the style.
Good points Artist.
Not too mention, there are some homes that would be better off as empty lots (looks at the 'historic home' next to him, built in the 1940's... with cinder block walls, as it sits vacant, again). The picture on the homepage shows many houses in disrepair. Instead of making a clear point, the picture raises a debate.
What's worse, a new abomination or an old classic in horrible disrepair?
Truth is, most people are not willing to take the time and money to try and bring back something that is not in line with current preferences anyway. Many of those old homes still have asbestos, sub standard wiring, poor insulation, slats instead of dry wall and on and on. I very much like houses that are unique but still fit in, but as I have not taken the trouble nor expense to try and restore a home and in fact bought an infill house - I can not begrudge those that do the same.
In fact, I was damn pleased when a nice new house was built next to me. The next construction next to me is o much nicer, cleaner, and does more for the neighborhood than the two most "historic" homes in the neighborhood to the other side. Which I pray burn down every 4th of July.
I've said this before, but it bears repeating. This is why it is so critical that we develop a system of zoning or codes that use a mixture neighborhood stabilization overlays, conservation districts, historic preservation zoning, and form based codes. We need to develop planning and zoning that offers the uniformity and flexibility to provide infill development that is in character, scale, and harmony with existing neighborhoods. Until that happens, I support this effort to preserve midtown.
Just curious .... on the Preserve Midtown website, the pic of the out-of-scale tri-level house from the June 15 article on the front page ..... is that an actual house in Tulsa?
The law of unintended consequences often follows good intentions. While this "Preserve Midtown" group has graciously volunteered to "educate" the poor uninformed folk out there about the dangers of infill development, they may not realize that they walk a very slippery slope. The truth is, old neighborhoods need infill investment. It validates the value of their property. Supposedly, Midtown is a desireable place to live in Tulsa, but one should not assume that will always be the case. Case in point: Try to find a three bedroom, two bathroom house in Midtown. It's pretty standard fare for South Tulsa to have proportionally the same number of bathrooms as bedrooms. These older houses do not always meet the critera many families need. Now, a true urbanist will overlook such shortcomings, realizing the charm of the home and the area outwiegh them. But to think that most people are willing to do this is false. What I am getting to is this, in order for Midtown to continue to be a viable place, the existing homes need to be in as good of condition as they can, and we need good infill development, niether of which will not happen with onerous regulation, perceived or otherwise.
I, personally, would not wish to see anymore of the type of HP Overlay zoning we have implemented here in the past, for the reasons stated above. It is too heavy handed on the small, less important stuff (windows and doors, style), and not toothy enough on the important stuff (scale, rhythm, proportion, teardowns). It discourages investment in older homes, encourages weekend warrior home improvement projects (when no HP officer is on duty), and because of bad press and word of mouth associated with HP, HP district homes sit on the market far longer than their bretheren outside of the district, which is not good for midtown and not good for the neighborhoods.
Am I saying that HP hasn't been good for the neighborhoods? Absolutely not. It saved Yorktown, Swan Lake and Maple Ridge. Has it been good for Brady Heights? Not so sure. Too early to tell, but they have other problems up there to contend with. The problem is this. Because HP was so effective in revitalizing these neighborhoods, there is more pressure than ever for investment in them. In the past, you couldn't get someone to fix up some of these houses. Now we have the opposite problem. So, which problem would you rather have?
If I had my druthers, I'd ditch the current HP rules, and put general scale and proportion regulations, broadly defined stylistic requirements, akin to many homeowners covenants around the city, with some tougher teardown rules, and let it be.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Good points Artist.
Not too mention, there are some homes that would be better off as empty lots (looks at the 'historic home' next to him, built in the 1940's... with cinder block walls, as it sits vacant, again). The picture on the homepage shows many houses in disrepair. Instead of making a clear point, the picture raises a debate.
What's worse, a new abomination or an old classic in horrible disrepair?
Truth is, most people are not willing to take the time and money to try and bring back something that is not in line with current preferences anyway. Many of those old homes still have asbestos, sub standard wiring, poor insulation, slats instead of dry wall and on and on. I very much like houses that are unique but still fit in, but as I have not taken the trouble nor expense to try and restore a home and in fact bought an infill house - I can not begrudge those that do the same.
In fact, I was damn pleased when a nice new house was built next to me. The next construction next to me is o much nicer, cleaner, and does more for the neighborhood than the two most "historic" homes in the neighborhood to the other side. Which I pray burn down every 4th of July.
(http://bp3.blogger.com/_N1vP3n_ZjbY/RnCiLuZryUI/AAAAAAAAAD4/qNQDRGkzfpw/s1600-h/060815_a1_neigh_a1mansions15.jpg)
This is near-ish to you isn't it CF? 3100 blk. of E. 27th.
Living near Florence Park, There have been a few tear-downs over the years, maybe they've been homes that burned then were re-developed. There have also been hideous additions to homes that don't fit the area either.
When someone comes into a neighborhood like that which is predominantly brick cottages and bungalows, and put's up something that looks like it belongs in Broken Arrow, it stands out like a sore thumb on that block.
Not really sure what my point was, just wanted to rant. [:D]
Yeah, that doesnt fit in too well at all. I think that's about 7 blocks from my house.
Luckily, the infill in my area was done very well. Most notably, the height is in proportion to other properties in the neighborhood. I think that's why the house above and in the article look so entirely goofy.
quote:
Originally posted by Kenosha
Supposedly, Midtown is a desireable place to live in Tulsa, but one should not assume that will always be the case. Case in point: Try to find a three bedroom, two bathroom house in Midtown. It's pretty standard fare for South Tulsa to have proportionally the same number of bathrooms as bedrooms. These older houses do not always meet the critera many families need. Now, a true urbanist will overlook such shortcomings, realizing the charm of the home and the area outwiegh them. But to think that most people are willing to do this is false.
To my knowledge, a 3 bedroom 2 bath house is pretty standard fare in midtown Tulsa. If a family of 4-5 persons can not survive with only 2 full baths, then they are either spoiled rotten wastefull consumers, or they should look elsewhere for a house to suit their "criteria."
HP zoning is GREAT, and in my opinion should be more restrictive than it currently is.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
quote:
Originally posted by Kenosha
Supposedly, Midtown is a desireable place to live in Tulsa, but one should not assume that will always be the case. Case in point: Try to find a three bedroom, two bathroom house in Midtown. It's pretty standard fare for South Tulsa to have proportionally the same number of bathrooms as bedrooms. These older houses do not always meet the critera many families need. Now, a true urbanist will overlook such shortcomings, realizing the charm of the home and the area outwiegh them. But to think that most people are willing to do this is false.
To my knowledge, a 3 bedroom 2 bath house is pretty standard fare in midtown Tulsa. If a family of 4-5 persons can not survive with only 2 full baths, then they are either spoiled rotten wastefull consumers, or they should look elsewhere for a house to suit their "criteria."
HP zoning is GREAT, and in my opinion should be more restrictive than it currently is.
The difference is in your definition of "mid-town" which has been exhaustively discussed here in the past. Steve, your midtown neighborhood of Lortondale is full of 3/1.5 and 3/2 houses. Florence park and Brookside are also midtown and are rife with 2/1, 3/1 and 3/1.5 homes. If you really need two full baths and don't want to add one to your home, then you have fewer homes to look at over here and they will carry stronger prices.
I think the rear stoop counts as a .5 bath in an emergency, doesn't it?
I live in midtown and we have a rundown 1 1/2 story home on our street that is vacant, unmaintained and basically looks like crap. I'd much rather have it sell for the land value and have a buider build a McMansion that will not only enhance our home value but will look better than the existing rundown shack! JMO...
quote:
Originally posted by midtownnewbie
I live in midtown and we have a rundown 1 1/2 story home on our street that is vacant, unmaintained and basically looks like crap. I'd much rather have it sell for the land value and have a buider build a McMansion that will not only enhance our home value but will look better than the existing rundown shack! JMO...
Where is it? I'll buy it, fix it up and make just as much money as replacing it yet keep the neighborhood happy. Seriously.
In my neighborhood, we have a variety of housing conditions.
The guy to the north of me just added on a 2,000 square foot, two story garage with bedrooms upstairs.
The guy to the south (whose house is probably only about 1,500 square feet) just trenched my yard by mistakingly backing a trailer filled with broken appliances that he has begun storing in his backyard.
I have garage envy and yard disgust depending on which way I enter the neighborhood.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by midtownnewbie
I live in midtown and we have a rundown 1 1/2 story home on our street that is vacant, unmaintained and basically looks like crap. I'd much rather have it sell for the land value and have a buider build a McMansion that will not only enhance our home value but will look better than the existing rundown shack! JMO...
Where is it? I'll buy it, fix it up and make just as much money as replacing it yet keep the neighborhood happy. Seriously.
I would tell you, but the owner has already been approached by some of the neighbors and they don't want to sell it...
One of the biggest problems that face older and historic neighborhoods are absent landlords who get the rent but put no money into maintenance. Or a few big developers who buy a piece property, allow it to deteriorate then describe it before the city commissions as a run down dump that needs to be demolished.
These neighborhoods are our legacy, our history and our future. How many cities can you name that has viable, affordable single family neighborhoods so near to downtown?
What is the clear cut message that preserve midtown is trying to present? Their site is crap. Are they mad that people are building with no yards? Are they mad that people are not building the style they like? Are they mad that there are two stories where there are predominantly one stories? I thought that we live in America not the old Soviet Union. Diversity? People should have the right to build whatever they like. What if they want a larger house for their families? What if they like modern architecture? So, you can not build a new house in midtown without the ok of these individuals? I can give you an example. The first house built on my block was a mid-century modern. No homes after them were modern. So shouldn't every house on the block been modern? Where do they propose someone build a two story modern? Just because a home is not appealing to you does not give you the right to tell them what or where to build. This is not the ideals of free society.
Live by the golden rule, right? Those who have the gold make the rules. Stay gold, pony boy.
It's unlike me to sit by and say nothing while a group of meddling busy bodies attempt to take away the rights of Tulsa property owners. First they insult homeowners who live South of 51st by slamming the styles of newer homes -- the so called McMansion. What a joke. Then, they single out specific developers and work hard to ruin business and progress.
The city requires developers and individual property owners to go through proper proceedure when obtaining building permits, etc. The developer is not the bad guy.
I don't want to be told what color my home can be and what type of front door I can have. That's why I chose not to buy property in a historic preservation district.
I live in one of the most beautiful eclectic neighborhoods. We are fortunate enough to have unique,designs completed in the 30's and 40's by McCormick, Forsythe and McCune and more recently by Arnold, Fox, Madewell and Turner. There is something here for everyone. It's the diversity which makes our neighborhood (and midtown for that matter) special.
It is telling when home sales lag in historic preservation districts and market values appear to be lower in some of those areas. Many people don't want to be told what they can and can't do with their homes. So, they don't buy in Maple Ridge.
This is America...not the Soviet Union. Who decides what fits in and what doesn't? Who decides what is tasteful and what is not?
I guess we could all wear similar clothes - though some styles aren't as flattering on me as they are you. We could drive cars that fit better into mid town. Can we all afford a Lexus?
Bottom line is -- preserve tulsa people -- won't really be able to successfully change anything of significance. [;)]I think the group should focus their energy on helping educate people on home maintenance so that when it comes time to sell -- the home is worth more than lot value.
SO GLAD TO HAVE THAT OFF MY CHEST!
Welcome to the world of posting Rose, feels good eh'? [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by Rose
It's unlike me to sit by and say nothing while a group of meddling busy bodies attempt to take away the rights of Tulsa property owners. First they insult homeowners who live South of 51st by slamming the styles of newer homes -- the so called McMansion. What a joke. Then, they single out specific developers and work hard to ruin business and progress.
The city requires developers and individual property owners to go through proper proceedure when obtaining building permits, etc. The developer is not the bad guy.
I don't want to be told what color my home can be and what type of front door I can have. That's why I chose not to buy property in a historic preservation district.
I live in one of the most beautiful eclectic neighborhoods. We are fortunate enough to have unique,designs completed in the 30's and 40's by McCormick, Forsythe and McCune and more recently by Arnold, Fox, Madewell and Turner. There is something here for everyone. It's the diversity which makes our neighborhood (and midtown for that matter) special.
It is telling when home sales lag in historic preservation districts and market values appear to be lower in some of those areas. Many people don't want to be told what they can and can't do with their homes. So, they don't buy in Maple Ridge.
This is America...not the Soviet Union. Who decides what fits in and what doesn't? Who decides what is tasteful and what is not?
I guess we could all wear similar clothes - though some styles aren't as flattering on me as they are you. We could drive cars that fit better into mid town. Can we all afford a Lexus?
Bottom line is -- preserve tulsa people -- won't really be able to successfully change anything of significance. [;)]I think the group should focus their energy on helping educate people on home maintenance so that when it comes time to sell -- the home is worth more than lot value.
SO GLAD TO HAVE THAT OFF MY CHEST!
Rose, would you want to live next to that three story over garage monster that was featured on the web site? No we're not Russia, but we're not podunk either. You won't find high resale housing developments in South Tulsa that have hodgepodge styling. Successful developers know that without some uniformity of style, price and similar sized homes the values just don't hold up. Yet they come into existing midtown neighborhoods that have the same uniformity of construction, style and size and proceed to throw up homes that don't fit. Too big, too gaudy, too cheaply built and usually walled off from the rest of the hood.
Honestly, I think most of the developers ARE the bad guys. And, the idea that infill is the validation of older neighborhoods seems indefensible to me. Not everything you buy is with resale value in mind. Some people actually love old homes for what they are, their durability, their beauty and craftmanship. Where did that come from anyway?
Waterboy,
So what you are saying is that if you want a large house in midtown that you can't build it unless there are large houses around you. As for style, that is personal preference. You want to dictate what style and size is built? This is America. You don't get to dictate. Also, for you to categorize new home construction as cheap is a bad blanket statement. 99% of the houses being torn down are dumps. Yes, with a lot of money they could be rehabed but some people want new homes that are energy efficient that provide space and open floor plans.
QuoteOriginally posted by ost
Waterboy,
So what you are saying is that if you want a large house in midtown that you can't build it unless there are large houses around you.
No. You would be foolish to do so and would attract the wrath of those already living there. Besides the fact that the largest home and the smallest home in a neighborhood are the hardest to resale and suffer in value you ignore the reality that those existing homebuyers have a right to their values and you will impact them.
As for style, that is personal preference. You want to dictate what style and size is built? This is America. You don't get to dictate.
Sorry, but I do if I am writing the covenants for the plat of the neighborhood. Or if I am on one of the boards protecting the interests of the existing homeowners in that hood. Its a legal thing that has kept neighborhoods safe from predator infill development for a century or more.
Also, for you to categorize new home construction as cheap is a bad blanket statement.
I am the son of a painting contractor and spent many a year watching, participating in and understanding the building process. Most of them are cheaply made, even the expensive ones. Try to drive a nail in the Loblolly pine in my 90year old rafters and watch the nail bend. Rent a jack hammer to break through the foundation that used higher density concrete. Compare and contrast and you have no case.
99% of the houses being torn down are dumps. Yes, with a lot of money they could be rehabed but some people want new homes that are energy efficient that provide space and open floor plans.
Your 99% figure seems to come from your own mind. Nonetheless, many of them were purposely not maintained so as to entice developers and boost the case to the zoning boards that they are worthy of replacing. You should watch the process up close and see how it is done.
Then consider how you would like having your quaint little bungalow neighborhood assaulted with a three story cheaply built but open floor plan monster.
Right on, WB! I couldn't have said it better myself. Keep up the good work!
HA! properly sized image. Did someone violate the neighborhood covenants? [:P]
QuoteOriginally posted by TheArtistGood one, T.A. I guess somebody got their feelings hurt and the drones are obeying their queen. It's a petty move, but I think it's quite funny, really. I enjoy it immensely because it gives me the confirmation and the satifactionof knowing that I've smoked 'em out of the hive. They are confused, disoriented, and lashing out in the wrong directions while I remove the queen. They should thank me, the queen has infected the hive with colony collapse disorder, removing her might save the hive before it spreads from the diseased, decaying, queen's court. Of course, those worker bees and drones closest to the queen(ya know, the ones in her court) have been infected and must be removed as well to protect the health and safety of the hive. It's a shame they are doomed to suffer the same unpleasant fate as their queen, at least they can take solace in the fact they will share their fate together. My prognosis is the condition is terminal and they won't survive to see the next election. If there is anything I can do to help ease the pain of there passing, don't bother asking. They deserve a slow painful exit.
Waterboy,
Where in Tulsa is that 3 story you mentioned?
Those "preserve midtown", "stop the chop", and "stop the box" signs are going to REALLY impress our visitors here for the PGA.
Not podunk? Hmm. We seem to be held back by unsophisticated parochial people who refuse change.
You ask if I'd like to live across the street from the 3 story. Well, I do live across the street from a home I don't aesthetically appreciate. It's ugly (in my opinion). However, my money didn't pay for it. They may not be fond of my landscaping choices or how rowdy my kids are. So what. It hasn't hurt the resale value in our neighborhood.
Just so you know, I live in a home that was built in the 30's. I loved it at first sight. But I have to admit, we've spent a small fortune making it liveable. It works for me but would not be for everyone. I love homes full of historic character. But, I think it is presumptious to tell others what they should choose.
Let's get over ourselves and let people be.
The city sets guidelines for new construction and remodeling -- called ...building permits. As far as I'm concerned, if a person plays by the rules they should be left alone.
Mid-town is a wonderful place to live, except for the problem of neighbors trying to tell you what you can do with your little square of real estate.
McMansion, McDive, McAnything! It's clear we all love midtown. Why take away choice? What are you really afraid of?
quote:
Originally posted by Rose
Waterboy,
Where in Tulsa is that 3 story you mentioned?
Those "preserve midtown", "stop the chop", and "stop the box" signs are going to REALLY impress our visitors here for the PGA.
Not podunk? Hmm. We seem to be held back by unsophisticated parochial people who refuse change.
You ask if I'd like to live across the street from the 3 story. Well, I do live across the street from a home I don't aesthetically appreciate. It's ugly (in my opinion). However, my money didn't pay for it. They may not be fond of my landscaping choices or how rowdy my kids are. So what. It hasn't hurt the resale value in our neighborhood.
Just so you know, I live in a home that was built in the 30's. I loved it at first sight. But I have to admit, we've spent a small fortune making it liveable. It works for me but would not be for everyone. I love homes full of historic character. But, I think it is presumptious to tell others what they should choose.
Let's get over ourselves and let people be.
The city sets guidelines for new construction and remodeling -- called ...building permits. As far as I'm concerned, if a person plays by the rules they should be left alone.
Mid-town is a wonderful place to live, except for the problem of neighbors trying to tell you what you can do with your little square of real estate.
McMansion, McDive, McAnything! It's clear we all love midtown. Why take away choice? What are you really afraid of?
The pic is in the link for preservemidtown.com. Even if it doesn't exist or has been p-shopped it makes a point. I am not a member of this org btw.
Listen, you're barking at shadows. These covenants, zoning rules, boards and commissions have been around a long time and for good reason. They protect homeowners like yourself from having their investments decimated by unscrupulous builders who have their own agenda (fast profits). Sometimes the system fails them and sometimes the builders seize on loopholes to do their dirty work. But it is important to not throw away the system.
It is not aesthetics or style preference. Its economics. I would suggest that you compare the cost of building a new home in one of the suburban areas versus remodeling a midtown home to similar livability. You will find that it is comparable. Maybe even cheaper to remodel. So there is no real reason to raze these homes and build from scratch. If you add in the higher cost of the land in midtown to build from scratch it doesn't even make sense unless....you build two or three smaller homes on the lot or increase the size of the homes to justify a larger profit. This is what is happening.
BTW, I guess I'm in the category of unsophisticated parochial people because I don't play golf and couldn't care less what PGA elites think.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
These signs are popping up all over midtown. Excellent!
The dilemna for legacy homeowners is whether to bother fixing up their properties before putting them on the market (particularly in high-interest neighborhoods). If the real value is the property and not the house, when the house is going to be demolished anyway, why landscape, fix it up at all? Legacy homes just deteriorate.
Repeat after me: 'Tuscan architecture is eeeeeeevil, Tuscan architecture is eeeeevilllll . . .'
Preserve Midtown (//%22http://preservemidtown.com%22)
Yes, they need to tear down that nasty Philbrook immediately. Completely out of scale with the homes next to it and that gawd awful "faux Iitalian" knock off look is wearing thin.
Funny thing happened today. Finished driving a friend around downtown and telling him about this and that building, was headed south on Utica, stopped at the 21st and Utica intersection. He points at that "faux italian monstrosity" so many people on here seem to hate and goes "Oooh what building is that? Its very nice." I think he must have thought it was an actual old building or something. I laughed remembering how so many on here have spewed scorn at it. Just think, soon there will be a whole generation of young people who wont remember the gas station that used to be there and will think of that building as being part of the familiar natural charm and beauty of the area. lol
First, it's probably no secret to anyone here that my father is Pat Fox. So, obviously, I have my own biases toward his projects. I am not posting here in order to get anyone of you to "like" the buildings and homes he, or any other architect designs.
Architects like Pat Fox, the late Stephen Turner, Jack Arnold, Alan Madewell, James Boswell, and Brian Freese have collectively designed
hundreds of homes in Tulsa, and specifically in Midtown Tulsa, some of which are not offensive to the eye, many of which have become part of the fabric of Midtown which is so cherished. I will also say that each of these architects is allowed to practice their craft primarily because they are
commissioned to do so on a regular basis, meaning someone is paying them for thier talents. So those
somebodies must like their work.
Like it or not, these architects represent the here and now of Tulsa architecture. In 50 years, I can assure you that people will be just as passionate about many of the structures being built today by these talented people as they are about the homes built by Forsythe and Dilbeck.
I appreciate your comments on that building, Artist. It is my opinion that it has visually enhanced that intersection in a postive manner. In fact, my dad received an AIA Honor Award for the design of that building. In response to the "faux italian" comments, the materials used are as authentic as possible and the proportions are appropriate for the style. Real stucco. Real clay tile roofs. It is a modern take on a traditional form of architecture and construction for sure, but "faux"? I don't agree. Furthermore, it employs many of the modern "new" urbanist values placed on architecture and planning: up to the street setback, hidden (underground and behind the buildng) parking. It could be a strip center or a QuikTrip. Would that be more appropriate?
I will also disclose that I was, at one point, on staff at the Tulsa Preservation Commission. It was one of the most rewarding and interesting jobs I've ever had. I consider myself a preservationist. It is my experience that there are a few very educated citizens that understand the philosophical underpinnings of the Preservation movement, not just in Tulsa, but nationwide. It is also my experience that there is a lot of misinformation out there regarding the Preservation movement.
That being said, what is not happening in this whole thing is an actual discussion regarding the future of the neighborhoods in question. Websites, signs, petitions, accusations, assertions, and downright slander (most developers are evil? Come on. Enough with the hyperbole.) is all I have seen come of this. It is my opinion that this aggressive, internet bravado ridden technique does not advance civil, intelligent discussion about this important issue. It only serves to place people on one side or the other. It is divisive and it hurts our community.
So, what I am saying is that, while you may not be able to convince everyone that your idea is right and that they should agree with you or else, you (the collective you) may actually learn something from your neighbors and come to some sort of compromise, if not consensus about this, or any other issue. That technique is a whole lot harder than slapping up a website and sticking signs in a yard, but the result is far better.
So, while I agree that appropriate infill in our legacy neighborhoods is an important issue, I will suggest that there is probably more than one opinion about what that means, and certainly a better way of having that discussion.
WB,
Golf? That's what I thought.
I still believe in choices. There are people who want to live in new homes, in midtown. The demand is there and you can't change that.
Rose
Yeah PFox, we know. How are (name removed) and (name removed) doing?
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
QuoteOriginally posted by TheArtistGood one, T.A. I guess somebody got their feelings hurt and the drones are obeying their queen. It's a petty move, but I think it's quite funny, really. I enjoy it immensely because it gives me the confirmation and the satifactionof knowing that I've smoked 'em out of the hive. They are confused, disoriented, and lashing out in the wrong directions while I remove the queen. They should thank me, the queen has infected the hive with colony collapse disorder, removing her might save the hive before it spreads from the diseased, decaying, queen's court. Of course, those worker bees and drones closest to the queen(ya know, the ones in her court) have been infected and must be removed as well to protect the health and safety of the hive. It's a shame they are doomed to suffer the same unpleasant fate as their queen, at least they can take solace in the fact they will share their fate together. My prognosis is the condition is terminal and they won't survive to see the next election. If there is anything I can do to help ease the pain of there passing, don't bother asking. They deserve a slow painful exit.
Actually, your signature .jpg was in violation of forum rules and clogs the board with unecessary litter. The removal was in response to many complaints about litter on the forum.
The "Queen" you speak of has nothing to do with this forum.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Yeah PFox, we know. How are... doing?
That seems like an appropriate private message question.
quote:
Originally posted by Rose
Waterboy,
Where in Tulsa is that 3 story you mentioned?
Those "preserve midtown", "stop the chop", and "stop the box" signs are going to REALLY impress our visitors here for the PGA.
Not podunk? Hmm. We seem to be held back by unsophisticated parochial people who refuse change.
You ask if I'd like to live across the street from the 3 story. Well, I do live across the street from a home I don't aesthetically appreciate. It's ugly (in my opinion). However, my money didn't pay for it. They may not be fond of my landscaping choices or how rowdy my kids are. So what. It hasn't hurt the resale value in our neighborhood.
Just so you know, I live in a home that was built in the 30's. I loved it at first sight. But I have to admit, we've spent a small fortune making it liveable. It works for me but would not be for everyone. I love homes full of historic character. But, I think it is presumptious to tell others what they should choose.
Let's get over ourselves and let people be.
The city sets guidelines for new construction and remodeling -- called ...building permits. As far as I'm concerned, if a person plays by the rules they should be left alone.
Mid-town is a wonderful place to live, except for the problem of neighbors trying to tell you what you can do with your little square of real estate.
McMansion, McDive, McAnything! It's clear we all love midtown. Why take away choice? What are you really afraid of?
Don't move into a historic neighborhood if you don't want to live in one. Most people move to historic areas to preserve them, not to destroy them. Considering that, are you advocating that we should we feel sorry for the folks who do this, and then have the audacity to complain about the outrage that it inspires in their neighbors? Should we really reward stupidity like that? What did they expect? Where do these elitists get off thinking they should be able to move into a community, and disrupt the peace, character and quality of life by exempting themselves from the same standards everyone else abides by just because they have the disposable income to get-r-done? If your opinion of your neighbors is that they are a bunch uneducated, unenlightened, knuckle dragging troglodytes, why do you stay or want to move into their neighborhoods? Standards for development that provide planning and zoning that offers the uniformity while allowing the flexibility to provide infill development that is in character, scale, and harmony with existing neighborhoods is not dictatorial or tyrannical as you imply. The if you can buy it, you can try it approach that exempts the elites from the ovens you seem to be advocating is.
Waterboy,
It is not about style preference? If I want to build a modern house in midtown how is that for financial gain? By the way I am the son of a Doctor so I am qualified to perform surgery on you at any time. So you feel that framing and concrete are the only things that qualify a house as cheap? How about windows, heating and cooling, lighting,doors, appliances, exterior materials, cabinets etc. There are a large number of old homes with serious deficiencies in this area. It all boils down to the fact that you don't like new homes. Move to a communist country and you will fit in nicely.
Hey pfox, do you consider dryvit real stucco?
quote:
Originally posted by ost
Waterboy,
It is not about style preference? If I want to build a modern house in midtown how is that for financial gain? By the way I am the son of a Doctor so I am qualified to perform surgery on you at any time. So you feel that framing and concrete are the only things that qualify a house as cheap? How about windows, heating and cooling, lighting,doors, appliances, exterior materials, cabinets etc. There are a large number of old homes with serious deficiencies in this area. It all boils down to the fact that you don't like new homes. Move to a communist country and you will fit in nicely.
Thank you OST! I agree 100%.
Thankfully, there are no bans on modern. I like it and would not be offended in the least bit to live across the street from something so chic. Check out NYC -- modern/legacy -- same thing.
Double A-
I'll live where I want to live and do whatever I please to my house. That is my right as a property owner. Next time I may paint it orange, just for you.
[:o)]
quote:
Originally posted by Rose
Double A-
I'll live where I want to live and do whatever I please to my house. That is my right as a property owner. Next time I may paint it orange, just for you.
[:o)]
There is nothing stopping you from painting your house whatever color you want in a HP zoned neighborhood. I know it's hard thing for some of you to do, but let's have an honest debate. No one is advocating telling anyone what color they can paint their house.
Double A,
Most, if not all the dryvit put on new homes now is over real stucco. Much like paint on wood.
quote:
Originally posted by Moderator
Actually, your signature .jpg was in violation of forum rules and clogs the board with unecessary litter. The removal was in response to many complaints about litter on the forum.
The "Queen" you speak of has nothing to do with this forum.
I was asked to change my signature line before and did so respectfully without making it an issue. I changed it to what I thought was in compliance. I didn't have any complaints about my new signature line, so I thought everything was fine. It wasn't made a problem until I started criticizing the One Tech deal and questioning the ulterior motives of those pushing it. It's a petty, desperate, juvenile move, but I think it's funny. Besides, I like my new signature line. It serves my purposes and points quite well. You are your own worst enemies. I should know, I can tell the smell of my own scent when I come in contact with it. Now circle the wagons and begin firing to allow the ambush and ensuing slaughter from outside the circle to begin by the Outsiders. The greasers will stomp the socs' again. Just like we did when you tried to shove your regionalist Recalls and your suburban sprawl economic segregationist at large Councilors down our throats. This is class war and I just gotta love how this keeps playing out right into the palm of the peoples hands. You might have won the battle of the One Tech move, but I believe history will reflect that it was a short term pyrrhic victory. You will lose this war. You have compromised your operatives, so we now have confirmed targets. It must really suck to be continually bested by a degenerate greaser form monkey with only a P12 diploma, a library card, and barely enough disposable income to afford a computer with an internet connection. How do you like them apples? I just love it when a plan comes together. Let's get it on!
OST,
That may be right in some cases but I know several of the builders of high $ homes don't use it. I think is was banned back in the 80's -- I think it was anyway. John Bumgarner's building and the houses (I know one of the homeowners)right there on Utica are 100% stucco.
I don't think Double A is as knowledgeable about construction as he thinks he is.
I tried telling him that I don't live in a historic preservation district -- I would NEVER buy there because of all the problems. I think also, HP homeowners ARE required to obtain permission for exterior paint colors, among other things. I know of an HP drum banger who painted his house a very dramatic color and got away with it.
Double A - I love my neighbors. I don't think any one is unsophisticated for appreciating historic beauty. I do think we are lacking in appreciation for more sophisticated styles and progress. Podunk was unfair -- I'm sorry.
Infringing on any homeowner's rights is unacceptable and I'm not playing that game. Follow the rules - no problem.
Long low whistle noise
Dryvit is Dryvit, (EIFS) as far as I can tell, Double A.
EIFS is not 'stucco' in the sense of the word stucco. Traditional stucco is often called Portland Cement Plaster, and is a centuries-old non-insulating material. Stucco consists of sand, Portland Cement and water, and is a hard, dense, thick, non-insulating material. EIFS is a modern, lightweight synthetic wall cladding that includes foam plastic insulation and thin synthetic coatings. There are also specialty stuccos that use synthetic materials but no insulation, and these are also not EIFS either. A common example is what is called one coat stucco, which is a thick, synethic stucco applied in a single layer (traditional stucco is applied in 3 layers). There is also an EIFS-like product called a Direct-Applied Finish System (or DAFS), which is essentially an EIFS but without the insulation - this product is also not EIFS either, and has quite different characteristics.
EIFS are proprietary systems of a particular EIFS producer and consist of specific components. EIFS are not generic products made from common separate materials. To function properly, EIFS needs to be architecturally designed and installed as a system.
There are a number of versions of EIFS, as described below. The most basic and common EIFS is called a barrier EIFS (also known as a traditional or conventional EIFS). Another type is called an EIFS with Drainage, which is a barrier EIFS to which a water drainage capability has been added.
A basic EIFS includes only the insulation and EIFS materials (coatings, adhesives, etc.). Other types of EIFS may also include plastic or metal edge trim, water resistive barriers, a drainage cavity, and other accessories. The technical definition of "an EIFS" does not include wall framing, sheathing, flashings, caulking, water barriers, sheathing, windows, doors, and other wall components. However, as of recently, architects have begin specifying flashings and caulking as being a part of the EIFS scope of work, essentially requiring EIFS contractors to carry out that work as well.
Stucco is a material made of an aggregate, a binder, and water which is applied wet, and hardens when it dries. It is used as a coating for walls and ceilings and for decoration. In Europe the term render is more commonly used. Stucco may be used to cover less visually appealing construction materials such as concrete, cinder block, or clay brick and adobe.
Modern Stucco usually consists of 1 layer of wire lath and 2 layers of portland cement-based plaster. This is due to its rapid strength development and durability. However, cement's crystalline structure cannot accommodate significant movements in the building structure (as lime does) and is thus prone to cracking. This is why an additional acrylic finish on top is often applied. It adds flexibility for surface movements and waterproof.
First a wire mesh is attached to vapor permeable, water-resistant "tar" paper if stucco is being applied to a wood framed structure or light-gauge steel frame structure. The paper protects the sheathing and interior of the wall from outside moisture intrusion without trapping moisture vapor in the wall. A wide variety of accessories such as weep screeds, control and expansion joints, corner-aids and architectural reveals are sometimes also incorporated into the lath. Wire lath is used to give the plaster something to attach to and may be expanded-metal lath, woven-wire lath, or welded-wire lath. In Europe, wire lathing with fired clay an integral "brick-mesh" is used in many applications instead of expanded metal lathing.
The first layer of plaster is called a "scratch coat", consisting of plastic cement and sand. A brush is used to scratch the surface horizontally or in a criss cross pattern to provide a key for the second layer.
The next layer is called the "brown coat" or leveling coat. It also consists of sand, cement and lime. It is leveled with tools called "Darbys", "Rods" and "Federege" scraped smooth, and floated to provide a nice even surface onto which to apply the finish coat. It is then allowed to dry (cure) for 7-10 days minimum to allow "checking" (shrinkage)and cracking to take place. Sometimes the dry surface is sprayed with water for one or more days to speed up the curing process.
The exterior stucco layer is the final layer and is referred to as the "finish coat". There are 2 different recommend types of finish coats:
1. Color Coat, is a colored sand, cement and lime mixed finish and is typically 3 mm (1/8") thick. A base coat of stucco is applied over the 2nd coat of cement (brown coat). This then can be floated with water for a sandy finish or later textured over with a trowel to create various styles of troweled finishes. Pre-mixed stucco is what's mostly used and comes in coarse graded sand and finer graded sand for creating a very smooth troweled finish. It also comes made in a variety of colors.
2. Acrylic Finish, is an acrylic based finish from 1,0 mm to 4,0 mm thick. It can be applied in any from Traditional stucco known way and is the most recommend finish for long lasting quality. It also can be ordered in any color.
3. Hard Coating, is a not recommend method of adding a finish to the stucco wall. back in the 60's and 70's mostly, people throw all kind of material like glass chunks, stones or marbles (calcium carbonate finishes with crushed natural marbles (Marmalrino)into the wet stucco wall. Not only is this kind of finish coat very heavy and inflexible but also hard to repair.
Hope that helps you, my friend.
pfox,
That was good -- VERY efficient. I thought Double try's dryvit thing was off base.
Ask your dad if he uses dryvit. I'll bet my youngest child that he doesn't. I don't think Jack Arnold does either.
I think it caused moisture problems and was not a very good long term choice. Though, now a person can obtain dryvit insurance (just looked it up on internet).
BTW -- love the river plans! 100% support here!
quote:
Originally posted by Rose
pfox,
That was good -- VERY efficient. I thought Double try's dryvit thing was off base.
Ask your dad if he uses dryvit. I'll bet my youngest child that he doesn't. I don't think Jack Arnold does either.
I think it caused moisture problems and was not a very good long term choice. Though, now a person can obtain dryvit insurance (just looked it up on internet).
BTW -- love the river plans! 100% support here!
He uses whatever his clients specify like a smart businessman should. I doubt if his clients decided to use dryvit instead of stucco he would put up much of a fight. None of this is a negative reflection on him-he's just doing his job, but his clients. The problem is we have plenty of architects, zoning attorneys, and developers who misrepresent dryvit as stucco when they are pitching their projects to the citizens seeking their approval. So Rosie the Riveter, what do you know about construction? Can you do it?(he,he) BTW, I like the pfox's sig line but it would be more accurate if it read- "Our uniqueness is overshadowed by our inability to preserve what makes us unique." As a matter of fact, it should be plastered across the welcome wagon when the National Trust for Historic Preservation convention comes to town.
quote:
He uses whatever his clients specify like a smart businessman should. I doubt if his clients decided to use dryvit instead of stucco he would put up much of a fight.
I honestly can't think of a building or house designed and
built by him in which it has been speced...but who knows. I seriously doubt it. Knock yourself out trying to find one.
quote:
Originally posted by ost
Waterboy,
It is not about style preference? If I want to build a modern house in midtown how is that for financial gain? By the way I am the son of a Doctor so I am qualified to perform surgery on you at any time. So you feel that framing and concrete are the only things that qualify a house as cheap? How about windows, heating and cooling, lighting,doors, appliances, exterior materials, cabinets etc. There are a large number of old homes with serious deficiencies in this area. It all boils down to the fact that you don't like new homes. Move to a communist country and you will fit in nicely.
My gawd. Is it possible to have a decent conversation on this forum without namecalling, heritage questioning and bull headed attitudes? Elite Fascist Pig! Okay, your father is better than mine. He's a doctor so you can operate, that's so cute. I guess working around carpenters, bricklayers, sheetrockers, roofers and electricians for years means nothing because I don't make my living at it. I roofed my 90 year old hip roofed house, repaired its eaves, I painted it, I plumb it, I add and delete circuits but I just don't understand like you or Pfox.
I'll educate you about any of those subjects you listed and how they are inferior in todays average homes. Windows: hard to beat double hung real wood windows with a good set of storms to create a buffer. But go ahead and buy some of those aluminum sliders that are so easy to hang. You may not like the wavy glass on those old windows but it is revered among old home enthusiasts. Heating and Cooling: Yes most old homes have been updated but if not, H&C guys are well versed in how to add it to your old home. Mine had huge ducting that accomodated gravity flow so I had to have a larger fan and additional ducting. Same cost and quality as new homes. Lighting: get real. Home Depot, Lowes, a variety of replacement lighting available just like out south. Same with appliances and cabinets. I wish I had never taken out my solid pine cabinets with inch thick concrete covered with tiles but, live and learn. Exterior? I guess you could go find some of that "hardboard" exterior or throw up some stucco if you feel that wood or brick is not suitable. Same cost as Southie town. Solid oak flooring: Oh, yeah, you could replace that with some Pergo like out south or spend big bucks to get some used oak out of one of the houses you want destroyed so badly. Foundations: why do you think they moved away from concrete block foundations,basements, maple and oak flooring and front porches? Do you think it was because of demand? There was plenty of materials available. It was economics. Most of the first slab homes are not holding up. Even later when stressed post construction was the obvious solution, it was not incorporated in average homes. Too expensive and the builder will be forgotten before the slab cracks. So you get homes sliding down hills in Silver Chase. Expensive piering has little effect.
So the homes in Tulsa built from the late 1960's on suffer from aluminum wiring that vibrates loose, cracked slabs that break the cheap gray plastic plumbing inside them and cheap wood replacement products that last a fraction as long as real wood. They solved most of those problems but not the slabs. And materials are getting cheaper and cheaper.
Nonetheless, I love the style, the convenience and the luxury of new homes. You are absolutely wrong that I don't like them. I worked on many upscale homes in Southern Hills, Bolewood Acres and all the way up to around 71st & Yale. I've seen many of the new mini-castles too. They have their place and the upper end examples are pretty well constructed but you'll never convince me that the average new construction home is as well built as the average pre-fifties home.
Move to a mobile home. I'm sure you'll be quite happy.
quote:
Originally posted by pfox
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
These signs are popping up all over midtown. Excellent!
The dilemna for legacy homeowners is whether to bother fixing up their properties before putting them on the market (particularly in high-interest neighborhoods). If the real value is the property and not the house, when the house is going to be demolished anyway, why landscape, fix it up at all? Legacy homes just deteriorate.
Repeat after me: 'Tuscan architecture is eeeeeeevil, Tuscan architecture is eeeeevilllll . . .'
Preserve Midtown (//%22http://preservemidtown.com%22)
Yes, they need to tear down that nasty Philbrook immediately. Completely out of scale with the homes next to it and that gawd awful "faux Iitalian" knock off look is wearing thin.
Funny thing happened today. Finished driving a friend around downtown and telling him about this and that building, was headed south on Utica, stopped at the 21st and Utica intersection. He points at that "faux italian monstrosity" so many people on here seem to hate and goes "Oooh what building is that? Its very nice." I think he must have thought it was an actual old building or something. I laughed remembering how so many on here have spewed scorn at it. Just think, soon there will be a whole generation of young people who wont remember the gas station that used to be there and will think of that building as being part of the familiar natural charm and beauty of the area. lol
First, it's probably no secret to anyone here that my father is Pat Fox. So, obviously, I have my own biases toward his projects. I am not posting here in order to get anyone of you to "like" the buildings and homes he, or any other architect designs.
Architects like Pat Fox, the late Stephen Turner, Jack Arnold, Alan Madewell, James Boswell, and Brian Freese have collectively designed hundreds of homes in Tulsa, and specifically in Midtown Tulsa, some of which are not offensive to the eye, many of which have become part of the fabric of Midtown which is so cherished. I will also say that each of these architects is allowed to practice their craft primarily because they are commissioned to do so on a regular basis, meaning someone is paying them for thier talents. So those somebodies must like their work.
Like it or not, these architects represent the here and now of Tulsa architecture. In 50 years, I can assure you that people will be just as passionate about many of the structures being built today by these talented people as they are about the homes built by Forsythe and Dilbeck.
I appreciate your comments on that building, Artist. It is my opinion that it has visually enhanced that intersection in a postive manner. In fact, my dad received an AIA Honor Award for the design of that building. In response to the "faux italian" comments, the materials used are as authentic as possible and the proportions are appropriate for the style. Real stucco. Real clay tile roofs. It is a modern take on a traditional form of architecture and construction for sure, but "faux"? I don't agree. Furthermore, it employs many of the modern "new" urbanist values placed on architecture and planning: up to the street setback, hidden (underground and behind the buildng) parking. It could be a strip center or a QuikTrip. Would that be more appropriate?
I will also disclose that I was, at one point, on staff at the Tulsa Preservation Commission. It was one of the most rewarding and interesting jobs I've ever had. I consider myself a preservationist. It is my experience that there are a few very educated citizens that understand the philosophical underpinnings of the Preservation movement, not just in Tulsa, but nationwide. It is also my experience that there is a lot of misinformation out there regarding the Preservation movement.
That being said, what is not happening in this whole thing is an actual discussion regarding the future of the neighborhoods in question. Websites, signs, petitions, accusations, assertions, and downright slander (most developers are evil? Come on. Enough with the hyperbole.) is all I have seen come of this. It is my opinion that this aggressive, internet bravado ridden technique does not advance civil, intelligent discussion about this important issue. It only serves to place people on one side or the other. It is divisive and it hurts our community.
So, what I am saying is that, while you may not be able to convince everyone that your idea is right and that they should agree with you or else, you (the collective you) may actually learn something from your neighbors and come to some sort of compromise, if not consensus about this, or any other issue. That technique is a whole lot harder than slapping up a website and sticking signs in a yard, but the result is far better.
So, while I agree that appropriate infill in our legacy neighborhoods is an important issue, I will suggest that there is probably more than one opinion about what that means, and certainly a better way of having that discussion.
Now, I live very close to one of your dad's constructions which is also across from a re-habbed home that Rose or Ost would have razed. It was pathetically maintained, but at its core was sturdy. These two projects serve as a good contrast to what will happen and what can happen. As it turns out both co-exist visually on the same street quite nicely.
The re-habbed home is a traditional two story. Your dad's buildings are whatever you call this new stucco design he's so fond of. Tuscan? Easy to build and certainly un-offensive, and of course, walled off from the public, which is exactly what South tulsa is all about. The rest of the street is a typical mixture of brick and wood bungalows, an old farm house and a huge three story brick.
The neighborhood fought him putting two zero lot line homes on one lot. We lost. Your dad is pretty good at working the system. His builder encroached on the neighbors property and made many new enemies when he preferred to go to court and lose. Accomodations were made.
I watched closely both homes being built and the older home re-habbed. I won't comment because some may know of the locations and flame me. Lets just say my opinion of average new construction was not altered. The only resulting difference in the two projects is that whereas the re-hab was approved by Maple Ridge and just about everyone else and will sell for around $300K, the Tuscan homes are force fit, angered the neighborhood and each one will sell for $300K on a similar sized lot. Do you get the picture yet?
I'm ready for an intelligent conversation about the issues of infill.
Waterboy,
You started the name calling by the way. Communist. This still all boils down to your personal opinion and you wanting to dictate what type of home is built. I love old homes. I grew up in one that was built in the 20's. But everyone has the right to build and live in what they want. If you don't like it you can move to an historic district which do serve some purpose.
My apologies to Pfox. I mistakenly lumped him into a response to Ost and Rose. Since he didn't call me a Communist or challenge the right to trash existing neighborhoods with "anything I want" he seems to be a civil poster. Refreshing.
quote:
Originally posted by ost
Waterboy,
You started the name calling by the way. Communist. This still all boils down to your personal opinion and you wanting to dictate what type of home is built. I love old homes. I grew up in one that was built in the 20's. But everyone has the right to build and live in what they want. If you don't like it you can move to an historic district which do serve some purpose.
Well, I re-read all my posts. I called you a "homeowner". Was that offensive and incorrect?
You may also note that I already live in a historic district. The original one.
Everyone does have the right to build and live in what they want, just not where they want. I challenge you to take the 1930's home design that you live in and try to build it in one of the South Tulsa gated communities that require wood roofs and specified styles by covenant. You won't get in the front gate so to speak.
I am intrigued by the rebuild at 35th and Utica across from the Tuscan disaster. The builders tore the top off and are using the same foundation. Better yet, the design does not look like it is a wanna-be 'Italian.'
Shall I hurl invective at those two new mausoleums at 29th and Utica? Yes! Dreadful! Ugh!
Having been on the brunt end of an evillllll developer, infill and new builds are not without impact on the existing homeowners. Sort of like being bit by a dog, makes you kind of leery of any of them.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
My apologies to Pfox. I mistakenly lumped him into a response to Ost and Rose. Since he didn't call me a Communist or challenge the right to trash existing neighborhoods with "anything I want" he seems to be a civil poster. Refreshing.
Whoa, called a socialist and communist in roughly the same week.
Tough crowd. [:D]
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Shall I hurl invective at those two new mausoleums at 29th and Utica? Yes! Dreadful! Ugh!
lol
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
My apologies to Pfox. I mistakenly lumped him into a response to Ost and Rose. Since he didn't call me a Communist or challenge the right to trash existing neighborhoods with "anything I want" he seems to be a civil poster. Refreshing.
Whoa, called a socialist and communist in roughly the same week.
Tough crowd. [:D]
In '69 I was considered a moderate. Thought Nixon was OK but voted McGovern in '72. By '76 I was called a moderate liberal, thought Carter was OK. By '80 I was considered confirmed Liberal and was amazed that Reagan got elected. In '92 I was confirmed as a tree hugging liberal, thought Clinton made sense. By 2000 it became clear I had Socialist tendencies, actually liked Minnesota and voted Gore. Now it appears the handwriting is on the wall, I'm a Socialist/Communist. Funny thing is, I have the same views and beliefs I did in '69. Go figure!
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
My apologies to Pfox. I mistakenly lumped him into a response to Ost and Rose. Since he didn't call me a Communist or challenge the right to trash existing neighborhoods with "anything I want" he seems to be a civil poster. Refreshing.
Whoa, called a socialist and communist in roughly the same week.
Tough crowd. [:D]
Call me anything, I don't care. I love the sound of freedom ringing in my ears, just don't call collect.
Let me take this discussion back to some facts.
Rose said:
quote:
I think also, HP homeowners ARE required to obtain permission for exterior paint colors, among other things.
Rose,
Before you continue to show your ignorance about HP overlay zoning I suggest you gain some knowledge. If you go to www.incog.org you will see a copy of the city ordinance (Title 42, Chapter 10A ) and go to www.tulsapreservationcommission.org for a copy of the guidelines for all five HP neighborhoods.
Most of the people who live in these neighborhoods do so because they love the character. HP overlay zoning was established to maintain this character and preserve a bit of our past for the future residents of Tulsa. If we continue to raze existing houses and build inappropriate infill, whether it be houses, commercial buildings or (gad) parking lots, we will no longer have the character that once made Tulsa one of the most beautiful cities in the nation.
To be honest we are all told what we can or cannot do with our property, as you will see in the many regulations contained in Title 42 zoning code. So this is not a valid argument.
This extra HP overlay establishes protected areas much like we as a state and a nation provide for our parks, monuments and various historic buildings. Would we still have many of these treasures without some type of preservation?
To maintain a civilized society there must be regulations. Sometimes we must regulate to keep a bit of our history preserved from those who only see dollar signs and personal comfort or status when looking at any piece of property.
Whatever happened to the idea of forgetting our personal desires for the greater good of our community?
OK, I'm stepping off my soapbox now.
Just to clear it up, color is not a consideration on exterior materials unless those materials are classified as masonry. Paint on masonry is subject to review by the TPC. Generally, that means brick and mortar, but interpretations of the definition of masonry have also included stucco.
We're talking about preservemidtown.com and they're talking about us:
http://www.preservemidtown.com/
quote:
Originally posted by Admin
We're talking about preservemidtown.com and they're talking about us:
http://www.preservemidtown.com/
Wow thats unusual. Its rare to see someone talk about us and not be cursing and scowling.
MAC-
Did you see Pfox's correction on paint? It looks like we were both ignorantre: HP. I stand to be corrected. So, do you.
Rose
According to the third sentence of Preserve Midtown's home page, developers are building houses right up to the curb. I'd like to see those houses. Exactly where in Midtown Tulsa are developers building houses right up to the curb?
I know. Preserve Midtown is just trying to raise mass hysteria by sending out information that is not true. It's always the same people doing the complaining and jumping into other people's business. They NEED a cause.
There aren't any houses built right up on the curb. Developers are required to follow current zoning. The house they show isn't in Tulsa either. It's misleading.
I read the list of people who signed the petition and was surprised to see the names of a few smart people.
I spent a lot more per square foot to buy a home in Florence Park. It was worth every penny to be surrounded by the architecture & character of those beautiful bungalows. I was NOT a happy camper when the home was built across from the Baptist church that looked like it belonged in Broken Arrow -- with the garage in front of the house and all. It is completely reasonable to expect newer homes to reflect the original architectural design of the neighborhood.
I want a McMansion!! I don't want a smelly old house!! I want an up to date one and so do most of my friends!! Do the people in Mid Town realize that their property values have gone up since these new houses have sold. If everything stays the same, and there are restrictions put on housing in Midtown, I think the property values will eventually go down and people will move south!! No one wants to live in the Historic District now because of the restrictions!! Come on Tulsa--get with it!![:D]
quote:
Originally posted by karenroach
I want a McMansion!! I don't want a smelly old house!! I want an up to date one and so do most of my friends!! Do the people in Mid Town realize that their property values have gone up since these new houses have sold. If everything stays the same, and there are restrictions put on housing in Midtown, I think the property values will eventually go down and people will move south!! No one wants to live in the Historic District now because of the restrictions!! Come on Tulsa--get with it!![:D]
Woo Hoo!! We're all going to be rich just like in South Tulsa! All we have to do is get together and decide which blocks are expendable and which styles get to live. I vote we get rid of those pretender homes. You know the ones that are "non-contributing". The hangers on that bought because the price was good and the character of the homes outstanding. Nobody important lives there, not very big and impressive and they probably need the money.
My home is now priced at $350,000 which is about $150ft. But you can probably fit a bigger home on the lot maybe even two. Woo Hoo! How many homes will you folks be needing? We just wants to please.
Lots!!!
quote:
Originally posted by karenroach
Lots!!!
[8D]
Welcome to TulsaNow. On the cutting edge of political satire, intrigue, sarcasm and general all around know-it-all smartie pants'.[;)]
That is true about the historic part of Tulsa because I live in a historic neighborhood. On my block there are a lot of homes that need to be torn down. I would love to see new, larger, two story homes built. If those are called McMansions, then I am all for it! Bring it on![:X]
quote:
Originally posted by sassylas
That is true about the historic part of Tulsa because I live in a historic neighborhood. On my block there are a lot of homes that need to be torn down. I would love to see new, larger, two story homes built. If those are called McMansions, then I am all for it! Bring it on![:X]
Hmmm. I'm smelling the scent of front men for the infill builders lobby. Or the builders themselves.
There's plenty of perfectly good historic, well built structures left to be razed downtown. Let us at least get through a few years of retirement before you grab off our lifestyle.
How many years do we have to wait?
quote:
Originally posted by karenroach
How many years do we have to wait?
Not that many if another republican president is elected.[;)]
Look, I'm thinking you guys are paying too much for your lots. Consider some areas that are underpriced considering the improvements planned and convenience. Anything between 6th street and 13th street from Lewis to Peoria. With the addition of some interconnected lakes being planned, situated between two expressways and mere minutes from downtown it should be a no brainer. Thats why the development at Central Park at 6th & Peoria. You would be welcomed there too. City would probably go on vacation while you razed those homes.
We took chances when I bought into this old hood. Realtors told me it could go either way. Same thing people in Brady and other cool sites are always told. But its a good gamble, especially if you plan to build walls around your castles.[:P]
quote:
Originally posted by karenroach
I want a McMansion!! I don't want a smelly old house!! I want an up to date one and so do most of my friends!! Do the people in Mid Town realize that their property values have gone up since these new houses have sold. If everything stays the same, and there are restrictions put on housing in Midtown, I think the property values will eventually go down and people will move south!! No one wants to live in the Historic District now because of the restrictions!! Come on Tulsa--get with it!![:D]
I just realized another added benefit of an HP zoned neighborhood. Not only does it keep out the lot cramming, out of scale, out of character, disharmonious, dystopian, scrap and rape McMansions, it keeps the shallow, self-centered, people who occupy them out too. Bonus.
As usual, Double A, I'm with you 110%!
Yes there are some homes in historic neighborhoods that I wouldnt shed a tear for if they were torn down. Some of them just built. But I would hope that what replaces it "matches" the nieghborhood or even improves it.
I decided to use the word "Matches" rather than, fits in, to try and make this point. I have seen some Mc Mansions that work wonderfully, some that look terrible. But we use the term Mc Mansion a bit too loosely it seems. Is it just a new large home? Or a cheaply built new large home? Or is it the style and size?
As some have pointed out on here, its the mixture of styles that can make a neighborhood beautiful and interesting. But wouldnt a Mc Mansion be just another type within that mix?
As a muralist who workes with a lot of decorators and who often gives some minor decorating advice, I am familiar with how to make things "match". Things can match through color, scale, style, time period, and here is one you may have not thought about... match through quality or, artistic quality. Example... A Louis the IV table with a Picasso or Monet over it. Looks great, "matches" wonderfully. Not at all the same style or color, but matches through quality. And you must of course pay attention to scale. You wouldnt put a 10'wide painting over a 3' wide table no matter what the quality, colors, etc.
A Westhope next to a well built Tudor and Italian Villa styled home in an older neighborhood works in the same way.
The scale, and quality of the homes match.
A new large home that is designed properly can easily fit in with its neighbors. Ambiguous, blanket statements of "no new large homes" or "no more Mc Mansions" (unless everyone agrees exactly on what that means) isn't going to solve the problem.
quote:
MAC
Did you see Pfox's correction on paint? It looks like we were both ignorantre: HP. I stand to be corrected. So, do you.
Rose
Rose-
I stand by my statement and challenge you
and pfox to show me where in the design guidelines of any historic district it deals with paint color on masonary or stucco surfaces.
quote:
Originally posted by Rose
I know. Preserve Midtown is just trying to raise mass hysteria by sending out information that is not true. It's always the same people doing the complaining and jumping into other people's business. They NEED a cause.
There aren't any houses built right up on the curb. Developers are required to follow current zoning. The house they show isn't in Tulsa either. It's misleading.
I read the list of people who signed the petition and was surprised to see the names of a few smart people.
Would anyone behind Preserve Midtown care to prove Rose wrong and tell us where houses have been built right up to the curb?
The June 15th blog entry was about "conservation districting" efforts in cities other than Tulsa, like in Atlanta and Dallas. The house in question is in Dallas. I did not edit that article very well; my unpublished first draft put the photo in better context. I have added a correction.
As of 6:00am this morning, the third sentence of Preserve Midtown's home page states that developers are building houses right up to the curb.
I have a very simple question which is yet to be answered: Exactly where in Midtown Tulsa have developers built houses right up to the curb? I'd like to see those houses for myself.
quote:
Originally posted by ChrisHalliwell
The June 15th blog entry was about "conservation districting" efforts in cities other than Tulsa, like in Atlanta and Dallas. The house in question is in Dallas. I did not edit that article very well; my unpublished first draft put the photo in better context. I have added a correction.
I read the update this morning. It states that bad infill is not unique to Tulsa. Exactly where, in Midtown Tulsa, are examples of bad infill (in your own opinion)? Photos? Addresses?
I don't speak for Preservemidtown, and I am sure you can find bad infill all over town, but IMO you can find a really good example of bad infill by driving down Detroit between 30th & 31st.
If you drive through North Maple Ridge, you can find bad infill from the 70s, before HP protection. Infill that follows the latest trends may sell for a lot initially. But when the latest trends fade, your left with obviously out of place houses that no one wants to buy.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
I don't speak for Preservemidtown, and I am sure you can find bad infill all over town, but IMO you can find a really good example of bad infill by driving down Detroit between 30th & 31st.
If you drive through North Maple Ridge, you can find bad infill from the 70s, before HP protection. Infill that follows the latest trends may sell for a lot initially. But when the latest trends fade, your left with obviously out of place houses that no one wants to buy.
If you are left with out of place houses that no one wants to buy, then the value of those houses will be lowered. If the prices drop low enough, then the bad infill houses will be candidates for tearing down and replacing with more appropriate infill.
I'll look around 30th and Detroit sometime. I don't go to that neighborhood often. I spend nearly all of my time downtown or north of 21st, at least.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
I don't speak for Preservemidtown, and I am sure you can find bad infill all over town, but IMO you can find a really good example of bad infill by driving down Detroit between 30th & 31st.
If you drive through North Maple Ridge, you can find bad infill from the 70s, before HP protection. Infill that follows the latest trends may sell for a lot initially. But when the latest trends fade, your left with obviously out of place houses that no one wants to buy.
If you are left with out of place houses that no one wants to buy, then the value of those houses will be lowered. If the prices drop low enough, then the bad infill houses will be candidates for tearing down and replacing with more appropriate infill.
That's a pretty self serving construct. And the time period is long. Neighbors have to live next to them for 20 or more years waiting for the trend to die. Then endure the next one. Drive along Cincinnati from 21st to 31st. Several examples on that stretch from the 1960's up to two current McMansion examples which back up to the running path.
Here's a thought. Lets go build some cheap examples of post WWII housing over in Southern Hills. We'll call them...minimalist. Or loft style or we could put some stucco on them and call them Southwest. Everyone wants to live there don't they? Close to a good golf course and other amenities. We should be able to build whatever we want where we want, right? And if they don't hold their value, well, we can tear them out and start the cycle again.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
I don't speak for Preservemidtown, and I am sure you can find bad infill all over town, but IMO you can find a really good example of bad infill by driving down Detroit between 30th & 31st.
If you drive through North Maple Ridge, you can find bad infill from the 70s, before HP protection. Infill that follows the latest trends may sell for a lot initially. But when the latest trends fade, your left with obviously out of place houses that no one wants to buy.
If you are left with out of place houses that no one wants to buy, then the value of those houses will be lowered. If the prices drop low enough, then the bad infill houses will be candidates for tearing down and replacing with more appropriate infill.
I'll look around 30th and Detroit sometime. I don't go to that neighborhood often. I spend nearly all of my time downtown or north of 21st, at least.
True, but in the meantime, the houses often sit empty, because the owner needs to recoup their investment. And if its sold at a loss (just for the value of the land), it brings down the value of the houses surrounding it. From an economic and environmental perspective, doesn't it make more sense to build quality infill in the first place, allowing the house and the neighborhood to continue to increase in value and not filling up our landfills every so often as housing trends change? Its simply the difference between investing in a neighborhood versus making a quick buck.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
I don't speak for Preservemidtown, and I am sure you can find bad infill all over town, but IMO you can find a really good example of bad infill by driving down Detroit between 30th & 31st.
The problem with that neighborhood is that if you add on or build from scratch, your finished floor has to be above the flood zone line. It's required by city code. People still do it, though. So that gives the houses, which are larger anyway, an even more awkward appearance due to their height.
^That's true, but some have done a better job than others to make even the height fit in. And even at ground level, some of those houses simply don't fit (the new construction with the turret comes especially to mind).
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
Originally posted by ChrisHalliwell
The June 15th blog entry was about "conservation districting" efforts in cities other than Tulsa, like in Atlanta and Dallas. The house in question is in Dallas. I did not edit that article very well; my unpublished first draft put the photo in better context. I have added a correction.
I read the update this morning. It states that bad infill is not unique to Tulsa. Exactly where, in Midtown Tulsa, are examples of bad infill (in your own opinion)? Photos? Addresses?
Have you seen any of Metro Lofts infill? Go look at the one they built on Quincy between 15th and the B.A. It dwarfs the other apartment buildings on the block, the setbacks are pushed further towards the street and alley than any other buildings on the street, and the front of their development is not oriented to face the street like every other building on the street. Does that qualify? Not to mention the fact they look like glamorized(think glamor shots) dorms.
RE: the metro lofts,
If you cannot build upwards, nor you can take up more of the yard/land with your building, doesnt that pretty much mean infill is frowned upon PERIOD? You can't fit more people on the same amount of land without doing something like that. I can see your arguement about it not facing the street. Complaining that something is bigger and taller is pretty much just saying you will not allow infill in the neighborhood though. Since that area is sandwiched between Cherry Street (a walkable district that needs population density) and a highway (where no one is going to build a regular house these days anyway), I say the bigger the better.
Let me just add, in reference to the thread topic, that I wouldn't support a mammoth loft at 38th and Lewis. Certain areas though, such as Cherry Street, and Brookside, NEED the infill density near the shops restraunts and bars for the whole walkable urban dense thing to take off. There are tons of houses between about Rockford and Riverside along the Brookside area that would be better off leveled and turned into loft/apartment space.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
I don't speak for Preservemidtown, and I am sure you can find bad infill all over town, but IMO you can find a really good example of bad infill by driving down Detroit between 30th & 31st.
I'm curious as to which home (s?) you are referring to.
I drive home this way almost every day. On that stretch of road, I think there is a GOOD example of infill (the new home that they are installing the rock veneer on), one that is marginal (the one with the basketball court), one that is bad (the one next to the one with the basketball court) and one where they are just getting started on (too early to determine).
If you drive around that immediate area, there are some 1200 sq ft homes across the street from 4000 sq ft homes. They were all built in the 20's and the 30's but they are completely different sizes.
Personally, I welcome the new homes as long as they are "nice" new homes and not tract housing.
Thanks to each who posted examples of what he or she considers to be bad infill. I will try to look at all examples in Midtown Tulsa cited on this thread.
Now, where are those Midtown houses built right up to the curb? I'd like to see them, also.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
RE: the metro lofts,
If you cannot build upwards, nor you can take up more of the yard/land with your building, doesnt that pretty much mean infill is frowned upon PERIOD? You can't fit more people on the same amount of land without doing something like that. I can see your arguement about it not facing the street. Complaining that something is bigger and taller is pretty much just saying you will not allow infill in the neighborhood though. Since that area is sandwiched between Cherry Street (a walkable district that needs population density) and a highway (where no one is going to build a regular house these days anyway), I say the bigger the better.
Let me just add, in reference to the thread topic, that I wouldn't support a mammoth loft at 38th and Lewis. Certain areas though, such as Cherry Street, and Brookside, NEED the infill density near the shops restraunts and bars for the whole walkable urban dense thing to take off. There are tons of houses between about Rockford and Riverside along the Brookside area that would be better off leveled and turned into loft/apartment space.
Did you even look at the property before you posted? Considering the fact that there were almost as many units in the housing that their development replaced, your little argument about density is completely off the mark. This development is completely out of scale with the rest of the street. Not to mention the lost green space that these lot cramming scrape and rapes cause. They took out at least three mature trees on the properties on the west side of Quincy. Repeat this scenario across Midtown and watch the urban heat island get ever larger and hotter.
MAC-
See Historic Preservation District Exemptions Title 42 Zoning and Property Restrictions Chapter 10-A Historic Preservation. If you still don't get it, why don't you call the Historic Preservation and ask them if you can paint over your brick? They will tell you it needs approval.
FYI -- PFOX said in one of his entries that he WORKED for the Historic Preservation in Tulsa. I would think he would know what he was talking about.
I think you need to be more informed before you go out talking to newspapers and T.V. stations.
quote:
Originally posted by mac
quote:
MAC
Did you see Pfox's correction on paint? It looks like we were both ignorantre: HP. I stand to be corrected. So, do you.
Rose
Rose-
I stand by my statement and challenge you and pfox to show me where in the design guidelines of any historic district it deals with paint color on masonary or stucco surfaces.
Sorry Mac. They are right on this one...in order to paint masonry, you need a COA.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION DISTRICT EXEMPTIONS
City of Tulsa - Title 42 - Zoning and Property Restrictions
CHAPTER 10-A
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
The following items are
exempt from H.P. Zoning and do not require a Certificate of
Appropriateness:
1. Ordinary maintenance and repair including:
a. removal, installation, or replacement of guttering.
b. removal or replacement of roof covering with like material.
c.
application of paint color to non-masonry surfaces.
Example: This does not force you to paint your house or select a particular color.2. Interior of the building or structure.
Example: This allows you to remodel the inside of your home any way you
choose.
3. Portions or parts of building, structures, or sites not visible from adjoining streets.
Example: You may add an addition, greenhouse, etc.....to your home without
obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness providing it is not visible from the
street. (Alleys are not considered streets).
4. Accessory structures or buildings are not covered provided these structures are not
located in the front yard.
Includes: Detached garages but not garage apartments.
Detached carports
Patios
Decks
Storage Sheds
Fencing
Swimming pools
Pool houses
5. Radio or television antenna.
6. Landscape maintenance and planting of new organic materials.
7. Work required for temporary stabilization of a building or structure due to damage, i.e.:
storm damage, fire, flood.
Note: All neighborhoods which adopt H.P. Zoning for their neighborhood can not alter this
ordinance without going to Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (TMAPC)
and City Council.
I believe we were discussing paint COLOR.
Rose said-
quote:
I don't want to be told what color my home can be....
Kenosha, you have just posted the EXCEPTIONS, this is work that does not require a COA.
This means that paint COLOR is not reviewed by the COA process therefore they do not tell you what COLOR you can paint any surface of your house.
Thank you Kenosha for doing the search and illustrating my point.
MAC-
Call HP and ask if you can paint over brick or painted brick with a different color. Then maybe we can move on to another topic. You don't know what you are talking about.
HP states that if you paint over brick, you need approval. If you want to paint over paint (and change the color) you have to get approval.
Rose, just to clarify, if your brick house is already painted, you do need a COA, but its granted adminstratively (you don't need the entire board approval). As far as I know, no one has ever been denied the COA based upon the color they chose.
Has anyone seen this website: http://www.destroymidtown.com/?cat=1
I presume its a joke. I especially like their slogan--Build homes that prove just how rich you are. I also like "expressing our individuality through bad taste."
MAC-
Non masonry would be wood. Brick is masonry as is stucco, etc.
Rose
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Rose, just to clarify, if your brick house is already painted, you do need a COA, but its granted adminstratively (you don't need the entire board approval). As far as I know, no one has ever been denied the COA based upon the color they chose.
Has anyone seen this website: http://www.destroymidtown.com/?cat=1
I presume its a joke. I especially like their slogan--Build homes that prove just how rich you are. I also like "expressing our individuality through bad taste."
I totally love it! I really got a kick out of it. This should be posted as a new topic so it could go to the top next to the preserve midtown thread(Gotta love that juxtaposition). Check out Tulsa Unprofessionals: http://tulsaunprofessionals.com/ I swear these are not my doing, but I certainly salute whoever is responsible. I luvs the internets.
I saw one of the Preserve Midtown signs in the right-of-way of 16th Street recently.
The sign was not right up to the curb, but it was closer to the curb than any houses I've seen in Tulsa. Where are those houses built right up to the curb? I really want to see them.
Before the campaign began, PreserveMidtown consulted with Neighborhood Inspections regarding city rights-of-way. Every yard sign is distributed with a pre-printed Post-It note attached, on which is written: "No closer than 25 feet to the center of the road in a neighborhood - No closer than 35 feet to the center of the road on a main street." A few signs get moved during lawn maintenance, but the vast majority are in compliance.
If you tell me where on 16th street the sign is, I will take care of it.
Where are those houses built right up to the curb?
Chris-
Forget the location of the signs -- we've seen those. WHERE ARE THE HOUSES built right up to the curb?
Rose
The same place the wmd's are. Why don't you guys stop boring us with the same question over and over and stick to the issues of inner city re-development. Like how we're all going to get rich by tearing down our period homes and how stupid Maple Ridge people are.
The statement about developers building houses right up to the curb is topical because it is on the Preserve Midtown website. The link is included in the first post of this thread.
The subject is Preserve Midtown. I avoid those topics which I think are boring. Anyone who is bored by my questions isn't forced to read them.
It's a simple question. It ought to have a simple answer. I haven't strayed from the topic.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
The statement about developers building houses right up to the curb is topical because it is on the Preserve Midtown website. The link is included in the first post of this thread.
The subject is Preserve Midtown. I avoid those topics which I think are boring. Anyone who is bored by my questions isn't forced to read them.
It's a simple question. It ought to have a simple answer. I haven't strayed from the topic.
Never said you strayed. The question has been asked numerous times and apparently they don't feel obligated to answer. That is boring. Do you have issues that you can discuss or are you intent on avoiding a real discussion? Simple question.
I asked another simple question earlier a couple times and it was not answered by teardown enthusiasts. I'll ask it in a different way. What Southside, gated housing edition would allow me to teardown two of their existing, style conforming homes and replace them with one Lortondale gravel flat top roof, 1200ft home then price it at $75 per foot? The answer is ...none. But you want come into our existing neighborhoods and convert them to your view of suburban lifestyle and expect us to welcome you with open arms?!
I'm not the one avoiding discussion.
This topic is not boring to me at all. It goes to the heart of some of TulsaNow's principles regarding land use. I'm glad that tim huntzinger started this discussion.
Please note the fitting title of the topic: PRESERVEMIDTOWN.com. At a glance, it's easy to see that this particular thread has something to do with that particular website.
By clicking on the link to the Preserve Midtown Tulsa website, I found the following sentences:
quote:
The tapestry of Tulsa's neighborhoods is threatened.
Interesting...I wonder who thinks this is true and why.
quote:
Developers dwarf and devalue our homes when they build oversized houses to boast of ever-greater square feet.
Which developers?
Oversized houses by whose standards?
Developers devalue whose homes how? Offhand, I'd think it would be the reverse. If a developer built a house (however hideous or gigantic) of greater value next to an existing house of less value, then I'd think that the new house would bolster the value of the smaller existing house.
quote:
They exploit a 36-year old citywide zoning mistake, flatten homes, split lots, and build houses right up to the curb.
What citywide zoning mistake?
Where exactly are homes being flattened? How many have been flattened and when were they flattened?
Are developers splitting lots? How often has this happened and where? There is a process for requesting a lot split. Are developers getting special treatment in this process? Should the process be changed, and if so, how?
Where are houses being built right up to the curb? I'd love to see those houses. I haven't noticed any houses in Tulsa built right up to the curb, but I did see a fence a few years ago built very close to the curb at Riverside and Lawton. When I called the Mayor's Action Center to report a fence being built on public property, the Action Center receptionist questioned me, saying that there was no way that what I was telling her could be true. She was insistent that I was either wrong or lying to her. I was neither. After taking measurements from the curb to the fence, I drew a detailed map to scale and hand delivered it to Mayor LaFortune's office. It took some time, but eventually the fence was removed.
At this point, Preserve Midtown doesn't have much credibility in my book. Their accusations are vague and their goals are ill-defined. I'm not sure what their geographic definition of Midtown Tulsa is, and I'm not certain exactly what they are trying to preserve. Their tactic of placing signs in public streets, regardless of what someone at Neighborhood Inspections happened to tell them, is illegal. I've seen only one of their signs, and it was on public property as I mentioned in a previous post. Today I noticed that the sign had been moved to private property.
The very first sentence of the very first post of this topic said that these signs are popping up all over Midtown. If so, do illegal signs popping up all over a neighborhood tend to devalue its homes? I would think so, but maybe not.
I'm trying to be part of the discussion here. Otherwise, I wouldn't have taken the time to post. For anyone who is bored by my posts, here is some quick advise: If you see my moniker, then don't bore yourself by reading the words to the right of it.
^BooWorld, I'll try to answer a few questions, though I am not affiliated with PreserveMidtown. First, it's important to recognize that many older houses were built long before our current zoning code, which establishes the setbacks, frontage, etc.... for each differently zoned residences. Many of these homes were built with larger side and front set backs. When a house is rebuilt, neighbors are upset that the traditional setbacks are not followed, though legally they don't have to be. Thus, the feeling that the new houses dwarf the neighborhood. Again, I would encourage you to drive down Detroit between 30 and 31st. Several of the large, multi-garaged houses replaced smaller, one story bungalows. They sit further forward than the rest of the street, and the side setbacks are much less than the original houses.
Lot splits occur very frequently, and yes there is a process, but it is very cursory. As long as you have the required frontage/bulk requirements on the resulting two, you can legally split the lot. Unfortunately, many (probably most) people don't know what residential category their neighborhood falls into, and hence their frontage (and other bulk) requirements. Until they start seeing lots split, they don't realize their neighborhood is prone to such.
As for the zoning mistake, I believe they are referring to the zoning provision dealing with nonconforming lots, which allows for houses to be built on lots that don't meet zoning requirements, if they didn't meet the requirements at the time the zoning code was adopted. However, many older neighborhoods were originally platted with small lots (MapleRidge has 50'), the idea being that builders would buy up several lots upon which to build. Legally, the city currently sees each one of those small plats as a non-conforming lot. Even though a single house may have existed on two or three 50' lots for 75 years, and even though the zoning code might require more frontage, a developer is legally entitled to tear down the house, and divide the lot into three "non-conforming" uses, and build three new houses.
As for increasing/decreasing the value of the neighborhood, the jury is still out on that. While it seems to make common sense that more expensive houses will increase the value of the neighborhood, the National Register has made some very good arguments that the teardown phenomenon is actually a manifestation of increased property value, not the opposite. And as teardowns become prevalent in a neighborhood, the homeowner's investment in his or her home becomes worthless, since the only value is in the land.
I don't know what they meant by houses built to the curb. The Lofts over on Troost are pretty close. Some people love them, some people hate them.
I appreciate that you are simply asking questions. I wouldn't dismiss the group, though. It contains many thoughtful, concerned citizens. Many people in midtown are very frustrated at the number of houses torn down in their neighborhood. It may seem a little reactionary, but most grassroots efforts are.
A non-conforming lot is a lot that existed prior to the zoning change. It is not a lot created by a lot split.
It would be unfair to take away existing rights of a property owner. Some houses were built on one lot and have side yards that are legsal lots. The house is torn down and two houses built - one on each existing lot (non-conforming in some cases). What is wrong with that?
A couple of weeks ago a relative told me that she had heard that a lady living in the Utica Square area had approached a developer because she wanted to sell her house. She knew it was going to be worth more for the land than it would have been for her old house. It will soon be torn down and something much nicer will be put in its place. It will probably sell during construction -- rather than sit there on the market for a year or more.
That is the reality of it and I don't think that can be changed. The "preserve" signs are junky looking. I think that group should tour all the run down houses for sale in midtown and clue in.
quote:
Originally posted by Rose
A non-conforming lot is a lot that existed prior to the zoning change. It is not a lot created by a lot split.
It would be unfair to take away existing rights of a property owner. Some houses were built on one lot and have side yards that are legsal lots. The house is torn down and two houses built - one on each existing lot (non-conforming in some cases). What is wrong with that?
A couple of weeks ago a relative told me that she had heard that a lady living in the Utica Square area had approached a developer because she wanted to sell her house. She knew it was going to be worth more for the land than it would have been for her old house. It will soon be torn down and something much nicer will be put in its place. It will probably sell during construction -- rather than sit there on the market for a year or more.
That is the reality of it and I don't think that can be changed. The "preserve" signs are junky looking. I think that group should tour all the run down houses for sale in midtown and clue in.
You a realtor@? Or just involved in pimping for the builder/developers? Your remarks are so telling and so condescending.
If we'll all just let you clean up our old, junky, run down neighborhoods and just clue in to the new reality....Sell it sister!
edit: Then can we tour all the rundown houses south of 61st?
The reality of this is pure economics. You're not going to talk anyone into fixin' up their 84 year old home (I own one) if it is going to be cheaper and more profitable for them to tear it down. I'll take hard cash over "feeling good" and giving the 'Preserve Mid-Town' movement a big group hug. I am personally remodeling my home but I'm keeping it like it is. I'm not doing it for any reason other than economics. I'll make more money on it by keeping it original than tearing it down. For some, it is the opposite and more power to them. It seems that most people really care about the "Preserve Mid-Town" movement are folks who live in 'nice' old homes. If I was one of those people I might feel differently..but I'm not.
quote:
Originally posted by Rose
A non-conforming lot is a lot that existed prior to the zoning change. It is not a lot created by a lot split.
It would be unfair to take away existing rights of a property owner. Some houses were built on one lot and have side yards that are legsal lots. The house is torn down and two houses built - one on each existing lot (non-conforming in some cases). What is wrong with that?
A couple of weeks ago a relative told me that she had heard that a lady living in the Utica Square area had approached a developer because she wanted to sell her house. She knew it was going to be worth more for the land than it would have been for her old house. It will soon be torn down and something much nicer will be put in its place. It will probably sell during construction -- rather than sit there on the market for a year or more.
That is the reality of it and I don't think that can be changed. The "preserve" signs are junky looking. I think that group should tour all the run down houses for sale in midtown and clue in.
I will agree there are some properties in the area that have alot of deferred maintenance.....But as far as your statements of houses sitting on the market for a year thats uncommon for properties that are priced right and correct location.....i.e. not on a main street such as 31st and Yorktown......
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
When a house is rebuilt, neighbors are upset that the traditional setbacks are not followed, though legally they don't have to be. Thus, the feeling that the new houses dwarf the neighborhood.
So PreserveMidtown is upset with developers who are abiding by the Zoning Code? Seems to me the focus should be on getting the law changed, not trashing developers who are obeying it.
quote:
Lot splits occur very frequently, and yes there is a process, but it is very cursory. As long as you have the required frontage/bulk requirements on the resulting two, you can legally split the lot. Unfortunately, many (probably most) people don't know what residential category their neighborhood falls into, and hence their frontage (and other bulk) requirements. Until they start seeing lots split, they don't realize their neighborhood is prone to such.
Again, this seems to be a case of PreserveMidtown's mis-directed anger toward developers instead of the zoning requirements. If developers are receiving preferential treatment, then I can understand PreserveMidtown's concern. But if developers are splitting lots according to the standards for the applicable zoning districts, then the standards themselves are the issue, not the developers. One problem I have with our current Zoning Code is the huge disparity of allowed density amongst the various residential districts. For example, the differences between the setback and density requirements for the RM2 and RS4 districts are remarkable, but the TMAPC has recommended a hodge-podge of rezoning in my neighborhood which has placed RM2 districts directly adjacent to RS4 districts. Time and time again, I have volunteered to work with the TMAPC to develop finer gradations among the residential districts but to no avail. My offers have either been ignored or refused. When I've taken vacation time to attend TMAPC meetings, I've been treated with extreme rudeness by INCOG staff and by one former planning commissioner in particular. I know some of the people who have signed the PreserveMidtown petition, and I think they also have been frustrated by the TMAPC and our current land use process.
quote:
As for the zoning mistake, I believe they are referring to the zoning provision dealing with nonconforming lots, which allows for houses to be built on lots that don't meet zoning requirements, if they didn't meet the requirements at the time the zoning code was adopted. However, many older neighborhoods were originally platted with small lots (MapleRidge has 50'), the idea being that builders would buy up several lots upon which to build. Legally, the city currently sees each one of those small plats as a non-conforming lot. Even though a single house may have existed on two or three 50' lots for 75 years, and even though the zoning code might require more frontage, a developer is legally entitled to tear down the house, and divide the lot into three "non-conforming" uses, and build three new houses.
I see this as
big problem, and I think it stems from definition of "Lot of Record" in Section 1800 of the Zoning Code. I suppose that lots platted after 1970 would need to conform to Section 204, but that lots platted prior to 1970 could be split according to the provisions of Section 1404 A. Is there more to the problem than that? I imagine that most Tulsans would think that if a parcel consisting of several lots of record or portions of lots had been titled since at least 1970 as a single piece of real property, then the parcel could not be split unless the split would result in two or more parcels which each met the minimum lot requirements for the district. At one time, I owned some property west of downtown which consisted of 25 foot wide lots. I did not notice any single lots being used for new homes, but that might have been because a house built on a lot that narrow could not have met the side yard requirements
and the requirement for the Core Area as defined in the Zoning Code. I don't see any exceptions in Section 1404 A for a relaxation of the Core Area requirement. I think PreserveMidtown's efforts would be better spent in trying to get the City Council to close loopholes such as this one instead of giving out signs with pre-printed Post-It notes outlining incorrect and illegal placement guidelines.
quote:
As for increasing/decreasing the value of the neighborhood, the jury is still out on that. While it seems to make common sense that more expensive houses will increase the value of the neighborhood, the National Register has made some very good arguments that the teardown phenomenon is actually a manifestation of increased property value, not the opposite. And as teardowns become prevalent in a neighborhood, the homeowner's investment in his or her home becomes worthless, since the only value is in the land.
I'd say the jury is still out. The value of real property is a combination of the value of the land itself and the value of the improvements built on that land. While the pressure to tear down may increase in such a situation, it would be because the overall value of the land and its improvements had risen to a level in which the improvements were expendable. The homeowner's investment in his or her home would not be worthless. This process has happened many times in Tulsa as land has been transformed from prairie to farmland to low intensity residential use to higher intensity residential use, and then in some cases to commercial use. With our current zoning codes and land use policies, I don't see much hope for PreserveMidtown in preserving Midtown (and I'm not sure what that means). Infill is very likely to occur. Change is inevitable. PreserveMidtown can't rely on current mechanisms such as HP overlay zoning to prevent inappropriate infill.
quote:
I don't know what they meant by houses built to the curb. The Lofts over on Troost are pretty close.
If those lofts are built within the required front yard for the district, then that's one thing. If they are built over the sidewalk near the curb line of Troost, then that's another. My guess is that those lofts conform to the required setbacks to the district, but I could be wrong. After seeing the fence being built very near the curb at Riverside and Lawton, I would not be totally shocked to see a house built near the curb somewhere in Midtown. If this is actually happening, then it ought to be simple enough for someone associated with PreserveMidtown to post some addresses.
quote:
I appreciate that you are simply asking questions.
Thanks. It's nice to know that I'm not boring everyone with my questions.
quote:
I wouldn't dismiss the group, though. It contains many thoughtful, concerned citizens. Many people in midtown are very frustrated at the number of houses torn down in their neighborhood. It may seem a little reactionary, but most grassroots efforts are.
I haven't dismissed the group, and I know some of those concerned citizens. I'd love to know the number of houses which have been torn down recently in Midtown. How many? Where? When? Mapping the destruction would help PreserveMidtown detect patterns and to formulate a defense plan.
Their website does seem to be too reactionary. The YouTube link to a McMansion Attack cartoon is silly. The yard signs are annoying. The plea for monetary donations is a turn-off. The campaign is relatively new, so they have a chance now to get specific about what's going on in Midtown. I want to read about actual trends in Tulsa, not ambiguous accusations.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
As for the zoning mistake, I believe they are referring to the zoning provision dealing with nonconforming lots, which allows for houses to be built on lots that don't meet zoning requirements, if they didn't meet the requirements at the time the zoning code was adopted. However, many older neighborhoods were originally platted with small lots (MapleRidge has 50'), the idea being that builders would buy up several lots upon which to build. Legally, the city currently sees each one of those small plats as a non-conforming lot. Even though a single house may have existed on two or three 50' lots for 75 years, and even though the zoning code might require more frontage, a developer is legally entitled to tear down the house, and divide the lot into three "non-conforming" uses, and build three new houses.
I see this as big problem, and I think it stems from definition of "Lot of Record" in Section 1800 of the Zoning Code. I suppose that lots platted after 1970 would need to conform to Section 204, but that lots platted prior to 1970 could be split according to the provisions of Section 1404 A. Is there more to the problem than that? I imagine that most Tulsans would think that if a parcel consisting of several lots of record or portions of lots had been titled since at least 1970 as a single piece of real property, then the parcel could not be split unless the split would result in two or more parcels which each met the minimum lot requirements for the district. At one time, I owned some property west of downtown which consisted of 25 foot wide lots. I did not notice any single lots being used for new homes, but that might have been because a house built on a lot that narrow could not have met the side yard requirements and the requirement for the Core Area as defined in the Zoning Code. I don't see any exceptions in Section 1404 A for a relaxation of the Core Area requirement. I think PreserveMidtown's efforts would be better spent in trying to get the City Council to close loopholes such as this one instead of giving out signs with pre-printed Post-It notes outlining incorrect and illegal placement guidelines.
I presume by "core requirements" you mean total area per dwelling units, which does not have to be followed in a non-conforming lot (nor the livability requirements). However, I believe (for the most part) you have to follow front and side yard set backs, which might explain why no one would build on a 25' lot (nothing would be left).
quote:
quote:
I wouldn't dismiss the group, though. It contains many thoughtful, concerned citizens. Many people in midtown are very frustrated at the number of houses torn down in their neighborhood. It may seem a little reactionary, but most grassroots efforts are.
I haven't dismissed the group, and I know some of those concerned citizens. I'd love to know the number of houses which have been torn down recently in Midtown. How many? Where? When? Mapping the destruction would help PreserveMidtown detect patterns and to formulate a defense plan.
Their website does seem to be too reactionary. The YouTube link to a McMansion Attack cartoon is silly. The yard signs are annoying. The plea for monetary donations is a turn-off. The campaign is relatively new, so they have a chance now to get specific about what's going on in Midtown. I want to read about actual trends in Tulsa, not ambiguous accusations.
As for your other comments, I believe that their main focus
is upon changing the zoning code. First, they want to close the loophole that allows non-conforming lots to be used for multiple houses, even though only one has been built in the past. Second, they want to allow for neighborhoods to adopt conservation zones. While you could tinker with the setback, bulk requirements in the zoning code, each neighborhood is different, particularly those older ones. They would like for neighborhoods who so choose to define their setbacks and heighth restrictions. To do so, they must convince people in power that they have support. And the way they go about getting people to come on board is to create reactionary websites. Personally, I don't see them attacking developers so much as showing the worst examples they can find of infill. It's just how you motivate people. I wouldn't judge them solely on their website.
As for mapping out actual trends, that costs a lot of money. Somewhere, they do have to solicit money, if they want to get their word out.
Have you had a chance to drive by 30th & Detroit? I believe there has been around 5 houses torn out and rebuilt this year. To me, 5 houses on one block is a lot.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
...To do so, they must convince people in power that they have support. And the way they go about getting people to come on board is to create reactionary websites. Personally, I don't see them attacking developers so much as showing the worst examples they can find of infill. It's just how you motivate people. I wouldn't judge them solely on their website.
That is good advice.
I should take it. I really respect and like the people I know involved in this group, but the website words have kept me from embracing them. I felt bad when one of them offered me a sign at a neighborfest and I said no.
I read the website and agreed with BooWorld. The over the top language on it scared me away from joining a group filled with folks that I believe in.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
...To do so, they must convince people in power that they have support. And the way they go about getting people to come on board is to create reactionary websites. Personally, I don't see them attacking developers so much as showing the worst examples they can find of infill. It's just how you motivate people. I wouldn't judge them solely on their website.
That is good advice.
I should take it. I really respect and like the people I know involved in this group, but the website words have kept me from embracing them. I felt bad when one of them offered me a sign at a neighborfest and I said no.
I read the website and agreed with BooWorld. The over the top language on it scared me away from joining a group filled with folks that I believe in.
Why? It hasn't stopped you from joining the Kathy Taylor glee club. Transformational? Make Life Better? It doesn't get any more over the top than that. You make this too easy. You can't play Double A, cause I ain't the one.
I don't like the website, either. I think that equating bad infill development with terrorist threat levels is distasteful (though I am not crazy about the whole "color warning" thing anyway). Still, I think most people when they get passionate about something tend to go a little overboard. I know I am guilty of that sometimes. Having heard RM's battery/toy lecture, I know he can do the same sometimes.[;)]
I am clearly over the top in my speeches, but my website information is not.
But that point is well made. I probably turn some people off to my cause because to them, I sound like a preacher screaming on a downtown intersection.
There must be some self-help book I can read that would make me normal, but nobody will help me find it.
Boo,
You summed it up well.
Waterboy,
You were close re: my being a realtor -- so what?
But, I'm not sure what you found condescending about what I said.
I do agree about changing the laws and not attacking the property owner who is following the quidelines and just wants to build a house. It would be great if we were all on the same page. That may be a pipe dream.
There is a home in Mapleridge that is for sale. In it's day it was beautiful. My realtor showed it to me and I was shocked at the condition. It appeared to be a good buy -- under $500,000. Unfortunately it needs close to that to bring it back. The condition scared me off! Since it is on 2 lots, it will probably come down. I doubt the people selling it care as long as they get their money back.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
As for the zoning mistake, I believe they are referring to the zoning provision dealing with nonconforming lots, which allows for houses to be built on lots that don't meet zoning requirements, if they didn't meet the requirements at the time the zoning code was adopted. However, many older neighborhoods were originally platted with small lots (MapleRidge has 50'), the idea being that builders would buy up several lots upon which to build. Legally, the city currently sees each one of those small plats as a non-conforming lot. Even though a single house may have existed on two or three 50' lots for 75 years, and even though the zoning code might require more frontage, a developer is legally entitled to tear down the house, and divide the lot into three "non-conforming" uses, and build three new houses.
I see this as big problem, and I think it stems from definition of "Lot of Record" in Section 1800 of the Zoning Code. I suppose that lots platted after 1970 would need to conform to Section 204, but that lots platted prior to 1970 could be split according to the provisions of Section 1404 A. Is there more to the problem than that? I imagine that most Tulsans would think that if a parcel consisting of several lots of record or portions of lots had been titled since at least 1970 as a single piece of real property, then the parcel could not be split unless the split would result in two or more parcels which each met the minimum lot requirements for the district. At one time, I owned some property west of downtown which consisted of 25 foot wide lots. I did not notice any single lots being used for new homes, but that might have been because a house built on a lot that narrow could not have met the side yard requirements and the requirement for the Core Area as defined in the Zoning Code. I don't see any exceptions in Section 1404 A for a relaxation of the Core Area requirement. I think PreserveMidtown's efforts would be better spent in trying to get the City Council to close loopholes such as this one instead of giving out signs with pre-printed Post-It notes outlining incorrect and illegal placement guidelines.
I presume by "core requirements" you mean total area per dwelling units, which does not have to be followed in a non-conforming lot (nor the livability requirements). However, I believe (for the most part) you have to follow front and side yard set backs, which might explain why no one would build on a 25' lot (nothing would be left).
What I meant by "the requirement for the Core Area as defined in the Zoning Code" was precisely that. For some reason, most likely lost to memory to all members of the TMAPC and to nearly everyone else in Tulsa (except perhaps for Charles Norman), a dwelling in Tulsa is required to have a minimum area of 400 square feet, and that area must be a square itself.
Here is the definition in the Zoning Code:
quote:
Title 42
CHAPTER 18
DEFINITIONS
Section 1800. Definitions.
Core Area: Core Area shall mean a contiguous habitable floor area, under roof, irrespective
of interior walls, at least 20 feet by 20 feet in size.
Of course this excludes townhouses narrower than 20 feet from being allowed as dwelling units in Tulsa. That's a shame, because a 16 foot wide townhouse, if properly designed, can be a wonderful dwelling. I think the definition of "Core Area" ought to be changed, but as it is, it would prevent the construction of a dwelling on a 25 foot wide lot.
I don't remember the exact size of the lots I once owned, but I think they were 25 feet wide and 142 feet deep with no alley, and abutting a 60 foot wide non-arterial street. The zoning district was RM2. Applying Tulsa's splendid Zoning Code to one of these non-conforming lots would result in a buildable area 15 feet wide by 122 feet long, and a land of area of 4,300 square feet. The lot area would be 3,550 square feet, which would not meet the minimum requirement for a lot with a single-family dwelling in an RM2 district.
Non-conforming lots are addressed in Section 1404 of the Zoning Code:
quote:
SECTION 1404. NONCONFORMING LOTS
A. In residential districts on any lot filed of record on or before July 1, 1970, or on any lot of record in a subdivision approved by the Planning Commission, or on any lot of record for which a recorded instrument of conveyance bears the endorsement of the Planning Commission and such lot is nonconforming by reason of failure to meet lot area requirements, a single-family detached dwelling may be erected without complying with the required lot area, land area per dwelling unit, or livability space per dwelling unit; provided however, livability space per dwelling unit shall not be less than fifty percent (50%) of the lot area. If an existing lot as described above is nonconforming as to lot width and is a corner lot, a single family detached dwelling may be erected without complying with the required side yard which abuts a public street, provided however, such side yard abutting a public street is at least five (5) feet wide and provided that garages which are accessed through this side yard abutting a street are set back a minimum of twenty (20) feet.
Let's suppose the owner of a 25 foot by 142 foot lot wants to build a 400 square foot Mini-Mansion on the lot. Assume the size of the dwelling unit to be 15' x 26'-8". Let's also assume that the owner wishes to park two of his four Alfa Romeos on a 153 square foot portion of the lot which is to be paved with a hard surface, dust-free material capable of withstanding normal weather conditions without substantial deterioration.
The resulting livability space would be 3,550 square feet (the lot area) minus 400 square feet (the area of the detached single-family dwelling) minus 153 square feet (the area of the two required off-street parking spaces). The livability space would be 3,550 - 400 - 153 = 2,997 square feet, which would far exceed the minimum of 200 square feet of livability space required. The livability space would be 84% of the lot area (2,997/3,550).
Assuming the 15 foot wide Mini-Mansion to be constructed in the middle of the lot:
Front yard setback: 57'-8", which is greater than the 10 feet required. Check.
Rear yard setback: 57'-8", which is greater than the 10 feet required. Check.
Side yard requirement: Each 5 feet. Check.
Lot area requirement: Exempt by Section 1404. Check.
Land area requirement: Exempt by Section 1404. Check.
Livability space requirement: 84% of the lot area, which exceeds the 50% minimum required by Section 1404. Check.
Off-Street parking space requirement: 2 all-weather material (unlike the dusty parking lot south of the Blue Dome) spaces provided, which meets the minimum. Check.
Core Area requirement: 20' x 20' is the minimum allowed, so a 15 foot wide dwelling would not meet the minimum.
Unless there is some exception to the Core Area requirement somewhere in the Zoning Code (and I wouldn't be too surprised if there is), a 25' wide non-conforming lot would be too narrow for the construction of dwelling meeting the requirement for Core Area as defined therein.
However, a dwelling with 6 inch thick exterior walls could be built on a non-conforming lot as narrow as 31 feet wide in an RM2 district, and the mere
possibility of this happening in Tulsa ought to be cause for PreserveMidtown's grave concern.
It's worth a blue teardown alert level, at the very least. [:O]
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
I wouldn't judge them solely on their website.
But their website is the subject (and title) of this discussion topic -- and I don't have much else on which to base any judgment. I have noticed only one of the yard signs. The first time I saw the sign, it wasn't in a yard at all -- it was in the right-of-way of 16th Street. That makes it public property and illegal, no matter what PreserveMidtown has printed on Post-It notes based on incorrect information from Neighborhood Inspections.
The signs have "PreserveMidtown.com" on them, so I assume that the primary purpose of the signs is an advertisement for their website. At first glance, their website rubs me the wrong way with its silliness. I went to their website in earnest, looking for sincerity and substance. After seeing a fence built
literally right up to the curb at 13th and Lawton, and after spending a considerable chunk of my time in an effort to convince doubting City officials that the fence actually did exist, I was curious to know where houses are being built right up to the curb in Midtown Tulsa (as is stated in the masthead of PreserveMidtown.com). For all I know, and especially after my rather unpleasant experience with evasive City officials and employees regarding the fence built
right up to the curb at 13th and Lawton, developers very well could be building houses right up to the curb somewhere in good ol' (boy) Tulsey Town. If their statement is an exaggeration, fine. Then what is meant by the phrase "right up to the curb" in their opinion? Does that mean close to the curb? If so, how close? When I say that I saw a fence built right up to the curb at 13th and Lawton, I mean it was built
right up to the curb. I am not exaggerating one tiny bit.
I've asked a simple question. So far, you are the only person who has attempted to answer it, and you are guessing maybe they mean something like the Metro Lofts on Troost. If PreserveMidtown expects to convince the City Council to change the Zoning Code, then they had better read and thoroughly understand Section 204, Section 1404, and the definition of "Lot of Record" in Section 1800 of the Code. When dealing with the City Council, with land use attorneys (such as you-know-who), and with the TMAPC, it is better to be precise and factual than it is to be vague and exaggerative. If they can't answer my simple question, then I don't have much hope for their success in the Francis Campbell Meat-grinding Room.
At this point, I'd say their website is vague and exaggerative, especially their home page. While some of the posted articles are interesting and informative, they also are mostly general in scope instead of specific to Tulsa. I was somewhat amused by the "Tulsa World takes notice" post from July 28th. Talk about going to the experts: World Publishing is most certainly a leading authority on the subject of teardowns and inappropriate infill in Districts 4 and 9.
Alfa Romeos...now how did spell check miss that one?
Anyway, I hope my calculations are correct...
Really! Tulsa World -- Remember when Lorton tore down that old Deco house so he could build France next to Cascia -- with a wall higher than anyone else could get approved by the city?
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Have you had a chance to drive by 30th & Detroit?
Yes, I did drive there to take a look. There does seem to be a significant amount of infill on that block.
I've also been by the Lofts on Troost. I'd estimate that they are about 26 feet from the curb of Troost Ave. That neighborhood has a variety of setbacks. The Arlington Arms were built at the corner of St Louis Ave and 14th St approximately 77 years ago. That building is much closer to the curbs of both St Louis and 14th than the new Lofts are to the curb of Troost.
I've taken a quick look at the infill house at 27th St and Florence Drive. It appears to be closer to the curb of Florence Drive than the existing house to the northeast, but about the same distance or a bit farther from the curb of 27th St than the existing house to the west. Also, the new house doesn't appear to be sheathed in Masonite siding.
Lortondale was developed about 50 years ago on what had been a farm owned by the Lorton family. The houses in Lortondale don't look anything like the Lorton house which they replaced. The Lorton house actually looked more like the McMansions that PreserveMidtown criticizes than the Modern houses of Lortondale, except the Lorton house had huge setbacks and acres of open space around it. Lortondale is a much denser development than the farm it replaced.
I drove by the Terwilleger Peaceful Acres at 38th and Lewis. I will need to read more about this case because I don't understand all of the issues there, and the lots in question are currently vacant. Also, I don't understand Chris Halliwell's claim that the neighborhood plat is a mockery of urban planning. According to the zoning map posted on INCOG's website (//%22http://www.incog.org/mapping/Zoning/T%2019%20%20R%2013.pdf%22), all lots abutting that block of 38th St are zoned RS-1. The variation between the RS-1 and the RS-2 districts, in terms of allowed densities and setbacks, is not very significant compared to, for example, the variation between the RS-4 and RM-2 districts (which the TMAPC decided to intermix in my neighborhood in the 1990s). I don't see the zoning of Terwilleger Peaceful Acres to be a "worst-case scenario" when there are far worse cases of zoning disparity in my own neighborhood. Chris Halliwell's article fails to make that clear. I think I'm missing part of the story.
I think the idea of conservation districts has merit. Perhaps PreserveMidtown's efforts will bring about some long-needed changes in Tulsa's land use policies. They have a very difficult battle ahead, because as energy and land costs rise, there will be increasing pressure to use the available land in Tulsa more intensely, not less. Economic pressures will make it tremendously difficult to maintain low density suburban areas as they have been since the 1930s, 40s, and 50s.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Have you had a chance to drive by 30th & Detroit?
Yes, I did drive there to take a look. There does seem to be a significant amount of infill on that block.
I've also been by the Lofts on Troost. I'd estimate that they are about 26 feet from the curb of Troost Ave. That neighborhood has a variety of setbacks. The Arlington Arms were built at the corner of St Louis Ave and 14th St approximately 77 years ago. That building is much closer to the curbs of both St Louis and 14th than the new Lofts are to the curb of Troost.
I've taken a quick look at the infill house at 27th St and Florence Drive. It appears to be closer to the curb of Florence Drive than the existing house to the northeast, but about the same distance or a bit farther from the curb of 27th St than the existing house to the west. Also, the new house doesn't appear to be sheathed in Masonite siding.
Lortondale was developed about 50 years ago on what had been a farm owned by the Lorton family. The houses in Lortondale don't look anything like the Lorton house which they replaced. The Lorton house actually looked more like the McMansions that PreserveMidtown criticizes than the Modern houses of Lortondale, except the Lorton house had huge setbacks and acres of open space around it. Lortondale is a much denser development than the farm it replaced.
I drove by the Terwilleger Peaceful Acres at 38th and Lewis. I will need to read more about this case because I don't understand all of the issues there, and the lots in question are currently vacant. Also, I don't understand Chris Halliwell's claim that the neighborhood plat is a mockery of urban planning. According to the zoning map posted on INCOG's website (//%22http://www.incog.org/mapping/Zoning/T%2019%20%20R%2013.pdf%22), all lots abutting that block of 38th St are zoned RS-1. The variation between the RS-1 and the RS-2 districts, in terms of allowed densities and setbacks, is not very significant compared to, for example, the variation between the RS-4 and RM-2 districts (which the TMAPC decided to intermix in my neighborhood in the 1990s). I don't see the zoning of Terwilleger Peaceful Acres to be a "worst-case scenario" when there are far worse cases of zoning disparity in my own neighborhood. Chris Halliwell's article fails to make that clear. I think I'm missing part of the story.
I think the idea of conservation districts has merit. Perhaps PreserveMidtown's efforts will bring about some long-needed changes in Tulsa's land use policies. They have a very difficult battle ahead, because as energy and land costs rise, there will be increasing pressure to use the available land in Tulsa more intensely, not less. Economic pressures will make it tremendously difficult to maintain low density suburban areas as they have been since the 1930s, 40s, and 50s.
The problem on 38th (or is it 37th?) is that the original plat of that neighborhood had something like a 40' front yard setback. Then in the 1970's, INCOG adjusted the zoning to RS-1, which allows for a 25' setback. My actual footages might be off, but the point is that a new house being built there can be built much closer to the curb than the existing houses.
I'm not one opposed to infill, but I can see the point that the homeowners on that block are making....
quote:
Originally posted by tulsa1603
The problem on 38th (or is it 37th?) is that the original plat of that neighborhood had something like a 40' front yard setback. Then in the 1970's, INCOG adjusted the zoning to RS-1, which allows for a 25' setback. My actual footages might be off, but the point is that a new house being built there can be built much closer to the curb than the existing houses.
I'm not one opposed to infill, but I can see the point that the homeowners on that block are making....
It's 38th St. I think I'm missing part of the story. Chris Halliwell's post mentions something about a mixture of RS-2 and RS-1 zoning. According to the INCOG map, it's all RS-1. The required front yard setback in an RS-1 district is 35 feet, not 25 feet.
I'm not sure why the front yard setback couldn't be set by deed restrictions or some type of covenant for the subdivision. After reading Chris's post on PreserveMidtown.com and driving the street, the case doesn't sense to me.
^I don't think the INCOG map is correct. As I recall, the neighborhood, once they discovered that they were zoned RS-2, petitioned to be upzoned to RS-1. By the time the case was heard, a developer had already petitioned to split a lot based on RS-2 zoning. He, of course, did not want his property rezoned. TMAPC recommended, and city council adopted rezoning to RS-1 of all the property on that street except for the one lot (now two). The INCOG map doesn't seem to show that.
Private covenants are very hard to create, once a subdivision is sold off. There was thought that terwilliger had convenants, but I heard that the court determined they weren't valid. Covenants are frequently struck down in our state.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
^I don't think the INCOG map is correct. As I recall, the neighborhood, once they discovered that they were zoned RS-2, petitioned to be upzoned to RS-1. By the time the case was heard, a developer had already petitioned to split a lot based on RS-2 zoning. He, of course, did not want his property rezoned. TMAPC recommended, and city council adopted rezoning to RS-1 of all the property on that street except for the one lot (now two). The INCOG map doesn't seem to show that.
Private covenants are very hard to create, once a subdivision is sold off. There was thought that terwilliger had convenants, but I heard that the court determined they weren't valid. Covenants are frequently struck down in our state.
I wonder what it takes to have INCOG actually create and maintain accurate maps of the various zoning districts in Tulsa. Seems to me that this would be one of their prime responsibilities.
Do you happen to know if the two lots which are still RS-2 are on the south side of the street where the house at 2238 E 38th St was? There is a vacant lot on the north side of the street also, but it appears to be a single lot.
I think the residents of Terwilleger Peaceful Acres are due accurate information from INCOG and the TMAPC. I'd like to see some major revisions to our Zoning Code, but in the meantime, Tulsans need a Code which is stable and predictable.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
^I don't think the INCOG map is correct.
It sounds as though the Board of Adjustment (//%22http://www.incog.org/City%20of%20Tulsa%20BOA/City%20BOA%20Members.htm%22) has some maintenance to do.
From the Tulsa Zoning Code:
quote:
SECTION 201. OFFICIAL ZONING MAP ESTABLISHED
The locations and boundaries of the various districts as defined herein shall be
established by ordinance and shall be shown and delineated on the Official Zoning Map of the
City of Tulsa. The Official Zoning Map shall be maintained by the Board of Adjustment of the
City of Tulsa, and may be divided into parts, and such parts may be separately employed for
identification purposes when adopting or amending the Official Zoning Map or for any
reference to the Official Zoning Map.
SECTION 202. DISTRICT BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION AND
INTERPRETATION
District boundary lines shall be described by legal description or by a map. When a
legal description is used, the boundary line shall be deemed to extend to the centerline of
abutting streets and shall be so designated on the Official Zoning Map. When a map is used,
district boundary lines shall be established by dimensions, property lines, recorded lot lines, or
the centerline of abutting street, alley, or railroad rights-of-way, as the same were of record at
the time of adoption. In all cases where there is doubt as to the exact location of district
boundary lines, the same shall be determined by the Board of Adjustment.
Come on, Board of Adjustment members! The residents of Peaceful Terwilleger Acres and all Tulsans deserve to have an accurate Zoning Map (assuming that the map is inaccurate or outdated as pmcalk suspects). How else are we supposed to obey the Zoning Code if we don't know where one zoning district ends and another begins?
I've heard that Mayor Taylor is looking for Tulsans to serve on authorities, boards, and commissions. According to INCOG's wesite, the terms of 3 of the 5 members of the Board of Adjustment expired in May. If the Zoning Map is indeed outdated and if the current Board of Adjustment members are not willing to maintain that map, then I suggest that some PreserveMidtown members who are actually willing to serve on the BOA submit their names to Mayor Taylor's office.
I'm not associated with this event, but I received this announcement yesterday:
PreserveMidtown in association with The Coalition of Historic Neighborhoods of Tulsa
is pleased to announce our first forum and panel discussion
Taming the Teardown: A Moratorium to Save our Heritage
Tuesday October 16, 2007, 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm
All Souls Unitarian Church, 2952 S. Peoria, Tulsa
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
I've heard that Mayor Taylor is looking for Tulsans to serve on authorities, boards, and commissions. According to INCOG's wesite, the terms of 3 of the 5 members of the Board of Adjustment expired in May. If the Zoning Map is indeed outdated and if the current Board of Adjustment members are not willing to maintain that map, then I suggest that some PreserveMidtown members who are actually willing to serve on the BOA submit their names to Mayor Taylor's office.
Good luck with that. The developers have a handpicked list of their appointments that Kathy Taylor will appoint.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
I've heard that Mayor Taylor is looking for Tulsans to serve on authorities, boards, and commissions. According to INCOG's wesite, the terms of 3 of the 5 members of the Board of Adjustment expired in May. If the Zoning Map is indeed outdated and if the current Board of Adjustment members are not willing to maintain that map, then I suggest that some PreserveMidtown members who are actually willing to serve on the BOA submit their names to Mayor Taylor's office.
Good luck with that. The developers have a handpicked list of their appointments that Kathy Taylor will appoint.
What evidence do you have of that?
You asked doubleA for evidence? You want him to back up all his slander?
That's a good one!
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
You asked doubleA for evidence? You want him to back up all his slander?
That's a good one!
Yeah, let's just gloss over the controversial developer appointments she tried to make already that were met with outrage and opposition by neighborhood associations earlier in her term. I remember one of those little dust-ups resulted in her having to withdraw her appointment and appoint a more suitable frequent Tulsa Now poster. To everything, spin, spin, spin. There is a season, spin, spin, spin.
This is what you wrote..."The developers have a handpicked list of their appointments that Kathy Taylor will appoint"...
Got any evidence?
Of course not.
Realtor should be capitalized.
Preserve Mid-Town.Com = good idea, tough chore ahead of them.
Go Tulsa! All of Tulsa!
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
This is what you wrote..."The developers have a handpicked list of their appointments that Kathy Taylor will appoint"...
Got any evidence?
I'm interested too.
I'm sorry I wasn't paying more attention to the discussion here. I don't speak for Preserve Midtown, but I'm proud to be part of it and I helped with the website.
The opening paragraph says some developers "build houses right up to the curb." My first draft read simply "build right up to the curb", and I was referring to the privacy walls and personal parking lots that are replacing many of Midtown's lawns. I later added "house" simply to improve the layout, and I didn't see at the time that I changed the meaning. It was a mistake.
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Halliwell
I'm sorry I wasn't paying more attention to the discussion here. I don't speak for Preserve Midtown, but I'm proud to be part of it and I helped with the website.
The opening paragraph says some developers "build houses right up to the curb." My first draft read simply "build right up to the curb", and I was referring to the privacy walls and personal parking lots that are replacing many of Midtown's lawns. I later added "house" simply to improve the layout, and I didn't see at the time that I changed the meaning. It was a mistake.
Where are those privacy walls and personal parking lots? Are they built right up to the curb? I'd like to see them.
Now that is something I have begun to be very concerned with lately. The walls that people have been building more and more in midtown. Go down Peoria near Philbrook, turn on the street that goes towards Philbrook, and you will see lots of them for instance. They are beginning to show up more all over the place.
Though its not that bad now, one only has to imagine how things will be if this continues. Unless you are familiar with how such a trend ends up looking from seeing it in other cities, the average Tulsan may not register it,,,until its too late and the damage has been done.
One of the things I love about that area is driving down the streets and seeing the beautiful homes and yards. Its nice to bike and walk in those areas as well. Those beautiful old homes and neighborhoods are one of the selling points, points of pride for our city. Something beautiful to enjoy. Even cities larger than us dont often have as many large, beautiful old homes as we do.
I remember going to some "nice" old areas and neighborhoods in Coconut Grove and the Miami area. It was awful, the neighborhood streets were like driving through alleyways. You could just see the tops of the houses and there were walls right on the street on either side of you.
We really have something good here, lets not turn our streets into closed, desolate alleys.
This is a trend that can totally destroy how our beautiful neighborhoods feel. I am more concerned about this than the teardowns and bad remodels. If people are worried about security, wrought iron fencing works nicely. It still leaves the area feeling open and allows for an enjoyable walk or drive, a beautiful neighborhood.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Halliwell
I'm sorry I wasn't paying more attention to the discussion here. I don't speak for Preserve Midtown, but I'm proud to be part of it and I helped with the website.
The opening paragraph says some developers "build houses right up to the curb." My first draft read simply "build right up to the curb", and I was referring to the privacy walls and personal parking lots that are replacing many of Midtown's lawns. I later added "house" simply to improve the layout, and I didn't see at the time that I changed the meaning. It was a mistake.
Where are those privacy walls and personal parking lots? Are they built right up to the curb? I'd like to see them.
You dont get out much do you?
^ I spend most of my time between Standpipe Hill and 21st St. A few years ago I saw a metal fence built right up to the curb near 13th and Lawton, and I complained about it.
Walls and fences are not supposed to be taller than 8 feet in residential districts, and not taller than 4 feet in required front yards. This is what I see most of the time, but not always. However, most infill is either walled or fenced off from the surrounding neighborhood, or at least that appears to be the trend in my neighborhood. Most streets are 50 or 60 feet wide, so there is some open space.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Halliwell
I'm sorry I wasn't paying more attention to the discussion here. I don't speak for Preserve Midtown, but I'm proud to be part of it and I helped with the website.
The opening paragraph says some developers "build houses right up to the curb." My first draft read simply "build right up to the curb", and I was referring to the privacy walls and personal parking lots that are replacing many of Midtown's lawns. I later added "house" simply to improve the layout, and I didn't see at the time that I changed the meaning. It was a mistake.
Where are those privacy walls and personal parking lots? Are they built right up to the curb? I'd like to see them.
check out 20th and madison... nice wall :P... being in the middle of an HP district didnt seem to make one damn difference... loverly...
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
check out 20th and madison... nice wall :P... being in the middle of an HP district didnt seem to make one damn difference... loverly...
I looked at the wall. It doesn't appear to be out of context or in violation of the zoning code.
There are several other walls in the vicinity. The wall is not built to the curb. The front yard facing 20th Street is very open with no walls or fences.
As far as an HP overlay district not making a difference, a better example is the property to the west, a case in which the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) process was ignored and then appealed to the Board of Adjustment (Case No. 20367 and Case No. 20437).
the only other "walls in the vicinty" are retaining walls... so yeah, i'd say it is out of context... thats alright, it just gives the burglars something to hide behind...
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
the only other "walls in the vicinty" are retaining walls... so yeah, i'd say it is out of context... thats alright, it just gives the burglars something to hide behind...
Would it be better if it were a wood privacy fence? I guess I don't understand the aversion to walls around sideyards when there is a privacy issue.
quote:
Originally posted by tulsa1603
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
the only other "walls in the vicinty" are retaining walls... so yeah, i'd say it is out of context... thats alright, it just gives the burglars something to hide behind...
Would it be better if it were a wood privacy fence? I guess I don't understand the aversion to walls around sideyards when there is a privacy issue.
oops, just got yelled at :P... i still don't like and think the house should have had a backyard...
There are some privacy fences in the vicinity. I did see some masonry retaining walls in the neighborhood. In fact, there is a retaining wall on the east side of Madison near 19th with a fence built on top. It appears to be much taller than the new wall at 20th & Madison.
Although there aren't very many privacy walls, there are plenty of privacy fences in Maple Ridge. But the streets are fairly wide resulting in an open feeling, at least in my opinion. The streets of Maple Ridge do not seem alley-like to me. I don't see any violation of the Zoning Code in this case, and a good portion of the perimeter of the property is open. There are HP restrictions, but I don't understand how the wall fails to meet the guidelines.
I went by 20th and Madison yesterday. I spent only a few seconds looking at the wall. Maybe I am confused about the location, because the front yard looked very open to me. There is a tall stone privacy wall near the sidewalk along the south portion of the lot line along Madison.
Is the property in question at the southwest corner of the intersection?
I went to Maple Ridge today for another look. I think the stone wall along Madison is not out of context because so many walls and fences have existed in the neighborhood for decades, especially on corner properties. The new wall does not seem out of place to me. In that neighborhood south of 17th Place, it is fairly common to see tall privacy fences and walls along the named avenues and relatively open property lines along the numbered streets. There are 15 corner properties along Madison between 17th Place and 21st Street. Of those 15 corner properties, 9 have tall walls or fences along Madison:
1. Southeast corner at 17th Pl -- brick and metal fence
2. Northwest corner at 18th St -- privacy wall covered with stucco and drop siding above a stone retaining wall
3. Southwest corner at 18th St -- brick and metal fence atop a brick retaining wall
4. Northwest corner at 19th St -- brick and wood privacy fence atop a brick retaining wall
5. Southwest corner at 19th St -- wood privacy fence
6. Southeast corner at 19th St -- wood privacy fence on a terrace
7. Northeast corner at 20th St -- brick and wood privacy fence atop a brick retaining wall
8. Southwest corner at 20th St -- new stone privacy wall
9. Southeast corner at 20th St -- wood privacy fence atop a terrace
I also noticed a brick privacy wall at the southwest corner of Norfolk and 18th, so I think the tradition of tall fences and walls in the neighborhood is well established.
In July, I asked where developers were building houses right up to the curb in Midtown. August rolled by with no reply from Preserve Midtown. September rolled by with no reply. 69 days after I posted my question, Chris Halliwell posted this reply:
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Halliwell
I'm sorry I wasn't paying more attention to the discussion here. I don't speak for Preserve Midtown, but I'm proud to be part of it and I helped with the website.
The opening paragraph says some developers "build houses right up to the curb." My first draft read simply "build right up to the curb", and I was referring to the privacy walls and personal parking lots that are replacing many of Midtown's lawns. I later added "house" simply to improve the layout, and I didn't see at the time that I changed the meaning. It was a mistake.
I'm wondering where those privacy walls and personal parking lots are being built right up to the curb in Midtown. The walls in Maple Ridge are not built right up to the curb. I imagine that if the average Tulsan were to describe Madison Avenue between 17th Place and 21st Street, that the phrase "desolate alley" would not be part of the desciption.
I can think of a wall built right up to the curb at the southwest corner of 22nd and Troost, but I don't see many built on public property like that one is. I'm not certain, but I think it is illegal to build walls right up to the curb in most cases.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
I went to Maple Ridge today for another look. I think the stone wall along Madison is not out of context because so many walls and fences have existed in the neighborhood for decades, especially on corner properties. The new wall does not seem out of place to me. In that neighborhood south of 17th Place, it is fairly common to see tall privacy fences and walls along the named avenues and relatively open property lines along the numbered streets. There are 15 corner properties along Madison between 17th Place and 21st Street. Of those 15 corner properties, 9 have tall walls or fences along Madison:
1. Southeast corner at 17th Pl -- brick and metal fence
2. Northwest corner at 18th St -- privacy wall covered with stucco and drop siding above a stone retaining wall
3. Southwest corner at 18th St -- brick and metal fence atop a brick retaining wall
4. Northwest corner at 19th St -- brick and wood privacy fence atop a brick retaining wall
5. Southwest corner at 19th St -- wood privacy fence
6. Southeast corner at 19th St -- wood privacy fence on a terrace
7. Northeast corner at 20th St -- brick and wood privacy fence atop a brick retaining wall
8. Southwest corner at 20th St -- new stone privacy wall
9. Southeast corner at 20th St -- wood privacy fence atop a terrace
I also noticed a brick privacy wall at the southwest corner of Norfolk and 18th, so I think the tradition of tall fences and walls in the neighborhood is well established.
In July, I asked where developers were building houses right up to the curb in Midtown. August rolled by with no reply from Preserve Midtown. September rolled by with no reply. 69 days after I posted my question, Chris Halliwell posted this reply:
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Halliwell
I'm sorry I wasn't paying more attention to the discussion here. I don't speak for Preserve Midtown, but I'm proud to be part of it and I helped with the website.
The opening paragraph says some developers "build houses right up to the curb." My first draft read simply "build right up to the curb", and I was referring to the privacy walls and personal parking lots that are replacing many of Midtown's lawns. I later added "house" simply to improve the layout, and I didn't see at the time that I changed the meaning. It was a mistake.
I'm wondering where those privacy walls and personal parking lots are being built right up to the curb in Midtown. The walls in Maple Ridge are not built right up to the curb. I imagine that if the average Tulsan were to describe Madison Avenue between 17th Place and 21st Street, that the phrase "desolate alley" would not be part of the desciption.
I can think of a wall built right up to the curb at the southwest corner of 22nd and Troost, but I don't see many built on public property like that one is. I'm not certain, but I think it is illegal to build walls right up to the curb in most cases.
there is no tradition for eliminating your backyard... that is how they built the house and that is why it has a huge ugly wall on three sides... it is overbuilt for the lot... the wall is the cherry on top...
From PreserveMidtown.com (//%22http://preservemidtown.com%22):
quote:
Forum and Panel Discussion October 16
Preserve Midtown, in association with the Coalition of Historic Neighborhoods of Tulsa, is pleased to announce our first forum and panel discussion, "Taming the Teardown: A Moratorium to Save our Heritage". The forum will be Tuesday, October 16 at 7:00 pm, at All Souls Unitarian Church, 2952 S. Peoria in Tulsa.
Guest presenters Amanda De Cort, Guy De Verges and Steve Novick will speak on the economics of teardowns, environmental consequences, and conservation districting. Stephanie De Verges, MPA will moderate. Additional panelists and guests will include Michelle Cantrell of TMAPC, District 9 City Councilor Cason Carter and District 4 City Councilor Maria Barnes.
Please join us, listen, learn, express your views. And if you haven't yet, please sign our petition!
Also, the wording in the opening paragraph has been corrected. It is no longer suggested that houses are flush with curbs.
Notes on the meeting from the Tulsa World (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=071017_1_A8_spanc51254%22)
Paul Kane said his group would like to create an architectural review committee that would look at builders' house plans and provide a "stamp of approval" to those that meet appropriate standards for scale and scope.
"The Home Builders Association does not want to be looked upon as the bad guy," Kane said. "The Home Builders Association wants to be looked upon as part of the solution."
Kane spoke at "Taming the Teardown: A Moratorium to Save our Heritage," a forum attended by more than 100 people at All Souls Unitarian Church, 2952 S. Peoria Ave.
The event was sponsored by the group Preserve Midtown in association with the Coalition of Historic Neighborhoods of Tulsa.
Preserve Midtown is trying to stop what it sees as a proliferation of poor infill projects -- out-of-scale, out-of-character houses that don't fit into the existing neighborhoods.
Incredibly, Enterline Construction is suing Preserve Midtown!(FOX23) (//%22http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=c1d2d87d-9f08-4768-91af-66a3763486b0%22)
Enterline's loyyah sez: 'They have a detrimental affect on the business, they run buyers off and they keep the buyers and the builders from being able to do their jobs.'
Hope he can prove it! Sounds like he is describing the Earth Liberation Front.
I'm not really either for or against this whole "McMansion" thing yet but here's my logic. Someone agree or disagree for the sake of argument here. I'm a home owner and someone buys a lot next to me to raze the property and build a home that possibly looks like is is about 1,000 sq. ft. larger than any other home in the neighborhood. Let's just say it's a Mediteranian style home too for giggle. I'm thinking my home value *could* increase at some point. It won't go down anyway. Also, I know the city will asess a higher property tax on that home. Lastly,why would I discourage an obviously affluent Tulsan from building in Mid-town? Would I rather them move to Broken Arrow or Jenks to contribute to that community? No. Someone call me crazy here...?
...by the way I live in Swan Lake.
Many dont want all redevelopment to stop. Just bad redevelopment. They also really want to protect the older homes, while realizing that there are already homes built say in the 70s and 80s that dont fit the character of older neighborhoods and would be perfect canditates for redevelopment...done properly. They are trying to figure out a way to "encourage" good redevelopment while saving older homes, the ones that give the neighborhood its essential character and feel. A house can be larger, but with attention to things like "wall planes" size of the wall space on the outside, roof lines, breaking up large flat areas, scale of windows, set backs. These tricks can make a larger home fit in quite nicely with its neighbors. Also things like having the main focus on front of the house be the garage, a "snout house" is to be discouraged. Having proper set backs, etc. I think form based codes are the best way to go. Right now they are working on putting in a Conservation Overlay. This will enable each neighborhood or area to get together and make its own regulations.
By late next spring the first Form Based Codes area will be on the books in Tulsa. Its been a lot of work and time to get this. It will be for the Pearl District. Once this is done, the legal work, getting the council, builders and others familiar with the concept and regs. It will be easier to then add Form Based Codes to other areas of the city as well, including mid-town.
Do a google search for Form Based Codes. You may find it quite interesting. It can be applied to many different areas, not just commercial and mixed use, but neighborhoods as well.
Interesting, well that seems like reasonable things to fight for. I was under the impression that people were just getting upset about big houses...that does not seem to be the case. I love preserving the old homes. My house was built in 1923 and I work hard to keep it looking good. I think what some of these neighborhoods are lacking that Swan Lake does not is the luxury of the preservation commission. Without them, people could do what they want here but they pretty much stop anything that won't fit with the neighborhood. Do these other mid-town neighborhoods have associations or some other legal way to regulate home style etc..?
You are right on, I think the issue comes when the developer commissions something that is inappropriate for the neighbors more than the neighborhood.
In my instance the developer split the lot and showed up one day with a telephone pole he wanted to place in my backyard. This would have cost me about $15K to remediate, and if my esposa was not well versed in the law the developer would have rammed the thing in and screwed us big time.
The AEP crew (the developer is retired AEP) were shaking their heads at the work order, knowing that the power lines one foot of my roof pitch would not be kosher.
The stabilization overlay is the key to protecting and preserving the character of the neighborhood.
sold...now where do I get my preservemidtown.com signs?
uh...the website?
Thanks Captain Obvious.. I was thinking more like a physical location to pick one up. Now you've forced me to go to thier website and fill out some form. *eeeh gads*
Just take one out of somebody's yard. (kidding)
The construction was so good on the POS next to me that the irrigation system caused mold to grow up on the inside of the wall - house all of two years old. And the nice Spanish-speaking masonry crew is probably loooong gone.
McMansions are not a blanket condemnation of new infill, but a description of oversized styling that is out of pace with its neighbors. I must say that there are more points of interest on some of the newer homes, and that is good, but not enough to compensate for long boring sides.
quote:
Originally posted by izmophonik
Interesting, well that seems like reasonable things to fight for. I was under the impression that people were just getting upset about big houses...that does not seem to be the case. I love preserving the old homes. My house was built in 1923 and I work hard to keep it looking good. I think what some of these neighborhoods are lacking that Swan Lake does not is the luxury of the preservation commission. Without them, people could do what they want here but they pretty much stop anything that won't fit with the neighborhood. Do these other mid-town neighborhoods have associations or some other legal way to regulate home style etc..?
You only have to look just north of 15th Street at the lot cramming, scrape and rape, luxury loft infill being built to see what would be happening in Swan Lake if it did not have the benefit of HP protection. Preserve Midtown.
quote:
Originally posted by izmophonik
sold...now where do I get my preservemidtown.com signs?
Before you get that sign. Keep in mind that there seems to still be some differences of opinion between some mid-towners in those groups.
Some really are concerned about big houses and losing small ones. I think there is a legitimate concern about losing housing for a range of income levels in some areas. But that is also saying, keep some property values low. I dont know of any way to remedy that except in larger developments where its designed in. I have seen examples of that in London. I think the affordable homes will still be available on the "edges" of these areas as they expand outwards. Its just part of the natural evolution and many people can take advantage of that as an opportunity to invest in a borderline area and watch that investment grow, then cash out. Tulsa is not as large as London, there is still plenty of affordable housing in and near the core. May not be on the exact street or block you want, but...come on. We should be so lucky as a city to seriously have to worry about no affordable housing within miles of the cities core. We are no where near that and I am sure people will be keeping an eye on that situation.
Some do not want any tear downs, even of the houses that were built in the 70s or whatever that dont fit the over all character. They say that IS part of the character. I personally tend to disagree.
I think things are trending towards a more reasoned approach with these groups despite the differences in opinion. Sometimes what can actually, realistically be done because of such diametric interests becomes the moderator.
Enterline has a sign in front of a cute little house on 25th (I think) between Yorktown and Lewis. I think it's a John Duncan Forsyth design....I'd hate to see it go...[:O]
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld on August 31, 2007
[PreserveMidtown's] website does seem to be too reactionary. The YouTube link to a McMansion Attack cartoon is silly. The yard signs are annoying. The plea for monetary donations is a turn-off. The campaign is relatively new, so they have a chance now to get specific about what's going on in Midtown. I want to read about actual trends in Tulsa, not ambiguous accusations.
I looked at the PreserveMidtown website today. IMO, it is much improved from last August.
check out the $1,350,000 dollar home at 2622 E 33 Pl. My ping pong table is larger than that backyard; and what about the turret and spire.
AND...it's NOT Enterline this time.
Did anyone see the Channel 8 story last night on the house at 31st and Victor with the swimming pool in the front yard?