Somebody is building a 1 bedroom house on 25th street east of Lewis. It has a 4 car garage, and looks to be 3 stories high. Workers said that the top floor is going to have a dj booth and dance floor, and that the tops of the garages were being reinforced so people could dance on them....WHERE IS PRESERVE MIDTOWN ON THIS THING... I walked past the thing last week and about threw up
quote:
Originally posted by yayaya
Somebody is building a 1 bedroom house on 25th street east of Lewis. It has a 4 car garage, and looks to be 3 stories high. Workers said that the top floor is going to have a dj booth and dance floor, and that the tops of the garages were being reinforced so people could dance on them....WHERE IS PRESERVE MIDTOWN ON THIS THING... I walked past the thing last week and about threw up
If its not violating any homeowner association rules, I dont see a problem with it. People have free will on how and what to build in their house. The only thing that would drive me nuts is if they are up late at all nights of the house playing their music. I can assure you if I lived in that neighborhood, it wouldnt last long.
oh ya-my friend lives on the street-she has seen a Bentley that she thought was a Chysler(funny) and a yellow Corvette.
quote:
Originally posted by yayaya
Somebody is building a 1 bedroom house on 25th street east of Lewis. It has a 4 car garage, and looks to be 3 stories high. Workers said that the top floor is going to have a dj booth and dance floor, and that the tops of the garages were being reinforced so people could dance on them....WHERE IS PRESERVE MIDTOWN ON THIS THING... I walked past the thing last week and about threw up
Is it over 35 feet high? If so, its violating zoning ordinances.
quote:
Originally posted by yayaya
Somebody is building a 1 bedroom house on 25th street east of Lewis. It has a 4 car garage, and looks to be 3 stories high. Workers said that the top floor is going to have a dj booth and dance floor, and that the tops of the garages were being reinforced so people could dance on them....WHERE IS PRESERVE MIDTOWN ON THIS THING... I walked past the thing last week and about threw up
Framework for what appears to be a third story started going up this week. This is a teardown of what had been a modest one-story brick home in the Bryn-Mawr neighborhood of mostly single-story homes with mature trees (which have since been bulldozed).
The builder is La Bella Homes (Julius J. Puma) 298-6700.
I took pictures. Click the photo to see the whole set on Flickr:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2213/2046712959_5f48fee1c8.jpg) (//%22http://www.flickr.com/photos/batesline/sets/72157603239289165/%22)
I am not quite ready to cry foul just yet. I am still wondering what the style will be, the scale of windows, type of detailing. etc. Though I must admit, at the point it is at now, even I cringed when I drove by it today to take a peek.
I really hope there are some windows on the street side of the garages. If not, thats not good at all. However I would rather see the garages, if they insist on them being in front, facing towards an inner "courtyard" rather than the doors facing the street. With the right architectural design it could be made to look like the "stables" facing the courtyard of a manor house or something. In other words, it can be classically styled though one would even in this case prefer them be in back or along the sides somehow. They do look like they stick out closer to the street than the other houses on the street do. La Bella does some nice "suburban, Mc Mansion type homes, some of which would fit nicely in an older neighborhood. Some of which would not.
Just because a home is really large doesn't neccessarily mean it has to be a bad fit. However, at this point its not looking promising. Everyone knows I lean towards the "in favor of larger homes infill" side of the issue, and was leaning towards the "oh it cant be that bad" frame of mind, but I honestly cringed when I drove down that street lol.
He has built some of the ugliest homes in Tulsa....They are not hard to spot.....
uh--my friend that lives on the street said the deign is supposedly "very modern and all white"
I did hear that the owner is a plaintiff medical mal practice atty.
glad it is not on my street
Typical Mid-town neighborhood circa 2030 [:P]
(http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/4307/infill2aga6.jpg)
Note the "nonconforming house" in the center.
Where the heck is that, Beirut? [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Where the heck is that, Beirut? [;)]
Close, its Los Angeles. Was posted on another forum as an example of some of the infill Los Angelis is seeing. This type of infill can be seen as a positive for them though.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Where the heck is that, Beirut? [;)]
Close, its Los Angeles. Was posted on another forum as an example of some of the infill Los Angelis is seeing. This type of infill can be seen as a positive for them though.
Actually, don't you think that's a little "drecky" even for LA?
My friend protested and got the building stopped-if you do care, watch the incog list and go down and protest when the builder asks for a variance
I am going to try to go-the next meeting will be held Tuesday at 1
It is WAY over the height restriction-
...I read the whole thread. This really seems like a case of someone that just needs to mind their own business. The poster doesn't even live on that street and likely not in that neighborhood. The picture of that house looks like another $2,500.00 per year in property taxes going to the City of Tulsa. Nothing more or less.
quote:
Originally posted by izmophonik
...I read the whole thread. This really seems like a case of someone that just needs to mind their own business. The poster doesn't even live on that street and likely not in that neighborhood. The picture of that house looks like another $2,500.00 per year in property taxes going to the City of Tulsa. Nothing more or less.
Thats enlightnened. "It only matters if its on my immediate street."? And whether it makes more taxes?
I believe different neighborhoods can have a mix of styles, but everything has its limits. Good taste can not be "zoned", but variety can be wisely done so that a structure improves an areas appearance and character rather than hurting it.
I can show you many examples of developments that have destroyed the character of an area and made the property values go down. Is that what we want?
If we can agree that there are good types of development, height, distance from street, amount of parking, walls, wall planes, sidewalks, materials, etc. Then logically there must be examples of bad development.
Do you think there are good ways to develop or redevelop? No examples of bad development? That it doesnt matter unless its next to you?
quote:
I believe different neighborhoods can have a mix of styles, but everything has its limits. Good taste can not be "zoned", but variety can be wisely done so that a structure improves an areas appearance and character rather than hurting it.
I would like to how this can be accomplished if you aren't regulating taste.
quote:
Originally posted by yayaya
Somebody is building a 1 bedroom house on 25th street east of Lewis. It has a 4 car garage, and looks to be 3 stories high. Workers said that the top floor is going to have a dj booth and dance floor, and that the tops of the garages were being reinforced so people could dance on them....WHERE IS PRESERVE MIDTOWN ON THIS THING... I walked past the thing last week and about threw up
How dare this property owner do what he wants with his or her property...Doesn't this person know that there is no such thing as individualism.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
How dare this property owner do what he wants with his or her property...Doesn't this person know that there is no such thing as individualism.
I don't think they know what "individualism" means..... They vote the "Party Line" as a Patriotic, American, individual should...
[}:)]
Just kidding.....[;)]
How do you "Legislate" good taste?
You don't...
If you could DT Tulsa would not have as many parking lots as it does...
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
How dare this property owner do what he wants with his or her property...Doesn't this person know that there is no such thing as individualism.
I don't think they know what "individualism" means..... They vote the "Party Line" as a Patriotic, American, individual should...
[}:)]
Just kidding.....[;)]
How do you "Legislate" good taste?
You don't...
If you could DT Tulsa would not have as many parking lots as it does...
Well said
quote:
Originally posted by yayaya
My friend protested and got the building stopped-if you do care, watch the incog list and go down and protest when the builder asks for a variance
I am going to try to go-the next meeting will be held Tuesday at 1
It is WAY over the height restriction-
Didn't and don't see it on the BOA's agenda. http://www.incog.org/City%20of%20Tulsa%20BOA/City%20of%20Tulsa%20Board%20of%20Adjustment.htm
I don't mind a little architectural diversity out there in a neighborhood as long as the house adheres to basic principals like orientation, contributing to the important relationship a house has in a neighborhood, relative scale (I don't think the juxtaposition of one and three story houses is that bad if treated properly), and generally maintaining the streetscape.
I don't like the garages located in front of the house essentially sealing off any human presence from the neighborhood. (Assuming that no opaque entry gate is erected between the garages) It helps that there is a direct line between the street and the front door. Anytime a house presents a majority blank wall to a neighborhood though its owners might as well be saying thanks a bunch for allowing us to put up stakes around you but we have no trust or interest in participating in this neighborhood thing.
Right on Kenosha, Guido911, & Our Tulsa. I agree 100%.
How do you legislate good taste?.... I suppose I could dig around online and find out. But am not in the mood to do that at the moment lol. But "good taste" or more specifically, good design can be had. It has to exist because I have been to so many places in the country where it is done.
Form Based Codes are one way to steer new development in a preferred direction. Form Based Codes are more concerned with the appearance and "form" of a structure, than with what is inside. FBC's hold that..."Design is more important than use".
Form-Based codes are potentially much easier for the public and developers to interpret because they make use of graphics to illustrate what is desired. Examples and preferred solutions are given so that developers and individuals have an idea of what is wanted, not a list of rules saying what is not wanted.
Form-based codes can guide the form and appearance of new
development through the use of such techniques as pattern books, which identify
existing characteristics such as architectural style and elements that residents
value. Such a pattern book can encourage infill development and renovations of and additions
to existing buildings to take inspiration from the existing context without mimicking
it. Also, design guidelines provide detailed guidance for the appearance of such features as
architectural elements (roofs, porches, doors, lighting); site design (relationship to
the street, location of accessory structures); landscape elements (trees, irrigation,
public art); and streetscape improvements. They are typically intended to
encourage good design while allowing for some flexible interpretation to avoid
repetitive and monotonous structures.
This taken from a website showing the experience another city had with form based codes....
Results: Developer Reviews
• After initial confusion, the process has become easier
to understand
• Local architects understood it first, and have worked
to develop contextual plans
• Department advising has helped, but a more formal
design review, particularly for by-right projects may
be required
• Developers have generally been more successful
selling projects at a premium by following design
recommendations
• While abutters still oppose projects, there is less fear
of poorly designed infill
• Neighborhood groups recognize that we had a design
problem, not a density problem.
http://www.mass.gov/envir/pdfs/sgconf_A3_proakis.pdf
Form-based codes can present various options to follow for common projects such as garages, second story additions... Use of optional form-based codes can create a clearer, simpler, less expensive application process for some applicants, expand staff review of some projects and lighten case load.
I have been to many areas of the country where cities have areas, if not the whole city and surrounding areas as well, where there are regulations that go far beyond anything Form Based Codes require. I know "good taste" can be regulated. In Santa Fe, no building can be taller than a particular church in their downtown. The buildings must be of a specific type, you choose from a select color pallet, etc. The local grocery store, Mc Donalds, everything fits those regulations. Even miles outside the city you see "variations on a theme" following those prescriptions. There are other cities that do the same but with radically different styles.
Many places require garages be to the side or in back. I have met people who have come to Tulsa who are shocked, the idea of having garages in front is an alien idea to them, its not what they are used to seeing. Yet if we mention regulating that here we are "stifiling individualism" or trying to enforce "good taste"?
This has some general examples of Form Based Codes.
http://cityofsacramento.org/dsd/planning/urban-design/form-based-codes/documents/Forms-Based-Codes-Report.pdf
A primary element of this discussion is respect for local traditions and customs, the importance attached to good relations with immediate neighbors, and with others in the neighborhood, that foster a sense of community. Such good relations, based on trust and mutual respect, translate into "codes guiding construction that affects neighbors".
Change should be accepted as natural and healthy. In the face of ongoing change, it is helpful, even necessary, to maintain some equilibrium in the environment we share. In other words, Balance the change with a dose of agreed upon rules, hopes and expectations. Its not "either, or", its neighbors, people in a shared community, getting together and finding a way to strike a balance between both.
Also, without codes urban municipalities can tend to suffer from disinvestment. The market naturally seeks stable investment environments. The private codes you see with homeowners associations, the guidelines of office parks, the rules of shopping centers, etc. create predictable outcomes that lure investment away from older cities and areas that do not have them. Codes level the playing field for the inevitable competition.
I would really encourage you to look around on the net and get a feel for what Form Based Codes is about. I have run across some really neat examples, "wish I had kept them to show you". I have seen some incredibly creative examples of new infill that is different, yet compliments its neighbors. I wish I had saved this pic of some infill in a neighborhood of bungalows. Some were 3 stories tall but still fit because they followed a basic prescription of the rooflines, wall planes, scale, set-backs etc. They were great additions to an old neighborhood. They did not at all take away from the character, they enhanced the neighborhood imo. The individual can express their "individuality" in many creative ways within the context of FBC's. One is already limited in many ways yet can still find infinite ways to express individuality. FBCs do not want cookie cutter developments, people will naturally find creative ways within the given framework to be unique. Also a neighborhood can elect to have different types of FBCs, it can encourage huge variety from, Tuscan to, Gothic, to Frank Lloyd Wright and contemporary,,,,yet within a group of agreed upon ideals of, wall plane sizes, building massing, height restrictions, set backs, etc. Resulting in very ecclectic but yet complimentary structures.
That thing is getting worse-and no, I don't live on the street, but hate that some ego driven weirdo is building a a bedroom dance hall on a street with kids. I HOPE this guy gets a ton of money sunk in the thing and is forced to pay a lot to take it down to height.
he apparently is some plaintiff atty
Are you certain it's higher than 35 feet as defined in the Zoning Code? I'm guessing from the photo that it's less than 35 feet high, based on the size of the garage door openings (if they are normal height garage doors). It's difficult to get a sense of scale from the photo.
This guy bought a lot behind my dad and proceeded to knock down the old house and started building before getting any permits. He was also completely unaware that the lot sat on top of a huge storm sewer that he could not build on top of. He got as far as a two foot tall slab and was forced to shut down due to code violations. He overpaid for the lot and as far as I know he is trying to sell it. The problem for developers like him, the new house can not be larger than the original house due to the easement.
He is an idiot.
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
This guy bought a lot behind my dad and proceeded to knock down the old house and started building before getting any permits.
Is that the lot on Cincinnati about 1 block north of Hazel?
The neighbors property values just dropped like a rock. I wouldn't want to live in a cozy, old neighborhood and look out my window and see that.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
The neighbors property values just dropped like a rock. I wouldn't want to live in a cozy, old neighborhood and look out my window and see that.
Enough with the hyperbole. I doubt that a $500,000 to $750,000 house is going to hurt the comps in that area, regardless of what it looks like. It may be a monstrosity, but there is zero evidence that property values will be affected negatively.
I took a tour of some neighborhoods on my way home from 41st & Yale tonight and finally found the monstrosity (I kept forgetting where it was). Before I found it, I found several other examples just as hideous. I rooted for the PreserveMidtown people before, and now, after having seen what neighborhood destruction looks like, I want to give them all a hug.
The eastern neighbor // The western neighbor
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3016/2670199340_0240181f5f.jpg) (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3127/2670195380_179578ab47.jpg)
The monster
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3243/2670198194_8270b6d337.jpg) (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3180/2670197232_0116ce2103.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3122/2670196322_4f37bae3b5.jpg)
Just a few blocks from the Great White Whale, at 26th & Columbia, is this. I saw the turret above a house from a few blocks away:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3060/2670193486_55db28fd61.jpg)
The neighbors
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3282/2670194714_aabcf46028.jpg)
Another one at 25th & Columbia/Birmingham?:
McAnywhereville
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3067/2670192620_4686531139.jpg)
Across the street
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3005/2669368905_599da92095.jpg)
East of that, I was driving north and saw this one from 3 blocks away:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2059/2669362047_ce888ee621.jpg)
Notice the house on the left.
Here's the house behind the McAwful:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3291/2670184448_e7fa98bed1.jpg)
And here's another future teardown going in:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3226/2670185648_d9c33f4100.jpg)
And here are the neighbors:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3171/2669365235_925d680386.jpg)
I agree, the "white whale" as you call it, doesnt work for me, especially in that area with those nice homes. I actually wouldnt have minded it if the garages had been in back or somehow designed differently so that they werent big blank spaces jutting out at you.
The one with the turret, well at least it is mostly stone. I dont like its proportions and balance though, especially that blank area above the porch entrance.
I dont really like the other ones, but I dont like the homes they are next to either. However, the best scenario in an area with those homes would have been if the "infill" homes respected the style of their neighbors. If the new ones had had similar roof pitches, been made of brick and had other similar design elements, they could still have been larger, or 2 story, but would have fit in. Enhancing the nature of the neighborhood.
There are several ways by which infill development can be done better. All are "Context Sensitive" in one way or another.
1. Reflecting the prevailing style or styles.
2. Reflecting similar wall planes and proportions.
Radically different styles can work together if they have similar set backs, proportions, and wall planes. Not every neighborhood would want that or would it work in. But some it may.
Some neighborhoods, especially those that have mostly one style of home, the infill would work best imo, if it reflects the style of the homes already there.
The other option is to go completely ecclectic and that be the "style" of the area.
I am not against infill, or bigger houses, but it seems that there is no rhyme or reason, no direction for these different streets or neighborhoods. So rather than each area developing in a reasoned way, picking one or another approach, its just happening without any coordination or over all thought to which may be the best approach for that area, or what the community may want. So you end up with the potential for messes everywhere.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
to either, so no loss either way in my book. The best scenario in an area with those homes would have been if the "infill" homes respected the style of their neighbors. If the new ones had had similar roof pitches, been made of brick and had other similar design elements, they could still have been larger, or 2 story, but would have fit in. Enhancing the nature of the neighborhood.
There are several ways by which infill development can be done better. All are "Context Sensitive" in one way or another.
1. Reflecting the prevailing style or styles.
2. Reflecting similar wall planes and proportions.
Radically different styles can work together if they have similar set backs, proportions, and wall planes. Not every neighborhood would want that or would it work in. But some it may.
Some neighborhoods, especially those that have mostly one style of home, the infill would work best imo, if it reflects the style of the homes already there.
The other option is to go completely ecclectic and that be the "style" of the area.
I am not against infill, or bigger houses, but it seems that there is no rhyme or reason, no direction for these different streets or neighborhoods. So rather than each area developing in a reasoned way, picking one or another approach, its just happening without any coordination or over all thought to which may be the best approach for that area, or what the community may want. So you end up with the potential for messes everywhere.
"Context sensitive" is exactly what these featured monstrosities DON'T do. They're the exact opposite of context sensitive. I'm glad I don't live in one of the neighborhoods, because I'd have taken it upon myself to keep those things from going up, and I just don't have that much time [;)]...
While I totally agree these houses, and many like them in midtown, do not fit into their respective neighborhoods it is still infill which is better than sprawl. If these houses weren't in established neighborhoods they would be in a far-flung neighborhood most likely in a suburb and not even in Tulsa. So while the design and context of the houses can be better and should be better, I honestly don't mind seeing older, smaller homes torn down for these larger, newer homes. I'd rather see more of these in midtown rather than a new subdivision of them in Jenks or Owasso...
^^Infill is not tearing down one house and replacing it with another. Infill is filling is spaces that are undeveloped, underdeveloped, are just unused, and creating more density. Tearing down one house and replacing it with another bigger house is not creating more density, its just taking up more space, and creating termendous waste. If a house is obsolete, and no one wants to live there, I agree it should be torn down for a new one. I don't know what houses stood before the new ones, but I bet at least a few of them were perfectly good, livable, albeit small, houses. So the person who was planning on buying a small, starter house in Tulsa may go out to Broken Arrow to do so. You haven't stopped sprawl at all; you've just switched families.
I agree, it is waste. But neighborhoods evolve over time. If it is worth buying a lot to tear down the house and put up some megahome, so be it. I'd rather a developer buy up a run-down area or utilize empty space in the Gilcrease Hills, but it appears customers don't want that.
So if mega-houses are going to be squished on to tiny lots and the choice is Owasso or in Tulsa, it might as well be in Tulsa. The homes described aren't really starter homes anyway, the lot values are too high even if the "home" itself isn't worth the price (hence making it worth buying for the location). So I agree with SXSW.
Now, personally... I see little attraction to many of these homes. They don't fit in or make an attempt to do so. They take up too much and not enough of the lot for my taste (if you are going to take up 80% of the lot, go somewhere and build them brownstone style with next to no yard at all). And frankly, I just don't like many of the styles even if they did fit in.
But I would not advocate for rules prohibiting them. Rule encouraging actual infill, redevelopment or increased density? Absolutely. Otherwise, let the market figure this out. The resale of a mega home that is an architectural white whale will punish the builder.
/full disclosure, the house next to me was bought and bulldozed for a new home (mold in attic did it in) and it worked out for the best.
There is no accounting for taste. The White Whale is hideous.
This is what happens when you have a lottery. [;)]
I wonder if the owner will haver a bass boat parked in the driveway?
This was obviously designed by an amateur. It doesn't look like there is 36' between the garages meaning they will have to back up all the way out of the driveway if they can. The garages are single car meaning that someone is going to take out the center post attempting to turn into the garage. For most cars you will need a minimum of 28' to perform a 90 degree turn. I think they will need to rethink this design (a little late).
The EFIS goes all the way to the ground (if that's EFIS). That's against code. Mold will grow behind the EFIS. I bet I could walk around this house and find half a dozen violations.
Must have been one of those Wal-mart 3D home design programs.
One thing is certain. It will never sell again. This is disposable.
quote:
Originally posted by SXSW
While I totally agree these houses, and many like them in midtown, do not fit into their respective neighborhoods it is still infill which is better than sprawl. If these houses weren't in established neighborhoods they would be in a far-flung neighborhood most likely in a suburb and not even in Tulsa. So while the design and context of the houses can be better and should be better, I honestly don't mind seeing older, smaller homes torn down for these larger, newer homes. I'd rather see more of these in midtown rather than a new subdivision of them in Jenks or Owasso...
You can have infill and it fit in. It can be a larger, new home and fit in.
There are various ways that a neighborhood can choose to have infill homes fit in.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
You can have infill and it fit in. It can be a larger, new home and fit in.
I have tried and tried, and no matter what I do, I can't fit in....to these pants anymore.
Would someone let me know who the builder is?
quote:
Originally posted by patric
Quote
The builder is La Bella Homes (Julius J. Puma) 298-6700.
From an earlier post in the thread. [:)]
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaMINI
quote:
Originally posted by patric
Quote
The builder is La Bella Homes (Julius J. Puma) 298-6700.
From an earlier post in the thread. [:)]
He's part of the Jenks River District Development Group. He's built some homes in the Villas of Tuscany and Wind River. Only joined the HBA last April, but it looks like he's let that membership lapse.
This home is very poor PR for him. Builders have a responsibility to the communities that they build in, as well as to their clients. I hope this is not a reflection of what we might see in the River District Development.
This is an irresponsible project. This would make a great story for the nightly news, and a good case study for the Tulsa HBA Builders Council to discuss.
So nice that this builder saw to put the garages so prominently in front of the house. That is, of course, one of the nicer elements of a home, so naturally you want to emphasize it. [V]
And it blends in so nicely with all the other houses on the street, too... [:(]
quote:
Originally posted by patric
And what would a 3rd-story tower be without all-night lighting?
[8D]
That is by far the worst 'feature' of this house. I'm weird, I actually sort of like the form, aside from the completely blank garage walls, but lighting other people's property? That's just rude. It makes me want to pull an inteller and start cursing.
oh yes thats right, I'm the only one that curses around here[}:)]
He must drive a Smart car. That looks like the only car that you'd be able to turn into those garage door openings...
Why would anyone let that house happen?
"A mighty fortress is our home..."
Does anyone know why Tulsa wasn't designed with alleys? In cities where they have alleys, you've got plenty of room for a garage in the back. Plus, you have a terrific place to run utilities and hide the trash cans. Then, you can dedicate the front of your house to being beautiful and pedestrian friendly. (When you don't have to fill your front yard with a driveway, you can have smaller lots that feel bigger, and you can also have more trees / landscaping.)
Alleys: the cure to the "Garage-mahal."
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
"A mighty fortress is our home..."
Does anyone know why Tulsa wasn't designed with alleys? In cities where they have alleys, you've got plenty of room for a garage in the back. Plus, you have a terrific place to run utilities and hide the trash cans. Then, you can dedicate the front of your house to being beautiful and pedestrian friendly. (When you don't have to fill your front yard with a driveway, you can have smaller lots that feel bigger, and you can also have more trees / landscaping.)
Alleys: the cure to the "Garage-mahal."
I have relatives that live in Dallas. Several of those neighborhoods have alleys. They are wonderful.
Not sure what would prevent the concept here except the expense. Lots more pavement, drainage, and engineering. I'd say it would be quite a bit more expensive and produce a far lower yield, but if you could find people willing to pay an extra 50k to 100K for a house with an alley than it's doable.
My aunt used to tell a story about how she lived in her house in Dallas for 6 years before she ever met her neighbors across the street. People in her neighborhood seldom went out into their front yards, so at least in her example, it was less likely to produce a friendly pedestrian environment. But then again I don't think she was ever a pedestrian. Few people are anymore.
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
"A mighty fortress is our home..."
Does anyone know why Tulsa wasn't designed with alleys? In cities where they have alleys, you've got plenty of room for a garage in the back. Plus, you have a terrific place to run utilities and hide the trash cans. Then, you can dedicate the front of your house to being beautiful and pedestrian friendly. (When you don't have to fill your front yard with a driveway, you can have smaller lots that feel bigger, and you can also have more trees / landscaping.)
Alleys: the cure to the "Garage-mahal."
Some of the older neighborhoods in Tulsa were designed with alleys. North Maple Ridge, Swan Lake had/has alleys. My house (built in 1915) had an alley at one time, but sometime around the '50s, the city closed off the alley, and deeded the property to the abuting owners. While I like alleys, I know many that hate them--they say it encourages the "wrong element." Not sure the truth of that, but I suppose that a darken alley that isn't visible from the street may be a good spot for some one to hang out.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
"A mighty fortress is our home..."
Does anyone know why Tulsa wasn't designed with alleys? In cities where they have alleys, you've got plenty of room for a garage in the back. Plus, you have a terrific place to run utilities and hide the trash cans. Then, you can dedicate the front of your house to being beautiful and pedestrian friendly. (When you don't have to fill your front yard with a driveway, you can have smaller lots that feel bigger, and you can also have more trees / landscaping.)
Alleys: the cure to the "Garage-mahal."
Some of the older neighborhoods in Tulsa were designed with alleys. North Maple Ridge, Swan Lake had/has alleys. My house (built in 1915) had an alley at one time, but sometime around the '50s, the city closed off the alley, and deeded the property to the abuting owners. While I like alleys, I know many that hate them--they say it encourages the "wrong element." Not sure the truth of that, but I suppose that a darken alley that isn't visible from the street may be a good spot for some one to hang out.
My aunt lived in a nice neighborhood, but the homeless would populate the ally, and every now and then one would get hit or run over at night sleeping near the garbage cans. I never heard of any violent crime, but then again I only visited her a few times a year.
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
"A mighty fortress is our home..."
Does anyone know why Tulsa wasn't designed with alleys? In cities where they have alleys, you've got plenty of room for a garage in the back. Plus, you have a terrific place to run utilities and hide the trash cans. Then, you can dedicate the front of your house to being beautiful and pedestrian friendly. (When you don't have to fill your front yard with a driveway, you can have smaller lots that feel bigger, and you can also have more trees / landscaping.)
Alleys: the cure to the "Garage-mahal."
Alleys also make it easier for theives to break in and few people see them. I know, I owned a home in Richardson, just north of Dallas and my home was burglarized from thieves coming from the alley.
Alleys where everyone has privacy fences even worse.
So yes, they have advantages, but disadvantages too. This one was big for me.
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
"A mighty fortress is our home..."
Does anyone know why Tulsa wasn't designed with alleys? In cities where they have alleys, you've got plenty of room for a garage in the back. Plus, you have a terrific place to run utilities and hide the trash cans. Then, you can dedicate the front of your house to being beautiful and pedestrian friendly. (When you don't have to fill your front yard with a driveway, you can have smaller lots that feel bigger, and you can also have more trees / landscaping.)
Alleys: the cure to the "Garage-mahal."
Where I grew up (suburban Philly, PA), there was a mix of alleys, not alleys, single family homes and duplexes. I would not say that the alley made smaller lots feel bigger. A lot of back yard space was lost and there was the potential danger of vehicles essentially driving through the edges of your back yard. The no alley option was safer for little kids to play in the back yard. Our block had an alley at one end for about half the block, not our end. The best deal was for the family that had the alley end at the edge of their property but not go through. The duplexes did not have enough room to put a driveway between the houses so for them to have a garage, the alley made sense, but they had almost no yard. OK if that's what you want. We were a little over 20 ft from our neighbor, enough room for either a shared driveway or one of your own on one side. The hill our street was on probably had some impact on the alley/driveway situation.
I don't know who or what entity was responsible for maintenance of the alley but most were not in that good shape.
quote:
Originally posted by patric
It looks like patterned concrete will be replacing lawn.
Must have been inspired by the bars on Brookside.
Wonder if they did a drainage study?
Residential permits don't require one. But they do require a certain amount of "livability area" which is unpaved, unbuilt on area (grass/landscape). I've had many plans sent back to me for not having enough.
I just saw that thing for the first time today. I usually really like modern architecture, but that thing is hideous, and way out of place for the neighborhood.
I drove past the other day and they are replacing the roof already. Last time they were having to redo the stucco. Not the best endorsement for a builder.
Looks like crap.
But then Tulsa gave up on architecture decades ago. Example; Williams Tower in place of the Rialto, the Orpheum, and the other urban renewal victims of the early '70s.
Sweeping statement moment:
I have looked around in some of the "significant" housing additions in Tulsa from time to time looking for another house. Have noticed when talking to the homeowners associations, many have an incredible array of "self worth", like their addition is soooo extremely exclusive and "all that". But then, many if not most of the houses in same additions have garages as the main architectural element of the house.
Garages are proof positive that there is NO architectural consideration in either the design of the house OR the addition.
Is an architect required to sign-off a single family dwelling design? Can anyone familiar with the building codes design a house? I don't know, just asking.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 22, 2010, 09:13:24 PM
But then Tulsa gave up on architecture decades ago. Example; Williams Tower in place of the Rialto, the Orpheum, and the other urban renewal victims of the early '70s.
...
Garages are proof positive that there is NO architectural consideration in either the design of the house OR the addition.
Most of the time. Every once in a while you see a garage done in a way that livens up the house (carriage house style doors, as one example). Anything you do starts to look cheap when every third house on a street looks the same, though. And it would still be better if there weren't an obvious garage.
Eh, I like the style of the Williams Tower. (err..BOk building..or whatever you want to call it) I'm weird, though. I think brutalist architecture is pretty neat, as long as there isn't a lot of development in that style in one area. For me, it's all about variety. Having both simplistic and ornate near each other pleases me, as it keeps the ornate buildings from looking overdone and it keeps the buildings with simpler lines from looking plain.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 22, 2010, 09:44:19 PM
Is an architect required to sign-off a single family dwelling design? Can anyone familiar with the building codes design a house? I don't know, just asking.
No Architect reguired and actually no requirment to be familar with codes either to design a house...
It's not necessarily the tower itself, although it in no way comes anywhere near the class of the rest of downtown Tulsa design... but the lost items bulldozed so we could have that thing. I can remember going to the movies and other stores in the area lost.
Also remember working on some of the disassembly of the Rialto. Magnificent place!! Terrible loss!
Not going to lie.. I actually like the new infill "McAwfuls." I dislike tearing down significant 2-story colonials, but let's be real.
This house
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3291/2670184448_e7fa98bed1.jpg)
Is not this house
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3127/2670195380_179578ab47.jpg)
Of course we should fight against destroying the more significant homes (like the bottom pic) as well as the environment around them, but as for homes like the top pic.. let's face it. It's insignificant, small, and not worth what the bottom pic is. Nor is it an architectural style that is unique enough to preserve, such as with the Lortondale homes. The house in the top pic, in terms of Midtown Tulsa, truly is what you call a tear-down--no offense to who lives there but hey, it aint the Philbrook.
Maybe if Midtown is opposed to any new construction replacing homes 40+ years old, the city should step in and propose a "zone" for tear-downs..designate a neighborhood that's close to downtown, where nobody would miss an existing home. Maybe one of the neighborhoods that back up to the BA? That way you capitalize on the market forces that are always going to lead to infill McMansions and you can improve a neighborhood at the same time.
You should have centered your picture better on the tear-down at the left side rather than the nice brick house more in the center.
Well, I live in a neighborhood that has many of these insignificant homes but from a different age. Our little craftsman cottages built in the first decades of the 20th century, were overshadowed by the nearby "real mansions" built during the following oil boom. Had we followed your logic, an entire species of home would have been destroyed in the rush to build bigger, brick ranch style ramblers during the Eisenhower and Johnson era's. At one time even the large mansions were held in low esteem as "dated" energy guzzlers that required too much energy to make habitable. Now these homes, which include impossible to recreate elements and extremely durable materials, are in demand. We exceed $ per square foot of most of the city. The mid century homes you so cavalierly want to replace may someday be revered.
Be patient, live and let live.
Quote from: spartanokc on May 09, 2010, 02:22:20 AM
Of course we should fight against destroying the more significant homes (like the bottom pic) as well as the environment around them, but as for homes like the top pic.. let's face it. It's insignificant, small, and not worth what the bottom pic is. Nor is it an architectural style that is unique enough to preserve, such as with the Lortondale homes. The house in the top pic, in terms of Midtown Tulsa, truly is what you call a tear-down--no offense to who lives there but hey, it aint the Philbrook.
Maybe if Midtown is opposed to any new construction replacing homes 40+ years old, the city should step in and propose a "zone" for tear-downs..designate a neighborhood that's close to downtown, where nobody would miss an existing home. Maybe one of the neighborhoods that back up to the BA? That way you capitalize on the market forces that are always going to lead to infill McMansions and you can improve a neighborhood at the same time.
While you make the case that there exists 'disposable architecture' in Tulsa, it's too much of a leap to imply that justifies replacing them with this
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3122/2670196322_4f37bae3b5.jpg)
Quote from: patric on May 09, 2010, 12:07:59 PM
While you make the case that there exists 'disposable architecture' in Tulsa, it's too much of a leap to imply that justifies replacing them with this
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3122/2670196322_4f37bae3b5.jpg)
The house in this picture is truly aesthetically challenged. It's not only worthy of a tear down, it never should have been built in the first place, anywhere in Oklahoma.
Some of the houses near 31st or 41st and Lewis were built without insulation. At the time they were built, it was cheaper to heat and cool them than to insulate them. At least that is what one of my professors from TU said when he moved out of one of those houses in the late 70s for what we would now call a greener house.
Quote from: waterboy on May 09, 2010, 12:00:41 PM
Now these homes, which include impossible to recreate elements and extremely durable materials, are in demand. We exceed $ per square foot of most of the city. The mid century homes you so cavalierly want to replace may someday be revered.
Are "these" homes the cottages, brick ramblers, or true mansions? All 3?
Is it really impossible to recreate them or just economically unfeasible? I'm not interested in recreating lead based paint but aside from safety issues, it should be
possible to recreate almost any style.
Many of these homes were built with materials that are nearly impossible to find, like old growth Loblolly Pine, Walnut and quarter sawn Oak. Rock from area quarries that no longer exist or are no longer available. Even the humble cottages have solid brass fixtures, maple flooring, ornate light fixtures and basements. Where do you find the skills necessary to produce a lath and plaster wall? (Of course there are also examples of brickwork using Arkansas River sand that had too high content of salt which caused them to crumble and plumbing that is just plain wierd by today's standards).
When you consider that each generation of workers has different materials available, different labor skill sets and different tools to work with, you find that you may put together an expensive facsimile of them but not an exact replica. Take into account skills possessed by period artists and local artisans who designed them and you find its not possible. How do you replace a mural done by the Artist twenty years after his demise? The best example is the Pyramids. We simply couldn't do them today. Apparently we can't do streets anymore either.
Anyway, what I'm saying is that judgements made about even the humblest of simple brick Ranch style homes that they are not worthy because they could be better replaced with larger, more modern, more acceptable styles is suspect to me. I happen to remember being thrilled when I had a chance to rent one of those simple brick homes that OKSpartan thinks is not worthy. A two car garage! Oak floors! Two baths! Astonishing!
One man's ceiling.....
Quote from: waterboy on May 09, 2010, 05:48:42 PM
... you find that you may put together an expensive facsimile of them but not an exact replica.
I'll have to agree there would not be an exact replica.
Local natural materials would certainly be a problem as you described. Solid brass fixtures, lath and plaster walls could probably be done but would certainly be expensive. Original artwork can never really be replaced but a new artwork could be put in its place. Never the quite the same but possibly still acceptable. I have seen on This Old House where they replace plaster trim etc with like materials. They repair/replace fancy woodwork with new pieces that I cannot tell from the original, at least on the TV screen. That talent may not exist in Tulsa but evidently it can be found.
My intent was to repair or replace a style of home/building with something very close to similar rather than a complete change of style.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 09, 2010, 11:32:03 AM
You should have centered your picture better on the tear-down at the left side rather than the nice brick house more in the center.
I agree. That house on 27th sticks out like the a$$ on a baboon in that neighborhood. It's awful! It's like someone took a nice 3,500 sq/ft South Tulsa home and smashed it onto a tiny midtown lot. All Drivit and odd sized windows with no landscaping to even attempt to blend it to the lot or neighborhood.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3291/2670184448_e7fa98bed1.jpg)
It is very difficult to argue what is good aesthetics versus what is just very bad taste when it applies to McMansions.
That being said, McMansions can also have the following impact:
1) Removal of affordable, entry level housing in midtown neighborhoods
2) Removal of the tree canopy
3) Increased lot coverage creates increased stormwater run-off
4) Decreased property values
5) Increased construction debris in our landfills
6) Increased impact on our aging sewer systems
The "Build, Baby, Build" mantra of the HBA and realtors is a dangerous war chant.
Quote from: HelenH on May 10, 2010, 08:56:15 AM
It is very difficult to argue what is good aesthetics versus what is just very bad taste when it applies to McMansions.
That being said, McMansions can also have the following impact:
1) Removal of affordable, entry level housing in midtown neighborhoods
2) Removal of the tree canopy
3) Increased lot coverage creates increased stormwater run-off
4) Decreased property values
5) Increased construction debris in our landfills
6) Increased impact on our aging sewer systems
The "Build, Baby, Build" mantra of the HBA and realtors is a dangerous war chant.
I think McMansions represent one heck of a lot of audacity to come in and build something entirely out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. To me, it screams out that someone either didn't want to drive in from a suburb where their creation would have been more at home or they were too cheap to pay the cost of admission to build the home in an appropriate crammed together development for similar McMansions in mid-town. I see there is movement in replacing ranch style homes between 26th & 31st just west of Harvard with dryvit Tuscan nightmares. Sure many of the homes being torn down aren't considered "historically significant" but coming in and just deciding you want to plop down something entirely out of whack with the neighborhood just screams to me: "Hey I'm a totally inconsiderate bastard, and I'm your neighbor now!!!"
All that points to the Tulsa-lack-of-planning and the UnZoning commission.
Plus the people who have been sold the bill of goods that somehow having more volume (bigger box) is somehow a standard of living consideration. Yeah, the HBA is better off. The property tax man is better off. The vendors of building supplies is better off. You as a home buyer/owner are not.
And granite counter tops.
Here is something to pique some interest and maybe discussion...
http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/
And LortonDale. Geez, what a mess those were. Pure example of how some fool architect so completely ran out of ideas that they just stopped and said, "Ok, I give up. Build a box and just put a lid on it."
Oh, yeah, and we can save some money by leaving off the garage. Just make a carport and we will call it a feature. Can be a 'front yard patio'.
And we now call it "design".
What was that story about the Emperor who had some special clothes??
I knew an architect of the era who was appalled by that mess. (Can you spell "snow" - as in our 12" March storms?)
You don't have to be an architect in Oklahoma to design a house (or even a commercial building under 3 stories). Many of these homes are selected by builders or homeowners from catalogs, and then the attempt is made to cram it on a lot. Some are designed by the builder, taking ideas from other builders and attempting to merge 3, 4, 10 different styles into a single look. Some are provided by hardware vendors who offer a bargain price on windows, doors, or moldings if you use their designs, or provide the design for free as a way to sell product.
IMO the lack of an architect's eye when it comes to residential design is the root of the problem. If Tulsa required an architect's stamp on each residential plan, most (if not all) of this would stop. To an architect, the surrounding architecture has a great deal of bearing on the design.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 10, 2010, 01:16:35 PM
And LortonDale. Geez, what a mess those were. Pure example of how some fool architect so completely ran out of ideas that they just stopped and said, "Ok, I give up. Build a box and just put a lid on it."
Oh, yeah, and we can save some money by leaving off the garage. Just make a carport and we will call it a feature. Can be a 'front yard patio'.
And we now call it "design".
What was that story about the Emperor who had some special clothes??
I knew an architect of the era who was appalled by that mess. (Can you spell "snow" - as in our 12" March storms?)
You obviously know nothing of MCM architecture, nor have you paid close attention to Lortondale. After several decades of viewing Lortondale as a "dump" and "anachronism" I finally saw the inside of one of these around Xmas of '08. I had no idea the potential of these homes, nor had I bothered to drive around the neighborhood and see how much renovation and preservation had been done. Unfortunately, the only look most people get of Lortondale is some of the neglected corner homes along Yale. I wound up buying one of these homes a few months later and have never regretted the decision.
My house is one of a very, very small handful which were built without a garage originally. Many were converted to extra rooms as became the rage to do with attached garages in many types of homes around Tulsa in the late '60's through the '80's. So your comment about lack of garages shows your relative ignorance on the style.
This design style introduced some design elements which we still see used (even in traditionals) today, like open floor plans, great rooms, and lots of natural lighting. This was also the first (or one of the first) planned community(ies) in the country with central heat & air, dishwashers as a standard feature, and floating slab foundations which were quite innovative. They featured great casework and millwork which was all done on-site in the development.
Whether you like it or not, it's an historically significant neighborhood. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but I think you are suffering from the same myopia I was before I had actually been in one of the houses or paid attention to what's happening in that neighborhood today.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 11, 2010, 07:50:36 AM
IMO the lack of an architect's eye when it comes to residential design is the root of the problem. If Tulsa required an architect's stamp on each residential plan, most (if not all) of this would stop. To an architect, the surrounding architecture has a great deal of bearing on the design.
It would be nice to require an architect design all new structures, but that would be a great way to stop infill in its tracks. I think a better solution would be neighborhood oriented regulations. If nobody else around you is using more than x% of their lot, you ought not be using more than x+10% or so. Similarly, infill shouldn't be built a whole lot taller than the existing stock surrounding it.
I almost like the style of the house that sparked this thread, or I would if it didn't have the enormous garages. I find some merit in almost everything that hasn't been overdone in thirty subdivisions in town already, though.
Quote from: spartanokc on May 09, 2010, 02:22:20 AM
Not going to lie.. I actually like the new infill "McAwfuls." I dislike tearing down significant 2-story colonials, but let's be real.
This house
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3291/2670184448_e7fa98bed1.jpg)
Is not this house
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3127/2670195380_179578ab47.jpg)
Of course we should fight against destroying the more significant homes (like the bottom pic) as well as the environment around them, but as for homes like the top pic.. let's face it. It's insignificant, small, and not worth what the bottom pic is. Nor is it an architectural style that is unique enough to preserve, such as with the Lortondale homes. The house in the top pic, in terms of Midtown Tulsa, truly is what you call a tear-down--no offense to who lives there but hey, it aint the Philbrook.
Maybe if Midtown is opposed to any new construction replacing homes 40+ years old, the city should step in and propose a "zone" for tear-downs..designate a neighborhood that's close to downtown, where nobody would miss an existing home. Maybe one of the neighborhoods that back up to the BA? That way you capitalize on the market forces that are always going to lead to infill McMansions and you can improve a neighborhood at the same time.
Glad my photos have come in handy.
However, I think you're missing the point of all of these photos.
All of these photos were taken
in the same neighborhood, within around a two block radius, and the homes in the top and bottom picture are basically around the corner from one another. The neighborhood isn't all the same style (and that's not a bad thing), but that doesn't mean that the top house is any more 'teardown-ready' than any of the others. All of the houses in the neighborhood basically are of the same scale, generally set back the same, and have other similarities in their massing, roof pitches, etc. Are there variations in all of these? Of course. But none of the variations are drastic, as is the case with the McMansions. Just because you don't think the house is stylish enough or big enough doesn't mean it should be torn down and be replaced with a monstrosity like its new McNeighbor.
Its new McNeighbor doesn't fit a single aspect of that neighborhood. It's tall, its massing and scale are completely out of tune with the entire neighborhood, and to be quite honest, it makes the owners look foolish and ridiculous for building it. It's simply out of place, and if you suggest that simply because the top house isn't
significant enough to save, you're mistaken. If more people followed that logic, most neighborhoods in most cities would be ripped to shreds by McMansions. And I find it quite comical that you think THOSE little houses aren't significant enough, but that the McMansions are. Quite the opposite is true.
We've already discussed at length the qualities that give charm to a neighborhood. So please, do tell, how do these McMansions that I have photographed add to the a) charm, b) integrity, c) neighborliness, or d) uniqueness of that neighborhood?
Quote from: nathanm on May 11, 2010, 02:43:55 PM
I think a better solution would be neighborhood oriented regulations.
This. Most architects these days couldn't design themselves out of a paper bag. Seems the current design trend is ugly and obnoxious with too many lines going in too many directions - hardly what I'd want to call 'home'.
People want to live there and their best solution is to tear down an old house. Sad that's true, but that is life and capitalism. The first one looks out of place but once they start going.... In 60 years somebody will be saying the same about people that want to get rid of the McMansions.
Quote from: Trogdor on May 12, 2010, 06:33:32 AM
People want to live there and their best solution is to tear down an old house. Sad that's true, but that is life and capitalism. The first one looks out of place but once they start going.... In 60 years somebody will be saying the same about people that want to get rid of the McMansions.
I really doubt most of the McMansions are built to last more than 25 or 30 years. And the capitalism argument doesn't really hold--when you build anything with cheap, almost disposable materials, it hardly seems like a good investment. I doubt these houses will maintain their value in the long term, and even if they did, I think that in the next 5-10 years, people are going to be increasingly leery of buying them and increasingly aware of the amount of destruction they have caused to the neighborhood.
Even if a teardown actually is necessary, building something like the above is absolutely not. There are great ways of doing infill. McMansions are not.
Quote from: dsjeffries on May 12, 2010, 08:36:17 AM
I really doubt most of the McMansions are built to last more than 25 or 30 years. And the capitalism argument doesn't really hold--when you build anything with cheap, almost disposable materials, it hardly seems like a good investment. I doubt these houses will maintain their value in the long term, and even if they did, I think that in the next 5-10 years, people are going to be increasingly leery of buying them and increasingly aware of the amount of destruction they have caused to the neighborhood.
Even if a teardown actually is necessary, building something like the above is absolutely not. There are great ways of doing infill. McMansions are not.
I was using capitalism in the sense that, the people with the money make the rules.
If somebody wants to buy something they buy it. If they want to tear down their own house then they should be able to tear it down. They could build a new house every year if they wanted to if they had the money. And everybody else has the right to buy these houses and hold them so nobody tears them down. I am not saying that its what is best, but if somebody has the money and wants to live in that location they can.
Quote from: Trogdor on May 12, 2010, 09:10:36 AM
I was using capitalism in the sense that, the people with the money make the rules.
If somebody wants to buy something they buy it. If they want to tear down their own house then they should be able to tear it down. They could build a new house every year if they wanted to if they had the money. And everybody else has the right to buy these houses and hold them so nobody tears them down. I am not saying that its what is best, but if somebody has the money and wants to live in that location they can.
Enforceable neighborhood covenants and/or strict zoning policies would put an end to this. I think the rights of all neighborhood owners should exceed that of the individual homeowner when it comes to what they can or can't do with a lot for the simple reason that if someone wants to put something on a lot which adversely affects the value of surrounding properties, it hurts the other owners. Building a house out of character for the neighborhood may well increase market time for other homes if you can't find willing buyers for properties adjacent to a McMansion which totally usurped set-backs, spacing, and style for the 'hood. I do appreciate your point that someone should be able to do as they see fit with personal property (though real estate and personal property are essentially two different things).
I'm all about individual liberty, but when someone exercizing their liberty starts to impinge on the liberty of others, it becomes an issue.
You wouldn't be able to build a McDonald's in the middle of a residential neighborhood, if it were your personal property or not. Building a giant monstrosity complete with dance floor and sniper's nest in the middle of a quaint mid-town neighborhood is damn near as absurd.
Conan71> > "Enforceable neighborhood covenants and/or strict zoning policies would put an end to this. I think the rights of all neighborhood owners should exceed that of the individual homeowner when it comes to what they can or can't do with a lot for the simple reason that if someone wants to put something on a lot which adversely affects the value of surrounding properties, it hurts the other owners. Building a house out of character for the neighborhood may well increase market time for other homes if you can't find willing buyers for properties adjacent to a McMansion which totally usurped set-backs, spacing, and style for the 'hood. I do appreciate your point that someone should be able to do as they see fit with personal property (though real estate and personal property are essentially two different things).
I'm all about individual liberty, but when someone exercizing their liberty starts to impinge on the liberty of others, it becomes an issue.
Very well balanced opinion. You should be the one being nominated to be on the TMAPC, with Michelle.
Instead of the man named Gomez....
The "chicano that is muy estupido"
Err.. How does building a house on your own property infringe "liberties" of your neighbor. Actually, you would be infringing their liberties by putting restrictions on what they can do with what they own. I think it would be interesting to find that higher dollar houses brings down the surrounding houses. Conventional wisdom is the other way around. In fact, I think if you had 1 $100k house that was surrounded by 5 million dollar homes on the same lot size it would increase substantially.
I am just taking the other side. I honestly don't care. As long as homeowners in a neighborhood agree to certain rules then they should be carefully disclosed to expected buyers before purchasing in the area and then enforced.
Quote from: Trogdor on May 12, 2010, 10:44:46 AM
Err.. How does building a house on your own property infringe "liberties" of your neighbor. Actually, you would be infringing their liberties by putting restrictions on what they can do with what they own. I think it would be interesting to find that higher dollar houses brings down the surrounding houses. Conventional wisdom is the other way around. In fact, I think if you had 1 $100k house that was surrounded by 5 million dollar homes on the same lot size it would increase substantially.
I am just taking the other side. I honestly don't care. As long as homeowners in a neighborhood agree to certain rules then they should be carefully disclosed to expected buyers before purchasing in the area and then enforced.
This is how I'm viewing it, Trog: If someone plants a modern monstrosity in the midst of modest colonials, someone who wants to live in a colonial neighborhood will likely avoid being on a block where someone plopped down a blighted tribute to themselves. They certainly won't purchase a house right next to or across from the design which goes against the prevailing design in the neighborhood. That drives down demand, and ergo value of the surrounding properties at the least. Someone will eventually buy one of the surrounding homes when they come on the market because, chances are, they will either be considered a great deal for the neighborhood or purchased by someone who really doesn't care what the neighbor's homes look like. In all cases, it may not drive down costs, but in many cases it will.
I know if I wanted to enjoy the charm of a Florence Park Gingerbread, I sure as heck wouldn't buy one across the street from or next to some hideous knockdown/rebuild with a garage on the front which looks like it belongs in a generic Broken Arrow neighborhood. I'm not alone in that line of thinking, I'm quite sure.
I can honestly see a property owner wanting the right to do whatever improvements they see fit. I simply don't think it should be allowed where it negatively impacts the value of other's properties, and disrupts the flow of the neighborhood.
Great discussion, BTW.
Oh, and Rico, I'm flattered ;)
Quote from: Conan71 on May 12, 2010, 12:33:11 PM
This is how I'm viewing it, Trog: If someone plants a modern monstrosity in the midst of modest colonials, someone who wants to live in a colonial neighborhood will likely avoid being on a block where someone plopped down a blighted tribute to themselves. They certainly won't purchase a house right next to or across from the design which goes against the prevailing design in the neighborhood. That drives down demand, and ergo value of the surrounding properties at the least. Someone will eventually buy one of the surrounding homes when they come on the market because, chances are, they will either be considered a great deal for the neighborhood or purchased by someone who really doesn't care what the neighbor's homes look like. In all cases, it may not drive down costs, but in many cases it will.
I know if I wanted to enjoy the charm of a Florence Park Gingerbread, I sure as heck wouldn't buy one across the street from or next to some hideous knockdown/rebuild with a garage on the front which looks like it belongs in a generic Broken Arrow neighborhood. I'm not alone in that line of thinking, I'm quite sure.
I can honestly see a property owner wanting the right to do whatever improvements they see fit. I simply don't think it should be allowed where it negatively impacts the value of other's properties, and disrupts the flow of the neighborhood.
Great discussion, BTW.
Oh, and Rico, I'm flattered ;)
Yeah.. I know what you mean about the houses.. I think it would limit one group but then increase the likely hood of a knockdown/rebuild buyer.
I know what you mean about the houses.. I know this isn't what you guys like (houses over 1200 sq ft).
But this house was for sale
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=715+w+98th+st,+jenks,+ok&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=45.8712,93.076172&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=715+W+98th+St,+Jenks,+Tulsa,+Oklahoma+74037&ll=36.019453,-96.000713&spn=0.005753,0.011362&z=17&layer=c&cbll=36.019461,-96.000853&panoid=eTVMuUdmN-9rFPTFTBEKZQ&cbp=12,211.29,,0,1.94 (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=715+w+98th+st,+jenks,+ok&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=45.8712,93.076172&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=715+W+98th+St,+Jenks,+Tulsa,+Oklahoma+74037&ll=36.019453,-96.000713&spn=0.005753,0.011362&z=17&layer=c&cbll=36.019461,-96.000853&panoid=eTVMuUdmN-9rFPTFTBEKZQ&cbp=12,211.29,,0,1.94) *sorry for the long URL* The neighborhood varies from 1970's to 2008 builds. Do a 360 and then go down 1 house to the white brick house. I wouldn't want to look at it every day.
Conan,
I met my first school and church friends in the late '50s. Several of them lived in Lortondale. The characters changed over the years, but there were always at least 3 or 4 - sometimes more who lived there and whom I visited fairly regularly. Even had a junior high school sweetheart who lived there and I saw her house a lot. Stopped going there in the early '70s.
The insides were mostly very nice places, like most in the surrounding 2 mile radius. Not huge, but neat, orderly, comfortable and if they had put some insulation in the walls....less drafty.
Still b*** ugly on the outside. I guess the designer used up all his imagination on the inside.
Full disclosure; here is a target for you. I feel the neighborhoods between about 4th and 15th, from Lewis to maybe Yale (??) have some of the finest examples of family home design, not just in Tulsa, but arguably anywhere in the country. (Not counting Maple Ridge because of the cost of admission...not really 'family friendly').
Hansel and Gretel houses are my favorites - brick with high peaked gables scattered around the house. Also have very fond memories of the "shotgun bungaloes" style. Love the big front porches!!
McMansions?? Obscene waste of time, space, energy (mental and physical, but also heating/cooling), and parts.
And as always; never bag your grass!!
I once owned the classic hansel & grettel gingerbread on the sw corner of 14th & Gary pl. Owned another down the block as well some 20 years later. MCM style was not widely accepted and long forgotten and maligned with many Tulsans (including myself for years). Fortunately there are people more astute than me who love them even more who started renovating and preserving them in the '90's. My tastes were always cottage and/or traditional so this was a surprise break for my tastes.
/edit- correcting iPhone & short hand errors...LOL
Quote from: YoungTulsan on May 12, 2010, 10:26:37 AM
You wouldn't be able to build a McDonald's in the middle of a residential neighborhood, if it were your personal property or not. Building a giant monstrosity complete with dance floor and sniper's nest in the middle of a quaint mid-town neighborhood is damn near as absurd.
I'm with you there, except on the sniper's nest. When the zombies start showing up, you'll wish you had a good sniping point. ;D
Quote from: tulsabug on May 13, 2010, 12:40:02 AM
I'm with you there, except on the sniper's nest. When the zombies start showing up, you'll wish you had a good sniping point. ;D
Here's what the fuss is about:
http://goo.gl/maps/JBfGg
Yeah, it fills the lot that it's sitting on, and it's different than those around it. Kind of reminds me of Deco meets FLW. I remember when just across Lewis from there, there were houses that resembled this style back in the 70's. Looking on Google Earth now, a lot of those are gone and now they've built mini-castles that are bigger than this, granted on larger lots. Not horrible, but not necessarily like the surrounding homes. But unless there's an HOA, or a city ordinance governing the area as say a "Historic District" you can build what you want.
A good example is a house a friend of mine owned in Phoenix, burned to the ground a year after he and his family sold the house, and the owners at the time apparently were losing the house, and a year after the fire a new house was built. It falls into the category of "One of these things is not like the others..."
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=2365+E+Larkspur+Dr,+Phoenix,+AZ&hl=en&sll=44.145446,-120.583402&sspn=5.541854,13.392334&oq=2365+E+Lark&hnear=2365+E+Larkspur+Dr,+Phoenix,+Arizona+85022&t=h&z=17 (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=2365+E+Larkspur+Dr,+Phoenix,+AZ&hl=en&sll=44.145446,-120.583402&sspn=5.541854,13.392334&oq=2365+E+Lark&hnear=2365+E+Larkspur+Dr,+Phoenix,+Arizona+85022&t=h&z=17)
So patric posts a link to the house that has resulted in 7 pages of posts? I don't see the problem. Maybe if those that find the house offensive looking can post pics of their homes--that way I can see their point of reference.
Quote from: guido911 on January 02, 2014, 03:13:26 AM
Maybe if those that find the house offensive looking can post pics of their homes--that way I can see their point of reference.
You've been to my house. I think that monster on 25th St is both out of place and fugly.
I think your house is nice but the neighborhood is a bit too crowded. The lots should be maybe 50% bigger.
I wonder how the next door neighbors feel. Hope they are not planning to sell anytime soon.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 02, 2014, 12:12:45 PM
I wonder how the next door neighbors feel. Hope they are not planning to sell anytime soon.
It would be fun to find a ritzy neighborhood that didn't quite have all the "t"s dotted and "i"s crossed and then do a tear-down and put in a double-wide.
;D
At the risk of greatly offending the resident art deco expert how is that house any different from this one?
http://goo.gl/maps/DLSzU
The above linked home was built in 1937, sits right on Utica and is loved by many. It shares zero architectural detail with it's neighbors but is adored by many. Is it because is has aged in a way that we now unique characteristics attractive? There are multiple examples of homes like this throughout midtown.
I crack up at the midtown elitists that deride south Tulsa for having cookie cutter neighborhoods, but the minute someone builds something different down the street from them it suddenly doesn't fit the "character" of their neighborhood.
Quote from: rdj on January 02, 2014, 12:30:54 PM
At the risk of greatly offending the resident art deco expert how is that house any different from this one?
http://goo.gl/maps/DLSzU
The garage is set back like the others for starters and that's one of the things that can make a big difference in how a house "fits in" with the neighborhood.
Often in certain zoning areas it is requested that your home or building have similar "wall planes" I believe it is called. Rather than having a large blank space or wall it should be broken up with either windows, doors, horizontal or vertical set-backs/roof lines, etc. The first floor and or second floor roof lines for example are of similar height (whether having a roof or not). Such that even if the architecture is Italian, Colonial, Ranch, French, or Art Deco the eye flows happily from house to house.
I think the 25th street house is beautiful (though I don't like the garages right out front blocking it, but in another context even those might be perfectly fine). And I do think it's too jarring for the neighborhood. Some neighborhoods are eclectic enough that, anything goes, is part of the "look". Sometimes a building that is different, can actually act as a unique and enjoyable "point of interest"... if done right. Some people don't have the knack for it and make an ugly mess. Just like decorating a room, there are all kinds of ways that a room can be beautiful and either have similar styles and colorings of objects or different styles etc., but there are still reasons why some things work or don't. Often people just go with an easy "style" color scheme or era with which to decorate. You can put in something totally different. But anyone looking at it can still tell whether that object works as a great accent piece or is just simply badly out of place. There are often way to many exceptions for someone to put down any rules as to how to do that for the layman. An artist can first "sense" whether this or that object works in this or that spot, and then stand back and figure out the reasons why, "Ah, it's because..." but there are so many exceptions and parameters to consider that it would be extremely difficult for the average person other than "I know it when I see it".
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 02, 2014, 12:18:25 PM
It would be fun to find a ritzy neighborhood that didn't quite have all the "t"s dotted and "i"s crossed and then do a tear-down and put in a double-wide.
;D
Nah, 1960's model single wide with old tires on the roof parked sideways, and a mid 70's Camaro in the yard with an A frame engine hoist holding the engine from the car. ;)
Quote from: guido911 on January 02, 2014, 03:13:26 AM
So patric posts a link to the house that has resulted in 7 pages of posts? I don't see the problem. Maybe if those that find the house offensive looking can post pics of their homes--that way I can see their point of reference.
My house would be offensive in that neighborhood. But it fits right in with all the other split level ranches on the street. Except that mine is not white. ;D
Kind of like the old saying "The well dressed man never stands out from the crowd. His style and sophistication, sets him apart."
Quote from: TheArtist on January 02, 2014, 01:37:12 PM
I think the 25th street house is beautiful (though I don't like the garages right out front blocking it, but in another context even those might be perfectly fine).
Even trying to look at it as a stand-alone, I don't find it attractive at all. To each his own I guess.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 02, 2014, 12:12:45 PM
I wonder how the next door neighbors feel. Hope they are not planning to sell anytime soon.
Actually, the house next door
is for sale...
Quote from: patric on January 18, 2014, 04:56:00 PM
Actually, the house next door is for sale...
How much do you want to bet it will sell low, only to be knocked down. Neighborhood cancer.
I'm glad I looked to see what this topic was about. That overhead Google shot made me laugh. Who owns that house Taylor Swift?
That picture is hilarious and awesome all rolled into one. Look how close the fence is to the walls of the house. Talk about using every minute dirt possibility.
Zero lawn maintenance and what a view of a crappy neighborhood. Better sit on that baby for at least 15 to 20 and hope to get half of what it cost to build it.
Come on guy's. Someone photo shopped that right? :D
Quote from: DolfanBob on January 21, 2014, 08:28:05 AM
I'm glad I looked to see what this topic was about. That overhead Google shot made me laugh. Who owns that house Taylor Swift?
That picture is hilarious and awesome all rolled into one. Look how close the fence is to the walls of the house. Talk about using every minute dirt possibility.
Zero lawn maintenance and what a view of a crappy neighborhood. Better sit on that baby for at least 15 to 20 and hope to get half of what it cost to build it.
Come on guy's. Someone photo shopped that right? :D
Other end of that neighborhood, very cool radical renovation of an existing ranch style home into something very modern. $568,000 asking price for 2200 square feet. I bet this stays on the market for awhile. I've walked through when they did an open house, it's a top notch build-out but whomever buys it is really going to screw themselves on the price per foot. Those are more like California market numbers.
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2753-S-Gary-Dr-Tulsa-OK-74114/22101054_zpid/
That is a cool looking house. I have always wondered. Were do these people work in Tulsa to afford half to over million dollar homes?
Quote from: DolfanBob on January 21, 2014, 11:25:47 AM
That is a cool looking house.
I disagree with your evaluation of "cool". Oops, nevermind. I thought we were still talking about the monstrosity. The one Conan referenced in OK.
QuoteI have always wondered. Where do these people work in Tulsa to afford half to over million dollar homes?
For the people who can afford $1 Million and more houses.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 21, 2014, 10:11:35 AM
Other end of that neighborhood, very cool radical renovation of an existing ranch style home into something very modern. $568,000 asking price for 2200 square feet. I bet this stays on the market for awhile. I've walked through when they did an open house, it's a top notch build-out but whomever buys it is really going to screw themselves on the price per foot. Those are more like California market numbers.
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2753-S-Gary-Dr-Tulsa-OK-74114/22101054_zpid/
Or maybe it will be on the market long enough that the price will drop enough to only be expensive for the neighborhood. I have no problem with the renovator taking a hit financially. Where is it written that every house improver will always make a handsome profit?
Quote from: Conan71 on January 21, 2014, 10:11:35 AM
Other end of that neighborhood, very cool radical renovation of an existing ranch style home into something very modern. $568,000 asking price for 2200 square feet. I bet this stays on the market for awhile. I've walked through when they did an open house, it's a top notch build-out but whomever buys it is really going to screw themselves on the price per foot. Those are more like California market numbers.
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2753-S-Gary-Dr-Tulsa-OK-74114/22101054_zpid/
In a similar neighborhood in Phoenix near my ex-inlaws you can get a similar size home and lot, with a pool for ~$410k, with annual taxes of about $3000.00.
http://mcassessor.maricopa.gov/?s=160-18-063&searchtype=apn (http://mcassessor.maricopa.gov/?s=160-18-063&searchtype=apn)
Dang it Red Arrow. I usually proof "resd". And people who live in those houses most of the time have secretaries and not low income lackeys like me.
Thanks again for pointing that out. :(
Based on the estimated value of the homes on the block, one could buy the next 3 homes on either side for less than the asking price of the reno.
Quote from: Rookie Okie on January 21, 2014, 12:52:22 PM
Based on the estimated value of the homes on the block, one could buy the next 3 homes on either side for less than the asking price of the reno.
I've just started a long-term selection process for a prospective move down into mid-town Tulsa in the Summer of 2015. I going to look long and hard at various areas and get a feel for where they are going before I worry about a specific house. I've already got several different saved searches in Realtor.com, Trulia.etc., and this scenario is relatively common all over midtown. A house that sold for $200K in 2012 and was renovated is now on sale for $450K or so, etc. The mid-century ranch type homes, which just about everybody is saying is going to be the next big boom, are especially feeling this effect.
If you expand the search parameters a bit around this house, you can find similarly priced (but not per-sqft-priced) homes. The renovator is betting on getting ahead of the trend. I think he probably over shot on this one, but I agree it's a cool house.
Quote from: rebound on January 21, 2014, 01:12:27 PM
I've just started a long-term selection process for a prospective move down into mid-town Tulsa in the Summer of 2015. I going to look long and hard at various areas and get a feel for where they are going before I worry about a specific house. I've already got several different saved searches in Realtor.com, Trulia.etc., and this scenario is relatively common all over midtown. A house that sold for $200K in 2012 and was renovated is now on sale for $450K or so, etc. The mid-century ranch type homes, which just about everybody is saying is going to be the next big boom, are especially feeling this effect.
If you expand the search parameters a bit around this house, you can find similarly priced (but not per-sqft-priced) homes. The renovator is betting on getting ahead of the trend. I think he probably over shot on this one, but I agree it's a cool house.
It's a fantastic build out and all high end stuff. Problem is, most people with more than a half million budget in the Tulsa market are going to want either more square footage or acreage. Or both. No one would bat an eyelash at the price per foot in the NYC area or LA. The right buyer will eventually come along, but I'm betting it ends up being severely discounted. Curious if there's a nervous banker with his butt clenched somewhere right now. If it had been done in proximity to Utica Square or closer to 31st & Columbia where there's a lot of more expensive homes (albeit with more square footage), the price would make more sense due to the cost of the dirt it's built on.
I own a Mid-Century Modern in Lortondale, and we are in the process of buying a Mid-Century Ranch in Wedgewood. Plan is to keep the MCM as a rental.
Quote from: rebound on January 21, 2014, 01:12:27 PM
I've just started a long-term selection process for a prospective move down into mid-town Tulsa in the Summer of 2015. I going to look long and hard at various areas and get a feel for where they are going before I worry about a specific house. I've already got several different saved searches in Realtor.com, Trulia.etc., and this scenario is relatively common all over midtown. A house that sold for $200K in 2012 and was renovated is now on sale for $450K or so, etc. The mid-century ranch type homes, which just about everybody is saying is going to be the next big boom, are especially feeling this effect.
If you expand the search parameters a bit around this house, you can find similarly priced (but not per-sqft-priced) homes. The renovator is betting on getting ahead of the trend. I think he probably over shot on this one, but I agree it's a cool house.
Yes, I'd also taken an expanded look on Zillow and saw some neighboring properties at a wide range of price points. I'm a bit risk averse in real estate, and it would take a lot for me to buy a more expensive home in an area of lower priced homes, and also to over renovate a home based on the neighborhood. But by various accounts, the mid century modern revival is definitely picking up steam in Tulsa and other mid-American towns. Tulsa has some fine examples of it as it does of many other period homes styles. I continue to be impressed by the range of architectural styles in Tulsa.
I agree the house is cool, but I know that I would tire of it in less than 2 years. I'd stay in a classic 1920's Tudor or arts and crafts colonial until they drag me out.
Quote from: Rookie Okie on January 21, 2014, 10:12:57 PM
Yes, I'd also taken an expanded look on Zillow and saw some neighboring properties at a wide range of price points. I'm a bit risk averse in real estate, and it would take a lot for me to buy a more expensive home in an area of lower priced homes, and also to over renovate a home based on the neighborhood. But by various accounts, the mid century modern revival is definitely picking up steam in Tulsa and other mid-American towns. Tulsa has some fine examples of it as it does of many other period homes styles. I continue to be impressed by the range of architectural styles in Tulsa.
I agree the house is cool, but I know that I would tire of it in less than 2 years. I'd stay in a classic 1920's Tudor or arts and crafts colonial until they drag me out.
Loved how on Zillow the agent tried to defend the price point. Obviously the agent doesn't live here.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 21, 2014, 02:23:45 PM
It's a fantastic build out and all high end stuff. Problem is, most people with more than a half million budget in the Tulsa market are going to want either more square footage or acreage. Or both. No one would bat an eyelash at the price per foot in the NYC area or LA. The right buyer will eventually come along, but I'm betting it either ends up being severely discounted. Curious if there's a nervous banker with his butt clenched somewhere right now. If it had been done in proximity to Utica Square or closer to 31st & Columbia where there's a lot of more expensive homes (albeit with more square footage), the price would make more sense due to the cost of the dirt it's built on.
I own a Mid-Century Modern in Lortondale, and we are in the process of buying a Mid-Century Ranch in Wedgewood. Plan is to keep the MCM as a rental.
Cool..my sister lived in Wedgewood for a time before they moved to Tampa. They moved back and promptly moved to Broken Arrow. Yuck.
Quote from: Hoss on January 21, 2014, 10:19:06 PM
Loved how on Zillow the agent tried to defend the price point. Obviously the agent doesn't live here.
I just noticed, there is a 3000 foot newer construction which sold last year for $482K across the street from this. They might have "value priced" this to an extent considering they bought it for $120,000. I'm not seeing anything close to nearly $450K in renovations, but there again I don't work in residential construction so I could be off on what the costs were. My guess was $350K when I walked through it and interesting enough, that's pretty close per square foot to what the house across the street sold for.
Go back to the listing and click on street view, it's really striking the difference between the original house and what they wound up with.
As far as people over-improving, the people who owned the house we'd put an offer in on in Johansen Acres had way over-improved it thinking they would be there through retirement. The unfortunate reality is pride is keeping them from making a realistic business decision. The house is vacant and they've built a custom home up in or near Owasso. Apparently the offer previous to ours "fell apart" in financing. I think that's codespeak for: "Didn't appraise out". That's fine if they can afford to keep it on the market indefinitely. By my guess, after two years on the market they will have paid out in mortgage, insurance, utilities, taxes, and lawn service an amount that would net them out about what we'd offered. It's been on the market for six months with no takers so far.
I'm thinking it's a rare buyer who will pay well over appraisal for a property. Lenders sure as heck aren't lending over appraised value these days.
Just as well, I'm really excited about the house in Wedgewood, now let's get through inspections and make sure there aren't any issues.
Conan, I'm sure you have researched the area well, but my memory of the area is that it was built over a coal strip mine. That means you should check for Radon for sure. Otherwise, a really fine addition of well built custom homes.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 22, 2014, 08:34:18 AM
Go back to the listing and click on street view, it's really striking the difference between the original house and what they wound up with.
Striking difference yes. I don't much care for the change though.
Quote from: AquaMan on January 22, 2014, 11:41:32 AM
Conan, I'm sure you have researched the area well, but my memory of the area is that it was built over a coal strip mine. That means you should check for Radon for sure. Otherwise, a really fine addition of well built custom homes.
Wrong side. The coal mines were built closer to the southwest of the corner of 21st and Yale. Wedgewood is northeast of that intersection.
EDIT: Did some more research and it does appear Wedgewood is in the middle of an old coal mine. So AM may have a good point.
Very much appreciated, guys. That will be a part of the inspection for certain, though it's a slab and not crawl space. Glad you guys pointed that out. At one time there was concern of a huge sink hole opening up in the vicinity due to previous mining activity but it was eventually de-bunked. Seems like that was closer to 25th & Darlington though.
It's somewhat hard to determine values in this neighborhood as a lot more knockdown/rebuild activitiy is moving toward Harvard. Financially, probably would have been better to knock down the old house, split the corner lot and build two spec zero lot line McMansions. For the asking price of this house, most potential buyers are looking at new construction with a lot more square footage.
Quote from: AquaMan on January 22, 2014, 11:41:32 AM
Conan, I'm sure you have researched the area well, but my memory of the area is that it was built over a coal strip mine. That means you should check for Radon for sure. Otherwise, a really fine addition of well built custom homes.
And, as always around here, check for major cracks in the slab.
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 22, 2014, 06:23:03 PM
And, as always around here, check for major cracks in the slab.
Thanks for the tip. I'm pretty wary of such issues as we had major structural issues in one of the houses I grew up in.
Not so much as a stress crack in the garage slab, no separation issues with the veneer at the corners of the house, no door alignment issues, drywall cracks around windows, etc. They did an amazing job on engineering and pouring the slab from what I can tell. There's quite a bit of carpet throughout (a good portion of which will be exchanged for hard flooring of some sort prior to move in). Regardless, I'm getting a full structural on it.
For a 55 year old Tulsa house, it's in amazing condition.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 22, 2014, 06:36:10 PM
Thanks for the tip. I'm pretty wary of such issues as we had major structural issues in one of the houses I grew up in.
Not so much as a stress crack in the garage slab, no separation issues with the veneer at the corners of the house, no door alignment issues, drywall cracks around windows, etc. They did an amazing job on engineering and pouring the slab from what I can tell. There's quite a bit of carpet throughout (a good portion of which will be exchanged for hard flooring of some sort prior to move in). Regardless, I'm getting a full structural on it.
For a 55 year old Tulsa house, it's in amazing condition.
55 years, probably a few years before major cheapness. Slabs can be done right but typically aren't.
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 22, 2014, 07:22:26 PM
55 years, probably a few years before major cheapness. Slabs can be done right but typically aren't.
I agree. I was shocked when I saw the garage floor, usually the best evidence of movement on a property when they have extensive floor covering. Since it was custom-built, might have something to do with it. Let's see what the inspections say before I give it too glowing of an eval!
Quote from: dbacksfan 2.0 on January 02, 2014, 01:38:14 PM
Nah, 1960's model single wide with old tires on the roof parked sideways, and a mid 70's Camaro in the yard with an A frame engine hoist holding the engine from the car. ;)
Tear it down and put in the 1958 Wedgwood III by Palace....Royal living.... first row, right in the middle....
https://www.google.com/search?q=1958+mobile+home&newwindow=1&client=firefox-a&hs=EdC&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=wYzgUtqLEY3JsQSCqYLIBw&ved=0CCYQsAQ&biw=1199&bih=593&dpr=1.5#imgdii=_
Quote from: AquaMan on January 22, 2014, 11:41:32 AM
Conan, I'm sure you have researched the area well, but my memory of the area is that it was built over a coal strip mine. That means you should check for Radon for sure. Otherwise, a really fine addition of well built custom homes.
I lived in a place near 11th and Pittsburg - it was a strip mine at one time. Was told by a guy who had been there since the 40's that the mine went all the way up to Roger's High School area...
Quote from: Conan71 on January 22, 2014, 01:25:08 PM
Very much appreciated, guys. That will be a part of the inspection for certain, though it's a slab and not crawl space. Glad you guys pointed that out. At one time there was concern of a huge sink hole opening up in the vicinity due to previous mining activity but it was eventually de-bunked. Seems like that was closer to 25th & Darlington though.
Have it checked for radon....one of the kids brought her geiger counter around to several family members houses and did a quick check. Found a little bit in all of them...very low levels. Sometimes a lot of radioactivity around coal and oil.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 22, 2014, 09:10:42 PM
I agree. I was shocked when I saw the garage floor, usually the best evidence of movement on a property when they have extensive floor covering. Since it was custom-built, might have something to do with it. Let's see what the inspections say before I give it too glowing of an eval!
Many people don't realize, especially first time young homeowners, that the soil around and under your foundation has a lot to do with its stability. Many homes built decades ago may have no foundation changes until an unexperienced homeowner is introduced into the mix for a few years. Reason, being that consistant soil moisture levels around slab homes is important. For instance, if you opt not to irrigate your lawn, gardens, and soil surrounding your slab walls for a season or two, the soil can dry and contract, only to expand and erode when heavy rains return. The result can be significant.
We owned a 30 year old home for about 6-7 years. It was built very well, with no structural concerns what so ever. We sold the home to a young couple and as expected the inspections on the house were sterling. About 4 years after they moved in, they suffered cracks in the mortar, patios, garage, and under the slab in the kitchen, causing a water line to crack, and some expensive repairs. They contacted us and asked about any history, but we could offer none. I drove by and realized that they let my once lush fescue lawn become bare soil and sparse bermuda. They also pulled out the azaleas and other beds to replace them with pebble, succulent, stonecrop, and Texas sage. They had obviously been attracted to the zeroscape fad, and wanted a low- or no-maintenance landscape. They ultimately learned that the foundation damage was caused by a combination of soil contraction and soil erosion from not maintaining soil moisture levels.
Fortunately my father constantly hounded me about such things when I bought my first home, but many first time homeowners don't get this information. If anyone is a realtor, adding some information to a new homeowner "welcome" packet would probably be appreciated and very helpful.
The renovation at 2753 South Gary Dr is a beautiful property. The design and quality was very well done and someone more interested in those criteria will purchase the home. It's on a large corner lot and the craftsmanship throughout the home is very good. Overpriced? Maybe. I analyzed the area within a 1/2 to 3/4 mile radius around the property and there's another renovated home just north of this one that actually is much higher per square foot. The remaining recently sold and/ or homes for sale are running anywhere between $160-200 per ft. The home just across the street sat three years before selling 100k less than the 583k asking price but is now estimated (average) back at 583k. The high end of the estimate on Zillow (admittedly just one resource) is 698k or $233 per ft. One could argue the home at 2753 S Gary could be valued between 428k and 512k. Regardless of all of the analysis, the home is ultimately worth what someone is willing to pay for it. If you believe that more and more properties are going to be updated, then the ultimate buyer should make his money back and then some. Let's not forget that larger square footage and a larger lot don't equate to quality or guarantee happiness. And as far as answering another commenter's question, "Who are these people who can afford half million...", they are hard-working people who would value quality and beautiful design over a McMansion in south Tulsa. Contributing to the revitalization of mid-town is also worth something to some folks and they're willing to invest in it.
Quote from: Mvp53 on February 08, 2014, 10:47:36 PM
The renovation at 2753 South Gary Dr is a beautiful property. The design and quality was very well done and someone more interested in those criteria will purchase the home. It's on a large corner lot and the craftsmanship throughout the home is very good. Overpriced? Maybe. I analyzed the area within a 1/2 to 3/4 mile radius around the property and there's another renovated home just north of this one that actually is much higher per square foot. The remaining recently sold and/ or homes for sale are running anywhere between $160-200 per ft. The home just across the street sat three years before selling 100k less than the 583k asking price but is now estimated (average) back at 583k. The high end of the estimate on Zillow (admittedly just one resource) is 698k or $233 per ft. One could argue the home at 2753 S Gary could be valued between 428k and 512k. Regardless of all of the analysis, the home is ultimately worth what someone is willing to pay for it. If you believe that more and more properties are going to be updated, then the ultimate buyer should make his money back and then some. Let's not forget that larger square footage and a larger lot don't equate to quality or guarantee happiness. And as far as answering another commenter's question, "Who are these people who can afford half million...", they are hard-working people who would value quality and beautiful design over a McMansion in south Tulsa. Contributing to the revitalization of mid-town is also worth something to some folks and they're willing to invest in it.
My guess is it will be an out-of-state transplant who is used to 2000 to 2500 square foot modern being in the $500-$600K or higher range especially if they are relocating from the east or west coast.
Quote from: Mvp53 on February 08, 2014, 10:47:36 PM
The renovation at 2753 South Gary Dr is a beautiful property. The design and quality was very well done and someone more interested in those criteria will purchase the home. It's on a large corner lot and the craftsmanship throughout the home is very good. Overpriced? Maybe. I analyzed the area within a 1/2 to 3/4 mile radius around the property and there's another renovated home just north of this one that actually is much higher per square foot. The remaining recently sold and/ or homes for sale are running anywhere between $160-200 per ft. The home just across the street sat three years before selling 100k less than the 583k asking price but is now estimated (average) back at 583k. The high end of the estimate on Zillow (admittedly just one resource) is 698k or $233 per ft. One could argue the home at 2753 S Gary could be valued between 428k and 512k. Regardless of all of the analysis, the home is ultimately worth what someone is willing to pay for it. If you believe that more and more properties are going to be updated, then the ultimate buyer should make his money back and then some. Let's not forget that larger square footage and a larger lot don't equate to quality or guarantee happiness. And as far as answering another commenter's question, "Who are these people who can afford half million...", they are hard-working people who would value quality and beautiful design over a McMansion in south Tulsa. Contributing to the revitalization of mid-town is also worth something to some folks and they're willing to invest in it.
Welcome to Tulsa Now Forum.
Any chance you are financially involved in the property at 2753 S Gary Dr?
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 09, 2014, 11:26:49 AM
Welcome to Tulsa Now Forum.
Any chance you are financially involved in the property at 2753 S Gary Dr?
Ya think? ::)
There's a little truth in the posts from Conan, Red Arrow and Angie. I'm originally from the East Coast, born and raised in New Jersey. I've lived in south Tulsa since 1976, where I've raised a family. We've also spent a few years living downtown in a very nice renovated loft. The mid-town area has always intriqued us. With its mix of architecture and price-points (most are pleasant to look at), the area is so unlike the huge, cookie-cutter McMansons that take up most of south Tulsa. To me, mid-town and downtown reflect more of what I like about Tulsa; individual, artisitc and diverse.
Yes, I am very interested in the property and may even put in an offer myself! :D At 568k its overpriced, but someone will buy the home for its style and quality workmaship. This renovation has charcter AND curb appeal. Hats off to the architects and builders. Hopefully the buyer will get the builder to come off his price a little. Like the old saying goes, "You get what you pay for". I think this house is worth a little more. And this house on either coast would bring double this price, or more.
I loved the house and the style is up my alley. I love modern and mid-century modern. They absolutely thought of every modern amenity and it's high-end construction.
If money were no object and I felt someone else down the line would be willing to pay as much or more than I did for the house, it would be a cool place to live. Unfortunately, money is an object and it's a property that will always have a long market time.
Quote from: Mvp53 on February 09, 2014, 05:09:16 PM
There's a little truth in the posts from Conan, Red Arrow and Angie. I'm originally from the East Coast, born and raised in New Jersey. I've lived in south Tulsa since 1976, where I've raised a family. We've also spent a few years living downtown in a very nice renovated loft. The mid-town area has always intriqued us. With its mix of architecture and price-points (most are pleasant to look at), the area is so unlike the huge, cookie-cutter McMansons that take up most of south Tulsa. To me, mid-town and downtown reflect more of what I like about Tulsa; individual, artisitc and diverse.
Yes, I am very interested in the property and may even put in an offer myself! :D At 568k its overpriced, but someone will buy the home for its style and quality workmaship. This renovation has charcter AND curb appeal. Hats off to the architects and builders. Hopefully the buyer will get the builder to come off his price a little. Like the old saying goes, "You get what you pay for". I think this house is worth a little more. And this house on either coast would bring double this price, or more.
Another transplant. I grew up in suburban Phila, PA.
I don't particularly care for the mix of flat top roof with the original peaked roof and the appearance of "vinyl siding" added on to the original brick. I don't really care painted brick either. Too much maintenance. Why have brick if you are going to paint it. I do like that the walkway to the front door now goes all the way to the street rather than just the light in the middle of the front yard.
I know I am in a minority here but I have no sympathy for someone who pays too much or puts too much into a renovation for a house and then loses their butt when selling. Driving the price of housing up serves no one. If you sell a house for way more than you paid, the next house you buy will cost way more that it is worth too. What have you really gained unless you severely downsize in the future? If "you" really want to pay too much for something, I have a 98 Buick I will gladly sell for $200,000. You mentioned that "You get what you pay for". I prefer to say you pay for what you get as you don't always get what you pay for.
Anyway, as I said before, welcome aboard.
Quote from: rebound on January 21, 2014, 01:12:27 PM
I've just started a long-term selection process for a prospective move down into mid-town Tulsa in the Summer of 2015. I going to look long and hard at various areas and get a feel for where they are going before I worry about a specific house. I've already got several different saved searches in Realtor.com, Trulia.etc., and this scenario is relatively common all over midtown. A house that sold for $200K in 2012 and was renovated is now on sale for $450K or so, etc. The mid-century ranch type homes, which just about everybody is saying is going to be the next big boom, are especially feeling this effect.
If you expand the search parameters a bit around this house, you can find similarly priced (but not per-sqft-priced) homes. The renovator is betting on getting ahead of the trend. I think he probably over shot on this one, but I agree it's a cool house.
I'm kinda in the same boat. I'm looking to move out of Sand Springs in 2015 (after the wife takes the rest of the year off to stay home with the kiddo). However, like a lot of people, I am very price-conscious and I'm struggling with the decision on a smaller midtown home or a larger home a little further south. Since schools are significantly driving my decision, I'm pretty much restricting our search to either Edison school district or the Tulsa part of Jenks schools. I grew up in midtown, but my wife and I really favor the larger square foot homes further south, but we may not get the larger lot of beautiful trees of midtown. We'll see when the time comes.
Take this for what its worth from a former real estate agent and happy homeowner.
Go with what you like. If you try to predict or restrict yourself to what kinds of houses are going to show the greatest gain in value, you'll be disappointed. When I bought my home, it was because I loved the style, craftsmanship, location and relatively untouched (unbotched) condition it offered. I was told by the most seasoned realtor at my office that this area (Maple Ridge before it had protection) had peaked in its growth and I should look farther south. I ignored her. This house has increased in value 6 times its original cost in about 3 decades. And, I got to live in the house I wanted.
Schools rise and fall as well. We figured we may have to put our kids in private school but turns out Lee became a sought after grade school due to an influx of young, educated, employed couples just like us. Then we had our choice of Carver, Edison and Washington, all high output schools. Had the highest scores for years. I would predict that Hoover, Edison and other nearby schools are now about to benefit from the ranch style, mid century trend.
Just go with your gut. You'll find many others who share your tastes. And don't worry too much about overspending on your property. Way over criticized. If the bank and the appraiser aren't offended, ignore the rest. The best and worst homes in a neighborhood are the slowest sellers, but alternatively, the most expensive often offer the best amenities, and the worst offer the most opportunity for increased value.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 09, 2014, 10:36:02 PM
I know I am in a minority here but I have no sympathy for someone who pays too much or puts too much into a renovation for a house and then loses their butt when selling. Driving the price of housing up serves no one. If you sell a house for way more than you paid, the next house you buy will cost way more that it is worth too. What have you really gained unless you severely downsize in the future? If "you" really want to pay too much for something, I have a 98 Buick I will gladly sell for $200,000. You mentioned that "You get what you pay for". I prefer to say you pay for what you get as you don't always get what you pay for.
There is a very well thought out plan to selling houses for more than they are "worth".... keeps undesirables out. Used to be a process of 'steering' - now you can put amenities in a house that run up the price for no good reason. (Granite counters are worth an extra $50k?? Hardly.) Build in the exclusionary elitism, add a gate at the entrance, and voila, instant filtering of who buys there.
Pricing by the foot seems to be the scenario. For any room - perhaps a family room - that is 15 x 20 feet (300 sq ft). At $75 a foot, that's a $22.5k room. If it is made 30 x 30, now it is "worth" $67.5k. For an extra ton of gravel, 5 yards of concrete (about $600), few dozen extra 2 x 4s, a little insulation, some sheet rock, trim, paint, and 600 extra sq ft of carpet at less than $5 a foot ($3,000). Not a bad markup - extra $45k for an extra maybe $6k worth of extra cost...
Quantity (volume) over quality.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 11, 2014, 10:49:55 PM
There is a very well thought out plan to selling houses for more than they are "worth".... keeps undesirables out. Used to be a process of 'steering' - now you can put amenities in a house that run up the price for no good reason. (Granite counters are worth an extra $50k?? Hardly.) Build in the exclusionary elitism, add a gate at the entrance, and voila, instant filtering of who buys there.
Pricing by the foot seems to be the scenario. For any room - perhaps a family room - that is 15 x 20 feet (300 sq ft). At $75 a foot, that's a $22.5k room. If it is made 30 x 30, now it is "worth" $67.5k. For an extra ton of gravel, 5 yards of concrete (about $600), few dozen extra 2 x 4s, a little insulation, some sheet rock, trim, paint, and 600 extra sq ft of carpet at less than $5 a foot ($3,000). Not a bad markup - extra $45k for an extra maybe $6k worth of extra cost...
Quantity (volume) over quality.
Who are the undesirables this conspiracy is aimed at?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 11, 2014, 10:49:55 PM
There is a very well thought out plan to selling houses for more than they are "worth".... keeps undesirables out. Used to be a process of 'steering' - now you can put amenities in a house that run up the price for no good reason. (Granite counters are worth an extra $50k?? Hardly.) Build in the exclusionary elitism, add a gate at the entrance, and voila, instant filtering of who buys there.
Pricing by the foot seems to be the scenario. For any room - perhaps a family room - that is 15 x 20 feet (300 sq ft). At $75 a foot, that's a $22.5k room. If it is made 30 x 30, now it is "worth" $67.5k. For an extra ton of gravel, 5 yards of concrete (about $600), few dozen extra 2 x 4s, a little insulation, some sheet rock, trim, paint, and 600 extra sq ft of carpet at less than $5 a foot ($3,000). Not a bad markup - extra $45k for an extra maybe $6k worth of extra cost...
Quantity (volume) over quality.
I can't tell if you are serious, or just trolling. The point about steering is legit. It has happened in the past and I am sure still does. But that practice has nothing directly to do with whether somebody can (or wants to) afford a house of a specific price point in a specific area.
In almost every industry, it is the incremental/additional services and product flourishes that drive real profit. In restaurants, it's liquor and dessert. In software (my industry) it's "bundling" together several discrete products to provide a larger solution, and in housing it's things like granite counter tops, stainless appliances, etc. There is much more profit in the add-ons than the base product, and so it is natural for a vendor to want to maximize their offering as much as possible within the confines of what the market will bear. This is not some conspiracy.
However, regarding your quantity/quality point, I agree. American's historically favor "big" over "better", but that's changing. A great resource/book on home design is "Building the Not So Big House" (http://www.notsobighouse.com/). Smaller can be better.
No different than buying a car as well. If its a new home, the granite and larger rooms add value. You can even pick and choose if you commit early enough. On a rebuild, not so much because the new buyer's tastes may not coincide with the present owner. The cost to bump up space or update kitchens is rarely recovered. That is why you receive less than cost for your improvements on remodels. The idea is to make the home more salable or a faster sell (we don't like the carpet and lighting but its livable and we can replace them later to get into this neighborhood.)
New builders do use these amenities and oversized homes to steer more affluent and more sophisticated buyers into certain developments. So? Their credo is to keep the homes as homogeneous in style and cost as possible so as to not scare away those who worry predominately about resale. Don't have to worry about those pesky "hangers on" buying the smaller homes and investors buying duplexes that the old developers used as "dessert".
Frankly, these suburban developments that do that are boring. The only differences in the homes are often the color of the roof. What they are selling is way different than what you look for in midtown areas.
I used to live in midtown, but sold at the right time and was able to get a big house on a really big lot in east Tulsa for the same price. I am still amazed that the bargains found on the west side of Mingo Creek between 11th and 21st. I would still be living there if I could have taken care of the acreage.
Two years ago we bought a big house on a small lot in Sungate just east of 56th and Sheridan. We really love it and got it for less than $40 a foot. There are sidewalks on both sides of the street, buried power lines, and nice trees. I will probably never move again.
There are some nice house for sale in the neighborhood for really low prices. I am thinking about buying the place next door that is 1,920 square feet for $80,000.
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/6843-E-56th-St-Tulsa-OK-74145/22173986_zpid/
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 12, 2014, 01:06:57 PM
I used to live in midtown, but sold at the right time and was able to get a big house on a really big lot in east Tulsa for the same price. I am still amazed that the bargains found on the west side of Mingo Creek between 11th and 21st. I would still be living there if I could have taken care of the acreage.
Two years ago we bought a big house on a small lot in Sungate just east of 56th and Sheridan. We really love it and got it for less than $40 a foot. There are sidewalks on both sides of the street, buried power lines, and nice trees. I will probably never move again.
There are some nice house for sale in the neighborhood for really low prices. I am thinking about buying the place next door that is 1,920 square feet for $80,000.
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/6843-E-56th-St-Tulsa-OK-74145/22173986_zpid/
A footnote about those homes in Sungate, Michael. Many of my co-workers bought new homes there in the early to mid 70's when Cities Service Oil built their new building downtown and moved a lot of mid level executive employees here from out of state. Sheridan was a gravel road that was clogged with traffic from downtown. They were all ecstatic about being able to move from more expensive locales back east into brand new developments. That was the edge of town. Mostly modern designs iirc.
Golden days of growth for Tulsa.
I love the neighborhood pool. We pay dues so my family can swim there and I am spending one tenth of what it costs me to maintain my own pool at my last house.
The neighborhood association makes quite a bit of revenue charging outsiders to swim there so our annual dues are low and there are plenty of activities. We have a good listserve to communicate and work together to watch out for each other.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 12, 2014, 02:25:22 PM
I love the neighborhood pool. We pay dues so my family can swim there and I am spending one tenth of what it costs me to maintain my own pool at my last house.
The neighborhood association makes quite a bit of revenue charging outsiders to swim there so our annual dues are low and there are plenty of activities. We have a good listserve to communicate and work together to watch out for each other.
I agree, great neighborhood and undervalued, IMO. We lived on 74th E. ave near Salk & Byrd for about six years.
Here is a real "keep the undesireables out" move.
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1726-E-151st-St-S-Bixby-OK-74008/2108760717_zpid/ (http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1726-E-151st-St-S-Bixby-OK-74008/2108760717_zpid/)
Sorry but 151st in Bixby isn't worth $35k an acre. But there is a gate!!
There are houses a few miles south and east, with a house, for about $20k an acre (if you don't count the house)
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/13845-S-19th-St-Bixby-OK-74008/2110925332_zpid/ (http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/13845-S-19th-St-Bixby-OK-74008/2110925332_zpid/)
This house near 72nd and Harvard sold for $3 million in January of 2013 and is now listed for $5 million.
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/7219-S-Evanston-Ave-Tulsa-OK-74136/22224733_zpid/
Methinks the price is a little unrealistic. I mean, I would give them $3.1 million, just for the gold sinks alone.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 13, 2014, 02:48:00 PM
This house near 72nd and Harvard sold for $3 million in January of 2013 and is now listed for $5 million.
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/7219-S-Evanston-Ave-Tulsa-OK-74136/22224733_zpid/
Methinks the price is a little unrealistic. I mean, I would give them $3.1 million, just for the gold sinks alone.
I believe that is this house:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/archives/labor-of-love/article_c7c10fa0-9f86-53e3-ab40-0b9c91266645.html
Quote from: dioscorides on February 13, 2014, 03:25:21 PM
I believe that is this house:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/archives/labor-of-love/article_c7c10fa0-9f86-53e3-ab40-0b9c91266645.html
Tulsa County assessor says its only $56k a year in taxes LOL Could have split it with somebody if he sold it for $1 :)
Looks like Cali having problems.
http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-mansionization-20140505-story.html#page=1
"I want my view of the sunset, dammit!"
Quote from: guido911 on May 06, 2014, 07:39:42 AM
"I want my view of the sunset, dammit!"
In Berkeley, it's illegal to allow your trees to grow any higher than they were when your uphill neighbor bought their property. You must protect your uphill neighbors' viewshed.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 09, 2014, 11:26:49 AM
Welcome to Tulsa Now Forum.
Any chance you are financially involved in the property at 2753 S Gary Dr?
Speaking of, it sold March 14 for $546K.
http://www.assessor.tulsacounty.org/assessor-property.php
I got the same square footage for about $400K less and we have been able to do some really cool renovations on it.
Quote from: nathanm on May 06, 2014, 09:30:48 AM
In Berkeley,.
That's all I really needed to read before stopping.
Quote from: guido911 on May 06, 2014, 07:39:42 AM
Looks like Cali having problems.
http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-mansionization-20140505-story.html#page=1
"I want my view of the sunset, dammit!"
I may have mentioned it before, but the same thing happened to my old neighborhood in Dallas. Quaint smaller homes (1500-2500 sqft), mostly single story, some with two stories with the second floor in a set-back style, were (and still are) being gutted to build these huge lot-line boxes. It just killed the neighborhood esthetic. We couldn't get enough of the neighbors to sign up for a HOA to protect it, and it continues to degenerate.
From that article, here's the aspect I find interesting: (talking about Beverly Grove, where harder restrictions are in place)
That alarms some builders, architects and homeowners. "What happened in Beverly Grove was basically a death sentence to development and real estate in the area," said Eran Gispan, a designer with N.E. Designs Inc. Similar restrictions citywide would "kill the market completely," he said.
Architect Daniel Bibawi said that since the tighter Beverly Grove building limits were approved last year, his firm hasn't had any projects in the area. The families that hire him typically want at least five bedrooms to accommodate two children, a master bedroom, a guest room and an office, he said.
"It's become a real bear to deal with, from the design point of view," he said. "People hire you to build what they want. But then you have to tell them — they can't have what they want." So what I want to know is have the property/home values in the area declined? I really don't care that a builder or an architect isn't doing anything in the area, they can go build big houses somewhere else. Also, I have no sympathy for a person who buys into a neighborhood because they like it, and then wants to build a house that is completely out of character for it. Again, go somewhere else. Now if the property values start to decline, then the locals may want to re-think some of the restrictions. But apparently it was a popular neighborhood for a reason, and it's probably not a bad idea to keep it that way.
To bring that back to Tulsa, I think it would be great to see Lortondale locked into a hard code to maintain the style. It's not a good neighborhood for me right now, but I love the style and there are a lot of people that would gravitate to it if they were assured that an investment in renovating back to the original period style would be rewarded and protected.
That same factor is one thing that makes Maple Ridge really attractive and (IMHO) stabilizes the home values in the area. All homes need to be periodically updated, and some modernization will be required. But a neighborhood that has a distinct character and has rules in place to preserve it will hold value much more than those without.