Upscale Apartment Complex Proposal
(http://www.fox23.com/media/news/d/f/3/df3038aa-84e5-4571-a398-21d5cff3aa59/Story.jpg)
5-story Building
An upscale apartment complex is in the works in a Brookside neighborhood but it won't go in without a fight. A developer out of Houston wants to build a five-story, 250 unit, apartment complex on 39th and South Rockford Avenue. The apartment complex would sit right where low-income and the elderly have lived for years. Some call the current complex an eye soar but other's say it's their home.
"I work here, I live here, I shop here. I can do everything in my life within four blocks of where I am standing right now", said Brookside resident Carolyn Geltz.
Geltz' worries a modern apartment complex will leave her home demolished. "I know a lot of people don't like the looks of the outside of the place, I really don't either, but this is where I live."
Houston based developer "The Bomasada Group" wants to build a complex similar to this one. Neighbors fear the worst.
"If they tear this place down, I'm going to be homeless." Bonnie Hurst, 78, says it doesn't fit her historic neighborhood. "Five stories? And all this fancy stuff? I don't know."
The co-president for the Brookside Neighborhood Association hasn't made up his mind, but he's willing to hear about the idea. "Is it realistic? Yeah. I think the market is there, but that's not there for us to decide", said Herb Beattie.
One thing Herb doesn't like is the height of the building. "Some of us feel that five stories is too much."
The developer says the complex is progressive, and will replace what he calls an eyesore. Bonnie, an 11-year Brookside resident, doesn't want to be forced out. "I just know that I am not happy about having to move. I have no idea, I have no idea."
FOX23 spoke with the developer on the phone today, who says they plan to submit their plans to the city on Thursday.
The developer and his staff will be meeting with Brookside neighbors tomorrow night at seven o'clock at Wright Elementary School.
This would definitely be progressive for Tulsa. Go check it out online at: http://www.enclaveriverfront.com
Sounds exactly like what I was daydreaming about happening in Brookside. The Shannonwood Park condos giving way to a large scale apartment development.
10/20/07 Thread about $10 million lofts on 41st Place at Quincy Ave.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
quote:
Originally posted by CoffeeBean
Just to be clear - are these lofts located within the development where McGraw recently announced construction or elsewhere?
These lofts arent located inside any "development", they will be between some apartments that are already there (Village @ Brookside) and residential houses (42nd & Peoria neighborhood). Just east of there on the other side of those apartments is a cleared out field with roads already paved for an office development which as of yet has still not begun building. That is the site Artist was suggesting a midrise should be put. I think the plan is just for office space though.
I think to start getting midrise in Brookside, perhaps the Crow Creek corridor plan would be the catalyst. Or someone could buy out the Shannonwood Park condos (1948 postwar housing turned into "condos") and have a large chunk of real estate to work with.
quote:
Originally posted by Composer
Upscale Apartment Complex Proposal
(http://www.fox23.com/media/news/d/f/3/df3038aa-84e5-4571-a398-21d5cff3aa59/Story.jpg)
5-story Building
I like it... I think 5 stories may be too much, especially given that most buildings in the area aren't more than two stories, but this is GREAT news for the area, and for Tulsa. I'm actually really excited about this--but I want to see the plans specific to THIS project, not the Little Rock one :-). And I really want to see something like this downtown.
quote:
Some call the current complex an eye soar
[B)] I didn't know buildings could be eyes that fly through the sky... [B)][B)][B)]
Specific plans for THIS project will come when they are available. The developer says they will be like the one in Little Rock.
I really hope this happens. Tulsa is severely lacking in this type of development. Brookside is a logical place to put something like this because of the demographics that the area is already starting to cater to. There arent many places along brookside where you could put something like this where someone wouldnt complain.
Either we are going to build up the "nice" areas, expanding them and making them nicer. Or we are going to say you can only build in "undesirable" areas or areas where there currently isnt anything else.
One big reason quality apartments like this need to be at least 5 stories in height is the cost. You need enough units and income to cover the cost of the development. Cheaper and less quality apartments can be 3 stories tall. This development will have parking underneath as well btw.
Here is the one by this developer in Little Rock
http://www.bomasadagroup.com/littlerock1.html
Sweet. I'd live there.
This makes too much sense. The Tulsa apartment market is tightening and there is a demand for nicer apartments in midtown. Not everyone who wants a nice rental wants to live at 91st and Memorial. I hope the same thing comes to downtown in the next few years.
^
So much in Tulsa seems to be held back by trying not to step on anyone's toes. Although, the opposite would be harder to live with.
I like the design... The height would be my only concern.
Below is an announcement regarding a meeting tonight regarding this development.
The Brookside Neighborhood Association will host an important meeting on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 to provide information about a very significant proposed apartment complex in Brookside. Specifically, the Bomasada Group of Houston, Texas proposes to build an upscale, 5-story complex consisting of approximately 250 units at the southwest corner of 39th and Rockford.
Bomasada wants the input and support of the neighbors before completing their design and presenting it to the TMAPC and the Tulsa City Council. Bosamada principals will be present to share their plans and answer neighbors' questions.
This meeting will be held at Wright Elementary School, 1110 E. 45th Pl., (one block west of Peoria). Doors will open at 7:00 p.m. and plans for the project will be available for review.
The presentation will begin at 7:30 pm.
This will be your chance to air your concerns and state what you think should be built in Brookside. All interested parties should attend! Please share this information with anyone who may have an interest in this precedent-setting Brookside development project.
Personal opinion: I think that folks should be less concerned about height and more concerned about the ground floor relationship to the street, particularly if the parking is contained (garage) and hidden. More people living near Brookside walking/biking to the commercial district, supporting the businesses there is a good thing. In fact, a larger structure can provide a good sound barrier from the said commercial district for the single family detached neighborhood behind it. More walkable, more ped friendly. It can be a good thing, again, if that first floor is done well.
I'm shocked that bumgarner isn't behind this monstrosity. all the same, I plan on supporting the Brookside neighbors to fight this garbage.
I'm having a hard time getting over something like this popping up over the neighborhood and can be seen in every direction. Wouldn't surprise me if Bolewood got involved in fighting this as well.
Great idea, wrong area for a five story building.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
I'm shocked that bumgarner isn't behind this monstrosity. all the same, I plan on supporting the Brookside neighbors to fight this garbage.
What in God's name are you talking about? You haven't even seen renderings. Stick to the South Side, bro. You can have all the sprawl you want out there. We don't need to pick a fight with these people, assuming they're plans are reasonable. These are the kind of developers we need in the Tulsa market because they clearly understand the value (and profit) available from building in urban, walkable settings. Let's try not to chase them away.
Has anyone actually seen any real plans for this development? I was copied on an email that suggested the proposal was for a modern design. This thread suggests a more "traditional" design. Does anyone know anything for sure?
Everyone seems worried about a building being 5 stories tall. I lived for many years in "Eugene" at 21st and Cincinnati. It has 3 floors of apts on top of ground floor garages...making it 4 stories tall. It never seemed that high to me. It was adjacent to large 2-story homes with big trees in between. From my apt, all you could see were trees, not the neighbor's private lives. (In fact, to see the street, you had to practically press your nose up against the window to get the angle right...)
At the Brookside Neighborhood meeting, will they have drawings of the proposed development to show people? Will the developers be there to answer questions? Anybody know anything?
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Sweet. I'd live there.
This makes too much sense. The Tulsa apartment market is tightening and there is a demand for nicer apartments in midtown. Not everyone who wants a nice rental wants to live at 91st and Memorial. I hope the same thing comes to downtown in the next few years.
What Floyd said.
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
Has anyone actually seen any real plans for this development? I was copied on an email that suggested the proposal was for a modern design. This thread suggests a more "traditional" design. Does anyone know anything for sure?
Everyone seems worried about a building being 5 stories tall. I lived for many years in "Eugene" at 21st and Cincinnati. It has 3 floors of apts on top of ground floor garages...making it 4 stories tall. It never seemed that high to me. It was adjacent to large 2-story homes with big trees in between. From my apt, all you could see were trees, not the neighbor's private lives. (In fact, to see the street, you had to practically press your nose up against the window to get the angle right...)
At the Brookside Neighborhood meeting, will they have drawings of the proposed development to show people? Will the developers be there to answer questions? Anybody know anything?
More than likely you saw this nut it does have a virtual tour of the proposed development and some other info.
This would definitely be progressive for Tulsa. Go check it out online at: http://www.enclaveriverfront.com
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I'm having a hard time getting over something like this popping up over the neighborhood and can be seen in every direction. Wouldn't surprise me if Bolewood got involved in fighting this as well.
Great idea, wrong area for a five story building.
Why would Bolewood fight it? They already have RE zoning. (Estate).
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
I'm shocked that bumgarner isn't behind this monstrosity. all the same, I plan on supporting the Brookside neighbors to fight this garbage.
What in God's name are you talking about? You haven't even seen renderings. Stick to the South Side, bro. You can have all the sprawl you want out there. We don't need to pick a fight with these people, assuming they're plans are reasonable. These are the kind of developers we need in the Tulsa market because they clearly understand the value (and profit) available from building in urban, walkable settings. Let's try not to chase them away.
contrary to popular belief tulsa is not a vertical town. 5 story APARTMENTS? take it into the IDL where there are less stringent height restrictions.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
I'm shocked that bumgarner isn't behind this monstrosity. all the same, I plan on supporting the Brookside neighbors to fight this garbage.
What in God's name are you talking about? You haven't even seen renderings. Stick to the South Side, bro. You can have all the sprawl you want out there. We don't need to pick a fight with these people, assuming they're plans are reasonable. These are the kind of developers we need in the Tulsa market because they clearly understand the value (and profit) available from building in urban, walkable settings. Let's try not to chase them away.
contrary to popular belief tulsa is not a vertical town. 5 story APARTMENTS? take it into the IDL where there are less stringent height restrictions.
4 story apartments sitting on top of parking. My guess is parking will be at least somewhat underground. That puts it at maybe 10' higher than Food Pyramid?
The kneejerk stupidity here is making me shake my head in disbelief. This type of development is exactly what Brookside needs.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
The kneejerk stupidity here is making me shake my head in disbelief.
Me, too.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
The kneejerk stupidity here is making me shake my head in disbelief. This type of development is exactly what Brookside needs.
Thirded.
A couple of guesses why they chose that neighborhood over others. (people around here like to deal in guesses)
1 - it is a walkable neighborhood
2 - it is a somewhat desirable neighborhood to live in
3 - It has much more of an urban feel than locals want to believe
4 - there is already existing popular shopping in the area within walking distance
5 - the river trails are not that far for recreation
6 - it is close to the urban core where most of its tennants would probably work(as opposed to having to deal with the BA during rush hour.
7 - there are plenty of desireable restaurants relatively close by that are locally owned and have character and appeal instead of chains
8 - 3 grocery stores within easy walkable reach
And I didn't work hard to think of these. That would definitly be a draw for me to move in there.
I like the idea. Could be a great catalyst.
Looked at some of the other stuff they've done.
Now I'm going to call them and try to get their business.
Wish me luck!
They need someone to do some realistic renderings! [8D]
quote:
Originally posted by joiei
And I didn't work hard to think of these. That would definitly be a draw for me to move in there.
Unless the rent turns out to be exorbitant, I'll certainly consider moving there.
5 stories is not that high, especially in an apartment building, which doesn't have the same space between floors that an office building does.
quote:
Originally posted by joiei
A couple of guesses why they chose that neighborhood over others. (people around here like to deal in guesses)
1 - it is a walkable neighborhood
2 - it is a somewhat desirable neighborhood to live in
3 - It has much more of an urban feel than locals want to believe
4 - there is already existing popular shopping in the area within walking distance
5 - the river trails are not that far for recreation
6 - it is close to the urban core where most of its tennants would probably work(as opposed to having to deal with the BA during rush hour.
7 - there are plenty of desireable restaurants relatively close by that are locally owned and have character and appeal instead of chains
8 - 3 grocery stores within easy walkable reach
And I didn't work hard to think of these. That would definitly be a draw for me to move in there.
This is more than just a guess: The area is in high demand, but there is a lack of quality apartments in the area. Run down small 1950 era houses are renting out for $800++/month with 1 or 2 20-somethings living in them. People are overpaying for substandard housing just for the location. People would gladly pay good money to live in new construction apartments if they would just BUILD them. The apartments in the area now are a good place to live if you want your car broken into all the time. And the houses, like I said, are 1950 construction, lack modern amenities, and bleed energy like a stuck hog. Density is also DECREASING on Brookside because so many of these old homes are being taken up by young renters who are just renting a house for the location (and may not neccesarily have a full family in their house).
If they are just taking out the postwar duplexes South and West of 39th and Rockford, they are taking out some really really run down substandard housing. I wouldn't slight the condos between 39th and 38th/Rockford and Peoria as much - They are of the same original construction but kept in better shape.
Love the idea. Love the area. Love the developer:
http://www.bomasadagroup.com/projects.html
I have no time for the "but I live there" crowd, it is just an alternative take on the "not in my backyard" stand in argument. The good news is with the construction of this and other new buildings around Brookside you will have plenty of places to choose from if you wish to stay in the area. The reasons you like it (I can walk everywhere) is the reason the run down dwelling you call home is worth more bulldozed than it is with you chucking in $1100 a month in rent. If you live there you can sell for a premium or not sell at all, if you rent then I'm sorry but you really don't have much of a say.
And going to be homeless? That doesn't make much sense.
- - -
5 stories might be a little high for the area. But recently 3 story structures just went in. If development is what we want, then we need to allow some freedoms for how it is done. Brookside would be a prime location for a semi-urban neighborhood to (continue to) develop and 5 stories is not exactly a high rise.
I have an 8 story building in the middle of my neighborhood (TPS administration) and it detracts nothing from it that I can tell. Just down the street the Medical Arts building is another 6 ot 7 stories. Not too far away Dollar Thrifty. What of the houses right next to any of the hospitals? 5 stories is not the doom of a neighborhood for any reason.
- - -
For those interested:
quote:
Important Meeting:Proposed 5-Story Brookside Apartment Complex
The Brookside Neighborhood Association will host an important meeting on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 to provide information about a very significant precedent-setting apartment complex in Brookside. Specifically, the Bomasada Group of Houston, Texas proposes to build an upscale, 5-story complex consisting of approximately 250 units at the southwest corner of 39th and Rockford.
Bomasada wants the input and support of the neighbors before completing their design and presenting it to the TMAPC and the Tulsa City Council. Bosamada principals will be present to share their plans and answer neighbors' questions.
This meeting will be held at Wright Elementary School, 1110 E. 45th Pl., (one block west of Peoria). Doors will open at 7:00 p.m. and plans for the project will be available for review.
The presentation will begin at 7:30 pm.
This will be your chance to air your concerns and state what you think should be built in Brookside.
http://neighborhoodtulsa.com/brookside/newsblog/
[edit]
PS. Someone go and take pictures of the plans!
PPS. The picture in this thread is of a DOWNTOWN development in Little Rock. A residential area would probably have a different design.
I think the people being asked to move should be offered a decent amount of money for moving costs. Other than that, I do not understand the "I'll go homeless" arguement. If they are living at 39th and Rockford, they are more than likely overpaying by a good deal on rent anyway. They could afford the same, or more, in a lower demand area of town.
quote:
Originally posted by White Choc Hot Choc
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I'm having a hard time getting over something like this popping up over the neighborhood and can be seen in every direction. Wouldn't surprise me if Bolewood got involved in fighting this as well.
Great idea, wrong area for a five story building.
Why would Bolewood fight it? They already have RE zoning. (Estate).
How many of the people in Bolewood are going to want to look off the NW side of their property at an apartment building? Not many is my guess.
YT -
At a whim their landlord could say he no longer wants to rent to them and kick them out with no compensation at the end of their lease. If they have a term in their lease they are entitled to some form of compensation (usually minimal). Tenants have a right to occupy and use the land for a stipulated amount of time, they have no right of continuing that occupation.
Not that it wouldn't be nice to give them moving expenses or some other little kick back to help things out, just sayin' they sure don't have to.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
I'm shocked that bumgarner isn't behind this monstrosity. all the same, I plan on supporting the Brookside neighbors to fight this garbage.
What in God's name are you talking about? You haven't even seen renderings. Stick to the South Side, bro. You can have all the sprawl you want out there. We don't need to pick a fight with these people, assuming they're plans are reasonable. These are the kind of developers we need in the Tulsa market because they clearly understand the value (and profit) available from building in urban, walkable settings. Let's try not to chase them away.
contrary to popular belief tulsa is not a vertical town. 5 story APARTMENTS? take it into the IDL where there are less stringent height restrictions.
4 story apartments sitting on top of parking. My guess is parking will be at least somewhat underground. That puts it at maybe 10' higher than Food Pyramid?
Not so fast, when you allow for mechancial systems, figure about 12' per floor. They would likely wind up with something about twice the height of Food Pyramid IF parking is underground.
I didn't say I'm against it, just having a hard time picturing this sticking up overlooking Brookside and I think some of the surrounding neighborhoods are going to have a problem with it.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
I'm shocked that bumgarner isn't behind this monstrosity. all the same, I plan on supporting the Brookside neighbors to fight this garbage.
What in God's name are you talking about? You haven't even seen renderings. Stick to the South Side, bro. You can have all the sprawl you want out there. We don't need to pick a fight with these people, assuming they're plans are reasonable. These are the kind of developers we need in the Tulsa market because they clearly understand the value (and profit) available from building in urban, walkable settings. Let's try not to chase them away.
contrary to popular belief tulsa is not a vertical town. 5 story APARTMENTS? take it into the IDL where there are less stringent height restrictions.
4 story apartments sitting on top of parking. My guess is parking will be at least somewhat underground. That puts it at maybe 10' higher than Food Pyramid?
Not so fast, when you allow for mechancial systems, figure about 12' per floor. They would likely wind up with something about twice the height of Food Pyramid IF parking is underground.
I didn't say I'm against it, just having a hard time picturing this sticking up overlooking Brookside and I think some of the surrounding neighborhoods are going to have a problem with it.
I think Tulsa needs some verticality in these areas. Currently when you drive around Brookside the only high elevations you see are quite ugly with the exception of some of the old churches. We have that damn disposable EFIS architecture everywhere.
From an artistic perspective I like the idea of seeing storefronts with elegantly designed buildings looming in the background.
The problem is, making sure that the buildings look like what was proposed. That's why realistic renderings are so important. They become a record of what was designed and proposed, and in most cases, they lock the developer into using specific materials rather than "value engineering" to the point of EFIS and metal siding.
When you put this on your sign and it's on the documents submitted to the planning commission.
(http://web.mac.com/scottgaspar/iWeb/Gaspar%20site/Creations_files/rockford9.jpg)
You better not start slapping on vinyl siding. You can drive by this one on 41st and Rockford and it looks identical to this model I created last year.
I can always spot a cheap developer, because they want renderings and sketches that are more "sketchy" than realistic. Beware of proposals with "sketchy" imagery. They do it for a reason!
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
How many of the people in Bolewood are going to want to look off the NW side of their property at an apartment building? Not many is my guess.
Do they not have trees?
I like the idea.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
YT -
At a whim their landlord could say he no longer wants to rent to them and kick them out with no compensation at the end of their lease. If they have a term in their lease they are entitled to some form of compensation (usually minimal). Tenants have a right to occupy and use the land for a stipulated amount of time, they have no right of continuing that occupation.
Not that it wouldn't be nice to give them moving expenses or some other little kick back to help things out, just sayin' they sure don't have to.
Oh definately. I know that legally, any renter with a landlord possessing an IQ over 30, will have signed agreements that say the landlord can move them out in the event they sell their property. I'm just saying, the NICE thing to do would be to offer people a little bit of assistance with moving costs. If the property owner has a ton of other properties, he could even offer them a good deal on a new place to live. They aren't legally obligated, I'm sure.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
How many of the people in Bolewood are going to want to look off the NW side of their property at an apartment building? Not many is my guess.
Do they not have trees?
Used to before the TREE HOLOCAUST of 2008.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by White Choc Hot Choc
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I'm having a hard time getting over something like this popping up over the neighborhood and can be seen in every direction. Wouldn't surprise me if Bolewood got involved in fighting this as well.
Great idea, wrong area for a five story building.
Why would Bolewood fight it? They already have RE zoning. (Estate).
How many of the people in Bolewood are going to want to look off the NW side of their property at an apartment building? Not many is my guess.
Here is your homework assignment for the night:
Go to these following locations and look towards Wild Oats:
43rd & St Louis (41st & St. Louis, drive 2 blocks south into the neighborhood and you hit 43rd).
42nd & Victor (41st & Victor Ave, drive a block south to where 42nd hooks in from the east)
37th & Troost (37th & Utica, then 1 block west)
Go to these spots, look towards Wild Oats, and tell me what you see. I'm guessing all you will see are the mature trees that cover the area. You couldn't see across the horizon enough to spot a 5 story building. 42nd & Victor is what is considered "Bolewood", and there is no way they could possibly be seeing a 5 story building from there. For extra points: From each of these locations, look for Channel 2's tower/doppler radar. You'll get a straight view of it from 37th & Troost I bet, but from Bolewood/42nd & Victor, you probably cannot even find it.
Why would Bolewood protest about a building they wouldn't be able to see?
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
YT -
At a whim their landlord could say he no longer wants to rent to them and kick them out with no compensation at the end of their lease. If they have a term in their lease they are entitled to some form of compensation (usually minimal). Tenants have a right to occupy and use the land for a stipulated amount of time, they have no right of continuing that occupation.
Not that it wouldn't be nice to give them moving expenses or some other little kick back to help things out, just sayin' they sure don't have to.
Oh definately. I know that legally, any renter with a landlord possessing an IQ over 30, will have signed agreements that say the landlord can move them out in the event they sell their property. I'm just saying, the NICE thing to do would be to offer people a little bit of assistance with moving costs. If the property owner has a ton of other properties, he could even offer them a good deal on a new place to live. They aren't legally obligated, I'm sure.
Typically those buy-out agreements are for two or three months rent in cash compensation. So if somebody's in the middle of a $800/month lease, it'll cost the landlord $1600 or $2400 to move them out.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
I'm shocked that bumgarner isn't behind this monstrosity. all the same, I plan on supporting the Brookside neighbors to fight this garbage.
Way to jump to conclusions there. I'm all for not displacing the elderly, but the fact remains; as a renter, you have no say in what the owner of your home does, unless he/she breaches the lease contract. The owner of the property is free to sell it to whomever he chooses, as long as he doesn't break lease contracts. Do you expect some invisible force to sweep in and undo a fundamental aspect of the capitalist system?
In reading most of your posts, I often wonder if you are just misinformed, or opposed to change or progress in general. You seem to object to any kind of development at all. Do you stand to realize some economic incentive if Tulsa as a whole does not progress, or are you just a cynic?
Or perhaps you are truly an altruistic person, and want to genuinely help a group of elderly individuals that may be forced to find a new place to live. If that's the case, then perhaps you should help organize an assisted relocation effort, or volunteer to help the residents physically move some of their belongings some weekend.
Don't expect the economic sustainability of a region to halt. With just about every form of progress, some individuals are adversely affected. People have to adapt in order for progress to occur.
Well, KTUL just showed the renderings on screen... and by 'show', I mean they panned across the image in about 1.2013 seconds.
It looks like they have a circular drive in the front, and the building materials appeared to be some kind of stone (~25%) and stucco.
I am headed to the meeting. Will try and get some pics.
The building height limitation in all of the residential districts except for RM-3 is 35 feet. At 39th St, the land west of Rockford appears to be zoned RM-1 and the land east of Rockford zoned RS-3.
To build an apartment building taller than 35 feet on the west side of Rockford, the developer could propose a PUD. All owners of property within 300 feet of the proposed PUD would require notification per Section 1107.D of the zoning code (//%22http://www.cityoftulsa.org/ourcity/ordinances/Title42-11.asp%22) to allow for any objections to be heard at a public hearing.
The floor to floor height in an apartment building can vary depending on the structural support system. In apartment buildings with concrete frames, the floor to floor height on the residential floors can be 9 feet.
Got back from the meeting was quite interesting.
Some of the residents of the duplexes were upset that they would be losing their homes. But it was pointed out that the developer found the site because it was up for sale. Since this is becoming a desirable area its likely that whoever buys this property would tear down what is there and build something new. They are going to be losing their homes one way or another. One lady who lived right across from the proposed development was veeeeeeery upset and extremely angry about it. Made the comment that it would be a disaster for the area and her property values would go down. Also ranted something about kids being run over and drunks. (apparently this development has a wine bar in it for the tennants) She went on quite a furious diatribe, it was something to see. Even the developer seemed taken aback a bit. A guy who also lived right by the development said he was all for it and that it would likely bring his property values up.
Here are two photos I shot.
They are wanting to replace this....
(http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/852/bomasada2pd8.jpg)
With this..... (just a basic rendering, details may change, color of stoccoe areas, etc.)
(http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/2166/enclaveatbrooksidews9.jpg)
The height thing was brought up by several people. They did a "raising of hands" just a little over half were against the height, just under half had no problem. The developer was asked if he could lop off a floor. He mentioned that at the price points he could likely expect to get, the cost of a class A development, the cost of the property and the amount available to build on pretty much meant you were likely to either build a lower quality, class C develoment or the larger, higher quality, class A development in order for the numbers to work out. One of the people with the office development that is going in across the street on 41st got up later and mentioned that they had considered that property before as well, and had come to the same conclusions. They had decided in the end not to do anything there because they did not want to do residential.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
I can always spot a cheap developer, because they want renderings and sketches that are more "sketchy" than realistic. Beware of proposals with "sketchy" imagery. They do it for a reason!
Im also leery of sketches that dont show how it will be lit. Usually means the plan is somewhat lacking.
I'm really excited that this is going in--it will bring a huge number of people to the Brookside area, increase density, get rid of some substandard housing, etc... but I can't help but to think that there are some much better areas in Brookside to put this. It would be fantastic to have it closer to the heart of Brookside (around 34th is what I consider the 'downtown' of Brookside), facing Peoria and including retail on the first level. Visibility would be higher, it would be closer to the real action of Brookside and would promote walking/bicycling more than this location will.
I just think it would have a more profound effect on the neighborhood if it were situated in a different location within Brookside.
I'd really like to see Brookside turn into more than just a 'strip'. Most, if not all, Tulsa's "districts" are no more than one block wide. I don't really consider that a district--to me, a district is less of a mile-long, single street, and more like several square blocks which are developed. Take, for instance, Little Italy (or ANY district) in NYC... It's not just Mulberry Street which makes up Little Italy--it's Mulberry, Broome, Grand, Hester, Mott, Elizabeth, etc. I want our little strips to become full-fledged districts. Something a little less "superficial"...
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
I can always spot a cheap developer, because they want renderings and sketches that are more "sketchy" than realistic. Beware of proposals with "sketchy" imagery. They do it for a reason!
Im also leery of sketches that dont show how it will be lit. Usually means the plan is somewhat lacking.
I actually sent the developer an email last night as soon as I heard about the project, and asked a ton of questions, including lighting. I'll wait and see what their response is [^].
The neighbors should be jumping up and down for joy. Those apartments are an eyesore, and the landlord who currently owns them is a scammer/low rent landlord.
Artist, good info, thanks! Did you get any idea, or a look at a map, of what exactly it was taking out? I made a map of what I'm thinking is going to happen, I was curious how they are going to squeeze 250 quality units into a fairly small area. Here is my map:
(http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/158/apartmentsaa9.gif)
- The red area is going to be gone for sure. All of those are the really bad dilapidated units.
- My question is about the Yellow and Blue areas. It would make sense, and seem more realistic for them to be cramming that many apartments into the space going all the way to 41st Street. If they just take out the condos (Yellow area) that is a very narrow strip that I don't see the artist renderings fitting into. The Blue area takes out a nice ocean of asphault which is primarily overflow parking for Wild Oats (but people dont like to walk very far, so it isnt utilized fully) - but also the decent sized Insurance office that sits in that parking lot. Will Janine Morales be relocating for this deal? They wind up with about 300,000 square feet if they take out everything to 41st street, but only have a little under 200,000 square feet with the red area.
My measurements are very very rough based off of google maps' scale key and pixels. Not exactly scientific.
Another note, Google maps has the streets off by quite a bit, Rockford ave. doesnt sit on the east side of those trees, my box borders go down where Rockford really is.
This is really great for Tulsa. Thanks Artist for going to the meeting. Great to hear that not all were opposed to the height. 5 stories is nothing. I can understand them upset with 8 or 10.
The "army barracks" need to come down... have for years.
The only real question I have would be in regards to the aesthetics of the building.
I'm sorry but you could easily mistake this drawing for a hospital.... not semi-resort, upper scale, living quarters...
William, you are the Artist of record...
Opinion??
And are they serious about parking on the lower level? The renderings show no parking lot or cars. Is that realistic? There is also no fence. This is great if it is true, especially if residents can just walk out the door and go do stuff instead of going around a ratmaze of gates and fences to go anywhere.
I looked up the North Little Rock one on Apartmentguide, the prices are a bit higher than what people are used to in Tulsa. Is the Little Rock market in general more expensive than Tulsa for the same thing? Or would this be reasonable to expect the same for Tulsa?
(http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/2186/enclaveau7.gif)
Typical new construction "luxury" apartments are going for more like $1 per sq. foot in South Tulsa than the $1.15 to $1.45 you see there. Might be out of my price range, but it also looks like they might have more features than your typical offering the Tulsa mass-market has been seeing.
I do not remember what exactly the footprint of the building is. Yes the parking is indeed on the ground level which is an expense that also pushes for the building to be a bit higher and of higher quality "able to charge more for rent". The prices you have on that chart are what I believe they will be asking for. They do want this to be a "premier address", one of the best if not THE best apartment choice in the area. They consider themselves to be a vanguard developer. They see "up and coming" areas and make the first move.
As for where the building is. They came into town, looked for general areas, Brookside/Cherry street and then looked for what properties were for sale that were large enough for their types of development. This property fit the bill. Apparently they had been looking at Tulsa for a while and when this property became available they went for it. I doubt in this climate of "dont build that near me" that they could go in and try to buy up a bunch of smaller properties and then try to get this built. Someone would inevitably not want to sell and would put up an even bigger fight. Plus, whats there is no big loss imo.
Couple other things. Some have mentioned that the development isnt urban enough. The front set backs and the drive are too much. But the developer, realizing he was in for some criticism on the height added the larger set back and drive to minimize the appearance of the height. He also lopped off 2 stories on either end, "losing some money" in order to have a stepped appearance with the ends meeting the height requirements.
They wanted to help the people who would be displaced by the sale of the duplexes find new places. So they had some people go around the area, scout out rents and have said they have gotten other rental property owners who have said they will definitely work to help the people. They said they have found available places in the same area that cost about the same or less and had more square footage than the ones the people were renting now. Personally I think that is something the sellers of the duplexes should have done, but it seemed a decent thing for the developer to do.
Thanks Artist!
I know a person that looks like they will be
involved in this project and they gave the same
interpretation of the meeting as you did. They
also mentioned that Channel 8 packed up after
the tirades and left, showing no interest in the
positive speakers. Apparently the guy who
currently owns the property is being encouraged
to sell by his creditors, so the interpretation
that they will lose their "homes" seems entirely
accurate.
Ok. Now residents have a huge say in
development in their own area, but here is the
choice for the city of Tulsa (and I trust
theArtist to give a fair assessment):
(http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/852/bomasada2pd8.jpg)
or
(http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/2166/enclaveatbrooksidews9.jpg)
Seriously? If we turn this project down I'd
imagine most major developers will assume we are
not serious about urban development, infill
projects, or increased density. ~35 units vs
250. ~$2mil in tax base vs. $30mil. Old and
crappy vs. new and shiny. Add to that choice a
developer that is willing to try and appease
the locals (so long as it still makes "cents")
and help those offended relocate.
This better not be a hard choice.
You're right CF. Other parties are watching. I found two other developers (from 2007) that had claims on this property as a future project. Both dropped it because they felt it would be too difficult of a battle.
They are now watching to see if they were right! [:O]
Based on the property layout I'm guessing the "front" will face either north or south? Yes?
As I've said, I personally don't have a problem with it, just identifying what/who the problems might be for this type of development.
Honestly from 41st St. I think it would be pretty distinctive. Not so sure how it would look over the roof of Food Pyramid going down Peoria.
This is good infill which could help change the face of the 41st & Peoria area. The old vet housing was tired 20 years ago.
These fellows have quite the "portfolio" of projects they have done across the country..
http://www.bomasadagroup.com/projects.html
still think they could add a little more character to the exterior of the Brookside project.. It will be very visible. The more eye appeal it has the more it will enhance the area.
I certainly hope this goes through. Once builders like these are in a market, they tend to expand within that market. Tulsa needs more vanguard developers hunting for "pioneer" sites. That's the only way that old, cool districts like the Pearl and East Village are going to come alive. I certainly hope these folks have a successful experience in Brookside.
At least this group can show some completed work unlike "Heavenly Hospitality". Floyd I think you are correct that if one developer could make something like this happen others would take notice or they might develop more.
Looks as if this company has one completed project in Charleston and is working on another.
Yeah, this is no Global Development Partners startup. This is an established builder of upscale apartments. Now, when we say "upscale" or "luxury," in association with a 250-unit building, we're not talking about the Ritz-Carlton. We're talking about places that have nice countertops, thick walls, decent carpeting and paint. Community gyms. Potted plants in the halls. Nice things, but not exorbitant. In other words, exactly the sort of places we want to encourage in the core of our city.
Other regional builders who we could encourage to come to Tulsa include Post (//%22http://www.postproperties.com/%22)and Gables (//%22http://www.gables.com/%22). I'm familiar with those two, but there are plenty more companies out there looking to continue their investments in a market that is not inflated and that has room for growth.
That's why it's such good news that Bomasada Group has identified and hopes to invest in the Tulsa market. It is also why it behooves us to make them as welcome as possible, so that others will follow. These are the builders that make downtown residences happen in places like Austin, Dallas, Atlanta, and Denver. We need them here.
This looks like a great project.
It would be great for the area. I think the Brookside Neighborhood Association is going to be for this. The site where this is going to be built is a pretty rough and not well maintained complex that is surrounded by a very nice neighborhood.
There are some other pretty iffy apartment complexes in this area that could be leveled for projects like this. The apartments behind Westlake Hardware on the other side of Peoria come to mind. Those are awful and hurt the whole area on that side of Peoria.
A question, would the proposed conservation overlay ordinance make a project like this impossible?
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
These fellows have quite the "portfolio" of projects they have done across the country..
http://www.bomasadagroup.com/projects.html
still think they could add a little more character to the exterior of the Brookside project.. It will be very visible. The more eye appeal it has the more it will enhance the area.
the list of amenities in their other projects is pretty impressive, it will not be a slum project. the list looks fairly upscale to appeal to a more urban crowd. As to it being seen over the top of Food Pyramid, That is okay with me. You go to Dallas, Kansas City or hell, even Little Rock and see these types of apartment communitys improving a neighborhood.
One of the things that this development has brought up that bothers me is the 3 story height restriction for Brookside.
The people who came up with the recent Brookside Plan, or whatever its called, decided that 3 stories is appropriate.
Then I hear that the Brookside Neighborhood Association and the Brookside Business Association are gung ho about this development and think it fits in perfectly with what the Brookside plan was wanting to achieve?
I believe they were the ones who came up with the plan and the 3 story limit.
I have mentioned this development to several people and how because its 5 story they will have to ask for a variance because 3 stories is the limit. Everyone I have talked to, without exception, the first thing they ask with a puzzled look on their face is... "Why would they put a 3 story limit in that area?" "That area would be perfect for a 5 story developments like this."
Brookside prides itself on being a walkable urban district. It wants to grow and improve. Anyone with half a brain would tell you that, 4 stories minimum, best at 6 stories, is the classic, traditional, age old, well proven, most practical, etc. type of development to create just such a district. 3 stories? How would 3 stories make any sense? All the similar areas in other cities have the traditional 5 and 6 story developments going in. And if Brookside wants to be as nice and successful as those areas... why 3 stories? Suburban areas have 3 story apartments, uburban areas and developments are traditionally 5 and 6. Heck, look at the Bomasada website, notice where the 3 story developments are and the 5 and 6 story developments are.
I hope this goes through, but it seems odd that there should be an argument because there was a height restriction of 3 stories in this area. Yet the people who came up with the 3 story limit themselves say this is the perfect development for Brookside? Sounds like someone wasnt thinking this through and truly realizing where this area was naturally going to be heading development wise.
As soon as my tear-down sells I will be a Brooksider no longer, so I could care less. The infrastructure is not designed to handle that kind of traffic, and frankly I do not think the market is there for the price tag. Y'know, Brookside's dumpiness emanates from all over, and not just those fleabag apartments.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
As soon as my tear-down sells I will be a Brooksider no longer, so I could care less. The infrastructure is not designed to handle that kind of traffic, and frankly I do not think the market is there for the price tag. Y'know, Brookside's dumpiness emanates from all over, and not just those fleabag apartments.
Selling out to someone who wants to build a Tuscan nightmare?
Artist, I agree with you that semi-high rise construction of 4-6 stories will work out best and I understand the economics of the area dictates such structures. But I also understand what the planners were thinking.
Oslo, Amsterdam, and San Francisco are among the most urban landscapes in the world. Most of their territory is 3 or 4 story structures. Perhaps they were thinking 1 six story building could be 2 three story buildings instead. While ignoring the economics of the issue, it could make the area seem more urban faster if done with zero lot lines etc.
Another idea is that they wanted to reserve exceptions for anything over 3 stories. It would be hard for a three story structure to really ruin the neighborhood, but one seriously ugly 6 story structure could make a good run at it.
I'm in favor of this development 95% (I wish it was actually along Peoria and zero lot line so the area really started looking more Urban, but space and economics says I don't get everything I want), but am just playing devils advocate.
I live in the Brookside area near Saint Mary. I think this devlopment will be good for Brookside. I have been hoping for some improvements in our area. If they could get rid of the apartments behind Waffle House that would greatly improve the area.
Yeah, probably. Too bad, the house was built by the Core(sp) family in '39 who built a lot of the brick homes in Brookside. They built on to it a couple of times and we thought we had it in us to do more remodeling than we did, and big downturn in my income and so adios Brookside.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
As soon as my tear-down sells I will be a Brooksider no longer, so I could care less. The infrastructure is not designed to handle that kind of traffic, and frankly I do not think the market is there for the price tag. Y'know, Brookside's dumpiness emanates from all over, and not just those fleabag apartments.
Parking Garages + Well Designed Mass Transit = no infrastructure problem.
The market is there. This is just the start of a dumpiness clearing of sorts. You can't say people wouldn't pay $1,000 for an apartment when they paying $100 for a plate and $150 for a shirt just a few blocks away.
Plus, who cares if the market isn't there? That really is not our concern nor the development boards. If there was public money involved, it would matter. But as it stands there is not really any involved.
If the market is not there the developer will have to sell the building at a loss. The new buyer will then have lower costs and can charge less rent to fill it. So, in that instance, we get really nice apartments for what would probably be below initial cost.
Not all bad.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Plus, who cares if the market isn't there? That really is not our concern nor the development boards. If there was public money involved, it would matter. But as it stands there is not really any involved.
If the market is not there the developer will have to sell the building at a loss. The new buyer will then have lower costs and can charge less rent to fill it. So, in that instance, we get really nice apartments for what would probably be below initial cost.
Not all bad.
Agreed. One assumes that if the developer is worth his salt, he's done feasibility studies and knew the market is there before he even started sketching.
If the market was there though what about Southbrooke or whatever Gray's PUD was about? NO WAY folk are going to put down mad money for a condo but use Tulsa's bus system. It will not be bad on 41st but Rockford may be an issue.
Another stucco monstrosity? Friggin shoot me. NOW. Still, better than the dump that's there now, I agree.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
If the market was there though what about Southbrooke or whatever Gray's PUD was about? NO WAY folk are going to put down mad money for a condo but use Tulsa's bus system. It will not be bad on 41st but Rockford may be an issue.
Another stucco monstrosity? Friggin shoot me. NOW. Still, better than the dump that's there now, I agree.
I said well designed mass transit. What makes you think that has anything to do with Tulsa's bus system?
So if a developer starts deviating from his original PUD, does that mean he's playing....
eh, nevermind.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
If the market was there though what about Southbrooke or whatever Gray's PUD was about? NO WAY folk are going to put down mad money for a condo but use Tulsa's bus system. It will not be bad on 41st but Rockford may be an issue.
Another stucco monstrosity? Friggin shoot me. NOW. Still, better than the dump that's there now, I agree.
I don't see the infrastructure problem with just one development of this sort. I'm sure if 3 or 4 of these went in in the immediate vicinity, it would start to cause problems. I think an example of a similar traffic creator would be the University Club Towers at 17th & Carson. Cars turning out into Boulder and Denver are not really an issue. In this case it would be sending cars out onto 41st and Peoria.
From an efficiency standpoint, you are doing much better building apartments like this in a walkable area. Less people will be making car trips out to perform basic tasks when they have 2 grocers, sandwiches, pizza, liquor, videos, restaurants, bars, hardware, barbars, cleaners, coffee, parks, jogging trails, and trendy shopping all within a couple minutes walking distances, in ADDITION to many OTHER Services built into the first class development (like a gym and swimming pool good enough to actually use) - Yes, you add to the traffic problem, but on a level much lower per person when you make it that dense, and so close to all sorts of services.
One thing I could see is having buildings along brookside be 3 story then the next row behind that 5. That way you keep the "quaint" look of the street and the traffic, clubs and restaurants, noise, etc. along that road with the living just behind in a quieter zone.
As for Brooksides dumpiness its not much different than whats around Cherry Street. Those two streets are where Tulsa is most likely to infill with the kind of development that will attract the YP, Creative Class, empty nester, urban living, set.
Tulsa is shifting into a new infill growth pattern. Its pretty much filled up its borders in the desirable, suburban type areas so now there will be slow growth in the "undesirable" areas within Tulsa and lots of urban infill in the desirable areas... This is just the new reality that Tulsans are just now starting to wake up to and understand. Plus there is an urban living, Urban Village, "fad" or movement, all across America and Tulsa will catch that wave.
Where else other than Brookside and Cherry Street will this type of inevitable development gravitate to in Tulsa? Downtown still does not have that Urban Village feel to it in order to be a draw yet. "Dumpy" as those areas are, where else is this going to happen? I can easily point to areas in other cities like Dallas that were a couple of decades ago very much like Brookside is today, now they are filled building after building of 5 and 6 story apartments and condos with parking and retail at street level. Unless you suppose Tulsa is not going to mature and grow anymore, I dont know what your thinking is going to happen in those areas? Its just the natural course of things. Happens in every city at this stage.
Its going to happen, and those are the areas its going to happen in. Period. Unless.... we create additional areas with competitive desirability in other places by doing something like the Pearl District, something along the river, or getting downtown going. Or Jenks steals a good chunk of that demographic away with the River District and we sit around blocking construction and complaining about how our tax base isnt growing enough lol. Think about it. This development alone is going to add a couple hundred good taxpayers to help keep up the same stretch of road thats already there, AND they are in a walkable district. Few less trips per person and lots of extra taxes paid per person,,, Thats a good combination if you ask me.
The concerns about traffic are a bit double edged too. Where would be a good place for development?
How about Owasso with nice wide new streets. Then all we have to do is put in a new $20,000,000 interchange at 169 and the BA since we'we just got done widen those roads. After that we'll just redo the next choke point. Then for lunch, those people have a good chance of ending up at Brookside anyway.
Arguing it is too dense for Brookside is an argument in favor of sprawl over infill.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
The concerns about traffic are a bit double edged too. Where would be a good place for development?
How about Owasso with nice wide new streets. Then all we have to do is put in a new $20,000,000 interchange at 169 and the BA since we'we just got done widen those roads. After that we'll just redo the next choke point. Then for lunch, those people have a good chance of ending up at Brookside anyway.
Arguing it is too dense for Brookside is an argument in favor of sprawl over infill.
I think you dropped a zero in your cost of a highway interchange.
I am an ex-resident of Tulsa, currently residing in the Alamo Heights area of San Antonio. We are experience the same kind of development pressures as Brookside. We have a number of no-tell motels next to my area. Recently, a developer proposed tearing down 2 of them, along with a low-income apartment complex, to put up a 360-apartment, 4-story apartment complex.
The developer worked with my neighborhood association on a number of deed restrictions, including a Restrictive Covenant into perpetuity, in order for our support of zoning changes that would allow such a large building. We got them to agree to design changes, lighting changes, and a whole slew of other benefits to the neighborhood. So we get rid of high-crime areas adjacent to our area, and they get their development. It's a win-win for everyone, and a good model for working with a developer that the Brookside folks might want to take a look at.
Read more here: http://terrellheights.com/docket/. Look under "Chancellor Propery Redevelopment".
I did some very quick calculations based on INCOG's online zoning map (//%22http://www.incog.org/mapping/Zoning/T%2019%20%20R%2013.pdf%22), the county assessor's parcel map, and on the article/map published in the Tulsa World today (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=20080224_1_A19_hButt17682%22).
Perhaps someone in Brookside has looked at the proposal, but I don't see how the developer can be planning a mixture of 240 one-bedroom and two-bedroom apartments.
By my calculation, a maximum of 68 apartments could be built in a planned unit development (PUD) on the RM-1 portion of the site (west of Rockford between 39th and 41st).
A maximum of 134 apartments could be built in a PUD on the RM-2 portion of the site (south of 39th and east of Food Pyramid).
In a PUD, the developer would have some freedom to build the apartments on the site regardless of the underlying zoning districts, but as I understand it, the total number of dwelling units is based on those districts. The combined number of apartments based on the land areas of the RM-1 and RM-2 districts would be 202, not 240.
I'm not an expert on this, but I did work on a PUD with a mixture of underlying zoning districts -- so I'm somewhat familiar with the methodology.
I'm figuring that an additional acre of land would be required in order the developer to propose a total of 240 apartments.
I relied on information which could be inaccurate. Also, my calculations could be wrong. I could be off by 15% with my quick run through the numbers. This could be the 15% mentioned as a minor PUD amendment in Section 1107.H.3 of the zoning code (//%22http://www.cityoftulsa.org/ourcity/ordinances/Title42-11.asp%22), but I doubt it. If someone familiar with the zoning code knows where I might have mis-calculated, please post a reply.
I'm not an authority on zoning or on Brookside, but I do want to see all parties treated fairly in this case. Even without a PUD, Rockford already divides a single-family residential district from multi-family district. The maximum allowed density allowed on the west side of Rockford is approximately 19.8 dwelling units per acre without a PUD and 25.6 dwelling units with a PUD. The development on the east side of Rockford is limited to approximately 5.2 dwelling units per acre.
Without an amendment to the zoning map, the height of buildings on both sides of Rockford is limited to 35 feet. This is one regulation which protects the owners of the homes east of Rockford from overwhelmingly out-of-scale development being built on the other side of the street without the benefit of any notification or public hearing.
From what I hear they are attempting to rezone some of the property in anticipation of the PUD to RM-3 in order to get them the density. The PUD will also get them over the 35 ft.
quote:
Originally posted by OurTulsa
From what I hear they are attempting to rezone some of the property in anticipation of the PUD to RM-3 in order to get them the density. The PUD will also get them over the 35 ft.
Thanks. Re-zoning 32,571 square feet of the RM-2 district to RM-3 would net 38 additional apartments.
Word has it, that the deal has fallen through.
Another developer is now examining the land.
That is all I know for now.
That was quick.
What in the crap?
Bait and switch?
The first one looked nice in a lot of aspects (lower level parking, no criminal fence around the perimeter). I wonder if they floated the "nice" idea so our initial reaction would be one of acceptance, and now the real crap is about to be foisted upon us?
I hope not.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
What in the crap?
Bait and switch?
The first one looked nice in a lot of aspects (lower level parking, no criminal fence around the perimeter). I wonder if they floated the "nice" idea so our initial reaction would be one of acceptance, and now the real crap is about to be foisted upon us?
I hope not.
I doubt this developer came all the way to Tulsa to do research, set up meetings, listen to red faced people holler at him, just so he could "set the stage" for some other developer.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
What in the crap?
Bait and switch?
The first one looked nice in a lot of aspects (lower level parking, no criminal fence around the perimeter). I wonder if they floated the "nice" idea so our initial reaction would be one of acceptance, and now the real crap is about to be foisted upon us?
I hope not.
I doubt this developer came all the way to Tulsa to do research, set up meetings, listen to red faced people holler at him, just so he could "set the stage" for some other developer.
But the other developer could take advantage of our acceptance, based on what we THOUGHT we were getting this time around.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
What in the crap?
Bait and switch?
The first one looked nice in a lot of aspects (lower level parking, no criminal fence around the perimeter). I wonder if they floated the "nice" idea so our initial reaction would be one of acceptance, and now the real crap is about to be foisted upon us?
I hope not.
I doubt this developer came all the way to Tulsa to do research, set up meetings, listen to red faced people holler at him, just so he could "set the stage" for some other developer.
But the other developer could take advantage of our acceptance, based on what we THOUGHT we were getting this time around.
Not sure who the new player will be yet, but they want all of the proposed images to review. I mentioned that much of the acceptance was built on the original image of the Arkansas project.
The original developer was told that several changes to the plan would have to be made before it could be approved, so he walked. End of story.
Any particular reason given as to why the development fell through?
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
Any particular reason given as to why the development fell through?
Sometimes these out of state developers get a design first, then look around for sites that fit the design and demographic profile. If it becomes to difficult to develop one site they just move on to the next. That's just the way it works for them.
The good news is that now the site and the accepted concept is available for a good Tulsa developer to come in and take over. [:D] I would much rather see a local guy or gal developing this site!
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
Any particular reason given as to why the development fell through?
Sometimes these out of state developers get a design first, then look around for sites that fit the design and demographic profile. If it becomes to difficult to develop one site they just move on to the next. That's just the way it works for them.
The good news is that now the site and the accepted concept is available for a good Tulsa developer to come in and take over. [:D] I would much rather see a local guy or gal developing this site!
Local development is good, but given Tulsa's history with 'developers', the most likely thing to happen to the property if in the hands of a Tulsan is... nothing.
I'd rather an out-of-towner come in and build something nice rather than always have the
potential for a local developer who
might or might not put anything on it in the next 20 years.
Until there's an official statement or email or something, I'm going to try an believe this is still going to happen.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
My guess is parking will be at least somewhat underground.
The parking garage most likely was a factor which significantly increased development costs. Underground parking is even more expensive than parking garages above ground, I my guess is that an underground garage would have been illegal and/or very expensive because most of the property is within the City of Tulsa Regulatory Floodplain -- the shallow flooding area of the Perryman ditch.
Great job Tulsa!
Every time something exciting seems like it is about to happen we somehow manage to f^%& it up. Aquarium to Jenks along with river development. Bass Pro to BA. East end project failed. East end project failed. East end project failed. No development around the BOk arena. No river tax. Roads crap. Fairgrounds being deserted. You're forcing me to turn into the unFriendly Bear.
Now this. An experienced developer wants to add a story so it makes economic sense to build something nice and offers to spend $30,000,000.00 building the kind of "urban" development in an area known to attract the young professionals our city claims to desire and demanded no obscene public financing... and it takes us well under a month to run them off.
Lesson learned. If you want to build grade "A" developments in Tulsa you had better be hooked into the system somehow or it won't happen. Lesson learn, we'll build elsewhere.
Sometimes I frikken hate this town.
Has the cancellation been verified?
I'm glad to see this go down in flames, if, in fact it is. It's really sad to see a city that supposedly supports diversity celebrating such large scale economic segregation.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
I'm glad to see this go down in flames, if, in fact it is. It's really sad to see a city that supposedly supports diversity celebrating such large scale economic segregation.
Wouldn't this have added diversity? How many other class A, apartment complexes in this price range are there in the area? There are still plenty of other inexpensive apartments in the area besides what would have been replaced by this ONE complex. The developer wanted this to be one of the best if not the best apartment complex in the city. THAT would have added diversity.
Tulsa is predominantly a poor and working class city, filled with Class B and C complexes. Whats wrong with adding a little diversity by having an apartment complex for some middle to upper middle class people?
I have heard this "diversity" argument from a couple of people in several situations and its BS. Frankly I find it hard to find as many young, wealthy, educated, YP types in Tulsa as there are in a lot of cities I visit. Our jobs, economy and local wages show that. We are sorely lacking in that aspect of diversity if you ask me. I think your just being a selfish little twit with no concern for any other demographic than your own. Because this would obviously have added MORE diversity not less. You say you care about diversity but its comments like this that show you really don't. Its not like this is Manhattan or central London where there isnt much affordable housing for miles around. There is pleeenty of cheap affordable housing and apartments in this city and this ONE apartment complex wouldn't have made it even slightly difficlult for anyone to find affordable housing in the city or even that area.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
I'm glad to see this go down in flames, if, in fact it is. It's really sad to see a city that supposedly supports diversity celebrating such large scale economic segregation.
"Upscale" is just a label. Everything is marketed as "upscale" these days, because otherwise it is seen as low-class. Besides, this was simply a business proposal responding to customer demand. Economic segregation? You demand a certain degree of quality in every product you purchase. That same degree of quality is not the same for everyone. This isn't economic segregation, it's just responding to consumer preferences. If a customer asks for a Lexus you don't offer them a Ford.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Word has it, that the deal has fallen through.
What's your source?
I am reminded of a famous quote:
"The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated." - Mark Twain
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
I'm glad to see this go down in flames, if, in fact it is. It's really sad to see a city that supposedly supports diversity celebrating such large scale economic segregation.
Wouldn't this have added diversity? How many other class A, apartment complexes in this price range are there in the area? There are still plenty of other inexpensive apartments in the area besides what would have been replaced by this ONE complex. The developer wanted this to be one of the best if not the best apartment complex in the city. THAT would have added diversity.
Tulsa is predominantly a poor and working class city, filled with Class B and C complexes. Whats wrong with adding a little diversity by having an apartment complex for some middle to upper middle class people?
I have heard this "diversity" argument from a couple of people in several situations and its BS. Frankly I find it hard to find as many young, wealthy, educated, YP types in Tulsa as there are in a lot of cities I visit. Our jobs, economy and local wages show that. We are sorely lacking in that aspect of diversity if you ask me. I think your just being a selfish little twit with no concern for any other demographic than your own. Because this would obviously have added MORE diversity not less. You say you care about diversity but its comments like this that show you really don't. Its not like this is Manhattan or central London where there isnt much affordable housing for miles around. There is pleeenty of cheap affordable housing and apartments in this city and this ONE apartment complex wouldn't have made it even slightly difficlult for anyone to find affordable housing in the city or even that area.
The demographics of D9 tell a much different story. Now, if this was planned for North Tulsa your argument would hold water.
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Word has it, that the deal has fallen through.
What's your source?
I am reminded of a famous quote:
"The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated." - Mark Twain
When was the last time a development died in Tulsa because of zoning? I just don't buy that a developer spent quite a bit of time and money getting to the planning commission and folds after a single meeting.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Word has it, that the deal has fallen through.
What's your source?
I am reminded of a famous quote:
"The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated." - Mark Twain
When was the last time a development died in Tulsa because of zoning? I just don't buy that a developer spent quite a bit of time and money getting to the planning commission and folds after a single meeting.
ditto...
I wouldn't think zoning would kill the proposal, either. The building height above 35 feet could have been approved as part of a PUD. Getting 33,000 square feet of the property re-zoned from RM-2 to RM-3 probably would have not been a huge problem, either -- especially the land adjacent to Food Pyramid.
Staying above the regulatory floodplain elevation would have added some expense to the site grading and structural system for the building, but I'm guessing that the floodplain issue could have been overcome also.
I put a call in to Bamasada to see if I could verify. Becky Perry was not in so I left a message. I have been unable to see any verification on this yet. Will post if she gets back to me or I get hold of them.
I should not have participated in the nay saying until I verified.
The project is still moving forward. I started a new thread in case someone read the rumor in this thread and then ceased reading the thread.
I spoke to a representative who was unsure, so she contacted John Gilbert - senior vice president of Bomasada. According to John "the project is moving forward." That was as of 2:30 this afternoon.
Thanks for clearing that up, CF. I'm looking forward to seeing this get underway. Between that, the offices at 41st and Rockford, and the lofts on 41st Place, that little area is going to change significantly in a short period of time. More population density, and more people working in that area will also inject even more life into the nearby Brookside businesses.
Yeah, it also will be interesting to see what happens with the area south of Brookside, between 41st and I-44, once these projects go in, the interstate is rebuilt, and the Camelot property is rebuilt.
Comes up at TAPC on the 4th.
There is talk that Bomasada is pulling out, but not ready to go public, until they have secured the site in one of their other markets. They hit the TAPC on the 4th of April and don't want to jeopardize anything yet.
If you want some insight, talk to the fire marshall and find out what he thinks of the plan. This is where the ball started to bounce sideways.
BE AWARE!, this monster (Bomasada) will not change their architectural plans for ANYONE! It's too expensive for them. If the fire marshall has suggestions or changes he would like to see made, you will need to put a gag on him if you want project to continue. If however you respect his opinion, the project will move to another market, and we will have to attract another developer to the site.
Bomasada maintains a process budget for site adaptation. Architectural changes that exceed the site adaptation budget, cause their business model to change direction. It is a very effective system that works for them. If we make this project expensive, the machine has to switch gears and move to another market. That's just the way it is!
The ball is in our court.
[;)]
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
Comes up at TAPC on the 4th.
There is talk that Bomasada is pulling out, but not ready to go public, until they have secured the site in one of their other markets. They hit the TAPC on the 4th of April and don't want to jeopardize anything yet.
If you want some insight, talk to the fire marshall and find out what he thinks of the plan. This is where the ball started to bounce sideways.
BE AWARE!, this monster (Bomasada) will not change their architectural plans for ANYONE! It's too expensive for them. If the fire marshall has suggestions or changes he would like to see made, you will need to put a gag on him if you want project to continue. If however you respect his opinion, the project will move to another market, and we will have to attract another developer to the site.
Bomasada maintains a process budget for site adaptation. Architectural changes that exceed the site adaptation budget, cause their business model to change direction. It is a very effective system that works for them. If we make this project expensive, the machine has to switch gears and move to another market. That's just the way it is!
The ball is in our court.
[;)]
What's the fire marshal's problem with the project?
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
Comes up at TAPC on the 4th.
There is talk that Bomasada is pulling out, but not ready to go public, until they have secured the site in one of their other markets. They hit the TAPC on the 4th of April and don't want to jeopardize anything yet.
If you want some insight, talk to the fire marshall and find out what he thinks of the plan. This is where the ball started to bounce sideways.
BE AWARE!, this monster (Bomasada) will not change their architectural plans for ANYONE! It's too expensive for them. If the fire marshall has suggestions or changes he would like to see made, you will need to put a gag on him if you want project to continue. If however you respect his opinion, the project will move to another market, and we will have to attract another developer to the site.
Bomasada maintains a process budget for site adaptation. Architectural changes that exceed the site adaptation budget, cause their business model to change direction. It is a very effective system that works for them. If we make this project expensive, the machine has to switch gears and move to another market. That's just the way it is!
The ball is in our court.
[;)]
"there is talk" screams speculation. Is there anything that is solid?
Remind me again why it is a good thing to drive away a developer who plans to replace Perry Properties slumlord housing with something more attractive that increases density within walking distance to shopping, dining and entertainment...and will increase Tulsa's slumping tax base?
Spoonbill, please tell us where this talk is coming from. I went to the horses mouth to do the best I could to dispel this rumor and posted the best information I could (Gilbert is the #2 man in the company). Is the talk from the fire marshal and if so, on what grounds?
Did Nashville, Little Rock, Charleston, Jacksonville and Albuquerque have to gag their fire marshal's too or just Tulsa?
I'm excited about this prospect, but if there is something really in the way out with it man! I don't need my hope raised, dashed, renewed, and then set into doubt right away again.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Spoonbill, please tell us where this talk is coming from. I went to the horses mouth to do the best I could to dispel this rumor and posted the best information I could (Gilbert is the #2 man in the company). Is the talk from the fire marshal and if so, on what grounds?
Did Nashville, Little Rock, Charleston, Jacksonville and Albuquerque have to gag their fire marshal's too or just Tulsa?
I'm excited about this prospect, but if there is something really in the way out with it man! I don't need my hope raised, dashed, renewed, and then set into doubt right away again.
When a developer is actively working a project there are a host of vendors, legal representatives and other hobos involved in the process. They also have the difficult juggling act of being responsible to the project, the city, and to other clients.
When a project sours we know it, and have to react to it long before there is any disclosure to the general public.
Our first act is usually to attempt to resurrect the project under new leadership and/or financing, because, after all, we have a stake in it and most likely will end up footing the bill for much of the work that we forward to developers in an attempt to attract the project.
When I say talk, I don't mean rumor! It's between Bamasada and the city. If the city bends Bamasada MAY return to the table. If Bamasada bends -- wait a minute, they don't bend!
Get my drift?
The fire marshall has an issue with the plan. Bamasada is willing to walk unless that changes. End of story!
Ball. Our court. Their advantage. ???
Bad news. According to UTW (//%22http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A20069%22), the deal is now officially off.
Bye, Bye Bomasada
Upscale apartments in Brookside were apparently not meant to be
BY BRIAN ERVIN
The much-hyped upscale apartment complex announced to be in the works for Brookside last month is no longer happening.
"We're terminating the contract," a Bomasada Group representative told UTW last week.
The plan was to build an upscale, $40 million, five-story, 240-unit apartment complex on Brookside near 41st St. and Peoria Ave. on the site currently occupied by the less-swanky Brookside Annex and Brookside Courtyard apartments.
While there were a few naysayers, the plan was received with mostly positive responses by neighborhood residents and business leaders in anticipation of the economic benefits it would bring to the area.
But, days after the announcement, UTW was told that it had been placed on the "backburner" due to "hiccups" from the city government.
Well, those "hiccups" proved to be fatal, the proverbial "backburner" has gone cold, and the deal is off. John Gilbert, senior vice president of the Bomasada Group, the Houston-based development firm that had planned to build the apartment complex, said the construction costs would be too prohibitive due to some peculiarities in the city's requirements.
He said city ordinances would have required them to construct the complex in segments, and to install a commercial fire sprinkler system instead of a residential system.
Gilbert said the Bomasada Group tried to renegotiate the purchase price of the property to offset the higher-than-expected construction costs, but the seller was unwilling to budge.
"In regard to the contract termination, I was asked to reduce the contract price by the amount of their excess construction costs due to city requirements, which... were in excess of what is expected within the international building code," said Dan Perry of Perry Properties, who owns the two apartment complexes currently on the lot.
"Apparently, there is a procedure in place to resolve these types of differences, which they were not willing to pursue at this time," he added.
Concerning his unwillingness to renegotiate the price, Perry said, "The price had already been agreed upon, and I did not see any need to sell the property for less than fair market value. Midtown property value is increasing, especially in the Brookside and Cherry Street areas."
Perry said he doesn't currently have any other buyers lined up, and he isn't actively seeking any.
"I have never listed the property for sale, nor do I intend to... at this time. Should another opportunity present itself, I will make the best decision I can make at that time," he said.
"You will not find another parcel of land like this in Midtown Tulsa. If I had the money, I would redevelop the property myself. I will do the best I can with the property until presented a better opportunity. The reason I bought the property ten years ago was... its location. Buildings and improvements age and depreciate over time, but well-located land generally only appreciates in value," Perry continued.
Gilbert said the Bomasada Group doesn't currently have any other projects in mind for Tulsa, but said, "We're still snooping around" for a place to develop within the city.
That sprinkler thing is such scam.....Sprinklers have their place but good lord.....
Looks like the person CF contacted passed on the "official status" rather than the real one.
Why would it have to be built in segments?
And why would it need to have commercial sprinklers instead of residential?
I don't see the reason for either of those stipulations.
Don't get too upset yet.
There is still a project that will emerge from this. Put your thinking caps on and lets interject some good ideas that can be passed on to the developer that is looking for a pick up game on this site.
Now it is more exciting because the ground work has been done and now someone is going to take over who will be open to your input!!!
And. . . This was your opportunity to see where, and how projects actually die in Tulsa, rather than your usual conjecture. Bombasada is only one of several out of town developers that have been roaming our city looking for fodder (not you CF). Now that they have been shafted, others are reluctant to engage.
We have plenty of local developers who are willing and able to play within our broken and retarded system to get things done. We just have to tell them what we want, and this project did exactly that. Now lets give them incentive to continue.
^ NFPA 13 versus NFPA 13R versus something else?
Type of construction proposed?
Rather than just a big apartment complex I would like to see something more along the lines of the various plans that have been floated for the East End area of downtown.
Something mixed use to make the south end of Brookside less of a strip along one street (Peoria) and more of a three dimensional district. It can be substantially residential but should have some retail and office to draw people other than just residents off of Peoria and back into the neighborhood.
And include some hotel space. Brookside badly needs some hotel rooms.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Rather than just a big apartment complex I would like to see something more along the lines of the various plans that have been floated for the East End area of downtown.
Something mixed use to make the south end of Brookside less of a strip along one street (Peoria) and more of a three dimensional district. It can be substantially residential but should have some retail and office to draw people other than just residents off of Peoria and back into the neighborhood.
And include some hotel space. Brookside badly needs some hotel rooms.
They also need parking garages, crow creek developed and to expand all the way to 31st, imho.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Rather than just a big apartment complex I would like to see something more along the lines of the various plans that have been floated for the East End area of downtown.
Something mixed use to make the south end of Brookside less of a strip along one street (Peoria) and more of a three dimensional district. It can be substantially residential but should have some retail and office to draw people other than just residents off of Peoria and back into the neighborhood.
And include some hotel space. Brookside badly needs some hotel rooms.
I'm with ya! This is the perfect spot for mixed use. We'll have to do some creative zoning work, but it would be perfect.
Needs to be permanent architecture too! Brick and stone rather than EFIS or stucco. I like the look of Bombasada's building in Little Rock.
(http://www.fox23.com/media/news/d/f/3/df3038aa-84e5-4571-a398-21d5cff3aa59/Story.jpg)
They could do an internal parking garage where the building donuts around it. Then as the development grows they could add another level to the garage without creating an eyesore!
quote:
Looks like the person CF contacted passed on the "official status" rather than the real one.
John Gilbert was the person I contacted. I got the word from Becky Perry who told me she "spoke to John [Gilbert] and he said the project is still moving forward."
Thanks for lying to me when I was trying to quell a "rumor" for you.
- - -
Aside from my angst at being lied to, this pisses me off. If it is part of the "international building code" why did this exact same group build in a dozen other cities and not have the same issues?
Commercial sprinklers in a residential complex?
Building in segments?
What the hell are they talking about.
THIS is the lack of leadership we talk about when we complain that Tulsa is stuck. A $40,000,000 unsolicited development walks in and knocks on your door. We chase them away. Don't worry, there is plenty of land in Bixby to build new apartments.
Sometimes I really hate this town.
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
Don't get too upset yet.
There is still a project that will emerge from this. Put your thinking caps on and lets interject some good ideas that can be passed on to the developer that is looking for a pick up game on this site.
Now it is more exciting because the ground work has been done and now someone is going to take over who will be open to your input!!!
And. . . This was your opportunity to see where, and how projects actually die in Tulsa, rather than your usual conjecture. Bombasada is only one of several out of town developers that have been roaming our city looking for fodder (not you CF). Now that they have been shafted, others are reluctant to engage.
We have plenty of local developers who are willing and able to play within our broken and retarded system to get things done. We just have to tell them what we want, and this project did exactly that. Now lets give them incentive to continue.
Wouldn't "incentive to continue" be to change our retarded system?
It blows my mind that it's allowed to happen. Where did these rules come from? Too many questions in my head and too many frustrations to write them.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Looks like the person CF contacted passed on the "official status" rather than the real one.
John Gilbert was the person I contacted. I got the word from Becky Perry who told me she "spoke to John [Gilbert] and he said the project is still moving forward."
Thanks for lying to me when I was trying to quell a "rumor" for you.
- - -
Aside from my angst at being lied to, this pisses me off. If it is part of the "international building code" why did this exact same group build in a dozen other cities and not have the same issues?
Commercial sprinklers in a residential complex?
Building in segments?
What the hell are they talking about.
THIS is the lack of leadership we talk about when we complain that Tulsa is stuck. A $40,000,000 unsolicited development walks in and knocks on your door. We chase them away. Don't worry, there is plenty of land in Bixby to build new apartments.
Sometimes I really hate this town.
Tulsa is still under the old IBC 2003 Code that would sprinklers for this type of use.
I don't know if the new IBC 2007 code does? Nor do I know what code they designed the building for.
As for segmentation of the buildings? I think that's just necessary to make it look like the rest of Tulsa's crappy apartment complexes. No clue?
I smell something fishy here....
The cost of segmenting the building and the additional cost of commercial vs. residential sprinklers, would have been but a HICCUP in a $40 million project...and are definitely something that would be expected in a project this large. Any city is going to require this, and if this development group says otherwise, they're lying.
Then the article ends with:
"Gilbert said the Bomasada Group doesn't currently have any other projects in mind for Tulsa, but said, "We're still snooping around" for a place to develop within the city. "
Now, the fire marshal and building codes will apply no matter where they build in the city of Tulsa...so if the fire marshall and/or building code is the problem, why are they continuing to look at land within the city?? [?]
I think they're trying to generate some publicity or something...
Maybe their margins were tight, they tested the waters here and will look at building a taller development elsewhere. 6,7,8 stories?
quote:
Originally posted by tulsa1603
I smell something fishy here....
The cost of segmenting the building and the additional cost of commercial vs. residential sprinklers, would have been but a HICCUP in a $40 million project...and are definitely something that would be expected in a project this large. Any city is going to require this, and if this development group says otherwise, they're lying.
Then the article ends with:
"Gilbert said the Bomasada Group doesn't currently have any other projects in mind for Tulsa, but said, "We're still snooping around" for a place to develop within the city. "
Now, the fire marshal and building codes will apply no matter where they build in the city of Tulsa...so if the fire marshall and/or building code is the problem, why are they continuing to look at land within the city?? [?]
I think they're trying to generate some publicity or something...
Sprinklers wouldn't be too much of an issue, but segmenting would be a complete redesign. On a 40 million dollar project it would be around $2 million not including MEP or Structural engineering.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by tulsa1603
I smell something fishy here....
The cost of segmenting the building and the additional cost of commercial vs. residential sprinklers, would have been but a HICCUP in a $40 million project...and are definitely something that would be expected in a project this large. Any city is going to require this, and if this development group says otherwise, they're lying.
Then the article ends with:
"Gilbert said the Bomasada Group doesn't currently have any other projects in mind for Tulsa, but said, "We're still snooping around" for a place to develop within the city. "
Now, the fire marshal and building codes will apply no matter where they build in the city of Tulsa...so if the fire marshall and/or building code is the problem, why are they continuing to look at land within the city?? [?]
I think they're trying to generate some publicity or something...
Sprinklers wouldn't be too much of an issue, but segmenting would be a complete redesign. On a 40 million dollar project it would be around $2 million not including MEP or Structural engineering.
I'm an architect. No way would this thing have been completely designed without researching codes FIRST. Fire walls (I assume that is what they are talking about) are common. This isn't some archaic rule that Tulsa has. I don't think we're talking about unrealistic things here....there is something weird about the reasons given. Two days ago they told CF that the project was on. Now it's off? How have they had time to figure out how much a redesign would cost? It seems shady to me that some firm blows into town, promises a $40million project, then pulls out whenever they meet any resistance - then all the blame is placed at the feet of the city. These rules aren't any more complicated than anywhere else. If anything, Tulsa is an EASY place to build.
After the meeting the developer had, I and a couple others hung around and spoke with him. One thing he said, that he probably wouldnt have said to the public in general added to my general impression that they were really pushing things cost wise with this development anyway. Tulsa is still not the best market for something like this development. The cost of having parking underneath means your profit margins are already going to be lower, plus putting in details like granite counter tops a lot of stone on the exterior, etc. again raises the price. But.... what the developer mentioned was that he was hoping to be able to add the rooms he took off on either end in order to make some decent money on the deal. Both ends of the development were cut down to 4 stories to try and appease the neighbors and get the initial approval. I suppose he hoped he could then go ahead later and get approval to add the extra apartments. It could have been that he realized that wasnt going to be allowed to happen.
Even if everything went smoothly, my impression from the beginning was that this development was really a stretch for the area and the developer knew he was pushing his profit margins and luck a bit. Once even a few more obstackles and challenges reared their heads, he probably got cold feet and backed out. I just dont think Tulsa quite has the market for something like this yet. I really wish it did, but wishing doesnt make it so.
The cost of the property, the constraints of the property, the cost of building the development all combined with the still "iffieness" of the market here, probably gave the developer a lot of pause.
Perhaps if he finds some land at a better price, is able to build the number of units he needs for the type of developments he builds, he will try again.
As for some other developer doing something similar in the area. He mentioned that because of the costs and constraints you faced with this property the most reasonable development options would be to either build a class A type development similar to what he was proposing, or a class C development. Class C, super cheap construction and pack em in. Someone from the group that is doing the new development on the other side of 41st there stood up later and mentioned that they had considered that property, had crunched the numbers, and also came to that same conclusion. In order to make a profit there you would have to either do high end/high density, or low end cheap construction. The current zoning there makes it difficult to build something high end with enough density, while still being affordable for the Tulsa market.
I wonder if Perrys logic will then hold true. The area will become more desirable and thus the property itself will command more price. The property is zoned residential, "dont know if mixed use is available there?" But the more the property rises, unless the market goes up, aka the people who can afford to pay more for a high end apartment, the demand goes up, it means that whatever you build there will cost more, you will have to charge more. If you build high end that costs ever more, you have to be sure that you have the people who can and will pay that premium. Otherwise you will have to build more cheaply and charge more, and hope that the market will go for that. With the height restrictions, it appears to me that it will only become more difficult to build high quality apartments in the area as the property goes up in value? It only works if you have the people willing to pay even more and I am sure market research and demographic studies can determine if the market has enough demand. Why pay for this expensive apartment when you can pay half for the same amount of space in basically the same area for a cheaper apartment or even a home? There are still plenty of very cheap apartments and even homes, right around the corner to compete with. So obviously that area isnt as desirable as its made out to be. You may have high end amenities, but at some point the market will balk... just like this developer did.
There are two kinds of developers that will be/are looking at the property. One wants to rip out as much profit as possible as quickly as possible and move on. The other wants to build quality, with quality materials and take profit over a long period of time by retaining ownership and managing the property.
As players emerge, lets evaluate them by examining their past projects. Dismiss promises and fancy drawings, they are no more than smoke, intended to calm the bees.
Artiest, If the person you spoke with mentioned the option of class C he was simply trying to solidify his position as a top notch developer. No class C garbage will be allowed here. The other developers working on nearby projects will buy the land before they will let that happen.
There will be a whole line of clown cars peeking in on this property now. Evaluate the clowns based on their past projects.
This project is dead according to an article in today's Tulsa World.
Sorry if this was covered elswewhere. [^]
Preserve midtown FB'd the Bomasada group's filed a landscape plan with the city.
They're back?
Quote from: Townsend on May 15, 2012, 11:08:35 PM
Preserve midtown FB'd the Bomasada group's filed a landscape plan with the city.
They're back?
The economy would seem to support a revival of this development.
Preserve Midtown's latest FB post about this development:
QuoteBOMASADA PROJECT ARISES AGAIN!!
I was contacted by a KJRH reporter who is doing an interview with Jim Gibson from the Brookside Bomasada development who assures the reporter that they are going ahead with this project now.
It seems, along with financing problems, they had to reapply for new construction permits because the originals had expired and now are ready to go.
This has been a very stressful process for the surrounding residents who have many issues with this project and its numerous impacts on the surrounding neighborhood quality of life issues.
You cannot blame these people for being weary with the on again, off again process they have endured.
Right now, a park would be a much better use for the neigborhood residents.
One BIG question is does this project adhere to the established Brookside Plan for this region. Its size alone tells us it does not!
Read this previous article from 2008 for reference.
BATESLINE Article in 2008:
Council to consider Bomasada in Brookside
By Michael Bates on July 16, 2008 10:27 PM
Thursday night the Tulsa City Council will consider a rezoning application for a block-sized, four-story apartment building at 39th and Rockford, in the area designated as residential in the Brookside Infill Plan, which has been incorporated into the City's Comprehensive Plan.
(This should be a link to the Council's "backup packet" for the Bomasada rezoning, but it's not. This is the second time a link from the Council's online agenda has led to the wrong material on this particular item -- it happened when the zoning request appeared before the Council Urban and Economic Development Committee. We need legislation that gives online public information the same importance as info posted on the bulletin board outside City Hall or in the legal notices in the paper. If the complete information isn't posted, the agenda item can't move ahead.. As it is, it's too easy to conveniently make a mistake and avoid making public info as available as it should be.)
My "op/ed extra" column this week in Urban Tulsa Weekly was about the proposed apartment superblock, which is a test of the Council's willingness to adhere to the Brookside plan and the credibility of all citizen participation in land-use planning, a salient question as we approach citywide planning workshops in September for our new Comprehensive Plan:
Whether you live in Brookside or not, all Tulsa property owners have a stake in the outcome, as it will show whether this City Council will stick with or set aside the development standards that were negotiated by homeowners, business owners, and developers and formally adopted by the city. Consistent application of the rules is the issue at hand....
In conducting in-depth interviews for Tulsa's new comprehensive planning effort, the public opinion research firm Collective Strength found a recurring theme: "Fatalism about lack of zoning and code enforcement and special favors for the wealthy." Approval of this development would only reinforce that well-founded cynicism and would undermine optimism that a new comprehensive plan would be fairly applied to all.
Brookside plan participants put in a great deal of time and effort. To set the product of that effort aside will chill enthusiasm for participating in future planning efforts. If all that negotiation and compromise comes to nothing, if the developer is always going to get his way, why bother?...
The ripples from their decision will extend far beyond Brookside. The new comprehensive planning effort, PLANiTULSA, will have its first public workshops in September.
If the council shows respect for the Brookside planning process by voting down the Bomasada development, it will signal to the public that they can have a positive and long-lasting impact by participating in PLANiTULSA.
If they set the Brookside plan aside for the developers, it will feed public cynicism about public land use planning and discourage participation from the very activists who have the most insight to contribute to the new plan.
Choose wisely, Councilors.
Brookside neighborhood advocate Laura Collins sets out the sound planning case against the Bomasada development. (I've added emphasis here and there.)
TO THE COUNCIL: The Village of Brookside Neighbors immediately surrounding 39th and Rockford, as well as Brooksiders in the area and other citizens of Tulsa who are friends of Brookside and have an interest in the precedent this proposal presents are in support of redevelopment as long as it is appropriate to the individual neighborhood. The Brookside Infill Task Force Redevelopment Restrictions specify the scale, rhythm, height and (width) open space requirements for redevelopment. We welcome Bomasada to present a design of dwelling which is compatible with these guidelines. Some would like to portray us as "anti-progress" or "against development". Nothing could be further from the truth. We have watched the subject property continue to decline under the ownership of Perry Properties and have wondered why the city, if feeling now that it is such a "blight" -- as was described by Roy Johnson and at least two of the TMAPC panelists during the May 21st hearing ----- which lasted nearly 10 hours!
POINTS OF CONCERN AND FACT:
The neighborhood infill restriction on height, for example is 35 feet. Bomasada asked for and recieved a variance on height of 48 feet, with a maximum of 49' 4" additional height in order to 'screen A/C units on roof". On the Rockford side, which they claim will be 35 feet, they were granted a setback variance of 16 feet (from the street) and an additional 3' 8" in height -- again for hiding the A/C units on roof. Why such a difference in additional height the two requests? Is the setback measured from the curb or the centerline? This would make the building way too close to the homes across the street. What is the city average or guideline for setbacks? How can a building this mammoth in scale look 'in scale' with the homes near it so close to the street?
Additionally, the Brookside Infill Plan clearly states that "monolithic forms that dominate area or disrupt vision should be avoided". This particular design chosen for Brookside is a clear example of everything the task force was attempting to prevent from being placed in Brookside . Again, how can this type of design look as though it is harmoniously 'in scale' with the one story homes across the street from it to the east?
1. Bomasada has numerous design models to choose from.... Our neighborhood association and petition group were not asked which design we felt fit our neighborhood. Bomasada V.P. chose it for us. It does not conform to the Infill Task Force Plan's restrictions on: Density, Scale, Open Space or Height. Most notably, it is a solid 'wall' of construction with very little if any visual break and negative space or green space as seen from the renderings provided us by the developer.
2. The infrastructure will not support this development without improvements. Will the city do this work now / during the development's construction or after the development has been in place? What is the cost to the city?
3. Are sidewalks planned around the perimeter of the property by the developer? Or are we really going to let them off the hook with a nominal waiver fee and make the city do it ten years from now? The neighbors do not want to wait 5-10 years for a sidewalk to be REPLACED.
4. Parking for the apartment -- for guests. At last hearing, they are providing 25-57 guest parking spaces for a 240 one and two bedroom apartments on three heavily traveled streets. Will parking be allowed on 39th or Rockford for guests? We hope not, as it will not be conducive to pedestrian safety.
5. Traffic study was not completed. How can we build without a plan for impact on neighboring streets and residential safety? Children walk to school (Eliot) and catch buses there -- while Rockford is already a busy street when school is open. What precautions will the city take to ensure the safety of neighborhood children? 4-way stops? Traffic signal at 41st and Rockford? Speed humps on Rockford? 39th? More police to catch speeders and stop sign runners?
6. Flood plain and environmental impact. Can we count on the city and the developer to avoid any increased stress on our storm water and sewer systems? Are they separate or combined systems?
7. Pedestrian-friendly access on and off the apartment property for the tenants into the Old Village Shopping Center? If not, why not? These are young professionals you are marketing to. Many of them will no doubt have bicycles and want this amenity.
8. We are generally disappointed with the lack of communication and respect shown us by the developer. Our inputwas really not sought out. There was never a specific meeting held for neighbors within 300 feet of the property by either the developer or the BNA. We therefore had to seek information, call for meetings, canvasse the area alone and in the end, we are portrayed by those in favor of this project (some members of the Brookside business community) as "anti-development" -- which couldn't be farther from the truth.
9. We look forward to redevelopment of this property. It obviously has not been properly maintained by the owner (Perry Properties) and the city was either unaware of the situation or never took any strong stand on enforcing the improvement of the property which the city now refers to as 'blight' at 39th and Rockford.
We have said all along ---- we look for a development from Bomasada that compliments our neighborhood design and is built within the zoning guidelines, taking into account safety and user-friendly priniciples and amenities for both the future enclave tenants and the surrounding homeowners and neighbors. All parties involved in the decision making process --- including our city leaders --- should feel a shared ownership of the neighborhood improvement project and forge a future partnership in goodwill, respect and teamwork ... embracing a shared vision for this amazing and very liveable section of the City of Tulsa.
We ask that our concerns for safety and the quality of life for our neighborhood residents already living in Brookside are remembered as you do the work of deciding to approve or disapprove, and work out the details of this new development positioned in one of Tulsa's most desirable and historic areas.
Bomasada Brookside Construction LLC formed last month here in Oklahoma:
http://www.lookupbook.com/profile/construction-contractors/ok/tulsa/bomasada-brookside-construction-llc
Bomasada Tulsa LLC formed last month in Texas:
http://www.corporationwiki.com/Texas/Houston/bomasada-tulsa-llc/39013661.aspx
Looks like it's on like Donkey Kong.
TW has grabbed the story.
Tweet: Major Brookside apartment construction project revives http://bit.ly/MbY0ew (http://bit.ly/MbY0ew)
Major Brookside apartment construction project revives
QuoteAfter over three years of activity, plans for a large new apartment complex in Brookside are moving ahead.
Construction on the upscale, $33 million, 240-unit Enclave at Brookside should begin at its site on five acres at 1414 E. 39th St. within 30 to 45 days, said John Gilbert, Sr. Vice President of the Bomasasa Group of Houston.
The Enclave at Brookside was originally planned in 2008, though the economic crisis of that period caused the group's original financier to raise their equity requirements to unworkable levels, Gilbert said. As a result, the project stalled.
"Banks just weren't lending from January 2009 to January 2011," he said. "They were worried by the uncertainty in the markets."
But lending standards have eased somewhat, and Bomasada now has financing secured through Amegy Bank of Houston, as well as F&M Bank of Tulsa.
The group has resubmitted their construction plans to the city of Tulsa for permitting.
The details of the project have changed only slightly since the original proposal. There will be one three-story building, one four-story building and a parking structure in the back, Gilbert said.
The 240 units will have floor plans ranging from 724 square feet to 1,500 square feet, and rent for $900 to $2,000 per month.
Gilbert said the floorplans have changed slightly, with more open designs and islands in the kitchens.
"In the past four years, living trends have changed a little," he said.
The facility will also have a clubhouse with a fitness center, as well as a "resort-style" swimming pool.
Bomasada had demolished two existing apartment complexes on the site in 2008 and had installed some of the infrastructure before the project ground to a halt.
Despite the setback, Gilbert said Bomasada officials never felt that scaling back or abandoning their first construction project in Tulsa would be an option.
"We think the Brookside area is the best in the city," he said. "It's eclectic, it's close to the river, and it's walkable."
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=32&articleid=20120801_32_0_Aftero93070
I recall hearing about this several years ago and all these people were throwing hissy fits. What is the big freaking deal. Aren't these going to be high-end apartments? Didn't they tear down some fairly slummy looking apartments/houses? How is this detrimental to the neighborhood considering it sits basically right on a busy intersection at 41st & Peoria? Is it just the height?
Quote from: erfalf on August 02, 2012, 08:55:07 AM
I recall hearing about this several years ago and all these people were throwing hissy fits. What is the big freaking deal. Aren't these going to be high-end apartments? Didn't they tear down some fairly slummy looking apartments/houses? How is this detrimental to the neighborhood considering it sits basically right on a busy intersection at 41st & Peoria? Is it just the height?
I remember height being one of the major complaints. I don't remember the other complaints or how significant they were.
So I thought I saw this going strong a while back. Are the buildings completed?
Quote from: Townsend on February 01, 2013, 05:02:59 PM
So I thought I saw this going strong a while back. Are the buildings completed?
No done. But it's being built. Place looks huge.
Spent an hour at Whole Foods today delivering some product, and doing some shopping.
Watched some of the construction being completed on this "thing" they are calling an Upscale Apartment Complex.
Just my opinion. . .but I could see no redeeming design characteristics, just a giant cement garage attached to a flimsy, poorly finished tinderbox of apartments. Cheap windows, doors, siding, and overall design. No variety or individuality, just reminded me of soviet era housing.
What a shame!
Oddly, there is a significant subset of the population that prefers cookie cutter apartments and/or tract homes. There's nothing wrong with catering to those people as well as the smart ones. ;)
It is a MUCh better design than 95% of the apartment complexes built in the metro over the last 15-20 years. Solid building, not desperate units with wasted space. Designed public areas inside and out. Masonry finish. Curves. Structured parking.
Not perfect, but better than most and better than what was there.
Quote from: Gaspar on November 08, 2013, 04:25:15 PM
No variety or individuality, just reminded me of soviet era housing.
It's an apartment complex...
Quote from: cannon_fodder on November 10, 2013, 03:48:28 PM
It is a MUCh better design than 95% of the apartment complexes built in the metro over the last 15-20 years. Solid building, not desperate units with wasted space. Designed public areas inside and out. Masonry finish. Curves. Structured parking.
Not perfect, but better than most and better than what was there.
I know space and parking was a factor in this design, but it is really butt-ugly, and they made the mistake of including shallow balconies, and shotgun internal hallways, which always leads to looking really bad (when folks put their bikes, grills and plastic WalMart chairs out there).
Jut reminds me of the old Hardesty designs that still plague South Tulsa but are slowly being replaced by more upscale offerings.
Lets revisit this thread in about a year.