This is a continuation of this thread (http://"http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8971"), in which a rumor began that the project was being put on hold. I started a new thread to quash that rumor.
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.
So if you have information that the VP of Bomasada is not telling the whole truth - let me know. Otherwise lets get back to the discussion on the development [:P]
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
This is a continuation of this thread (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8971%22), in which a rumor began that the project was being put on hold. I started a new thread to quash that rumor.
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.
So if you have information that the VP of Bomasada is not telling the whole truth - let me know. Otherwise lets get back to the discussion on the development [:P]
My bad. I was the source of the rumor. [:(]
I had some of our senior staff ask me for information on the project because they heard, from a couple of investors, that Bomasada was dropping the project due to restrictions put on the design.
They (our clients) had an interest in moving on the property while the excitement still existed.
I will refrain from posting rumors in the future.
I shall accept my lashes!
Consider yourself spanked (just a hint, don't Google spanking photos at work, goodness, I'm a bit naive!)
(http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/photos/uncategorized/spanking.jpg)
(http://www.13thsog.com/peace/emoticons/whip.gif)
Heh. I was guilty of the same thing with the incinerator for storm debris a while back. Thought my source was solid and I wanted to be the big dog with the story.
I've been double checking all my stuff lately, I guess you'll be on the same boat. But man would we have been cool if we were right [:P]
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Consider yourself spanked (just a hint, don't Google spanking photos at work, goodness, I'm a bit naive!)
(http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/photos/uncategorized/spanking.jpg)
I'd spank my kid if he dressed like that too!
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Consider yourself spanked (just a hint, don't Google spanking photos at work, goodness, I'm a bit naive!)
I'd spank my kid if he dressed like that too!
After saying that, I just looked down and realized I'm wearing two different socks! Crap!
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Consider yourself spanked (just a hint, don't Google spanking photos at work, goodness, I'm a bit naive!)
I'd spank my kid if he dressed like that too!
After saying that, I just looked down and realized I'm wearing two different socks! Crap!
[}:)]
Potential obstacles:
1. Much of the property is located with the City of Tulsa Regulatory Floodplain (Perryman Ditch shallow flooding area).
2. Height limitation of 35 feet. Possible solutions are to propose a PUD or to propose re-zoning to RM-3.
3. Not enough land to allow 240 apartments to be built with the current mixture of RM-1 and RM-2 zoning. Possible solution is to request re-zoning some of the RM-2 property to RM-3.
4. Resistance from the neighborhood. This won't matter if the developers can convince enough TMAPC and City Councilors to vote in favor of the project.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
Potential obstacles:
1. Much of the property is located with the City of Tulsa Regulatory Floodplain (Perryman Ditch shallow flooding area).
2. Height limitation of 35 feet. Possible solutions are to propose a PUD or to propose re-zoning to RM-3.
3. Not enough land to allow 240 apartments to be built with the current mixture of RM-1 and RM-2 zoning. Possible solution is to request re-zoning some of the RM-2 property to RM-3.
4. Resistance from the neighborhood. This won't matter if the developers can convince enough TMAPC and City Councilors to vote in favor of the project.
All minor everyday changes. Only TMAPC matters, with fire marshall approval. He has equal power.
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
Potential obstacles:
1. Much of the property is located with the City of Tulsa Regulatory Floodplain (Perryman Ditch shallow flooding area).
2. Height limitation of 35 feet. Possible solutions are to propose a PUD or to propose re-zoning to RM-3.
3. Not enough land to allow 240 apartments to be built with the current mixture of RM-1 and RM-2 zoning. Possible solution is to request re-zoning some of the RM-2 property to RM-3.
4. Resistance from the neighborhood. This won't matter if the developers can convince enough TMAPC and City Councilors to vote in favor of the project.
All minor everyday changes. Only TMAPC matters, with fire marshall approval. He has equal power.
If the developer is proposing a PUD, then the TMAPC and the City Council will matter.
5. Fire marshal's approval. If the project is designed and built to locally adopted codes, then this won't be an insurmountable obstacle either.
^ I just now saw your post on the other thread, spoonbill. So are the plans done to another code not approved by the City of Tulsa?
^ The current zoning restrictions would limit the height of the building to 35 feet, and they would require more land area to build the same number of apartments. See Section 403 of the Zoning Code.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
Potential obstacles:
1. Much of the property is located with the City of Tulsa Regulatory Floodplain (Perryman Ditch shallow flooding area).
2. Height limitation of 35 feet. Possible solutions are to propose a PUD or to propose re-zoning to RM-3.
3. Not enough land to allow 240 apartments to be built with the current mixture of RM-1 and RM-2 zoning. Possible solution is to request re-zoning some of the RM-2 property to RM-3.
4. Resistance from the neighborhood. This won't matter if the developers can convince enough TMAPC and City Councilors to vote in favor of the project.
All minor everyday changes. Only TMAPC matters, with fire marshall approval. He has equal power.
If the developer is proposing a PUD, then the TMAPC and the City Council will matter.
5. Fire marshal's approval. If the project is designed and built to locally adopted codes, then this won't be an insurmountable obstacle either.
why would the developer propose a PUD? from my experience the evil developers would rather not have a PUD and just go with the raw zoning restrictions.
Nearly all developments go the PUD route
^ Such as the proposed Target at the northeast corner of 101st and Memorial, for example.
It's back on the table!
quote:
Plans for apartments at 36th and Rockford back on
By World Staff
4/2/2008 3:56 PM
Plans for a multistory, upscale apartment complex in Brookside are back on track.
The developer, Bomasada Group Inc. of Houston, hopes to break ground on the Enclave at Brookside within six months, officials said.
The apartment complex will be at the corner of 39th Street and Rockford Avenue.
"We're moving ahead and we'll see how it goes," said John Gilbert, senior vice president of Bomasada.
In March, Bomasada scrapped plans for the project, citing rising costs.
Gilbert said Wednesday that the issue had been resolved.
The original proposal called for a five-story complex that would include 240 apartments with underground parking.
Gilbert said the latest plan calls for a four-story structure with 234 units.
Parking will be in a separate, four-story structure.
The one- and two-bedroom apartments will go for between $800 and $2,000 per month.
quote:
Originally posted by dsjeffries
It's back on the table!
quote:
Plans for apartments at 36th and Rockford back on
By World Staff
4/2/2008 3:56 PM
Plans for a multistory, upscale apartment complex in Brookside are back on track.
The developer, Bomasada Group Inc. of Houston, hopes to break ground on the Enclave at Brookside within six months, officials said.
The apartment complex will be at the corner of 39th Street and Rockford Avenue.
"We're moving ahead and we'll see how it goes," said John Gilbert, senior vice president of Bomasada.
In March, Bomasada scrapped plans for the project, citing rising costs.
Gilbert said Wednesday that the issue had been resolved.
The original proposal called for a five-story complex that would include 240 apartments with underground parking.
Gilbert said the latest plan calls for a four-story structure with 234 units.
Parking will be in a separate, four-story structure.
The one- and two-bedroom apartments will go for between $800 and $2,000 per month.
They canceled their 4/2 TMPC review date, and then waited until later that day to announce that the project was back on?
That's odd.
I understand business. I understand the need to hold a party line. I understand negotiations.
But they outright lied to me when I called and asked. That pisses me off. They could have said "no comment" or "we only release information in press releases" or just strung me out. Don't lie to me.
I no longer trust them. I hope their project comes together as I think it is good for Tulsa and good for the area. But I refuse to get excited again until construction equipment shows up on site and a few sticks start to rise.
They may have just been upset and were in the moment, not going to do it. But then settled down, worked out some changes and decided to go ahead with it. They are people too ya know. Will be interesting to see the new renderings. I actually like the idea of a parking garage. They had a small parking lot on the last layout that I didnt like. Perhaps its no longer there and is now a parking garage. Would give the development a more urban feel.
Oh, and very glad to hear its back on again. This whole thing has seemed like some sort of silly charade at times lol. And your right, I wont believe it till I see a crane in the air, or whatever it is they will be using. (even then one has to be careful, how many times did we see dirt being pushed around on the news, by tractors with the riverwalk phase 2 thing lol).
Seriously? File under "pancakes."
I suspect that the Fire Marshall altered his comments on the development, rather than the developer altering his plans.
It says the building is now 4 buildings and a seperate parking garage.... sounds pretty altered to me.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
It says the building is now 4 buildings and a seperate parking garage.... sounds pretty altered to me.
Big change! The original was basically the exact same building they built in Arkansas. I bet it changes even more in the next few weeks to conform to Tulsa's requirements.
I'd like to see some elevations. I wonder if it's going to be a beautiful facade or just another tulsa apartment complex?
Good point Gaspar. I REALLY hope we didn't make them convert a well designed large building into a cooker cutter apartment block.
I'm still trying to ignore this, but am really curious to see how it all wash(es/ed) out. Did the city cave? The developer? A compromise?
What's the new design?
Now I am curious as to what the 4 story parking garage will look like that is along 41st and fronting Rockford. Could be a bit of a negative if its plain and ugly. Love the idea of structured parking, as long as its hidden or looks nice. Hate to sound like a Negative Nelly, but it is a valid concern for that location. We do want it to look decent and add to walkability not detract from the look of the area.
Where does the name come from? Bo (bank of oklahoma?) Masada (biblical fortress?). Or just some internet forum name?
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Where does the name come from? Bo (bank of oklahoma?) Masada (biblical fortress?). Or just some internet forum name?
Funny you should mention that. In the new article this morning on TW, something really interesting was said at the end:
quote:
He said his firm is eyeing residential projects elsewhere in the city, including downtown near the BOK Center.
After dealing with the restrictions in this neighborhood, I'd be eyeing downtown, too! No restrictions! [:P]
My guess is that Dan Perry decided a bird in the hand was worth two in the bush, and agreed to lower his price a few bucks. (Thus making the development feasible again.) I, too, hope the parking garage is tasteful and well-designed. It's possible. I've seen great parking garages that you would never guess were parking garages. (Of course, all of them were in other cities...)
This is my chance to suggest to Bomasada that they incorporate ground-floor retail on the side of the parking garage that faces 41st. This would not only be an added amenity to the tenents of the building, but it would be a revenue stream for the life of the garage. AND (most importantly), it would create a better streetscape in keeping with the new-urbanist concept of a walkable, livable space.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
It says the building is now 4 buildings and a seperate parking garage.... sounds pretty altered to me.
Doh! I guess I should actually read the article.
lol.
The Tulsa World basically included a graphic for the old design. The parking garage, as it turns out, will be located behind the buildings, next to the Food Pyramid. According to Bomasada, the new site plan will include units facing 41st instead of the original open parking.
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
The Tulsa World basically included a graphic for the old design. The parking garage, as it turns out, will be located behind the buildings, next to the Food Pyramid. According to Bomasada, the new site plan will include units facing 41st instead of the original open parking.
Bravo
More info from the Tulsa World today: (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080420_1_A25_hDeve57564%22)
quote:
Brookside project back on
Developer says apartment plan's cost issues resolved
An on-again, off-again proposal to build an upscale apartment complex in the Brookside neighborhood will be considered May 21 by the Planning Commission.
Bomasada Group Inc. of Houston submitted its planned unit development, or PUD, to the city last week.
A PUD provides a detailed description of the proposed project.
It allows developers more flexibility within the zoning code; in exchange, the city can put more conditions on the project.
Bomasada's PUD, to be called The Enclave at Brookside, must be recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council before the project can move forward.
"We think we're going to be a great benefit to the neighborhood and to the city," said John Gilbert, senior vice president of Bomasada.
The proposed development -- initially unveiled early this year -- is planned for 39th Street and Rockford Avenue.
Bomasada in March abandoned the project, citing rising costs and unresolved issues with the neighborhood.
But earlier this month, Gilbert confirmed that
the cost issues had been resolved and that the project would move forward -- this time as a four-story structure along 39th Street.
The original design called for a five-story apartment building/parking garage facing 39th Street, with three-story apartment buildings facing a portion of Rockford Avenue.
The design to be presented to the Planning Commission shows a four-story apartment building facing 39th Street, with the three-story apartments along Rockford Avenue extending to 41st Street.
A separate parking garage in the interior of the property will be five levels but only four stories.
The height of the proposed apartment complex has been a major concern of neighborhood residents wary of the project.
The maximum roof height of the four-story apartment building will be 48 feet and the maximum roof height of the three-story apartment buildings will be 35 feet, according to the PUD.
Gilbert said he expects construction to begin in the late summer or early fall and be completed within two years.
Key details of apartment proposal
The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing May 21 on a proposed upscale apartment complex in Brookside.
Here are the details of the proposed development:
Name: The Enclave at Brookside
Address: 39th Street and Rockford Avenue
Units: Maximum 240 (about equal number of oneand two-bedroom apartments)
Cost: $850 to $2,000 per month
Roof height: 48 feet for four-story structure; 35 feet for three-story structure.
Stories: Apartment buildings, three and four stories; parking garage, four stories (five levels)
Amenities: Wine bar, Internet cafe, fitness center, billiard/ poker room, swimming pool
Begin construction: Late summer, fall
Construction completed: Within 24 months of start date
(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2008/200804_A25_hDeve57564_A25enclave.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by dsjeffries
(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2008/200804_A25_hDeve57564_A25enclave.jpg)
That works for me.
Better than what they had before, and I liked what they had before. Lets hope it really goes through.
Will be nice to see some renderings.
From a density perspective, how many units are there now? 240 units, 50% 2 bedroom 50% one bedroom... let call it 500 people (as many singles sharing an apartment as 3 person families as 2 roommates with separate beds). I'm in favor of density, just curious how many more residence of Brookside this will give us.
Prior plans were for "Approximately 250 units" so they might not be giving up too much at all.
Lets hope we really really get it this time. But again, I refuse to get excited again. Well, I'll try not to.
They are getting their foot in.
There eyes are on two more properties in Tulsa, but for now they have to learn the process. This is becoming just another Tulsa style complex. It will be very familiar once it is run through the machine. I'm willing to bet it will even be very "Hardestyesque."
They have been touring other complexes in south tulsa and taking notes to "see what Tulsan's like."
If it is a grouping of 3-4 story units with 8 to 12 apartments each and a vast parking lot surrounding the building... I'll be very disappointed. I wouldn't think falling in with the herd is a good way to add value to your new project nor build the Bomosada brand name.
I guess we wait and see.
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
They are getting their foot in.
There eyes are on two more properties in Tulsa, but for now they have to learn the process. This is becoming just another Tulsa style complex. It will be very familiar once it is run through the machine. I'm willing to bet it will even be very "Hardestyesque."
They have been touring other complexes in south tulsa and taking notes to "see what Tulsan's like."
My feeling, when listening to him, was that he was doing what the demographic he is shooting for likes. That demographic has pretty much the same tastes everywhere. Though in Tulsa they do not have the kind of money they may have in other cities and their numbers are less so that will put some constraints on the contstruction.
Some people in the meeting kept complaining about the look of the building and were saying things like "brick would look better". The builder pointedly said he thought that brick stuff, like whats going in near 2st and riverside looked boring. Plus he said several times they wanted this to be the premier complex in Tulsa. (though one must note that even the best here would be considered average in places like Austin, Denver and Dallas) Those and other comments gave me the impression that this was going to be something different than your usual "Tulsa" complex.
Will be interesting to see if your right though on whether Tulsas development environment pushes this complex into more "every day" territory. Regardless, its going to be a great improvement and nice addition to Brookside.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
If it is a grouping of 3-4 story units with 8 to 12 apartments each and a vast parking lot surrounding the building... I'll be very disappointed. I wouldn't think falling in with the herd is a good way to add value to your new project nor build the Bomosada brand name.
I guess we wait and see.
Did you look at the graphic above?
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
They are getting their foot in.
There eyes are on two more properties in Tulsa, but for now they have to learn the process. This is becoming just another Tulsa style complex. It will be very familiar once it is run through the machine. I'm willing to bet it will even be very "Hardestyesque."
They have been touring other complexes in south tulsa and taking notes to "see what Tulsan's like."
My feeling, when listening to him, was that he was doing what the demographic he is shooting for likes. That demographic has pretty much the same tastes everywhere. Though in Tulsa they do not have the kind of money they may have in other cities and their numbers are less so that will put some constraints on the contstruction.
Some people in the meeting kept complaining about the look of the building and were saying things like "brick would look better". The builder pointedly said he thought that brick stuff, like whats going in near 2st and riverside looked boring. Plus he said several times they wanted this to be the premier complex in Tulsa. (though one must note that even the best here would be considered average in places like Austin, Denver and Dallas) Those and other comments gave me the impression that this was going to be something different than your usual "Tulsa" complex.
Will be interesting to see if your right though on whether Tulsas development environment pushes this complex into more "every day" territory. Regardless, its going to be a great improvement and nice addition to Brookside.
I certainly hope they stick with the multistory/parking garage concept. When these kind of developments are clustered in the same area the result is a dense, friendly, urban residential neighborhood--exactly what we want for the East Village. Imagine if this development group and others were to put similar developments in the vacant parking lots to the south of the future Drillers stadium/east of Blue Dome. The result might look like this:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=state+and+allen,+dallas&sll=32.797701,-96.796417&sspn=0.012193,0.014591&ie=UTF8&ll=32.79734,-96.797919&spn=0.006097,0.007296&t=k&z=17
(State Allen neighborhood of uptown Dallas. I've mentioned it before.)
Floyd is right, these type developments can generate momentum for higher density development. I used to live in the State Thomas area he mentions and absolutely loved it. Very exciting atmoshere there and Uptown, but it can be extremely expensive, but a lot of that is due to extremely high land costs, which developers in Tulsa don't face yet. This is a pretty exciting development if it gets done.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Did you look at the graphic above?
Yes, but it really isn't that clear to me. It LOOKS to be more than Spoonbill is fearing, but I don't know. Just saying, if it ends up being more of the same I will be disappointed.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Did you look at the graphic above?
Yes, but it really isn't that clear to me. It LOOKS to be more than Spoonbill is fearing, but I don't know. Just saying, if it ends up being more of the same I will be disappointed.
Bomasada is walking a thin line. I hope they take the risk, but I don't believe they will.
The opposition to this project seems organized, albeit the "opposition" may be no more than one person with a Kinkos card, I don't know. I live in the half square mile where this project is proposed to be built and this morning I had a flyer on my front door written by the oposition, inviting me to an upcoming neighborhood meeting and inviting me to sign a petition against the project.
I really hope this opposition contingent is SMALL because I do not want the developers to feel as though our neighborhood is in fact against the project. I bet this is one of those things where if you went door to door in my half mile, 90 percent of folks would say something like, "Are you kidding me, of course we want to get rid of those ugly cinder block looking poor homes and build an upscale apartment complex," but it's the small opposition to the project making the noise. I'll try to remember to scan the flyer and post it here and I'll try to make it to the upcoming meeting in order to be a voice for the project.
The above graphics are from the old plan.
Here are the current site plan and artist's rendering:
Enclave Site Plan (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/news/Bomasada_Enclave_Siteplan_4-7-08.pdf%22)
and...
Enclave Rendering (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/news/Enclave_Rendering.pdf%22)
Just watched the City Council approve the 1st Giant step in making the "Enclave" a reality.
I do hope they improve the appearance of the exterior of the structure... One lady described it as institutional ..... I think that description fits what the rendering displays...
One final, prayer, of sorts for this development...
LaFortune Tower... Hewgley Terrace... Bomasada..?
I sincerely hope not...
Replace the EFIS with some brick and it looks pretty good to me. You would never have to drive to a grocery store living there with Food Pyramid and Whole Foods literally next door.
quote:
Originally posted by SXSW
Replace the EFIS with some brick and it looks pretty good to me. You would never have to drive to a grocery store living there with Food Pyramid and Whole Foods literally next door.
Yeah that would make it blend right in...??
I would like to think they have a nicer version on a drawing board and are going to release it as they are assured they can build.
Who knows....?
Are these apartments intended to be 100% rental, or some mix-up of owner occupied/rentals?
Not very creative... for a company named Bomasada you'd expect more creative naming of their developments:
http://www.bomasadagroup.com/projects.html
The Enclave Apartments - Brookside
The Enclave Apartments - Albuquerque
The Enclave Apartments - Charleston
The Enclave Apartments at Winghaven (OFallen/St. Louis, MO)
The Enclave Apartments - Jacksonville
The Enclave Apartments - Nashville
The Enclave Apartments at the Riverfront - Little Rock
Still waiting for Tulsa's to officially make the page. A chance to make quick money:
http://www.enclavebrookside.com/
has not been registered (per their web scheme).
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
The above graphics are from the old plan.
Here are the current site plan and artist's rendering:
Enclave Site Plan (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/news/Bomasada_Enclave_Siteplan_4-7-08.pdf%22)
and...
Enclave Rendering (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/news/Enclave_Rendering.pdf%22)
I hate to say this, but it looks like a hospital. I'd agree that a better exterior would be helpful.
I do hope they come up with a better looking exterior. I think its mostly that entrance that really ruins it. Doesn't look enviting at all.
I really like how the new condos across the way look. The soft, white, stone is very nice.
I just heard on KTUL that the residents at 39th and Rockford have been notified of eviction.
Sorry no link but I was unable to find it on the website.
I heard a report today from the Brookside Neighborhood Association that the development is on hold. The site work and even a sewer line have been installed, but it is on hold "until the economy improves." Not sure if it is because of a lack of sales interest or a fall through of financing.
But it was on. Then off. Then maybe on. Then on again. Work began. And now it's off.
I read on tulsaworld.com that it's on hold until Bomasada can get financing. They say that they are still bullish about Tulsa and want to continue with the development but that banks aren't lending.
;D Hooray, they went away.
The neighbors tried to tell the council how ugly the buildings were....they wouldn't listen. It looks like an industrial office building.
Quote from: vagagirl on September 13, 2009, 12:17:32 AM
The neighbors tried to tell the council how ugly the buildings were....they wouldn't listen. It looks like an industrial office building.
Nice Handle...Lol.....
Quote from: vagagirl on September 13, 2009, 12:15:22 AM
;D Hooray, they went away.
Sad. Sometimes I think density is impossible in this town.
Quote from: vagagirl on September 13, 2009, 12:15:22 AM
;D Hooray, they went away.
What would you rather be there? Do you want those nasty barracks back?
Quote from: nathanm on September 13, 2009, 05:26:10 PM
Sad. Sometimes I think density is impossible in this town.
Put it in the right place without trying to force it on an unwanting neighborhood and make it look good and it will be accepted.
QuotePut it in the right place without trying to force it on an unwanting neighborhood and make it look good and it will be accepted.
Yeah, that will happen when the sun rises in the west and sets in the east. ;D
Seriously though, the only places that density could easily be added without lots of negative push back would be downtown and/or the parking lot wasteland of uptown. Anywhere there are single family neighborhoods, there will be push back, IMO.
So, is this development really dead in the water? Source?
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 13, 2009, 07:19:01 PM
Put it in the right place without trying to force it on an unwanting neighborhood and make it look good and it will be accepted.
Find me owners of single family homes who are ever in favor of increased density in their neighborhood and I will probably have a heart attack.
Homeownership has almost a 100% correlation with not wanting anything in your neighborhood to change. (And some irrational obsession with harassing others when the homeowner thinks they are impacting the homeowner's property value..see the fairgrounds as one big example)
Maybe I should start complaining about TU and how their damn football stadium doesn't have enough onsite parking. I bought my house after football season was over, so how was I to know that people would be parking all up in my hood! :o
I'm wondering how the development could have been done better for the neighborhood. Aesthetic concerns are not something other property owners should have any say over, except in the situation where a neighbor is causing an actual nuisance. (like grass growing so high that it attracts snakes or having standing water that breeds mosquitoes) The development was on a commercial block, as close to the edge of the neighborhood as is possible. What more could they reasonably ask for?
On the bright side, this died not because of neighborhood concerns, but because of the developer's inability to secure the necessary loans.
So who paid for the purchase of the land, the demo of the rotten buildings, etc? Did Bomasada get any government funds to do this? Do they currently own and plan to sell that plot of land? That is still prime area for something nice, even if we are in a downturn.
Quote from: YoungTulsan on September 13, 2009, 07:56:09 PM
So who paid for the purchase of the land, the demo of the rotten buildings, etc? Did Bomasada get any government funds to do this? Do they currently own and plan to sell that plot of land? That is still prime area for something nice, even if we are in a downturn.
This was just a private development, and what they said was it was on hold pending finance markets improving
Quote from: tshane250 on September 13, 2009, 07:40:34 PM
Seriously though, the only places that density could easily be added without lots of negative push back would be downtown and/or the parking lot wasteland of uptown. Anywhere there are single family neighborhoods, there will be push back, IMO.
Why do you and others want so much to put in high density next to places that don't want it when there are places like downtown and the parking lot wasteland to put it. Probably because the places you want to go are nice. The local residents think the places are nice because they are not densely populated.
How would you feel if I were able to buy up several apartment complexes or, if we had them, multi-use areas, tear them down and install single family dwellings at 1 or 2 per acre? Don't worry, I don't have that kind of money.
QuoteWhy do you and others want so much to put in high density next to places that don't want it when there are places like downtown and the parking lot wasteland to put it. Probably because the places you want to go are nice. The local residents think the places are nice because they are not densely populated.
How would you feel if I were able to buy up several apartment complexes or, if we had them, multi-use areas, tear them down and install single family dwellings at 1 or 2 per acre? Don't worry, I don't have that kind of money.
I think you quoted the wrong person. I am in favor of density downtown and in the parking lot wasteland of uptown.
Quote from: nathanm on September 13, 2009, 07:51:09 PM
Find me owners of single family homes who are ever in favor of increased density in their neighborhood and I will probably have a heart attack.
I think you are safe unless you have other contributing health factors.
Homeownership has almost a 100% correlation with not wanting anything in your neighborhood to change. (And some irrational obsession with harassing others when the homeowner thinks they are impacting the homeowner's property value..see the fairgrounds as one big example)
Maybe I should start complaining about TU and how their damn football stadium doesn't have enough onsite parking.
Isn't that one of the primary goals of urban life, not enough parking. Ponder Inc should love it.
I bought my house after football season was over, so how was I to know that people would be parking all up in my hood! :o
I expect you are being sarcastic. For those that don't research a neighborhood a bit, I have little sympathy. Often the reason for "affordable" properties is because there is some kind of nuisance nearby. I can sympathize with someone who had a nuisance move in near to them or the character of that nuisance changes.
I'm wondering how the development could have been done better for the neighborhood. Aesthetic concerns are not something other property owners should have any say over, except in the situation where a neighbor is causing an actual nuisance. (like grass growing so high that it attracts snakes or having standing water that breeds mosquitoes)
I will be a bit inconsistent with myself here and somewhat agree with you.
However, try the following scenario. Suppose there was a nice multi-use area with multi-story buildings, mom and pop stores on the first floor, apartments/flats on the higher floors, sidewalks to the pavement etc (all the things dreamed for on this forum). The only problem is one lot is empty. Someone wins a lottery or otherwise come into money they wouldn't ordinarily get. They decide they want to live in this nice area but don't really care for the style of the buildings. How about a mobile home set back far enough for a small yard up front. A couple rows of paving blocks to make driveway to a garage in the back yard would be nice. A frame built garage with roofing paper to protect all the exposed surfaces would work fine. Add a front porch for the home supported by cinder blocks. And so on. I thoroughly expect there would be an outcry of "doesn't fit our neighborhood" that would be heard without electronic amplification all the way to Kansas. I know the scenario is virtually impossible but I think there might be a bit of a double standard hiding in the hearts of high density fans.
The development was on a commercial block, as close to the edge of the neighborhood as is possible. What more could they reasonably ask for?
Something more in line with the style and size of the existing neighborhood. I know you disagree.
On the bright side, this died not because of neighborhood concerns, but because of the developer's inability to secure the necessary loans.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 13, 2009, 08:13:57 PM
Why do you and others want so much to put in high density next to places that don't want it ...
So wait.. they want to build this in brookside, one of the few TINY plots of land in Tulsa that actually have any density and you're saying it's a bad fit?
Quote from: tshane250 on September 13, 2009, 08:25:42 PM
I think you quoted the wrong person. I am in favor of density downtown and in the parking lot wasteland of uptown.
No cut and paste here, just used the quote button.
Perhaps I misunderstood the tone of your post. I believed you thought that downtown and the parking lot wasteland were less desirable places to develop with high density than someplace mixed with single family homes.
Quote from: sgrizzle on September 13, 2009, 08:59:20 PM
So wait.. they want to build this in brookside, one of the few TINY plots of land in Tulsa that actually have any density and you're saying it's a bad fit?
If the exact location was such a good fit, why the complaints from the neighbors? I don't live there so I don't have any direct benefit either way.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 13, 2009, 08:13:57 PM
Why do you and others want so much to put in high density next to places that don't want it when there are places like downtown and the parking lot wasteland to put it. Probably because the places you want to go are nice. The local residents think the places are nice because they are not densely populated.
How would you feel if I were able to buy up several apartment complexes or, if we had them, multi-use areas, tear them down and install single family dwellings at 1 or 2 per acre? Don't worry, I don't have that kind of money.
Because Brookside is one of the few places close to that critical mass. You can't just build a 400 unit complex in "parking lot wasteland" as you put it, because abandoned parking lots and no shops as far as the eye can see is not a synergistic community. Brookside has businesses you can walk up to, grocery stores, restaurants, bars, clubs, and every kind of service imaginable available. That is absolutely the spot where dense new urban development is called for. Young people want to live there, and are driving up the prices on dilapidated rent houses because that is all that is available. They would gladly pay for an upscale modern construction dense residential development.
Quote from: YoungTulsan on September 13, 2009, 09:10:11 PM
Because Brookside is one of the few places close to that critical mass. You can't just build a 400 unit complex in "parking lot wasteland" as you put it, because abandoned parking lots and no shops as far as the eye can see is not a synergistic community. Brookside has businesses you can walk up to, grocery stores, restaurants, bars, clubs, and every kind of service imaginable available. That is absolutely the spot where dense new urban development is called for. Young people want to live there, and are driving up the prices on dilapidated rent houses because that is all that is available. They would gladly pay for an upscale modern construction dense residential development.
As I remember, the initial proposal was for a 5 story building. I also seem to remember a rendering of a not so attractive building, however, attractive is in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps if a less grand proposal, maybe 3 stories, were initially proposed it would have met less resistance. Once the just say no crowd was established, there was not much chance to get the community approval. Try to insert a 400 unit complex into Brookside and even the most urban of posters will want wider roads. Just to exaggerate a bit, I think trying to insert Hong Kong density into almost any part of Tulsa except the parking lot wasteland (actually tshane250's term in this thread) will meet with resistance. A modest increase will perhaps not be appreciated but probably not fought against too much either.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 13, 2009, 09:58:03 PM
As I remember, the initial proposal was for a 5 story building. I also seem to remember a rendering of a not so attractive building, however, attractive is in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps if a less grand proposal, maybe 3 stories, were initially proposed it would have met less resistance. Once the just say no crowd was established, there was not much chance to get the community approval. Try to insert a 400 unit complex into Brookside and even the most urban of posters will want wider roads. Just to exaggerate a bit, I think trying to insert Hong Kong density into almost any part of Tulsa except the parking lot wasteland (actually tshane250's term in this thread) will meet with resistance. A modest increase will perhaps not be appreciated but probably not fought against too much either.
The proposal ended up being for 3 stories across from the existing neighborhood and four further to the interior of the development and where it abutted existing commercial properties. I think the initial four stories all around was also reasonable, but you can't say that they made no concession to the neighbors.
I would be much more understanding of complaints if the property hadn't previously been a (lower density) apartment complex and if it were not on the edge of the residential area.
And you were right, I was being sarcastic. I don't mind folks parking in front of my house. The things that bothered me about the situation were the folks who felt the need to park in contravention of posted signs, in the middle of intersections, and otherwise blocking sight lines at intersections. There's a reason for all the "no parking from corner" signs next to intersections.
I'm in favor of increased density, even in my neighborhood. I want more restaurants nearby. I want more shops nearby. That would be great. I'm still mad that there's no more auto racing at the fairgrounds and that Bell's was moved along because of idiots who bought next to the fairgrounds and didn't expect occasional noise. With that precedent in place, I should be able argue that TU should no longer be allowed to have sporting events on campus. (I don't seriously believe that)
Remember the furor over the new apartment complex at 81st and Mingo? That's essentially proof to me that there's nothing that could induce the suburbanite crowd to accept nearby higher density, even when they made the choice to live near commercial corridors or along a major road.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 13, 2009, 09:58:03 PM
Try to insert a 400 unit complex into Brookside and even the most urban of posters will want wider roads. Just to exaggerate a bit, I think trying to insert Hong Kong density into almost any part of Tulsa except the parking lot wasteland (actually tshane250's term in this thread) will meet with resistance.
Brookside does not have a traffic problem. Besides, they were building in an area with tons of walkable things to do, and probably more walkable things would have sprung up nearby to get the dollar of the new residents. Not to say that these people would magically give up their Tulsa car-oriented lifestyle, but that kind of development will put LESS people on the road than any other.
If you built a 400 unit complex smack in the middle of nothing-to-do land, everyone is driving every time they want to do something - This is, if anyone moves there in the first place (they wouldn't, and that's why they aren't proposing this kind of development there)
A. I would love it if they built something like this right across from me. And no, wouldn't want the streets widened one bit.
B. I went to the Brookside meetings Bomasada had, and there were neighbors who liked the development, and also those who didnt mind the density but would have rather had a different style. I dont know the "percentage" but to suggest that all of the neighbors were against it is not right.
C. The Brookside Plan, approved by the people in Brookside, encourages more density as one of its goals, the compromise to the plan was about the approved height limit, and some argued about its design having a lack of walkability.
Do want to point out that we havent heard a lot of rattling about the possible QT expansion that would absolutely be a contravention to the agreed upon Brookside Plan. One could argue about "letter and intent of the plan" with the Bomasada development, (was taller but did add density so at least it went in one direction) but cant for the life of me make any argument that tearing out a building and expanding the QT will enhance any part of the Brookside plan or any of its intents.
The QT plan doesn't sound too bad. Granted they are tearing down a perfectly good building in the Lee bicycle place, but if Lee moves down the street into a currently abandoned video store, that is a decrease in abandoned commercial property along Brookside. Their demand clearly surpasses a 6 pump location there. Would you rather QT abandon the property on 36th and purchase and build on the land abutting Crow Creek to the north of 33rd? Bet they could afford it. Much less destructive when they can expand a current one then to abandon the current one and build down the street.
Quote from: YoungTulsan on September 14, 2009, 01:37:12 AM
The QT plan doesn't sound too bad. Granted they are tearing down a perfectly good building in the Lee bicycle place, but if Lee moves down the street into a currently abandoned video store, that is a decrease in abandoned commercial property along Brookside. Their demand clearly surpasses a 6 pump location there. Much less destructive when they can expand a current one then to abandon the current one and build down the street.
"Would you rather QT abandon the property on 36th and purchase and build on the land abutting Crow Creek to the north of 33rd? Bet they could afford it." ???
I bet they could afford to wipe out half of Brookside if they wanted.
If a store wanted to expand and become "Wal-Mart" sized with a huge parking lot in front you could say.... well Would you rather they abandon such and such property and purchase and build on the land abutting Crow Creek to the north of 33rd? Bet they could afford it." At least they are decreasing abandoned commercial property..."
The Brookside plan wants to create an ever more connected and pedestrian friendly street front. Whenever a new building goes in fronting Brookside, or a change is made, the goal is for it to enhance the pedestrian friendly nature of the area. In the past, some developers came in and would put parking in front using a more suburban, non pedestrian friendly, model of development. Now the plan is to stop that type of development and encourage redevelopment of new businesses to be; up to the sidewalk, 3 stories in height, have lots of permeability "windows and doors", etc. to create a pleasing walking experience up and down the street. If someone came and tore down the Blockbuster say, and wanted to build something new, they would have to, according to the plan, build the new building up to the sidewalk and put the parking in back. Not have all the parking in front like it is now. Also, you couldnt tear down and older building that is up to the sidewalk and put parking in front, that would be completely against what they are trying to do. Again, the goal is to expand, connect and better the pedestrian friendly, street wall, all up and down Brookside. Not do anything that will cause the opposite to happen. There are certain ways to develop and redevelop any part of the city, one way will encourage a more car oriented feel, another will encourage a more pedestrian friendly setting. Having higher density, residential infill just behind the street facing buildings, and having mixed use, multi-story buildings (retail on ground floor, living or office above for example) on the main street, will also go to create and support a good pedestrian friendly "Urban Village" environment.
Over time they want the area to evolve into an ever more, pedestrian friendly, "Urban Village" form, and move ever more away from any car oriented, suburban strip mall form. These are 2 very different types of form that dont get along well lol. Not gonna say which form is better, just trying to state the goals for this area. Whats the point in having a direction you want to have development go in, if developers continue to ignore that direction and go in an opposite one? Might as well have no plan and goal at all. The QT may be a small infraction, but its also in an important area, and I dont see that there is any positive (in relation to the Brookside aims) to this potential redevelopment, unlike Bomasada, which wasnt perfect, but at least was adding density like the Brookside Plan wanted, and made concessions for height to make it closer to the Brookside Plans intentions. If the QT wasnt there at all, and they tried to go in that spot with their usual form, they wouldnt be allowed. Whether the "demand was there" for 6 or 12 pumps or not,,, you couldnt allow it for whats to stop something else tearing down more buildings along Brookside and putting in more "Blockbusters" until you destroy the pedestrian nature of the area and make it completely different. Could still be a very busy, bustling commercial area for all we know, but still NOT the direction the people in this area said they wanted to go when they created the Brookside Plan.
Density inherently increases property values (the new property would be valued at ~ $40,000,000. The old was purchased for a small fraction of that) . It is also vastly more efficient in terms of fire, police, utilities and other infrastructure. You want good public transportation and walkable neighborhoods? Than more projects like the one Bomasada proposed are what is needed.
And yes, I am aware that some residence were not happy to see the dilapidated duplexes torn down. NOT IN MY BACKYARD is a strong battle cry in Tulsa. But density is probably why they live there - the ability to walk to restaurants, shops, grocery stores, and everything else Brookside offers. Brookside is exactly the area developments like this belong: Brookside, Cherry Street, and downtown are primed for the urban growth that has been seen the last decade+ in cities throughout the nation (ie, Westport in KC. Downtown Albuquerque or Des Moines, even Little Rock is in on the action). For some reason large portions of our community want to see our unsustainable and inefficient pattern of suburban growth continue as our streets crumble, our fire cost/citizen ratio goes to hell and our police struggle to cover our sprawl.
Additionally, this development wasn't for 240 units of Section 8 housing, this was for upper middle class housing. Density would have gone up, but it wouldn't be like it is ruining the neighborhood. If anyone wants to buy the slum apartments just down the street from my house and put in a larger unit to attract affluent people to my neighborhood, you are welcome to do it. In fact, let me know how I can help.
All that said, nothing has changed. It is on hold pending financing. I'd love more up-to-date information but I have been unable to contact their offices today. I see no news nor anything on their website indicating they have ceased operations or otherwise that this status has changed (someone more ambitious could contact their other properties and inquire).
QuoteAll that said, nothing has changed. It is on hold pending financing.
Then why is this being discussed as if it was a dead deal? For all intents and purposes, this development is going to happen. It's merely on hold.
Quote from: tshane250 on September 14, 2009, 01:06:59 PM
Then why is this being discussed as if it was a dead deal?
Because some new poster revived this thread essentially proclaiming it dead. I have not seen nor been shown any information that the situation has changed. Though, I tried to contact Bomasada again and failed . . . I just keep getting the VM system.
Artist, I know the scope and size of a typical QuikTrip, and I'm just not as bothered by it I suppose. It is nothing like a Wal-mart, and will likely never grow larger once it gets the redesign.
Quote from: YoungTulsan on September 13, 2009, 09:10:11 PM
Young people want to live there, and are driving up the prices on dilapidated rent houses because that is all that is available. They would gladly pay for an upscale modern construction dense residential development.
Is what is being put in within the price range of these young people or will they be driven to somewhere else? Then they will advocate higher density at the new location and in turn be driven from there by new high priced housing. Maybe. I am actually asking since I don't know what incomes these young folks have. I think one reason there is so called affordable housing in some older cities is because the stuff built 100 yrs ago has lasted until now. Some is OK, some needs some serious renovation. Take the Google Street View trip along Girard Ave in Philadelphia and the immediate neighborhoods. When that street was built by Stephen Girard, he was one of the richest men in the world. You can be sure what was built was originally pretty pricey.
Quote from: nathanm on September 13, 2009, 11:23:11 PM
I'm in favor of increased density, even in my neighborhood. I want more restaurants nearby. I want more shops nearby. That would be great.
This doesn't surprise me. I believe you to be a frustrated urbanite that cannot find what he really wants in Tulsa. I think what you want should be available but not at the expense of people that do not.
I'm still mad that there's no more auto racing at the fairgrounds and that Bell's was moved along because of idiots who bought next to the fairgrounds and didn't expect occasional noise.
Pre-existing nuisances, previously discussed. I also missed the auto racing on Sat night. It was one of the fun things to go to when we first moved here in '71.
Remember the furor over the new apartment complex at 81st and Mingo? That's essentially proof to me that there's nothing that could induce the suburbanite crowd to accept nearby higher density, even when they made the choice to live near commercial corridors or along a major road.
I think there was a mix of misrepresentation and lack of research. In an area like that, higher density could just have easily been a 2 story apartment complex. I think there would not have been so much objection to such an increase. Even if "there's nothing that could induce the suburbanite crowd to accept nearby higher density", does that surprise anyone? I think that most suburbanites live there because they don't want to live in higher density.
Quote from: TheArtist on September 14, 2009, 12:54:33 AM
A. I would love it if they built something like this right across from me. And no, wouldn't want the streets widened one bit.
Doesn't surprise me a bit. I think there are a significant number of Tulsans that would not be so happy. One apartment complex of 240 won't require any roads to be wider. Start filling the area with them and depending on whether jobs follow the development, at least some other folks may want better roads or at least better public transportation.
B. I went to the Brookside meetings Bomasada had, and there were neighbors who liked the development, and also those who didnt mind the density but would have rather had a different style. I dont know the "percentage" but to suggest that all of the neighbors were against it is not right.
I never intended that all the neighbors protested the development as originally presented. I probably believed that more objected than may really have.
C. The Brookside Plan, approved by the people in Brookside, encourages more density as one of its goals, the compromise to the plan was about the approved height limit, and some argued about its design having a lack of walkability.
Increased density has a big range in an area of mostly single family homes. Was the amount of that increase quantified? As any area gets infiltrated by people with a different vision for a neighborhood, eventually it will change. I don't believe in stopping change for only a handful of objectors but their concerns should be addressed. Having re-read most of this thread, perhaps most concerns were in this (Bomasada at Brookside) instance. Maybe in another 10 or 15 years the urban density crowd will be able to tear down the next few blocks away and fill them with high density future slums, I mean housing.
Do want to point out that we havent heard a lot of rattling about the possible QT expansion that would absolutely be a contravention to the agreed upon Brookside Plan. One could argue about "letter and intent of the plan" with the Bomasada development, (was taller but did add density so at least it went in one direction) but cant for the life of me make any argument that tearing out a building and expanding the QT will enhance any part of the Brookside plan or any of its intents.
One could also argue that your QT project is the same contravention as a 3 or more story apartment building is to 81st & Mingo. I didn't hear you say QT should be evicted from the area (although you may wish that privately) but that it should be in keeping with the intent of the area.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on September 14, 2009, 11:32:26 AM
For some reason large portions of our community want to see our unsustainable and inefficient pattern of suburban growth continue.....
Probably because they don't share the vision of urban life and all the other reasons that have been discussed for wanting a single family dwelling.
Additionally, this development wasn't for 240 units of Section 8 housing, this was for upper middle class housing. Density would have gone up, but it wouldn't be like it is ruining the neighborhood. If anyone wants to buy the slum apartments just down the street from my house and put in a larger unit to attract affluent people to my neighborhood, you are welcome to do it. In fact, let me know how I can help.
Ruin the neighborhood is in the eye of the beholder. As long as most residents of the area agree to the amount of the increase in density, so be it. Also, what would be wrong with some more affordable housing, say lower middle class or middle middle class? I am not proposing to build crap but not everyone can afford or needs real granite counter-tops etc.
Anyway, I will back off on some of my Bomasada/Brookside specific objections having re-read earlier parts of this thread. I still believe there is too much of an attitude by some urbanists that suburbia will be the downfall of the earth. There is a lack of understanding that some people just don't want to live in a high density area. It has pretty much been that way even around the old east coast cities. The rich folks moved out. As transportation (Real Trolleys and other rail) improved, the middle class could move out. They didn't have the multi-acre estates but they moved from places like where Bill Murray was in Stripes to row houses, duplexes, and single family homes. Now the tables have turned and young folks in particular want to re-invent the city. That's fine with me as long as my option remains open to need the telephone to "touch my neighbor".
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 15, 2009, 01:17:06 AM
Anyway, I will back off on some of my Bomasada/Brookside specific objections having re-read earlier parts of this thread. I still believe there is too much of an attitude by some urbanists that suburbia will be the downfall of the earth. There is a lack of understanding that some people just don't want to live in a high density area. It has pretty much been that way even around the old east coast cities. The rich folks moved out. As transportation (Real Trolleys and other rail) improved, the middle class could move out. They didn't have the multi-acre estates but they moved from places like where Bill Murray was in Stripes to row houses, duplexes, and single family homes. Now the tables have turned and young folks in particular want to re-invent the city. That's fine with me as long as my option remains open to need the telephone to "touch my neighbor".
I think suburbia on the scale it is currently practiced in this country in general and in Tulsa in particular won't be sustainable for much longer. That said, I don't mind if that's what people want. My problem comes in when they live along a busy corridor and expect empty lots to remain empty forever and expect only single family homes nearby.
If this development were built in the middle of Lortondale, I'd understand and even support the neighborhood being upset. If people choose to live near amenities, they should not be shocked when higher density development occurs near those amenities. Other people want to live in walkable neighborhoods, too.
Basically what I'm saying is that if you abut commercial development, you should not get upset when apartments are built there next door.
All that said, I very much enjoyed the time when I lived out of town on relatively large properties. And while I can't for the life of me understand why on earth anyone would want to live in the uncanny valley of small subdivision lots rather than in denser neighborhoods next to amenities or out in the country (or at least on a quarter acre lot!), people should certainly have the right to do so. Their desires are not contingent on my understanding.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 13, 2009, 09:00:57 PM
If the exact location was such a good fit, why the complaints from the neighbors? I don't live there so I don't have any direct benefit either way.
(http://ezinspirations.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/complains/cartoons%20complain%202.jpg)
Quote from: nathanm on September 15, 2009, 01:50:09 AM
I think suburbia on the scale it is currently practiced in this country in general and in Tulsa in particular won't be sustainable for much longer. That said, I don't mind if that's what people want. My problem comes in when they live along a busy corridor and expect empty lots to remain empty forever and expect only single family homes nearby.
Since the last empty lot near us was sold 15 years ago, I am not really worried about someone putting a big apartment building next to me. I know people here hate the strip development along the arterials but they really don't generate much traffic and provide the stuff you all want to walk to. Some of the people living close to the main road could walk. I don't see the need for a big box store every mile. If you want to be that close to the amenities, live in the city.
If this development were built in the middle of Lortondale, I'd understand and even support the neighborhood being upset. If people choose to live near amenities, they should not be shocked when higher density development occurs near those amenities. Other people want to live in walkable neighborhoods, too.
No problem here with some smaller apartment complexes. I just don't want a 4 or 5 story behemouth sharing with single or maybe 2 story single or duplex homes. Big apartment complexes do contribute the need to widen roads for most of us. I guess Artist is lucky enough to wait for traffic to die down before he needs to go anywhere.
Basically what I'm saying is that if you abut commercial development, you should not get upset when apartments are built there next door.
Depends on the size of the apartments and what it does to the infrastructure requirements. Plop a few extra thousand people and cars in an otherwise sprawling area and all of a sudden we need wider roads......
All that said, I very much enjoyed the time when I lived out of town on relatively large properties. And while I can't for the life of me understand why on earth anyone would want to live in the uncanny valley of small subdivision lots rather than in denser neighborhoods next to amenities or out in the country (or at least on a quarter acre lot!), people should certainly have the right to do so. Their desires are not contingent on my understanding.
We finally somewhat agree. Our development is on mostly 1 acre lots. I also do not understand why someone would want to live so close to their neighbor that it is physically impossible to drive a car between the houses without the amenities of being more city-like. There are none of the advantages of being in the suburbs and none of the advantages of being in the city. Possible advantages include having a relatively new, trouble free home and possibly a better school district.
Quote from: sgrizzle on September 15, 2009, 07:39:33 AM
(http://ezinspirations.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/complains/cartoons%20complain%202.jpg)
It's the length of the complaint line, not the fact that it exists. I have backed off somewhat on the specifics of Bomasada at Brookside.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 15, 2009, 07:51:23 AM
I know people here hate the strip development along the arterials but they really don't generate much traffic and provide the stuff you all want to walk to. Some of the people living close to the main road could walk. I don't see the need for a big box store every mile. If you want to be that close to the amenities, live in the city.
All that is perfectly well and good.
Out there. ;D
As an aside, back when I lived out South I once got some new tires down at Hesselbein in Bixby. Given that it was going to take them a couple of hours and that I lived a couple of miles away, I figured I'd go next door to Chili's, grab some lunch and maybe wander over to GameStop or something. I ended up feeling lucky I could make it over to the auto parts store to buy some wipers. Between the folks in cars not expecting pedestrians and the complete lack of any pedestrian infrastructure, I gave up.
I wasn't about to chance getting creamed by one of the folks turning onto 111th from Memorial after nearly getting hit just trying to cross the driveway between the bank and Chili's. No video game browsing for me.
My point being that even in that situation the tiniest amount of thought given to pedestrians would have made it a much more reasonable endeavor. Sidewalks, preferably with some sort of physical delineation (perhaps make the crossing concrete) where they crossed the driveways would have made it much more appealing. I say this as a person who never had a problem walking from my apartment to the QT at 101st and Memorial despite Memorial having no sidewalks there. (At least until the BMW dealership was put in..that one has a sidewalk, unlike the other two on that side of the street)
Quote from: nathanm on September 15, 2009, 08:48:12 AM
All that is perfectly well and good. Out there. ;D
As an aside, back when I lived out South I once got some new tires down at Hesselbein in Bixby. Given that it was going to take them a couple of hours and that I lived a couple of miles away, I figured I'd go next door to Chili's, grab some lunch and maybe wander over to GameStop or something. I ended up feeling lucky I could make it over to the auto parts store to buy some wipers. Between the folks in cars not expecting pedestrians and the complete lack of any pedestrian infrastructure, I gave up.
I wasn't about to chance getting creamed by one of the folks turning onto 111th from Memorial after nearly getting hit just trying to cross the driveway between the bank and Chili's. No video game browsing for me.
I had the same situation trying to get tires at Hibdon at the south end of Tulsa Hills. There was a sidewalk in front of the tire place, but nowhere connecting it to the rest of the shopping center. Talk about an unpleasant walk up to Target to get some supplies and to Buffalo Wild Wings for lunch. No sidewalks. I either had to walk in some a field or the street. I chose the street. Drivers were not happy about that.
There's now sidewalks from the turnpike to 111th. I don't know if they put in a crossing signal to cross 111th. Crossing Memorial isn't quite so bad since the median gives you a break.
Side note: You were probably at Robertson tires if you were near Chiles.
I'm not going to try to BS anyone by saying the area is pedestrian friendly. You need to dig back to college and Road-Crossing 302 (More intense than 101)
Quote from: TheTed on September 15, 2009, 11:49:01 AM
I had the same situation trying to get tires at Hibdon at the south end of Tulsa Hills. There was a sidewalk in front of the tire place, but nowhere connecting it to the rest of the shopping center. Talk about an unpleasant walk up to Target to get some supplies and to Buffalo Wild Wings for lunch. No sidewalks. I either had to walk in some a field or the street. I chose the street. Drivers were not happy about that.
Oh, was that you I flipped off?
JK ;)
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 15, 2009, 12:45:00 PM
Side note: You were probably at Robertson tires if you were near Chiles.
I'm not going to try to BS anyone by saying the area is pedestrian friendly. You need to dig back to college and Road-Crossing 302 (More intense than 101)
You're right. I don't know where the confusion came from. :p Nice guys, anyway.
I have been known to practice batshitinsane crossing, but I've mellowed in my "old" age. :o
Quote from: nathanm on September 15, 2009, 06:51:09 PM
You're right. I don't know where the confusion came from. :p Nice guys, anyway.
I have been known to practice batshitinsane crossing, but I've mellowed in my "old" age. :o
I've bought a few sets of tires at Robertson. They got a good deal for my mom. She had a tire get damaged beyond repair. Michelin had discontinued that model and the remaining models were not really a good match. I called Michelin, told them my concerns. Robertson also talked with Michelin and we got an 80% credit on the 3 remaining tires with about 8000 to 10000 miles on them in order to have 4 matching tires. I have put at least two sets of tires on my car. Reasonable price (not rock bottom) but they treat me well and check the car over pretty good.
Street crossing: I take a few less chances than I did 30 yrs ago too.
I looked for some crossing light boxes on the traffic light poles at 111th and Memorial tonight and saw none. It might be better to get a hundred yards or so east or west on 111th where there would be fewer lanes to cross and a little less traffic since a lot of it goes into WalMart on the west or Starbucks and others on the east.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 15, 2009, 01:17:06 AM
Is what is being put in within the price range of these young people or will they be driven to somewhere else? Then they will advocate higher density at the new location and in turn be driven from there by new high priced housing. Maybe. I am actually asking since I don't know what incomes these young folks have.
The money is there, because primarily young people living by themselves have pushed the going rate for a 1100 square foot postwar home for rent to above $1000/month in some cases. You are lucky if these houses have been wired for 3-pronged plugs, and the kitchens are probably ancient. Postwar construction means poor insulation, which means enormous heating bills in the winter. These houses do fill the purpose just fine of a roof over your head and a place to live, but for $1000/month they are substandard. Typical absentee landlordism puts the reinvestment into the home's upkeep at a minimum.
I've rented on Brookside, albeit not for a G, but that was a few years ago. I see signs posted in front of huts with ridiculous rent demands, then the next day there is a U-haul out front.
Quote from: YoungTulsan on September 15, 2009, 10:46:00 PM
The money is there, because primarily young people living by themselves have pushed the going rate for a 1100 square foot postwar home for rent to above $1000/month in some cases. You are lucky if these houses have been wired for 3-pronged plugs, and the kitchens are probably ancient. Postwar construction means poor insulation, which means enormous heating bills in the winter. These houses do fill the purpose just fine of a roof over your head and a place to live, but for $1000/month they are substandard. Typical absentee landlordism puts the reinvestment into the home's upkeep at a minimum.
I've rented on Brookside, albeit not for a G, but that was a few years ago. I see signs posted in front of huts with ridiculous rent demands, then the next day there is a U-haul out front.
I must have gotten into the wrong career. Or, after paying that kind of rent, they have to have stuff nearby because they can't afford anything else. I thought I heard some of the renovations of stuff downtown were approaching $2000/mo. Maybe less. I don't pay too much attention since I plan to stay where I am.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 15, 2009, 11:07:38 PM
I must have gotten into the wrong career. Or, after paying that kind of rent, they have to have stuff nearby because they can't afford anything else. I thought I heard some of the renovations of stuff downtown were approaching $2000/mo. Maybe less. I don't pay too much attention since I plan to stay where I am.
It's much easier to afford that kind of rent when the only mouth to feed is your own.
Quote from: nathanm on September 16, 2009, 08:36:11 AM
It's much easier to afford that kind of rent when the only mouth to feed is your own.
And when your still trying to impress women. ;D
Many young professionals make $40-50,000 a year. The average housing cost is 33% of income in "urban" areas of the united states (mortgage companies use a 28% average). So $1000 a month at $40K would be an "average" housing cost per month at 30%. To live in the trendy part of town in many, if not most other areas, you'd be paying well above average.
So I'd have to say $1000 a month isn't too much to ask. We're just used to rock bottom pricing on housing due to a glut "who cares where I live" living spaces. Frankly, I'm starting to think our cheap real estate is a more of a detriment than an asset (no pressure for wages to rise, no need to use land wisely, no need to maintain properties or restore properties, sprawling parking lots, minimal infill or redevelopment).
When you are single and renting, taxes are a BIG chunk of your income. Throw in some money for a 401K or similar to provide for the retirement that Social Security may not provide. Throw in the topic of the year, health care cost. Pretty soon that $1000 becomes significant and there will be little money left to impress women. Now the credit card comes into play...... pay for it next month....or whenever.
Wages increasing due to high real estate prices is not a benefit in my mind. Better land use and maintenance of existing property I will agree with. I have no desire for Oklahoma to followthe California model of real estate. Increasing property values only help when you move to a less affluent area. Otherwise you just pay higher taxes and when you try to move to a better place, its price is up too. I know there have been times when one could play the real estate market and win. In my mind there is no real increase in value, just an increase in price. It's one reason I have little sympathy for the people in the super overpriced housing markets losing their butts. If you just like to pay a lot for things, I have an 11 year old car I would be willing to part with for the price of a new one of better quality. (Old Buick for new BMW or Mercedes)
On a semi-related note, I was talking to a realtor friend of mine last night about the new condos just south of The Consortium (or whatever they call the center with Cafe Ole and the Oliver's Twist FAIL). She said 2000 sq. ft. units at about $500K apiece is what she thought they were sized at and bringing. Still some vacancies- surprise. Anyone else know if that's right? I can't imagine who their demographic is, unless it's fairly well-off middle-age single or empty-nest professionals who want to be in the thick of things on Brookside.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 16, 2009, 01:02:18 PM
On a semi-related note, I was talking to a realtor friend of mine last night about the new condos just south of The Consortium (or whatever they call the center with Cafe Ole and the Oliver's Twist FAIL). She said 2000 sq. ft. units at about $500K apiece is what she thought they were sized at and bringing. Still some vacancies- surprise. Anyone else know if that's right? I can't imagine who their demographic is, unless it's fairly well-off middle-age single or empty-nest professionals who want to be in the thick of things on Brookside.
It is, I saw they were asking $550,000 and two weeks ago or so I saw people starting to move in. You can get an awfully nice classic Maple Ridge house less than a mile away for 550 (and less).
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 16, 2009, 12:43:35 PM
When you are single and renting, taxes are a BIG chunk of your income. Throw in some money for a 401K or similar to provide for the retirement that Social Security may not provide. Throw in the topic of the year, health care cost. Pretty soon that $1000 becomes significant and there will be little money left to impress women. Now the credit card comes into play...... pay for it next month....or whenever
Hypothetically, someone could work for tips, and pay their landlord in cash. Purely hypothetical situation of course.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on September 16, 2009, 09:37:00 AMFrankly, I'm starting to think our cheap real estate is a more of a detriment than an asset (no pressure for wages to rise, no need to use land wisely, no need to maintain properties or restore properties, sprawling parking lots, minimal infill or redevelopment).
I'm rather happy we didn't have a huge bubble in Tulsa.
Quote from: swake on September 16, 2009, 01:05:40 PM
It is, I saw they were asking $550,000 and two weeks ago or so I saw people starting to move in. You can get an awfully nice classic Maple Ridge house less than a mile away for 550 (and less).
Yea but you would have to mess with a yard and a lot more upkeep. A lot of people absolutely, abhore the idea of having a house and would rather die than live that kind of lifestyle. But very importanly, stylish, uber contemporary design just seems a bit out of place in a quaint little cottage unless you want to spend a lot of money, and work to gut it. They are selling a lifestyle and that doesnt just include living right in the middle of things, its a "look and feel" as well. But I do think its still a little high for what your getting, though the trick is, its pretty much all you can get in Tulsa.
Real Estate is one of those areas where supply and demand generally works. If you just have to have that: a) rent house, b)condo, c) 5000 sq ft mansion on the hill, apartment on the most stylish street in town ... then you will pay whatever it takes to get it. Sometimes more than you are capable of paying/repaying. If you own and need to sell when demand is low, you pay for your folly. If you are lucky enough to buy low and sell high, good for you. Don't expect me to willingly bail you out if you are on the bad part of the cycle, unless maybe you want to help me buy some more toys.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 16, 2009, 07:56:19 PM
Real Estate is one of those areas where supply and demand generally works.
Ironically, it's not any more than any other good. It works more like the economists saying, "oh, this 32 ounce bottle of ketchup costs twice what this 16 ounce bottle costs, so the market is rational." People compare the price of houses
to each other, but usually fail to look at how they are valued relative to other goods. If that were not the case, the housing bubble would have been impossible.
I think the bailing out that should happen is whatever it takes to keep the foreclosures coming in at a slow enough rate to avoid financial armageddon for the entire country. If someone makes bad decisions and ends up not being able to keep their house, that's fine, but I don't like cutting off my nose to spite my face. We don't live in a vacuum; the overall economy and lending environment affects us greatly. If our employers can't get loans, they will cease operating, leaving us with no job and eventually no home. (Whether it goes to the bank or the tax man, the result is the same)
Quote from: nathanm on September 16, 2009, 09:10:09 PM
Ironically, it's not any more than any other good. It works more like the economists saying, "oh, this 32 ounce bottle of ketchup costs twice what this 16 ounce bottle costs, so the market is rational." People compare the price of houses to each other, but usually fail to look at how they are valued relative to other goods. If that were not the case, the housing bubble would have been impossible.
I think the bailing out that should happen is whatever it takes to keep the foreclosures coming in at a slow enough rate to avoid financial armageddon for the entire country. If someone makes bad decisions and ends up not being able to keep their house, that's fine, but I don't like cutting off my nose to spite my face. We don't live in a vacuum; the overall economy and lending environment affects us greatly. If our employers can't get loans, they will cease operating, leaving us with no job and eventually no home. (Whether it goes to the bank or the tax man, the result is the same)
Where I was trying to go with S & D on housing was that the demand may not be related to the roof over your head value. Brookside reminds me of that. Per this thread, young folks
want to live in Brookside and will pay a rental rate for a house that they wouldn't pay for an equivalent house elsewhere. There is a value involved in terms of the lifestyle etc but it has nothing to do with the structure of the house. Twice the square ft in a house costing more makes sense. I was not trying to imply housing was the only place S & D works. Brand A ketchup may taste better and be worth more than brand B. Brand A ketchup may cost more in Food Pyramid than WalMart and still sell because some shoppers don't want to be seen in WalMart. I don't think the difference in price between Food Pyramid and WalMart is a similar percent difference to that seen in the housing market.
Bailout: I realize we cannot have a "let them eat cake" mentality. Bad decisions though should have some cost. Banks (bad loan decision) should maybe renegotiate the mortgage to a lower rate or perhaps even the price in order to have some payments coming in and avoid having to go through the foreclosure process. I would think the bank/mortgage holder does not generally get rich in a bad market by foreclosing on a home. Borrowers maybe need to pay more years (as a refinance deal) to keep the house. I don't want to throw people out on the street. Many, but not all, have fallen on unfortunate circumstances beyond their control. If I have to pay for a nice house, I'd rather it be one that I live in. If the bank where I have (any?) savings cannot pay a good interest rate because they made bad decisons, I can move my money to a another bank and have done so. I will admit to putting a portion of my money in FDIC/FCUIC institutions. I accept that I get a lower interest than some other investments in turn for some security on the principle.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 16, 2009, 10:29:32 PM
Where I was trying to go with S & D on housing was that the demand may not be related to the roof over your head value.
I completely agree. Just don't try to convince some Chicago-school economist of that. They have more faith in the rationality of the market (any market, stock, housing, super) than my preacher had in God. Their dimwittery was a large reason why nobody was willing to see the housing bubble and the oil bubble. (Sorry, I'm ranting tonight..I'm pissed about the Baucus pile of smile, so I'm focused squarely on the negative this evening)
Nathan:
The economists, particularly the Chicago school, saw and clamored about the respective bubbles going back into the 1990's. The economists saw it. The bankers, shareholders, oilmen and builders who were making money off the bubbles saw it to - but made a cash grab while the getting was good.
The market IS rational given "perfect" information. In the aforementioned bubbles those with dominant control of the market manipulated it such that the information was far from perfect. The rating agencies, buying institutions and others involved enabled the imperfect information to be rubber stamped and passed on as truth - and the other parties were willing to accept it as truth so long as it served our purposes (cheap mortgages, easy access to capital, large bonuses, etc.). Thus, the market was acting rationally with the information they were given (that mortgages were properly secured, that there was a shortage of oil). It was a classic market failure.
Imperfect information destroys markets. THAT is where government regulation should come in. If people want to take high-risks and invest in under secured mortgages - they should be able to. But enabling the market (you and me) to really understand the risks without hampering our ability to operate freely is the hard part.
Unfortunately, our government seems capable of only acting with a sledge hammer or sitting on the sidelines.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on September 17, 2009, 09:31:09 AM
Nathan:
The economists, particularly the Chicago school, saw and clamored about the respective bubbles going back into the 1990's. The economists saw it. The bankers, shareholders, oilmen and builders who were making money off the bubbles saw it to - but made a cash grab while the getting was good.
The market IS rational given "perfect" information. In the aforementioned bubbles those with dominant control of the market manipulated it such that the information was far from perfect. The rating agencies, buying institutions and others involved enabled the imperfect information to be rubber stamped and passed on as truth - and the other parties were willing to accept it as truth so long as it served our purposes (cheap mortgages, easy access to capital, large bonuses, etc.). Thus, the market was acting rationally with the information they were given (that mortgages were properly secured, that there was a shortage of oil). It was a classic market failure.
If I could figure it out, "the markets" could. I said mortgages were unsustainably high (a bit early, apparently, based on the stabilization of prices of late), they were. It was obvious. I said oil prices were unsustainably high for no particular reason. Turned out to be true once again. It's not as if these things are unknowable. You just have not believe in magic. Either that or a stopped clock is right twice a day. Not sure which yet. We'll see.
I'd love to see some cites regarding economists who actually got it right (there were few).
Note that I'm not saying they're (the Friedmanites who went farther than even he was willing) completely wrong. Their predictions and understanding work reasonably well in the good times. However, they discount the fact that "the market" is made up of a bunch of
people. People whose expectations, hopes, and fears color their every move. That sends the school of thought on the skids any time times aren't good. And perhaps when times are
too good, also. Yes, between the irrational exuberance crowd (which is most of the stock market) and the likes of Mansack distorting the market as much as is humanly possible, any theory which relies on perfect information and rational market participants is doomed to failure. It's like Bush's theory that we would be greeted with roses in Baghdad. Great on paper, but the reality is starkly different.
Now I'm no economist. I'm like the wife sitting on the couch saying "that's not right..maybe a little to the left," so don't ask me who is right. Beyond the general thought that Keynesian theory on stimulating the economy works and whatever obvious things I glean from events, I have no school of thought.
You should read this guy (http://brontecapital.blogspot.com/2009/09/hoisted-from-archives-my-old-post-on.html) in general. And Krugman will obviously have a particular point of view, but I think recent events have proven he's probably correct on this one (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html).
Sorry to bring this old biddy up but I've not been by the area in a while.
Has anything come of the empty lot/lots this was supposed to be built on?
nope
Damn
Same thing happened on the other side of 41st. A bunch of homes were razed on 41st Place and 42nd Street around Quincy to build high-end condos. They only completed the first block of condos a year or so ago and still haven't sold all of them. There is an empty field there now where there used to be several homes. I'd like to blame it on banks not lending due to the credit crisis, but it looks more like the few they built haven't even sold. I am still of the belief that something like Bomasada's proposed apartments are in high demand and would sell quickly on Brookside, but apparently $400k condos are not the hot thing.
Quote from: YoungTulsan on March 18, 2010, 09:44:13 PM
Same thing happened on the other side of 41st. A bunch of homes were razed on 41st Place and 42nd Street around Quincy to build high-end condos. They only completed the first block of condos a year or so ago and still haven't sold all of them. There is an empty field there now where there used to be several homes. I'd like to blame it on banks not lending due to the credit crisis, but it looks more like the few they built haven't even sold. I am still of the belief that something like Bomasada's proposed apartments are in high demand and would sell quickly on Brookside, but apparently $400k condos are not the hot thing.
I have a cousin of mine who lives right there with his wife that I used to visit on a semi-regular basis. They'd been working on that since at least 1998, maybe earlier.
From what I've heard the project is dead, but there's another developer looking at the property.
Don't know what killed it.