Ok, to blunt our let down of yet another midsize to large project being defunct and not happening, I have decided to post what actually IS being built along Cherry Street. I know we will eventually see some larger projects as Tulsas infill development curve hits its stride, but as many have pointed out before,,, If you keep on trucking along with small projects, pretty soon they add up. Cherry street is moving right along with smaller developments and it looks like there will definitely be more coming for there are numerous lots that have been cleared out next to many of these current developments. So do not despair lol.
I actually think that having lots of different developments with lots of different styles is going to create a more interesting, fun and funky, neighborhood than if the developments were half a block long and all the buildings looked the same.
Here is some of what is going on right now along Cherry Street.
(http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/4681/cherrylofts1webje2.jpg)
(http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/167/cherrylofts2webyq7.jpg)
(http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/6720/cherrylofts3webqj2.jpg)
(http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/2608/cherrylofts4webvw6.jpg)
(http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/1444/cherrylofts4awebwv0.jpg)
(http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/425/cherrylofts5webtm8.jpg)
(http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/4967/cherrylofts6webds8.jpg)
(http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/2994/cherrylofts7webwd1.jpg)
(http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/3331/cherrylofts7awebbe8.jpg)
(http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/8774/cherrylofts8webio2.jpg)
(http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/576/cherrylofts9webhb8.jpg)
Great pics! In the first image, the little blue house between the two loft projects is still for sale I think.
Not the lot, just the house! The developer will move it if you want it. It's really cute inside! If no one buys it, he's just going to demolish it.
I don't think he's sold it to anyone yet, so if any of you are interested in a great little house, let me know and I'll get you his #.
Is that (3rd picture) what you'd call an Inverse Craftsman?
Where's the rainwater going to go?
The inverse craftsman looks horrid in real life. Sits very near a well done rehab of a bungalow.
Sigh.... Is anyone else disturbed by the new look of this neighborhood? Its like they are remaking it in the image of a contemporary South Tulsa of the 1980's. Cherry Sreet ain't Cherry Street anymore. Its the vision of some folks who don't live near it.
If it makes you happy, it must not be all bad.
Good question on the rainwater thing lol. Perhaps they have a big pipe that goes down through the wall under the house, then out to the side? If not its likely to end up running down through the walls anyway lol. I do like the little bungalo columns though. On one street there was a little house between 2 developments and in the yard was this feeble looking "Preserve Midtown!" sign. As much as I love the old neighborhoods and want to keep and enhance their character... I think this one is a lost cause on that front. If they were to stop now it would look like crap. Plus like I always say, good to have different areas develop differently for different tastes and types of people. I love areas that preserve a certain "look and feel" and also love areas that have a mix of styles. Will be interesting to see how far they go with these new developments. I hope they are able to keep some of the older 2 and 3 story apartments in the area and just mix in lots more new ones. Would be neat to go through this neighborhood and see a huge variety, "eyecandy" of 2 and 3 story apartments of every; style, shape, color and design.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
Is that (3rd picture) what you'd call an Inverse Craftsman?
Where's the rainwater going to go?
Heh. Betcha that center column is holler. That one, and the top one, are good examples of infill because they respect the established form of the neighborhood (street width and setback) and have their functional elements in the right places (front facing entrances and porches, rear-loaded garages and garage apartments). If this neighborhood ever decided to adopt conservation districts, they'd blend right in.
The skinny ones that are crammed in there sideways (Metro lofts?) violate these established patterns and really aren't a very good fit in the neighborhood. I think they could be much improved if they simply treated the street facade like a street facade and put entrances and substantial porches on the front.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
The inverse craftsman looks horrid in real life. Sits very near a well done rehab of a bungalow.
Sigh.... Is anyone else disturbed by the new look of this neighborhood? Its like they are remaking it in the image of a contemporary South Tulsa of the 1980's. Cherry Sreet ain't Cherry Street anymore. Its the vision of some folks who don't live near it.
If it makes you happy, it must not be all bad.
Staring at the side of a building where you intuitively know there should be a "front" is far more jarring than an inverted roofline. Rooflines have always varied greatly in this neighborhood. In fact, it was originally built with a combination of bungalows with low-pitched roofs and flat-roofed apartments. It may be "horrid" to you, but there's really nothing
wrong about it. Overall, it's very consistent with the neighborhood vernacular.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
The inverse craftsman looks horrid in real life. Sits very near a well done rehab of a bungalow.
Sigh.... Is anyone else disturbed by the new look of this neighborhood? Its like they are remaking it in the image of a contemporary South Tulsa of the 1980's. Cherry Sreet ain't Cherry Street anymore. Its the vision of some folks who don't live near it.
If it makes you happy, it must not be all bad.
I love that new home and really like the new look this neighborhood is taking on. Just glad Tulsa actually has at least one budding, contemporary neighborhood. I was aginst this type of infill in this location at first. Would have preferred downtown of course, but now that there are so many in this one area, I say go for it and finish the job. Will look better with more of them at this point than if you tried to freeze things as they are now and save the others. Its already "too far gone". So just finish it off and hopefully other neighborhoods that want to preserve their older characer will do so. Like it or not, this is now a big part of what Cherry Street is about... Next.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
Is that (3rd picture) what you'd call an Inverse Craftsman?
Where's the rainwater going to go?
To me it just looks grumpy.
I'm guessing they put in drains like a flat roof.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
The inverse craftsman looks horrid in real life. Sits very near a well done rehab of a bungalow.
Sigh.... Is anyone else disturbed by the new look of this neighborhood? Its like they are remaking it in the image of a contemporary South Tulsa of the 1980's. Cherry Sreet ain't Cherry Street anymore. Its the vision of some folks who don't live near it.
If it makes you happy, it must not be all bad.
Count me as one who found it at least a little shocking at first. I was in Tulsa over Easter weekend and drove around those blocks and couldn't believe it.
A couple of things mitigate, for me, whatever loss may be occurring. First, that slice of Cherry St. has always had multi-family dwellings, and these developments will improve the value of the existing apartments and encourage upkeep. Second, the houses that have been torn down have, by and large, been run-down and in need of serious repair. Obvious foundation issues, rot, etc. Their future was teardown, not "flip my house." It was just a question of what was going in. And third, if I owned a well-maintained home that remain in that neighborhood, I'd be jumping for joy as my property value skyrocketed. There is a thin layer of remaining single-family homes between Cherry St. and these "lofts," and as long as their value remains high they won't be teardown candidates for economic reasons.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
The inverse craftsman looks horrid in real life. Sits very near a well done rehab of a bungalow.
Sigh.... Is anyone else disturbed by the new look of this neighborhood? Its like they are remaking it in the image of a contemporary South Tulsa of the 1980's. Cherry Sreet ain't Cherry Street anymore. Its the vision of some folks who don't live near it.
If it makes you happy, it must not be all bad.
They are overpriced, out of scale, setback stealing, lot cramming, scrape and rapes. I hate them with a passion except for the NINE project(first picture on the left).
Whatever happened to "different strokes for different folks?"
You wouldn't dislike a person if they bought one, just based on the fact that you don't like their house, would you?
It seems we have placed an unbalanced importance on buildings, rather than the people who live in them.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
They are overpriced, out of scale, setback stealing, lot cramming, scrape and rapes. I hate them with a passion except for the NINE project(first picture on the left).
If they are overpriced, then no one will purchase them or lease them.
What is setback stealing? Either they meet the required setbacks for their district (most likely RM-2) or they don't.
My guess is that most of these developments which are turned 90 degrees to the street and crammed onto their lots meet the RM-2 zoning requirements.
EDIT: Removed my guess about the garages for the NINE duplex dwelling because I'm not sure if the living space above the garages would be considered as dwellings or not. This is a prime example of how messed up our zoning code is. For years I've suggested to the TMAPC that Tulsa needs to modify its zoning code. Until recently, my letters and pleas have gone unacknowledged and unanswered. It's supposed to be a participatory planning process, but when I try to participate, no one seems to want to listen.
The idea of Neighborhood Conservation Districts (NCDs) has been around for at least a decade. I've made a few suggestions to those currently drafting the proposed ordinance, and the response from one Planning Commissioner has been good.
Yet when I post my suggested revisions to the draft ordinance on this forum, they are criticized as unrealistic B.S. I've spent many, many hours considering ways that we can create a better built environment in Tulsa. Anyone who thinks otherwise is completely wrong.
My suggestions for the proposed NCD draft ordinance are aimed at squelching the fears and misinformation of the opposition while allowing at least
some self-imposed guidelines to be put in place for
those who actually want them. It's difficult for me to attend daytime meetings, but I've put some ideas on the table for consideration. Councilor Barnes says we need to take a breath and slow down. Perhaps she is correct. Perhaps we should discuss the idea of NCDs for another 10 or 15 years. Perhaps we should continue to villainize those with ideas different from our own. Perhaps we should spend another 10 or 15 years arguing about 299/300 versus 300/300. Perhaps.
Meanwhile, the bulldozers continue to roar through Midtown...
"Oh, give me land, lots of land under starry skies above, don't fence me in." ~Cole Porter
quote:
Originally posted by Kenosha
It seems we have placed an unbalanced importance on buildings, rather than the people who live in them.
I agree -- much like the over-emphasis placed on a single mode of transportation (rail) which will serve few
people in the context of our zoning and land use policies. Many Tulsans want to have plenty of space separating themselves from other
people, from colorful
buildings, etc.
"Oh, give me land, lots of land under starry skies above, don't fence me in." ~Cole Porter
Thanks Artist, those are great pics. I am a big fan of modern architecture, and I love the development going on. I suppose it is all a matter of personal taste. I really like the butterfly roof units, from an aesthetic point of view.
I live in Lortondale, which was Tulsa's 1950's version of the ultimate in modern style, so I suppose I appreciate this new construction more than the average citizen. But if the builders/developers did not think there would be a demand, they would not have constructed these. I think your pics and the construction is great!
These pictures have also made me rethink my opinions on pending NCD ordinances for Tulsa. I personally love the new construction in these pictures, but I have not viewed this in person or seen it in relation to the existing neighborhoods. Thanks for the pics and insight Artist!
Thanks for the pictures Artist. I think it is really great that this development is taking place. It is adding another type of dwelling type into the housing mix and that's a good thing.
Tulsa was built on boosters and people who were going around encouraging development, people who spent their money on the buildings that we still have as a legacy in downtown and all around Tulsa, I think these modern developers are no different. It saddens me when people would rather see areas turned into open air museums than allowing Tulsa to develop, dense up and grow as a city.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
Originally posted by Kenosha
It seems we have placed an unbalanced importance on buildings, rather than the people who live in them.
I agree -- much like the over-emphasis placed on a single mode of transportation (rail) which will serve few people in the context of our zoning and land use policies. Many Tulsans want to have plenty of space separating themselves from other people, from colorful buildings, etc.
"Oh, give me land, lots of land under starry skies above, don't fence me in." ~Cole Porter
I see what you are trying to do, Boo, but that analogy makes no sense.
My concern is less about the buildings than the life that occurs in between them. As far as transportation is concerned, I believe we should have a comprehensive transportation system: Cars, Pedestrians, Bikes, Transit should all be accommodated.
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
It saddens me when people would rather see areas turned into open air museums than allowing Tulsa to develop, dense up and grow as a city.
This saddens me a bit also. With the proposed Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD) ordinance, I think the pressure will trend toward lower densities, not higher. My property already has been downzoned against my wishes to allow for only 9% of its former development potential. The buildable area of the lot for the primary use structure was reduced by 25%. In fact, the setbacks were increased so much that my house, which had been in the same position on its lot for 80 years prior to the re-zoning, suddenly became a "non-conforming" structure. Meanwhile, there are districts 30 feet to the south and 30 feet to the east of my property where the development potential is 11 times greater than it is for my land.
I bought my property with the goal of helping to create a denser and more sustainable Tulsa.
I looked at the Comprehensive Plan. It encouraged multi-family development.
I looked at the zoning. It was zoned for multi-family.
I looked across the street and noticed the big trash dumpster for the 12-unit apartment complex about 65 feet away from the property I was considering purchasing. I noticed the stacked flats directly across the street, and I noticed the 8-plex three doors down.
I looked at the required setbacks for my district before I purchased the property. Those were increased against my wishes after I had already bought the land.
I noticed a certain built character in my neighborhood, and I liked it. Old and new buildings were there. Single story bungalows stood across the street from highrises. There was a mixture of styles. That didn't bother me.
I saw commercial and office use directly abutting and sometimes within the same building as residential. That was fine with me.
I noticed that some properties had no off-street parking at all, and many had no garages. Okay by me.
I saw lots of apartments above garages, also. I thought that was actually a good method of bolstering the population density a bit without changing the character of the neighborhood. INCOG staff thought otherwise.
I did quite a bit of research before I purchased the property. I understood the rules (or at least I thought I did), and I was satisfied with them.
But then, someone wanted to change the rules. They wanted to prevent any infill development other than detached single family dwelling units in a neighborhood that had been a mixture of dwelling types and uses for at least 75 years. I wound up on the edge of an extremely low density residential district abutting much higher density districts in two directions.
The downzoning wasn't a problem for the owners of the multi-family property across the street, because while I was restricted to a single family dwelling by right and a duplex dwelling by special exception, they reserved their right to maintain or re-develop their property at many times the density of mine. The downzoning wasn't a problem for the owners of property closer to the center of the proposed lower density district, either. In that case, my property served as a nice buffer between their low density district and the threat of more apartment units.
My property was downzoned against my wishes to a maximum development potential of 2.66 dwelling units per acre by right. This isn't anywhere close to a sustainable level for a city in terms of supporting viable mass transit or long term maintenance of infrastructure. It doesn't meet my own goals for a sustainable Tulsa. My block had a density of 12 dwelling units per acre with a potential of approximately 29 dwelling units per acre when I purchased my property, but now rules have been imposed on me by others which limits me to 2.66 dwelling units per acre by right and 5.32 dwelling units per acre by special exception. That's not sustainable.
I don't begrudge neighborhoods that want something in place to protect their existing character. As long as they are completely voluntarily
self-imposed restrictions and boundaries, then I think NCD guidelines would be a good way
for those who actually want the restrictions to conserve the characteristics
of their own property which they enjoy. Personally, I find Tulsa's current zoning districts too restrictive for my neighborhood and for the city in general. Many Tulsans want lots of space separating themselves from others. There are many opportunities to live a low-density, car-oriented, non-sustainable lifestyle in Tulsa. But some of us would prefer more compact neighborhoods which are pedestrian-friendly and truly dense enough to sustain an urban infrastructure and amenities. We shouldn't be forced into a non-sustainable development pattern by others who desire huge setbacks, low roof heights, low densities, or whatever.
The more I look at these, the less I like them. I can't help but think "What will these look like in 40 years?"
I don't think they will last that long. The one that looks like an angry elf will have problems with drainage caused by leaves, ice, snow, etc. accumulating on the roof. It is designed to be a disaster.
All of the others with the stucco parapet walls will degrade quickly because of the lack of overhang.
This is fad architecture at it's best! Popular for about 10 years, ugly in 20 years, and demolished by 40 years.
quote:
Originally posted by Kenosha
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
Originally posted by Kenosha
It seems we have placed an unbalanced importance on buildings, rather than the people who live in them.
I agree -- much like the over-emphasis placed on a single mode of transportation (rail) which will serve few people in the context of our zoning and land use policies. Many Tulsans want to have plenty of space separating themselves from other people, from colorful buildings, etc.
"Oh, give me land, lots of land under starry skies above, don't fence me in." ~Cole Porter
I see what you are trying to do, Boo, but that analogy makes no sense.
My concern is less about the buildings than the life that occurs in between them. As far as transportation is concerned, I believe we should have a comprehensive transportation system: Cars, Pedestrians, Bikes, Transit should all be accommodated.
The analogy makes plenty of sense. We have the development patterns that we have today as a result of planning. Many Tulsans want to live in detached single-family dwellings with lots of grass and trees and huge setbacks. Many Tulsans love driving hither and yon because it's relatively easy to do, and it gives them great freedom in where they can go at any time of the day or night.
I agree that the life which occurs between buildings and within them is more important than the buildings themselves. But I wish there wasn't so darn much space between the buildings. Of course we ought to have a comprehensive transportation system with many options, but our land use policy system is geared toward sprawling suburbs designed primarily for the movement and storage of private automobiles, not for the dense type of transit oriented development needed to support a viable mass transit system.
We've reaped what we've sown.
"Oh, give me land, lots of land under starry skies above, don't fence me in." ~Cole Porter
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
The more I look at these, the less I like them. I can't help but think "What will these look like in 40 years?"
I don't think they will last that long. The one that looks like an angry elf will have problems with drainage caused by leaves, ice, snow, etc. accumulating on the roof. It is designed to be a disaster.
All of the others with the stucco parapet walls will degrade quickly because of the lack of overhang.
This is fad architecture at it's best! Popular for about 10 years, ugly in 20 years, and demolished by 40 years.
Most of them do not look to have the best exterior materials. Except for the first 2. However, thats an easy upgrade in time if needed and the property values go up to make it worth it. Hopefully if this area truly settles in and shows its able to attract the kind of people willing to pay for higher quality construction, more of the buildings in the future will be of a higher quality. ( but here again, we dont have any rules that tell property owners that they have to, or cant, use certain materials.) And yes, most new styles are popular for a time, then get ugly, then become retro, then either get preserved or torn down. Some of these will last, some will not. And then something else will get put in their place. Some bungalos will last and survive, some will not (especially in this particular area lol).
One thing that interesting to consider is where this new development is actually happening, or where its NOT happening. All of these new places are on the North side of Cherry Street "except for the one nearer downtown". I dont mind that strip between the highway and Cherry street being done like this. I can see most of the homes in that strip being turned into these new developments and creating a "contiguous" contained development of a mix of new and older apartment buildings. It works for me. However... I dont think I would like it so much if they started randomly putting in these developments on the South side of Cherry Street. Within the first block, perhaps, because there are already a number of apartment buildings scattered there already. But if they were mixed in further in the neighborhood.... I dont think it would work. Not only for the neighborhood, but also for the developers themselves. Part of the attraction of the North side is that you do have a contained area. A lot of these new buildings can be built in that contained area to create a unique neighborhood thats attractive to people who want to live, not just in a new, hip designed, building, but around lots of other similar people in an environment thats new and "hip". There is a Community and lifestyle aspect that makes it desirable to have lots of these together in one spot.
Perhaps instead of moving to the South of Cherry Street we will begin to see more of the "modern yp" type developments go downtown. All we need is that critical mass of interest. If we were to get a baseball stadium there with a few more things. And I think there are a couple new contemporary loft homes going in along the east end. Then you may see the gravity of interest for this type of living shift towards downtown. But there has to be something else down in that area to make it attracive.
Interestingly enough, It seems that one way to preserve the character of some areas would be to create desirable areas in other locations in the city. Like along the river. If the Tulsa Landing development had gone in I bet you would have seen new development go in that neighborhood behind it. If the Pearl District would get funded you would likely see these new types of developments go in along the 6th street corridor. If the East End were to pick up then more condos and loft apartments would go in that area. There is only so much market for the "contemporary loft" type living in Tulsa and that market will only grow so much in the future regardless of what happens. If the only place thats currently desirable for that type of development is along Cherry Street, then thats where its going to go. So for those of you who complain about spending any money on getting new development areas started, then complain about the older attractive areas being torn up.... Put that thought into your equations.
Boo, consider moving. You seem pre-occupied with what you want, how you were screwed because you can't increase density on your property so you can enjoy all the rights that you think you deserve. YOU might be happier living somewhere else.
The idea that there should be 100% approval by a neighborhood to protect itself from whats happening in Cherry Street just so we can drastically increase density for survival of infrastructure is not reasonable. Its necessity is debatable. These hoods have survived for a century under current zoning. What you see as Okay for yourself is not okay for many of us. I'm not okay with dumpsters in sight of my front porch. They slipped in those non conforming, high density structures during a time when the near downtown area was in decline as the burbs grew. Surprisingly what you call low usage of land was considered a tight fit back in the 60's-70's. Builders were looking for cheap land to build apartments and commercial buildings and no one was there to protect these period neighborhoods till Horowitz stiffened her back over destroying Lee School and its surroundings. Since the cost of infrastructure was already paid for and the land was cheap, they devoured historic properties like green beer at Kilkenny's. But those who couldn't leave the old hoods or preferred them made accomodations. I too enjoy some of the different styles and uses, but the next wave of infill could choke the life out this area. Build your high densities in the acres of empty parking lots downtown.
I hope people derive as much enjoyment out of the new Cherry Street as I did out of the old one. I suspect they may soon realize that the elements that made the area quirky, avante guard, interesting and specific are being converted into something akin to a Disney World production. Franchise restaurants, expensive contemporary townhouse apartments renamed "lofts" and congested streets. The funny thing is, before all this "improvement" began it was one of the most walkable, self sustaining, charming little hoods in the whole city replete with grocery stores, laundromats, bars, car repair, offices, schools, churches...the works. Ask anyone who grew up in the area.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
The more I look at these, the less I like them. I can't help but think "What will these look like in 40 years?"
I don't think they will last that long. The one that looks like an angry elf will have problems with drainage caused by leaves, ice, snow, etc. accumulating on the roof. It is designed to be a disaster.
All of the others with the stucco parapet walls will degrade quickly because of the lack of overhang.
This is fad architecture at it's best! Popular for about 10 years, ugly in 20 years, and demolished by 40 years.
Most of them do not look to have the best exterior materials. Except for the first 2. However, thats an easy upgrade in time if needed and the property values go up to make it worth it. Hopefully if this area truly settles in and shows its able to attract the kind of people willing to pay for higher quality construction, more of the buildings in the future will be of a higher quality. ( but here again, we dont have any rules that tell property owners that they have to, or cant, use certain materials.)...
We do have rules about what materials must be used on single-family, duplex, and townhouse dwellings. Take a look at chapters 12 and 18 of Tulsa's Zoning Code. The duplex on Rockford which you featured in your first photo is supposed to be clad with the following customary residential exterior finishing materials: Customary roofing materials include composition shingles, fiberglass shingles, wood shingles (shakes), and clay tile applied according to the manufacturers specifications. [Notice that modified bituminous roofing and grass are not on that list.] Customary siding materials include aluminum lap or vinyl lap siding, cedar or other wood siding, masonry (stucco, brick, stone, block, tilt-up panel) and woodgrain weather resistant pressboard siding. [Notice that COR-TEN steel is not included on the list of siding materials.]
I'm not saying that I agree with those rules for materials, but the rules do exist. There are standards for exterior materials in building codes as well.
quote:
... I dont think I would like it so much if they started randomly putting in these developments on the South side of Cherry Street. Within the first block, perhaps, because there are already a number of apartment buildings scattered there already. But if they were mixed in further in the neighborhood.... I dont think it would work. Not only for the neighborhood, but also for the developers themselves...
Apartments have been in the midst of that neighborhood for decades. Take a look around 17th Street. Also, a number of apartments were demolished to make way for commercial development along Utica.
quote:
Interestingly enough, It seems that one way to preserve the character of some areas would be to create desirable areas in other locations in the city.
Very true. But with the NIMBYism so prevalent in Tulsa, this is not easy to do or likely to happen. It could. If millions upon millions are invested in rail transit, then higher density development near the stations ought to be a requirement.
quote:
So for those of you who complain about spending any money on getting new development areas started, then complain about the older attractive areas being torn up.... Put that thought into your equations.
My complaint is about spending public funding on getting new development started when the TMAPC decided to strip the development rights from my own property. It's interesting how the folks at INCOG villainized me and ripped me to shreds for actually wanting to develop near the downtown and then expect me to be enthusiastic about raising taxes on myself to help fund development in the hinterlands along with the infrastructure to support it. Sorry, INCOG, but that's not sustainable.
quote:
And yes, most new styles are popular for a time, then get ugly, then become retro, then either get preserved or torn down. Some of these will last, some will not. And then something else will get put in their place.
That's the ways things are done in Tulsa. We build up and then tear down a few decades later. That's not sustainable, either.
"I walk this empty street -- on the boulevard of broken dreams..."
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Boo, consider moving. You seem pre-occupied with what you want, how you were screwed because you can't increase density on your property so you can enjoy all the rights that you think you deserve. YOU might be happier living somewhere else.
I've considered moving, but I've
chosen to make a home in Tulsa. I'm somewhat pre-occupied with density because so much else depends on it. I'm more concerned with the fairness of the zoning process. It's messed up, and it's anything but fair.
quote:
The idea that there should be 100% approval by a neighborhood to protect itself from whats happening in Cherry Street just so we can drastically increase density for survival of infrastructure is not reasonable. Its necessity is debatable. These hoods have survived for a century under current zoning...
Current zoning hasn't been around for 100 years. It's been around for about 40 years. The neighborhood itself hasn't been around for a century. Infrastructure wears out and eventually needs to be replaced. Average family sizes are decreasing. There simply aren't enough people in some of these older areas to support the streets and utilities. The land use pattern is not sustainable.
quote:
...What you see as Okay for yourself is not okay for many of us. I'm not okay with dumpsters in sight of my front porch.
I don't think I said I was okay with dumpsters. I said that I noticed one across the street from my property
before I purchased it. I didn't buy real estate and then start complaining about where it was. My complaint stems from the fact that the development rights were stripped from my property against my wishes while those same rights were preserved for the property on the other side of the street. There was no conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. I never would have purchased my property if the rules as they are now had been in place. Zoning is supposed to provide predictability for land owners, not surprises and retroactive rule changes.
quote:
...But those who couldn't leave the old hoods or preferred them made accomodations...
I'm trying to make accommodations since I've already sunk a considerable amount of my life savings into property which no longer has the development potential it had when I purchased it -- not even
close.
quote:
...I too enjoy some of the different styles and uses, but the next wave of infill could choke the life out this area. Build your high densities in the acres of empty parking lots downtown.
The infill being discussed on this thread is adding life to the Cherry Street district, not choking it out.
quote:
I hope people derive as much enjoyment out of the new Cherry Street as I did out of the old one. I suspect they may soon realize that the elements that made the area quirky, avante guard, interesting and specific are being converted into something akin to a Disney World production. Franchise restaurants, expensive contemporary townhouse apartments renamed "lofts" and congested streets. The funny thing is, before all this "improvement" began it was one of the most walkable, self sustaining, charming little hoods in the whole city replete with grocery stores, laundromats, bars, car repair, offices, schools, churches...the works. Ask anyone who grew up in the area.
In general, I'm not fond of the new development shown in TheArtist's photos. I don't think those sideways apartments fit into their neighborhood very well at all. I've spent countless hours considering ways to improve the built environment in Tulsa. I've owned property in two neighborhoods, and I do have the big picture in mind -- not only for my property. I'm one of the more comprehensive-thinking people on this forum or in Tulsa. For years, I've spent days and days of vacation time attending TMAPC meetings and contacting grumpy INCOG staff in an effort to get form based codes adopted in Tulsa because I think those types of codes would be better for Tulsa as a whole than neighborhood conservation district overlay guidelines will be for select areas. I've
begged the TMAPC to consider revising the zoning code to prevent the types of apartments that are being built north of 15th Street, but for the most part, my pleas have been ignored, or worse, I've been villainized in public meetings for suggesting more sustainable land use patterns.
As I mentioned, we've had our current zoning code for about 40 years. We've had zoning laws in Tulsa since the 1920s, so restricting the use of private property isn't a new idea here. The concept of Neighborhood Conservation Districts has been considered in Tulsa for at least a decade. I've made a few suggestions to the authors of the NCD draft ordinance on how to improve it and how to speed up the process. Have you?
So far, I've received some positive responses on my proposed revisions to the NCD
draft ordinance. It's a work in progress. Call my ideas unrealistic if you want, but they are a direct response to the concerns from those opposed to the ordinance. Totally voluntary, self-imposed restrictions could work in some neighborhoods, and I think it would be a matter of weeks before some neighborhoods would establish NCD boundaries and guidelines because they've been thinking about them for so long.
I've chosen to be involved in the process of changing Tulsa for the better rather than moving away, but thanks for reminding me that I might be happier living elsewhere. You sound like someone who's well-versed on the subject of happiness. [:)]
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Build your high densities in the acres of empty parking lots downtown.
What do you consider to be "high densities"?
Screw you. You're so special. You think you're he first speculator to be screwed by bureaucracy? Consider revisiting your assumptions and questioning yourself instead of attacking INCOG, TMAPC and anyone who disagrees with you. The snarkiness I detect in your responses to others make me wonder how much respect you showed them.
When you "noticed" the dumpsters across from your property you didn't object to them so one would assume you accepted them. You accepted them because you intended to add more of them. Your assertion that Cherry Street type development would be acceptable south of 15th and in other old areas simply because they already have some of those abuses from the 60's era. I disagree. It would negatively affect the attractiveness/saleability of those neighborhoods, unless you like dumptsters in view of your porch. But I do agree it is inevitable because of the use of that logic. BTW, my remark about zoning being a century old meant restrictions in some form or another. You seem to lose the bigger picture in deference to details. And yes smartypants, homes have been in the near downtown area since 1907. You pointed that out to me in a previous post.
I don't offer suggestions to those entities because unlike you I have not spent all my spare time learning the arcane details of zoning. Good for you, like I said, you're indeed special.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Screw you. You're so special. You think you're he first speculator to be screwed by bureaucracy?
I'm only one person. And, no, I don't think I'm the first or will be the last person to be screwed by a screwed up bureaucracy.
quote:
...Consider revisiting your assumptions and questioning yourself instead of attacking INCOG, TMAPC and anyone who disagrees with you. The snarkiness I detect in your responses to others make me wonder how much respect you showed them.
Changing the rules retroactively wasn't my idea. I was treated with extreme rudeness by the TMAPC and by INCOG staff. Not all of them behaved rudely, but those who did do not deserve my respect. I'm paying their salaries. I expect better treatment than I received. The last time I checked, I had title to my property, not INCOG.
quote:
When you "noticed" the dumpsters across from your property you didn't object to them so one would assume you accepted them. You accepted them because you intended to add more of them.
Wrong. That was not my intention.
quote:
Your assertion that Cherry Street type development would be acceptable south of 15th and in other old areas simply because they already have some of those abuses from the 60's era. I disagree. It would negatively affect the attractiveness/saleability of those neighborhoods, unless you like dumptsters in view of your porch. But I do agree it is inevitable because of the use of that logic.
I've stated that in general I am not fond of the type of development which TheArtist photographed. We can do better infill than those apartments crammed sideways onto their lots.
quote:
BTW, my remark about zoning being a century old meant restrictions in some form or another. You seem to lose the bigger picture in deference to details.
Wrong again (about my losing sight of the big picture). Correct about the fact we've had property restrictions for decades. We've had
lots of them.
quote:
I don't offer suggestions to those entities because unlike you I have not spent all my spare time learning the arcane details of zoning. Good for you, like I said, you're indeed special.
I don't really know that much about the zoning code because it's complex. I haven't read all of it, and my ignorance of the subject is vast. I changed a post yesterday because I did look something up, and I found out I was wrong. I am often wrong. I am learning all the time. I haven't given up. I want to participate in public discussions such as this forum.
I see a glimmer of hope with the TMAPC, because the commissioners seem to be changing their tune. There is more opportunity for public input now than there was 10 years ago, but the system has a long way to go.
With INCOG, I wasn't asking for special treatment or special exceptions or any variations from the restrictions as they were. In fact, all I wanted was standard treatment -- the very same treatment my neighbors across the street received. I'm not asking for special treatment, but thanks for thinking I'm special, anyway. [:)]
"From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs..."
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Most of them do not look to have the best exterior materials. Except for the first 2. However, thats an easy upgrade in time if needed and the property values go up to make it worth it. Hopefully if this area truly settles in and shows its able to attract the kind of people willing to pay for higher quality construction, more of the buildings in the future will be of a higher quality. ( but here again, we dont have any rules that tell property owners that they have to, or cant, use certain materials.) And yes, most new styles are popular for a time, then get ugly, then become retro, then either get preserved or torn down. Some of these will last, some will not. And then something else will get put in their place. Some bungalos will last and survive, some will not (especially in this particular area lol).
One thing that interesting to consider is where this new development is actually happening, or where its NOT happening. All of these new places are on the North side of Cherry Street "except for the one nearer downtown". I dont mind that strip between the highway and Cherry street being done like this. I can see most of the homes in that strip being turned into these new developments and creating a "contiguous" contained development of a mix of new and older apartment buildings. It works for me. However... I dont think I would like it so much if they started randomly putting in these developments on the South side of Cherry Street. Within the first block, perhaps, because there are already a number of apartment buildings scattered there already. But if they were mixed in further in the neighborhood.... I dont think it would work. Not only for the neighborhood, but also for the developers themselves. Part of the attraction of the North side is that you do have a contained area. A lot of these new buildings can be built in that contained area to create a unique neighborhood thats attractive to people who want to live, not just in a new, hip designed, building, but around lots of other similar people in an environment thats new and "hip". There is a Community and lifestyle aspect that makes it desirable to have lots of these together in one spot.
Perhaps instead of moving to the South of Cherry Street we will begin to see more of the "modern yp" type developments go downtown. All we need is that critical mass of interest. If we were to get a baseball stadium there with a few more things. And I think there are a couple new contemporary loft homes going in along the east end. Then you may see the gravity of interest for this type of living shift towards downtown. But there has to be something else down in that area to make it attracive.
Interestingly enough, It seems that one way to preserve the character of some areas would be to create desirable areas in other locations in the city. Like along the river. If the Tulsa Landing development had gone in I bet you would have seen new development go in that neighborhood behind it. If the Pearl District would get funded you would likely see these new types of developments go in along the 6th street corridor. If the East End were to pick up then more condos and loft apartments would go in that area. There is only so much market for the "contemporary loft" type living in Tulsa and that market will only grow so much in the future regardless of what happens. If the only place thats currently desirable for that type of development is along Cherry Street, then thats where its going to go. So for those of you who complain about spending any money on getting new development areas started, then complain about the older attractive areas being torn up.... Put that thought into your equations.
My son was in town, so we drove through today. The siding is already buckling and coming off of this one.
(http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/2608/cherrylofts4webvw6.jpg)
And with the misty rain, we noticed drainage problems already developing with this one.
(http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/167/cherrylofts2webyq7.jpg)
These just look like tenements with garages.
(http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/2994/cherrylofts7webwd1.jpg)
I hate to be overly critical, but there is nothing lasting about this stuff! Must be a young designer trying to make his mark!
I admit, I liked some of these when they were just designs and sketches, but now that I see them built, they just look cheap.
Somebody turn this bus around before we scorch all of cherry street with this stuff!
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
I hate to be overly critical, but there is nothing lasting about this stuff!
You aren't being overly critical, merely observant. Thank you for posting your honest observations and opinions.
Bud, you got an attitude problem.
" I was treated with extreme rudeness by the TMAPC and by INCOG staff. Not all of them behaved rudely, but those who did do not deserve my respect. I'm paying their salaries. I expect better treatment than I received. The last time I checked, I had title to my property, not INCOG."
That kind of snark crap usually elicits negative responses from government employees or anyone who carries the burden of dealing with the often arrogant public. I'm guessing you were treated with the same attitude you brought.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Bud, you got an attitude problem.
" I was treated with extreme rudeness by the TMAPC and by INCOG staff. Not all of them behaved rudely, but those who did do not deserve my respect. I'm paying their salaries. I expect better treatment than I received. The last time I checked, I had title to my property, not INCOG."
That kind of snark crap usually elicits negative responses from government employees or anyone who carries the burden of dealing with the often arrogant public. I'm guessing you were treated with the same attitude you brought.
Wrong again, waterboy. I was minding my own business. INCOG staff initiated the process, not I.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Bud, you got an attitude problem.
" I was treated with extreme rudeness by the TMAPC and by INCOG staff. Not all of them behaved rudely, but those who did do not deserve my respect. I'm paying their salaries. I expect better treatment than I received. The last time I checked, I had title to my property, not INCOG."
That kind of snark crap usually elicits negative responses from government employees or anyone who carries the burden of dealing with the often arrogant public. I'm guessing you were treated with the same attitude you brought.
Wrong again, waterboy. I was minding my own business. INCOG staff initiated the process, not I.
You do seem to love that phrase. How about this one, "They started it Mommy. I didn't do nothin."
Steve, out.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Bud, you got an attitude problem.
" I was treated with extreme rudeness by the TMAPC and by INCOG staff. Not all of them behaved rudely, but those who did do not deserve my respect. I'm paying their salaries. I expect better treatment than I received. The last time I checked, I had title to my property, not INCOG."
That kind of snark crap usually elicits negative responses from government employees or anyone who carries the burden of dealing with the often arrogant public. I'm guessing you were treated with the same attitude you brought.
Wrong again, waterboy. I was minding my own business. INCOG staff initiated the process, not I.
You do seem to love that phrase. How about this one, "They started it Mommy. I didn't do nothin."
Steve, out.
Mommy wasn't involved. I was there through the entire process. I was happy with things as they were. The INCOG people evidently were not. They approached me with an attitute of arrogance to initiate something I didn't want.
Think about something you've worked very hard to obtain. Think about a situation where you've done your homework to the best of your ability. Think about how you'd feel if 91% of what you'd worked so hard to achieve was taken from you by someone arrogant enough to think they knew that it was best to take 91% of your stuff while allowing someone else 60 feet away to keep all of theirs.
In looking over the posts on this topic, I'd say that you and I are both concerned about the changes happening in the Cherry Street area. I've responded to you because you suggested that I consider moving elsewhere. I'm not sure how my moving away from Tulsa would help or hinder Cherry Street development, but for some reason you found the suggestion to be topical.
I'm not sure if you and I have ever met in person, but you seem to presume to know quite a bit about me -- at least in terms of what happened between me and INCOG. I know what happened, because I was there. Perhaps you were there also. I don't know. But whether you were there or not, what does your opinion of my attitude have to do with TheArtist's photographs of Cherry Street development? Do you think it's germane? (For real? ... Honest?)
"But Mommy, waterboy started it...."
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Bud, you got an attitude problem.
" I was treated with extreme rudeness by the TMAPC and by INCOG staff. Not all of them behaved rudely, but those who did do not deserve my respect. I'm paying their salaries. I expect better treatment than I received. The last time I checked, I had title to my property, not INCOG."
That kind of snark crap usually elicits negative responses from government employees or anyone who carries the burden of dealing with the often arrogant public. I'm guessing you were treated with the same attitude you brought.
Wrong again, waterboy. I was minding my own business. INCOG staff initiated the process, not I.
You do seem to love that phrase. How about this one, "They started it Mommy. I didn't do nothin."
Steve, out.
Mommy wasn't involved. I was there through the entire process. I was happy with things as they were. The INCOG people evidently were not. They approached me with an attitute of arrogance to initiate something I didn't want.
Think about something you've worked very hard to obtain. Think about a situation where you've done your homework to the best of your ability. Think about how you'd feel if 91% of what you'd worked so hard to achieve was taken from you by someone arrogant enough to think they knew that it was best to take 91% of your stuff while allowing someone else 60 feet away to keep all of theirs.
In looking over the posts on this topic, I'd say that you and I are both concerned about the changes happening in the Cherry Street area. I've responded to you because you suggested that I consider moving elsewhere. I'm not sure how my moving away from Tulsa would help or hinder Cherry Street development, but for some reason you found the suggestion to be topical.
I'm not sure if you and I have ever met in person, but you seem to presume to know quite a bit about me -- at least in terms of what happened between me and INCOG. I know what happened, because I was there. Perhaps you were there also. I don't know. But whether you were there or not, what does your opinion of my attitude have to do with TheArtist's photographs of Cherry Street development? Do you think it's germane? (For real? ... Honest?)
"But Mommy, waterboy started it...."
Talk about presumptive. You know nothing about me or my history with local bureaucracy. I at least have followed your travails through your posts here whereas you noted in another thread that i had time to post 2.4 times per day but apparently have learned nothing else about me. I have nothing to do with INCOG, TMAPC or anything else important, though I know a couple people in those organizations by name. They are not rude, discourteous or arrogant in nature from my observation.
You seem like a pretty well informed, studious analyst of development. Oddly, we have had the same experience with local govt. only in different areas. I didn't lose 91% of everything I worked for....I lost 100% of my efforts that took me years to plan and all of my wealth and had to file personal bankruptcy because of the legal misconduct of representatives of our bureaucracy. Ultimately I had to face up to my own ineptness at understanding and dealing with powerful government leaders. I will do better next time.
I don't know the details of your project but I do empathize with you. Threads evolve, just like Cherry Street. Good luck to you.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Talk about presumptive. You know nothing about me or my history with local bureaucracy. I at least have followed your travails through your posts here whereas you noted in another thread that i had time to post 2.4 times per day but apparently have learned nothing else about me. I have nothing to do with INCOG, TMAPC or anything else important, though I know a couple people in those organizations by name. They are not rude, discourteous or arrogant in nature from my observation.
You seem like a pretty well informed, studious analyst of development. Oddly, we have had the same experience with local govt. only in different areas. I didn't lose 91% of everything I worked for....I lost 100% of my efforts that took me years to plan and all of my wealth and had to file personal bankruptcy because of the legal misconduct of representatives of our bureaucracy. Ultimately I had to face up to my own ineptness at understanding and dealing with powerful government leaders. I will do better next time.
I don't know the details of your project but I do empathize with you. Threads evolve, just like Cherry Street. Good luck to you.
People evolve, also. Good luck to you, too.
I'm sorry that I mentioned your post frequency on another thread and hit a raw nerve. The forum needs people to post and discuss, or else there wouldn't be a forum. I noticed a couple of your posts on this thread directed toward me. One began with "Boo, consider moving" and another with "Screw you."
Guess what? I'll take your word that you lost everything as a result of misconduct by representatives of a government bureaucracy even though I don't know the specifics of your situation.
Something similar happened to me. My property rights were reduced by 91%, not 100%. I did not instigate the matter. INCOG did. I was extremely naive. I'm learning, also. One thing I decided to do was to try and help change Tulsa's zoning for the better.
I know some good and helpful people who work at INCOG. I've known some good Planning Commissioners, also. But the people who came after me in an effort to get my property re-zoned against my wishes are not good public servants, IMO. They approached me with an arrogant attitude and treated me rudely. They did not follow the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan.
I'm not really very familiar with the arcane details of Tulsa's zoning code. My guess is that most of those new developments which some of us find offensive, ugly, cheap-looking, or character-destroying meet all or most of the zoning requirements for their district. Maybe not. I could be wrong. I'm not an expert on it. I'm merely a single person in the vastness of sprawling Tulsa who is trying to make things better.
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Most of them do not look to have the best exterior materials. Except for the first 2. However, thats an easy upgrade in time if needed and the property values go up to make it worth it. Hopefully if this area truly settles in and shows its able to attract the kind of people willing to pay for higher quality construction, more of the buildings in the future will be of a higher quality. ( but here again, we dont have any rules that tell property owners that they have to, or cant, use certain materials.) And yes, most new styles are popular for a time, then get ugly, then become retro, then either get preserved or torn down. Some of these will last, some will not. And then something else will get put in their place. Some bungalos will last and survive, some will not (especially in this particular area lol).
One thing that interesting to consider is where this new development is actually happening, or where its NOT happening. All of these new places are on the North side of Cherry Street "except for the one nearer downtown". I dont mind that strip between the highway and Cherry street being done like this. I can see most of the homes in that strip being turned into these new developments and creating a "contiguous" contained development of a mix of new and older apartment buildings. It works for me. However... I dont think I would like it so much if they started randomly putting in these developments on the South side of Cherry Street. Within the first block, perhaps, because there are already a number of apartment buildings scattered there already. But if they were mixed in further in the neighborhood.... I dont think it would work. Not only for the neighborhood, but also for the developers themselves. Part of the attraction of the North side is that you do have a contained area. A lot of these new buildings can be built in that contained area to create a unique neighborhood thats attractive to people who want to live, not just in a new, hip designed, building, but around lots of other similar people in an environment thats new and "hip". There is a Community and lifestyle aspect that makes it desirable to have lots of these together in one spot.
Perhaps instead of moving to the South of Cherry Street we will begin to see more of the "modern yp" type developments go downtown. All we need is that critical mass of interest. If we were to get a baseball stadium there with a few more things. And I think there are a couple new contemporary loft homes going in along the east end. Then you may see the gravity of interest for this type of living shift towards downtown. But there has to be something else down in that area to make it attracive.
Interestingly enough, It seems that one way to preserve the character of some areas would be to create desirable areas in other locations in the city. Like along the river. If the Tulsa Landing development had gone in I bet you would have seen new development go in that neighborhood behind it. If the Pearl District would get funded you would likely see these new types of developments go in along the 6th street corridor. If the East End were to pick up then more condos and loft apartments would go in that area. There is only so much market for the "contemporary loft" type living in Tulsa and that market will only grow so much in the future regardless of what happens. If the only place thats currently desirable for that type of development is along Cherry Street, then thats where its going to go. So for those of you who complain about spending any money on getting new development areas started, then complain about the older attractive areas being torn up.... Put that thought into your equations.
My son was in town, so we drove through today. The siding is already buckling and coming off of this one.
(http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/2608/cherrylofts4webvw6.jpg)
And with the misty rain, we noticed drainage problems already developing with this one.
(http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/167/cherrylofts2webyq7.jpg)
These just look like tenements with garages.
(http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/2994/cherrylofts7webwd1.jpg)
I hate to be overly critical, but there is nothing lasting about this stuff! Must be a young designer trying to make his mark!
I admit, I liked some of these when they were just designs and sketches, but now that I see them built, they just look cheap.
Somebody turn this bus around before we scorch all of cherry street with this stuff!
The problem is the demographics. I'm an architect (not the one on these projects), and clients always want new modern houses, but they don't want to pay for the next step in quality. Tulsa is a very difficult market to make money in residential construction - the profit margins are absolutely tiny. I honestly don't think that the materials on these projects are unsuitable - in fact, that siding that is buckling in the first photo appears to be Hardiplank, which is actually concrete board. It will last much longer than real wood siding. Now, as to why it's buckling is anyone's guess, but I'd guess improper installation before doubting the quality of the material. And every project, from the $70,000 spec house in Coweta to the $2,000,000 custom in Jenks has quality issues when they are first completed.
It's easy for everyone on this forum to sit in judgement, but if these projects had nicer materials and cost 20% more because of it, many would complain that the costs were out of reach for the average Tulsan. I give kudos to the architect and developers for at least DOING something instead of sitting around complaining about how nothing ever happens in Tulsa. It's not a perfect process and never will be.
quote:
Originally posted by tulsa1603
It's easy for everyone on this forum to sit in judgement, but if these projects had nicer materials and cost 20% more because of it, many would complain that the costs were out of reach for the average Tulsan. I give kudos to the architect and developers for at least DOING something instead of sitting around complaining about how nothing ever happens in Tulsa. It's not a perfect process and never will be.
Good points, tulsa1603. One of my main concerns with some of these projects is that they don't face the street. Even the end units which could have more "street-friendly" facades and fenestration don't.
And it is amazing how some people moan on this forum about how we don't have walkable neighborhoods, or mass transit, or hip restaurants, or whatever -- but don't actually propose any improvements themselves. It seems as though they only want to argue and complain. It's also interesting how some of us actually do propose change (as I have with zoning issues) and then get eviscerated in public meetings or have our suggestions called unrealistic B.S. on this forum.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
Originally posted by tulsa1603
It's easy for everyone on this forum to sit in judgement, but if these projects had nicer materials and cost 20% more because of it, many would complain that the costs were out of reach for the average Tulsan. I give kudos to the architect and developers for at least DOING something instead of sitting around complaining about how nothing ever happens in Tulsa. It's not a perfect process and never will be.
Good points, tulsa1603. One of my main concerns with some of these projects is that they don't face the street. Even the end units which could have more "street-friendly" facades and fenestration don't.
And it is amazing how some people moan on this forum about how we don't have walkable neighborhoods, or mass transit, or hip restaurants, or whatever -- but don't actually propose any improvements themselves. It seems as though they only want to argue and complain. It's also interesting how some of us actually do propose change (as I have with zoning issues) and then get eviscerated in public meetings or have our suggestions called unrealistic B.S. on this forum.
I too would prefer street facing units or buildings. But again the price points may be easier to attain per property if you get Six, 2 or 3 story units on a lot built in this manner. The compromise position may be to say,,, lets make sure the sides facing the streets are pedestrian friendly. Some of the side facing units are just as street friendly as some of the old street facing apartments, some are horrible in that respect.
Often you have to "edge people along" get compromise changes that go in your directon, versus like some tried to go for an extreme moratorium etc. Plus its often not what you want, its how you put it and approach the problem. You have to take as many peoples opinions into consideration as possible. And just keep on plugging. I love the idea of Form Based Codes for instance. That alone in this area would mitigate a lot of peoples concerns with these developments (other than the style issue).
As for these "self imposed guidelines" you keep bringing up.... Might as well be no guidelines. I can add more self imposed guidelines on my property right now if I want. Who couldn't. There certainly doesnt need to be a law allowing it lol. Then the next person who owns my property can "self impose" their own and completely do away with the ideas I had. Again, "self imposed" might as well be NO guidelines, other than what already exists.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
It seems as though they only want to argue and complain.
BINGO
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Often you have to "edge people along" get compromise changes that go in your directon, versus like some tried to go for an extreme moratorium etc. Plus its often not what you want, its how you put it and approach the problem. You have to take as many peoples opinions into consideration as possible. And just keep on plugging. I love the idea of Form Based Codes for instance. That alone in this area would mitigate a lot of peoples concerns with these developments (other than the style issue).
As for these "self imposed guidelines" you keep bringing up.... Might as well be no guidelines. I can add more self imposed guidelines on my property right now if I want. Who couldn't. There certainly doesnt need to be a law allowing it lol. Then the next person who owns my property can "self impose" their own and completely do away with the ideas I had. Again, "self imposed" might as well be NO guidelines, other than what already exists.
I think you might misunderstand what I mean by self-imposed guidelines. While I would much prefer form based codes, Neighborhood Conservation Districts (NCDs) could afford some protection to some neighborhoods which have no protection now. The concept of NCD overlay districts has been brought up, discussed, and tabled for years in Tulsa. The
Tulsa World is obviously against NCDs.
Here's something I think could work:
Take an area such as 38th Street just west of Lewis. Most property owners along that street are upset about Enterline's lot splits and teardowns on their street. I think they had restrictive covenants at one time which required certain setbacks and lot sizes, but I understand those covenants have either expired or are now nearly impossible to enforce. The zoning designation has changed a time or two, which allowed the lots to be legally split. Under the current draft NCD ordinance, there aren't enough parcels on that block of 38th Street to establish a NCD. Perhaps the zoning district requires a minimum setback from the street of 30 feet, but let's assume all the existing houses (except for the Enterline development) are set back 50 feet from the street. I don't know the actual numbers. This is just an example. Let's say all of the property owners along that block except for Enterline would like to set up NCD guidelines which in effect re-establish the restrictive covenants they had originally when their subdivision was built. I would like the NCD draft ordinance to be revised so that those who wanted to impose restrictions on themselves could have a way of doing so. My guess is that the owners of the Enterline properties might not want to be included. If so, fine. Then leave them out of it. Those properties most likely wouldn't meet the NCD guidelines anyway, and at this point they are probably a lost cause.
The argument here is about property rights. It's one thing for property owners to agree to impose restrictions on their own property. I don't think there would be much opposition over that. The opposition stems from those who fear or simply don't desire additional zoning restrictions overlaid on their property by others. To move this draft ordinance forward quickly, I think it would be wise to change the initiation process to 100% agreement by the property owners themselves. It would make the process so much easier and faster because it would eliminate all or most opposition about a proposed NCD's boundaries or its guidelines.
I think there are some neighborhoods of a certain character or feel to them such Lortondale which would very rapily establish an NCD if the mechanism allowing them to do so were in place. There might be a few hold-outs, and I'd just let them go. My guess is that there would be a strong desire for participation from those who own property toward the middle of a proposed NCD, and less desire from those who own property near the proposed edge (depending on the abutting neighborhoods).
The proposed NCD ordinance is a reaction to teardowns, McMansions, and other incompatible infill. Those issues aren't going away. But neither is the issue about private property rights.
quote:
Screw you...And yes smartypants, homes have been in the near downtown area since 1907. You pointed that out to me in a previous post.
I think someone else might have pointed that out. I mentioned a house which was built downtown in the 1880s and then moved to my neighborhood around 1909 (before it was developed as a neighborhood). My neighborhood dates mostly from the late 1910s and the 1920s. I think the Cherry Street area was developed around the same time, but I'm not sure. Houses from 1907 near downtown might exist, but I don't know of many offhand, and I wouldn't be able to point them out. I think carltonplace or Rico might have pointed to some examples of houses dating from 1907, but again I'm not certain. I think they know more about historic houses than I do.
quote:
Originally posted by tulsa1603
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Most of them do not look to have the best exterior materials. Except for the first 2. However, thats an easy upgrade in time if needed and the property values go up to make it worth it. Hopefully if this area truly settles in and shows its able to attract the kind of people willing to pay for higher quality construction, more of the buildings in the future will be of a higher quality. ( but here again, we dont have any rules that tell property owners that they have to, or cant, use certain materials.) And yes, most new styles are popular for a time, then get ugly, then become retro, then either get preserved or torn down. Some of these will last, some will not. And then something else will get put in their place. Some bungalos will last and survive, some will not (especially in this particular area lol).
One thing that interesting to consider is where this new development is actually happening, or where its NOT happening. All of these new places are on the North side of Cherry Street "except for the one nearer downtown". I dont mind that strip between the highway and Cherry street being done like this. I can see most of the homes in that strip being turned into these new developments and creating a "contiguous" contained development of a mix of new and older apartment buildings. It works for me. However... I dont think I would like it so much if they started randomly putting in these developments on the South side of Cherry Street. Within the first block, perhaps, because there are already a number of apartment buildings scattered there already. But if they were mixed in further in the neighborhood.... I dont think it would work. Not only for the neighborhood, but also for the developers themselves. Part of the attraction of the North side is that you do have a contained area. A lot of these new buildings can be built in that contained area to create a unique neighborhood thats attractive to people who want to live, not just in a new, hip designed, building, but around lots of other similar people in an environment thats new and "hip". There is a Community and lifestyle aspect that makes it desirable to have lots of these together in one spot.
Perhaps instead of moving to the South of Cherry Street we will begin to see more of the "modern yp" type developments go downtown. All we need is that critical mass of interest. If we were to get a baseball stadium there with a few more things. And I think there are a couple new contemporary loft homes going in along the east end. Then you may see the gravity of interest for this type of living shift towards downtown. But there has to be something else down in that area to make it attracive.
Interestingly enough, It seems that one way to preserve the character of some areas would be to create desirable areas in other locations in the city. Like along the river. If the Tulsa Landing development had gone in I bet you would have seen new development go in that neighborhood behind it. If the Pearl District would get funded you would likely see these new types of developments go in along the 6th street corridor. If the East End were to pick up then more condos and loft apartments would go in that area. There is only so much market for the "contemporary loft" type living in Tulsa and that market will only grow so much in the future regardless of what happens. If the only place thats currently desirable for that type of development is along Cherry Street, then thats where its going to go. So for those of you who complain about spending any money on getting new development areas started, then complain about the older attractive areas being torn up.... Put that thought into your equations.
My son was in town, so we drove through today. The siding is already buckling and coming off of this one.
(http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/2608/cherrylofts4webvw6.jpg)
And with the misty rain, we noticed drainage problems already developing with this one.
(http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/167/cherrylofts2webyq7.jpg)
These just look like tenements with garages.
(http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/2994/cherrylofts7webwd1.jpg)
I hate to be overly critical, but there is nothing lasting about this stuff! Must be a young designer trying to make his mark!
I admit, I liked some of these when they were just designs and sketches, but now that I see them built, they just look cheap.
Somebody turn this bus around before we scorch all of cherry street with this stuff!
The problem is the demographics. I'm an architect (not the one on these projects), and clients always want new modern houses, but they don't want to pay for the next step in quality. Tulsa is a very difficult market to make money in residential construction - the profit margins are absolutely tiny. I honestly don't think that the materials on these projects are unsuitable - in fact, that siding that is buckling in the first photo appears to be Hardiplank, which is actually concrete board. It will last much longer than real wood siding. Now, as to why it's buckling is anyone's guess, but I'd guess improper installation before doubting the quality of the material. And every project, from the $70,000 spec house in Coweta to the $2,000,000 custom in Jenks has quality issues when they are first completed.
It's easy for everyone on this forum to sit in judgement, but if these projects had nicer materials and cost 20% more because of it, many would complain that the costs were out of reach for the average Tulsan. I give kudos to the architect and developers for at least DOING something instead of sitting around complaining about how nothing ever happens in Tulsa. It's not a perfect process and never will be.
I don't have a problem with small streets and people cutting new ones through. The common thread in all these houses that is causing the problem, is garages. If you could get rid of those, these houses would look ten times better. I think its great the first house has the garage to the rear, that way we can enjoy its facade rather than have to stair at its double garage door. It would also mean that these new streets could have more planting and look much nicer.
^ I agree. I think if the neighborhood brought in a professional landscape architect to draw up a street plan for the whole neighborhood, it would be much more appealing. Some good organic design would break up the stark, sharp lines of some of the designs.
With all of the straight lines and abrupt edges, you would want to choose some large leaf trees, and contorted shapes. I think the use of ornamental grass and wispy plantings is only going to magnify the hard structures (strictly from a designer's opinion).
Plants I would stay away from for this neighborhood:
Large Ornamental Grasses
Holly's
Boxwoods
Any Pine
Plants that would "cozy up" the hood:
Jap Maple
Mimosa
Plumb
Flowreing crab
Hydrangias
Hostas
Heuchera
Redbuds (forest panzy!)
Willow (corkscrew)
Sedums
English ivy (caution around EFIS and siding!)
Strawberry (as a bedding plant)
Golden Vicory Privit (as a free-form accent shrub)
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
^ I agree. I think if the neighborhood brought in a professional landscape architect to draw up a street plan for the whole neighborhood, it would be much more appealing. Some good organic design would break up the stark, sharp lines of some of the designs.
With all of the straight lines and abrupt edges, you would want to choose some large leaf trees, and contorted shapes. I think the use of ornamental grass and wispy plantings is only going to magnify the hard structures (strictly from a designer's opinion).
Plants I would stay away from for this neighborhood:
Large Ornamental Grasses
Holly's
Boxwoods
Any Pine
Plants that would "cozy up" the hood:
Jap Maple
Mimosa
Plumb
Flowreing crab
Hydrangias
Hostas
Heuchera
Redbuds (forest panzy!)
Willow (corkscrew)
Sedums
English ivy (caution around EFIS and siding!)
Strawberry (as a bedding plant)
Golden Vicory Privit (as a free-form accent shrub)
Thanks for that Gaspar.
If anyone is interested in streets, here is a link for a government paper (not US gov) called Manual for Streets which sets out best practice, guidance and the requirements that all new streets should meet.
Manual for Streets (//%22http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/manforstreets/mfssummary.pdf%22)
I think these structures are great. I live 2 blocks south of the Full Moon. Some of the houses they took over were in bad shape and with seemingly no attempt to revive them. Good for metro lofts. Cherry Street needs more walking traffic and this will help. Now, if they could just get some street lights on cherry.
quote:
Originally posted by izmophonik
I think these structures are great. I live 2 blocks south of the Full Moon. Some of the houses they took over were in bad shape and with seemingly no attempt to revive them. Good for metro lofts. Cherry Street needs more walking traffic and this will help. Now, if they could just get some street lights on cherry.
NOOOOOOOO!, puleeeeze no. Are you insane?! There is enough ambient light from the shops and things there. Its actually a very good example of what good street lighting can be like. Everything is perfectly visible, has a nice warm welcoming glow. They stick a bunch of those glaring, cold, stark acorn lights in that area and it would ruin the comfortable atmosphere. I do like the gas lights though. More of those would be perfectly fine. But please lets not turn that strip into a dayglo, big box glare, strip. It would run people off and kill the night time pedestrian atmosphere.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by izmophonik
I think these structures are great. I live 2 blocks south of the Full Moon. Some of the houses they took over were in bad shape and with seemingly no attempt to revive them. Good for metro lofts. Cherry Street needs more walking traffic and this will help. Now, if they could just get some street lights on cherry.
NOOOOOOOO!, puleeeeze no. Are you insane?! There is enough ambient light from the shops and things there. Its actually a very good example of what good street lighting can be like. Everything is perfectly visible, has a nice warm welcoming glow. They stick a bunch of those glaring, cold, stark acorn lights in that area and it would ruin the comfortable atmosphere. I do like the gas lights though. More of those would be perfectly fine. But please lets not turn that strip into a dayglo, big box glare, strip. It would run people off and kill the night time pedestrian atmosphere.
I agree 100%. Cherry Street comfortable at night because of the warm and diverse lighting patterns. Mercury Vapor disease has killed many of our wonderful evening venues, by creating uncomfortable glare and making your date look like an anemic zombie. Cherry Street is bright enough to be safe, yet comfortable enough for an evening stroll without SPF 30.
just a few notes:
The first units we did were done with compressed cement board siding. I see a post on here noting that the siding was buckling etc. I'm sure this is just someone trying to give it a bad reputation as these units are fully warranted and I have not noticed any buckling. Due to the nature of a compressed cement board they are rigid and will look somewhat wavy day 1 but they are a lifetime material. Tulsans did not like the look so we started using materials they did like such as stucco brick and cedar. We also have instructed our designers to address the street in all future projects such as the units on Quincy Carson and anything built after our first year. I am unsure of what drainage problems the bungalow remodel (inverted roof) has. Again same person posting negative comments. This was designed by same NINE architect and has about a 12' pan with a channeling system on the roof. It will run down a chain drain into a resevoir on the front and back. As to the garages I agree that it would be nice to avoid them. This is not feasable for these lots due to their narrow orientation. Also the city requires two parking spaces per unit. I would rather people just park on the streets but so far this is the only way to create more affordable housing in the area. I have seen amazing finishes on the interior of these units . These buyers and now homeowners have a common trait of loving design and think incredibly fast forward. I highly doubt these types of people will allow their homes to be a fad or even a tear down as mentioned in a post. These properties have a homeowners association and allow for no excuse to neglect upkeep over time. We do not plan to go south of 15th as this is historic and we have completed nine remodels in the last year in that area bringing historic bungalows back to their original shape and charm. This is one of my favorite parts of construction. The north side of 15th is used for architectural expression and we have learned a great deal from the input on this thread as well as put that knowledge to use. It is too bad that many people are so fearful of change as I am very proud of what this neighborhood has become. I have been living and walking in this neighborhood for almost 4 years now and have seen such a shift in the energy. We have neighborhood happy hours, a fenced dog park, a private gallery was established and featured local artists on Friday nights where new homeowners as well as old were able to get to know one another. The city made us close the gallery because they considered it a commercial space although it was my private home. I chose not to argue, that was so disappointing. Anyway, if anyone can complain about the neighborhood I hope this helps you see a positive side to it. We are all happy here and know each other well. We have common interests and a love for design. These projects get better with time and due to the increased values in the area they can only allow for better through the years. My .02 worth.
amanda
quote:
Originally posted by mlofts
just a few notes:
The first units we did were done with compressed cement board siding. I see a post on here noting that the siding was buckling etc. I'm sure this is just someone trying to give it a bad reputation as these units are fully warranted and I have not noticed any buckling. Due to the nature of a compressed cement board they are rigid and will look somewhat wavy day 1 but they are a lifetime material. Tulsans did not like the look so we started using materials they did like such as stucco brick and cedar. We also have instructed our designers to address the street in all future projects such as the units on Quincy Carson and anything built after our first year. I am unsure of what drainage problems the bungalow remodel (inverted roof) has. Again same person posting negative comments. This was designed by same NINE architect and has about a 12' pan with a channeling system on the roof. It will run down a chain drain into a resevoir on the front and back. As to the garages I agree that it would be nice to avoid them. This is not feasable for these lots due to their narrow orientation. Also the city requires two parking spaces per unit. I would rather people just park on the streets but so far this is the only way to create more affordable housing in the area. I have seen amazing finishes on the interior of these units . These buyers and now homeowners have a common trait of loving design and think incredibly fast forward. I highly doubt these types of people will allow their homes to be a fad or even a tear down as mentioned in a post. These properties have a homeowners association and allow for no excuse to neglect upkeep over time. We do not plan to go south of 15th as this is historic and we have completed nine remodels in the last year in that area bringing historic bungalows back to their original shape and charm. This is one of my favorite parts of construction. The north side of 15th is used for architectural expression and we have learned a great deal from the input on this thread as well as put that knowledge to use. It is too bad that many people are so fearful of change as I am very proud of what this neighborhood has become. I have been living and walking in this neighborhood for almost 4 years now and have seen such a shift in the energy. We have neighborhood happy hours, a fenced dog park, a private gallery was established and featured local artists on Friday nights where new homeowners as well as old were able to get to know one another. The city made us close the gallery because they considered it a commercial space although it was my private home. I chose not to argue, that was so disappointing. Anyway, if anyone can complain about the neighborhood I hope this helps you see a positive side to it. We are all happy here and know each other well. We have common interests and a love for design. These projects get better with time and due to the increased values in the area they can only allow for better through the years. My .02 worth.
amanda
Thanks for posting mlofts, its always good to hear the other side of the story.
As for my comments on the garages, I'm aware that it's not the developers fault they feature, but rather the planners who insist on 2 spaces per house. It seems crazy that there is a minimum and not a maximum standard for parking. I think it should have in retrospect been made clearer that it is a general problem and not a specific one.
I really think its great that there are people investing in Tulsa with their own money. That shows a degree of faith in Tulsa more than cheap talk does.
One of the units in Oklahoma's first LEED Platinum townhouse on Rockford is currently for sale. Very cool interior and amazing skyline view..
(http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/4681/cherrylofts1webje2.jpg)
http://homesite.obeo.com/viewer/default.aspx?tourid=532768&refURL=http://www.trulia.com/property/1033894046-1409-S-Rockford-Ave-Tulsa-OK-74120&locale=en-US (http://homesite.obeo.com/viewer/default.aspx?tourid=532768&refURL=http://www.trulia.com/property/1033894046-1409-S-Rockford-Ave-Tulsa-OK-74120&locale=en-US)
Quote from: SXSW on April 15, 2010, 10:36:25 AM
One of the units in Oklahoma's first LEED Platinum townhouse on Rockford is currently for sale. Very cool interior and amazing skyline view..
(http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/4681/cherrylofts1webje2.jpg)
http://homesite.obeo.com/viewer/default.aspx?tourid=532768&refURL=http://www.trulia.com/property/1033894046-1409-S-Rockford-Ave-Tulsa-OK-74120&locale=en-US (http://homesite.obeo.com/viewer/default.aspx?tourid=532768&refURL=http://www.trulia.com/property/1033894046-1409-S-Rockford-Ave-Tulsa-OK-74120&locale=en-US)
For sale again? Is the architect moving out?
Love the interior!!!
Looks like the "green roof" didn't make it. What's up with that?
Quote from: Gaspar on April 15, 2010, 10:48:23 AM
Love the interior!!!
Looks like the "green roof" didn't make it. What's up with that?
Same here, I'm going for that look in my new house. This project, designed by local architect Shelby Navarro, is the best of the new townhouses/lofts that have gone up in Cherry Street, IMO.
I noticed one of these north of 15th on Trenton (north of the car wash) is still unfinished and looks like work has stopped completely. I wonder how one would go about buying this from the developer (or bank most likely) and either finishing it or starting over? All of the others, while they may not all be full, at least are finished except this one.
Speaking of Trenton there is an old fire station at the corner of 14th I noticed the other day. I emailed the City to see who owns it or if it was for sale and got a call that there is an RFP being put together by the City. It would make a really cool office for a small business or a house.
(http://www.cityoftulsa.org/COTlegacy/images/stat992.jpg)
Quote from: SXSW on April 15, 2010, 11:05:42 AM
Same here, I'm going for that look in my new house. This project, designed by local architect Shelby Navarro, is the best of the new townhouses/lofts that have gone up in Cherry Street, IMO.
I noticed one of these north of 15th on Trenton (north of the car wash) is still unfinished and looks like work has stopped completely. I wonder how one would go about buying this from the developer (or bank most likely) and either finishing it or starting over? All of the others, while they may not all be full, at least are finished except this one.
Speaking of Trenton there is an old fire station at the corner of 14th I noticed the other day. I emailed the City to see who owns it or if it was for sale and got a call that there is an RFP being put together by the City. It would make a really cool office for a small business or a house.
(http://www.cityoftulsa.org/COTlegacy/images/stat992.jpg)
I saw two guys walking around and looking at the fire station on Tuesday afternoon, would one of those guys have been you?
I heard the old fire station has already been sold.......I can find out more if you like......
Quote from: SXSW on April 15, 2010, 10:36:25 AM
One of the units in Oklahoma's first LEED Platinum townhouse on Rockford is currently for sale. Very cool interior and amazing skyline view..
(http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/4681/cherrylofts1webje2.jpg)
http://homesite.obeo.com/viewer/default.aspx?tourid=532768&refURL=http://www.trulia.com/property/1033894046-1409-S-Rockford-Ave-Tulsa-OK-74120&locale=en-US (http://homesite.obeo.com/viewer/default.aspx?tourid=532768&refURL=http://www.trulia.com/property/1033894046-1409-S-Rockford-Ave-Tulsa-OK-74120&locale=en-US)
$164.33 a sq/ft. . . cough.
$374,000.00?? :o
Quote from: SXSW on April 15, 2010, 11:05:42 AM
Same here, I'm going for that look in my new house. This project, designed by local architect Shelby Navarro, is the best of the new townhouses/lofts that have gone up in Cherry Street, IMO.
I noticed one of these north of 15th on Trenton (north of the car wash) is still unfinished and looks like work has stopped completely. I wonder how one would go about buying this from the developer (or bank most likely) and either finishing it or starting over? All of the others, while they may not all be full, at least are finished except this one.
Speaking of Trenton there is an old fire station at the corner of 14th I noticed the other day. I emailed the City to see who owns it or if it was for sale and got a call that there is an RFP being put together by the City. It would make a really cool office for a small business or a house.
(http://www.cityoftulsa.org/COTlegacy/images/stat992.jpg)
I lived in Tulsa for 34 years and drove by here countless times and never new it was a fire station. And I do remember when there where homes where the BA is now.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 15, 2010, 11:10:19 AM
I saw two guys walking around and looking at the fire station on Tuesday afternoon, would one of those guys have been you?
If it was around 2 then yes. :) I'm looking at some other properties around there too.
Someone at the City told me they are turning it over to TDA which is issuing the RFP. I'm on the list to get info. as soon as it's available.
I am upset that they would put new construction there. They should take down these lofts and return to the original original architecture of the area sod houses.
Quote from: SXSW on April 15, 2010, 02:38:54 PM
If it was around 2 then yes. :) I'm looking at some other properties around there too.
Someone at the City told me they are turning it over to TDA which is issuing the RFP. I'm on the list to get info. as soon as it's available.
Must have been you then, I was going down the frontage road to swing back around to Chelsea Gallery. Put in an offer and TDA will spin on it for a couple of years, or simply give it to Bumgarner. I love modern and MCM design, but I honestly think the lofts on Cherry St. are totally out of character with the craftsmen, bungalows, and brick apartment buildings. That and the construction looks cheap to me. I hope you could get the station, I've admired that building forever.
It would be a project for 'down the road' anyway. Still going back and forth on whether to buy a lot and build my own house in midtown, specifically the Cherry Street area, or buy an older home and fix it up. Either way I would be spending the same amount of money in the end. I wish the Pearl district flood control projects were already ongoing as I would buy in that area and let it develop around me but until that project actually gets off the ground that area is still really blighted. It has tons of potential but has to have that project underway to really get things started. That should help Forest Orchard as well and the entire neighborhood from Peoria to Utica north of the BA up to 3rd. The BA unfortunately is still a barrier and that is really evident if you look at the recent development on either side.
Quote from: SXSW on April 15, 2010, 04:25:55 PM
It would be a project for 'down the road' anyway. Still going back and forth on whether to buy a lot and build my own house in midtown, specifically the Cherry Street area, or buy an older home and fix it up. Either way I would be spending the same amount of money in the end. I wish the Pearl district flood control projects were already ongoing as I would buy in that area and let it develop around me but until that project actually gets off the ground that area is still really blighted. It has tons of potential but has to have that project underway to really get things started. That should help Forest Orchard as well and the entire neighborhood from Peoria to Utica north of the BA up to 3rd. The BA unfortunately is still a barrier and that is really evident if you look at the recent development on either side.
Not to temper your enthusiasm and not really knowing your situation, it's hard not to be parental and advise you not to over-spend on your first home. If your job evaporates, as they can, you could be screwed. But I do wish you the best on this and hope you enjoy the search.