Has anyone heard recent plans for the southeast corner of 41st & Harvard? A buddy of mine mentioned that a strip mall is planned and is in the works.
I seem to recall that that neighborhood fought hard to keep a neighborhood grocery from coming to that corner, so it is hard for me to believe that a strip mall wouldn't be hotly contested.
Harvard Square it ain't.
(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g82/ourtulsa/HarvardSqitaint.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by OurTulsa
Harvard Square it ain't.
(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g82/ourtulsa/HarvardSqitaint.jpg)
That looks like an easy guess. From the site plan. . . Walgreens, Taco's or Burgers, ALDI, liquor store, dry cleaner.
What'd I win?
Not my preferred use of the land, but better than it's current non-use.
I really don't give a **** what they put on the SE corner of the intersection as long as they fix that rough-donkey stretch of road first.
dammit...how about parking behind the buildings?
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
dammit...how about parking behind the buildings?
Agreed. Hide the sea of concrete in the back. Give us a little retail in the front.
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
dammit...how about parking behind the buildings?
But if you do that then the SUV housewives will not think that they can park at the front door because they are more important than anything else.
quote:
Originally posted by OurTulsa
Harvard Square it ain't.
(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g82/ourtulsa/HarvardSqitaint.jpg)
Good--morning parking lots up against sidewalks and streets.
Why not reconfigure and put the parking complete inside the collection of buildings?
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
Aldi'swould make sense...it would fit right in with the socialist atmosphere of midtown.
At least people return the carts at ALDI's.
The devil told you before, DRUGS!
This, to me, is another opportunity lost. They have a chance to create something special on that corner and all they can come up with is another formula commercial shopping center with a little lipstick on. Oh well, not like I expected anything more than this. Our current comp. plan says this is the optimal use...so be it.
quote:
Originally posted by OurTulsa
This, to me, is another opportunity lost. They have a chance to create something special on that corner and all they can come up with is another formula commercial shopping center with a little lipstick on. Oh well, not like I expected anything more than this. Our current comp. plan says this is the optimal use...so be it.
What lipstick?
This is pure crap... no lipstick added.
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
dammit...how about parking behind the buildings?
Would be nice, but then they wouldn't be able to lease them. People in Tulsa will drive an extra mile to be able to park 10 feet closer to the front door. Wish we could change that, but it is what it is, and the market dictates that parking will be in front.
quote:
Originally posted by dsjeffries
quote:
Originally posted by OurTulsa
This, to me, is another opportunity lost. They have a chance to create something special on that corner and all they can come up with is another formula commercial shopping center with a little lipstick on. Oh well, not like I expected anything more than this. Our current comp. plan says this is the optimal use...so be it.
What lipstick?
This is pure crap... no lipstick added.
The buildings are supposed to be gussied up (wanna-be italianate). If they really are done well and attractively it'll be too bad that they will have little impact on their surrounding from behind those significant parking areas off of Harvard. The two northern buildings may have some (Utica Sq. like) visibility from 41st but still won't have provide much of an impression from anywhere but within the site.
While we're at it...let's talk about that parking...why so much? All dictated by the Zoning Ordinance? Surely there's some opportunity to share across uses and even so is all that parking really necessary? Who the H came up with our parking requirements?
Let's talk about that parkin
Here's the deal. The owner of the land doesn't want to sell it, he wants to sign 50-year leases with national chains, who will also build the buildings for him. The only lease they've got so far is CVS. They also want a grocery store and a "restaurant with a drive thru." The long-skinny building will be "mixed-use" which means offices or possible retail space.
The neighborhood has been in "negotiations" with the "developer." It goes like this:
Neighborhood: Can you move the buildings closer to the street and hide the parking behind? This will make it more attractive, pedestrian-friendly, neighbor-friendly, and eliminate the need for lots of pole signage. It will also create a larger distance between the loading dock and people's back yards. - Answer: Nope.
Neighborhood: We'll support a request for a variance for less parking (to reduce the giant footprint and create a larger buffer between people's backyards and the loading dock). This will also save some residential homes from demolition. - Answer: Nope. We don't want to mess with a variance.
Neighborhood: Because it's already hard to turn west on 41st from Jamestown, we would like you to eliminate the eastern-most curb cut on 41st. - Answer: Nope. We'll eliminate one on Harvard instead. The eastern curb cut (area closest to the neighbors' back yards) is needed for "truck circulation."
Neighborhood: We want it to be pedestrian friendly. Putting most of the parking behind the buildings will make it more assessible from the sidewalks. - Answer: We'll paint "crosswalks" on the asphalt, instead.
Neighborhood: If you want this to be a "mini-Utica Square" (as you claim), it needs more landscaping, and the buildings should be closer to the street. - Answer: We'll stick in some more shrubs and stuff.
Neighborhood: Five pole signs is excessive, and will add too much visual clutter to the corner. We ask that there not be pole signs. - Answer: OK, We'll put in five, "monument signs" (up to 8-feet tall) instead.
Neighborhood: B/c the loading dock is close to the residences behind it, we ask that you limit the delivery hours to 7-7. - Answer: we'll do 7-9 on the loading dock. CVS can have deliveries 24/7.
The funny thing is that INCOG staff has recommended that the footprint is too big, and should be smaller. The developer is asking the neighborhood to support their proposal over the recommendations of staff! I don't see why anyone should. The only things they've agreed to that the neighborhood asked for were either 1) things that they were going to do anyway or 2)things that don't matter to them.
Who is the owner?
Bill Manley owns the corner and he's gradually amassed several homes surrounding it that are now rentals.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3196/2879483362_548682134a.jpg?v=0)
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
Bill Manley owns the corner and he's gradually amassed several homes surrounding it that are now rentals.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3196/2879483362_548682134a.jpg?v=0)
OK, I remember. He's tried to put a Wal-mart there for years.
The Walmart that was defeated was 5.13 acres. This PUD is for 8.2 acres (gross).
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3076/2878633485_cf087cb7e9.jpg?v=0)
Oh, and here's how they're going to blend in with the 1950's Ranch Acres architecture...
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3027/2878633423_999b58d3b5.jpg?v=0)
Which looks weirdly similar to most everything I'm seeing in south Tulsa, Bixby, Broken Arrow...
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3276/2879524848_96be244b7e.jpg?v=0)
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
Oh, and here's how they're going to blend in with the 1950's Ranch Acres architecture...
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3027/2878633423_999b58d3b5.jpg?v=0)
Which looks weirdly similar to most everything I'm seeing in south Tulsa, Bixby, Broken Arrow...
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3276/2879524848_96be244b7e.jpg?v=0)
Nice rendering. Do you know who's doing the Architecture?
41st and Harvard.
Oh yes. That beautiful intersection...w/ the giant real-estate sign on the NW corner...
the shifty gas station on the NE...
the dry cleaners & transmission shop on the SW....
AND to top it off, an empty lot on the SE.
I can obviously see some would want to preserve the integrity of that beautiful corner & not sully it w/ a grocery store.
jeepers h crackers..
That's not the point at all.
Why perpetuate half-hearted development that keeps the status quo or brings sub-urban zoning and function into urban areas. Why continue to battle neighborhoods (potential customers) especialy when they are trying so hard to help find middle ground.
The point of the posters here is that this is a lost opportunity to build something better that the neighbors and Tulsa could have been proud of; a place where they would most likely spend a lot of time shopping and dining. Instead it's just more of the same. It certainly isn't "Harvard Square".
Drive through please.
Why do something wonderful and amazing, when everyone else is making a quick buck on mediocre crap? Because designing something better than the status quo is the only way to dig ourselves out of the ugly hole we've fallen into. I don't want Tulsa's official motto to be: "Whatever's good enough for an interstate corridor in Topeka, KS is good enough for me."
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
Why do something wonderful and amazing, when everyone else is making a quick buck on mediocre crap? Because designing something better than the status quo is the only way to dig ourselves out of the ugly hole we've fallen into. I don't want Tulsa's official motto to be: "Whatever's good enough for an interstate corridor in Topeka, KS is good enough for me."
It's obvious that has not the interest of this City, or there would not be a couple ugly giant teeth on Peoria...a PANDA BUFFET sign that I believe can be seen from space on E 31st...on and on...
I don't disagree with you, but Tulsa's appeared to have this what I've described as like some wild-west-anything goes development standards up until...well....I can't say its stopped.
I just don't think this corner is something that is worth preserving or sprucing up. In my opinion that entire Harvard corridor north of about I-44 to say the BA, on the east side is already about as ugly as it can get...(okay, I admit, I do like the Ranch Acres BoK building) but the other stuff isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
I certainly don't think some faux-Tuscan style would fit at that corner and would just look silly.
Just make the developer put in sidewalks for Limecat's sake...
I agree that the east side of Harvard from 41st to 31st is terribly ugly. But remember: we built it. We can change it. We created the ordinances/zoning that created it. We can change that, too.
To me, the solution is simple: 1.)Remove hideous signage (this is over half the battle!), 2.) Bury utilities, 3.) Create shared parking lots behind the shops, and eliminate parking in front. 4.) Create a wide, landscaped, pedestrian walkway along the fronts of all the shops. (Most of them aren't that far back from the street, if you notice.)
All of a sudden, you would have an attractive Brookside-like destination w/ plenty of space for patio dining and window shopping. (If you notice, the architecture on Brookside isn't that special. It's the variety of bars, restaurants and shops in a condensed area that attracts people.) Heck, you'd even have space for a bike trail between the walkway and the road....which would be a great north-south asset to cyclists.
I don't know what it would take to make this happen...some sort of Harvard merchant's association would be a good start. But I'll keep dreaming of a better place, where we don't just cave in to ugliness and the lowest common denominator, for every major arterial and commercial development in town.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3196/2879483362_548682134a.jpg?v=0)
Demolition has begun on the site.
The building on the lower left is no longer there (the swing set remains though) and the structure on 41st St. with the red roof was torn down yesterday. Demolition started on Tuesday so they are moving right along. The other two structures along 41st hard marked for demolition. When I walked by around 7:45 this AM the hoe and bobcat weren't running yet - but I image the other buildings are gone by next week.
Glad to see that it is moving forward. IMHO the space was largely wasted and the structures were in a bad state of repair. At least 2 of them were probably knockdowns for any potential buyer. I hope the development is something different . . .
(I took pictures, but I can not upload at work so . . . imagine a pile of rubble. That's what is left of the red roofed building. The other one is totally gone)
I feel bad for the guy on the corner of 41st and Jamestown. He has done a lot of work to make the house and landscaping look nice. Now, his house is going to be a little island on the edge of the asphalt.
The reason the other homes along 41st are "teardowns" is b/c the owner of the XMas tree lot has been land banking / slumlording for years. Thus: acquiring properties, renting them out, not maintaining them... so they become a worthless eye sore.
At the TMAPC meeting when this PUD was discussed, the land owner's lawyer talked about how the new development would be "so much nicer than what's there now." Yeah... b/c the old geezer who owns all those properties has let them totally decline! Now let's reward him with a bunch of long-term leases with national chains!
What does the neighborhood get? An asphalt heat island. A bunch of national chains that will cause more vacancies in existing, nearby (locally owned) commercial properties. A redundant drug store (there are already about 5 within a mile or so of this intersection).
Way to add value to the neighborhood...er...Mr. Manley's already deep pockets.
Well the neighborhood behind it will now pass "the popsicle test"...
The green roof building is pure crap, maintenance issues or otherwise. It is a house converted into an office then added to with cinder blocks with asphalt in front of it. The super adventurers club (or whatever) was also under utilized.
The other buildings might have been OK. But given their location it was inevitable that eventually they would be turned commercial (zoned commercial, busy corner, plenty of commercial around them, surrounded by empty space). Why did the old man buy them and let them turn into junk? Because he could get them cheap since no one else wanted them and the property was worth more as a whole. The loss is really 2 houses on about 1/4 an acre in exchange for several acres of probably mediocre development.
If they had kept those houses in great shape and not tear them down, you would still oppose this development because it would ruin their property value and bring in chains. The result would be acres of land in the middle of Tulsa that losses value and sits undeveloped.
Sorry. We can't only allow development that we like at this time. While I wish they would build something urban in the space (2 story buildings, parking garage in the back, road frontage, etc.) - it is more urban to utilize the space for SOMETHING than to let it sit vacant. It increases the overall density in Tulsa. Every time open space is filled in the pressure to build in density goes up.
The neighborhoods choice is to have 4 vacant properties and an empty lot, or have a new development nearby. I enjoy being able to walk to restaurants, liquor stores, and grocery stores. Even if the buildings they are house in are not as urban as I would like them to be it makes my neighborhood more dense, walkable, and urban.
So I agree whole wholeheartedly that I would like more urban design codes. I would like to see developers WANT to encourage density. I would like to see Tulsans recognized the things they like about "other cities" is the density and they have to demand it and support it to get it.
But I also think filling in empty space will help Tulsa become more dense and urban in the future by simple economics. Your way (form based codes, infill, design plans [dear god, having a plan?)] is better - but this is an improvement over an empty lot in my humble opinion.
Look for CVS on corner, Quick Trip next lot over and stripped out for remainder. It would be nice if the COT enforced the landscape ord....
Anybody have the latest on this? Looks like at the end of the day I will have a contract on a house very close to here. Utica Square my arse - just hope its decent. While we have plenty of damn drug stores in the area, I won't mind having a CVS walk to replace my current Walgreens walk (there is something to be said for the popsicle test). Conan, is Quick Trip really in the works? I sure wasn't listing that in my ideals. While it would make for traffic woes, maybe it will run that ghetto station out of the other corner. Drive-through? LAME. - if it must be, then let it be tacos. Expecting the worst, hoping for mediocre...
I just got off the phone with Stan Frisbie (stanfrisbie.com) the developer of the site. They have several things they are working on "but are not at liberty to discuss them. We are, well, we're leasing pad sites." So, there ya' go!
I can tell you that work is going on at the site on a daily basis. Just low level debris hauling and brush hog work. But that's all I know for sure. . .
The real devil in the deal is the owner Bill Manley.
The other devil you mention is just a broker that looks like Santa Claus. He will not disclose jack.
CVS is going on the corner.
The retail environment is dead. It will be very hard to get the rents necessary to develop out the strip at this time. Between the hideous banking industry, the dead consumer, and the terms from the owner all that's left is the pad site sale. This devil would like to see QT adjacent to CVS because the area demands one. Those goofs from SHELL still own a tract along 44 at Harvard and as we know it's in bankruptcy. Perhaps, QT buys their tract? But there is not much gasoline for sell along Harvard from 81st until you get to 36th. The 51st and Harvard intersection change will make the keosk at Food Pyramid a disaster.
Spartacus, calling Stan the Man is a waist of time unless you need a tip on how to jump out of a plane....
Can we get a larger place for club taboo in there? ;D
Too close to a church....
Quote from: FOTD on April 20, 2009, 12:05:10 PM
Those goofs from SHELL still own a tract along 44 at Harvard and as we know it's in bankruptcy.
I thought ODOT owned that. At least that's what the security guard told me when I walked across the property (the gas station had already been demolished) to take pre-demolition photos of the Patrick Henry Apartments.
Quote from: FOTD on April 20, 2009, 12:35:48 PM
Too close to a church....
Nearest church is 1/2 a mile away (Christ United Methodist), but it is too close to residential and probably too close to Patrick Henry Elementary.
Can't be a QT b/c of the PUD, which specifically excludes gasoline sales. (Of course, the PUD application also says they're going to make every effort to save existing, mature trees on the neighbors' side of the development...)
According to the PUD, here's what it can't be:
Apartments, auto alarms installation, auto parts and accessories, auto radio and stereo installation, auto window tinting, bail bond office, bars, building materials, dance halls, day labor hiring, electrical supply, gasoline service station, gunsmith, locksmith, massage parlor, multi-family dwellings, night clubs, oil and lubrication service, pawn shop, plumbing fixtures, pool halls, secondhand store, shoe repair, taverns, tune-up service, video rentals.
Weird, arbitrary list. At the TMAPC meeting, the developer said that this is "what the neighbors wanted." Not true. The first time we saw the application, it included this list. (Although, I'm sure nobody wanted a dance hall here...) In reality, nobody wanted a drive-thru restaraunt. But you'll notice that's not on the excluded list. (They agreed to "no more than one drive-thru restaurant" but they can add more with a minor amendment, I believe.)
At the time, they were trying to attract a donut or coffee shop with a drive-thru.
The whole PUD process is a total joke. You end up arguing about stupid, irrelevant things, but you can't even attempt to affect the important stuff (ie: building siting, orientation to the street, the pedestrian experience, etc.). We repeatedly asked for them to bring the buildings closer to the street, hide the parking behind, eliminate extra curb cuts, and create a larger green buffer between the development and the hood.
Instead, the developer bragged to the TMAPC that the setback would be 4-5 times deeper than required by zoning! As if this is good for the neighborhood. (Hey, great job. Thanks for sticking the loading dock in our backyards!)
Form-based codes, anyone???!!!!
Wow. Thanks for the insight.
Why is he bragging about a huge setback? I understand wanting a setback as you approach the corner of 41st and Harvard, but otherwise aren't HUGE surface lots near the street considered universally ugly? Which is more attractive: Peoria or Harvard from 31st to 41st? How about Cherry Street or 41st from Harvard to I-44? Utica Square or 71st and Memorial?
You have dashed my hopes for the area. It's just space for sale for boxes of retail. It isn't a real development.
Quote from: MichaelBates on April 20, 2009, 12:58:05 PM
I thought ODOT owned that. At least that's what the security guard told me when I walked across the property (the gas station had already been demolished) to take pre-demolition photos of the Patrick Henry Apartments.
nope....Shell was given a complete useable parcel incorporating what was remaining with some of the apartment land as a tradeout (from what has been heard through demon ears)........
Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 20, 2009, 03:17:43 PM
Wow. Thanks for the insight.
Why is he bragging about a huge setback? I understand wanting a setback as you approach the corner of 41st and Harvard, but otherwise aren't HUGE surface lots near the street considered universally ugly? Which is more attractive: Peoria or Harvard from 31st to 41st? How about Cherry Street or 41st from Harvard to I-44? Utica Square or 71st and Memorial?
You have dashed my hopes for the area. It's just space for sale for boxes of retail. It isn't a real development.
PUD's can be amended....
Quote from: MichaelBates on April 20, 2009, 01:03:56 PM
Nearest church is 1/2 a mile away (Christ United Methodist), but it is too close to residential and probably too close to Patrick Henry Elementary.
Is there no longer an ugly spacey looking church behind that awful c store on the n/e corner?
Or did Valley Nat'l. suck it up?
Quote from: FOTD on April 20, 2009, 04:06:43 PM
Is there no longer an ugly spacey looking church behind that awful c store on the n/e corner?
Or did Valley Nat'l. suck it up?
It's a funeral home now. The congregation moved out to far south Broken Arrow, if I recall correctly.
Interesting about Shell. So the apartment complex was not demolished because it was needed for the highway, but because it was needed for the Shell's relocation?
Quote from: MichaelBates on April 20, 2009, 04:19:12 PM
It's a funeral home now. The congregation moved out to far south Broken Arrow, if I recall correctly.
Interesting about Shell. So the apartment complex was not demolished because it was needed for the highway, but because it was needed for the Shell's relocation?
Whatever. The ODOTTERS have a handle on how to negotiate these matters. There was a need for the highway access and from that leverage to move the apartments....they have many ways to make landowners bend and flex and grab their ankles.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 20, 2009, 11:47:06 AM
I just got off the phone with Stan Frisbie (stanfrisbie.com) the developer of the site. They have several things they are working on "but are not at liberty to discuss them. We are, well, we're leasing pad sites." So, there ya' go!
I can tell you that work is going on at the site on a daily basis. Just low level debris hauling and brush hog work. But that's all I know for sure. . .
Yeah, makes me real curious when they have no comment (somebody going to lease a pad site without knowing whats a done deal?) and the web site doesn't exist.
Are we sure that "gasoline service station" prohibits a QuikTrip, or if that is a term that refers to the service stations that do full service/other work (like a small auto shop basically, see Reeders at 21st & Lewis for an example). You'd think QT knows how to get favorable language in the codes with their influence here.
A QuikTrip and Wendys just seems likely to me. They never built another Wendys after TU ate the one on 11th street, and the one at 31st and Harvard is quite antiquated for Wendys standards. Plus QT likes to build with Wendys in the same adjacent property.
I know nothing, but hearing the QT rumor and the drive-thru rumor made me guess this could be the plan.
In addition to the prohibition of gasoline sales (the TMAPC minutes state "thereby eliminating gas/convenience stores..." as a valid use), there is a restriction on the hours of operation to 7:00 am - 11:00 pm. The CVS would NOT be subject to this restriction, but the other lots supposedly are.
(However, since the developer was trying to attract a coffee/donut shop, I assume they agreed to these time restrictions to appease the neighborhood...knowing they can just wait for the neighborhood scrutiny to die off, and then get a little minor amendment when nobody's looking...)
The neighbors best be on high alert. Mista Frizz, aka Santy Clause aka Stan the Man, was the broker out there on Highland Park. He done brokered the apartments and must have slid in a minor amendment on that site.
He's real good at shenanigans...or making the city overlords turn their heads and cough.
Blah this is all so disappointing, I understand credit markets are tight but why not wait on this project until times are better. Area really could have used some nice development in the area.
I live in the Patrick Henry neighborhood and Im very disappointed in the news. I will be attending the May 12 neighborhood meeting so I hope to get more info then. Dont we have enough crap commerical in Tulsa.
Quote from: swampee on April 22, 2009, 07:06:44 AM
I live in the Patrick Henry neighborhood and Im very disappointed in the news. I will be attending the May 12 neighborhood meeting so I hope to get more info then. Dont we have enough crap commerical in Tulsa.
Sorry. That's just wrong. Property rights are the basis of our freedom. Tough going if you don't appreciate liberty.
Quote from: swampee on April 22, 2009, 07:06:44 AM
I live in the Patrick Henry neighborhood and Im very disappointed in the news. I will be attending the May 12 neighborhood meeting so I hope to get more info then. Dont we have enough crap commerical in Tulsa.
Have fun storming the castle
(http://s.wsj.net/media/Max_el_20080514102832.jpg)
While everyone wants nicer mixed use infill, that corner won't support it. Think about it, a Christmas Tree lot has been the only tenant for years. It's not big enough for a large mixed-use development and having adjacent corners filled with a funeral home, a gas station that looks closed, a cleaners, and a random realtor sign means you can only support development on that scale or slightly nicer. The east side of harvard for a solid mile north of their is nothing but strip mall.
Trying to "force" higher density/nicer development into the middle of a non-pedestrian strip mall environment means you will just have a vacant lot for longer. While much of the area is not finalized (and probably will be vacant for some time) CVS is already a done deal at this point. Expect to see it open around fall.
Grizzle,
I agree it is probably too hopeful to get a real dense development in there, but the little things that some have advocated would be possible. Make it LOOK urban. Buildings closer to the roads. Medians and trees in the parking lot. Something other than a giant parking lot along the road with buildings set back.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 22, 2009, 09:34:21 AM
Grizzle,
I agree it is probably too hopeful to get a real dense development in there, but the little things that some have advocated would be possible. Make it LOOK urban. Buildings closer to the roads. Medians and trees in the parking lot. Something other than a giant parking lot along the road with buildings set back.
True, but the posters comments were about "crap commercial" not "poorly landscaped and designed crap commercial"
Quote from: sgrizzle on April 22, 2009, 08:59:30 AM
Have fun storming the castle
(http://s.wsj.net/media/Max_el_20080514102832.jpg)
While everyone wants nicer mixed use infill, that corner won't support it. Think about it, a Christmas Tree lot has been the only tenant for years. It's not big enough for a large mixed-use development and having adjacent corners filled with a funeral home, a gas station that looks closed, a cleaners, and a random realtor sign means you can only support development on that scale or slightly nicer. The east side of harvard for a solid mile north of their is nothing but strip mall.
Trying to "force" higher density/nicer development into the middle of a non-pedestrian strip mall environment means you will just have a vacant lot for longer. While much of the area is not finalized (and probably will be vacant for some time) CVS is already a done deal at this point. Expect to see it open around fall.
Sir, you have a rare gift. You employ REASON.
Please pass some around.
Do people want to change this type of development? Well you have to change the zoning code first.
Do people want more dense development? Well you have to have the demographics to support it.
Do you want to create the demographic in an area to support dense development? Well you have to change the zoning code first.
What is being developed on this corner is exactly what 100% of all developers would develop on this corner. It's predetermined, based on what the market will support and what the zoning will allow. Sure the players could be different, but the outcome would be the same.
If you are upset, stop b!tching at the players and start changing the game.
I think it's a very well thought out design. Sure beats a line of old fencing, cars for sale, and trash. Will create jobs, and commerce.
+++
Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 22, 2009, 09:34:21 AM
Grizzle,
I agree it is probably too hopeful to get a real dense development in there, but the little things that some have advocated would be possible. Make it LOOK urban. Buildings closer to the roads. Medians and trees in the parking lot. Something other than a giant parking lot along the road with buildings set back.
Available users at the time of development will often dictate layout. These cookie cutter developments are dictated by the tennants and the rents and the costs to develop and available credit underlying the tenants .... the zoning code provides the ultimate parameters, but a much bigger "ingreediant" is the ultimate spread between cost of credit and internal rate of return.
It's all about getting the most out of the parcel of land and not so much looks to the developer/owner/broker.
Quote from: FOTD on April 22, 2009, 12:25:05 PM
Available users at the time of development will often dictate layout. These cookie cutter developments are dictated by the tennants and the rents and the costs to develop and available credit underlying the tenants .... the zoning code provides the ultimate parameters, but a much bigger "ingreediant" is the ultimate spread between cost of credit and internal rate of return.
It's all about getting the most out of the parcel of land and not so much looks to the developer/owner/broker.
SECURITY ALERT
Holy Cr@p!
FOTDAOXRIPTOUT, someone stole your login and password.
They posted a sensible remark. You need to look into this before it gets out of hand.
QuoteDo people want to change this type of development? Well you have to change the zoning code first.
Do people want more dense development? Well you have to have the demographics to support it.
Do you want to create the demographic in an area to support dense development? Well you have to change the zoning code first.
Wait, isn't this site a PUD? And don't PUDs allow for the type of development that many, including myself, on this forum want (i.e. higher density development that has a mix of uses and is pedestrian friendly)? Unless my idea of PUDs is way off base, then what is to stop developers from developing the type of development we want right now, anywhere in the city? Is the underlying zoning preventing it? Is it perceived lack of demand? Someone please tell me why?
I think it's common sense.
If the demographic shows that the property will yield a 89% chance of 1.88 on the dollar profit if lease/sold to CVS vs. say a 50% chance of 1.89 on the dollar for another type of development, what do you think the developer is going to choose?
What do you think his lender is going to grant?
FOTDAOXRIPTOUT was exactly correct in his previous post (I can believe I just said that).
If the developer were to put a dense walkable center on this corner, the market may exist to support it somewhat. He would need to do some significant demographic study on his own dime to support his leasing and sales. Even then he would be at significant risk.
If the developer were to put a CVS or Wallgreens here he is guaranteed profit, and his lenders are guaranteed profit. Furthermore the retailer/fast food chain/box store will perform and supply the demographic study to his lenders at no charge to him (it's just part of what they do). He can then use that information to build the financially appropriate retail to surround, support and feed off of the anchor. The anchor is also going to dictate, to a large part, parking arrangement, drive through space, and access. He could still choose to invest more in creating a denser environment, but why take the risk?
Developers, and more importantly banks, want to make money with as little risk as possible.
So the balance is, to make as much money with as much density and aesthetic as you can. This corner, at this time, is what it is.
Anyone heard anymore info about this development. It looked like nothing was happening at all, but I've noticed a little bit of progress on the site. I heard there was a neighborhood meeting coming up with the developer? Anyone know about this?
They have done some pretty serious dirt moving and placed the required erosion abatement barrier around the site as well as placing survey stakes everywhere. Steps and expenses they are unlikely to take unless they were moving forward with at least part of the project. But I have no inside info on the plans.
As fast as they seem to be moving they might have the lot ready for christmas tree sales by this season.
HO HO HO
Quote from: tshane250 on April 22, 2009, 01:39:07 PM
Wait, isn't this site a PUD? And don't PUDs allow for the type of development that many, including myself, on this forum want (i.e. higher density development that has a mix of uses and is pedestrian friendly)? Unless my idea of PUDs is way off base, then what is to stop developers from developing the type of development we want right now, anywhere in the city? Is the underlying zoning preventing it? Is it perceived lack of demand? Someone please tell me why?
Ah, yes. The PUD...
Here's the supposed purpose of the PUD according to the Tulsa Zoning Code:
SECTION 1101. PURPOSES
The purposes of the Planned Unit Development are to:
A. Permit and encourage innovative land development while maintaining appropriate limitation on the character and intensity of use and assuring compatibility with adjoining and proximate properties;
B. Permit greater flexibility within the development to best utilize the unique physical features of the particular site;
C. Permit creative land use design;
D. Provide and preserve meaningful open space;
E. Achieve a continuity of function and design within the development.
How are PUDs ACTUALLY USED in Tulsa?
We use them to create generic, big box developments in inappropriate areas. And we use them to convert residentially zoned land into commercial parking lots (by "shifting the underlying zoning around").
Because our developers have learned how to game the system, and our planning commission and City Council lack the knowledge or political will to enforce the real purpose of the PUD (perhaps in part because of the terrible precedents that have been set in the past?), it essentially turns the intended purpose of a PUD on it's head.
The "Tulsa PUD"...
Gives the developer greater flexibility to create non-innovative developments in inappropriate locations; it allows them to disregard the underlying zoning, without requiring any extra quality: "creative land use design," "meaningful open space," "compatibility with adjoining and proximate properties," sensitivity to historic areas, etc, etc from the developer.
Yes, there are some layers of risk and possible delays that the devloper may face. But generally, it's worth it to get what they want (Generic, national-chain, template-built, suburban developments wherever they fancy) while making few, if any, substantive concessions.
Even when a developer comes forth with an actual "innovative" design (think Jamie Jaimeson's Village at Central Park, which basically recreates a traditional neighborhood in an area where the traditional neighborhood had been destroyed), the Planning Commission may exert its short-sightedness, and lack of understanding of the goals of a PUD. According to Jamie, their big hang-up with his development (which exceded every standard of the PUD's stated purpose) was that it DIDN'T INCLUDE ENOUGH PARKING!
Sigh.
With visionaries like this...
Quote from: jne on June 30, 2009, 03:54:20 PM
Anyone heard anymore info about this development. It looked like nothing was happening at all, but I've noticed a little bit of progress on the site. I heard there was a neighborhood meeting coming up with the developer? Anyone know about this?
There was a "meeting" with a small handful of neighbors before the detailed site plan was approved. No concessions were made, as far as I know. (Several of us who care were out of town at the time of the meeting.)
When the detailed site plan came before the TMAPC, I raised two issues. 1. The wattage of the lighting is too bright (more than double the recommended wattage for their chosen light fixtures...which will create a lot of glare for drivers, pedestrians and neighbors). 2. Their parking plan included 10 more spaces than required by our ridiculous parking standards.
The TMAPC asked the developer if they would "consider lower wattage bulbs" and they said yes. ("OK. We considered them.")
They also said that they couldn't require the devloper to reduce their desired parking, according to the PUD ordinance. (Which makes no sense to me.) However, Michelle Cantrell suggested that parking requirements for PUDS be re-evaluated at a later date. Perhaps we will see some positive change on this topic in the future.
Quote from: PonderInc on July 01, 2009, 12:27:19 PM
The TMAPC asked the developer if they would "consider lower wattage bulbs" and they said yes. ("OK. We considered them.")
A toothless lion roars.
The drug chain is determined to use "Moth-effect Marketing" to lure customers to the brightest store on the block. Of course they know they are way over the IES recommended practice for light levels, that's how it works.
Maybe someday TMAPC will adapt some limits from the works of those expert bodies to put a lid on businesses that use glare as advertising, but until then, we have to be diligent to keep those all-night lights out of the windows of the people who live there.
Because of recent changes by banksters regarding credit and construction loans, you can be sure there will be a CVS store and nothing else on this site for many moons.....
Quote from: patric on July 02, 2009, 10:54:49 AM
A toothless lion roars.
The drug chain is determined to use "Moth-effect Marketing" to lure customers to the brightest store on the block. Of course they know they are way over the IES recommended practice for light levels, that's how it works.
Maybe someday TMAPC will adapt some limits from the works of those expert bodies to put a lid on businesses that use glare as advertising, but until then, we have to be diligent to keep those all-night lights out of the windows of the people who live there.
I assume your referring to the 'sling shot' method.
Quote from: FOTD on July 02, 2009, 10:59:53 AM
Because of recent changes by banksters regarding credit and construction loans, you can be sure there will be a CVS store and nothing else on this site for many moons.....
This is one of my concerns...especially since most of the landscaping won't be installed until the rest of the lots are built. (Of course, all the parking will be installed for the entire 9 acres--without the landscaping. That will look classy.) In the mean time, the owner apparently doesn't feel the need to mow next to the street. I like the two-foot tall weeds next to the street to remind me what an improvement this is for our neighborhood.
Quote from: PonderInc on July 07, 2009, 03:29:05 PM
This is one of my concerns...especially since most of the landscaping won't be installed until the rest of the lots are built. (Of course, all the parking will be installed for the entire 9 acres--without the landscaping. That will look classy.) In the mean time, the owner apparently doesn't feel the need to mow next to the street. I like the two-foot tall weeds next to the street to remind me what an improvement this is for our neighborhood.
I would imagine they will keep up the mowing and lanscape. I think it will still look better than a dormant Xmas tree lot 10 1/2 months out of the year.
"It is not goodness to be better than the worst." - Seneca
Or, as Cannon Fodder would say (lawyers...)
"Bonitas non est pessimis esse meliorem."
I made lousy grades in Latin class, but did fairly well on the mottos quizzes, b/c I needed extra credit.
So the grass continues to grow... I called the number on the sign about a month ago and asked that they could please tend to the overgrown grass and I got a "mmm hmmm..click" What nice manners.
Never challenge worse. - Bill Cosby (I think)
Just as soon as you say things couldn't possibly get worse, they do.
Quote from: jne on August 11, 2009, 02:36:13 PM
So the grass continues to grow... I called the number on the sign about a month ago and asked that they could please tend to the overgrown grass and I got a "mmm hmmm..click" What nice manners.
You can call the Mayor's Action Center and log a complaint: 596-2100.
Or you can submit a complaint for tall grass and weeds online:
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/reporting/high-grassweed-violations.aspx (http://www.cityoftulsa.org/reporting/high-grassweed-violations.aspx)
The owner got the PUD he wanted from the City, but hasn't cut the grass all summer. Classy.
(Since he just wants to lease to national chains who will build on site, he pockets the cash and they do the work. Apparently, this hands-off approach includes minor upkeep like mowing.)
I have also recently reported the problem.
I've reported it. Glad to see there is more activity on the site, but still they neglect the out of control weeds - hasn't been touched all summer.
Heavy equipment and dirt is moved. So something's happening.
Huge underground drainage structures there lately.
Is the city participating in order to solve that intersections continual subsoil issues?
Mr. Manley will do land leases on that property. He seems to be preparing his part of any future deal.
CVS site planning kicked into action an overall first phase development (fence and all!)
Would you be surprised to see the CVS up by Thanksgiving and a Christmas tree lot surrounding it on the rear acreage?
Weeds were hacked down. Concrete fence is being painted to be rock-like.
Way to go code enforcement. It only took you half the summer on the assumption the dirt movers did not take the law into their own hands.
Quote from: FOTD on September 06, 2009, 08:34:55 PM
Would you be surprised to see the CVS up by Thanksgiving and a Christmas tree lot surrounding it on the rear acreage?
Well, that would be one way to get some trees on the development.
As is, they won't do the landscaping around the perimeter until future lots are developed. (God knows when THAT will be!) And since they already chopped down every big tree in the vicinity...
As for the drainage, didn't there used to be a creek back there someplace? Seems like it was buried many moons ago, but where is it? (All that beautiful loam soil that's being torn up had to come from somewhere.)
Quote from: PonderInc on September 14, 2009, 07:59:24 PM
Well, that would be one way to get some trees on the development.
As is, they won't do the landscaping around the perimeter until future lots are developed. (God knows when THAT will be!) And since they already chopped down every big tree in the vicinity...
As for the drainage, didn't there used to be a creek back there someplace? Seems like it was buried many moons ago, but where is it? (All that beautiful loam soil that's being torn up had to come from somewhere.)
You probably mean Joe Creek. It runs in the vicinity of Florence from about 51st to 31st. You are correct that it runs underground. Driving down 41st street from Edison towards Harvard, you will notice a very low point around Florence followed by a very good sized hill. The creek obviously used to lie at that low point in the geography.
Google maps shows it in the plain map view:
(http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/9678/41standharvard.gif)
The CVS development is well up the hill from where the creek was. Although I'm sure adding a square block of parking lot will not help drainage issues for the area.
Drove by this weekend and noticed a considerable amount of work done on the corner structure, CVS building.
Was there a re-do on the rest of the structures? Line of site on the rest of the stores will be obscured considerably by the drug store.
It will be many years before you see full development on that site...seems perfect for QT along Harvard...but they don't do land leases...
Don't complain. The site is a reflection of Big Pharma, our health care system, and greedy doctors.
We should take bets on when the next lot will actually be developed.
The PUD was approved with just one of four lots under contract (CVS). All the others fall into the imaginary/cross your fingers and hope that something will happen some day category. (You know, the "grocery store," the "coffee shop and/or donut shop with drive thru," the "office/retail," etc, etc, etc.)
Ah, yes, this "Utica Square-style" development is really shaping up! Remember: PUDs give developers greater "flexibility" in return for greater "quality" (Heck, one outta two ain't bad.)
Of course, the owner doesn't care. He just wants to own it, while others sign long-term contracts for the privilege of developing it.
So if/when we get anything, it will be more national chains. With enormous setbacks, and 75% of surface area dedicated to parking. As per usual.
Quote from: PonderInc on November 09, 2009, 04:41:12 PM
We should take bets on when the next lot will actually be developed.
The PUD was approved with just one of four lots under contract (CVS). All the others fall into the imaginary/cross your fingers and hope that something will happen some day category. (You know, the "grocery store," the "coffee shop and/or donut shop with drive thru," the "office/retail," etc, etc, etc.)
Ah, yes, this "Utica Square-style" development is really shaping up! Remember: PUDs give developers greater "flexibility" in return for greater "quality" (Heck, one outta two ain't bad.)
Of course, the owner doesn't care. He just wants to own it, while others sign long-term contracts for the priviledge of developing it.
So if/when we get anything, it will be more national chains. With enormous setbacks, and 75% of surface area dedicated to parking. As per usual.
Another reason the comprehensive plan needs to be updated and implemented as quickly as possible to prevent this type of development from happening in the future.
I'll never understand what site owners don't realize that putting restrictions on the development can actually INCREASE their desirability. If he required fronted properties, landscaped parking, and some building congruity it could be a mini-utica square. Which would certainly give him a competitive advantage over other empty-lot site pads.
Alas, Ponder hit the nail on this one.