The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

I was biking in to work this morning, and as I entered downtown on 6th street, there was a building to my left that appeared to be in the process of demolition. Does anyone have any information on this? The building appeared to be in fine shape.

A friend told me about this as well.  Said there was some equipment down there - track hoe, etc.  I think the building housed a company called something "Feilds" at 6th & Frankfort.  Not sure what the company was. 

Fields Downs Randolph

The owner said that if the BID went through, she would demo her building because sitting on an unused property and refusing to sell it, renovate it, or lease it was too expensive.

I had heard that this building would've been cost prohibitive to remodel because of possible asbestos but don't know.

That's the old Page Dairy building. Long ago (early '70s), they had a billboard with a clock on the roof advertising Page products -- very visible as you came into downtown on the 7th Street exit from the north.

That's a great old building that I always admire as I enter downtown and wonder why nobody's doing anything with it.  (As it sits on one of the prime "gateways" to downtown via the expressways.)

Don't know about asbestos.  I'm starting to wonder if that's just an excuse for "I'm land banking and too lazy/unimaginative to do anything else."

If property owners are truly tearing down buildings to avoid the downtown stadium improvement district, then this is a loophole which must immediately be closed. 

The improvement district assessment for downtown surface parking lots should be triple the SF of the lot.  (We'll assume a three story building, on average, was destroyed, to create the surface lot.)  This would negate any economic "advantage" to destroy our few remaining downtown buildings.

+1 Ponder!

Discouraging surface parking lots/new vacant lots should be a priority in downtown planning.  Tax structures are a prime motivator in planning. 

Are we talking about this building? (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Tulsa,+OK&sll=35.615581,-95.855455&sspn=0.011827,0.01929&g=6th+St.+and+Franklin,++Tulsa,+OK&ie=UTF8&ll=36.151585,-95.983247&spn=0.002937,0.004823&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=36.151678,-95.982968&panoid=AtlJiCDjeiNvjGbI8NqagQ&cbp=12,27.16,,0,-7.61)

Yes, I didn't recognize it from the back.

Yup

Yet another surface lot...or now prime clean-slate redevelopment opportunity?  The 6th Street location is a good one, as it connects downtown to the Pearl.

Maybe it will be parking

It's too far from anything to be successfully used as parking (that whole area is already primarily unused surface lots). I hate to say it, but I almost prefer it to be a surface lot than to see a boarded up building immediately as you enter downtown. Obviously, I'd rather have seen it developed into something usable though.

The building has been for sale for quite some time with no takers.  The property owners first expressed ,at the first BID assessment Council meeting, that they would rather tear the building down than pay the new assessment and that the fee of the assessment would make it even harder to sell.

This was a concern among many Councilors that other property owners could follow similar suit, leaving downtown a flattened area where one and two level buildings once stood due to assessment costs versus remodel, sales, etc. 

At the second meeting before the Council, the owner again stood to protest and when questioned by Eagleton as to the reason, the owner simply stated it was cost prohibitive to remodel due to roof failure and asbestos.  He cited no other reason or the assessment being a factor, though he did object to the assessment.

Well, go on, insert blame for Mayor Taylor, DTN.  You know you want to.

Cmon guys, more parking!  Quit complaining!

The cost of 'roof repairs' likely wouldn't have been nearly as costly had the owner kept up on maintenance of the building in the first place. Sadly, I fear that it is the same problem with many of the buildings downtown. People sat on them for so long without properly maintaining them or keeping them occupied, that they are too costly to remodel and too decrepit to buy/sell.

What's even worse is that some people inside the IDL think that they can still price these dilapidated properties at the same price as if they had maintained the property. I'd love to, and have been considering for a while, purchasing a building and starting a business there. But I have a difficult time trying to justfy spending some of the outrageous asking prices for a building that will likely have to be demolished anyway.

So the owner was unable to sell the building without repairing it.  But it was cost prohibitive to repair the building.  Ergo, the owner was unable to sell the building.

They can blame the new tax if they want to, but it doesn't really add up.  If it has been on the market for sometime without selling and the above statements are true, then the owner simply wasn't ever going to sell it for the price they were asking.  I wonder if leveling the property will increase the value and help them make their money back?

However, I do agree that the "level the building to save money" theory might actually appeal to many of the seemingly the backasswards property owners downtown.  I hope the loophole is somehow closed.  I rally can't believe we are still destroying whats left of our downtown even as most cities are doing everything that can to rebuild theirs and we dump money into ours.

The asbestos argument doesn't add up because it has to be abated prior to demolition. If it's too costly to abate the asbestos and rehab the building to use it, it certainly has to be too expensive to abate the asbestos to tear it down and have no building. And to spend the thousands of dollars on abatement to avoid the BID assessment is flimsy reasoning at best. The assessment on this property would be around $6,000 annually. The abatement/demo costs would be such that it would be a decade or more before the owner breaks even on the BID savings. So that's just a convenient excuse.

Bottom line -- the owner could put minimal investment in fixing up 10,000 sq feet, lease it for warehouse storage for $1/foot and make money on the deal, BID and everything.

What downtown really needs is fewer lousy owners, not fewer buildings. Maybe the latter will lead to the former in this case.

I fear the lack of "for sale" sign, agent or listing might've been a hindrance.

I agree with sgrizzle. I drive past that building nearly every day and have never seen a FOR SALE sign. I know several people who have expressed interest recently in buying downtown. Seems like someone is missing out on the market here.

It seems unlikely that it's cheaper to demolish a building and pave a lot than it is to repair a roof and remove asbestos. Even if I'm wrong with that statement, I'd say it's unlikely that a piece of property at 6th street surrounded by other empty lots is more appealing to buyers as a lot than as a building. Furthermore, as was mentioned, it doesn't seem like a bad investment to rent it as cheap warehouse space in the interim.

This whole thing is a sham...and a shame.

I'd love to know what their "asking price" was.

According to CBRE (the realtor):
Location: 519 E. 7th
Asking Price: $1,711,546
Lot Size: 2.12 AC
Info: Existing Building to be Torn Down in 60 Days

Wow. That was quick. Thanks. I hate to see that building go. It's pretty cool.

Anybody have 1.7 million?

Actually AverageJoe...according to the County Assessors office, the Fields building has 92,517sf of lot and 95,361sf of structure on it.  Total: 187,878sf x .065/sf for BID Assessment = 12,212.07/year or 1,017.67/mo.

That is on top of a property tax that last year was $9874.00 or $822.83/mo...so all total, those property owners that have not been able to lease (especially given all the vacant space available downtown) or sell that property have to fork over $1,840.50/mo just in taxes and assessment.  Thats equivalent to a huge house payment, 5 average priced car payments, etc.

The striking thing here is that the BID Assessment is 124% of the property taxes!

Eliminating the structure, they will virtually cut the BID assessment in half...closer to AverageJoe's figure.

AverageJow stated: What downtown really needs is fewer lousy owners, not fewer buildings.

We should all keep in mind that most of the property owners either have been long standing owners in downtown, sometimes for decades and others may have purchased property as investment when no one else wanted to or even looked to invest in downtown.  We all say downtown is at the cusp of turning around...and thats true, but by the same token, downtown is just now turning around to where people want to invest and are willing to buy these buildings that have sat for so long through no fault of the owners.  Of course, thats more true of areas like Blue Dome and Brady, the Central Business District...but not so much the outlying areas...yet.  Theres a reason JoeMamma's chose to go to Blue Dome and not the Fields Building after all.

Downtownnow:

Using your figures (which I have no reason to doubt) the annual taxes are  $22,086.07.

Using the owners math, the property is worth $1,700,000.00.

Doing a little of my own math, that's an effective tax rate of 1.2%.   This owners is really saying that a tax rate at 1.2% of the actual value of the property is simply too much?  I pay a similar rate on my homestead - which has special exemptions lowering the tax rate. 

I understand the reasoning behind the decision.  It's business.  The owner wants to make money and the way the system is set up it could potentially make more money by razing the lot.  I don't have a vested business interest in the property, my interest is in seeing a vibrant and interesting downtown.  So this owners decision doesn't help me any, we have different interests.

But the argument could go the other way.  By buying up, holding on to, and allowing property to deteriorate while sitting vacant (sometimes for decades) these owners very well may have shot themselves in the foot.  As property values have sky rocketed in downtown OKC, Dallas, KC, Omaha, Des Moines and other metro areas as they again came alive - Tulsa is just now starting to move.  My thought is the deteriorated buildings with disinterested owners is a contributing factor to the overall stagnation of downtown. 

So I do fault the owners for having structures that just sit.  They bought an investment property and just let it deteriorate.  Most have done nothing to turn a profit on the buildings or to encourage development other than just wait for someone else to do something to make them money.  When too many properties attempt that maneuver together you end up with a downtown that is devoid of life, full of empty lots, and with a flat property value.
- - -

In your opinion, does the destruction of buildings help or hurt the effort to revitalize Downtown Now?  What would you do to try and keep downtown moving or accelerate the movement towards an economically and holistically energetic downtown?  I am well aware of what ideas you think are bad ones, but then what is the solution?

I'm not trying to be an donkey either, I'm really curious to know what methods you think will help achieve our common goal.

Her asking price goes to show how legitimate the BID fee is. She’s asking $1.7 million for a two acre abandoned industrial site not located on a major street. If her property was a mile north she’d be asking a tenth of that much.

An asking price proves nothing.

Rant -- At what public cost are we going to "make downtown happen"?  Think of all the public dollars that have been put into downtown so far and we are still saying things like "we are at the tipping point" and "just wait for the ballpark"...  The haphazard, back of the napkin, piecemeal "planning" that has gone on downtown for years has me to the point of mental breakdown.  How did we end up with a ballpark so far away from the BOK Center?  Where are the people that "want to live downtown"?  They aren't downtown.  Heck, the Philtower is still leasing apartments (and remember how much the public paid to get that done?).  "If there was only a grocery store downtown I would move there in a heartbeat."  Yeah right. 

I just want to know at what point the city gets to say enough is enough and stops spending our money so incoherently.  If there was some sort of coherence to all of the spending that has happened in the past maybe I would have a different viewpoint.  But the this park here, this apartment/condo project there, ballpark here (throw dart a board), arena there planning is just crazy!

The owner of this building does not appear to be an "investor" in downtown, but is a speculator.  An investor buys property and looks to improve it, thereby increasing it and surrounding property's values and then may sell it to generate cash to do it all over again.  Speculators buy property with the intention of doing nothing but waiting for others to do things to surrounding properties that will increase the value of their own so they can sell at a handsome profit.

While a few speculators is not necessarily a terrible thing, Tulsa's problem appears to be we have way too many speculators holding a lot property and waiting for someone else to do something that will increase the value.

Sorry that BierGarten fails to see the benefits that are coming from past/current downtown investments.  Not as much progress or as fast as I want to see, but considering the finanical/economic circumstances of the past year, the successes cannot be ignored.

I see the benefits and I benefit from the benefits daily.  The benefits that we have already benefited from are enough benefits for me.  I no longer want to pay for additional benefits downtown.  If an arena, ballpark and various condo/park/hotel financing/funding arrangements don't "make downtown happen", then the people have spoken.  I work downtown and play downtown but I never want to live downtown or own a piece of downtown.  Why should I continue to subsidize those that do when the subsidies thus far have been poorly harmonized, at best.

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2666/3701081079_95e58333f9.jpg?v=0)

Just to confirm: is this the one we're talking about?

Yes. That is the view of the building from the 7th street side just after you exit the IDL onto 7th.

??  So, you're saying the BID fee has increased the value of her property??   

The value is what one would be willing to pay for the property. The property was already over-priced before the BID, thus little-to-no interest. Any value added from the BID may bring the value closer to the asking price, but likely not over it. If you care for my opinion, the asking price for the property is still a little high.

DTowner...specifically what successes can you relate to and how do you justify those 'sucesses' when weighed against the public tax investment of the BOKCenter?

Also, the owners of this building were not speculators.  According to comments made in City Council meetings, these owners have been in possession of this property for multiple decades, keeping it in the family.

There is one instance I am aware of in which a 'speculator' attempted to be an 'investor' by your definition.  The owner of the Tulsa Club Building attempted to acquire Vision2025 monies to convert his speculative property into an investment of mixed use residential.  He was turned down and instead preference was given to someone like Sager, who has yet to complete his lofts project, no money in sight to finish from what I've been told and is due sooner, rather than later, to start prepaying the loan from those funds.

The basic fact remains, whether speculator or investor, these are all business decisions made by people that ponied up for properties at a time when no one wanted to 'invest' in downtown.  Heck, many of them were purchased for taxes, thats how bad no one wanted to 'invest' in downtown.  Some set up shop, many left the properties to sit. 

I'm not sure about the asking price of this property..perhaps a little steep in my opinion since it will be years before the Pearl District blooms if they get funds for what has been proposed.  With the ballpark moving from the East End, thats another hit.  Much of the surrounding property is also for sale.  Being demolished may help it sell...vancant land is much easier to develop than most with existing structures.

TURoby...one could argue that the BID actually decreases the value of the property instead.  A new developer will be held to a 30 year payout for any development they put on it and would seek to adjust the purchase lower to compensate so their development stays within market norms at offering.

I would agree, depending on the type of development placed there. If the development could not benefit from the BID, then I can understand your argument that the BID would decrease the value. A warehouse or empty building would likely not benefit from it.

If the development could benefit from the BID, then the value is increased as the improvements become an "amenity". Increased traffic or nearby entertainment/retail options add value to a property. Thus, housing or retail would see an increase in value.

Cannon_fodder, thats right...it all comes down to business.  When you have a piece of proerty that is neither unique, nor in high demand at the time, in disrepair with no potential sources of revenue given that there's a lot of available square footage already in the immediate market area, you will want to cut your losses as best you can.  

Thats one reason I was against the BID Assessment.  What happens if say the owners of the Tulsa Club, Vandiver, and say buildings in Brady's industrial part decide the cost of the assessment isnt justified as their properties sit there empty and make the decision to tear em down and asphalt them?  They create a revenue generation stream leasing parking spaces that more than pays for the assessment on single level lot only square footage but downtown has lost yet another building and in some cases, architecturally significant ones.

To answer your question though...In my opinion, the destruction of downtown buildings does not help the overall efforts to revitalize downtown in keeping with a developed character.  I will say, however, that the destruction of some buildings due to dilapitated condition and cost vs. return may justify the demolition of some.  

How does one solve this.  Well, in my opinion...

First, the City needs to be more developer friendly.  For instance, a friend was looking to convert an existing building downtown into lofts apartments for low/mid level rentals.  He was told by the City that the building's stair system and egress had to be brought up to today's code and that would have required a significant expenditure for structural redesign that made the project unfeasible.  He had accomlished very much the same thing in Kansas City and wasnt required to adhere to new code since it created an undue hardship and the property was essentially grandfathered in under the existing building codes the City had adopted and changes made by ordinance.

Second, the City/TDA should prioritize the public expenditures so as to get the biggest bang for the buck when providing public funds for projects.  For instance, the recent $4 million to American Residential Group...perhaps it should have been divided to 'help' 4 other projects as well.  No reason public monies should go to all one group and subsidize 25% of the overall investment of one project.  $1 million each could have helped fund ONG, Tribune II, Arts & Humanities Mathews site, Micha Alexanders' development, etc.

Third, the City/TDA should make available, at no cost, the properties it owns within the IDL to developers that provide approved redevelopment proposals and have the financial means to achieve them so as to incentivize greater developer participation.  In turn, this might advance the development timeframes of these empty properties much faster, generating sales and property taxes quicker which should pay out more than the land is now and especially once you take continued maintenance into account.

Fourth, the City should provide greater planning and communication between developers/developments so as to encourage diversity in mix.  They also need to temper development with what is needed.  i.e. balancing the substantial development of high end residential with the needs for low and moderate income residential.  These are factors looked at by retailers, grocers, job seekers, relocating companies, etc.

Fifth, and for existing property owners, not pushing a burdensome assessment on them that hinders their own efforts to redevelop their property in the face of downtown's turnaround.  Not giving the back of the hand to those that bought property years ago and basically were the only ones keeping downtown alive at all until this recent resurgence.  Also, working with them to ease the permit process, acquire redevelopmetn grants and tax incentives through short term abatements, TIFs, etc.

Sixth, relaxing the building codes to make the redevelopment of existing properties more financially feasible.  i.e. requiring the installation of sprinkler systems in towers like Cental Park, or small apartment buildings.  New buildings I can maybe understand as the budren is far less when planned from the git go.  Someone had posted a comment some time ago about the way California encourages the redevelopment of older properties through its relaxed building codes.

Seventh, and this is an important one, the City needs to welcome all developers that are capable.  The more involved, the greater the diversity, the faster downtown is developed and the quicker we see that holistic and energetic sense of place we want in downtown.

Thank you very much for clarifying your position.  We are very much in agreement:

1) +1.  A business friendly environment will do as much to help development and economic growth as anything else.  So long as the city has a PLAN for development and makes it easy for entities or people to work within that plan it would help a ton.  Think Artists "A" streets concept (this goes along with your #7).

2) +1.  If spreading the wealth can make 4 viable projects instead of 1, then go for it.

3) I agree with the concept of TDA unloading the property faster.  But I think giving it away would cause more troubles.  First, TDA would be without a revenue stream.  Second, they would lose control over development (unless the plan [codes/zoning, whatever] was better and enforced).  Most importantly, it would/could crush downtown property values for existing structures or lots needing to be redeveloped.  No one would buy an existing structure or an empty lot if the TDA would just give them land.

But I agree 100% that the TDA should NOT be a land trust.

4) +1.

5) I have mixed opinions about the current downtown owners.  Some are clearly team players.  Some are investors.  Some are speculators.  And some are slum lords.   I also have a differing opinion on the assessment but agree that it was pushed onto them.

6) +1.  Seems like a given to me.  Our unique downtown structures help define Tulsa.  Many people want a revitalized downtown and the City is spending cash to make that happen.  It is CRAZY to then destroy the effort with building codes that are cost prohibitive AND of little use.  If New York (and Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle . . .) can have old 5 story walk up apartment buildings or convert other old structures with tons of character into lofts that don't require sprinkler systems . . . why in the hell can't Tulsa?

Fire Departments give recommendations, but shouldn't control development.

7) +1

I cannot believe posters here would intentionally endanger the lives of people that would live in refurbed buildings by allowing relaxed safety codes.  All for mere economic development.  Domino theory asks what is next? Asbestos in buildings? Ozone standards?  Vehicle fuel mileage?  CO2 emissions?  Shame Shame.
 ;D

Thanks, Red. I was thinking the same thing only didn't want to pick a fight. Why would we want to stuff people into old buildings and not require fire suppression systems? I'm sure there is some middle ground here. Relaxing codes that are designed too stringent...ok. But some basic stuff has been learned in the last half century about fighting fires, building materials and building design. No use in ignoring them for financial reasons.

Sprinklers in particular can depend on other factors. How much of the building is brick, mortar, concrete etc vs wood and other combustibles.  Everything has a cost/benefit factor.  Cost is not just $ but can be lives etc.  Sometimes a workaround will provide an equivalent level of safety.  It all depends on.  Permanent smoke detectors may provide a level of safety in a concrete building that could only be achieved in a wood building with sprinkles and a 24 hour/day fire watch person.  We need to be smarter about some codes and laws.

Requiring buildings to be sprinkled because a fire could break out and potentially kill someone inside is hardly different than making people who choose to live in a mobile home in the middle of a field in Oklahoma anchor the thing in the ground with red iron and build a shield around it.

People get to choose where they're living. If you don't want to live in a building that may burn down in fire, don't live in it. It seems as risky as choosing to live in a house without sprinklers or a mobile home in a flat field in Oklahoma. Amazingly, there aren't yet any rules to protect the mobile homes from burning or blowing away even though they're most prone to it.

Furthermore, our fire code is so hard core that it won't just keep people from dying, it'll keep the building from burning. . . it also tends to keep people from turning old buildings into residential...because it's expensive.

Tulsa adopted the international fire code...which is nice. Then, in typical Tulsa fashion, we stuck a bunch of amendments on to it to make it much more difficult to navigate than that of other cities our size. My restaurant has brick walls, a concrete floor, a metal roof, very few walls, and is practically impossible to catch on fire. Furthermore, the only thing in the building (the oven and fryer) that could catch on fire is already covered with an ansul system that would put out any fire that might happen and yet if my one story all brick and concrete building was 300 sq. ft larger, without exception I would've had to spend another 30K+ ish on fire suppression....just in case somehow someone set something on fire in the dining room and people couldn't get out my very large double doors at the front, or the exit door at the back.

Want more people developing downtown? Want more restaurants and bars and bowling alleys and theaters and retail and housing and grocery? A nice place to start would be the code books. I just talked to someone who is developing in one of our suburbs and they commented that they love downtown and really wanted to do something down there but that our code made it too difficult, expensive, and annoying.

I'm not an expert on it and haven't had very many issues in my limited experience, but I hear comments like that enough that it really makes me wonder.

My wife's employer just remodeled a 6,000 square foot brick building downtown. They gutted it and then used all steel interior supports. The complete remodel job was about $300,000 including new bathrooms, kitchen, and new offices.

The sprinkler system to code costs $75,000 or one fourth of the entire remodel.

It seems you're about to travel down a risky path. Comparing 90 year old multifamily, multi-use buildings to mobile homes is a stretch to me. Relaying anecdotal info on costs of construction are just as meaningless without comparison to the costs of new construction in the burbs. Would you like to see quotes from insurance companies for the cost of paying for collapsed or burned out buildings that cost multiple deaths? Or the lowered cost of insurance premiums for those buildings with fire suppression vs without?

Look for the middle ground here. I know there is lunacy in the fire code. It sounds like some of it was written by the fire suppression industry to promote their interests. It just seems like we move to extremes. Economic freedoms to economic stifling regulation. Using some flexibility could serve both interests.

I live in a nearly century old home. The designs, materials and construction techniques of that day require special skills and knowledge that newer homes do not. If I thought that the owners of the new Mayo were not addressing some of those issues with a keen interest in safety, I would never step foot in the building. If one old building burns or collapses downtown and it is alleged that relaxing of code requirements played a part.....the entire investment in downtown is at risk.

I think it is crazy it costs 1/4 of the renovation costs to fit it with a proper fire suppression system.  I think the overall difference with a home and a building downtown is that generally there are going to be people that aren't the owner of the building using it.

To add to #5 of DowntownNow's suggestions, downtown tulsa needs to be on the National Historic Register.  Once approved, any building built before 1939 (?) quailifies for a 20% tax credit for construction costs assuming it is performed per the standards of the National Register.  This is a significant incentive.  There are individual downtown buildings on the Register but all of downtown can be placed on the register as Riverview and Ranch Acres, etc have been placed.  I heard a while back that someone was working on this nomination but have not heard anything lately.

Great comments DowntownNow.

Waterboy, Red:

I am not against fire safety.  We need to have a fire code that ensures residential rentals are safe.  And we do.  A unit that would pass a Section 8 inspection is required to have 2 exits, recesses for below grade occupation, and a certain number of smoke detectors.  My house doesn't have a sprinkler system and it's made out of wood and asphalt shingles; surely more flammable than a brick building.  My office building doesn't even have a sprinkler system.  In college I lived in old Victorian houses made into apartments without sprinkler systems.   Have I been at grave risk my entire life?

On top of that, remodeled structures in most cities are not required to be retrofitted with sprinkler systems.  Yet I don't hear of scores of associated deaths that would have been prevented by sprinklers.  Are Tulsans too stupid to flee a burning building or just too fat to do so quickly enough?  Smartassness aside:  why is it safe enough for most places but not for Tulsa?

What's more; the fire code is not designed only for human safety.  It attempts to make it impossible for the building to burn down (property damage is reduced by 50-70% on average with a sprinkler system).  Now, considering that the buildings we are talking about have stood for 60+ years without such systems and haven't burned down and that a remodel would presumably decrease the chance of said building burning down in the future . . . I'd say we'd be better off with an occupied building that could possibly burn down than an empty building that will likely be torn down.   We have required many of the buildings to be so safe that we have ensured no one will get killed in the building, because no one is in the building.

Some quick stats:

1) In 2007 there were nearly 415,000 residential fires (out of ~123 million residences).
Resulting in 2,895 deaths. (of 2.5 million deaths)
14,000 injuries.
And $7.5 billion in damage.

Looking at those numbers, residential fires are not really a big safety risk.  The odds of a given residence catching fire in any one year is approximately 1 in 300.  In each fire the odds of there being an injury is 1 in 30 (one in every 8,785 households).  The odds of there being a death is 1 in every 145th residential fire (or 1 in every 43,000 households per year).   If the cost of home fires was bore equally by all households, your share would be $60.

So we are prohibiting people from redeveloping old buildings to prevent an occurrence that will happen once for every 43,000 households.  It just doesn't make sense from that perspective.  

You can give the "life has no value" speech.  But we all know that is a wonderful concept, but not reality.  In reality there is a cost benefit analysis that determines what level of safety we are comfortable with.  For 95+% of residences in Tulsa, we are safe enough without residential sprinklers.

2) The government (DHS) recommends sprinklers for new construction because the benefits outweigh the costs.  The cost for new construction is purportedly $1 to $1.50 per square foot (generally less than 1.5% of the total cost).  Retrofitting old buildings to code in Tulsa costs from $10-15 per square foot (often  25% of the cost).    

A ten fold increase in the cost certainly skews that equation.  

3) Insurance discounts for sprinklers range from 5-15%.  Given the high cost of installation it will not cash flow based on insurance savings.

4) More than 80% of fire deaths occur in single family residences.  If preventing fire deaths is out goal, statistically we would be much better requiring all single family homes that are sold to be retrofitted with sprinkler systems and hard wired smoke detectors (with battery backup).  The cost to retrofit a family home is cheaper per square foot than an old brick building and the odds of actually saving a life improve.

But this safety measure would impact everyone.  Cost everyone money.  And prevent everyone from utilizing their property as they see fit . . . the retrofitting for conversions only effects some people.  So who even though it doesn't improve safety as much, who cares?

5) Most residences in Tulsa don't have fire suppression systems.  Thus, if the people that would occupy the downtown apartments move to another residence without suppression systems, nothing has been gained in the way of safety.  The effect is a nullity.


6) COOKING is the primary cause of residential fires.  Given that, couldn't a compromise be met requiring fire suppression in cooking areas only?   There has to be a compromise that makes these structures safe but not cost prohibitive to remodel into residential space.  The market simple won't sustain an additional $12 cost per square foot because CONSUMERS don't think the extra safety is worth the extra money.  Hence, builders can not provide it for them no matter the mandate.

sources:
http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/citizens/all_citizens/home_fire_prev/sprinklers/index.shtm  (and associated links from that page)

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/FASTATS/deaths.htm
- - -

I'm not arguing that fire suppression systems don't save lives.  The evidence is pretty solid that they do save lives.  My argument is that the application of this ordinance in its current form negates the possible advantage.  It just ensures that remodels are few and far between and that when they occur they are priced out of reach for the average Tulsan (let alone college students, many of whom go to school downtown or just down the road at TU).

We are overreacting to a very unlikely event with a fire code that is more strict than most places.  The result makes it impractical to convert downtown structures into housing that is affordable to Average Joe.  We are protecting Average Joe from himself in order to keep him safe.  

There has to be a compromise somewhere.

The property does NOT have to be on the historic register to qualify for tax credits.  (Although you will get MORE if it is, you will also have more requirements to meet.)  As long as your building was built before 1936, you will qualify for a 10% tax credit, regardless of whether your building has been declared "historic."

From the Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Office:
There are two tiers of both the Federal and the State tax credits. The first tier provides a 20% tax credit for the certified rehabilitation of a certified historic structure. The second tier provides a 10% tax credit for renovation of an older building that is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places either individually or as a contributing resource to a district. The value of the credit is either 20% or 10% of a project's qualified expenditures.

What is a tax credit?
A tax credit reduces the taxpayers tax liability. That is, the amount of the credit is subtracted from the amount the taxpayer owes the IRS and the OTC. A credit differs from a deduction as the latter reduces taxable income rather than tax liability.  

http://www.okhistory.org/shpo/factsheet14.htm#A3 (http://www.okhistory.org/shpo/factsheet14.htm#A3)
http://www.okhistory.org/shpo/factsheet3.htm (http://www.okhistory.org/shpo/factsheet3.htm)

By the way, the historical survey of downtown buildings is well under way.  I hope it will help downtown property owners understand the history that they hold in their hands, as well as making it easier for them to get the tax credits for renovation.  Most importantly, I hope it will enable us to finally declare downtown a registered historic district.

Just one clarification, Ponder, the 10% tax credit is not available for residential buildings.

Why not?

I don't know why congress excluded residential buildings.

Also, the tax credit is also available at the state level.  So, if you meet the standards, you could actually get up to a 40% tax credit, depending upon your state & federal tax amount.

I thought there were tax credits available as long as it was not your primary residence.  For instance, if you RENTED apartments or lofts in a building, it would count. 

Actually you don't have to convince me.  NOBODY caught my attempt at sarcasm in my post of July 8, 7:01:35 PM. I guess I need to go back to the drawing board.

I am sure that there are those on the forum that know better than me, but according to what I have read, any residential property (including rentals) cannot qualify for the 10% tax.  That is different from the 20% credit, which can be used for rental properties.

According to the National Park Service:


http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/tax/brochure1.htm#10

I caught it!  As denoted by the smiley face.  But then you responded 2 posts later on a more serious note.

Just drove by.  The building is over half gone now.

I agree with you CF. Compromise is the answer.

What?  The building started drinking at 9am?

Yes, it's wrecked

OK, only half way back to the drawing board.

Since my position was not intuitively obvious to the most casual observer, I thought it would be a good idea to explain my actual position.  Therefore, I posted the more serious replies.

One of the things that let me down about Dr Crowley's downtown master plan was the half hearted stab at what to do with the East end. Heck, some of his concepts still had a ball field in them. In order for this part of down town to work, someone has to have a full fleged vision and those speculators that want to make money on the deal are going to take a good look at what their property is really worth as it stands.

Tearing this building down was a shame, there were lots of potential uses and lots of excuses by the land owners. I know DTN sides with them as long term downtown land owners, but sitting on empty property and waiting for the check to come in is a lot different from actively devloping or marketing that property.

Maybe TulsaNow can map out a plan for the East end?

Carltonplace....I would have loved to have seen that building renovated into something useful.  But one property in a sea of nothingness makes not a castle.  If the ballpark had stayed in the East End, it could have spurred all kinds of growth for that area and quite possibly saved that building.  But it moved and it didn't.

Crowley's plans centered on the George Kaiser Family Foundation's plans as he was brought in by them in the first place.  His conceptuals all focused on properties owned by or associated with the GKFF.  Even his ones from the East End when the ballpark was visioned to be there.  They tied plans for the 18th & Boston channel area, the Crow Creek and Riverparks ties by the apartments they purchased off riverside drive.  And all were done prior to his involvement and push through Planitulsa.  I saw those conceptuals in his office at the Hartford building back in June of last year, before any info came in from Planitulsa.  They didnt change. 

Aside from that...the building has been marketed for quite sometime according to various real estate brokers in the area.  Much like most other empty downtown properties.  The impetus simply isnt there to renovate outlying areas away from other surrounding major developments or 'demand generators.'

I will not fault them for removing a structure that was in a questionable state of repair when there was no interest in it at any price and especially when they were faced with paying an incredible amount for an assessment on a vacant building that will see no direct benefit from the assessment levied against it.  What were they to do?  Leave the building as is, fail to pay the assessment and lose the building eventually until demand generators move into the area and encourage its redevelopment?  From a business standpoint, they did the only thing they could and it was their building to do with as they pleased.  I hated to lose it but I understand the decision behind it.

Perhaps they didnt have the $10+ Million to renovate the building and market it, did you?  No bank would lend them the money given the economy and with the surrounding lack of redevelopment either.

Those so quick to condemn the actions of these property owners in here arent the ones lining up to buy and save the building either.  Until that happens, why question the motivations of those doing the demo? 

Just hope and pray that with this assessment, more property owners dont start doing the same thing.

Yeah, all good reasoning. Just doin' bidness. Only, why the heck did they buy the building in the first place? Its never been "marketable" since Fields left it. It was for sell during good economic times too you know.

They won't get my sympathy. If you don't have a plan for a downtown building in the first place other than, "wait til it appreciates" or the government builds a revenue generator next to it, then do us all a favor and don't buy the dang thing.

Just doin' bidness downtown has become a euphemism for buy low-sell high. If that fails, grade it for parking. They did nothing to improve its value, increase its saleability or even just maintain it. ITS ON THE EXIT OF THE BUSIEST EXPRESSWAY INTO DOWNTOWN FOR HEAVENS SAKE! If you can't make that work for you, it ain't business savvy, its stupidity.

There is a plan in the works for the east end. Crowley just didn't have the final drawings done yet.

Can't wait to see it

Here it is today

I can only hope someone is at least saving the bricks to be reused somewhere downtown someday. I noticed that those buildings at 2nd and Elgin that were missing their fronts seem to be rebuilt using old bricks.

ARC Wrecking = the bricks and building materials are in a landfill, where they cannot be reclaimed.

I don't think ARC is doing the demo.  ARC would have been finished up long ago.  Either way there is definitely no material being salvaged.  Def. a shame.  Looks like lots of great stuff in there.

The fence isn't that secure, have at it.

Anyone tearing down a building they won't use to create a vacant lot that isn't needed, probably isn't going to spend the extra money to salvage any materials from the tear down.

Are new bricks still cheaper than recycled bricks?  It would seem so.

Yes but new bricks are not as strong as old ones.

Who can we contact to get permission to salvage? Great old bricks and glass blocks are going to the land fill. Maybe we can just go to the landfill?

Interesting tidbit:

GENERALLY:   You can't take items from someones property even if the building is being torn down and thrown away.  It's theft.  However, you can take things from people's trash can as they are considered abandoned, so it's not theft.   But once it is in the landfill it again becomes illegal to take it.

Go figure.  I assume the latter rule is because it simply "isn't safe" to have people scrounging for junk at the landfill.  Who knows.

And, have you priced glass block lately?  Holy crap!

Yeah, I'm sure it has to do with safety.  Plus, there really isn't much opportunity to scrounge around at a landfill.  Everything is pushed around, tamped down and covered pretty shortly after it arrives.

Another one bites the dust... sadly, literally.

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2646/3725129907_3796effaae.jpg?v=0)

Well really we needed more surface parking downtown . . .  >:(

Too bad there isn't the same notice requirements for a demolition that there is for zoning ordinance changes or construction permits.  Give people a chance to survey any historical significance, take pictures, reclamation companies to contact the owner (both parties to make money and save treasures), or maybe a hesitant buyer to come out of the woodwork.    Surely if the building sat for decades unused a demolition permit requiring publication on three separate Fridays or a 2 week listing on a City of Tulsa demolition website or something wouldn't be too much to ask. 

I don't think a notice requirement would do much harm at all, and it could potential be good for the owner, the community, and other parties.

Here's a game for those that want to know what it's like to be a property owner in downtown..........

http://www.physicsgames.net/game/Demolition_City.html (http://www.physicsgames.net/game/Demolition_City.html)

wow that game really makes me feel like I'm a downtown Tulsa developer.  I give it high marks for not allowing any structure(s) to be built after the demolition so it's implied that a parking lot will be built.  Highly realistic.

http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A27552


Urban Tulsa story on this demo a week or two ago (July 15) had this interesting tidbit (in addition to mentioning this thread):

"Hunt said an out-of-state developer closed on several properties in the district on July 7, including the former Bill White Chevrolet site at 401 S. Elgin, the Harrison Building at 418 S. Frankfort, the Parkade at 408 S. Frankfort, the Skelly Office/Warehouse site at 414 E. 4th St. and the City Tent & Awning site at 415 E. 5th St.

He described the deal as essentially including all the buildings between 4th Street and 5th Street between Frankfort and Elgin. Hunt said the buyer was not willing to go public with his plans at this point, but he did say the property most likely would go for a mixed-use development."

I had not heard or seen any discussion on this transaction on the Board, which is why I am posting this...if it is out there, please post a link.  Hopefully it is a "build value through adding immediate improvements" type of investor and not the the "sit and wait...and wait....and wait for someone to pay you ransom" type of investor.  Anyone have an idea? Rumors, facts, thoughts? 

That is some encouraging news.  I hope hope hope they don't demo the Bill White Cheverlote building.  Def. one of my favorite buildings downtown.  On a side note, it looks like the lobby was a club at one time.  You can even see sign for the club faded (or painted over) above the front door.  Anyone have any history on this?

http://www.costar.com/News/Article.aspx?id=8D2EBF9A3148C57A2FE4A271FF368170&ref=1&src=rss (http://www.costar.com/News/Article.aspx?id=8D2EBF9A3148C57A2FE4A271FF368170&ref=1&src=rss)

Bill White Sells Tulsa Portfolio for $1M
Larson Development Buys Five Buildings in Downtown Tulsa

Wow.  Is that the entire block from Franklin and Elgin between 4th and 5th?  If not all of it, the vast majority of it. 

Also, 1 block for $1 mil . . . or one building for $1.7mil.  Gee, why didn't that building sell.   Why oh why.

Around '94-95 there was a club called 401, short lived punk type venue that I visited before it moved down to Cheyenne & Archer, with the same name.  Not really so much of a business as a squatter haven.  I think they did put an actual club in there some years later that actually functioned and maybe even had permitting, it didn't seem to last long either.

I really hope they save the Bill White Chevrolet building, and even a couple of the smaller ones to the east of it.

It was really neat when I was at the Hollywood Studios in Florida to see how they recreated the feel of the time period. There were deco buildings and Italianate buildings jumbled together. Think about the mix you see that still remains on 11th street. The Bill White Chevrolet building is deco, right next to it to the east is one with a terracotta roof, then another deco I believe. If they even left the facades and built up, or gutted and remodeled then added to the empty spaces with more deco or deco period italian, or even contemporary with some deco hints. It would really be great to save and enhance these things which could really contribute to Tulsas identity, its tourism potential, bring back some of that "Tulsa in its heyday" feel where there were streets lined with that mix of deco and Italian.

After I got back from the Hollywood studios and noticed how they had that mix of building styles and how well it worked. I dreamt of building the Deco Museum and its Cafe, Gift Store, etc on a block with different facades like that... then there an example was right in downtown showing both of those styles right next to each other.  Puleeeeze dont tear them down.

Here are some pics of Hollywood/mgm Studios that show the mix of deco and italian and how well they work together to evoke that deco era feeling. Have added a few pics that show the actual buildings they got their inspiration from.  

(http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/5673/hollywoodstudios1.jpg)

(http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/980/hollywoodmgm4.jpg)

(http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/6707/hollywoodmgm3.jpg)

(http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/849/hollywoodmgm3a.jpg)

(http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/8353/hollywoodmgm1.jpg)

(http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/4492/hollywoodmgm1a.jpg)

(http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/8232/hollywoodstudios4.jpg)

(http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/5448/hollywoodstudiosmgm.jpg)

(http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/4732/hollywoodstudiosmgm21.jpg)

Not at Hollywood Studios, but shows how easily contemporary can be shifted to contemporary/deco. Would be great to see that sort of thing next to the Bill White Chevrolet building. Preserving what we have, yet still adding the fresh and contemporary in a way that enhances our cities identity and unique character.

(http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/4771/sany0718.jpg)

I'm not seeing it. I know those buildings intimately. The larger one looks more like modern than deco. Anyone check when the BW building was constructed? I'm guessing early 60's. Either then or a modern facade was added around that time. It was pretty new when I attended nearby Central in the late 60's. The rippled turqouise fiberglass panels leave me cold.

Anyway, the building is a mess structurally. Tons of deferred maintenance even though this owner is resident Tulsan. It leaks, has suffered water damage, the plumbing and electrical is sketchy to say the least and its main use has been for storage for a decade. Storage of vehicles, fixtures etc. The main building stores the trolleys and busses. The one to the east is Bill's office and its a nondescript fifties building for sure. The little old service station east of that is cute but functionally obsolete for anything today. The building on the South side of the block is interesting also and better maintained.

If the new owner doesn't tear it down I would be truly amazed. We have destroyed better buildings than this (Cadillac building, Chrysler dealership, Ford dealership, second oldest firestation) without much hesitation for parking.  I'm glad he got tired of waiting and sold it all. Maybe someone else will do something with the spot.

I know your not seeing it,,, your not an artist.  ;)

There are lots of styles of deco (zigzag, pwa, streamline, deco moderne, deco revival) and deco built in different time periods (11th st bridge 1916, Service Pipeline/ARCO bld. 1949, Mayo Motor Inn 1950, BOK at 31st Harvard and KVOO Television on Peoria 1956, MTTA Downtown Transfer Center at 4th and Denver 1999)  When something becomes authentic enough to save could indeed be a legitimate argument.  But I look at that building and see deco, and early 60s is still older than me and thats getting pretty danged old lol.

Not gonna say I would chain myself to the building, but I do think it would be a loss. The facade has character, and I think its beautiful and could be fixed up. Whether they save the rest of the building in this instance isnt as important. Your right, we have lost a lot of other more important buildings, but if we keep getting rid of the "non important" ones, we really are gutting our ability to say "We have one of the best collections of Art Deco, or one of the largest number of deco buildings, etc." Its not true as it is but we are still known for it via bluff. But soon there wont be enough left to even bluff our way lol.  Even the most mundane ones at this point are important if we really want to promote ourselves as an art-deco destination. One of the few positive bragging rights that people the world over still see Tulsa as having.

I yield to your superior argument.  :) I successfully avoided becoming an artist, but couldn't avoid aging.

The building is interesting and I do like its kitschy look. I need to expand my vision of deco I guess. White is one of those folks who held on to his properties, waiting for the big downtown explosion to capitalize. I talked to him about it way back in the early nineties. Because of that, the buildings were not really kept up. I doubt he ever expected them to be saved.

I listed those other buildings to point out that the current mentality of their buyers is to see them as impediments, not as fine representations of architecture. They were solid buildings that were difficult to raze. This one doesn't make as good an argument for survival as they did. I especially lament the ignorance in tearing down a firestation that originally used horse drawn equipment so that OSU Tulsa could have more parking.

I know it's not their fault, their only the 'messenger', but every time I see an Arc Wrecking truck or sign, I know it's a sad day for some old historic structure.

I try to avoid linking my own stuff here, but I think this is on topic and worth reading.

Over the weekend, I met the lady that owned the Page-Glencliff Dairy building. She told me about the building and the decision to tear it down, and with her encouragement I wrote up the conversation on BatesLine (http://www.batesline.com/archives/2009/09/barbecue-conversations-the-field.html).

Does anyone know if a building owned or occupied by a non-profit, that is not a church, in the downtown area would be given any tax breaks?