Ran across this article and found it interesting. If my impression is correct, some of the difficulty in downtown and nearby for building more urban but neighborhood style living is that the banks are hesitant to loan to the usual type of urban development in this area (unusual for Tulsa) for they are "unfamiliar" with how well it will do and how the financing will play. This article shows a different option in that they are still single family homes on which the lot itself is also owned by the homeowner. You still buy the house and the property, but it is very amenable to being compact, more affordable and going into an urban infill type environment.
I wonder if this type of development is even legal in Tulsa or in Downtown?
http://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/la-fi-small-lot-homes-20130714,0,563473.story
Quote from: TheArtist on July 14, 2013, 10:17:18 AM
Ran across this article and found it interesting. If my impression is correct, some of the difficulty in downtown and nearby for building more urban but neighborhood style living is that the banks are hesitant to loan to the usual type of urban development in this area (unusual for Tulsa) for they are "unfamiliar" with how well it will do and how the financing will play. This article shows a different option in that they are still single family homes on which the lot itself is also owned by the homeowner. You still buy the house and the property, but it is very amenable to being compact, more affordable and going into an urban infill type environment.
I wonder if this type of development is even legal in Tulsa or in Downtown?
http://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/la-fi-small-lot-homes-20130714,0,563473.story
I am under the impression that Philadelphia style row home owners also own the property under the home but maybe they don't. I don't care for the architectural design of the homes in the article but that's just a matter of personal preference. They look like a quick slap up construction that in 25 years will be junk. A price of $500K to $800K being affordable must be relative. I think it's a bit steep for 1000 to 2000 square ft.
All my complaints aside though, the concept seems sound.
There are lots in Tulsa that are 25 feet wide in some older areas. Even back when they were 'new' they needed two lots to build a house. There is a lot in Broken Arrow old town, near downtown that I drove by today that looks like it must only be about 25 feet wide. The 30's house is about 20 feet wide, but pretty long!
Friend from Pittsburgh - family home is one of those row houses - they own the lot and the house. I wouldn't like it. 10 feet is too close, let alone no space.
If we want to get serious about resource conservation and affordable, compact, infill urban environment.....start from here and don't go much bigger.
http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/
Typical stick built house today has a design that is inherently limited to somewhere in the 50 years range. Well, unless it's Home Creations, then you are good for about 15 - 20 years, if you are lucky....the mold on the lumber they use will take over before then.
Making better, smaller houses, for the same price point would seem to be a noble ambition to me.
Quote from: TheArtist on July 14, 2013, 10:17:18 AM
Ran across this article and found it interesting. If my impression is correct, some of the difficulty in downtown and nearby for building more urban but neighborhood style living is that the banks are hesitant to loan to the usual type of urban development in this area (unusual for Tulsa) for they are "unfamiliar" with how well it will do and how the financing will play. This article shows a different option in that they are still single family homes on which the lot itself is also owned by the homeowner. You still buy the house and the property, but it is very amenable to being compact, more affordable and going into an urban infill type environment.
I wonder if this type of development is even legal in Tulsa or in Downtown?
http://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/la-fi-small-lot-homes-20130714,0,563473.story
Just looking at the picture, they look a lot like the condos that were added behind Cherry Street some 5-6 years ago . Squeeze 3 or 4 units on a lot that originally had 1 house.
I get the point in dense infill, but I don't care much for the design of these and I suspect the current rush to build these will eventually end up with a big fat bubble and hapless buyers being $200K upside-down on their mortgage. I hate to take a negative tone, but Californians never seem to learn when it comes to trendy development and the boom/bust in the real estate market every 10 years or so.
They look like the type of homes going up near Cherry Street. They are for sale, not rent, and are "skinny" in that each home is verticle. I toured one one time for fun. The prices were around $300,000. Out of my price range at the time. Not sure how successful they are selling but it would not be a new idea for Tulsa.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 15, 2013, 09:57:12 AM
I get the point in dense infill, but I don't care much for the design of these and I suspect the current rush to build these will eventually end up with a big fat bubble and hapless buyers being $200K upside-down on their mortgage. I hate to take a negative tone, but Californians never seem to learn when it comes to trendy development and the boom/bust in the real estate market every 10 years or so.
Judging by the comments in the article.. They much prefer sprawl, and congested highways.
Quote from: BKDotCom on July 16, 2013, 11:31:43 AM
Judging by the comments in the article.. They much prefer sprawl, and congested highways.
I think part of what your seeing is that despite the "people/building density" of many areas, this still hasn't translated into pedestrian friendly/transit friendly living. Without proper pedestrian/transit friendly zoning, and with car oriented zoning instead, you can end up with a counterintuitive mix of many of the worst elements of both (like super expensive ineffective transit and ever wider highways as just one example) (aka the future of Tulsa if we keep on as we are going as is).
Dustin Thames, a local realtor, is trying to gather interest in shipping container homes in this area:
They can range from something very industrial and obviously adapted
(http://containerhouseplan.info/images/shipping%20container%20homes%20florida/3_shipping%20container%20homes%20florida.jpg)
To something much more subtle as to it's original purpose:
(http://i-cdn.apartmenttherapy.com/uimages/chicago/11-21-08shipping1.jpg)
(http://dz8s0oagnjand.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/HELA1280-modern-modular-container-house-568x318.jpg)
(http://assets.dornob.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/shipping-container-home-design.jpg)
Considering empty 40 foot containers can be purchased for around $4000 to $5000, it's cheap, structurally-speaking. Obviously the build-out costs will be about the same as in a stick and staple house but your primary structural, I think would be quite a bit less per square foot.
Link to a local couple building a storage container house on family land in Sand Springs.
http://brightcontainerhouse.blog.com/
Quote from: rdj on July 16, 2013, 04:42:04 PM
Link to a local couple building a storage container house on family land in Sand Springs.
http://brightcontainerhouse.blog.com/
I love the idea of 12,000 gallon - or more - water storage tank, but would want it for potable water. The tank they have is definitely NOT...hope they only plan to water their plants with that! Their comment about backup water for the Zombie apocalypse is scary - and not due to zombies!