The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

As someone who grew up in Tulsa and has followed this forum for a couple of years, I continue to be amazed at the naïve attitude of some of the posts.

Having observed the development in close-in neighborhoods in several large cities, I find the process remarkably similar:

1.   Well to do couple or single wants proximity to restaurants, shopping and possibly job
2.   What they don’t want is a 1,500 square ft bungalow with tiny kitchen, bad plumbing and undersized circuits
3.   So they overpay for the lot and put up 4,000 square ft McMansion costing a fortune

What I would like to know is who is unhappy in this deal

1.   Not the person who got overpaid for the lot – now he is thinking about putting up a McMansion
2.   Not the Mcmansion owners – they are happy as a clam
3.   Not the city – property tax revenue just went up
4.   Not the McMansion’s neighbor – he is now thinking about selling his overpriced lot for a teardown

I have a business friend who just sold a close in lot in another large city for $700,000 – his old ranch will be torn down to build a super McMansion. My friend is not unhappy and neither are his neighbors who already have McMansions.
I just don’t get what is not to like.

I may have grown up in one of those old bungalows in Tulsa but I can assure you I wouldn’t want to live in one now. Grow up Tulsa.

This is a great question.  I live in Lakewood Heights in Dallas, which is ground zero of the teardown-for-McMansion syndrome in that town.  

Who is unhappy about it?  Folks with aesthetic sensibility regarding the unity and cohesiveness of the neighborhood architecture.  The reason everyone gets upset about these monstrosities is that they are UGLY.  There's no way around ugly architecture that doesn't fit in with the fabric of the neighborhood.

This isn't tragic, but it is something to complain about.  And in my book, the complaints are legitimate.  I'll take some pictures if I have time.

Hey Floyd, I'm a little west of you in University Park and we are seeing the same thing on a frantic pace.  Hardly a week goes by that there's not another tear down but with lots going for insane amounts, it's not surprising.  Some of the houses really look out of place but UP recently implemented rules that say a house can't be more than 75% of the lot width, which is some help.  Any stricter and you are fighting a losing battle.
We lived in Midtown (25th and Columbia) in Tulsa for 2 years and I saw some infilling but nothing that looked really out of scale.  Where are the "McMansions" being built in Tulsa?  Some areas get designated Conservation Districts (M Streets here for example) and that helps quite a bit.

University Park is a great neighborhood.  Reminds me of Maple Ridge.  I agree: I'm also curious where the worst teardown building is occuring in Tulsa.  

To reply further to the original poster: I don't know what "large cities" you've observed, but in Dallas, the McMansion craze is developer driven, rather than owner-builder driven.  The result of this is twofold:  First, the developers tend to employ the same home architects over and over again, so that they get the high square footage, but also the same ugly garage frontage, tacky stonework, and totally out of proportion feel.  Second, there is a glut of these homes sitting vacant as a result of exuberant building.  There is a newly constructed 4000 sq ft McMonstrosity next to my 1800 sq ft bungalow that has been on the market for over 120 days.  The price has already dropped once by 10%.  I will be surprised if the builder gets any more than cost for his ill-conceived, ill-designed project.  The upside is that we don't have to worry about making extra noise on the weekends, because there are no neighbors next door to complain!

Here's an article in the Dallas Morning News that describes the phenomenon:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/classifieds/news/homecenter/realestate/stories/class020307dnbusteardowns.530fe8e5.html

quote:

---

A building boom in teardown homes has left the Dallas area with a growing inventory of unsold new homes in older neighborhoods.  

---

(http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/img/v3/02-03-2007.NB_03TEARDOWN.GVE22UQAI.1.jpg)

The stewards of Tulsa neighborhoods should be on watch: they're next.

Disgusting. The picture should be shown to as many current residents of old neighborhoods as possible. I had no intention of joining the midtown preservation group but after reading the moronic drivel the thinly disguised infill builders are posting, I'm thinking again.

The city of Nichols Hills, known for its older mansions anwyay, has placed a moratorium on all new construction until it can decide what to about this very problem.

To those who detest McMansions however... Is there any way that someone can build a new mansion without it being deemed derogatorily as a "Mc" Mansion? Do large homes have a mandatory aging period before they become acceptable?

I'm considering the tear down option for my house near downtown Tulsa because it has so many problems.  According to my research, my house was built in 1919 or 1920.  The oldest house on the street was built in the 1880s, but most of the other houses and apartments were built in the 1920s.

A newly planned house would work well on my lot.  The neighborhood has a cohesiveness which could be ruined by insensitive infill, but of course any infill of mine would respect the context of the area.

Wish I had kept this photo I found of a large infill home next to a small older home. It was actually of a great example of what good infill can look like. The home was the same style as the one next to it, bungalow actually. It was larger but not out of scale. They broke up the wall planes of the large structure to make it not look too big. The neighborhood still had its same feel, better I would say. The property values probably went up just as much, or more. There is a "kinder gentler" way to do infill that benefits everyone, keeps the character, and improves an area without seeing jarring examples like the one above.

quote:

---

Originally posted by OKC_Shane

The city of Nichols Hills, known for its older mansions anwyay, has placed a moratorium on all new construction until it can decide what to about this very problem.

To those who detest McMansions however... Is there any way that someone can build a new mansion without it being deemed derogatorily as a "Mc" Mansion? Do large homes have a mandatory aging period before they become acceptable?

---

While everyone has their own definition of what is a "McMansion", IMO, it does not apply to every large, new house.  As the name suggests, it refers to houses that are mass-produced and cheaply built.  You go to McDonalds to get filled up quickly & cheaply--no thought about long term consequences or taste.  A McMansion is all about being big and trendy, without any care to its surroundings, or its lasting value.  There are houses that are new and large that fit in very nicely.

Potomac: Well, I didn't move into an old neighborhood to see it compromised with people of little imagination and voracious appetites for money. I'll rent mine to trailer trash who'll park RV's and monster trucks on the street, let their pit bulls run unchained and sell meth to your bratty children. I'll find another neighborhood to explore. Maybe Brady, maybe Reservoir or some pocket neighborhood. Once the character homes are all gone and you're left with huge slow selling stucco and brass monuments to temporary self importance, we can use them for museums or run an expressway to your next big adventure in money making.

Get real. Who needs a 3500ft home like the monster being remodeled on Peoria near 31st? Assuming you are so important as to entertain dignitaries, there isn't enough room for your limos and security so close in. Be like the truly rich and build a compound with lots of land to insulate you more effectively. Large mansions of this size are already existing in the hood if you need to impress, entertain or enjoy the old world character.

And, thanks, for helping me tap into the once buried enmity I have for shallow nouveau riche predator types who think its cool to put a chevy v-8 in a classic Jaguar. Real wealthy people seldom think about money, those without it or new to it are constantly thinking of it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by booWorld

I'm considering the tear down option for my house near downtown Tulsa because it has so many problems.  According to my research, my house was built in 1919 or 1920.  The oldest house on the street was built in the 1880s, but most of the other houses and apartments were built in the 1920s.

A newly planned house would work well on my lot.  The neighborhood has a cohesiveness which could be ruined by insensitive infill, but of course any infill of mine would respect the context of the area.

---

I would love to know where a house built in the 1880's exists in Tulsa. I thought the prairie house on exhibit over at Owen park was the oldest still existing residence in Tulsa and it dates to the late 1880's. Tell me more about your hood. Mine was built in 1919 and the construction is quite robust but haven't found any problems that were insurmountable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

Who needs a 3500ft home like the monster being remodeled on Peoria near 31st?

---

I'll jump out on the limb and say that 3500 square feet does not automatically make you a mansion.  I live with a family of three in a house of about 1400 sq feet and its TIGHT.  We have a nice sized bedroom and living room area and my sons room is fine for him.  Otherwise, our dining room is small, our kitchen tiny, our "guest bedroom/office/store crap here room is just big enough for a computer desk and aerobed,  and our single bath is just big enough to serve its purpose.

If we have another child there is NO WAY we can live in this house.  Unless I moved out computer desk into the dining room (which JUST fits our table, so we'd have to throw it away, no eating area in the kitchen either).  Or perhaps the living room (which just fits entertainment center, couch and chair... so we'd have to throw away our couch I guess).

Basically, when you take 1400 square feet and take up room with a refrigerator, a stove, some cabinets, washer, dryer, furnace, water heater and on and on... the house is not that big.  There are no basements here to store things, so storage takes up more space.  It is impossible in my house to be more than 20 feet from anyone in the house - that will be a problem when my son is a teenager.

In Iowa, where I am from, most houses have a basement and a second story.  That would put my house in the "McMansion" range you describe for usable Square Footage.  Who knew everyone in Iowa was so rich they all lived in mansions... my parents, sister, and every relative I can think of all have mansions (most costing less than 200,000 - whoohoo!).

Anyway.  I have a nice little house.  But doubling its size would give me a place for a pool table.  A second bathroom. A proper guest bedroom.  These are luxuries, but I do not think they rise to the level of mansion.

I was referring to the sign advertising the 3500ft home on Peoria. I doubt that includes his basement.

My neighbor has a two story with basement and detached two car garage and comfortably raised a family with three kids. Only 2400ft. You would be surprised how much that third or fourth bedroom and second bath adds to functionality. His basement is like a huge utility room. I did the same thing with 1900ft. Regardless of how much work we've done to our properties, we are both candidates for infill.

Most people are not aware of the cost of maintaining a large home. Building it, living in it and selling it for profit are one thing, but these high rollers sell before its time to replace that huge roof, or when the water pipe heated tile floor bursts, or the exterior needs painting. The same reason they lease the Mercedes instead of buying it. The car is probably leased on the company books. Mortgage bankers will make the loans because they need to. Owners have been led to believe that these homes are investments that they get to live in. But there is little left over for maintenance, repair and improvement. A sudden change in employment/family status or flattening of their income and it all falls apart. That may be what drives the real estate market and what scares the stock market.

We're just the next investment on their horizon.

Note: there are many large appearing homes in Maple Ridge that in reality are 2500sq ft or less. They sit shallow on their lots.

A builder once told me that there's quite a better margin in a McMansion than in a starter home.  He said, "The materials are more, but the labor cost isn't that much more than a small house.  I make more money on the bigger house."

Overall, it seems to me that newer construction is slapdash and flawed.  Most new houses come with the same crappy, thin-gauge brass light fixtures (for example) that Home Depot and Lowe's sell.  It's junk.

Compare also the quality of lumber.  Put a drywall screw into a modern stud, then a stud from 50 years ago or more and tell me what you'd rather live in.  Pick up a solid hardwood chair from 1920 then it's modern equivalent...  An old 2x4 weighs noticeably more than a modern one - denser wood, it seems logical that it'd be stronger as well.

Of course, most of the cheaply built houses from 'the old days' have been torn down, leaving only quality construction.  Still, lumber quality has definitely gone downhill.

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

Potomac: Well, I didn't move into an old neighborhood to see it compromised with people of little imagination and voracious appetites for money. I'll rent mine to trailer trash who'll park RV's and monster trucks on the street, let their pit bulls run unchained and sell meth to your bratty children. I'll find another neighborhood to explore. Maybe Brady, maybe Reservoir or some pocket neighborhood. Once the character homes are all gone and you're left with huge slow selling stucco and brass monuments to temporary self importance, we can use them for museums or run an expressway to your next big adventure in money making.

Get real. Who needs a 3500ft home like the monster being remodeled on Peoria near 31st? Assuming you are so important as to entertain dignitaries, there isn't enough room for your limos and security so close in. Be like the truly rich and build a compound with lots of land to insulate you more effectively. Large mansions of this size are already existing in the hood if you need to impress, entertain or enjoy the old world character.

And, thanks, for helping me tap into the once buried enmity I have for shallow nouveau riche predator types who think its cool to put a chevy v-8 in a classic Jaguar. Real wealthy people seldom think about money, those without it or new to it are constantly thinking of it.

---

First of all, they may call them McMansions but mansions they are not. If you think they are mansions you need to check out Greenwich, CT or Atherton, CA.

They are typically homes for up and coming professionals – Dr’s, lawyers, finance people, etc who do not want 1,500 ft2 and bad bathrooms.
Quality varies – I have lived in three of these homes in the past 7 yrs in three cities. One was average to fair quality and the other two were built well. Size was 3,400 to 3,600 ft2 (me, my wife and cat). We don’t find that to be exceptionally large – who wants to be cramped?

I found your other statements ridiculous—like “voracious appetites for money” Checked Wall Street lately? Everyone has the appetite, some are just better at satisfying it than others.

quote:

---

Originally posted by potomac13

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

Potomac: Well, I didn't move into an old neighborhood to see it compromised with people of little imagination and voracious appetites for money. I'll rent mine to trailer trash who'll park RV's and monster trucks on the street, let their pit bulls run unchained and sell meth to your bratty children. I'll find another neighborhood to explore. Maybe Brady, maybe Reservoir or some pocket neighborhood. Once the character homes are all gone and you're left with huge slow selling stucco and brass monuments to temporary self importance, we can use them for museums or run an expressway to your next big adventure in money making.

Get real. Who needs a 3500ft home like the monster being remodeled on Peoria near 31st? Assuming you are so important as to entertain dignitaries, there isn't enough room for your limos and security so close in. Be like the truly rich and build a compound with lots of land to insulate you more effectively. Large mansions of this size are already existing in the hood if you need to impress, entertain or enjoy the old world character.

And, thanks, for helping me tap into the once buried enmity I have for shallow nouveau riche predator types who think its cool to put a chevy v-8 in a classic Jaguar. Real wealthy people seldom think about money, those without it or new to it are constantly thinking of it.

---

First of all, they may call them McMansions but mansions they are not. If you think they are mansions you need to check out Greenwich, CT or Atherton, CA.

They are typically homes for up and coming professionals – Dr’s, lawyers, finance people, etc who do not want 1,500 ft2 and bad bathrooms.
Quality varies – I have lived in three of these homes in the past 7 yrs in three cities. One was average to fair quality and the other two were built well. Size was 3,400 to 3,600 ft2 (me, my wife and cat). We don’t find that to be exceptionally large – who wants to be cramped?

I found your other statements ridiculous—like “voracious appetites for money” Checked Wall Street lately? Everyone has the appetite, some are just better at satisfying it than others.

---

Now there's some bs. You keep using the lower end of old home sizes with less than adequate facility. I worked on mansions when I was younger. I live in walking distance from a few. We have very little really large mansions like 31st & Lewis, 41st & Lewis etc. Most of what you describe and what people refer to as mansions of course are not.

Like I say, if you need 3500 ft for you your cat and your wife, and you find our neighborhoods irresistable, those homes are available north of 41st all the way to Reservoir Hill and in excellent modern condition. No need to ransack existing neighborhoods to feed your need.

quote:

---

Originally posted by potomac13

4.   Not the McMansion’s neighbor – he is now thinking about selling his overpriced lot for a teardown

---

This remark is very naive and simplistic.  Not all of us buy our homes (principal residence) with investment potential in mind.  We buy a house because we like it, we like the neighborhood, desire roots for our families,  and want to live there for a long time.

I bought my first home in Tulsa's Lortondale neighborhood (26th St. South & Yale Ave.) in April 1987.  I still live in that house today.  I intend to live in that house until I die or can no longer adequately maintain it.  I bought in Lortondale because I love the mid-twientieth century modern architecture, the historic value of the neighborhood, the scale and harmony of all the neighboring homes, and the mid-town location.

Fortunately, Lortondale has yet to experience the tear-down and McMansion phenomenon, but it may very well rear its ugly head one day.  I hope I don't live to see this.  My house is a big part of who I am, an expression of my personal tastes, and my ties to Tulsa and our community.  When did our homes become strictly $ investments, with no thought to stability, style, quality of life, and our roots?

There seems to be quite a large number of "newbie" posters here, posting on this and similar subjects, in favor of the trash & rebuild philosophy.  I wonder if developers and "big business" types aren't invading here and other Tulsa forums to try to sway public opinion toward the almighty $, and history and preservation be damned.  Seems that way to me.  If so, you guys are in for quite a fight.

Are you talking about the home that is right on peoria with the round turret in the middle? If so I think that is a great addition to an old home. I wouldnt put it in the Mc Mansion category. I would rather see those homes added on to with matching architecture than destroyed and replaced.  I would say its a good example of what we would like to see more of. My only caveat is that in a rendering I saw the new home may have stuccoe instead of what I think it had before which was brick. However the roofing is the same, the windows, doors, wall planes, and other details are of the same scale and proportions as the original home and other old homes in the neighborhood.

There is another home nearby that was of a similar style that was recently added on to as well. If a person didnt know otherwise they would have no Idea that the new addition wasnt original to the old home.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

Are you talking about the home that is right on peoria with the round turret in the middle? If so I think that is a great addition to an old home. I wouldnt put it in the Mc Mansion category. I would rather see those homes added on to with matching architecture than destroyed and replaced.  I would say its a good example of what we would like to see more of. My only caveat is that in a rendering I saw the new home may have stuccoe instead of what I think it had before which was brick. However the roofing is the same, the windows, doors, wall planes, and other details are of the same scale and proportions as the original home and other old homes in the neighborhood.

There is another home nearby that was of a similar style that was recently added on to as well. If a person didnt know otherwise they would have no Idea that the new addition wasnt original to the old home.

---

I should have used a word other than "monster". I only used it to refer to the size of the home. It was already a pretty good sized home and yes, an attractive brick with a much different look. But I have no problem with what they've done because of where it is and how its done.

Just what passes for McMansion seems to be a point of confusion and as you have pointed out depends on correct scale etc.

These are undoubtedly developer/builder plants posting on here to whip up a frenzy for raping established neighborhoods. They don't respond much to direct questions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by potomac13

Quote

Originally posted by waterboy

I found your other statements ridiculous—like “voracious appetites for money” Checked Wall Street lately? Everyone has the appetite, some are just better at satisfying it than others.

---

Well of course you're right. I should have used the word "gluttonous" instead of voracious. Do you face the East when you drop to your knees to pray to the gods of Wall Street?

For a good example of how to do infill, wouldn't the new homes in Brady Heights be good example? I don't know of they were good investments for the builders, but they are spacious, and are nearly indistinguishable from the early 1900 homes in the neighborhood.

Sometimes I wish I had the conveniences of a newer home (mine was built in 1920), but I would have to live in a neighborhood devoid of the character of the one in which I currently reside.

It's shameful that we tear down everything when it gets old. Such a waste.

quote:

---

Originally posted by tulsascoot

Sometimes I wish I had the conveniences of a newer home (mine was built in 1920), but I would have to live in a neighborhood devoid of the character of the one in which I currently reside.

---

Mine was built in 1929, but I lucked out because the previous owner essentially gutted the inside and replaced everything (drywall, plumbing, electrical, etc.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by TURobY

quote:

---

Originally posted by tulsascoot

Sometimes I wish I had the conveniences of a newer home (mine was built in 1920), but I would have to live in a neighborhood devoid of the character of the one in which I currently reside.

---

Mine was built in 1929, but I lucked out because the previous owner essentially gutted the inside and replaced everything (drywall, plumbing, electrical, etc.)

---

I love my plaster walls. It took some getting used to and an understanding of why they are superior but now we get along just fine. I hang large pictures with wire from the picture rail at the top of the ceiling, smaller ones I look for a stud.

The paper on drywall is flammable and the finish is never really smooth. Thats why roller nap is designed to leave a variety of textures. "Real" smooth is not one of them. You can feel and hear the difference when you walk into a finished plastered home vs a sheetrock. I love the natural wave just like old wavy glass. Its just part of the ambiance, personal taste I guess. Sometimes it is unavoidable to have to replace it when it buckles or was poorly installed or you're remodeling but its a good finish.

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

quote:

---

Originally posted by potomac13

Quote

Originally posted by waterboy

I found your other statements ridiculous—like “voracious appetites for money” Checked Wall Street lately? Everyone has the appetite, some are just better at satisfying it than others.

---

Well of course you're right. I should have used the word "gluttonous" instead of voracious. Do you face the East when you drop to your knees to pray to the gods of Wall Street?

---

Sooner or later, everyone prays to the gods of Wall Street - you included.

Thanks for stopping by, Gordon Gekko.  Run along now and build your ugly houses in the suburbs where they belong.

I live in a home built in 1920's. The overhang is so large I can leave the windows open during a driving rain. The high ceilings and plaster walls retain the cool from the air conditioning and keep my electric bills low.  

When I moved into my home in the 198o's I had a window unit and even with that (it was an old Fedders)my electric bills were half as much as my friends who lived in newer homes. In the spring we would sleep with our windows open and the attic fan pulling in the cool air. In the morning we would shut the windows and the house would remain cool for the rest of the day.

You can't do that with modern construction.
I do not know why these huge houses are being built when we all know the day of cheap energy has already passed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy


I would love to know where a house built in the 1880's exists in Tulsa.

---

To make way for the construction of the former county courthouse about 100 years ago, one of the Perryman homes was moved from its original location near 6th and Boulder to its current location at 1313 South Elwood.  The original portion of the house is approximately 120 years old.

I suppose there are scattered remnants of late 1880's homes re-cycled into garages and additions around old town. The home next to me once sat where PSO's offices are now. But I was hoping there was a neighborhood that may have several intact homes from the period.

I love Elwood.

quote:

---

Originally posted by potomac13

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

quote:

---

Originally posted by potomac13

Quote

Originally posted by waterboy

others.

---

---

Sooner or later, everyone prays to the gods of Wall Street - you included.

---

Sorry, no. There are no gods on Wall Street. Pseudo idols? yeah, plenty. Don't cross culturalize. Just because you enjoy the market, and apparently do well with it, doesn't mean we all do. The market is for most of us an indication of the health of the economy and an ocassional chance to participate in it. I made lots of money in it and lost lots too. Hmm, just like the Indian casinos, go figure. You should research the % of players from the general population especially those who are not using employee retirement funds to participate.

There's a story in today's edition of USA Today talking about McMansions and what some cities are doing.  I think Atlanta's zoning ordinance is similar to that in Tulsa... and it's not a good one.. or at least, an incomplete one.  Allowing people to build larger homes on larger lots just encourages people to buy up two lots instead of one, furthering the McMansion developments it was aimed at stopping.

And what happened in Edina, Minn. is really upsetting...and not uncommon.  I think Austin is headed in the right direction on this issue...

Anyway, here is the article:

quote:

---

Cities block bulky homes on little lots

A small house like the one on the left was torn down to make way for the big house on the right in Bethesda, Md. In a hot market, developers and homeowners who want to cash in on skyrocketing property values are pitted against preservationists and longtime residents who don't want to move.

By Haya El Nasser, USA TODAY


Cities continue to rein in "teardowns" of old houses and the giant homes that replace them despite a housing slump that has slowed construction.

The outcry over huge new homes squeezed onto small lots has not let up. Residents are angry because expensive new homes raise property taxes. Neighbors resent the shadow they cast over their older, modest bungalows and ramblers. Preservationists say they destroy the historical character of neighborhoods.

"If communities are thinking teardowns are in their future, now is a golden time to go in and try to deal with that," before prices go through the roof again and "people get greedy," says Lane Kendig, president of Kendig Keast Collaborative, a planning consulting firm based in Chicago.

These giant homes, derided as McMansions, monster homes and "edifice rex," do have cities responding:

•The Atlanta City Council approved a zoning ordinance last week that bans the construction of giant homes on small lots. In a compromise to appease builders, real estate agents, residents and planners, the city links the size of a home to the size of the lot. That allows big homes on big lots and small homes on small lots.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Chicago | Cities | BETHESDA | Preservationists

•Edina, Minn., a Minneapolis suburb filled with rambler-style homes from the 1940s and '50s, changed its zoning in June after a spate of teardowns in the past three years. The city requires larger setbacks on narrow lots to limit the size of new homes, says Cary Teague, planning director.

"We were seeing a lot of builders tearing homes down and bringing in fill to build up the house for a walkout basement," he says. "Now, it can't be raised more than 1 foot from the existing foundation."

Homes as small as 1,200 square feet are being replaced with homes of up to 6,000 square feet. One just sold for $1.8 million, Teague says.

•Austin approved a so-called McMansion ordinance last year that limits the size and height of homes that replace teardowns.

"It hurts the neighborhood when those things are plunked down next to an older, smaller home," says Gwen Jewiss, president of the West Austin Neighborhood Group. There have been myriad teardowns in Austin.

The city ordinance was unsuccessfully contested, but Councilman Brewster McCracken, who sponsored it, said it may undergo some minor tweaks.

Last year, the National Trust for Historic Preservation identified 300 communities in 33 states that experienced a rash of teardowns. The group is drafting an online teardown resource guide that includes sample ordinances from across the USA.

"Throughout the country, we are working with communities to help them figure what the right tools are for them," says Adrian Fine, director of the trust's northeast field office.

Teardowns are most common in old urban neighborhoods and suburbs close to city limits because they're near shops and jobs. New buyers want new and larger homes.

"Everybody jumped on the bandwagon because real estate was going up," says Vince Bernardi, president of Rob-Lynn Construction in Lombard, Ill., outside of Chicago. Bernardi has done numerous teardowns in Elmhurst, another Chicago suburb, where he estimates an average 200 homes a year are knocked down and replaced "with as much as we can get on the lot."

The pace has slowed, he says. He bought an old house for $355,000 two years ago and replaced it with a large home. It's been on the market 18 months.

"The house is sitting there at $1.2 million," Bernardi says. "There are no buyers."

In a hot market, developers and homeowners who want to cash in on skyrocketing property values are pitted against preservation groups and longtime residents who don't want to move.

"For planners, the real time to address the potential for teardowns is probably 10 years before the market starts to target a neighborhood," Kendig says.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

Tell me more about your hood.

---

I've posted many times about my neighborhood.  At the risk of boring you and others with the subject, I am hesitant to spend time telling you more about it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by booWorld

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

Tell me more about your hood.

---

I've posted many times about my neighborhood.  At the risk of boring you and others with the subject, I am hesitant to spend time telling you more about it.

---

Don't be so sensitive. I didn't mean you were boring. You were using a device of asking the same question over and over even though you knew they weren't going to answer. They weren't going to answer because they were exaggerating. The whole thing was boring. My apology if I jerked your chain too hard.

I think booWorld lives in Riverview like I do. My house was built in 1909 with old growth wood and it is the coolest looking craftsman. My street has not experienced tear downs for replacement homes, most of the old homes are being meticulously restored. Now the surrounding streets have seen plenty of tear downs in favor of parking lots.

quote:

---

Originally posted by carltonplace

I think booWorld lives in Riverview like I do.

---

Yes, I've lived in Riverview since 1989.  Off the top of my head, I can't think of any McMansions built in Riverview since I've lived here.  The two houses at the southeast corner of 16th and Carson might come the closest to being "McMansions" but I seriously doubt if they violate zoning regulations in regards to setback and height.  Compared to the looming scale and character of Liberty Tower, University Club Tower, Metro Lofts, and Mansion House, those two houses blend well with the existing neighborhood.  I've noticed tear-downs for commercial use or for parking lots, but McMansions aren't a current problem in Riverview.

Since BooWorld is reviving so many stalled discussions, please allow me to nominate this one as the poster child for current bad infill:

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8113