120 new Brady District Lofts + retail

[Moderator]

quote:Originally posted by unknown

Can we get someone to clean up that huge oscn link? it is making the thread a pain in the donkey to read... or is it just me?

You're welcome.  Thank you for identifying the problem!

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

quote:Originally posted by Double A
Only when you are not he one spewing it or it is about the administration that you are a toadie for. You are a walking contradiction, you ain't got no right. Maybe it's da Mare's fault.

Speaking of accusatory, defensive, suspicious and angry...

Righteous indignation and condemnation of the naked tyranny of Empress Kathy's and Emperor Kaiser's evil fascist empire. It's like Martin Luther at the Castle Church door or Jesus in the temple casting out the pharisees. Both great naysayers of their time, btw. Ya better believe it, babe.

If you're having girl problems, I feel bad for ya son.
I've got 99 problems, but being Kathy Taylor's b#*ch ain't one.

God you're an idiot.

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by TURobY

Tulsa Development Authority ends negotiations on project in proposed ballpark area
- [Tulsa World]

quote:
Everyone interested in downtown revitalization should have a seat at the table, Taylor said. But the future development around the ballpark site has to amount to "a beautifully woven fabric."

Taylor expressed disappointment with what surrounds the new BOK Center, citing the Tulsa County Sheriff's Office and Storey Wrecker.

With the proposed ballpark, "the time to address this is now," she said.

I recall a lengthy thread on this forum right after the Vision 2025 vote about the best location for the arena. Many people remarked about the drawbacks of the site that was chosen. I think someone even suggested the site now being discussed as the ballpark site, because it was close to existing entertainment areas and OSU-Tulsa.

The way to address the concern about nearby future development is first to pick a site that is already near the kind of development you want -- they've done that by picking the Archer/Elgin site -- and, second, to establish a special zoning district around the ballpark with design and development standards and a means for enforcement. Oklahoma City established such a district in and around Bricktown.

Design standards for downtown were part of the Downtown Tulsa CORE Recommendations:

quote:
District One of the City of Tulsa's Comprehensive Plan, the Central Business District (CBD), is a district that deserves special consideration; as such, we should develop District Standards for design review to ensure compatible, high-quality development and redevelopment. Recommendations of the existing Comprehensive Plan for District One (downtown) such as district design standards and review should be revisited for present use and coordinated with the Comprehensive Plan Update.

When the CORE Recommendations came under attack from a major downtown property owner and from DTU, Mayor Taylor might have supported the idea and helped to move it forward. Instead, her aide, Susan Neal, encouraged the recommendations to be shelved.

[Conan71]

Michael,

Not playing devil's advocate here, just relaying one aspect of ball park costs which will be a higher cost than Springdale if we contract now to build it.  

According to one of our vendors, steel prices have gone up by 87% since Jan. 1 this year.  I believe it's about double what it was a year ago.  There is a possibility of prices falling this fall, but that has been rumored since spring that steel prices would retreat and they have not as of yet.

Our finished product costs have gone up in the neighborhood of 15 to 33% this year, depending on the vendor.  Most of what we sell are labor-intensive finished goods, that's why the price of the product itself has not nearly doubled with the price of steel.  My shipping costs have about doubled in a year also on any truck freight we ship around the country.

So, there's one other reason to consider why our ballpark may wind up costing more, along with higher diesel costs for construction equipment than what they would have been paying on the project in Springdale.  Unfortunately, with out of control commodity markets, it makes it a lot harder to compare costs from one recent finished project to one which would be finished in a couple of years.  At least without the help of a scientific calculator. []

IOW- it's not out of the question that we might spend 20 to 30% more to construct an identical ballpark if land aquisition costs and every other variable were identical to that of the Springdale park, based on today's prices for materials and fuel.

[carltonplace]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

I'm sorry Will. I hope you will find another downtown spot for this development (lots of empty parking lots over at 10th and Cheyenne/Denver or around TCC). You have more support for this type of developement than you think, too bad its public support not city support.

Unfortunately, the land around 10th and Cheyenne and Denver is owned by Twenty First Properties / Embark, and they don't seem to want to do much with it. And TCC seems quite happy with its surface parking lots.

That sucks. Will come on up to Uptown. Boulder Towers has more parking lots than it needs. You can build on both sides of 15th between Carson and Cheyenne.

[TheArtist]

I still dont get what they apparently expect is going to happen around the ballpark? What is it that the TDA thinks is going to be better that the Wilkinsons couldnt improve their development to be like or that could go in those other spaces nearby?  This finely woven fabric, is that to be one huge developer? Many small ones?  If its the former I can understand wanting a lot of land because thats one of the reasons previous developments have fallen through because they couldnt get all the property they needed. But here they are saying they will use eminent domain and there is other property by the 120 lofts site that can be used. If its small developments.... what are the criteria such that the 120 lofts are not a good fit anywhere in the development area? Cause surely the 120 loft people would have traded for another spot if it was deemed that the spot they have now is "needed" to make everything work.

Nothing the TDA or the Mayor is saying makes any sense. Sounds like they are grasping at straws or are just completely oblivious.

They are giving us this "Why cant we all get along and do whats best for everyone and the city." plea. But its been them who have shoved aside the hand the Wilkinsons had been extending in order to try to find a fair, sporting, "gentlemanly" solution. Someone should have said to the Wilkinsons... "Hey, we really feel like we need that spot in order for this project to work. Here is why.... We know you have done a lot of work so far, can we work together and (find another spot in the development, or make design changes, or collaborate on making it better to fit what we think is needed, etc. etc.) There are all kinds of possibilities that would have been the proper way to go.

I was brought up that if you make an agreement, say your going to do something. You abide by that, even if it becomes difficult to do so, even if you become hurt by doing so. You keep your word! Even if its not written, you do the right thing by people. These developers were there first, were doing the right things, and whether anyone else likes it or not, whether its convenient or not. You do the right thing by them, and for yourself. Not to mention in this case there are plenty of opportunities to work this out for the benefit of everyone. Not just blow them off and treat them like dirt.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

I'm sorry Will. I hope you will find another downtown spot for this development (lots of empty parking lots over at 10th and Cheyenne/Denver or around TCC). You have more support for this type of developement than you think, too bad its public support not city support.

Unfortunately, the land around 10th and Cheyenne and Denver is owned by Twenty First Properties / Embark, and they don't seem to want to do much with it. And TCC seems quite happy with its surface parking lots.

That sucks. Will come on up to Uptown. Boulder Towers has more parking lots than it needs. You can build on both sides of 15th between Carson and Cheyenne.

Its not just a matter of finding any ol spot thats available. The 120 lofts wasnt just lofts, it was also wanting to be part of a walkable, pedestrian friendly area with its shops and restaurants on the ground floor. It may have been wanting to be the first step in such an area, but it was in an area that had good potential for "reinforcing" compatible development to go around it.  Where other similar development was likely to follow. Unfortunately 15th street in that location, isnt likely to see that kind of development in a long long time, if ever. You can argue that, but if you were the developer and it was your time and money, you might be more careful with your arguments. Also they now potentially have a hotel as part of their development, it too will want to be near the activity, so to speak.

I think the 120 lofts project would do well just about anywhere in the Greenwood/Blue Dome/Brady Arts, areas. And the TDA and the donors should be doing the right thing since they werent willing to let the 120 lofts project continue in the old location. Whether they believe its for the "greater good" or not. They should still do the right thing by these developers.

These donors for instance, are prominent leaders in our community. They should be leading, setting a good example, and treating people fairly and magnanimously. Especially towards those who, like themselves, are trying to do good things for Tulsa.

[Rico]

One question...?

I know of the infill development that Novus has done in Brady Heights... very nice.

Part of the "disclosure statement/redevelopment proposal ,provided by TDA, wants to know of "three recent commercial or residential projects completed by the redeveloper and the dates of completion."

Furthermore; they request the name and address of the lending institutions utilized by the developer for the past projects.?

The lending institution and contact for the proposed redevelopment.?

The name address etc. of the person directly in charge of of the construction and completion of the proposed redevelopment..?  


Just wondering.....
if you or I were filling this out.... Or one of the builders I am acquainted with were to fill this out.... and there just was not a comparable project with the info submitted.

How far of a reach would it be for the folks to request the following?

quote>Two days later, Leon Davis E-mailed Will Wilkins with a list of 20 items that they must provide to TDA attorney Darven Brown by the Sept. 4 deadline.

The list includes a number of items that they had never seen the TDA request prior to a development contract: "Proposed construction sequencing/phasing.... Preliminary engineering study.... Letter(s) of commitment [from financiers].... Operating pro forma for first 5 years."

Most of these items would be dependent on the completion of construction documents for the project, a process that would involve spending about $400,000 with architects and engineers, too much money to put at risk with no assurance of a contract.<end quote.

Finally.... Did Novus tell TDA they would not provide TDA with the info without a contract in place?

[MDepr2007]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Michael,

Not playing devil's advocate here, just relaying one aspect of ball park costs which will be a higher cost than Springdale if we contract now to build it.  

According to one of our vendors, steel prices have gone up by 87% since Jan. 1 this year.  I believe it's about double what it was a year ago.  There is a possibility of prices falling this fall, but that has been rumored since spring that steel prices would retreat and they have not as of yet.

Our finished product costs have gone up in the neighborhood of 15 to 33% this year, depending on the vendor.  Most of what we sell are labor-intensive finished goods, that's why the price of the product itself has not nearly doubled with the price of steel.  My shipping costs have about doubled in a year also on any truck freight we ship around the country.

So, there's one other reason to consider why our ballpark may wind up costing more, along with higher diesel costs for construction equipment than what they would have been paying on the project in Springdale.  Unfortunately, with out of control commodity markets, it makes it a lot harder to compare costs from one recent finished project to one which would be finished in a couple of years.  At least without the help of a scientific calculator. []

IOW- it's not out of the question that we might spend 20 to 30% more to construct an identical ballpark if land aquisition costs and every other variable were identical to that of the Springdale park, based on today's prices for materials and fuel.

Every year the price of steel has risen lately. For some reason alot of the parks built are still close to the same and not 20% to 30% more than the year before parks.

[TheLofts@120]

Rico, thanks for the compliments regarding the residences built in Brady Heights.  I have always felt it important to keep high-quality, design conscious infill in mind when developing or redeveloping in any particular area.  

With regards to your questions, the TDA was provided the "disclosure statement/redevelopment proposal" on January 2, 2008, when we first entered into the exclusive negotiation agreement/period.  It included all the requested information you referred to.  Additionally, I have completed 3 residential infill projects directly with the TDA over the last 3 years.  We also proposed a commercial/office complex just North of Pine & Cincinnatti last year, but that fell through when we could not gain a consensus among the surrounding homeowners when it came to the design and we didnt want to upset anyone.  

TDA was made aware of our primary lender as they were also the lender in all 3 direct transactions.  Additionally, I had informed TDA's Leon Davis at the April 17, 2008, meeting that I had letters of interest from that lender (ONB) as well as BOK.  He said they werent needed at that time.  I did also state on the record during the meeting that those institutions were interested in the financing of the project (this was detailed in the meeting minutes).  The letters would have provided TDA with all the contact information.  

With regards to who would be directly responsible for the project, that was listed as myself.  

With regards to the 20 item list provided by Mr. Davis on July 9, 2008...During the previous day's meeting, the Board had only requested a ground level site plan.  Then an email with this request for 20 items was received.  25% of the list had already been provided, 2 items spoke to my personal finances (which is personal and invasive to even ask), not my company's.  The rest of the items are items that are standardly included in their base contract for redevelopment where a timeline is given to provide that information.  This information is gather at considerable cost and after an executed contract is considered to be a risk the developer is willing to take when all parties act in good faith.  Please bear i nmind that most of the items, in particular the personal financial ones, have never been asked of any developer prior to and never been a consideration on any previous land purchase and redevelopment project I have done with the TDA.  Also, to the best of my knowledge, none of this information was asked of the American REsidential Group for Ttribune II. In fact, they were allowed to contract before providing any exterior elevations, site plans, financials, etc.  Just to put this entire 'negotiation' in perspective.  

Again, the balance of information requested is a typical condition of their standard executed contract and we stated as much to them.  We went so far as to draft a contract using their form to spur negotiation and dialogue, all to no avail.  The requirement for negotiaton is that you have two willing parties that can come to the table and negotiate the various terms of the contract.  In this case, there was no such communication forthcoming from the TDA at all though we made several attempts.

Hope this helps answer your questions Rico.

Thanks
Will

[Rico]

Thanks for the response Will.

All I can say is it appears that TDA left themselves with quite a bit of "wiggle" room..

Just how stupid is the legal department for the City of Tulsa?

They put their foot in it and although they can wipe it off....the smell is still there.



[}:)]

[carltonplace]

quote:Originally posted by TheLofts@120

Rico, thanks for the compliments regarding the residences built in Brady Heights.  I have always felt it important to keep high-quality, design conscious infill in mind when developing or redeveloping in any particular area.  

With regards to your questions, the TDA was provided the "disclosure statement/redevelopment proposal" on January 2, 2008, when we first entered into the exclusive negotiation agreement/period.  It included all the requested information you referred to.  Additionally, I have completed 3 residential infill projects directly with the TDA over the last 3 years.  We also proposed a commercial/office complex just North of Pine & Cincinnatti last year, but that fell through when we could not gain a consensus among the surrounding homeowners when it came to the design and we didnt want to upset anyone.  

TDA was made aware of our primary lender as they were also the lender in all 3 direct transactions.  Additionally, I had informed TDA's Leon Davis at the April 17, 2008, meeting that I had letters of interest from that lender (ONB) as well as BOK.  He said they werent needed at that time.  I did also state on the record during the meeting that those institutions were interested in the financing of the project (this was detailed in the meeting minutes).  The letters would have provided TDA with all the contact information.  

With regards to who would be directly responsible for the project, that was listed as myself.  

With regards to the 20 item list provided by Mr. Davis on July 9, 2008...During the previous day's meeting, the Board had only requested a ground level site plan.  Then an email with this request for 20 items was received.  25% of the list had already been provided, 2 items spoke to my personal finances (which is personal and invasive to even ask), not my company's.  The rest of the items are items that are standardly included in their base contract for redevelopment where a timeline is given to provide that information.  This information is gather at considerable cost and after an executed contract is considered to be a risk the developer is willing to take when all parties act in good faith.  Please bear i nmind that most of the items, in particular the personal financial ones, have never been asked of any developer prior to and never been a consideration on any previous land purchase and redevelopment project I have done with the TDA.  Also, to the best of my knowledge, none of this information was asked of the American REsidential Group for Ttribune II. In fact, they were allowed to contract before providing any exterior elevations, site plans, financials, etc.  Just to put this entire 'negotiation' in perspective.  

Again, the balance of information requested is a typical condition of their standard executed contract and we stated as much to them.  We went so far as to draft a contract using their form to spur negotiation and dialogue, all to no avail.  The requirement for negotiaton is that you have two willing parties that can come to the table and negotiate the various terms of the contract.  In this case, there was no such communication forthcoming from the TDA at all though we made several attempts.

Hope this helps answer your questions Rico.

Thanks
Will

Will, I'm staggered. What you are bringing to the table is exactly what most of the people on this forum are looking for. Rebuilding homes in Brady Heights that compliment the style of existing structures, proposed mixed use developments in the Brady District that combine residential, entertainment, and retail. I wish more developers had your vision. We dream but you do.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by Rico

Thanks for the response Will.

All I can say is it appears that TDA left themselves with quite a bit of "wiggle" room..

Just how stupid is the legal department for the City of Tulsa?

They put their foot in it and although they can wipe it off....the smell is still there.



[}:)]

Oooh, that smell!
Can't ya smell that smell?

Just scratch the surface and sniff, it's an overpowering odor of the oligarchy, alright.

Somebody should market B.S. scented Kathy Taylor scratch-n-sniffs []

[Breadburner]

Someone else decided they want to do this project and Mr. Wilkins is getting the old end around.....Pretty sad...But it happens alot in this town.....

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Breadburner

Someone else decided they want to do this project and Mr. Wilkins is getting the old end around.....Pretty sad...But it happens alot in this town.....

Well, at least they could give him a courtesy reach-around while they are doing that...