15th and Troost - TMAPC this week

[OurTulsa]

quote:Originally posted by mac

It is Z-7102, OL/RM-2 to OH.

PonderInc you make a good point. There are no details about this project anywhere. In the exhibit it lists uses as "offices". INCOG staff is recommending a change in zoning from low intensity to high intensity without either knowing what the property will be used for or not revealing it. Is a high rise high intensity office building really appropriate in this area?

The comp plan recommends low intensity in this area and states that any thing more should be proposed as a PUD. With a PUD the public will have at least have an idea of what will go in.

We are going through a long process of updating our comp plan. Will the new one be disregarded by INCOG so blatantly as the current one?

In my opinion OH is best used in the downtown area and from what I am hearing, people are begging for developments there. Why place it in the middle of a residential/light office area without a vision of how it will mesh with its surroundings??

Keep in mind that our current Comp Plan is over 30 years old.  Times have changed.  While that corner might be marked for low intensity that consideration might have been consious of the residences immediately behind which are almost all completely gone now.  That neighborhood has changed.  While I would love a PUD there so details related to how the building relates to the street can be hashed out I think the zoning makes sense when considering the Utica corridor between Hillcrest and St. John and the site's location right on the BA!  Since this is a straight rezoning application there is no site plan...and even if there was the City couldn't hold him to it therefore it wouldn't be a basis for support or denial.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by OurTulsa

quote:Originally posted by mac

It is Z-7102, OL/RM-2 to OH.

PonderInc you make a good point. There are no details about this project anywhere. In the exhibit it lists uses as "offices". INCOG staff is recommending a change in zoning from low intensity to high intensity without either knowing what the property will be used for or not revealing it. Is a high rise high intensity office building really appropriate in this area?

The comp plan recommends low intensity in this area and states that any thing more should be proposed as a PUD. With a PUD the public will have at least have an idea of what will go in.

We are going through a long process of updating our comp plan. Will the new one be disregarded by INCOG so blatantly as the current one?

In my opinion OH is best used in the downtown area and from what I am hearing, people are begging for developments there. Why place it in the middle of a residential/light office area without a vision of how it will mesh with its surroundings??

Keep in mind that our current Comp Plan is over 30 years old.  Times have changed.  While that corner might be marked for low intensity that consideration might have been consious of the residences immediately behind which are almost all completely gone now.  That neighborhood has changed.  While I would love a PUD there so details related to how the building relates to the street can be hashed out I think the zoning makes sense when considering the Utica corridor between Hillcrest and St. John and the site's location right on the BA!  Since this is a straight rezoning application there is no site plan...and even if there was the City couldn't hold him to it therefore it wouldn't be a basis for support or denial.

Yes, it has changed, but it hasn't changed that much. OH is too high intensity for that area. This project should be done as a PUD. This is exaclty the type of project that should be going on in the CBD, not Cherry St. Why aren't developers interested in building projects like this there? Sell them the land the city is vacating for the Krystal Kastle.

[Rico]

So as I understand it... Bumgarner met with the residents in the area today.

Must have been uneventful...?

anyone now know what is to be built?


[}:)]

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by Rico

So as I understand it... Bumgarner met with the residents in the area today.

Must have been uneventful...?

anyone now know what is to be built?


[}:)]

If he gets this change he'll be allowed to do anything that is allowed under OH zoning(no height restrictions, btw). My understanding is it will be a 8 story building with structured parking.

[Double A]

Look at all the available property downtown that Bumgarner could be doing this development on without any hassles, zoning changes, public hearings, TMAPC or Council approval. Under the CBD zoning that exists on these properties the developer can do everything Bumgarner wants to do by right, without asking for the changes he is requesting for the Cherry St. location.

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by Rico

So as I understand it... Bumgarner met with the residents in the area today.

Must have been uneventful...?

anyone now know what is to be built?


[}:)]

If he gets this change he'll be allowed to do anything that is allowed under OH zoning(no height restrictions, btw). My understanding is it will be a 8 story building with structured parking.

Sounds like a Medical Building.

When Charles Norman argued the "Yorktown" affair... he referred to Utica between 11th St and 21st St as a "Medical/Hospital Corridor"..
In fact I believe he stated that to be the "original plan" for the street. Whether that is true or not I haven't a clue.....

Norman must be on vacation as Bumgarner has second chair "Brother Roy" arguing this one.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by Rico

So as I understand it... Bumgarner met with the residents in the area today.

Must have been uneventful...?

anyone now know what is to be built?


[}:)]

Bumgarner is zoning abuse personified.  When people think of undue influence of the wealthy, he is the poster child.  He owns half the council and most of the TMAPC.  No one will deny the **** what he wants.

He has a track record of finding properties in or near corridor districts and then arguing that they should have all existing restrictions stripped off and returned to something like CBD.

I agree with others, **** like this should be in CBD....but he wants his Philbrook penis envy lookalike **** to be close to his utica place monstrosity.....just wait, he'll turn all of 15th and utica area into the same socal italianate dreck.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by OurTulsa

quote:Originally posted by mac

It is Z-7102, OL/RM-2 to OH.

PonderInc you make a good point. There are no details about this project anywhere. In the exhibit it lists uses as "offices". INCOG staff is recommending a change in zoning from low intensity to high intensity without either knowing what the property will be used for or not revealing it. Is a high rise high intensity office building really appropriate in this area?

The comp plan recommends low intensity in this area and states that any thing more should be proposed as a PUD. With a PUD the public will have at least have an idea of what will go in.

We are going through a long process of updating our comp plan. Will the new one be disregarded by INCOG so blatantly as the current one?

In my opinion OH is best used in the downtown area and from what I am hearing, people are begging for developments there. Why place it in the middle of a residential/light office area without a vision of how it will mesh with its surroundings??

Keep in mind that our current Comp Plan is over 30 years old.  Times have changed.  While that corner might be marked for low intensity that consideration might have been consious of the residences immediately behind which are almost all completely gone now.  That neighborhood has changed.  While I would love a PUD there so details related to how the building relates to the street can be hashed out I think the zoning makes sense when considering the Utica corridor between Hillcrest and St. John and the site's location right on the BA!  Since this is a straight rezoning application there is no site plan...and even if there was the City couldn't hold him to it therefore it wouldn't be a basis for support or denial.

you sound just like one of Bumgarner's cronies in front of the TMAPC.

[TheArtist]

I would like to see him develop in downtown as well. Would have liked to have seen the Bomasada development go downtown as well.

BUT, downtown is not as attractive a location. Its all about location, location, location. Until downtown turns into the kind of place where these developers will want to go... all the available property in the world wont make a difference. That location on Utica is a great location, near a beautiful wealthy area, near the trendy Cherry Street, etc. Whats downtown in those areas you point to, to make it as attractive?

Sad thing is, the one developer who was wanting to build something new down there "The 120 lofts"  is being treated like crap and given the runaround.

Its like the cartoon dam that is springing leaks. You stick your finger in one hole, then a bit over another leak happens, stick a different finger in that one, then yet another leak starts, and so on.

Downtown is difficult to develop in and not as attractive. The finger is firmly held on that hole so developers "leaks" look for other areas, the best areas are around Utica, Cherry Street and Brookside. So the developments "leaks" happen there. You block them and the next leak is going to be in the suburbs,,, not downtown. If we could get downtown going it would take a lot of pressure off Brookside and Cherry Street and make it easier to hold the line there. You could indeed say "why dont you build downtown" you cant honestly say that now, because its not attractive, its not a "fair" or in any way desirable exchange.

After having watched Brookside and Cherry street struggle for decades, go into decline, shops and restaurants close and sit empty, then move up a bit, then stagnate again and now both seeing steady growth. I am happy to see growth. My fear is that if we hinder what people are wanting to do there, we wont see it anywhere because at any time the economy will collapse again. So to me its like, lets get something versus getting nothing. We can argue about appropriatness of these developments, but I personally dont mind the ones I have seen so far, so have no incentive to stop them. If there were options downtown or other desirable areas then I could reasonably say "why not build it here instead?" But since there arent those options... and I am faced with the experience of seeing us losing developments and Tulsa stagnating...

I dont like this situation. Wish Tulsa was growing gangbusters and bursting at the seams with these types of developments. But we are not, we are just barely seeing any growth. Would rather have something that I like, than nothing, even if you dont like where its at.

I dont see that if we stop it in Brookside or Cherry Street that it will go downtown. We will either get nothing or it will go to the suburbs.

IF the ballpark goes in, and hopefully the 120 lofts, I will change my tune because that will open up a viable alternative. If Bomasada actually goes in and some other developments in those areas happen, I will feel a little less uptight and more satisfied that things really are moving along for once. I will feel secure enough to "hold a tighter line". I am sick and tired of seeing pretty pictures of developments, then nothing happening. Sick and tired of seeing these types of developments happen in other cities, watching Tulsa fall behind and not be able to offer those kinds of things. Once we finally get something, I will feel relieved and then start paying attention to other peoples concerns about design or height or whatever.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by Rico

So as I understand it... Bumgarner met with the residents in the area today.

Must have been uneventful...?

anyone now know what is to be built?


[}:)]

Bumgarner is zoning abuse personified.  When people think of undue influence of the wealthy, he is the poster child.  He owns half the council and most of the TMAPC.  No one will deny the **** what he wants.

He has a track record of finding properties in or near corridor districts and then arguing that they should have all existing restrictions stripped off and returned to something like CBD.

I agree with others, **** like this should be in CBD....but he wants his Philbrook penis envy lookalike **** to be close to his utica place monstrosity.....just wait, he'll turn all of 15th and utica area into the same socal italianate dreck.

Still whining like a little b!tch over a target store on Memorial I see.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

I would like to see him develop in downtown as well. Would have liked to have seen the Bomasada development go downtown as well.

Then why isn't the city proactively pitching downtown development sites to these developers?

BUT, downtown is not as attractive a location.

HUH?

Its all about location, location, location. Until downtown turns into the kind of place where these developers will want to go... all the available property in the world wont make a difference. That location on Utica is a great location, near a beautiful wealthy area, near the trendy Cherry Street, etc. Whats downtown in those areas you point to, to make it as attractive?

All the billions of taxpayer dollars we've spent doing things we were told would make downtown an attractive location for young professionals to live, work, and play.

Sad thing is, the one developer who was wanting to build something new down there "The 120 lofts"  is being treated like crap and given the runaround.

Bumgarner is doing this development on a 2.7 acre tract. Why not partner with that developer to create the ultimate live, work, play environment for young professionals in downtown on one of these larger properties?  

Its like the cartoon dam that is springing leaks. You stick your finger in one hole, then a bit over another leak happens, stick a different finger in that one, then yet another leak starts, and so on.

Downtown is difficult to develop in and not as attractive. The finger is firmly held on that hole so developers "leaks" look for other areas, the best areas are around Utica, Cherry Street and Brookside. So the developments "leaks" happen there. You block them and the next leak is going to be in the suburbs,,, not downtown. If we could get downtown going it would take a lot of pressure off Brookside and Cherry Street and make it easier to hold the line there. You could indeed say "why dont you build downtown" you cant honestly say that now, because its not attractive, its not a "fair" or in any way desirable exchange.

After having watched Brookside and Cherry street struggle for decades, go into decline, shops and restaurants close and sit empty, then move up a bit, then stagnate again and now both seeing steady growth. I am happy to see growth. My fear is that if we hinder what people are wanting to do there, we wont see it anywhere because at any time the economy will collapse again. So to me its like, lets get something versus getting nothing. We can argue about appropriatness of these developments, but I personally dont mind the ones I have seen so far, so have no incentive to stop them. If there were options downtown or other desirable areas then I could reasonably say "why not build it here instead?" But since there arent those options... and I am faced with the experience of seeing us losing developments and Tulsa stagnating...

I dont like this situation. Wish Tulsa was growing gangbusters and bursting at the seams with these types of developments. But we are not, we are just barely seeing any growth. Would rather have something that I like, than nothing, even if you dont like where its at.

I dont see that if we stop it in Brookside or Cherry Street that it will go downtown. We will either get nothing or it will go to the suburbs.

IF the ballpark goes in, and hopefully the 120 lofts, I will change my tune because that will open up a viable alternative. If Bomasada actually goes in and some other developments in those areas happen, I will feel a little less uptight and more satisfied that things really are moving along for once. I will feel secure enough to "hold a tighter line". I am sick and tired of seeing pretty pictures of developments, then nothing happening. Sick and tired of seeing these types of developments happen in other cities, watching Tulsa fall behind and not be able to offer those kinds of things. Once we finally get something, I will feel relieved and then start paying attention to other peoples concerns about design or height or whatever.

You should never make decisions or judgments based on fear and false assumptions. Allowing this zoning change (that is not in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan or the more recent Midtown Redux Study) is anti-Cherry St, anti-Midtown, and anti-downtown revitalization

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

I dont see that if we stop it in Brookside or Cherry Street that it will go downtown. We will either get nothing or it will go to the suburbs.

see, they have successfully played you.  And when they want to do something in the suburbs and we say no they threaten that it will go to Bixby or broken arrow.  They have you fools figured out.  They have the fear successfully made policy among the TMAPC and the city council.  The always bring up the bass pro as confirmation of that fear.  They prey on your low economic self esteem.

Call their bluff.  The bumgarners of the world don't want to locate in the suburbs or south tulsa because those places are trashy to them.  Their elitist egos cannot tolerate wallowing in the development "cesspool" of SOuth Tulsa or Bixby.  But they'd tell you differently.  They'd tell you that it will all go away if you don't change everything on the books.....for THEM.

You need to elect people with BALLS who will appoint people onto TMAPC with BALLS.  Hell Liz Wright has more balls on TMAPC than ANY of those other spineless twits.  If we had a TMAPC made up entirely of Liz Wrights, we'd have developers quaking in their jackboots and citizens getting the kind of development they deserve.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

I dont see that if we stop it in Brookside or Cherry Street that it will go downtown. We will either get nothing or it will go to the suburbs.

You need to elect people with BALLS who will appoint people onto TMAPC with BALLS.  Hell Liz Wright has more balls on TMAPC than ANY of those other spineless twits.  If we had a TMAPC made up entirely of Liz Wrights, we'd have developers quaking in their jackboots and citizens getting the kind of development they deserve.

Absolutely. Right now, I am focused on this. Please consider emailing the TMAPC and asking them to deny this request. Time is critical, this goes before the TMAPC this Wednesday 7/23

bhuntsinger@incog.org

Please contact the Mayor and City Councilors to encourage them to deny this request and ask them to aggressively market the available property downtown that the city owns for this development.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

I dont see that if we stop it in Brookside or Cherry Street that it will go downtown. We will either get nothing or it will go to the suburbs.

see, they have successfully played you.  And when they want to do something in the suburbs and we say no they threaten that it will go to Bixby or broken arrow.  They have you fools figured out.  They have the fear successfully made policy among the TMAPC and the city council.  The always bring up the bass pro as confirmation of that fear.  They prey on your low economic self esteem.

Call their bluff.  The bumgarners of the world don't want to locate in the suburbs or south tulsa because those places are trashy to them.  Their elitist egos cannot tolerate wallowing in the development "cesspool" of SOuth Tulsa or Bixby.  But they'd tell you differently.  They'd tell you that it will all go away if you don't change everything on the books.....for THEM.

You need to elect people with BALLS who will appoint people onto TMAPC with BALLS.  Hell Liz Wright has more balls on TMAPC than ANY of those other spineless twits.  If we had a TMAPC made up entirely of Liz Wrights, we'd have developers quaking in their jackboots and citizens getting the kind of development they deserve.

I dont recall any developer saying anything of that sort, I only know what I have seen actually happen. I wasnt paying attention to the Bass Pro thing, dont think I was on here at that time and involved in such issues so dont know anything about it.

As for low economic self esteem... Businesses follow the economics. We dont say that north Tulsa has low economic self esteem and thats why they dont get developments, we say its because of crime and low income levels and if y our a developer your looking for the best place to make a buck. Does downtown have low economic self esteem? Its getting better, but heck the arena hasnt opened yet, the Mayo and First Street lofts are still under construction, the Matthews warehouse artist lofts and museum hasnt even started, park, sidewalk and streets arent done, TCC just started, etc. etc. Plus we have watched as many developments throw out big plans then for one reason or another fade away, and now small developers get the run around.

In the meantime Jenks gets a billion dollar development, Bixby and BA are getting developments. And just as importantly to me  is watching other competing cities get incredible developments in their downtown.

I know it will all come together in a few years time, barring an economic downturn that affects Tulsa. But in the meantime I will be a bit lenient on those that want to go into Brookside or Cherry Street. There are developments that I wouldnt agree with, but so far the Bomasada for instance, though not perfect, because of its specific location and the desire for density... not gonna make a fuss about. If it had been closer to the 36th street area... no go. But off 41st behind the grocery stores and taking out those bad apartments... fine.  The Bumgarner development, if its 8 stories and on 15th street, no go, but if its right on Utica next to the highway,,, not the best location for a lot of things great for an office building imo.

Its often hard to quantify and list every factor that goes into why one person thinks one thing is ok in this place or another. Any one you can argue against, but all I can say is how I feel when I take into consideration all those things and how the balance of pluses and minuses weigh out.  Its actually kind of tricky to be for or against the Bumgarner development when you dont know the exact details, but from what I am garnering it seems ok in that location. Its kind of off in the back corner away from Cherry Street and next to the highway and on a corridor with many other midrise buildings to boot.  All in all, looking at the balance of things, to me, nothing to panic over.  

The other development right on Cherry Street seems worse to me with all that parking. One story and more parking. Thats not good.

Sorry wont be able to read or respond for the next few days. Leaving tonight for an installation at the casino job.

[inteller]

blah blah blah blah blah.  You are just blathering in circles.  damn you've been so played.  lenient?  puh lease.  If you aren't going to demand good development consistently and NOW, just when are you going to do it?  And you are right, the developers don't say they are leaving, they have their toadies like Reynolds say it.