41st & Harvard - Christmas Tree Lot

[FOTD]

It's a funeral home now. The congregation moved out to far south Broken Arrow, if I recall correctly.

Interesting about Shell. So the apartment complex was not demolished because it was needed for the highway, but because it was needed for the Shell's relocation?

Whatever. The ODOTTERS have a handle on how to negotiate these matters. There was a need for the highway access and from that leverage to move the apartments....they have many ways to make landowners bend and flex and grab their ankles.

[jne]

I just got off the phone with Stan Frisbie (stanfrisbie.com) the developer of the site.  They have several things they are working on "but are not at liberty to discuss them. We are, well, we're leasing pad sites."  So, there ya' go!

I can tell you that work is going on at the site on a daily basis.  Just low level debris hauling and brush hog work.  But that's all I know for sure. . .

Yeah, makes me real curious when they have no comment (somebody going to lease a pad site without knowing whats a done deal?) and the web site doesn't exist.

[YoungTulsan]

Are we sure that "gasoline service station" prohibits a QuikTrip, or if that is a term that refers to the service stations that do full service/other work (like a small auto shop basically, see Reeders at 21st & Lewis for an example).  You'd think QT knows how to get favorable language in the codes with their influence here.

A QuikTrip and Wendys just seems likely to me.  They never built another Wendys after TU ate the one on 11th street, and the one at 31st and Harvard is quite antiquated for Wendys standards.  Plus QT likes to build with Wendys in the same adjacent property.

I know nothing, but hearing the QT rumor and the drive-thru rumor made me guess this could be the plan.

[PonderInc]

In addition to the prohibition of gasoline sales (the TMAPC minutes state "thereby eliminating gas/convenience stores..." as a valid use), there is a restriction on the hours of operation to 7:00 am - 11:00 pm.  The CVS would NOT be subject to this restriction, but the other lots supposedly are. 

(However, since the developer was trying to attract a coffee/donut shop, I assume they agreed to these time restrictions to appease the neighborhood...knowing they can just wait for the neighborhood scrutiny to die off, and then get a little minor amendment when nobody's looking...)

[FOTD]

The neighbors best be on high alert. Mista Frizz, aka Santy Clause aka Stan the Man, was the broker out there on Highland Park. He done brokered the apartments and must have slid in a minor amendment on that site.
He's real good at shenanigans...or making the city overlords turn their heads and cough.

[godboko71]

Blah this is all so disappointing, I understand credit markets are tight but why not wait on this project until times are better. Area really could have used some nice development in the area.

[swampee]

I live in the Patrick Henry neighborhood and Im very disappointed in the news. I will be attending the May 12 neighborhood meeting so I hope to get more info then. Dont we have enough crap commerical in Tulsa.

[FOTD]

I live in the Patrick Henry neighborhood and Im very disappointed in the news. I will be attending the May 12 neighborhood meeting so I hope to get more info then. Dont we have enough crap commerical in Tulsa.

Sorry. That's just wrong. Property rights are the basis of our freedom. Tough going if you don't appreciate liberty.

[sgrizzle]

I live in the Patrick Henry neighborhood and Im very disappointed in the news. I will be attending the May 12 neighborhood meeting so I hope to get more info then. Dont we have enough crap commerical in Tulsa.

Have fun storming the castle


While everyone wants nicer mixed use infill, that corner won't support it. Think about it, a Christmas Tree lot has been the only tenant for years. It's not big enough for a large mixed-use development and having adjacent corners filled with a funeral home, a gas station that looks closed, a cleaners, and a random realtor sign means you can only support development on that scale or slightly nicer. The east side of harvard for a solid mile north of their is nothing but strip mall.

Trying to "force" higher density/nicer development into the middle of a non-pedestrian strip mall environment means you will just have a vacant lot for longer. While much of the area is not finalized (and probably will be vacant for some time) CVS is already a done deal at this point. Expect to see it open around fall.

[cannon_fodder]

Grizzle,

I agree it is probably too hopeful to get a real dense development in there, but the little things that some have advocated would be possible.  Make it LOOK urban.  Buildings closer to the roads.  Medians and trees in the parking lot.  Something other than a giant parking lot along the road with buildings set back.

[sgrizzle]

Grizzle,

I agree it is probably too hopeful to get a real dense development in there, but the little things that some have advocated would be possible.  Make it LOOK urban.  Buildings closer to the roads.  Medians and trees in the parking lot.  Something other than a giant parking lot along the road with buildings set back.

True, but the posters comments were about "crap commercial" not "poorly landscaped and designed crap commercial"

[Gaspar]

Have fun storming the castle


While everyone wants nicer mixed use infill, that corner won't support it. Think about it, a Christmas Tree lot has been the only tenant for years. It's not big enough for a large mixed-use development and having adjacent corners filled with a funeral home, a gas station that looks closed, a cleaners, and a random realtor sign means you can only support development on that scale or slightly nicer. The east side of harvard for a solid mile north of their is nothing but strip mall.

Trying to "force" higher density/nicer development into the middle of a non-pedestrian strip mall environment means you will just have a vacant lot for longer. While much of the area is not finalized (and probably will be vacant for some time) CVS is already a done deal at this point. Expect to see it open around fall.

Sir, you have a rare gift.  You employ REASON.

Please pass some around.

Do people want to change this type of development?  Well you have to change the zoning code first.

Do people want more dense development?  Well you have to have the demographics to support it.

Do you want to create the demographic in an area to support dense development?  Well you have to change the zoning code first.

What is being developed on this corner is exactly what 100% of all developers would develop on this corner.  It's predetermined, based on what the market will support and what the zoning will allow.  Sure the players could be different, but the outcome would be the same. 

If you are  upset, stop b!tching at the players and start changing the game. 

I think it's a very well thought out design.  Sure beats a line of old fencing, cars for sale, and trash.  Will create jobs, and commerce. 

+++

[FOTD]

Grizzle,

I agree it is probably too hopeful to get a real dense development in there, but the little things that some have advocated would be possible.  Make it LOOK urban.  Buildings closer to the roads.  Medians and trees in the parking lot.  Something other than a giant parking lot along the road with buildings set back.

Available users at the time of development will often dictate layout. These cookie cutter developments are dictated by the tennants and the rents and the costs to develop and available credit underlying the tenants .... the zoning code provides the ultimate parameters, but a much bigger "ingreediant" is the ultimate spread between cost of credit and internal rate of return.

It's all about getting the most out of the parcel of land and not so much looks to the developer/owner/broker.

[Gaspar]

Available users at the time of development will often dictate layout. These cookie cutter developments are dictated by the tennants and the rents and the costs to develop and available credit underlying the tenants .... the zoning code provides the ultimate parameters, but a much bigger "ingreediant" is the ultimate spread between cost of credit and internal rate of return.

It's all about getting the most out of the parcel of land and not so much looks to the developer/owner/broker.

SECURITY ALERT
Holy Cr@p!

FOTDAOXRIPTOUT, someone stole your login and password.

They posted a sensible remark.  You need to look into this before it gets out of hand.

[tshane250]

Do people want to change this type of development?  Well you have to change the zoning code first.

Do people want more dense development?  Well you have to have the demographics to support it.

Do you want to create the demographic in an area to support dense development?  Well you have to change the zoning code first.

Wait, isn't this site a PUD?  And don't PUDs allow for the type of development that many, including myself, on this forum want (i.e. higher density development that has a mix of uses and is pedestrian friendly)?  Unless my idea of PUDs is way off base, then what is to stop developers from developing the type of development we want right now, anywhere in the city?  Is the underlying zoning preventing it?  Is it perceived lack of demand?  Someone please tell me why?