Demolition Permitting

[PonderInc]

Re: demolition permits

I know that you have to fill out a demolition application, and pay a fee.  But how long does it take to get approval? 

Also, is there any public notice of demo permit applications?  (Before they are approved?)

I'm thinking of this from two angles.  First, architectural salvage people might want an opportunity to talk to building owners before valuable fixtures go into the landfill. 

Second, people who care about historic buildings (not all historic buildings are located in historic districts or have been added to the register of historic places) might want to know beforehand.

(If Community Gardeners should be required to pay $750-1,000 for a special exception so that their neighbors have a chance for "input"...doesn't it seem like we should require neighborhood input when irreplaceable historic buildings are on the verge of being destroyed?)

Can anyone explain how demo permits work, and how interested parties can keep an eye on potential demo disasters?

[sgrizzle]

In a "property rights" world it's hard to do much of anything.. but I did just think of something...

When you file for a construction permit, you have to show (amongst other things) that you are improving the property. They won't give you a permit to install 14 toilets on your front porch, for example. Why not make demolition follow similar guidelines? They can only demo the property if they can show it is being replaced with something more worthwhile to neighboring property owners and community?

Another thought, if a building is being demoed, that building should have a "salvage value" determined and the building owners are either required to let people salvage fixtures and materials or they are required to pay the full estimated "salvage value" of the property.

Don't know how feasible either one is...

[Rico]

Re: demolition permits

I know that you have to fill out a demolition application, and pay a fee.  But how long does it take to get approval? 

Also, is there any public notice of demo permit applications?  (Before they are approved?)

I'm thinking of this from two angles.  First, architectural salvage people might want an opportunity to talk to building owners before valuable fixtures go into the landfill. 

Second, people who care about historic buildings (not all historic buildings are located in historic districts or have been added to the register of historic places) might want to know beforehand.

(If Community Gardeners should be required to pay $750-1,000 for a special exception so that their neighbors have a chance for "input"...doesn't it seem like we should require neighborhood input when irreplaceable historic buildings are on the verge of being destroyed?)

Can anyone explain how demo permits work, and how interested parties can keep an eye on potential demo disasters?

I have a small question in regards to your questions....?

"No Offense Intended"

Is it just me or do I feel that the two time President of Tulsa Now.... and the current President of Tulsa Now, as well as one time benefactor of TAPS should have the answers to the query you pose already in triplicate.
Probably with more facts that describe the process, as Tulsa has interpreted it , than one would want unleashed.

If I am wrong about this so be it.... But I just have to ask.

[TheArtist]

I dont know whether its appropriate to say... but this could be a very important topic real quick like. Rumor has it that we may be close to losing one of our historic, art-deco, treasures downtown. 

Just what we need, to lose something beautiful, historic, something that helps create a sense of identity and place,,, and replace it with yet another large surface parking lot.

Let me see if I understand some of what goes on with this sort of thing. Someone buys a large historic building downtown. They are not able to rent it out for the price they want. Aka, a price that would cover property taxes, insurance, repair and maintenance of the building, and make a profit.  Even empty, the building costs money via property taxes and a certain degree of maintenance etc.. So if they tear the building down, they are no longer paying as much and are making money on parking.... Is that it?  So basically, since downtown isnt desirable. The owner cant rent for what he needs to make the numbers work. So we lose ever more buildings, character, potential, etc. and downtown becomes even less interesting and less desirable. And round and round it goes. You would think that if the property owner had several buildings downtown that ultimately, long term, it would be wiser to not do things that would fuel a downward spiral in order to make a buck now, for in the future he is shooting himself in the foot with his other buildings. Wouldnt be long until more of his buildings were empty and the numbers would tell him to tear those down as well.  Some day you wont even be able to make anything on parking because there wont be enough demand for parking to charge anything.

[Rico]

I dont know whether its appropriate to say... but this could be a very important topic real quick like. Rumor has it that we may be close to losing one of our historic, art-deco, treasures downtown. 

Just what we need, to lose something beautiful, historic, something that helps create a sense of identity and place,,, and replace it with yet another large surface parking lot.

Let me see if I understand some of what goes on with this sort of thing. Someone buys a large historic building downtown. They are not able to rent it out for the price they want. Aka, a price that would cover property taxes, insurance, repair and maintenance of the building, and make a profit.  Even empty, the building costs money via property taxes and a certain degree of maintenance etc.. So if they tear the building down, they are no longer paying as much and are making money on parking.... Is that it?  So basically, since downtown isnt desirable. The owner cant rent for what he needs to make the numbers work. So we lose ever more buildings, character, potential, etc. and downtown becomes even less interesting and less desirable. And round and round it goes. You would think that if the property owner had several buildings downtown that ultimately, long term, it would be wiser to not do things that would fuel a downward spiral in order to make a buck now, for in the future he is shooting himself in the foot with his other buildings. Wouldnt be long until more of his buildings were empty and the numbers would tell him to tear those down as well.  Some day you wont even be able to make anything on parking because there wont be enough demand for parking to charge anything.

Very astute observation there... You only left out one minor detail...

While you are earnestly trying to rent and get public funds for your building... that you can't rent.... you roll a few semi's up and pillage.
The booty then winds up on the auction block in Seattle or somewhere.

After all, "those damn vandals, you know...who can watch them all the time"

Subtract the Snider's and you may come very close to the "tale of the Mayo"....

Let me just add one little item... So there is no misunderstanding.  The Snider's are the "good guys". There was another fellow that fit in the mix at the Mayo.

Now maybe, whether he does anything or just admires them, one can see the basis for the Kanbar admiration.

[pmcalk]

What building is being torn down now? 

I think its appropriate that we are discussing demolition while the Mayor also is pushing for citywide recycling.  Forty percent of our landfills nationwide are taken up with construction & demolition debris.  While we all need to do what we can, I find it very frustrating to think that a year's worth of my deligent recycling can be almost immediately offset by the destruction of one small house.  Several cities have taken steps to address this.  Chicago requires 50% of construction debris be recycled.  Portland requires recylcing of construction material for projects over a certain amount.  Massachusetts bans any unprocessed construction waste from entering landfills.  If Tulsa really wants to be green, it should look not just at household waste, but construction waste as well.

[carltonplace]

My guess would be the Tulsa Club

[TheArtist]

Precisely which building may not be appropriate to say at this time.  But no, its not the Tulsa Club "in this instance anyway".  I think some people are trying to remedy the situation, do some friendly persuading, and find some creative solutions first.  This needs to be given a fair chance to happen. Nobody wants to lose a beautiful, deco treasure downtown,,, but investors are there to make not lose money.

Part of me thinks that if it were found out that this building were to be torn down because they couldnt find tennants. I think the attention alone would get them tennants. Things like historic preservation tax credits and other things could help make the numbers work. The person who owns the building may not know of all the different options. And I certainly dont think they know the value Tulsans put on the building. "Though its a shame they dont show it by renting it out." Its just one building in a financial portfolio that isnt turning a profit and needs to be gotten rid of. No emotion or care, just straight forward financial descision.

We all know things will turn around downtown eventually. It has to or we will lose so much. More than this one building I guarantee you.  But in the meantime we should as citizens try to do what we can to save and preserve whats left of our historic and deco heritage. Even if it means rallying the troops, getting attention for the building and some tennants in it. Its a beautiful building in a fine location. May need some work, but surely enough people wouldnt mind renting it out if it meant helping to save the building until better times/more demand, comes to downtown.

I dont really think we advertise like we should for downtown. Most people may simply not think about it when considering where to have their office. May drive by these buildings, even if they go downtown, and not give it a second thought in that respect. I personally think this would be a fantastic building to turn into loft apartments and living. But that would probably require a large investment and who knows how the needed rent figures would then turn out and whether the results would be affordable in our current market. A local owner may have more patience and the notion to do things step by step, building and refurbishing a bit at a time.  A really big property owner isnt likely to focus that kind of depth and effort on just one building. But if we try and help, show we want to help...

[PonderInc]

Here's the thing.  I keep hearing that you can "get a demo permit on Friday afternoon and tear down a building on Saturday." 

Here's the form you fill out, from the City's website:
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/OurCity/Business/PermitsLicensing/documents/Demo.pdf

It asks if the building is located in a historic district.  You answer yes/no.  (Does anyone check?  What if it's historic, but not located in an HP district?)   

Perhaps it would be prudent to ask if the building is more than 50 years old?  If so, could some extra layer of approval or public notice be added?

Here's the fee structure:
SECTION 310. DEMOLITION FEE AND BOND
A. The fee for a permit to demolish any building or structure, or any portion of a
building or structure, shall be at the rate of Four and 20/100 Dollars ($4.20) for each one thousand (1,000) cubic feet of volume of building or structure, provided that the minimum fee assessed shall be Forty-two Dollars ($42.00).

B. Pursuant to Title 51, Tulsa Revised Ordinances, Section 3303.1.1 the amount of
bond required for protecting owners adjacent to a permitted demolition from damage shall be in the minimum amount of $5,000.00, provided that this amount may be increased by the code official, if in the opinion of the code official the location of the building to be demolished or destroyed requires a larger bond.

[Rico]

Re: demolition permits



I'm thinking of this from two angles.  First, architectural salvage people might want an opportunity to talk to building owners before valuable fixtures go into the landfill. 

Once upon a time ARK Wrecking had an agreement with someone here in Tulsa..  She had quite a collection, yet, had she been doing it as a sole source of income she would have made more money running a day-care.

For reasons never fully explained ARK pulled out of the agreement.

Quien sabe? they may be open to revisiting the deal.


One of your other questions was regarding demo permits on Friday.. I suspect, that is because the process has a before it begins "Inspection".. at least that is my guess..   Soonest you could get an "Inspection" would be Monday. Maybe they just don't trust the demo people to wait that long.

Tell me this...?

1.Which building DT Tulsa... would you think would be the "hardest to change because of the Historical significance or ownership"....?
and by change I mean alter in any form or fashion.... Not tear down.

b. Who owns it?

2. How much money "either public, or private, should be the required level of investment on any 50 year (benchmark) structure that you would  see as an adequate effort to preserve the structure?

finally.... how would the inventory of items be prioritized and whom would make that call.??

[PonderInc]

Rico -

You ask some good questions (although I'm not sure exactly what you mean by #1 above).  And I think they deserve thoughtful consideration.  Give me some time to "ponder" and I'll get back with you...

(Of course, I always struggle with putting a $ amount on the value of beauty, history and soul.)

Perhaps we should look at demolition from an environmental standpoint.  There are ways to calculate the "embodied energy" that is lost whenever an existing structure is torn down.  (All the energy used to create and transport the materials and build the structure, etc.)  There are several nifty embodied energy calculators online.  Here's one: http://www.thegreenestbuilding.org/  Perhaps our demo fees should reflect the loss of embodied energy in addition to the amount of rubble placed in landfills.

[TheArtist]

The thing is, from what I have found online. The building is basically move in ready. Class B property. Its not a ruin or in bad shape. I guess its simply not renting and so is costing money, yet could make money as a parking lot? Can he not sell the property at this point? Is there money to be made from selling the parts of it or something? It kind of seems odd actually to be so cavalier about tearing such a building down? Its even described on the leasing site as an "Art-Deco Landmark located in the heart of downtown Tulsa".  Its leasing at 10$ a square foot. Is that high or something? This is seeming kinda odd. Or perhaps he has another building nearby that he could then have better chances leasing because it could now have its own parking spaces? I am just speculating all over the place now lol.

[T-Town Now]

The thing is, from what I have found online. The building is basically move in ready. Class B property. Its not a ruin or in bad shape. I guess its simply not renting and so is costing money, yet could make money as a parking lot? Can he not sell the property at this point? Is there money to be made from selling the parts of it or something? It kind of seems odd actually to be so cavalier about tearing such a building down? Its even described on the leasing site as an "Art-Deco Landmark located in the heart of downtown Tulsa".  Its leasing at 10$ a square foot. Is that high or something? This is seeming kinda odd. Or perhaps he has another building nearby that he could then have better chances leasing because it could now have its own parking spaces? I am just speculating all over the place now lol.

I think I know which building you're talking about. It's on 6th Street, right? If so, yes it would be a shame to demolish it. And for what? Another parking lot? I see empty spaces in lots all over downtown, there doesn't seem to be demand for more right now, at least not in the part of downtown I frequent.

At one point, Tulsa was #3 for art deco buildings in the United States. I would think that would be a good reason for people to visit the city and spend their money. If we keep tearing these great old buildings down, there will be less reason for people to visit. Few people are interested in looking at new surface parking lots.

Tulsa really needs to take steps to protect what's left of its art deco buildings before it's too late.

[EricP]

Found the building you are talking about, maybe they just need to put some flags on the flagpoles for some curb appeal?

Looks very cool, it's an absolute crime against humanity the way these buildings fall into disrepair and are lost and ruined. I would much rather work in a place of character and beauty than a drab box.

It's ALL about money, right? I would pay just to see inside the damn building.