Demolition of Fields Downs Randolph in Downtown

[TURobY]

??  So, you're saying the BID fee has increased the value of her property??   

The value is what one would be willing to pay for the property. The property was already over-priced before the BID, thus little-to-no interest. Any value added from the BID may bring the value closer to the asking price, but likely not over it. If you care for my opinion, the asking price for the property is still a little high.

[DowntownNow]

DTowner...specifically what successes can you relate to and how do you justify those 'sucesses' when weighed against the public tax investment of the BOKCenter?

Also, the owners of this building were not speculators.  According to comments made in City Council meetings, these owners have been in possession of this property for multiple decades, keeping it in the family.

There is one instance I am aware of in which a 'speculator' attempted to be an 'investor' by your definition.  The owner of the Tulsa Club Building attempted to acquire Vision2025 monies to convert his speculative property into an investment of mixed use residential.  He was turned down and instead preference was given to someone like Sager, who has yet to complete his lofts project, no money in sight to finish from what I've been told and is due sooner, rather than later, to start prepaying the loan from those funds.

The basic fact remains, whether speculator or investor, these are all business decisions made by people that ponied up for properties at a time when no one wanted to 'invest' in downtown.  Heck, many of them were purchased for taxes, thats how bad no one wanted to 'invest' in downtown.  Some set up shop, many left the properties to sit. 

I'm not sure about the asking price of this property..perhaps a little steep in my opinion since it will be years before the Pearl District blooms if they get funds for what has been proposed.  With the ballpark moving from the East End, thats another hit.  Much of the surrounding property is also for sale.  Being demolished may help it sell...vancant land is much easier to develop than most with existing structures.

[DowntownNow]

TURoby...one could argue that the BID actually decreases the value of the property instead.  A new developer will be held to a 30 year payout for any development they put on it and would seek to adjust the purchase lower to compensate so their development stays within market norms at offering.

[TURobY]

TURoby...one could argue that the BID actually decreases the value of the property instead.  A new developer will be held to a 30 year payout for any development they put on it and would seek to adjust the purchase lower to compensate so their development stays within market norms at offering.

I would agree, depending on the type of development placed there. If the development could not benefit from the BID, then I can understand your argument that the BID would decrease the value. A warehouse or empty building would likely not benefit from it.

If the development could benefit from the BID, then the value is increased as the improvements become an "amenity". Increased traffic or nearby entertainment/retail options add value to a property. Thus, housing or retail would see an increase in value.

[DowntownNow]

Cannon_fodder, thats right...it all comes down to business.  When you have a piece of proerty that is neither unique, nor in high demand at the time, in disrepair with no potential sources of revenue given that there's a lot of available square footage already in the immediate market area, you will want to cut your losses as best you can.  

Thats one reason I was against the BID Assessment.  What happens if say the owners of the Tulsa Club, Vandiver, and say buildings in Brady's industrial part decide the cost of the assessment isnt justified as their properties sit there empty and make the decision to tear em down and asphalt them?  They create a revenue generation stream leasing parking spaces that more than pays for the assessment on single level lot only square footage but downtown has lost yet another building and in some cases, architecturally significant ones.

To answer your question though...In my opinion, the destruction of downtown buildings does not help the overall efforts to revitalize downtown in keeping with a developed character.  I will say, however, that the destruction of some buildings due to dilapitated condition and cost vs. return may justify the demolition of some.  

How does one solve this.  Well, in my opinion...

First, the City needs to be more developer friendly.  For instance, a friend was looking to convert an existing building downtown into lofts apartments for low/mid level rentals.  He was told by the City that the building's stair system and egress had to be brought up to today's code and that would have required a significant expenditure for structural redesign that made the project unfeasible.  He had accomlished very much the same thing in Kansas City and wasnt required to adhere to new code since it created an undue hardship and the property was essentially grandfathered in under the existing building codes the City had adopted and changes made by ordinance.

Second, the City/TDA should prioritize the public expenditures so as to get the biggest bang for the buck when providing public funds for projects.  For instance, the recent $4 million to American Residential Group...perhaps it should have been divided to 'help' 4 other projects as well.  No reason public monies should go to all one group and subsidize 25% of the overall investment of one project.  $1 million each could have helped fund ONG, Tribune II, Arts & Humanities Mathews site, Micha Alexanders' development, etc.

Third, the City/TDA should make available, at no cost, the properties it owns within the IDL to developers that provide approved redevelopment proposals and have the financial means to achieve them so as to incentivize greater developer participation.  In turn, this might advance the development timeframes of these empty properties much faster, generating sales and property taxes quicker which should pay out more than the land is now and especially once you take continued maintenance into account.

Fourth, the City should provide greater planning and communication between developers/developments so as to encourage diversity in mix.  They also need to temper development with what is needed.  i.e. balancing the substantial development of high end residential with the needs for low and moderate income residential.  These are factors looked at by retailers, grocers, job seekers, relocating companies, etc.

Fifth, and for existing property owners, not pushing a burdensome assessment on them that hinders their own efforts to redevelop their property in the face of downtown's turnaround.  Not giving the back of the hand to those that bought property years ago and basically were the only ones keeping downtown alive at all until this recent resurgence.  Also, working with them to ease the permit process, acquire redevelopmetn grants and tax incentives through short term abatements, TIFs, etc.

Sixth, relaxing the building codes to make the redevelopment of existing properties more financially feasible.  i.e. requiring the installation of sprinkler systems in towers like Cental Park, or small apartment buildings.  New buildings I can maybe understand as the budren is far less when planned from the git go.  Someone had posted a comment some time ago about the way California encourages the redevelopment of older properties through its relaxed building codes.

Seventh, and this is an important one, the City needs to welcome all developers that are capable.  The more involved, the greater the diversity, the faster downtown is developed and the quicker we see that holistic and energetic sense of place we want in downtown.

[cannon_fodder]

Thank you very much for clarifying your position.  We are very much in agreement:

1) +1.  A business friendly environment will do as much to help development and economic growth as anything else.  So long as the city has a PLAN for development and makes it easy for entities or people to work within that plan it would help a ton.  Think Artists "A" streets concept (this goes along with your #7).

2) +1.  If spreading the wealth can make 4 viable projects instead of 1, then go for it.

3) I agree with the concept of TDA unloading the property faster.  But I think giving it away would cause more troubles.  First, TDA would be without a revenue stream.  Second, they would lose control over development (unless the plan [codes/zoning, whatever] was better and enforced).  Most importantly, it would/could crush downtown property values for existing structures or lots needing to be redeveloped.  No one would buy an existing structure or an empty lot if the TDA would just give them land.

But I agree 100% that the TDA should NOT be a land trust.

4) +1.

5) I have mixed opinions about the current downtown owners.  Some are clearly team players.  Some are investors.  Some are speculators.  And some are slum lords.   I also have a differing opinion on the assessment but agree that it was pushed onto them.

6) +1.  Seems like a given to me.  Our unique downtown structures help define Tulsa.  Many people want a revitalized downtown and the City is spending cash to make that happen.  It is CRAZY to then destroy the effort with building codes that are cost prohibitive AND of little use.  If New York (and Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle . . .) can have old 5 story walk up apartment buildings or convert other old structures with tons of character into lofts that don't require sprinkler systems . . . why in the hell can't Tulsa?

Fire Departments give recommendations, but shouldn't control development.

7) +1

[Red Arrow]

I cannot believe posters here would intentionally endanger the lives of people that would live in refurbed buildings by allowing relaxed safety codes.  All for mere economic development.  Domino theory asks what is next? Asbestos in buildings? Ozone standards?  Vehicle fuel mileage?  CO2 emissions?  Shame Shame.
 

[waterboy]

Thanks, Red. I was thinking the same thing only didn't want to pick a fight. Why would we want to stuff people into old buildings and not require fire suppression systems? I'm sure there is some middle ground here. Relaxing codes that are designed too stringent...ok. But some basic stuff has been learned in the last half century about fighting fires, building materials and building design. No use in ignoring them for financial reasons.

[Red Arrow]

Thanks, Red. I was thinking the same thing only didn't want to pick a fight. Why would we want to stuff people into old buildings and not require fire suppression systems? I'm sure there is some middle ground here. Relaxing codes that are designed too stringent...ok. But some basic stuff has been learned in the last half century about fighting fires, building materials and building design. No use in ignoring them for financial reasons.

Sprinklers in particular can depend on other factors. How much of the building is brick, mortar, concrete etc vs wood and other combustibles.  Everything has a cost/benefit factor.  Cost is not just $ but can be lives etc.  Sometimes a workaround will provide an equivalent level of safety.  It all depends on.  Permanent smoke detectors may provide a level of safety in a concrete building that could only be achieved in a wood building with sprinkles and a 24 hour/day fire watch person.  We need to be smarter about some codes and laws.

[JoeMommaBlake]

Requiring buildings to be sprinkled because a fire could break out and potentially kill someone inside is hardly different than making people who choose to live in a mobile home in the middle of a field in Oklahoma anchor the thing in the ground with red iron and build a shield around it.

People get to choose where they're living. If you don't want to live in a building that may burn down in fire, don't live in it. It seems as risky as choosing to live in a house without sprinklers or a mobile home in a flat field in Oklahoma. Amazingly, there aren't yet any rules to protect the mobile homes from burning or blowing away even though they're most prone to it.

Furthermore, our fire code is so hard core that it won't just keep people from dying, it'll keep the building from burning. . . it also tends to keep people from turning old buildings into residential...because it's expensive.

Tulsa adopted the international fire code...which is nice. Then, in typical Tulsa fashion, we stuck a bunch of amendments on to it to make it much more difficult to navigate than that of other cities our size. My restaurant has brick walls, a concrete floor, a metal roof, very few walls, and is practically impossible to catch on fire. Furthermore, the only thing in the building (the oven and fryer) that could catch on fire is already covered with an ansul system that would put out any fire that might happen and yet if my one story all brick and concrete building was 300 sq. ft larger, without exception I would've had to spend another 30K+ ish on fire suppression....just in case somehow someone set something on fire in the dining room and people couldn't get out my very large double doors at the front, or the exit door at the back.

Want more people developing downtown? Want more restaurants and bars and bowling alleys and theaters and retail and housing and grocery? A nice place to start would be the code books. I just talked to someone who is developing in one of our suburbs and they commented that they love downtown and really wanted to do something down there but that our code made it too difficult, expensive, and annoying.

I'm not an expert on it and haven't had very many issues in my limited experience, but I hear comments like that enough that it really makes me wonder.

[RecycleMichael]

My wife's employer just remodeled a 6,000 square foot brick building downtown. They gutted it and then used all steel interior supports. The complete remodel job was about $300,000 including new bathrooms, kitchen, and new offices.

The sprinkler system to code costs $75,000 or one fourth of the entire remodel.

[waterboy]

It seems you're about to travel down a risky path. Comparing 90 year old multifamily, multi-use buildings to mobile homes is a stretch to me. Relaying anecdotal info on costs of construction are just as meaningless without comparison to the costs of new construction in the burbs. Would you like to see quotes from insurance companies for the cost of paying for collapsed or burned out buildings that cost multiple deaths? Or the lowered cost of insurance premiums for those buildings with fire suppression vs without?

Look for the middle ground here. I know there is lunacy in the fire code. It sounds like some of it was written by the fire suppression industry to promote their interests. It just seems like we move to extremes. Economic freedoms to economic stifling regulation. Using some flexibility could serve both interests.

I live in a nearly century old home. The designs, materials and construction techniques of that day require special skills and knowledge that newer homes do not. If I thought that the owners of the new Mayo were not addressing some of those issues with a keen interest in safety, I would never step foot in the building. If one old building burns or collapses downtown and it is alleged that relaxing of code requirements played a part.....the entire investment in downtown is at risk.

[Cats Cats Cats]

I think it is crazy it costs 1/4 of the renovation costs to fit it with a proper fire suppression system.  I think the overall difference with a home and a building downtown is that generally there are going to be people that aren't the owner of the building using it.

[Nic Nac]

To add to #5 of DowntownNow's suggestions, downtown tulsa needs to be on the National Historic Register.  Once approved, any building built before 1939 (?) quailifies for a 20% tax credit for construction costs assuming it is performed per the standards of the National Register.  This is a significant incentive.  There are individual downtown buildings on the Register but all of downtown can be placed on the register as Riverview and Ranch Acres, etc have been placed.  I heard a while back that someone was working on this nomination but have not heard anything lately.

Great comments DowntownNow.

[cannon_fodder]

Waterboy, Red:

I am not against fire safety.  We need to have a fire code that ensures residential rentals are safe.  And we do.  A unit that would pass a Section 8 inspection is required to have 2 exits, recesses for below grade occupation, and a certain number of smoke detectors.  My house doesn't have a sprinkler system and it's made out of wood and asphalt shingles; surely more flammable than a brick building.  My office building doesn't even have a sprinkler system.  In college I lived in old Victorian houses made into apartments without sprinkler systems.   Have I been at grave risk my entire life?

On top of that, remodeled structures in most cities are not required to be retrofitted with sprinkler systems.  Yet I don't hear of scores of associated deaths that would have been prevented by sprinklers.  Are Tulsans too stupid to flee a burning building or just too fat to do so quickly enough?  Smartassness aside:  why is it safe enough for most places but not for Tulsa?

What's more; the fire code is not designed only for human safety.  It attempts to make it impossible for the building to burn down (property damage is reduced by 50-70% on average with a sprinkler system).  Now, considering that the buildings we are talking about have stood for 60+ years without such systems and haven't burned down and that a remodel would presumably decrease the chance of said building burning down in the future . . . I'd say we'd be better off with an occupied building that could possibly burn down than an empty building that will likely be torn down.   We have required many of the buildings to be so safe that we have ensured no one will get killed in the building, because no one is in the building.

Some quick stats:

1) In 2007 there were nearly 415,000 residential fires (out of ~123 million residences).
Resulting in 2,895 deaths. (of 2.5 million deaths)
14,000 injuries.
And $7.5 billion in damage.

Looking at those numbers, residential fires are not really a big safety risk.  The odds of a given residence catching fire in any one year is approximately 1 in 300.  In each fire the odds of there being an injury is 1 in 30 (one in every 8,785 households).  The odds of there being a death is 1 in every 145th residential fire (or 1 in every 43,000 households per year).   If the cost of home fires was bore equally by all households, your share would be $60.

So we are prohibiting people from redeveloping old buildings to prevent an occurrence that will happen once for every 43,000 households.  It just doesn't make sense from that perspective.  

You can give the "life has no value" speech.  But we all know that is a wonderful concept, but not reality.  In reality there is a cost benefit analysis that determines what level of safety we are comfortable with.  For 95+% of residences in Tulsa, we are safe enough without residential sprinklers.

2) The government (DHS) recommends sprinklers for new construction because the benefits outweigh the costs.  The cost for new construction is purportedly $1 to $1.50 per square foot (generally less than 1.5% of the total cost).  Retrofitting old buildings to code in Tulsa costs from $10-15 per square foot (often  25% of the cost).    

A ten fold increase in the cost certainly skews that equation.  

3) Insurance discounts for sprinklers range from 5-15%.  Given the high cost of installation it will not cash flow based on insurance savings.

4) More than 80% of fire deaths occur in single family residences.  If preventing fire deaths is out goal, statistically we would be much better requiring all single family homes that are sold to be retrofitted with sprinkler systems and hard wired smoke detectors (with battery backup).  The cost to retrofit a family home is cheaper per square foot than an old brick building and the odds of actually saving a life improve.

But this safety measure would impact everyone.  Cost everyone money.  And prevent everyone from utilizing their property as they see fit . . . the retrofitting for conversions only effects some people.  So who even though it doesn't improve safety as much, who cares?

5) Most residences in Tulsa don't have fire suppression systems.  Thus, if the people that would occupy the downtown apartments move to another residence without suppression systems, nothing has been gained in the way of safety.  The effect is a nullity.


6) COOKING is the primary cause of residential fires.  Given that, couldn't a compromise be met requiring fire suppression in cooking areas only?   There has to be a compromise that makes these structures safe but not cost prohibitive to remodel into residential space.  The market simple won't sustain an additional $12 cost per square foot because CONSUMERS don't think the extra safety is worth the extra money.  Hence, builders can not provide it for them no matter the mandate.

sources:
http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/citizens/all_citizens/home_fire_prev/sprinklers/index.shtm  (and associated links from that page)

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/FASTATS/deaths.htm
- - -

I'm not arguing that fire suppression systems don't save lives.  The evidence is pretty solid that they do save lives.  My argument is that the application of this ordinance in its current form negates the possible advantage.  It just ensures that remodels are few and far between and that when they occur they are priced out of reach for the average Tulsan (let alone college students, many of whom go to school downtown or just down the road at TU).

We are overreacting to a very unlikely event with a fire code that is more strict than most places.  The result makes it impractical to convert downtown structures into housing that is affordable to Average Joe.  We are protecting Average Joe from himself in order to keep him safe.  

There has to be a compromise somewhere.