TDA RFP - 1st & Boulder

[rdj]

TDA released an RFP on the 24th of September for 13,340 sq ft at the corner of 1st & Boulder.  It is the strip of land adjacent to the eastern edge of the 100 West parking garage.  The minimum bid is $213,500.

I think this is an intriguing piece of property.  The RFP is for commercial uses only, specifically retail.  I think this would make a great mixed use space.  Retail on the first floor with a floor of office and a couple floors of residential.  It would be great to have direct access to a corresponding floor of the garage, especially for the residential.

Has anyone heard further details on this land?

[Hoss]

TDA released an RFP on the 24th of September for 13,340 sq ft at the corner of 1st & Boulder.  It is the strip of land adjacent to the eastern edge of the 100 West parking garage.  The minimum bid is $213,500.

I think this is an intriguing piece of property.  The RFP is for commercial uses only, specifically retail.  I think this would make a great mixed use space.  Retail on the first floor with a floor of office and a couple floors of residential.  It would be great to have direct access to a corresponding floor of the garage, especially for the residential.

Has anyone heard further details on this land?

Are you talking about the parking lot that is currently there?

[RecycleMichael]

This is the strip on the east wall of the parking structure. They have been planting lots of trees there the last couple of years.

It seems a tough place to be retail. My employees park in the parking garage and I park in the lot across the street, so I would love to see some retail on that street. It is just kind of hidden from everything else. Maybe if the Boulder bridge were finished and became two way it could have enough traffic to justify the expense.

[TheTed]

I know nothing about real estate, but why would anyone be interested in a tiny little strip of land when there are full or half blocks of undeveloped land in just about every direction?

That kind of strip of land would get used in a place where real estate is at a premium. In Tulsa, I don't see anything happening.

[OurTulsa]

The strip is deep enough to accommodate reasonable building but I agree there is not enough traffic without the Boulder bridge in place on that last block.  I can't imagine retail making it there.  When downtown's population and popularity grows and specifically the Boulder corridor is established this strip will be more marketable.  Without the bridge that property's in a dead corner of downtown.

[DTowner]

I thought I recently read that construction on the Boulder bridge is supposed to start after the first of the year.

A few years ago I attended a presentation by Jim Norton of Downtown Tulsa Unlimited.  In response to a question on downtown parking garages incorporating commercial/retail space at the street level, he said the space between this parking garage and the street was intentionally left open for future commercial development.

However, even with the develpment of the lot across from the BOK arena and the re-opening of Boulder into Brady, this area may not be busy enough to support much retail/commercial.

[carltonplace]

in retrospect the retail space should have been left available on Cheyenne instead of Boulder.

[TheTed]

I thought I recently read that construction on the Boulder bridge is supposed to start after the first of the year.

What a massive waste. If our current overpasses and underpasses carried more than 25% of their capacity, I could see the reason.

But come on, building an overpass when we already have four over/underpasses within four blocks, two of which are our massively oversized one ways that haven't seen traffic congestion since the 1950s???

All we need is a grade crossing.

[DTowner]

Whether over, under or across, just get Boulder open.  I've long believed Boulder's closure has hurt the development of the Brady District.

[Townsend]

Whether over, under or across, just get Boulder open.  I've long believed Boulder's closure has hurt the development of the Brady District.

+1

[carltonplace]

Agreed, its been closed for too long.

[inteller]

what a dumb RFP.  Greenspace is lacking in that area (unless you count the weeds down by the tracks) and they should just leave it as is.

[dsjeffries]

Here's what Westervelt is putting up in this location. Dirt is already turning. At first glance, I was excited to see the number of units and the fact that they'll meet the sidewalk... and then things just went downhill from there. While they meet the sidewalk, ALL of the entrances are on the back side of the property, tucked away in the back alley between these apartments and the parking garage. What's the point in building to the street if you put all the doors in the back?! It may be gated, but I sure wouldn't want to access my apartment only by a back alley abutting a parking garage. Part of the goal of building to the street is to actually engage the street, create foot traffic, etc. (It also makes it super inconvenient for anyone living in a middle unit to actually get to their front--back door) from the street.

This is also a huge missed opportunity to put something--ANYTHING--different on the first level. It's not prime retail space today, but it could be in the near future as downtown fills in between Brady and the CBD. Having offices, retail, restaurants, shoe shines, coffee shops, etc. on the first level would've meant more activity and more eyes on the street.

These apartments are two floors high. The parking garage behind it is 5 or maybe 6 floors high. We don't have to build it to exactly the same height, but a taller building would help mask the ugliness of the garage. This space had potential, and this project had potential, to be great. Putting the doors to the street would be a major step forward. Adding mixed uses on the ground level would be fantastic. As it is now, it shows both a lack of vision and a fundamental disconnect between suburban-style developers and the basics of urban living.

[PonderInc]

Yes, this is baffling.  I was shocked to realize that the access would be from the back (between the garage and the building...creepy!).  The only explanation I could think of is that the developer imagines people driving everywhere (just like in the burbs!) and then parking their car in the garage, and walking from the garage to their condo.  OK, except that people who actually live and work downtown RARELY DRIVE THEIR CARS!  That's why they moved downtown in the first place.

I definitely agree that this was originally intended to be retail (sorry, folks, but the crappy "green space" was always a space filler, with the plan to incorporate retail facing Boulder).  And it would have worked great to have ground-floor retail with apts above.  However, I won't complain about this being all condos. 

Presumably the developer has worked a deal with Williams, the Chamber, Cimarex or other big companies to promote these as corporate apartments.  Certainly, there are many people who "commute" to Tulsa for their jobs and stay in hotels for extended periods of time.  This would be cheaper for those employers to pay rent or buy condos than pay $100 / night at a hotel for months on end.  That's what I would do if I were the developer.

But then again, I would have included front doors facing the street.

[sgrizzle]

Sorry, my expectations flatlined when I heard it was Westervelt, the same person fighting tooth and nail to stop the expansion of form-based codes.