Palace Clothing Building/Old Arby's

[PonderInc]

Nice job by "This Land Press" for following up.  Here's the article in "This Land":
http://thislandpress.com/roundups/excaliber-building-wont-be-demolished-tulsa-world-says/

My favorite quote is:
..."Bobby Lorton Jr., publisher and CEO of the Tulsa World, told This Land in an email 'there is no planned demolition' of the Excaliber Building."

I hope there isn't an unplanned one, either.  I know a lot of folks who didn't PLAN on having kids...

[Teatownclown]

Why do citizens find it necessary to inflict their desires on one of our most basic freedoms, property rights?

[Townsend]

Why do citizens find it necessary to inflict their desires on one of our most basic freedoms, property rights?

Belong to the clan huh?

[TheArtist]

Why do citizens find it necessary to inflict their desires on one of our most basic freedoms, property rights?

Why is it that any change to the status quoe is seen as the "infliction of someone elses desires on our most basic freedoms" when the  status quoe itself is mearly an earlier "infliction of someone elses desires on our most basic freedoms"?  Try building whatever you want in your neighborhood and you may indeed see what those earlier "inflictions" are all about.  But try to get them changed and everyone else throws a fit.  (See...Pearl District Form Based Codes vrs the Zoning that was previously "inflicted").  See... minimum parking requirements, disallowing mixed use structures, height restrictions, not allowing accessory dwelling unit construction, funding going to parking garages vrs transit, etc. etc. etc. in 99% of the city destroying any chance of pedestrian friendly streets and transit working which creates the need for parking and voila a parking lot being possibly considered more economical or egads even more slightly desirable in the core than an urban mixed use building.  But thats not an infliction, thats "natural"? 

[Teatownclown]

Why is it that any change to the status quoe is seen as the "infliction of someone elses desires on our most basic freedoms" when the  status quoe itself is mearly an earlier "infliction of someone elses desires on our most basic freedoms"?  Try building whatever you want in your neighborhood and you may indeed see what those earlier "inflictions" are all about.  But try to get them changed and everyone else throws a fit.  (See...Pearl District Form Based Codes vrs the Zoning that was previously "inflicted").  See... minimum parking requirements, disallowing mixed use structures, height restrictions, not allowing accessory dwelling unit construction, funding going to parking garages vrs transit, etc. etc. etc. in 99% of the city destroying any chance of pedestrian friendly streets and transit working which creates the need for parking and voila a parking lot being possibly considered more economical or egads even more slightly desirable in the core than an urban mixed use building.  But thats not an infliction, thats "natural"?  

Whhaaaa? Arteest, having been a developer for 35 years I can only tell you that when confronted with THE CODE you MUST operate within those guidelines. And yes, there exists some flexibility. But please do not think you have any sticks in the bundle as a dreamer.... Redevelopment unfolds under the rules of the game....and the way a property gets developed is contingent upon municipality guidelines. Not the other way around.

Take your ball and go home if all you can do is tackle the landowner with your ideas about what he should do with his rights....need some cheese to go with that whine? Besides, district courts will side with the owner and not the nimby's IF there is no breaking of the law nor over stepping local ordinances.

[AquaMan]

Why do citizens find it necessary to inflict their desires on one of our most basic freedoms, property rights?

You surprise me. All rights come with limitations, infringements, restrictions. The citizens "inflict" their desires because they share adjacent property, air, and freedom from abuse by others. Hence, we don't allow drilling in the city limits.

The same citizens, elected by the population or appointed by the city, inflict rules upon our property that were obviously designed to benefit developers like yourself. No citizen really asked for new developments to eliminate sidewalks and parks, make cul-de-sacs, pie shaped lots, ditches instead of drains, etc. You guys inflicted that upon the consumer then sold it as beneficial.

[Red Arrow]

No citizen really asked for new developments to eliminate sidewalks and parks, make cul-de-sacs, pie shaped lots,

Actually, one of my best friends, a California/Colorado transplant specifically wanted a house on a cul-de-sac when he moved here.  He may have wanted sidewalks.  I don't know if he wanted parks or not.  Parks are not part of our discussions.

[Conan71]

Whhaaaa? Arteest, having been a developer for 35 years I can only tell you that when confronted with THE CODE you MUST operate within those guidelines. And yes, there exists some flexibility. But please do not think you have any sticks in the bundle as a dreamer.... Redevelopment unfolds under the rules of the game....and the way a property gets developed is contingent upon municipality guidelines. Not the other way around.

Take your ball and go home if all you can do is tackle the landowner with your ideas about what he should do with his rights....need some cheese to go with that whine? Besides, district courts will side with the owner and not the nimby's IF there is no breaking of the law nor over stepping local ordinances.

What if your next door neighbor was well-connected and wanted to build a five story Taj Mahal so he could get 18 hole coverage of the next U.S. Open played in Tulsa without ever having to turn on his/her TV?  At what point does a property owner's rights supersede those of the surrounding neighbors?

I live on a mixed block in Lortondale so if someone bought one of the houses either side of me and wanted to build a more traditional house on that lot, it really wouldn't be out of place.  Now if someone a few blocks to the north bought four lots in a back-to-back situation and wanted to erect a walled-in four story condo complex in the middle of a neighborhood, people are just supposed to be good with that because the new owner of the property has rights?  Look at the McMansions and Tuscan dreck scattered around Maple Ridge and Brookside.  Is that the sort of incongruous redevelopment we want coinciding next to more traditional homes for a given neighborhood era?

[Red Arrow]

What if your next door neighbor was well-connected and wanted to build a five story Taj Mahal so he could get 18 hole coverage of the next U.S. Open played in Tulsa without ever having to turn on his/her TV?  At what point does a property owner's rights supersede those of the surrounding neighbors?

I live on a mixed block in Lortondale so if someone bought one of the houses either side of me and wanted to build a more traditional house on that lot, it really wouldn't be out of place.  Now if someone a few blocks to the north bought four lots in a back-to-back situation and wanted to erect a walled-in four story condo complex in the middle of a neighborhood, people are just supposed to be good with that because the new owner of the property has rights?  Look at the McMansions and Tuscan dreck scattered around Maple Ridge and Brookside.  Is that the sort of incongruous redevelopment we want coinciding next to more traditional homes for a given neighborhood era?

As long as they put in sidewalks, it would be acceptable.

[TheArtist]

Whhaaaa? Arteest, having been a developer for 35 years I can only tell you that when confronted with THE CODE you MUST operate within those guidelines. And yes, there exists some flexibility. But please do not think you have any sticks in the bundle as a dreamer.... Redevelopment unfolds under the rules of the game....and the way a property gets developed is contingent upon municipality guidelines. Not the other way around.

Take your ball and go home if all you can do is tackle the landowner with your ideas about what he should do with his rights....need some cheese to go with that whine? Besides, district courts will side with the owner and not the nimby's IF there is no breaking of the law nor over stepping local ordinances.

I am not exactly sure you got my point lol.   For instance, isn't this.... (Redevelopment unfolds under the rules of the game....and the way a property gets developed is contingent upon municipality guidelines.) what I myself just said?


I am for allowing, and even promoting in certain areas, good, pedestrian friendly, urban development in Tulsa.   Presently it's illegal (Redevelopment unfolds under the rules of the game...) but wasn't always so. The exception is in downtown, but, that area being a tiny island can't work as a pedestrian friendly/transit friendly, urban space for the forces pushing for car centric culture all around it in the rest of the city will overwhelm it and continue to push it towards being car centric/suburban vrs urban (because the rules were changed and it's now illegal everywhere else). Think about areas like the Pearl District and Cherry Street.  What was once legal "contingent upon municipality guidelines" was changed and made illegal. (Redevelopment unfolds under the rules of the game...)  In order for a property owner to do what used to be legal, they have to go befor the board and beg for an exception.   The "laws/local ordinances" were changed once,,, why can't they be changed again, or gotten rid of to allow more freedom?  

[AquaMan]

Actually, one of my best friends, a California/Colorado transplant specifically wanted a house on a cul-de-sac when he moved here.  He may have wanted sidewalks.  I don't know if he wanted parks or not.  Parks are not part of our discussions.

Well, then because one of your friends wanted that, it makes it all different.

The thesis Tea sets forth is that property rights trump citizen complaints. That includes parks that were once required iof developers before developers took over the process and overrode citizen input. Same with lot sizes and shapes.

[Red Arrow]

Well, then because one of your friends wanted that, it makes it all different.
The thesis Tea sets forth is that property rights trump citizen complaints. That includes parks that were once required iof developers before developers took over the process and overrode citizen input. Same with lot sizes and shapes.

I was questioning your "No citizen really asked for" part of the statement.  If I know someone who wanted some of that stuff, there are likely to be many more.

[AquaMan]

I was questioning your "No citizen really asked for" part of the statement.  If I know someone who wanted some of that stuff, there are likely to be many more.

There are people now who prefer them. There was no hue and cry for cul-de-sacs when they were rolled out. They were an effort to maximize the amount of housing that could be stuffed into a housing edition. Same thing with wildly meandering streets which created odd shaped lots, closed off additions which forced all traffic to enter/exit at fewer points and the elimination of sidewalks and parks. These were changes that police/fire/ambulance services did not want nor did they come from the general population.

They were marketed to the population with benefits like decreased traffic flow, lower lot cost, more efficient use of resources etc. Years later the deficiencies became known. Service providers like utility companies, police, fire and ambulance have to spend time learning the strange layouts and their response times suffer. If the buyers of homes on cul-de-sacs and French curve neighborhoods had understood that parking on them is nightmarish, views and access are diminished and you pay more per sq. foot for your lot than others...they wouldn't have sold quite as well.

edit: Hey, RA, I don't mean to sound rude or dismissive of you or the burbs. You know that. Just recounting the history like all us old farts tend to do.

[Red Arrow]

There are people now who prefer them. There was no hue and cry for cul-de-sacs when they were rolled out. They were an effort to maximize the amount of housing that could be stuffed into a housing edition. Same thing with wildly meandering streets which created odd shaped lots, closed off additions which forced all traffic to enter/exit at fewer points and the elimination of sidewalks and parks. These were changes that police/fire/ambulance services did not want nor did they come from the general population.

They were marketed to the population with benefits like decreased traffic flow, lower lot cost, more efficient use of resources etc. Years later the deficiencies became known. Service providers like utility companies, police, fire and ambulance have to spend time learning the strange layouts and their response times suffer. If the buyers of homes on cul-de-sacs and French curve neighborhoods had understood that parking on them is nightmarish, views and access are diminished and you pay more per sq. foot for your lot than others...they wouldn't have sold quite as well.

edit: Hey, RA, I don't mean to sound rude or dismissive of you or the burbs. You know that. Just recounting the history like all us old farts tend to do.

I am not personally a fan of cul-de-sacs.  I just call them dead-ends.  I'm not so sure they maximize the number of houses but they may minimize the amount of paving per house.  In some areas they are the result of geography but not so much here in the (mostly) flat lands.  If there are several houses per acre, you probably need sidewalks.  Out here where we are not so much. ( http://g.co/maps/p85xa , please ignore the SE quarter section)  I know my parents specifically did NOT want sidewalks (which we did have back east) along with the little over an acre lot they did want. Mildly meandering roads break up the monotony of a neighborhood.  Not having everything on a thru grid does cut down on traffic as drivers not knowing the neighborhood are less likely to cut through to avoid traffic elsewhere.  Wildly meandering roads can cause some of the problems you mention.  I was a volunteer fireman in my late teens (we were allowed to join at 16 but were not allowed in an actively burning structure until 18) in the township where I grew up.  Part of being a fireman was learning the streets.  Us young guys (quite a while ago now) spent time at the wall map learning the best ways to random addresses so when we became drivers we already knew the best way to anywhere in town.   Springfield, PA 19064 was about 8 square miles of mostly bedroom community. ( http://g.co/maps/phxyv ).  Our response time was pretty good and we had some of the lowest fire insurance rates in the area.  We also had serious training every Tuesday evening including both technical training and drills.  Springfield had some nice parks.  They were frequently in an area less convenient to develop into housing but gave us kids a place to be.  Parks are especially important when you don't have a back yard big enough to do anything in except mow the grass.

[Truman]

So when the "Excaliber" is torn down they are putting in a cul-de-sac with sidewalks?

This is Great News!