CVS at 15th and Utica

[Breadburner]

He is probably the developer.

I would bet money on it....He owns most of those corners....

[YoungTulsan]

The CVSs around here never have any customers.  41st & Harvard serves as a cut thru and overflow parking for when chicken and bottled water are on sale at sprouts.  I have not once seen more than 1 or 2 employee vehicles in the parking lot at 61st & lewis.

[PonderInc]

QT often has entrances to/from residential streets, even when they already have two other entrances on arterials. Not saying it's smart, but it exists. Tulsa has never seen a driveway it didn't like.  Often, when homes are demolished for PUDs, they just keep all the existing driveways, even after all the little houses are gone. Only difference is that they're widened to 30' so nobody has to slow down when crossing a sidewalk.

[DowntownDan]

Reasor's at 15th and Lewis also is adding a drive through as part of their remodel.  Do we really need a third pharmacy drive through a few blocks over?

[PonderInc]

CVS at 41st and Harvard has 68 parking spaces, even though zoning only required 57.  In truth, there are rarely more than 15 cars there at one time.  Halloween was an exception as everyone raced around looking for candy.  It was perhaps 1/3 full that day, which was the most I've ever seen! Probably about 30 cars at once!  Whew!  That was a close one!

[Breadburner]

Reasor's at 15th and Lewis also is adding a drive through as part of their remodel.  Do we really need a third pharmacy drive through a few blocks over?

love NO....!!!

[cannon_fodder]

Here's what I don't get:

The City is always broke. No matter how much sales revenue we bring in, or how many new buildings go up, we are broke because of a poor growth model.

Strict development codes generally raise property values. You can require this CVS to be built not only to a higher spec in and of itself, but in a manner that elevates the property value of the area. Additionally, areas that are something other than standard suburban development draw people in from standard suburban development. There are a lot more Owasso residents driving to Cherry Street for a night out than the other way around.

SO--- good, smart growth zoning makes the city money. CVS isn't going to pass on this spot even if it costs an extra $250k (or whatever) to build there. They've done the math, and $250k wouldn't change the outcome.

[PonderInc]

Yes, but our planning commission and development policies are ruled by...developers. Developers think like this: More rules = higher quality product = more expensive = less profit for me.

They are not playing the long game of improving a particular neighborhood, which would allow them to increase profits due to higher commercial leases and greater desirability for the whole area. That's how an intelligent local property owner who has a stake in the neighborhood and understands urban design would behave.  That sort of developer would not be bringing in a CVS to this corner.

We're dealing with guys from Alabama or somewhere who have made a deal with an unimaginative property owner in Tulsa.  They have a template, and they know how much profit they can make from that template, and they want that number today. The building will last 20 years and then it will be replaced with something else.  Maybe by then, if we haven't ruined Cherry Street with too much of this sort of crap, the land will be so valuable, they'll want to develop in an intelligent urban way.

But as slow as Tulsa is to make changes to the status quo, 20 years may not be enough time.  We can only hope that the right old geezers die off, and the right young people stick around.  Then maybe we'll see more positive change.

[carltonplace]

they are tearing down the homes that their customers live in.

[PonderInc]

Don't worry.  With all that parking, their customer base can spread far and wide!  Who needs neighbors when you can have parking lots! (And increased road maintenance, and expensive lane widening projects, and reduced property taxes, and...)

[cannon_fodder]

They are not playing the long game of improving a particular neighborhood, which would allow them to increase profits due to higher commercial leases and greater desirability for the whole area. That's how an intelligent local property owner who has a stake in the neighborhood and understands urban design would behave.  That sort of developer would not be bringing in a CVS to this corner.

You pretty much described how the Brady District has done it right. Local guys holding and building out properties for the long term. I might not love all the development that has gone in there, but there hasn't been anything cringe worthy IMO. Much as I am critical of Sager, same story in the Blue Dome.

[DowntownDan]

Don't worry.  With all that parking, their customer base can spread far and wide!  Who needs neighbors when you can have parking lots! (And increased road maintenance, and expensive lane widening projects, and reduced property taxes, and...)

and traffic gridlock on an already busy intersection.

[DowntownDan]

There are nice 3-4 story office buildings on the SE and SW corners of that intersection.  It's at the end of a block of offices.  Could they not have built a nice urban office building with CVS as a ground floor tenant?  It would at least look nicer and fit better with one of the only urbanish quasi pedestrian neighborhoods in our city.

[Breadburner]

So...How do we get this shot down.....

[AngieB]

So...How do we get this shot down.....

+1