CVS at 15th and Utica

[erfalf]

CVS apparently really does not like facing corners of busy intersections. This is one about 50 feet from the West Village in Dallas. It doesn't have the weird drive through along the main street, but has the nice fake front door, so that makes it all better.

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.8069052,-96.7976886,3a,75y,283.86h,90.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szxHnPTq7ChCrav1hxdvyrA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

[LandArchPoke]

CVS has appealed to City Council and it will be heard on Thursday at 6:00 pm.  They have revised the plan since TMAPC voted them down by moving the drive thru from the corner to the side and configuring the entrance oddly along the northwest corner of the box building near the sidewalk, but not directly facing it.  On the corner is a friggin window which will not be transparent, but spandrel glass. 

They have refused to come up with any sort of creativity in the design for that unique corner or to offer anything in the realm of walkability, mixed use, or anything else required by the small area plan.  It they want that corner, at the end of one of the only urban walking neighborhoods in town, they really need to put some effort into fitting in with the neighborhood.  Smaller footprint, mixed use building, no drive thru (a planning commissioner mentioned that he has seen urban pharmacies with designated parking spaces and a screen to pick up prescriptions that are hand delivered, as opposed to an actual drive thru), or anything else really.  This is what they build everywhere.  Drive by a "brick facade" CVS anywhere else in town.  They look terrible and nothing like the drawings.  It's not genuine brick laying, it's plasterboard with thin brick facade, and anyone with eyes can tell.  Please help us kill this suburban monstrosity proposed for Cherry Street.

https://drive.google.com/a/okstatealumni.org/file/d/0B4Dqzlhdnu6jNlhtSFAtUDQ4UEE/view?usp=sharing

Thanks for sharing that they appealed this. I was actually driving by this corner yesterday and thought "Thank god that CVS got denied". I have hope the council will follow through with TMAPC's denial since it sounds like they didn't change much from the original concept. Is that link the updated plans? I tried to open it, but it says it is private?

[DowntownDan]

I think I fixed the link.  Should work now.

[PonderInc]

Significantly better than the last incarnation. I can't tell from the drawings if this is "fake brick" or not.  Sure, the door is in the wrong place.  But if it does get approved and built, then in 20 years when it's abandoned and re-purposed, someone could put a real door on the corner where it belongs.  It's a step in the right direction.  The parking areas could be future development space if Tulsans ever embrace transit, cycling and walkability.

I think the small area plan calls for two-story, mixed use.  This is definitely not that.  As far as a CVS goes, this is pretty decent.  Could it be better? Absolutely.  Could it suck way more?  Yep.  It will be interesting to see how much the City Council is willing to respect the neighborhood plan.

[DowntownDan]

It's partial brick on particle board.  During a college summer I worked in a prefab wall factory and that's part of what we did to make fast food and box store "brick" facade.  Drive by any CVS in the suburbs with fake brick.  It's obviously fake.  And these buildings do not convert well to other uses.  We need a two story real brick building on that corner.  CVS can move in on the ground floor with a smaller footprint urban model.  Don't give us the same thing you build everywhere else.  That was the whole purpose of the small area plan.

[TheArtist]

It's much better and when I saw the new rendering my first reaction was "I could go with that."  But on further reflection I am like "It may actually be worse that there is a dead zone on the corner there than had it been a parking lot."  Intersections are very important.  In most cities those are the "champion" really attractive, bustling places where people meet up, where there is lots of activity, that say "here we are at..."  If everything at that intersection was up to the sidewalk but devoid of entrances and exits, it's still a dead intersection for pedestrians and transit, and for anyone really.

All we are doing here is turning this intersection into denser areas of Dallas where there are lots of buildings but nobody out walking.

I will use my Walt Disney example again.  Walt was giving a reporter a tour of DisneyLand just before it opened and he said "And wait until the biggest attraction gets here!" and the reporter said "What's that?"  Walt said "The people!"

It's the people out and about that make an area like this attractive, that give it life and indeed increase the areas desirability to other developers and businesses, and increases property values. It takes a different set of criteria to create good urban spaces than it does to create good suburban style ones. The rules are just different for each. 

They are so close with this.  It's a tough call.  I hate being someone who "tells people what to do with their property" but you know, unfortunately for us free market leaning people, we also have to realize that this building affects a shared public realm.  And that can be far more true in an urban infill environment than a suburban one.  What they do affects other properties.  It affects our shared spaces, the streets and sidewalks that we all pay for, our shared investments in transit, etc.  In an area that we want to be pedestrian/transit lively, the sidewalks are just as important as the roads are in a suburban type area. Where the entrances and exits are on a building are just as important here, though perhaps different, as where the entrances and exits are on a suburban road, into and out of a parking lot. 

[cannon_fodder]

I'm pragmatic.

In my dreams this building would be an L shape generally resembling the Fairfield Inn at the Brady District. 3 or 4 stories. Real brick. Occupying the frontage of the entire lot with structure parking tucked away on the ground and a ramp (that would likely occupy floor 3 on this small lot). The entrance would be a "drive through" the building. The CVS could still occupy the corner space and it would put apartments up above in an area desperate for more apartment.

BUT...

I also understand that CVS is a $110 Billion corporate machine that makes money by sticking cookie cutter stores on corners that fit a certain demographic. It's a formula. They hate deviating from that formula - but will to make money. The City has forced them to make some basic changes. Is it a dream plan? No. Could we force them to build a second story? Maybe, maybe they walk away.

But if we, the "smart development" types, are never satisfied short of our perfect - people stop trying to meet us half way. This new plan is a significant step in the right direct.  It maintains an urban feel if not contributing much to the actual urban density. I wish they would what they did with the "car wash" lot and embrace it, but we are moving in the right direction.

[TheArtist]

I'm pragmatic.

In my dreams this building would be an L shape generally resembling the Fairfield Inn at the Brady District. 3 or 4 stories. Real brick. Occupying the frontage of the entire lot with structure parking tucked away on the ground and a ramp (that would likely occupy floor 3 on this small lot). The entrance would be a "drive through" the building. The CVS could still occupy the corner space and it would put apartments up above in an area desperate for more apartment.

BUT...

I also understand that CVS is a $110 Billion corporate machine that makes money by sticking cookie cutter stores on corners that fit a certain demographic. It's a formula. They hate deviating from that formula - but will to make money. The City has forced them to make some basic changes. Is it a dream plan? No. Could we force them to build a second story? Maybe, maybe they walk away.

But if we, the "smart development" types, are never satisfied short of our perfect - people stop trying to meet us half way. This new plan is a significant step in the right direct.  It maintains an urban feel if not contributing much to the actual urban density. I wish they would what they did with the "car wash" lot and embrace it, but we are moving in the right direction.

I think the height and density aspects are secondary to the "pedestrian lively" and this is on a main corner/intersection aspects.  Those two things I could give up far far more easily.

Just one more thing and I would be fine.  Put the door on the corner or even actually on the side of the building. It's just so odd urban wise to see something like this without the doors near or on the corner, or on the street facing sides? Who does that? lol  

But, I think this is ok long term, not the end of the world.  BUT, then you have to wonder, if you let this go with them violating several factors,,, then does that set a precedence for the next guy who comes in and says he doesn't want to do this or that?  How do you hold the line if there is no line?

As far as I can tell, this is one of the first "tests" if you will of the new comprehensive plans "small area" plans.  What message will this send? 

[DowntownDan]

It's much better and when I saw the new rendering my first reaction was "I could go with that."  But on further reflection I am like "It may actually be worse that there is a dead zone on the corner there than had it been a parking lot."  Intersections are very important.  In most cities those are the "champion" really attractive, bustling places where people meet up, where there is lots of activity, that say "here we are at..."  If everything at that intersection was up to the sidewalk but devoid of entrances and exits, it's still a dead intersection for pedestrians and transit, and for anyone really.

All we are doing here is turning this intersection into denser areas of Dallas where there are lots of buildings but nobody out walking.

I will use my Walt Disney example again.  Walt was giving a reporter a tour of DisneyLand just before it opened and he said "And wait until the biggest attraction gets here!" and the reporter said "What's that?"  Walt said "The people!"

It's the people out and about that make an area like this attractive, that give it life and indeed increase the areas desirability to other developers and businesses, and increases property values. It takes a different set of criteria to create good urban spaces than it does to create good suburban style ones. The rules are just different for each.  

They are so close with this.  It's a tough call.  I hate being someone who "tells people what to do with their property" but you know, unfortunately for us free market leaning people, we also have to realize that this building affects a shared public realm.  And that can be far more true in an urban infill environment than a suburban one.  What they do affects other properties.  It affects our shared spaces, the streets and sidewalks that we all pay for, our shared investments in transit, etc.  In an area that we want to be pedestrian/transit lively, the sidewalks are just as important as the roads are in a suburban type area. Where the entrances and exits are on a building are just as important here, though perhaps different, as where the entrances and exits are on a suburban road, into and out of a parking lot.  

The property owners all agreed "what to do with their property" when the small area plan became effective.  The community decided what that corridor would be.  Density and walkability were finally something more than things people talked about.  It was in writing, signed by city leaders, neighbors, and property owners.  If "be near the sidewalk" was all that was required, the plan would be two pages.  It's more than 100.  

The biggest problem, in my opinion, is the plans desire for density in the urban environment.  This project would demolish the two story tudor home/law office next door, and the three story medical building to the north, along with the gas station, and replace it with a single floor single purpose box store.  That strays so far from the plan that I'm astonished how much trouble we're having convincing people.  

The non-transparent window on the corner is equally offensive to the plan.  They have done nothing to try to meet the plan other than make the roof slightly higher (which will be empty space and for aesthetics only) and moved closer to the sidewalk.  That's literally the only difference between this and what's at 21st and Harvard, or any of them in the suburbs.  The small area plan outlined what the corridor is supposed to look like.  This is the first test under the plan.  If it passes, the plan isn't worth the years of work and the paper its written on.  It becomes the equivalent of us talking about it and nothing more.  It is written down, vetted, and approved by the stakeholders.  Why is it all of a sudden meaningless?

[Conan71]

But if we, the "smart development" types, are never satisfied short of our perfect - people stop trying to meet us half way. This new plan is a significant step in the right direct.  It maintains an urban feel if not contributing much to the actual urban density. I wish they would what they did with the "car wash" lot and embrace it, but we are moving in the right direction.

Those who feel there is an economic benefit to being in this market will meet us half way.  We need to show we have self-esteem when it comes to planning and design, especially as we try to add quality infill to the city's interior, and stick to it.

Same with any proposed commercial development along our river.  I'm tired of barely-improved layup slab design with an under-utilized sea of parking being the norm with every national brand that comes to Tulsa.

[TheArtist]

The property owners all agreed "what to do with their property" when the small area plan became effective.  The community decided what that corridor would be.  Density and walkability were finally something more than things people talked about.  It was in writing, signed by city leaders, neighbors, and property owners.  If "be near the sidewalk" was all that was required, the plan would be two pages.  It's more than 100.  

The biggest problem, in my opinion, is the plans desire for density in the urban environment.  This project would demolish the two story tudor home/law office next door, and the three story medical building to the north, along with the gas station, and replace it with a single floor single purpose box store.  That strays so far from the plan that I'm astonished how much trouble we're having convincing people.  The non-transparent window on the corner is what really makes me mad.  They have done nothing to try to meet the plan other than make the roof slightly higher (which will be empty space and for aesthetics only) and moved closer to the sidewalk.  That's literally the only difference between this and what's at 21st and Harvard, or any of them in the suburbs.  The small area plan outlined what the corridor is supposed to look like.  This is the first test under the plan.  If it passes, the plan isn't worth the years of work and the paper its written on.  It becomes the equivalent of us talking about it and nothing more.  It is written down, vetted, and approved by the stakeholders.  Why is it all of a sudden meaningless?

Very good points!

[PonderInc]

It's just so odd urban wise to see something like this without the doors near or on the corner, or on the street facing sides? Who does that? lol  

Trader Joes, unfortunately. Which is sad because Brookside is one place where people actually can walk on the sidewalk to go shopping.

[Bamboo World]

The biggest problem, in my opinion, is the [neighborhood small area] plan's desire for density in the urban environment.  This project would demolish the two story tudor home/law office next door, and the three story medical building to the north, along with the gas station, and replace it with a single floor single purpose box store.  That strays so far from the plan that I'm astonished how much trouble we're having convincing people.

No problem in convincing me...

I agree completely.

The non-transparent window on the corner is equally offensive to the plan.

Today, I looked at the backup documents for the City Council agenda.  The drawings indicate extensive use of storefront near the street corner entrance.  Are you certain it's to be glazed with spandrel panels or some other type of non-transparent material?

[Conan71]

Trader Joes, unfortunately. Which is sad because Brookside is one place where people actually can walk on the sidewalk to go shopping.

Look at it this way, they could have gone with the huge set-back and parking out front, flat-donkey pulled a Quik Trip.  Give credit where credit is due on this one.

[DowntownDan]

If you're for smarter development on Cherry Street, please consider coming to City Hall at 6:00 pm tonight.  All we're asking is that CVS put some effort into an urban design to better fit the neighborhood.  The planning commission turned them down and one of the commissioners, Ted Reed I believe, told them to put some effort into the architecture to fit the neighborhood.  Their response was to move a few things on their prototype box.  The small area plan calls for smarter structures.  Multiple functional floors.  Density, likely meaning a smaller footprint than their used to. None of this is unreasonable.

The most important part about what happens today is that a precedent will be set as to whether the Small Area Plans mean anything.  This is the first major test.  The people who worked with PlanIt Tulsa took months and drafted very long detailed plans on what our city will look like.  This doesn't conform.  If this is allowed with all of its deviations, then the Small Area Plans are meaningless and were a waste of peoples' time and vision.  I hope that people can see this and, particularly, the city council.