Development at 31st/Peoria?

[LandArchPoke]

I've been monitoring the responses on Next Door and similar.   Some are obviously over-wrought,  but most are rational and not opposed to basically any kind of residential development.  Simply that retail/commercial is not a good fit at that location.    There are some really good conversations buried in the mix regarding planned use.   I have not dug into the source docs yet, but basically the property in question is noted as a "growth" area, but no change in zoning is mentioned.  It seems obvious that "something" will be built out on that plot, but it was always assumed it would be residential of some form.  Also, there is a separate zoning for the Cherry Street area, stopping at Crow Creek.  Which also seems to indicate that commercial was intended to stop at Crow Creek, and all North of there was planned to be residential.  (Which coincides with my earlier observations, even though I was unaware of these documents/directions at the time.)

I can see a legitimate concern on the commercial side - maybe they can make some sort of agreement with the developer in which restricts the uses of retail allowed.

I can't imagine any bars/clubs will be able to afford rents in this project which I'm sure is the biggest concern of the neighborhood. I'd bet retail lease rates will be at least $25 sq ft or more. Seems like the retailers that would want this space are more likely to be a LuluLemon, Warby Parker, etc type retailers that are increasingly more common along Brookside versus something that would be loud/blasting music late in the evening/night. I could see this being a great location for a Container Store, SurLaTable, etc. which I know have been scouting Tulsa for a while and just haven't been able to find the right space and I'd think that type of retail/commercial use wouldn't be a detriment to surrounding residential like if this was all nightclub or restaurant/bar combos.

[rebound]

I can see a legitimate concern on the commercial side - maybe they can make some sort of agreement with the developer in which restricts the uses of retail allowed.

I can't imagine any bars/clubs will be able to afford rents in this project which I'm sure is the biggest concern of the neighborhood. I'd bet retail lease rates will be at least $25 sq ft or more. Seems like the retailers that would want this space are more likely to be a LuluLemon, Warby Parker, etc type retailers that are increasingly more common along Brookside versus something that would be loud/blasting music late in the evening/night. I could see this being a great location for a Container Store, SurLaTable, etc. which I know have been scouting Tulsa for a while and just haven't been able to find the right space and I'd think that type of retail/commercial use wouldn't be a detriment to surrounding residential like if this was all nightclub or restaurant/bar combos.

It's not type of commercial/retail.  It is retail vs residential.  The pervasive opinion, and I am in this camp, is that the development should be residential-only.  Whatever kind of residential isn't as big of a factor. 

[TulsaGoldenHurriCAN]

It's not type of commercial/retail.  It is retail vs residential.  The pervasive opinion, and I am in this camp, is that the development should be residential-only.  Whatever kind of residential isn't as big of a factor. 

Fair enough argument, but I think most of their concerns could be alleviated through proper site-layout/design and that Brookside should go all the way to 31st eventually. I think that at minimum, they should at least compromise to allow office space. The taller building having offices on the ground and maybe a mix of office/residential on higher floors would seem to fit nicely without too much of a bother.

I understand the opposition to loud bars and clubs there. I think a restaurant component would be essential though, whether a small indoor/outdoor cafe or a restaurant, that would be great for the neighborhood and the development. All around Midtown, there's restaurants along arterial roads with residential interior and it doesn't bother those who live in those neighborhoods. I'm in that same boat and I love having restaurants nearby. The bars and breweries don't bother me either. Most of those and most retail places don't disrupt anything.

[Jeff P]

It's not type of commercial/retail.  It is retail vs residential.  The pervasive opinion, and I am in this camp, is that the development should be residential-only.  Whatever kind of residential isn't as big of a factor. 

What exactly are people's arguments against having a really nice mixed development there that includes retail?  I live literally 3 blocks from this to the west and I think it would be awesome.

The most valuable property in Brookside is currently the property that is closest to the most developed part of Brookside, in terms of retail - east of Peoria in between about 33rd and 36th.

So are people who live around this afraid their property values will increase too much?!!!

[LandArchPoke]

What exactly are people's arguments against having a really nice mixed development there that includes retail?  I live literally 3 blocks from this to the west and I think it would be awesome.

The most valuable property in Brookside is currently the property that is closest to the most developed part of Brookside, in terms of retail - east of Peoria in between about 33rd and 36th.

So are people who live around this afraid their property values will increase too much?!!!

I can see why someone would be concerned with not wanting a bunch of new clubs/bars opening near their house, but frankly the type of retail that would be able to afford the rents in a development like this would not be that type of tenant. It could be solved by restricting the uses of retail within the development through a deed restriction imposed by the developer on the site - so then it would carry onto any owners afterwards as well. I think that's a valid concession the developer could make with the neighborhood and would have no impact to the overall marketability of the development to tenants or if they decided to sell it at some point.

I don't see the argument of just no retail at all. Having a LuluLemon or Urban Outfitters within a few hundred feet of a house is bad in what way? That I'm not sure about. That also goes to your point of a lot of the more expensive parts of Brookside are now those sections near the highest density of retail/commercial space. So, with the right tenants of retail, it'd increase surrounding property values.

[SXSW]

I'm still of the opinion that the commercial strip of Brookside should stay south of Crow Creek, and that there should be more focus to redevelop the portion between 36th and 41st more into an area that resembles 36th to 33rd.  I am all for a dense residential development on this block even a midrise I just think it should be residential in nature.

Does the Patterson estate extend all the way to Crow Creek or is there another property in between? 

[Jeff P]

I can see why someone would be concerned with not wanting a bunch of new clubs/bars opening near their house, but frankly the type of retail that would be able to afford the rents in a development like this would not be that type of tenant. It could be solved by restricting the uses of retail within the development through a deed restriction imposed by the developer on the site - so then it would carry onto any owners afterwards as well. I think that's a valid concession the developer could make with the neighborhood and would have no impact to the overall marketability of the development to tenants or if they decided to sell it at some point.

I don't see the argument of just no retail at all. Having a LuluLemon or Urban Outfitters within a few hundred feet of a house is bad in what way? That I'm not sure about. That also goes to your point of a lot of the more expensive parts of Brookside are now those sections near the highest density of retail/commercial space. So, with the right tenants of retail, it'd increase surrounding property values.

Exactly.  Are there even any CURRENT spots in Brookside proper that would be considered "loud clubs/bars???" Maybe Warehouse I guess, but that's basically it... and it's not anywhere approaching "loud." There isn't a single spot in Brookside any more that I would consider a "club."

Anything that goes into this new development is going to be upscale restaurants/bars and boutiques, just like 99% of the rest of Brookside.  They won't be anything near approaching "loud."

And it absolutely will increase property values on the north end of Brookside.

[rebound]

I'm still with SXSW, in that Brookside starts at the creeks and goes South from there.   There are tons of properties from the creek to the highway that would benefit greatly from a development like this, rather than converting existing residential in an area outside the traditional commercial area.

In terms of property values,  I don't think that (assuming the development is done tastefully, and does not overshadow the immediate neighbors) the nearby residential will be affected greatly either way.   Given the location, with Brookside being walkably close, I don't see it being a benefit and it could be a negative to immediate home values. In terms of sq ft pricing, this is already some of the most valuable housing in Tulsa, so it is not in an area that is in need of property value improvement.  But also, I don't see this as being a pure property-values argument.  The great question should be whether this area was/is intended to be commercial.   If not, it should not be approved.

   

[rebound]

I'm still of the opinion that the commercial strip of Brookside should stay south of Crow Creek, and that there should be more focus to redevelop the portion between 36th and 41st more into an area that resembles 36th to 33rd.  I am all for a dense residential development on this block even a midrise I just think it should be residential in nature.

Does the Patterson estate extend all the way to Crow Creek or is there another property in between? 

There are a couple of properties between this proposed development and Crow Creek.

[Oil Capital]

It should be noted that not everyone wants their property values to go up.  For those who have no intention of ever selling, the only thing they see coming from increased property values is increased taxes.

[LandArchPoke]

It should be noted that not everyone wants their property values to go up.  For those who have no intention of ever selling, the only thing they see coming from increased property values is increased taxes.

Who would buy a house in an area with declining values for their primary residence? If the neighborhood isn't declining, then values are going to be going up regardless. It's just a question of how fast. Given that Oklahoma caps property tax increases I don't really buy that argument either. Especially if you don't intend on selling for a while, that actually would allow people to tap equity within their home over the long run - not sure who would think that's a bad thing. If property taxes weren't capped, then I can see that being an argument of causing displacement of current residences.

[LandArchPoke]

I'm still with SXSW, in that Brookside starts at the creeks and goes South from there.   There are tons of properties from the creek to the highway that would benefit greatly from a development like this, rather than converting existing residential in an area outside the traditional commercial area.

In terms of property values,  I don't think that (assuming the development is done tastefully, and does not overshadow the immediate neighbors) the nearby residential will be affected greatly either way.   Given the location, with Brookside being walkably close, I don't see it being a benefit and it could be a negative to immediate home values. In terms of sq ft pricing, this is already some of the most valuable housing in Tulsa, so it is not in an area that is in need of property value improvement.  But also, I don't see this as being a pure property-values argument.  The great question should be whether this area was/is intended to be commercial.   If not, it should not be approved.

   

This argument has never made much sense to me either... You can't say well there's other properties somewhere else so do it there.

They can't force anyone along Brookside to sell their properties - let alone find a site of similar size on the south side of Brookside to do something similar there. You could make the same argument of saying well there's lots of land in Bixby, why don't they build it there. You can't duplicate the location - they own that piece of land and want to develop that piece of land - it's a private development and private property. This isn't a public facility where that argument is reasonable to say you think a community center or something should be located in a certain spot versus another.

Those properties south of 41st could use some redevelopment, that's a different point - that's up to those specific owners to do so too.

If you don't like the development, I'd say you should ask the city for an update to the Brookside small area plan (not sure if there even is one) and ask for an overlay which would provide more control to the neighborhood for the scale and type of development. The city tried this before and people lost their smile over it and threw a huge fit about you can't tell us what to do with our property... blah blah. Now the neighborhood is being over ran with a lot of context insensitive infill homes that fit better in Jenks than Brookside. This development is a direct result of those lack of policies the city tried to tell people they needed for the neighborhood. You can't have it both ways... if you want more control over what's built near you, you need regulations.

If you don't want regulations on your property outside of common zoning, then you can't be mad when people around you change their properties to fit whatever they dream within the current long range plan/zoning codes.

[Jeff P]

This argument has never made much sense to me either... You can't say well there's other properties somewhere else so do it there.

They can't force anyone along Brookside to sell their properties - let alone find a site of similar size on the south side of Brookside to do something similar there. You could make the same argument of saying well there's lots of land in Bixby, why don't they build it there. You can't duplicate the location - they own that piece of land and want to develop that piece of land - it's a private development and private property. This isn't a public facility where that argument is reasonable to say you think a community center or something should be located in a certain spot versus another.

Those properties south of 41st could use some redevelopment, that's a different point - that's up to those specific owners to do so too.

This is where I am. 

And I'm not sure why "Bookside" needs to "stop" at Crow Creek or some other arbitrary line. 

I would also be less enthusiastic about this development if it was actually taking away something that is currently adding value to the neighborhood.  But honestly, the SE corner of 31st and Peoria is a bit of an eyesore.  All you see is an overgrown mess of vines and mature landscape that obviously hasn't been tended to in decades.

Replacing that with an upscale mixed development like the one proposed is a win in my book.

[TheArtist]

I like the proposed development. Used to seeing a LOT worse so happy when one comes in looking this good.  I think its appropriate for the area as this corridor features our first BRT line and one hopes it will continue to infill and become more transit and pedestrian friendly.

And yes, it is ironic to listen to so many "property rights" people complain about someone trying to do what they want with their own property.

[rebound]

This argument has never made much sense to me either... You can't say well there's other properties somewhere else so do it there.

They can't force anyone along Brookside to sell their properties - let alone find a site of similar size on the south side of Brookside to do something similar there. You could make the same argument of saying well there's lots of land in Bixby, why don't they build it there. You can't duplicate the location - they own that piece of land and want to develop that piece of land - it's a private development and private property. This isn't a public facility where that argument is reasonable to say you think a community center or something should be located in a certain spot versus another.

Those properties south of 41st could use some redevelopment, that's a different point - that's up to those specific owners to do so too.

If you don't like the development, I'd say you should ask the city for an update to the Brookside small area plan (not sure if there even is one) and ask for an overlay which would provide more control to the neighborhood for the scale and type of development. The city tried this before and people lost their smile over it and threw a huge fit about you can't tell us what to do with our property... blah blah. Now the neighborhood is being over ran with a lot of context insensitive infill homes that fit better in Jenks than Brookside. This development is a direct result of those lack of policies the city tried to tell people they needed for the neighborhood. You can't have it both ways... if you want more control over what's built near you, you need regulations.

If you don't want regulations on your property outside of common zoning, then you can't be mad when people around you change their properties to fit whatever they dream within the current long range plan/zoning codes.

I agree on the first point, regarding houses that don't fit the neighborhood.  Particularly with regard to multi-car garages as the predominant feature of small-lot home.  I would have been in favor of overlay restrictions, but I didn't live in the area at the time, so wasn't part of that discussion.    I am sensitive to the current owners' wanting to maximize their land value, however as you note, we have zoning for a reason and these owners are not trying to maximize their land value within current zoning, but are asking for a change from residential to commercial.   This changes the basic nature of the area, and is what is being opposed.   

As a general rule, I do think zoning is important, particularly that traditionally residential areas are protected from encroaching commercial and related.  We do need "quiet residential areas" in all parts of the cities, not just specific to this area.