Towerview Apartments

[cityboy]

I think the Towerview's owner is undergoing a mafia-style "shakedown" by the City of Tulsa. "Do what we want or we'll put you out of business" seems to be the message the City of Tulsa has sent to the owner of the Towerview.

The City's treatment (and the World's treatment) of the Towerview's owner should have shocked people into realizing something is very wrong with our attitude in Tulsa.

Between the NEGATIVE newspaper articles besmirching the Towerview coming out of nowhere (and it really wasn't newsworthy), and the City SUDDENLY wanting to condemn the Towerview for code violations that had been allowed to exist for decades, I just think we have sent a very clear message to small, out-of-state investors.

Why don't we shake down every absentee property owner in Tulsa, and see how many real estate investors we can get to pull out of Tulsa? It could be an excellent way to prove we are as backwards as the rest of the nation thinks we are.

I think the Towerview's only hope for remaining under its current ownership is for the owner to contribute to someone's re-election campaign.

[MichaelC]

I really didn't appreciate the World stories, mainly because of the people effected.  But in the grand scheme of things, I think the stories were "newsworthy."  If the way to clean up an area is to put it in print, then the place I find fault with the World, is not being consistent about it.  They should be carrying on their crusade in the rest of Tulsa, always bringing attention to slum lords.  If you're going to "be bad", just be consistently "bad."  Maybe that is too much to ask.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

I really didn't appreciate the World stories, mainly because of the people effected.  But in the grand scheme of things, I think the stories were "newsworthy."  If the way to clean up an area is to put it in print, then the place I find fault with the World, is not being consistent about it.  They should be carrying on their crusade in the rest of Tulsa, always bringing attention to slum lords.  If you're going to "be bad", just be consistently "bad."  Maybe that is too much to ask.

I completely agree.  How many slum lords do you think there are in Tulsa?  I am sure there were much worse places than Towerview, which continue to violate ordinances everyday.  Why this weekly rental, other than its close proximity to the Arena?

[RecycleMichael]

I think that many people learned lessons from the handling of the Denver Grill.

It was an embarassment and should have been forced to cleanup it's act or close (it had bathrooms outside). I thought it was kinda cool to have a diner restaurant on Denver until I actually took some visitors there.

The place was nasty, but when the city tried to purchase the land for the arena, suddenly certain individuals acted like it was Mecca. The whole purchase became political and messy.

It was right after this that the Tulsa World did a story about the Towerview Apartments and how decrepid it was. The code officials then used their power to enforce the rules.

I work a block away from the Towerview and my grandfather owned a building (long gone) across the street when I was growing up. I always remember this building as being in bad shape, but I am not a structural engineer to know if it is worth saving.

I worry that it will continue to be a blight on this part of downtown. We have committed to build the biggest and most expensive public building project in our city's history. I clearly don't want this building in it's current form to be across the street.

If I was a hotel chain looking to build a new hotel, I would also be cautious with such a eyesore next door as well.

If the owner had been working on it all year I would feel differently.

If tearing down this building is a stumbling block to a revitalized west downtown and no one can prove it is unique or historical in nature, why argue it's demise? Are we just overwrought because of the recent loss of the Skelly building or the Auto Hotel?

This structure pales in comparison.

[MichaelC]

I'm still firmly "on the fence" about Towerview.  I would very much like a structural engineer to check that building out.  Some of the things I saw made me question the cost of reusing this building.  Primarily very large, and plentiful, cracks on the exterior brick work.  I don't know what this structure is capable of.  To bring this up to a standard that it could support $200K lofts, I don't know what amount of money would do that.  I don't know if the owner can afford the upgrade, I don't know if the owner would actually make money off of an upgrade.

[D.Schuttler]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

I think that many people learned lessons from the handling of the Denver Grill.

It was an embarassment and should have been forced to cleanup it's act or close (it had bathrooms outside). I thought it was kinda cool to have a diner restaurant on Denver until I actually took some visitors there.

The place was nasty, but when the city tried to purchase the land for the arena, suddenly certain individuals acted like it was Mecca. The whole purchase became political and messy.

It was right after this that the Tulsa World did a story about the Towerview Apartments and how decrepid it was. The code officials then used their power to enforce the rules.

I work a block away from the Towerview and my grandfather owned a building (long gone) across the street when I was growing up. I always remember this building as being in bad shape, but I am not a structural engineer to know if it is worth saving.

I worry that it will continue to be a blight on this part of downtown. We have committed to build the biggest and most expensive public building project in our city's history. I clearly don't want this building in it's current form to be across the street.

If I was a hotel chain looking to build a new hotel, I would also be cautious with such a eyesore next door as well.

If the owner had been working on it all year I would feel differently.

If tearing down this building is a stumbling block to a revitalized west downtown and no one can prove it is unique or historical in nature, why argue it's demise? Are we just overwrought because of the recent loss of the Skelly building or the Auto Hotel?

This structure pales in comparison.

Not many cared about Casa Bonita either until the announcement to close. People get used to having something around without feeling a need to give a cheer for it weekly.


Hatfields has bathrooms outside still but then again it's on the east side where some are lucky to have a tree for a bathroom..[]

Little Rock has a gas station converted bar? next to Alltel

[RecycleMichael]

That's a good point about Casa Bonita. I knew some people who hadn't eaten there in 20 years stand in line for two hours only to have them run out of food the last week.

"Absent in body, but present in spirit".
Corinthians, 5:3.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

I think that many people learned lessons from the handling of the Denver Grill.

It was an embarassment and should have been forced to cleanup it's act or close (it had bathrooms outside). I thought it was kinda cool to have a diner restaurant on Denver until I actually took some visitors there.

The place was nasty, but when the city tried to purchase the land for the arena, suddenly certain individuals acted like it was Mecca. The whole purchase became political and messy.

It was right after this that the Tulsa World did a story about the Towerview Apartments and how decrepid it was. The code officials then used their power to enforce the rules.

I work a block away from the Towerview and my grandfather owned a building (long gone) across the street when I was growing up. I always remember this building as being in bad shape, but I am not a structural engineer to know if it is worth saving.

I worry that it will continue to be a blight on this part of downtown. We have committed to build the biggest and most expensive public building project in our city's history. I clearly don't want this building in it's current form to be across the street.

If I was a hotel chain looking to build a new hotel, I would also be cautious with such a eyesore next door as well.

If the owner had been working on it all year I would feel differently.

If tearing down this building is a stumbling block to a revitalized west downtown and no one can prove it is unique or historical in nature, why argue it's demise? Are we just overwrought because of the recent loss of the Skelly building or the Auto Hotel?

This structure pales in comparison.

I understand people being on the fence with this one.  After all, it is not the Skelly.  Perhaps ultimately it is not worth saving--structurally it looks okay to me, but I am not an engineer.  I don't see any major cracks in the outside walls; mostly I see a real need for new windows.  

I would be interested, though, in your response to these questions:

1.  Do you really believe we need another hotel downtown?  Will the other hotels be able to survive if another is built?  And if another hotel is needed, do you believe it is necessary for the city to instigate it?

2.  Do you like the idea of our government using our money to take private property from one person to give it to another?

3.  Do you think that this guy will sit on his property, letting it deteriorate while losing money on property taxes?  While I am not among those who believe "greed is good," I do think there is a motivation for the owner to put his property to use.

I understand the argument that a hotel might be detered because of a rundown building next to it.  But if what the city is predicting comes true--if the arena spurs the amount of development and focus on downtown that is hoped, I would imagine a hotel could look past one small building.  Or buy that building.  If the revitalization of downtown hinges on the city purchasing this one building, I would say we have a lot bigger problems.

I know that I probably come across as a zealot when it comes to historic preservation.  But in this case it is not one simple factor that bothers me--it is the cumulation of bad decisions that bother me.  If the owner of the building wanted to tear it down, I might be disappointed, but wouldn't say anything (unless it was to convert to a surface lot).  If a chain hotel were being built in its place, I might worry about the city's ability to support four large hotels in such a small radius, but I would not say anything.  And I don't always object to public money going to private development.  But when you put all of that together, I simply cannot support it.  I am not going to chain myself to the building, or picket in front of any new hotel; I am simply going to write the Mayor & Council and say I don't support 3rd penny sales tax going to this endeavor.

I understand what you are saying about the Denver Grill.  I don't know the true motivation of the owner.  I know my parents have lived in the same house for 35 years; some might say it is a little dumpy.  But if they had to move, at any price, it would devestate them.  If this guy's only motivation is to get an exorbitant price for his property, the best way to negotiate may be to simply walk away.

[rwarn17588]

I can't believe I'm reading some of these posts. You have a slumlord who's letting people live with filthy rats, cockroaches and fleas, and you're blaming the city and the newspaper? No one should live in those conditions, so put the blame where it's deserved -- the property owner who let the building go to hell in the first place.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a place that was worse than the Towerview. I can think of one -- the Shady Rest on Southwest Boulevard -- and that was closed by the fire marshal for fire, plumbing and electrical violations in October. It used to be a nice old Route 66 motel, but the owner let it go to hell. Sound familiar? Now it's been bulldozed.

I inspected the Shady Rest shortly after its closure and saw the squalor, saw the ramshackle maintenance and smelled the stench. I don't blame anyone for shutting the place down and bulldozing it. Although why the landlord let it deteriorate into such a deplorable condition is beyond me. As a landlord, you're obligated to give your tenants livable conditions, if for nothing else but for human decency. Both the Towerview and Shady Rest owners failed in that obligation miserably.

I'm involved in Route 66 preservation, and lots of enthusiasts blame developers for the loss of historic properties. But in my experience, at least half of these properties are lost because the current owners don't bother to maintain them. They get so bad that they're beyond repair.

These landlords don't have the basic decency to give people -- many of whom are struggling enough to stay alive -- a half-decent place to live. These landlords are the worst kind of scum.

[MichaelC]

Just speaking for myself, in regards to the questions above by pmcalk.

1.  I don't know.  Maybe.  I don't think a new hotel will dry up the market in downtown.  I'd rather spend political capital insuring that a new hotel would have a parking garage, and street level retail.

2.  "Like" wouldn't describe the way I feel about such transactions.  But I do feel that sometimes these things are necessary.  And I feel that this may be one of those times.

3.  I don't know.  But trying to avoid condemnation long enough to get a better price, seems like motivation enough.  The owner has made a statement that I find highly suspect at this point.

[RecycleMichael]

Question 2...The eminent domain rules can be punitive, but used for neglect and blight it can be a catalyst. This is probably the definition of neglect and blight.

Question 3, I don't know. Why has he sat on it this long if he had plans to rebuild? The price of materials has been skyrocketing. Why has he raised his buying price so much? What is his motivation? Remember, he lives in California and doesn't maintain it.

My answer to question 1, absolutely. Tulsa would be in a better position to go after tourism and convention dollars if it only had a couple of more hotels near the convention center.

In my job I spend lots of nights in hotels in cities all over America. Hotels can bring in new money and can be a host to everything from retail to restaurants...things I want near the new arena.

Two weeks ago I was talking to some managers at the downtown Doubletree and they said they would love to have a couple of more hotels downtown because they think it provides critical mass and they help each other. The hotel business understands the need to be a bit bigger in order to attract new conventions and meetings.

I am on the fence on the Towerview as well. If it was currently better managed I would hands down want to preserve it. We all should be zealots in historic preservation.

I just can't get upset about its demise based on the practices of the present owners and the hopes of the future downtown.

[MichaelC]

Holey moley, me and recyclemichael must be linked through telepathy.

I wasn't aware that I had that power.  Or that recyclemichael has it, whatever the case.

[RecycleMichael]

"Power is nothing until you use it".

Machiavelli, Niccolò

[carltonplace]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

.

My answer to question 1, absolutely. Tulsa would be in a better position to go after tourism and convention dollars if it only had a couple of more hotels near the convention center.

In my job I spend lots of nights in hotels in cities all over America. Hotels can bring in new money and can be a host to everything from retail to restaurants...things I want near the new arena.

Two weeks ago I was talking to some managers at the downtown Doubletree and they said they would love to have a couple of more hotels downtown because they think it provides critical mass and they help each other. The hotel business understands the need to be a bit bigger in order to attract new conventions and meetings.

I am on the fence on the Towerview as well. If it was currently better managed I would hands down want to preserve it. We all should be zealots in historic preservation.

I just can't get upset about its demise based on the practices of the present owners and the hopes of the future downtown.

I can agree with your points and I definately want to do what is best for downtown. If that translates to a new Hotel great, if it's condos, perfect.

But,
I want to know two things before I can back taxpayer dollars used to destroy another downtown structure.

1. Is the TowerView salvagable
2. Which hotel chain wants to build, and what do they want to build?

If the building can be saved, why can't it be converted into a hotel or become part of a larger similar structure? If the building is structurally sound and we tear it down, what will the new hotel look like? Will it add to the general "feel" of downtown or will it stand out like a sore thumb? If they want to reach back in time and build a big Chicago brick hotel I'm in, but I doubt that is what we'll get.

The more I think about it, the more I'm leaning towards saving this thing if it can be done. The current owner whatever his intention does not have to be the last owner. I'd rather see money spent in defense of the building than to tear it down and put G knows what in its place. I didn't think the Safeway store at 15th and Lewis could possibly be topped for sheer ugliness, but look at Office Depot.

[AVERAGE JOE]

I'd like to chime in...

1) I am 100% opposed to using 3rd penny sales tax money to purchase the Towerview. The city can hand over 2/3 of the block as it is -- the private developer can do the rest. No need to use our most reliable (yet regressive) funding source for capital improvements to sweeten the bottom line for an out-of-town hotel chain.

2) The Towerview was in bad shape for years. It was well known to downtown workers, so to lay the blame at the feet of the latest landlord doesn't go deep enough. The Towerview was allowed to exist for years by all manner of public agencies. If any of them express even a tinge of shock over its condition the day it was boarded up, they're hypocrites. It took a lot of people looking the other way for the Towerview to exist.

3) It's nearly impossible to tell fact from fiction by reading the World, but my understanding is that the owner in Oregon wanted to fix the problems with the building instead of boarding it up. Unfortunately for the evicted residents, he couldn't do that because city inspectors swarmed the building like locusts once the bad PR hit. The number of inspections in such a short time was all but unprecedented and gave the owner no choice but to board up the place.

4) All this came about AFTER it was widely known that city officials thought that square block would be a swell place for a new hotel. Hmmm...

5) The BOK drive-through bank just one block to the north is a crumbling waste of prime land in its own right. It is not heavily patronized from what I can tell (I'm down there a lot). The design and automobile-centric use makes it a highly underdeveloped and underutilized block. If an entire block is needed for a new hotel (which is doubtful), build it there... still across the street from the arena.

6) If the city spent 1/10th of the amount of time they've spent drooling over the Towerview block on the Mayo Hotel, we'd have that gem well on its way. If we build a brand new hotel less than 2 blocks from the Mayo and the grand old dame remains largely shuttered, that is a huge failure on the city's part.

7) Supposedly, the Towerview owner is starting work on the building in February and working with a local architecture firm on the plans. We'll see.

If the Towerview Loft project becomes a reality, there's no reason why it can't share the square block with a new hotel. No reason whatsoever.

Here's a concept -- let's work out a plan where we end up with a rehabbed Mayo Hotel, a new hotel AND a renovated Towerview that adds good housing units downtown. Why isn't the city ever in the business of working out these win-win deals? Why is it always a zero-sum game where the city is concerned?