McBirney Mansion

[carltonplace]

Riverview admitedly has been the victim of bad planning and lack of neighbor participation in the past. It's proximity to downtown has made it a target for many developers with plans both good and bad. Oral Roberts ripped out several of the old oil mansions on Boulder and Cheyenne and nearly took the Council Oak Tree (thankfully the Girl Scouts stopped him).

But I think you need to take another look. Just in the last two years many old homes have been restored, the neighbors are active and proud of the Tulsa heritage that surrounds them, and even the cinderblock apartments have had a facelift and look great. Yes, the Spotlight Theater needs a coat of paint and some landscaping, but that does not detract from its significance.

I welcome you to come buy a piece of Tulsa history, sit on the front porch and jaw with your new neighbors. I hear the McBirney mansion is for sale.

[perspicuity85]

Perhaps slight design modifications could make this a win-win for everyone.  Instead of a large 80-room hotel building adjacent to the mansion, why not build two or three individual buildings resembling the mansion?  Individual buildings would allow the neighborhood to maintian its residential feel a little bit better.  A ground level enclosed walkway could be constructed between each building for accessibility.  I do like the underground parking- let's keep that a must.

I think a well managed and marketed McBirney Mansion would add to the neighborhood, riverfront, and all of downtown.  Perhaps some potential design modifications could be reviewed before the Historical Society is asked to approve the project.

[Bledsoe]

I continue to be amazed at this discussion.  It seems some cannot see the forest for the trees.  Please look at the presidential impact that spot zoning of this intense commercial development will have on a key residential neighborhood and Riverparks.

This part of Riverview has only two commercial areas, both of which in theory are OK--the NW of 15th and Denver and the SE corner of 11th and Houston.  There is no commercial development or zoning from 11th to 71st along Riverside and there is no interior commerical develoment from Denver to Riverside (except as discussed above).  Everything else is residential or light office.  This part of the Riverview neighborhood with its mix of multi-family, smaller homes and historic mansions is one of Tulsa's only mixed socio-economic areas.  It also has a lot of sidewalks.  With commercial and office on the perimeters--the walkablity is setup in a good way with decent pedestrian and traffic links to the SW 1/4 of downtown and to Riverparks.

This hotel project will destroy the entire context of this area.  It is also exactly the wrong kind of development for our urban jewel of a park along the river.  Did everyone miss the   graphic for this area when the Channels was announced?  The Sophian Plaza was missing as were the historic homes.  What is needed and compatiabled is residential development.  Why is this not economically viable to preserve this historic mansion and this historic area as nearby (within walking distance) downtown is about to start developing?  

Yes property values could go up and this would likely cause more tears-downs of historic homes  and apartment buildings and gentrification of the area with the possibility of more extremely incompatible commercial infill.  How about a Gap next to the Spotlight?  Based on the way our current zoning code works there is almost no stopping this kind of effect once it starts.


Would someone really want live at 28th and Rockford if Philbrook was a 24 hour 80 suite hotel--with not buffer?

Again there is also not a  street in the area that can take this kind of commercial use-including the two-lane part of Riverside Dr.  Restrictions prevent any part of the park land from being used to widen Riverside. Remember Riverside Drive is supposed to be a PARKWAY.  
Have you ever been to a wedding at McBirney?--what a parking nightmare. The scale and location of this project is totally out of whack--even for from-based zoning

The developers should look at the 22nd and Main Harwelden model--high quality residential-historically compatible.

Has everyone become so desprate for development that we are willing to sell our history and unique quality of life?

I think a development here will also have a damper on the commercial development in near downtown and the Brady--where we really need a development of this type and the infrastructure is in place.

Please please slow down and think about the slippery slope that this could cause, not only in West Riverview but all up and down Riverside Dr.

[cks511]

quote:Originally posted by citizen of the world

Did not know Starlight Theater was 'Deco' or significant historically.  It IS ugly and in need of repair.  And there's insufficient parking at the Starlight - patrons park all over the neighborhood.  The hotel will be required to have sufficient onsite parking so the guests (or valet drivers) won't be parking any cars on the neighborhood streets.  

But the Starlight isn't the worst thing in Riverview.  Look at the 1940's run-down cinder block apartment houses or even the clapboard townhouses that stand about 30 yards to the north of the mansion on the same city block!

It would be nice if the mansion could support itself financially but it's apparently not feasible.  A luxury boutique hotel should help the neighborhood and much more beyond that.  I might even move to Riverview if the hotel is approved.  Anyone thinking of selling?

Hey citizen easy on the brownstones north of the theater.  I'll have you know I pay rent to one of the finest slum lords in this city to live there!  LOL.

[OurTulsa]

We're talking about an 80 room hotel, not the next DoubleTree tower, they are not planning a retail component to line Houston.  This project is going to be planned in a PUD so that some control can be gained on its impact toward the neighborhood.  They are not building a glass tower nor a concrete bunker.  The addition will be compatible with the existing home and I think a nice contribution to the River Corridor.  They are proposing to orient the hotel to Riverside and I would assume limit most if not all service and customer vehicle access to Riverside.  I don't see this project as the introduction of a new development pattern in that area.  I see it as highly compatible with the current mix of homes and apartment buildings; and on the edge of that facing a regional attraction.  If they were attempting to stick this at the corner of 31st/Utica I would agree with you that it might not be appropriate.  

I do see some commonalities between this a the Philbrook.  The museum brings sometimes large amounts of traffic INTO the secluded neighborhood onto neighborhood streets.  They have special events that draw serious numbers they have a restaurant inside that brings additional traffic.  They have two large exposed parking lots in front of them.  Those are some of the parallels and it doesn't appear that housing demand is down around it.  And while I'm thinking of it they added on significantly to the original Phillips home.  Was that tragic?  Have it lost the historic relevance?  I don't think so.  Maybe the historic integrity or completeness to some degree but the Phillips home is still there.  

And while I'm at it, sure the Riverview neighborhood is historic and there are some wonderful homes existing in there but it's also in my mind part of the Core and part of an area that many seem to want to intensify so as to establish downtowns connection to the river.  Houston Ave. I think it would be selfish to not permit some organic intensification in that area.  While I would love to keep some of the historic homes I would also love to see some compatible 'urban' development solidifying the link.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by akupetsky

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

^ I agree.  Plus I like the Spotlight Theater and wish it the best. Perhaps having a hotel next door will give it a bit of new life.  If there is anything that I would like to see removed in the area its that 50s style building adjacent to the McBirney Manison, that IMO has done more harm to the feel and integrity of the neighborhood than this hotel will.  I have been to many old mansions that are bed and breakfasts and old historic neighborhoods where there are small botique hotels like the one they are wanting to put in here.  They fit in fine with the neighborhood if they are done with the right look and scale. I think this development will be the start of something great for the whole area. ( I am still worried though about what their plans are for the inside of the mansion. I hope that people will still be able to go through it like they do Philbrook, Harwelden, Tulsa Historical Society, etc.)

Forgive me, but I find it odd that you would be concerned with the interior, but dismiss the fact that they are adding 100,000 square feet to the building--almost a 10X increase in size, virutally elimination the entire grounds, adding parking, restaurants, spas, etc....  That's kind of like giving someone a sex change operation, but keeping the haircut the same.  This was once the home; with these additions, it will no longer look anything like that.

I don't believe the arguments against segregated uses is apt in this circumstance.  We want mixed uses to allow residents to walk to stores, schools, restaurants, etc..., and be less dependent on cars.  Why would a resident walk to a hotel?  What would they need with a hotel?  All this will bring is 80 out-of-towners, with their cars, parking in the neighborhood.

I am not sure what my bottom line position is on this.  But lets be realistic about the arguments:  It will completely transform a historic building into something entirely different, and it will bring a hotel to an otherwize residential neighborhood.

Perhaps my perspective is from being in other cities where there are old mansions that have been built around and seeing what great places they are. In many cities back east like Boston and Philadelphia,you will find large mansions that don't have much of a yard at all anymore and have buildings or row houses on either side. The historic home is still there to enjoy, to see its historic rooms, furnishings, see and hear how the people lived there, get a feel for the time and place, etc. The buildings around it often are of an older style as well, on tree lined streets, and bustling with activity.







Now I am not saying the Mc Birney Mansion will look like this someday, just couldnt find pics on my lunch break that were like what I am talking about lol. Hopefully it will be more like some of the "quieter" parts of some of those older cities where the buildings look more like large homes or row houses, and yes often times with small botique hotels like the one the McBirney mansion will have by it, and still have more yard than most of those others do. In many older cities you will find historic buildings and homes that were once considered out in the suburbs, now in the central part of the city. The McBirney Mansion is basically downtown if you look at how cities throughout history, naturally progress. Its just the way the march of time goes.  I have always assumed that someday that whole area will become denser and more developed, who knows, in a hundred years or so all the river from downtown to jenks could be larger buildings, condos, etc. I just wonder what people expect to happen in time? The thing I hope for is for that development to have a walkable, liveable feel to it.

[citizen of the world]

quote:Originally posted by Bledsoe

I continue to be amazed at this discussion.  It seems some cannot see the forest for the trees.  Please look at the presidential impact that spot zoning of this intense commercial development will have on a key residential neighborhood and Riverparks.

This part of Riverview has only two commercial areas, both of which in theory are OK--the NW of 15th and Denver and the SE corner of 11th and Houston.  There is no commercial development or zoning from 11th to 71st along Riverside and there is no interior commerical develoment from Denver to Riverside (except as discussed above).  Everything else is residential or light office.  This part of the Riverview neighborhood with its mix of multi-family, smaller homes and historic mansions is one of Tulsa's only mixed socio-economic areas.  It also has a lot of sidewalks.  With commercial and office on the perimeters--the walkablity is setup in a good way with decent pedestrian and traffic links to the SW 1/4 of downtown and to Riverparks.

This hotel project will destroy the entire context of this area.  It is also exactly the wrong kind of development for our urban jewel of a park along the river.  Did everyone miss the   graphic for this area when the Channels was announced?  The Sophian Plaza was missing as were the historic homes.  What is needed and compatiabled is residential development.  Why is this not economically viable to preserve this historic mansion and this historic area as nearby (within walking distance) downtown is about to start developing?  

Yes property values could go up and this would likely cause more tears-downs of historic homes  and apartment buildings and gentrification of the area with the possibility of more extremely incompatible commercial infill.  How about a Gap next to the Spotlight?  Based on the way our current zoning code works there is almost no stopping this kind of effect once it starts.


Would someone really want live at 28th and Rockford if Philbrook was a 24 hour 80 suite hotel--with not buffer?

Again there is also not a  street in the area that can take this kind of commercial use-including the two-lane part of Riverside Dr.  Restrictions prevent any part of the park land from being used to widen Riverside. Remember Riverside Drive is supposed to be a PARKWAY.  
Have you ever been to a wedding at McBirney?--what a parking nightmare. The scale and location of this project is totally out of whack--even for from-based zoning

The developers should look at the 22nd and Main Harwelden model--high quality residential-historically compatible.

Has everyone become so desprate for development that we are willing to sell our history and unique quality of life?

I think a development here will also have a damper on the commercial development in near downtown and the Brady--where we really need a development of this type and the infrastructure is in place.

Please please slow down and think about the slippery slope that this could cause, not only in West Riverview but all up and down Riverside Dr.

Hey Bledsoe,

Your comments reflect an intelligent understanding of the benefits of having both a walkable community and a blend of socio-economic groups.  Those two points are straight out of New Urbanism.  However, your assertion that an adaptive re-use of the historical McBirney Mansion into a luxury boutique hotel is inappropriate, is dead wrong; you need to go to school on New Urbanism.  

To learn about New Urbanism, please read Andres Duany's book, Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream, which will explain volumes about good urban planning.  It will also explain how Tulsa got into the urban mess it's now in (in short, everyone drove out to the suburbs for a bigger yard and better schools to raise their families).  It's also about something called 'form-based' development code - don't give a damn about a building's use, just the way it looks in the context of the neighborhood.  Let Adam Smith's invisible hand (the free market) determine what's feasible.  New Urbanists would call your insistence that Riverview be precluded from commercial uses an 'elitist' position, something that the rest of your post obviously disagrees with.  

You refer to potential parking problems but you are ignoring the two levels of subterranean parking that will take it all off Riverview streets (but you still have Starlight parking problems to solve - perhaps the hotel could 'share' underground parking during Starlight events).  

And please don't mention The Channels in the same sentence as this luxury boutique hotel - they are completely unrelated and anyway The Channels are DEAD (it ain't neva gonna happen, baby).  (Sorry about that Warrens, you gave a valiant effort, but you selected the wrong architect.)  

Seriously, please read Suburban Nation, it will open your eyes.  In fact, it's my gift to this forum to invite you all to please borrow this book from the library or buy it at Barnes & Noble or Amazon and read it.    

And if by some miracle this luxury boutique hotel eventually does get built, let's all WALK OVER THERE and meet for a drink and discuss how much better off we are with the McBirney Mansion restored and an island of understated luxury pleasantly in our midst.

(If I'm going to be able to WALK to the mansion hotel then I still need to buy or rent a residence in Riverview, so like I asked before, "anyone want to sell?")

[carltonplace]

quote:Originally posted by citizen of the world

You refer to potential parking problems but you are ignoring the two levels of subterranean parking that will take it all off Riverview streets (but you still have Starlight parking problems to solve - perhaps the hotel could 'share' underground parking during Starlight events).

A potential problem with underground parking at the McBirney is the historic on site spring. This spring must be protected, and all due diligence undertaken to ensure that excavation in its proximity does not divert or harm it.  

quote:Originally posted by citizen of the world
 

And if by some miracle this luxury boutique hotel eventually does get built, let's all WALK OVER THERE and meet for a drink and discuss how much better off we are with the McBirney Mansion restored and an island of understated luxury pleasantly in our midst.

(If I'm going to be able to WALK to the mansion hotel then I still need to buy or rent a residence in Riverview, so like I asked before, "anyone want to sell?")

I'm not selling but there is a nice home for sale on Houston. There are also a few "fixer-uppers" left. I'll take you up on that drink.

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by akupetsky

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

^ I agree.  Plus I like the Spotlight Theater and wish it the best. Perhaps having a hotel next door will give it a bit of new life.  If there is anything that I would like to see removed in the area its that 50s style building adjacent to the McBirney Manison, that IMO has done more harm to the feel and integrity of the neighborhood than this hotel will.  I have been to many old mansions that are bed and breakfasts and old historic neighborhoods where there are small botique hotels like the one they are wanting to put in here.  They fit in fine with the neighborhood if they are done with the right look and scale. I think this development will be the start of something great for the whole area. ( I am still worried though about what their plans are for the inside of the mansion. I hope that people will still be able to go through it like they do Philbrook, Harwelden, Tulsa Historical Society, etc.)

Forgive me, but I find it odd that you would be concerned with the interior, but dismiss the fact that they are adding 100,000 square feet to the building--almost a 10X increase in size, virutally elimination the entire grounds, adding parking, restaurants, spas, etc....  That's kind of like giving someone a sex change operation, but keeping the haircut the same.  This was once the home; with these additions, it will no longer look anything like that.

I don't believe the arguments against segregated uses is apt in this circumstance.  We want mixed uses to allow residents to walk to stores, schools, restaurants, etc..., and be less dependent on cars.  Why would a resident walk to a hotel?  What would they need with a hotel?  All this will bring is 80 out-of-towners, with their cars, parking in the neighborhood.

I am not sure what my bottom line position is on this.  But lets be realistic about the arguments:  It will completely transform a historic building into something entirely different, and it will bring a hotel to an otherwize residential neighborhood.

Perhaps my perspective is from being in other cities where there are old mansions that have been built around and seeing what great places they are. In many cities back east like Boston and Philadelphia,you will find large mansions that don't have much of a yard at all anymore and have buildings or row houses on either side. The historic home is still there to enjoy, to see its historic rooms, furnishings, see and hear how the people lived there, get a feel for the time and place, etc. The buildings around it often are of an older style as well, on tree lined streets, and bustling with activity.







Now I am not saying the Mc Birney Mansion will look like this someday, just couldnt find pics on my lunch break that were like what I am talking about lol. Hopefully it will be more like some of the "quieter" parts of some of those older cities where the buildings look more like large homes or row houses, and yes often times with small botique hotels like the one the McBirney mansion will have by it, and still have more yard than most of those others do. In many older cities you will find historic buildings and homes that were once considered out in the suburbs, now in the central part of the city. The McBirney Mansion is basically downtown if you look at how cities throughout history, naturally progress. Its just the way the march of time goes.  I have always assumed that someday that whole area will become denser and more developed, who knows, in a hundred years or so all the river from downtown to jenks could be larger buildings, condos, etc. I just wonder what people expect to happen in time? The thing I hope for is for that development to have a walkable, liveable feel to it.

I like the analogy you present with this post.. The "spring" that Carltonplace mentions gives me concern for the subterranean parking...That is one of many..

That being said... for the life of me I can't understand why they just would not buy the slum lord apartment building on the corner of 15th and Denver and build there..?

More exposure.. Less construction cost.. Less infrastructure needed.. and what could be a wonderful view of the River...

I know people that would help them tear that down...

(just a little note... I have rarely seen more variety in the spelling of the word boutique than on this thread...  [}:)]Raise your prices and take a longer lunch.)

[Kiah]

quote:Originally posted by Bledsoe

How about a Gap next to the Spotlight?

God forbid.

That depends, I suppose.  Do you mean this GAP store. . . .



Or this one?



(Spoken in my best optometrist voice) Or maybe this one?



This one?



(Now cover the left eye.)  How about this one?



I just get so tired of the same old reflexive, conditioned response – (in the voice of either Frankenstein's monster, Tarzan, or Tonto) COMMERCE . . . BAD!

Like Pavlov's NIMBY, every time anyone raises the notion of (gasp) money changing hands in proximity to people sleeping in their beds, "neighborhood leaders" invoke the worst images of strip mall big boxes.

Do you realize that a Riverview resident has to drive to 15th & Lewis to the nearest grocery store or corner drugstore?  Now, who's creating the auto traffic in the Riverview  neighborhood?  I would venture to say it's not "out-of-towners" intruding on our domestic tranquility, but locals driving to and from the basic necessities of life.

Again, though, all that said, I am not disputing that there are legitimate concerns about the scale of this project, traffic, parking, etc.  I'm just saying, objecting to this, out-of-hand, simply on the basis that commerce might be transacted on the premises is kind of a mindless perpetuation of 50 years of bad planning.

[akupetsky]

I agree with you, Kiah, which is why I object not to the mixed use, but this kind of mixed use.  This is not a neighborhood-reliant type of use; it is for people NOT living in the neighborhood, so by definition it must bring in cars and traffic.  My main concern is the scale--80 units is fairly large (keep in mind that the Ambassador only has 55).  A small, B&B fits in perfectly with Riverview.  This is a bit large.

Artist, I have lived in many older US cities (is that DC?), and I would love to see some neighborhoods in Tulsa like that.  The difference is that the neighborhoods you have presented were, for the most part, developed in whole as dense areas.  They may have been suburbs in a sense, but they were still built on an urban design--not singly family homes, like Riverview.  If you plop a 80-unit hotel in the middle of the mix, it won't make much difference.  In Riverview, it will.  Yes, time marches forward.  Perhaps Riverview will one day be the beautiful, dense urban environment we desire.  My concern is how we proceed, and making sure we don't destroy the neighborhood in the process.

Also, it appears that those buildings which you show were all originally quite large--I don't know of many examples of historic structures (here or on the east coast) that were multiplied in area 10 fold.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by akupetsky

I agree with you, Kiah, which is why I object not to the mixed use, but this kind of mixed use.  This is not a neighborhood-reliant type of use; it is for people NOT living in the neighborhood, so by definition it must bring in cars and traffic.  My main concern is the scale--80 units is fairly large (keep in mind that the Ambassador only has 55).  A small, B&B fits in perfectly with Riverview.  This is a bit large.

Artist, I have lived in many older US cities (is that DC?), and I would love to see some neighborhoods in Tulsa like that.  The difference is that the neighborhoods you have presented were, for the most part, developed in whole as dense areas.  They may have been suburbs in a sense, but they were still built on an urban design--not singly family homes, like Riverview.  If you plop a 80-unit hotel in the middle of the mix, it won't make much difference.  In Riverview, it will.  Yes, time marches forward.  Perhaps Riverview will one day be the beautiful, dense urban environment we desire.  My concern is how we proceed, and making sure we don't destroy the neighborhood in the process.

Also, it appears that those buildings which you show were all originally quite large--I don't know of many examples of historic structures (here or on the east coast) that were multiplied in area 10 fold.

You know, I drive by the Ambassador a lot, and with 55 rooms I don't know that I have ever seen more than two cars entering or leaving at once, the traffic created is less than minimal. Usually I see no cars entering or leaving.

[Kiah]

quote:Originally posted by akupetsky

This is a bit large.

Then it seems to me the appropriate response would be 'Could the design be modified to be more compatible?' not 'Oh hell no, no commercial development in a residential neighborhood.'

[perspicuity85]

quote:Originally posted by Kiah
Could the design be modified to be more compatible?

I posted earlier about potential design modifications also.  I think that should be the focus for this issue.  Instead of damned-if-we-do and damned-if-we-don't, why not seek a middle ground?  Why can't the Riverview neighborhood, TulsaNow, the Historical Society, and the developer create a dialogue concerning the possibility of making the project more attractive for all parties involved?

It seems to me that the project could possibly be too large, but I (as well as probably everyone on this forum) do not have a very informed opinion.  Kiah- you made a good point when you brought up the kind of blind decision making that we see all too frequently in Tulsa.  A lot of people just hear: "commercial hotel in my neighborhood," and immediately disapprove.  But maybe the design specs showcase a highly intellegent design that does not interfere with the residential environment of the neighborhood.  
How would anyone know?

This project is a private river development and I think we need to take the time to make an informed decision here.

[Bledsoe]

I do not oppose commerce.  There was a grocery store at 11th and Denver--it closed.  There was a decent liquor store at 11th and Houston--it closed too.  There is plenty of CH zoing within a short walk/drive from Riverview and with downtown revitalization just getting started there is now hope that retail will develop where it already has the zoning and the infrastructure.  The Route 66 Museum will be on 11th further stimulating nearby retail on a major arterial street that was made to handle the traffic.

Bate's article on why Cherry Street works is an example of commerce and residential areas working well together.  The area around 15th and Denver and 11th and Houston could be similar areas.  

See:  http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A15542

There was even a boutique hotel there at one time--The Colonial Inn at 15th and Quaker.  But this McBirney proposal would be like moving a larger version of it to Swan Lake.  

The Ambassador is in the core CH area--lots of parking wide streets (Boulder and Main)--high rise buildings all around- next to e-way. Lots of traffic when wedding receptions occur.  Will McBirney have receptions too? How about a H.S. prom?

The Spotlight is a prexisitng non-conforming use.  It has become historic. I think it was originally a private home. I would have the same concerns if it were to be expanded under the "new"  post-1970 code.

I say again, (no one seems to be responding to this issue), you cannot just look at this project with blinders own.  You must look at the precedent it will set.  Future commerical development proposals in this neighborhood will point to the 80 room hotel with meeting rooms and a resturant --in effect CH zoning in the heart (not perimeter) of a residential neighborhood and next to a park--and say to the TMAPC why not "me too."  If they say NO--then a court will probably say YES because of the precedent and the tear downs will begin.  When the mansion got B&B status in the 1980s the owners promised they would never develop the ground, never change the look of the manison and that the use of it as a B&B would have minimal impact.  Under these condtions was a B&B exception granted.  Is not your "word" good for something--guess not  (see 71st and Harvard).

The Channels is or "was" proposing to spend about $300 per s.f. for land for residential HRs just a stones throw from this project.  Why are not condos (with the McBirney architecture) funding the mansion's restoration not economically viable here?  This will bring more people to live downtown--something everyone says must happen for retail to re-start nearby.  

This 80 suit hotel runs in the exact opposite direction--folks from out of town with their cars.

If this is approved we should perhaps just junk the whole zoning code--become the Houston of the mid-west-with a QT right across from Philbrook.  Let the market rule.

How about a concrete plant in Maple Ridge?  If its good enough for East Tulsa--its good enough for Mid-Town.

I cannot beleive that New-Urbaninsm would support the McBirney type of development with all the "negative" implications.  If it really does, then it is just plain wrong!!!!