Around the Pearl

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

I am saying that the big ugly rocklined pit was not worth it, tearing down the senior center for an arts and crafts center was not worth it, absolutely not.

Cherry Street did not need any public monies to do its thing.  Just some nice 'cherries' if'n you know your history.

Maple Ridge would have been an expressway if the urban planners would have had their way.

Floyd, what is preventing you from buying now? Get in early, beat the rush.

All Cherry St needed was to be lined with HP zoned neighborhhods filled with self starters and real risk takers willing to sacrifice for their collective vision. I've lived on Cherry Street most of my life, I've seen it at it's best and it's worst. I remember when Lincoln Plaza was a blighted, abandoned, Lincoln Elementary. If it were not for the neighborhoods around Cherry St. willingness to sacrifice their rights to what they could do under normal zoning we might not even be talking about Cherry Street or the Pearl. Hell, if it would have been up to the Metro Chamber Goons there would be a mid rise Commerce and Financial District stretching from Riverview to Lewiston Gardens, CBD style.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

Well, now, Bside has been a thirty year project if my information is correct.  The hoodrats and the investors there have paid their dues.

And witness what happens when the hoodrats objected to the Eastbrooke PUD.  The efforts at having Gray etal comply with the meticulously developed Brookside Infill Project were ridiculed and maligned.

The Pearl District has been subject to flooding since it was built up in the 1920's.  By your rationale, Brookside are the ones cutting in line, not Pearl people.

By the way, nobody's begrudging Brookside its due.  Those folks do work hard.  Good for them.  

Take a look at the big picture, guy.  Tulsa's got one of lowest tax burdens in the nation.  Not coincidentally, they have a $4 billion "to-do" list.  Assuming nothing breaks and nothing new is added, it would take Tulsa about 50 years to catch up.

Is it any surprise, therefore, that places like Brookside and Pearl are aggressively pursuing a piece of the pie (cupcake)?  What would you have them do?  

Brookside and Pearl are in the same liferaft and you don't even know it.  You should be trying to wave down a ship or something, and instead you eye your neighbor as if they were a turkey leg.

And yet, you seem to be a low-tax guy.    Reconcile that for me.  I don't think that you can.

PS Besides a red herring, what's this Eastbrooke thing again?  Isn't there another thread for this?

Same life raft, huh? You know what, I totally agree. That's why we all need to stop fighting each other for scarce resources, find new revenues, focus those resources, and fully fund a first class Comprehensive Plan that  will benefit everyone. JJ's PR campaign at the first whiff of trouble with the East End deal was really transparent. I wonder if KTUL will give equal time for all the other neighborhoods with plans approved by the Council?

[tim huntzinger]

quote:Originally posted by Double A
Same life raft, huh? You know what, I totally agree. That's why we all need to stop fighting each other for scarce resources, find new revenues, focus those resources, and fully fund a first class Comprehensive Plan that  will benefit everyone. JJ's PR campaign at the first whiff of trouble with the East End deal was really transparent. I wonder if KTUL will give equal time for all the other neighborhoods with plans approved by the Council?

That does a better job illustrating what one may object to regarding the whole 'Pearl' thing than anything I have said.

[Chicken Little]

doublea, you have succinctly made my point, too.  Thanks.  I've been told by more than one person that JJ's first career was as a markerting guy.  And if that gives the Pearl District people an unfair advantage in terms of getting attention, I can understand that sentiment.

It's a wise point you are making.  Neighborhoods shouldn't have to resort being the "squeeky wheel" in order to get something done.  It does show a lack of a coordinated game plan in this town, and I, too, think that should be fixed.

Also, thank you for showing Tim that bagging on his neighbors and their lives, cooking up conspiracies, and pretending to be a budget hawk and efficiency expert really doesn't move things forward.  Its time wasted on the wrong target.

[tim huntzinger]

At least I did not say Mohammed Atta was behind the remodel! One man's conspiracy is another's strategic planning committee I suppose.

[TheArtist]

All I can say is that I am glad to see something done above average.  Something that is not just more of the same.  Yes there are areas that need this and that, but if all of Tulsa remains average, well it will be just that.

If you were to spread everything, tax wise and development wise, evenly throughout the city,  it would become so diluted that it wouldn't make much of a difference.  If on occasion you focus a bit more on some strategic areas, those areas can become catalysts for more good things to happen. When those "good things" happen they create more tax dollars that help maintain the "bit more". Later you focus a bit more on another area and it becomes "nice", above average.  Over time you end up with more and more nice areas and fewer and fewer average areas.

When I got my first place 20 years ago,I had a choice to make about what kind of furniture I was going to buy.  I had an aunt that I had watched buy average to cheap stuff, it would tear up easily and look ugly and she would then buy more average stuff.  Over time I noticed that if she had just bought one nice thing and either done without or bought something that did the job, like a cheap fold up chair, that was so cheap it wouldnt matter if you threw it away,,, over time if you kept that up you would have a home full of nice things.

 My first place, I bought ONE very nice chair lol. and I had a bit of some junk and did without for lot of things.  People would come in and go... WOW nice chair! lol.  Definitely beat the reaction I would have gotten with a room full of average stuff.  The next year I would get one more nice thing, then over time, well now I have a home with a lot of nice things.  I still have that first chair, its quality, its beautiful, it still works and you know what, its worth more today than it was back then.  Many of my friends have probably spent just as much over time as I have on furniture, but they still just have mostly average. And over time they will spend much more. I now have a lot of WOW, and spend relative pennies to maintain.

Putting new soles on a pair of good quality shoes beats buying cheap shoes over and over forever.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

All I can say is that I am glad to see something done above average.  Something that is not just more of the same.  Yes there are areas that need this and that, but if all of Tulsa remains average, well it will be just that.

If you were to spread everything, tax wise and development wise, evenly throughout the city,  it would become so diluted that it wouldn't make much of a difference.  If on occasion you focus a bit more on some strategic areas, those areas can become catalysts for more good things to happen. When those "good things" happen they create more tax dollars that help maintain the "bit more". Later you focus a bit more on another area and it becomes "nice", above average.  Over time you end up with more and more nice areas and fewer and fewer average areas.

When I got my first place 20 years ago,I had a choice to make about what kind of furniture I was going to buy.  I had an aunt that I had watched buy average to cheap stuff, it would tear up easily and look ugly and she would then buy more average stuff.  Over time I noticed that if she had just bought one nice thing and either done without or bought something that did the job, like a cheap fold up chair, that was so cheap it wouldnt matter if you threw it away,,, over time if you kept that up you would have a home full of nice things.

 My first place, I bought ONE very nice chair lol. and I had a bit of some junk and did without for lot of things.  People would come in and go... WOW nice chair! lol.  Definitely beat the reaction I would have gotten with a room full of average stuff.  The next year I would get one more nice thing, then over time, well now I have a home with a lot of nice things.  I still have that first chair, its quality, its beautiful, it still works and you know what, its worth more today than it was back then.  Many of my friends have probably spent just as much over time as I have on furniture, but they still just have mostly average. And over time they will spend much more. I now have a lot of WOW, and spend relative pennies to maintain.

Putting new soles on a pair of good quality shoes beats buying cheap shoes over and over forever.

These are some beautiful metaphors, thanks.  You will leave something that your grandkids will value, too.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

All I can say is that I am glad to see something done above average.  Something that is not just more of the same.  Yes there are areas that need this and that, but if all of Tulsa remains average, well it will be just that.

If you were to spread everything, tax wise and development wise, evenly throughout the city,  it would become so diluted that it wouldn't make much of a difference.  If on occasion you focus a bit more on some strategic areas, those areas can become catalysts for more good things to happen. When those "good things" happen they create more tax dollars that help maintain the "bit more". Later you focus a bit more on another area and it becomes "nice", above average.  Over time you end up with more and more nice areas and fewer and fewer average areas.

When I got my first place 20 years ago,I had a choice to make about what kind of furniture I was going to buy.  I had an aunt that I had watched buy average to cheap stuff, it would tear up easily and look ugly and she would then buy more average stuff.  Over time I noticed that if she had just bought one nice thing and either done without or bought something that did the job, like a cheap fold up chair, that was so cheap it wouldnt matter if you threw it away,,, over time if you kept that up you would have a home full of nice things.

 My first place, I bought ONE very nice chair lol. and I had a bit of some junk and did without for lot of things.  People would come in and go... WOW nice chair! lol.  Definitely beat the reaction I would have gotten with a room full of average stuff.  The next year I would get one more nice thing, then over time, well now I have a home with a lot of nice things.  I still have that first chair, its quality, its beautiful, it still works and you know what, its worth more today than it was back then.  Many of my friends have probably spent just as much over time as I have on furniture, but they still just have mostly average. And over time they will spend much more. I now have a lot of WOW, and spend relative pennies to maintain.

Putting new soles on a pair of good quality shoes beats buying cheap shoes over and over forever.

These are some beautiful metaphors, thanks.  You will leave something that your grandkids will value, too.

So let me get this straight, you are advocating devoting Tulsa's resources towards isolated islands of above average development in the city and that somehow that will trickle down to other areas? Hmmm.... where have I heard this before? Oh yeah, it was those Channels folks. Yawn.

[TheArtist]

"So let me get this straight, you are advocating devoting Tulsa's resources towards isolated islands of above average development in the city and that somehow that will trickle down to other areas? Hmmm.... where have I heard this before? Oh yeah, it was those Channels folks. Yawn."

Yes.  

However I don't think you were being at all genuine or fair in what you were implying.  "devoting Tulsa"s resources" as if I were advocating all or huuuge chunks of Tulsas resources be used.  The money being spent on the Pearl District is vastly different than what is being asked for by the Channels. THAT would be one heck of a chair lol, covered in gold and encrusted with diamonds. The Channels people got some things wrong, but they also got some things right, just because the channels people mentioned that the sky is blue does not  automatically mean that it is not.  For again, yes, I do think they realize that doing something exceptional in an area does benefit the entire city and region,,, but be wise about it and within reason. As in all things there should be some sort of balance, it doesnt have to be carried to an extreme.

Or are you implying that what is happening in the Pear District is too extreme?  

I don't see how anyone could look at the treasures Tulsa already has "those isolated islands of above average", and say that they dont trickle down.
Despite the winds of fortune and economic fluctuations those assets are always there for everyone to draw on, use, promote, etc.

[Double A]

Sorry, but I prefer public policy that provides a rising tide that lifts all boats, not just the yachts.

[tim huntzinger]

It is called land specuation, and its practitioners are members of the second oldest profession. Buy low, do what you can to increase the value of the property, and sell high.

Listening to the defenders of the bagged-upon is like reading OJ's book:  'No sweetheart deals, but if there were, this is why it is ok.'

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

So let me get this straight, you are advocating devoting Tulsa's resources towards isolated islands of above average development in the city and that somehow that will trickle down to other areas? Hmmm.... where have I heard this before? Oh yeah, it was those Channels folks. Yawn.

The Channels was isolated, expensive, and wouldn't create any spinoff.  Pearl is in the middle of the city, with stuff going on in every direction.  It makes a heck of a lot of sense to me to invest there.

However, I'm totally on board with your take that this area should not evolve into a high-end playground for the rich.  I don't think it has, but I support efforts to keep it from happening that way.  If they're going to invest our tax money over there, then normal working folks should absolutely have access to that area.  I am a little disappointed with how some of these new developments have unfolded, too.  

But I wouldn't back up now.  I'd simply say that it is up to all of us to make sure that things go better in the future.  I'd go so far as to say that the city should read the handwriting on the wall with all of these downtown housing projects and mandate that their contribution should be to create housing that is within most Tulsan's reach.

That doesn't mean that we have to redo this city on the cheap.  Or undo and otherwise try to tar previous efforts.  Private investors have taken a lot of risks up to now.  I think that places like this are closer to the beginning than the end, and if the plug gets pulled now, things will tank and stagnate for another 20 years.  I think that would be even a bigger mistake.  

I agree with your earlier sentiments: we need to get organized; get a good game plan that suits everybody and is worthy of investment.

[Double A]

I'll give the pearl this much credit, at least they are willing to take real risks by developing north of the BA, unlike Bumgarner or Metro Lofts.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

It is called land specuation, and its practitioners are members of the second oldest profession. Buy low, do what you can to increase the value of the property, and sell high.

Listening to the defenders of the bagged-upon is like reading OJ's book:  'No sweetheart deals, but if there were, this is why it is ok.'

Are you suggesting thats wrong? Say if I were to buy a run down home, fix it up to sell it for more, thats wrong?  If I were to buy in a run down area it would be wrong to try and get things done in the area to make it better, thats wrong?

[RecycleMichael]

I think affordable housing is a good idea too, but to knock someone else's development just because it was well-built, well-marketed, well-placed and increasing in value is not right.

The Villages at Central Park was a gamble that paid off, but there is still lots of land for new development nearby.

Successful housing that increases in value will spur more housing and some of that will be at different price points.