Around the Pearl

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

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

It seems as though you are implying 2 different things in that statement.

1. "Rising tide that lifts all boats" in the context of the converstation would imply that you would rather not see anything done better than any other place. All places throughout the city should get equal share of public monies. Because if one area was focused on or had more money spent on it, then it wouldnt be fair, it would raise only those boats near it, not everyone.

Unless eeeeevery street gets streetscaping and lights, no streets should. Or downtown, the area arund Pine,Whittier Square, etc. shouldnt have gotten streetscaping or nice lights because that did not lift everyone.. The proplem is that if you took those funds and spread them out over the entire city, each block or mile would get only one cheap light and a few bricks lol.  The effect would basically be nill, a wash, no real observable difference.  No boats would be lifted at all, perhaps a slight bob at best lol. Oh hey look this area is nice there is a light and a planter, lets develop here!  But hey, at least we wouldn't be in danger of lifting any yachts.

2. Speaking of the Yachts.  I don't think any of those areas or the Pearl has a plethora of Yachts.  The implication as far as I can see is that you are speaking of JJs Yacht.  If any area is going to be improved more than another, well its either going to have someone in it that will benefit and thus their Yacht will be raised, or a developer will move into the area to take advantage of it so that his yacht will then be raised, whether its a big developer or a small one, a big yacht or a small one.  But isnt that part of what we are hoping for, development? Yes you hope that boats will be raised and not just yachts but are you going to only do nice things where there isnt someone with a yacht that might be raised? Or ban anyone with a yacht from ever developing in the area?  How are you going to define a Yacht? At what point does a person or developers boat become large enough that you define it as a  yacht? One man or areas yacht may be another man or areas dingy lol.  No matter what area you do an improvement in there is going to be someone with a bit more money or who will get more benefit or advantage, than others, and thus could be said to be the yacht unfairly lifted.

The result of that statement would be that; No area should get more than another because if one does someone will get more advantage than another, best that NO boats, or yachts, be raised. Its better that everyone to flounder equally.

[tim huntzinger]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

I am most certainly knocking the 'green-old-boy' network, got that right.  What should have been a simple, inexpensive, flood control project ballooned so far out of control that the original contractor blew through the budget (only to reappear as a separate company with the same trucks and workers to finish the job).

We have been able to determine that 'they' are using their network to enhance the value of their property. I wonder if the City's priorities were manipulated to make some of that happen.  You know, other projects delayed, stuff like that.

I do not suggest anything criminal, just underhanded.  I hate to see 'urban renewal' used as a red herring just to make some money for a few people.  Buying property in a gheto takes cajones, we can agree on that.

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

quote:Originally posted by 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.

I am most certainly knocking the 'green-old-boy' network, got that right.  What should have been a simple, inexpensive, flood control project ballooned so far out of control that the original contractor blew through the budget (only to reappear as a separate company with the same trucks and workers to finish the job).

We have been able to determine that 'they' are using their network to enhance the value of their property. I wonder if the City's priorities were manipulated to make some of that happen.  You know, other projects delayed, stuff like that.

I do not suggest anything criminal, just underhanded.  I hate to see 'urban renewal' used as a red herring just to make some money for a few people.  Buying property in a gheto takes cajones, we can agree on that.

Everyone knows that Jaimee fellow has been "mobbed up" since the very beginning...

You don't want to ask what each of the large sandstones actually symbolize...


[}:)]

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by Rico

In the context of this conversation... Could one define what we are referring to as "affordable housing"...

Affordable for purchase..? or the ilk of ghastly rental property..?

Or are we looking at the somewhat larger picture of making property ownership achievable so residents have a vested interest in the success of the "Pearl District"...

Well, as a current inhabitant of a "ghastly rental property" in east Tulsa, I think affordable housing is reasonable downtown housing for creative urban twentysomethings; competitively priced based on what's available in the rest of the city... $375 to $575 per mth for one or two bedrooms...

One/two bedroom condos for.... gasp... $60k to $120k... in other words, good starter homes...

Unfortunately, far too many downtown boosters  wouldn't have a clue what needs to be offered to attract an authentic version of "the character, humanity and convenience of the best, traditional cities."

There are two kinds of "artist lofts"...

There's the real deal... a northside Chicago building I lived in for a few years... price range is now between $500 and $675... Utilities Included: Heat, Gas, Water, Trash Pickup...

http://www.apartments.com/partner/summary.aspx?page=summary&property=150253.6&p=aguides&state=IL&partner=aguides&prvpg=20

"Artist in Residence-Unique Edgewater Artists Community-Featuring Studio and One Bedroom Apartments. Located at 6161 and 6165 North Winthrop Avenue, theses two buildings cater to the special needs of artists, musicians, writers, sculptors, photographers, etc. Free on-site facilities include rehearsal and performance spaces, gallery space, painter's and sculptor's workshops, darkroom, and computer lad with Internet access."

Room for rockers... on a budget... "ah, the life of young bohemians"...
http://www.pussycatmagazine.com/archives/glamorouslycheap/punkrockmoneytactics.html

Then there's the real estate developers' fake "artist lofts" that usually contain some sort of trendy gallery on the main floor but where the apts and condos themselves are playgrounds for the upscale urban rich or children of the urban rich...... you'll find no artist community here...

http://www.tenlofts.com/welcome.html

[Double A]

Rufnex, I couldn't have said it better myself. The lofts here are overpriced, elitist, economically segregated, perversions of what lofts are supposed to be. Let's see I have the choice of Chicago where I could get a loft that is comparably priced  to apartments here but the wages are much higher or I could choose to stay here and pay outrageous amounts of money for the same thing working at the same job for much lower pay? To add insult to injury, the greedy self absobed, self centered, baby boomers who pull this ****, scratch their heads and wonder why our young people vote with their feet.

[TheArtist]

Whenever I was looking for property around downtown to buy, the prices were outrageous.  I would love to buy one of those old abandoned buildings or lots and fix it up and rent it out.  But when you consider how much money it would take to buy the property, divided between the number of units you could hope to rent, plus insurance, taxes, the cost to build and or repair, the fact that you may not always have a renter, etc. etc. suddenly you realized that you would have to rent the place, or places, for quite a bit just to break even. Those people don't want to let go of that property for cheap, they are all sitting on it waititng for the development ship to come in so they can make their fortune on it lol.  Thats why it sits there, abandoned or ends up as pricey lofts. Thats why I was so frustrated, it didnt make sense that you would see a building that sat in ruin, unused, would call to inquire on the price, then fall over in shock at what they wanted for it.  

If I bought a spot for 100,000 dollars, and I am paying 700-800 dollars a month on mortgage, plus property tax, plus renters insurance, etc.  I cant very well rent the place out for 500 dollars a month.  BTW if anyone can find a spot for 100,000 dollars downtown or near the Pearl district, let me know lol. I mean think about it, if an artist could afford to buy it in the first place they wouldnt need to rent. The rent is obviously going to cost more than what it cost to buy cause the guy who bought it needs to make a profit so he can pay his own bills.

One example I know of for cheap rents is the places my uncle own in brookside.  Some of his homes go for around 400 to 500 or so a month. He is a very nice person and doesnt charge the higher prices that he could probably get for his properties. But the only reason he can do that is because he bought those homes 20, 30 or so years ago for around 20, or 30,000 dollars lol. But if he were to sell one of them today he would sell for the best price he could get according to the market, which for the same sized home in the same area go for around 130 thousand and up, and and the person who bought the house would have to pay more for mortgage than my uncle now charges in rent, and if they were to rent they would add onto that so they could make a profit.  So if a property in or near downtown was owned by someone who bought it ages ago or for really cheap, say at an auction or something, then they could indeed rent for cheap.  But if any of us were to buy that same property today, we would have to charge a lot more.

[brunoflipper]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

quote:Originally posted by 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.

I am most certainly knocking the 'green-old-boy' network, got that right.  What should have been a simple, inexpensive, flood control project ballooned so far out of control that the original contractor blew through the budget (only to reappear as a separate company with the same trucks and workers to finish the job).

We have been able to determine that 'they' are using their network to enhance the value of their property. I wonder if the City's priorities were manipulated to make some of that happen.  You know, other projects delayed, stuff like that.

I do not suggest anything criminal, just underhanded.  I hate to see 'urban renewal' used as a red herring just to make some money for a few people.  Buying property in a gheto takes cajones, we can agree on that.

holy ****, i gotta get you one of my hats dude...

"...the 'green-old-boy' network..."- i thought i was ****in nuts... there is no conspiracy here... give it up...

"We have been able to determine that 'they' are using their network to enhance the value of their property..." ? who? what? how? by trying to improve the neighborhood their project is in? this is a bad thing?

"What should have been a simple, inexpensive, flood control project..." according to whom? the flood control was a neccesity but you'd rather have a single-prupose vacant drainage basin sitting next to the idl than the park?

i was not going deny brookside there bone but you are really starting to sound like a brookside elitist... you want your streetscaping but you want the 6th street area (not your 'hood) to remain fallow... **** all, let it go...

right now it is an easy target but once that park fills in and the plants are established you won't find anyone to agree with you...

the take home is that the new senior center is awesome, the park is great and both are an improvement for the neighborhood and the city.

[tim huntzinger]

Your hat is not working, dude.  The 'take home' should have been put in a warmer carryout container because it is not even warm.

As long as folk want to keep responding and going round and round I suppose I will keep doing so, as well. Ya'll want to try to personalize this when clearly I am not alone.

I hope the 'senior' center is busy.  In fact I hope it is full up all the time.

On another thread someone posted that perhaps BA COC uses this board to spam negativity about 'urbanists.'  Maybe this board is a lame attempt to co-op support for risky 'investment' schemes in a ghetto.

Soooooo anyhooooo keep stroking this and I will keep responding.

[tim huntzinger]

In fact, start another thread on the Village and all, ya'll can heap praise on it and I for one will teabag it no mo.  But just to keep responding to a thread refuting my blah blah blah above - which no one in their proper mind would bother reading anyway - is ridiculous.  

If you want the final word on the issue, just  start another thread praising the development and I will not rain on your parade.

I am not a crank, just cranky. You want to turn my crank, keep this thread alive.

[TheArtist]

^Its sad that you seem to have even less respect for yourself and your opinion than others do.

[tim huntzinger]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

^Its sad that you seem to have even less respect for yourself and your opinion than others do.

It is sad that you think it matters what I think about your opinion about my opinions.  []

[brunoflipper]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

In fact, start another thread on the Village and all, ya'll can heap praise on it and I for one will teabag it no mo.  But just to keep responding to a thread refuting my blah blah blah above - which no one in their proper mind would bother reading anyway - is ridiculous.  

If you want the final word on the issue, just  start another thread praising the development and I will not rain on your parade.

I am not a crank, just cranky. You want to turn my crank, keep this thread alive.

dude, now you are responding to yourself and ignoring any of the genuine rebuttals to your point

[tim huntzinger]

BS BF! Everything you have said is patently untrue!

How does it feel to be universally refuted?

Give it up, dude, what you are saying makes no sense, no sense at all.

You have shown yourself to favor one neighborhood over all others for no good reason.

Nothing you say is accurate.

You are never right.

I am happy to play along with you by your rules.

[RecycleMichael]

I hope we can calm down and stop the name calling and discuss the project.

Yes, public dollars were used to build a nice pond and that decision probably helped increase the value of the nearby property owners. Is that any different than when the city built Swan Lake or Woodward Park? How about the trails along Mingo Creek?

The developer was not the only one who saw a benefit. The property owners across Peoria are adding new businesses, the VFW Hall across Sixth street has added a new parking lot, and the seniors have a great new recreation center to use.

I wish there was enough money to do these kind of improvements all over town, but I am not upset that this near downtown location got some nice improvements. I truly believe it will spur new investment in the entire area.

The redevelopment plan for Sixth street is well-done and I hope that we can continue to find funding to finish the plan. When we do, all Tulsa will be a better place to live.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

^Its sad that you seem to have even less respect for yourself and your opinion than others do.

It is sad that you think it matters what I think about your opinion about my opinions.  []

Its sadder that you don't realize that it does. []