Bumgarner on Cherry Street

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

This is a perfect example of the need for "form-based" codes that would require new development to be in harmony (scale, setbacks, hidden parking, etc) with existing buildings.  Then, we wouldn't have to worry about whether new construction would dwarf it's neighbors or destroy the ambiance of the human-scaled, pedestrian-friendly, shop-front neighborhood street that we love.  We could just relax and enjoy the new development without so much anxiety and fear.

I am getting really sick of form based codes being a cure all for the zoning problems in Tulsa. Riddle me this, how will form based codes give us pedestrian friendly drive through banks or how about a pedestrian friendly, walkable car wash? Use still needs to play a role in zoning. I would prefer a hybrid version of form based codes that incorporates use as well as aesthetics.

Maybe the city should combine the use of form based codes with design guides.

We have them in the UK. Here is an example from a county outside London Design Guide
A building failing to meet the design guide is likely to not be granted planning permission. This way buildings meet the form and the design standards.

I'd be interested to see what people think of this.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by aoxamaxoa

You can make all those personal attacks on John and Chris but they seem to be doing some fine developments. The one you are alluding to has been on the board for several years. Too bad they don't own land in near east downtown....

You know you're the last person I would have thought would be defending someone like Bumgarner who lives by the Golden Rule(he who has the gold makes the rules). If John Bumgarner was on fire I wouldn't even piss on him to put him out. As a matter of fact, I'd probably roast marshmallows over him and sing kumbaya.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

Anyone got a dollar that says it won't be an "Italianate" six story eyesore?

Not without a bloody bitter fight. At least this time he won't have the benefit of having the city Councilor in his back pocket to do his bidding.

[janle]

I would like to know how form based codes will help this area and the properties around it?

[cannon_fodder]

Tulsa isnt swimming in developers wanted to get into the mix, so I dont think it would be wise to attempt to restrict too much those that actually want to invest.

In Tulsa, such a move would simply further encourage people to build on open land to the South... like everyone else.  Perhaps the market says that a small two story structure on that lot wont make money - do we just let it sit empty then?

Cities like Sante Fe and San Francisco and other areas where demand is high can do such things.  But areas that are struggling to get investment cannot dictate extreme terms unless they want Joe taxpayer to fund most of the projects.  The property near Cherry Street is worth developing precisely because of the qualities you mentioned.  If they go too far and destroy those qualities they have lost the value they bought into and will be stuck with condos no one wants.

[carltonplace]

I disagree. There is no reason that new development can't peacfully co-exist with existing structures. As long as the new is to scale and appropriate to the area. If the rest of the neighborhood is one and two story structures with 0' setback, then new buildings should blend not try to overpower. If Mr B plans to build a two-story brick with parking in the rear, that does not displace any existing structure with merit, or devalue anyone's home, then Bless him.

I do agree with you that over-development can strip away what made the area comfortable or desirable in the first place.

[janle]

quote: If Mr B plans to build a two-story brick with parking in the rear, that does not displace any existing structure with merit, or devalue anyone's home, then Bless him.

From what I have seen this would be near to impossible for them to even consider.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Tulsa isnt swimming in developers wanted to get into the mix, so I dont think it would be wise to attempt to restrict too much those that actually want to invest.

In Tulsa, such a move would simply further encourage people to build on open land to the South... like everyone else.  Perhaps the market says that a small two story structure on that lot wont make money - do we just let it sit empty then?

Cities like Sante Fe and San Francisco and other areas where demand is high can do such things.  But areas that are struggling to get investment cannot dictate extreme terms unless they want Joe taxpayer to fund most of the projects.  The property near Cherry Street is worth developing precisely because of the qualities you mentioned.  If they go too far and destroy those qualities they have lost the value they bought into and will be stuck with condos no one wants.

If their developments are suburban style auto oriented projects, I would rather they build  that trash out in South Tulsa. Want to see a development that is in harmony with the Neighborhood? Check out the Early Education Center being built at Marquette.

[carltonplace]

^I liked the apartment building better than the big block without windows.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

No personal attack

I don't think changing the face of 15th and Utica avenue from tight urbanism to parking lot waste land is "fine" development. Chewing up pieces of an HP area against the wishes of the neighborhood is also not "fine". Introducing legislation to wrest control from the noisy neighbors and their voice on the city council is not "fine". Altering the look of Cherry Street with overscaled buildings that stick out like a sore thumb is also not "fine". The only thing that was fine is that there is no longer a giant cow on the corner, but now I wish I could set it on top of his bank.

I loved the cow. And the giant toaster. Where did they go?

I heard the cow was bought by a steak restaurant.  I wonder what happened to the horse & sheep.

[tulsa1603]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Tulsa isnt swimming in developers wanted to get into the mix, so I dont think it would be wise to attempt to restrict too much those that actually want to invest.

In Tulsa, such a move would simply further encourage people to build on open land to the South... like everyone else.  Perhaps the market says that a small two story structure on that lot wont make money - do we just let it sit empty then?

Cities like Sante Fe and San Francisco and other areas where demand is high can do such things.  But areas that are struggling to get investment cannot dictate extreme terms unless they want Joe taxpayer to fund most of the projects.  The property near Cherry Street is worth developing precisely because of the qualities you mentioned.  If they go too far and destroy those qualities they have lost the value they bought into and will be stuck with condos no one wants.

Ditto.  I'm not the biggest fan of the bank at 15th and Utica - it looks like a horrible, cheap version of what was done at 21st and Utica, but it beats what was there - a run down concrete block strip center with parking along the main street rather than in back.  A developer isn't going to come in and develop things that harmonize "just because".  He's here to make money.  I'm not saying that there aren't ways for him to do both.  But for instance, the bank at 15th and Utica - the bank has a budget.  They want the location, and they've paid a premium for that land, I'm sure...so for this thing to be profitable, they have to have the bank be a minimum size, and they decide that it's not worth it without adding some leasable space upstairs.  Well, the codes dictate that the square footage of the building is what determines the size of the parking lot (which they actually put behind the building).  Now, I'm not going to get into all the debate about the HP zoning, etc., because I don't know enough about it, but what was the alternative for this site?  You literally had a concrete block strip mall surrounded by a razor wire fence.  For the price that the land is worth, it probably wouldn't have been profitable for someone to come in and renovate.  It definitely would not have worked as a bank. So what was the alternative??  That "THEY" should have built a more suitable buldign for the site - well, that might not have provided the square footage they needed to turn a profit.  I'm not saying that Bumgarner is a great guy, I have actually only heard negative things about him, but at least he's trying to do stuff in midtown.  Ideals of a walkable city, redevelopment, and all that stuff are great, but until an actual idealist comes up with the cash, then we're getting what we're getting.  It seems that we have a lot of people on here who want to complicate our zoning to the point of absurdity - dictating that something has to fit the scale and feel of a neighborhood.  What city bureaucrat will be the decisionmaker on that?  I work as an architect, and believe me, that would grind things to a dead stop!  The problem isn't the zoning, it's the market.  People in Tulsa aren't willing (or able?) to pay for premium, high quality, small scale development.  Until that day comes, we are stuck with either the occasional bad project, or we are stuck with dilapidated properties throughout midtown.  We could try to force it by zoning, but that will simply fuel sprawl.  So for now, I will encourage those that create positive developments, and when someone does something like the thing at 15th and Utica, while it makes me wince from the architectural standpoint, I will at least be glad that it is overall a positive not a negative, and I will pray that things get better "next time".

[Breadburner]

The bank does not own the land or the building......

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

^I liked the apartment building better than the big block without windows.

I'm glad you said that. I totally agree. Maybe when the building is done it will be more in harmony. But not yet.

[carltonplace]

Is the Arvest bank better than the strip center that was there? meh.
Is the parking lot behind it better than the two little cottages that were there? No.
Is the Stilwater bank better thant the little Tudor style shopping center? No.
Is the PeiWei and adjacent parking lot better than the Utica Apartments? No.

Is there a better use for the Spotnot carwash on 15th St or the two little converted houses between Troost and Trenton. Possibly, but I'd rather have these things than a monolithic 7 story suburban structure. Go ahead and build, its great and its good for the local economy. But why not build a long term legacy instead of just something for now.

Tulsa is special because of areas like Cherry Street and Brookside. It is special because of all of the older homes and apartments in their varying architectural styles. These are things we should be able to pass on to the next generation. But we won't be able to. Not if we rip them all down and replace them with Dryvit stucco and psuedo tile roofs as far as the eye can see.

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

Is the Arvest bank better than the strip center that was there? meh.
Is the parking lot behind it better than the two little cottages that were there? No.
Is the Stilwater bank better thant the little Tudor style shopping center? No.
Is the PeiWei and adjacent parking lot better than the Utica Apartments? No.

I'm assuming you mean the Te Kei's?

I don't know the historical significance of rectangular buildings made from brick, but in actuality most of these places taken out were slums.  You might have thought rennovation was the best option, but more than likely market pricing and financial reasoning led to them being taken out.  Having visited those properties in the times near their demise I must confirm that they were pretty much all prime examples of destitution and poverty at their finest.  They ended up being out of place for the neighborhood after decades of decline (much like the apartments demolished to make way for the Utica Place development)

While I'm ranting, doesn't Cherry street pretty much end at Utica?  It is all office buildings east of Utica, so what is the big deal with that intersection being developed in a different style?  Are people mad because they want Cherry Street to grow to the east?  Do you really think the successfully utilized and fairly nice office/medical buildings east of Utica would sell for any price that would make quaint little two story businesses even 1/10th of the way to being profitable?  Nothing short of arson would make some people on this board's dreams an actual possibility.

(Keep in mind I'm 24, so my nostalgia factor is very low, but I do know how the properties at 15th & utica as well as the Te Kei's and the Utica Place areas were at the end of their lifespan)