Bumgarner on Cherry Street

[carltonplace]

YT, just because a building is derelict today doesn't mean it will always be. Look at the old Piggly Wiggly on 15th, or the Old Lincoln Elementary; both are living new lives and I bet no one would argue that either should be removed. The apartments that you hated, could have been the coolest condos (yes I did mean Te Kei's) with a little imagination and money, now they are a parking lot.

Pat Fox Posted this thread of Utica Avenue pictures. It amazes me that it looked like this less than 10 years ago. Utica Avenue Pictures

I'm not opposed to development at all. My point is that if we just look the other way, before you know it unique Tulsa will be gone and everytown USA will take its place.

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

. . . a monolithic 7 story suburban structure.

 Seems a little oxymoronic.  I don't know of many 7 story banks in the suburbs.  Do you?

I like the corner.  Seems like good urban design to me.  I think it's important to separate this thread into two potential complaints and realize there's really only one to be made against Bumgarner's development style.

Complaint #1: The Preservationist's.  What was there before is by its nature better than most anything you can put there now.  "Older faux-Tudor style buildings are superior to newer faux-Tuscan style buildings because they have been there longer."  

Complaint #2: The Urbophile's.  A given development is only an improvement if it follows a general form-based, urban aesthetic.  "Newer lofts and buildings built to the curb are superior to older run-down houses and retail centers with frontage parking."

It seems like the complaints on this thread follow the Preservationist line while claiming to be upset that given developments aren't "urban" enough.  I think we all agree that tearing down older structures to put in sprawl is bad.  Where we may differ is on the question of tearing down older structures to add density.  

I am open to the latter, assuming responsible balancing of historical significance and commercial renewal.  This is why I like the Stillwater National Bank.  I think it's a lovely building, which compliments the intersection without overwhelming it and anchors Cherry Street.  It's too bad about the old 15th and Utica and some of the memories that have been lost, but there's a valid argument to be made that what we've gained is greater.

(I won't defend Tei Kei.  That's butt ugly and a sad loss of residences).

[TheArtist]

^Well put.

Sometimes I drive around that area and wonder just where some people would say its ok to build something new.  If we want to have a more urban, dense, walkable area and growth, how do we get there from here?  I look around and according to many thoughts on this thread there are exceedingly few places someone could build anything.

Now the first rebuke I can hear from that is, "There are plenty of vacant lots downtown etc, that people could build things on."  True, But there are two basic ways that things grow in the city.  1. Infill in areas that are already nice, often with that nice area slowly expanding outwards on its fringe. Cherry Street, Brookside, and Utica Square areas as examples. 2.  The developer that goes into a run down or vacated area as the trailblazer hoping to start a new "nice area".  The village and Pearl district, Blue Dome and Brady Districts as examples.

Now if I am the type of developer that wants to build say in the Utica/Cherry street area and I read this thread, I would wonder just where I could build.  I only have those few vacant lots to consider?  The whole area basically has to freeze just as it is?  Take the corner where the Arvest now is.  I hear people complain that the shopping center and homes were better, and then I hear people complain that it was the style, or scale.  Which was it?  If it was that all the old things have to stay and be fixed up, well we arent going to see much change in that area. Its as urban as its going to get.  If it was the style,,, well where is the uproar about the that new addition and remodel of the old building just a block or two away on Utica, the new one story medical building thats "Italian"?  Or is it the scale?  He could have taken out the old shopping center and put in a small Italianate structure and it would have been fine?  It just doesnt seem like there is any consistancy.  

If it was about scale and design or style, there shouldnt be a peep said from anyone about the shopping center or the apartments behind Utica Square, being taken out.  The complaints should only be about scale and design, the "form based codes".  Otherwise it just doesnt seem to make sense and as a developer, or someone like me driving around and trying to imagine where someone could build something new, you end up just scratching your head and thinking, wow these people are nuts.  I will either end up being able to do nothing in the area or ignore them and do whatever I want, so I am gonna do whatever I want.

Just a question,,,

Where along the section around 21st, Utica, and Cherry Street do people think it would be ok to build something, like more mid-rise condos/business structures?  Give me specific lots and buildings that it would be ok to take out if ya need to. And or let us know just what style you think is ok to use for these new buildings. Tudor, Italian, Modern, something else?

[Double A]

Here's a great example, there was a lot for sale at 11th and Lewis at the same time Bumgarner acquired HL Moss, the Arvest Branch would have fit in much better there and would have been welcomed by the neighborhood(not to mention the momentum it could have given to the Pearl District and Route 66 improvements). Chew on that. I think the eastern part of Riverview would be a good location for the type of development you are talking about.

[TheArtist]

11th and lewis? Might as well say there was a lot near 71st and Memorial or Pine and Sheridan.  

There are reasons developers want to place things in certain areas and not just randomly wherever there is an available lot or where the "neighbors would welcome" something. (not to mention socio-economic reasons, traffic flows, and accessibility, for placing things in one location versus another. Look at why gas stations often thrive or flounder in some locations versus another. Whether you fail or succeed can merely depend on the side of the street you are on.)  11th and Lewis is not like 15th and Utica.  Mr Bumgarner, if what I have heard is correct,  has a vision to develop the area around Utica and Utica Square into something like around the Plaza in KC. Each of his developments and future developments are meant to eventually compliment each other. As more and more developments go in, the over all vision will start to become more obvious and the hoped for effect will be that the properties will thus become even more valuable and complimentary. In that context the 11th and Lewis location might as well be Broken Arrow to Bumgarner.

We all hope for good development in every part of town.  But if you have a vested interest in a particular part of town, like JJ has for the Pearl, Bumgarner has for Utica, etc. You will of course focus on that area to reinforce those previous investments and forward your hopes and vision for that particular area. There are many ways to do that and one way to control who your neighbors are and to make sure they keep their yard in order is to BE the neighbor lol.  Another way is form based codes...

[Double A]

The people who live in the area don't share Bumgarners vision for their neighborhoods. It's their negihborhoods, not Bumgarners.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

The people who live in the area don't share Bumgarners vision for their neighborhoods. It's their negihborhoods, not Bumgarners.

Isn't there an existing process for the neighborhoods to protest the Bumgarners? If you are unhappy with the outcome of that process then you are either wrong from the communities standpoint or should endeavor to change the process.

I lived in the midtown area when there was very little modern services available to our neighborhoods. No Albertsons, No Walgreens, No Office Supplies, No hardware /lumber stores etc. No great variety of restaurants/clubs either unless you liked Cardo's and Black Forest on a saturday night. Basically, no convenience. It is a trade off we had to make to allow some "ugly" and some "greedy" to come over here to serve us. The payback has been increased interest from the city, higher property values and better schools. Development to allow even more to enjoy this lifestyle is a good idea to me. I loved the area the way it was but that is past.

If we had used your argument and put it to a vote of the neighbors it may not have happened at all. Your rent would be cheaper though.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

The people who live in the area don't share Bumgarners vision for their neighborhoods. It's their negihborhoods, not Bumgarners.

Its his neighborhood just as much as anyone elses. I don't know who you are talking with but pretty much everyone I have ever talked to that live in the area like most of what he has done.  If there is a majority of people in the area that don't, why don't they do something about it? Wouldn't placing some form of formed based codes or zoning overlay be a way for them to make sure future growth fit their vision?  I can only suspect, since some type of form based codes or zoning overlay has not happened, that there isn't a majority or at least a majority that is willing to put the effort into their vision. Someone sitting around whining that their vision isn't happening can't compete against someone who is getting up and doing something about theirs.  If you have the majority, laws can be changed.

[inteller]

does bumgartner own like all the land in this town or something?  He cant seem to get the South Town Square dev off the ground.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by Double A

The people who live in the area don't share Bumgarners vision for their neighborhoods. It's their negihborhoods, not Bumgarners.

Its his neighborhood just as much as anyone elses. I don't know who you are talking with but pretty much everyone I have ever talked to that live in the area like most of what he has done.  If there is a majority of people in the area that don't, why don't they do something about it? Wouldn't placing some form of formed based codes or zoning overlay be a way for them to make sure future growth fit their vision?  I can only suspect, since some type of form based codes or zoning overlay has not happened, that there isn't a majority or at least a majority that is willing to put the effort into their vision. Someone sitting around whining that their vision isn't happening can't compete against someone who is getting up and doing something about theirs.  If you have the majority, laws can be changed.

We had HP protection, and you can see what good that did us against a well funded developer with bought politicians, Incog staffers, and ABC members. Artist, I think you are full of sh#*t, many people in the neighborhood opposed that development. Maybe you should go back and watch the council meeting and see how many neighbors spoke in favor of it and how many spoke against it.

[Rico]

(quote)
We had HP protection.....
(end quote)

Then what you are saying is that you had jack...

I have said before and I will say it again...

"Form Based Codes, HP Overlay, etc., etc., etc...

You are going to have to demonstrate to the developers in this City that there is money to be made from change.

I suggested to the Board of Tulsa Now that they hold a forum inviting  developers from other parts of the Country that had made MONEY$$$$ from implementing these changes in their developments..

Invite the local "developers and major land owners" such as Bumgarner, Butts, Buford, and others..
They are not the enemy..hard for many to believe... maybe... But true none the less.

Profit in the status quo development strategy is the enemy..

[Double A]

You might as well invite a Brick wall to that meeting, because it would absorb what you have to say much better than these folks. I remember how the rules of the Mid Town Redux study were manipulated to favor these interests, or how about HB 2559, remember that? Are you really naive enough to believe they will suddenly see the light and actually give a s*#t about anyone's concerns besides their own? If I wanted to be patronized and have my intelligence insulted, I'd watch a replay of the President's SOTU.

[AVERAGE JOE]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

I remember how the rules of the Mid Town Redux study were manipulated to favor these interests...

Do tell. Specifically who are you accusing of corruption on the Redux study?

[carltonplace]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

. . . a monolithic 7 story suburban structure.

 Seems a little oxymoronic.  I don't know of many 7 story banks in the suburbs.  Do you?

I like the corner.  Seems like good urban design to me.  I think it's important to separate this thread into two potential complaints and realize there's really only one to be made against Bumgarner's development style.

Complaint #1: The Preservationist's.  What was there before is by its nature better than most anything you can put there now.  "Older faux-Tudor style buildings are superior to newer faux-Tuscan style buildings because they have been there longer."  

Complaint #2: The Urbophile's.  A given development is only an improvement if it follows a general form-based, urban aesthetic.  "Newer lofts and buildings built to the curb are superior to older run-down houses and retail centers with frontage parking."

It seems like the complaints on this thread follow the Preservationist line while claiming to be upset that given developments aren't "urban" enough.  I think we all agree that tearing down older structures to put in sprawl is bad.  Where we may differ is on the question of tearing down older structures to add density.  

I am open to the latter, assuming responsible balancing of historical significance and commercial renewal.  This is why I like the Stillwater National Bank.  I think it's a lovely building, which compliments the intersection without overwhelming it and anchors Cherry Street.  It's too bad about the old 15th and Utica and some of the memories that have been lost, but there's a valid argument to be made that what we've gained is greater.

(I won't defend Tei Kei.  That's butt ugly and a sad loss of residences).

Why can't one be both a preservationist and an "urbophile"?
Tulsa had real density in Downtown, uptown, 11th St and on Utica. Because of social perceptions and sprawl many of these areas became abandoned or blighted. The IDL, need for parking and shortsightedness allowed many homes and building to be taken out. Now old structures are desirable again, but the stock is already depleted. In retrospect it would have been better to preserve the density we had then to try to recreate it now. I'll post a before and after pic of 15th and Cheyenne to help make my point. The difference 30 years made will floor you.


dif sub: I don't have a problem with the Stilwater bank building, but I prefered the walk up feel of the old tudor. Utica Avenue used to feel like a neighborhood, now it feels like a corridor. Cherry Street is just about as walkable and cozy as it gets in Tulsa; that's why its a popular destination. How much of that are we willing to risk for the sake of development?

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE

quote:Originally posted by Double A

I remember how the rules of the Mid Town Redux study were manipulated to favor these interests...

Do tell. Specifically who are you accusing of corruption on the Redux study?

You know as well as I do that that special concessions were made to developers in regards to parking issues. Or how about advertising the study as specific to one area of town, only to have it changed to be a hypothetical area when the participants arrived? Maybe you should talk to the Neighborhood Reps who participated and ask them if they are happy with the process, most of the ones I've spoken with are not.