Big development on Cherry St.

[dsjeffries]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

Not that I'm agreeing with you about the diverse mixture of architecture, but how does cramming as many cookie cutter modern lofts on to as many lots in one area or cramming as many towering, cookie cutter, faux italianate, glamorized suburban strip malls(complete with vast seas of inefficient suburban surface parking) along commercial corridors contribute to and preserve that diverse mixture of architecture you speak of?

One more thing, the commercial developments you cited around Cherry St are renovations of existing buildings, not the out of scale, lot cramming, scrape and rapes that Metro Lofts and the Bumgarners specialize in.

BTW, do you even live in this area?

This is ridiculous.  I didn't say anything about any type of cookie-cutter buildings, I didn't mention anything about vast seas of inefficient suburban parking lots or tons of lofts and I didn't mention anything about cramming too many buildings into too small lots.  I don't think anyone here would advocate any of those things.

The only thing I mentioned was a general architectural theme.  That's it, and now I'm being treated as some kind of combatant enemy.  I'm here for the same reason most of you are--because I care.

And no, the buildings I'm talking about that have tiled roofs aren't recent remodels--they're original buildings from the 20s or 30s that at least appear as though they've not been touched since then.

Not every aspect of everything that's being built in town is bad.  There are good points along with the bad, and unfortunately, I'm starting to get the feeling that no matter what someone proposes to build, it's always going to be met with disapproval by certain people on these forums.

What was announced? "The word is multi-story residential with small commercial component. Anyone know anything? If half of what I heard comes to it would be incredible for Cherry St."

We don't even know what the development is, yet now we've got glamorized strip malls, supposed seas of inefficient parking, and though ground isn't broken, the apartments included are too expensive, and the style is wrong...

[akupetsky]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

There have indeed been topics of diversity of income.  But the one where I mentioned not liking the style of the lofts for that area, and where I got griped at, was definitely about the different types of building styles.

Although Cherry Street has some "diverse" elements, much of it consists of historic, two-story brick buildings in the 1920s style.  Check out the buildings containing The Palace Café, LaDonna's, the (late, great) 15th Street Wok and Panera.  To preserve this aspect of Tulsa's history, we must not only maintain these buildings, but also nurture them by ensuring that any new nearby development reflects their architecture and style.  For example, buildings that are more than two stories will overshadow and ultimately make it impossible to preserve the historic structures.  Now, Mr. Bumgarner appears to be a very smart, creative guy, and hopefully is not a "one-trick pony" that can only fashion buildings in one style.  If he can develop his properties along Cherry Street in a way that preserves the character and feel of the existing historic structures (and without creating additional surface parking lots), he will not only minimize neighborhood opposition (resulting in quicker approval of his plans) but also will attract more business to his structures (enabling him to attract a better price).  We are talking about a sense of place where commerce can flourish; not a competition of building architectures that disregards the city where they are located.

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by akupetsky

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

There have indeed been topics of diversity of income.  But the one where I mentioned not liking the style of the lofts for that area, and where I got griped at, was definitely about the different types of building styles.

Although Cherry Street has some �diverse� elements, much of it consists of historic, two-story brick buildings in the 1920s style.  Check out the buildings containing The Palace Caf�, LaDonna�s, the (late, great) 15th Street Wok and Panera.  To preserve this aspect of Tulsa�s history, we must not only maintain these buildings, but also nurture them by ensuring that any new nearby development reflects their architecture and style.  For example, buildings that are more than two stories will overshadow and ultimately make it impossible to preserve the historic structures.  Now, Mr. Bumgarner appears to be a very smart, creative guy, and hopefully is not a �one-trick pony� that can only fashion buildings in one style.  If he can develop his properties along Cherry Street in a way that preserves the character and feel of the existing historic structures (and without creating additional surface parking lots), he will not only minimize neighborhood opposition (resulting in quicker approval of his plans) but also will attract more business to his structures (enabling him to attract a better price).  We are talking about a sense of place where commerce can flourish; not a competition of building architectures that disregards the city where they are located.

Very well said... Indeed...!

If only you were a Developer from another part of the Country that had made Mega-Money$$....

In doing just this sort of thing...

The time is ripe for a redirection in building style...
 []

[YoungTulsan]

Doesnt the price of the land + the price of building materials + the price of labor make a building 2 stories or less unprofitable in desirable areas like Cherry Street?  People posting on a forum about their utopia vision of 15th street doesn't change the mathematics of a profitable investment, which is what any developer will build when they redevelop properties.

I mean, I guess developers could build brand new 2 story quad plexes with 600 sq ft. apeice, but they'd have to charge like $1500/month to turn a profit over a reasonable period of time.

Somehow I don't think that would work.

[TheArtist]

At one of the "maintaining neighborhood character" meetings.  I learned about the idea of..

-Wall Plane Lengths,,, this affects perception of scale along the fronts and sides of a building.

-Building Mass...  Height at ridge and side wall "plate"

If both of those issues are taken into account when building a new structure, it will fit in scale wise, even if it is taller or bigger. I will try to find some example pics to post so that those can be easily visualized.

[TheArtist]

As for the diversity of income issue.  It may very well be that cherry street becomes more pricey in time. I wouldnt want to stop that.  We need an entire area that is more "trendy" so that we can attract those young urban professional types.  Having just a few here and there does not create the sense of community of like minded individuals for people of that type.  They want to hang out with people of similar interests and such like we all do. This is not to say that there wont be areas of mixed incomes and price ranges.  It just may not be immediately around Cherry Street.  As Cherry street becomes more desirable, the prices are naturally going to go up.  However the edges of this area as it grows will still have mixed income possibilities.  This is the way it always is.  Many times its seen as an opportunity for people like myself who cant afford those nice places, but I can buy a fixer upper on the edge of a nice area and hope that as the area grows the neighborhood will get better and my investment will grow.

I dont know how we can try and attract young urban professionals and not develop an area that will attract them lol.  If they are willing to pay more, people are gonna sell for more.

[Double A]

I thought YP's wanted to live, work, and play downtown. Isn't that what all the Vision 2025 developer pork for downtown luxury housing is for? It seems that everybody wants to live in Foreclosureville these days, to me. I wonder who will be left holding the bag when this fuzzy lending for overpriced real estate/housing trend and credit co dependency collapses?

[deinstein]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

As for the diversity of income issue.  It may very well be that cherry street becomes more pricey in time. I wouldnt want to stop that.  We need an entire area that is more "trendy" so that we can attract those young urban professional types.  Having just a few here and there does not create the sense of community of like minded individuals for people of that type.  They want to hang out with people of similar interests and such like we all do. This is not to say that there wont be areas of mixed incomes and price ranges.  It just may not be immediately around Cherry Street.  As Cherry street becomes more desirable, the prices are naturally going to go up.  However the edges of this area as it grows will still have mixed income possibilities.  This is the way it always is.  Many times its seen as an opportunity for people like myself who cant afford those nice places, but I can buy a fixer upper on the edge of a nice area and hope that as the area grows the neighborhood will get better and my investment will grow.

I dont know how we can try and attract young urban professionals and not develop an area that will attract them lol.  If they are willing to pay more, people are gonna sell for more.

Cherry Street is desirable. And it is a community. And I don't want my neighborhood being all 'young professionals'. I want every type of person. I don't want my neighborhood to lose it's character, take your pro-gentrification somewhere else. Thanks.

[deinstein]

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

Doesnt the price of the land + the price of building materials + the price of labor make a building 2 stories or less unprofitable in desirable areas like Cherry Street?  People posting on a forum about their utopia vision of 15th street doesn't change the mathematics of a profitable investment, which is what any developer will build when they redevelop properties.

I mean, I guess developers could build brand new 2 story quad plexes with 600 sq ft. apeice, but they'd have to charge like $1500/month to turn a profit over a reasonable period of time.

Somehow I don't think that would work.

Do I care about maximizing profit? No. Do you know why Cherry Street is desirable? It sure isn't by realtors and developers coming here to maximize profits, I'll tell you that much. If you don't like the fact the neighborhood prefers a maximum of three story buildings, then go somewhere else.

[dsjeffries]

quote:Originally posted by deinstein

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

Doesnt the price of the land + the price of building materials + the price of labor make a building 2 stories or less unprofitable in desirable areas like Cherry Street?  People posting on a forum about their utopia vision of 15th street doesn't change the mathematics of a profitable investment, which is what any developer will build when they redevelop properties.

I mean, I guess developers could build brand new 2 story quad plexes with 600 sq ft. apeice, but they'd have to charge like $1500/month to turn a profit over a reasonable period of time.

Somehow I don't think that would work.

Do I care about maximizing profit? No. Do you know why Cherry Street is desirable? It sure isn't by realtors and developers coming here to maximize profits, I'll tell you that much. If you don't like the fact the neighborhood prefers a maximum of three story buildings, then go somewhere else.

Actually, it is becoming desirable exactly because developers are coming in, and regardless of how they feel about the neighborhood, their number one priority is to make a profit.  When I say developers, I mean anyone that comes to Cherry Street to open a business, not just those who build new developments.  No one's talking 10- or 15-story high-rises here.  All that was mentioned was the idea that buildings of a certain size aren't profitable in an already desirable area.

"The neighborhood prefers 3 story buildings" ?  While it's true that most of the buildings are only one or two, there apparently isn't some type of neighborhood association or code that can (or has) block taller buildings from being built since the Arvest and Stillwater buildings are on Cherry Street.  I'm not saying that people don't prefer them shorter, but nothing's being done to prevent people from building that way.  If the neighborhood does prefer them 3 stories or less, they can do something about it.

[deinstein]

You're wrong on two counts.

1. Arvest had a headache building their four story building because of the Yorktown residents.

2. Cherry Street is not desirable because of the Metro Lofts. It's desirable because it's historic, walkable and has a diverse group of people living there.

[dsjeffries]

quote:Originally posted by deinstein

You're wrong on two counts.

1. Arvest had a headache building their four story building because of the Yorktown residents.

2. Cherry Street is not desirable because of the Metro Lofts. It's desirable because it's historic, walkable and has a diverse group of people living there.

1.  I didn't say they haven't tried.  I don't know if they've tried.  Point is, they didn't succeed.

2.  I didn't say anything about Metro Lofts or any specific development or business.  Did I say that the Metro Lofts made Cherry Street desirable? No.

[deinstein]

1. You said there was nothing done to prevent them, and there was. Yorktown tried.

2. You said developers are making Cherry Street desirable, well..what other developers are currently doing something besides the Metro Lofts?

[tulsa1603]

quote:Originally posted by deinstein

You're wrong on two counts.

1. Arvest had a headache building their four story building because of the Yorktown residents.

2. Cherry Street is not desirable because of the Metro Lofts. It's desirable because it's historic, walkable and has a diverse group of people living there.

While you're right on those two points, what would you prefer to happen on properties such as the car wash, the gas station at 15th and Utica, and the old appliance shop that was where Arvest now stands?  Nothing?  Let them stand in disrepair?  I think the concept the other poster is trying to get across is, a developer is not going to come in and fix these properties up for purely altruistic reasons, he's going to want a profit, and unfortunately with land prices being climbing in those areas, you're going to see more vertical growth.

And of course you don't care about maximizing profits, you're not putting a dime into the project.  It's very easy to be idealistic when it's other people's money.

I'm not saying that you're wrong or that I even disagree about what will or won't harm the character of the neighborhood, but when you limit development to "what's already there", then how can we be against sprawl?  This is just one of the unfortunate side effects of increasing density and bringing people back to midtown and downtown vs. the suburbs.

[deinstein]

Prefer? I'd prefer only one corner mart (Phillips 66) and a mixed use building at the car wash location. I personally have no problem with Arvest and Stillwater National Bank...my problem (retail wise) is with the fry pits on the west side of Peoria.

And I'm all for people profiting, I'm just not for people coming here only thinking about maximizing profits without consideration for the neighborhood.

You say I don't care because it's not my money, I say they don't care because they don't live here.