$10 Million Lofts - Brookside

[spoonbill]

quote:Originally posted by tulsa1603

quote:Originally posted by spoonbill

quote:Originally posted by pfox

I am not sure the developers are "missing" it.  I just think it is a combination of a few things: first, the cost of developing infill projects and making decent margins doing so, the market's general wariness of condos (here in Tulsa) as good investment property, and financing multifamily projects.  

These projects are tricky to finance.  Many lenders require you to have commitments for at least 50% of your units before they will release the loan.  Also, Tulsa had a burgeoning condo market in the 80's, but the real estate market went upside down, and no one could sell their condo. Locally, lenders, builders and buyers are still a little gunshy about it.  Should the market warm up to the condo, I think you will see it change.  You need to account for the fact that places like the Dallas Metro add nearly 50000 jobs a year to their market.  That is a huge boon for the housing industry.  We need more jobs if we want more young people and more growth.

In Tulsa the same $300,000 you would spend on a 1,800 sq.ft. "loft" or condo downtown 5 minutes from the office will buy you a very nice 3,000 sq.ft. home in South Tulsa, Jenks, or Broken Arrow with a big yard, neighborhood amenity package, great schools, and the promise of increased property value only 15 minutes from the office.  We have a healthy home inventory and developers willing to continue expansion.  

The promise of increased property value in the burbs is a joke.  Go to Owasso, Jenks, or BA and ask people there what kind of increases they are seeing.  Why would anyone want to buy a 5 year old house there when there are a dozen new ones being built around the corner?  It's a stack 'em deep and sell 'em cheap mentality.

Cities like Dallas are not known as good examples of urban design.  They are getting better due to necessity, but the sprawl that they have created over the last 40 years is something they surely regret.

That's the flaw in the argument.  A city does not create "sprawl."  People do.  

I would argue that a city has no control over "sprawl."  
It's part of the natural evolution of a city that is not bound by geography.  

Academia has attempted to teach young aspiring planners and architects that there is such thing as sprawl, and that it must be contained through careful zoning and planning, but people will always find a way to overcome government regulation.  Planning should serve the purpose of anticipating growth rather than containing it.  Planners have to work with economic development officials to encourage the smart placement of businesses.

I think Dallas did a wonderful job of anticipating and accepting growth.  They built 6 lane highways when all they needed was 4.  They incorporated surrounding land and built the infrastructure to accommodate the fact that geographically they were destine to expand quickly.  They kept taxes low to funnel the growth into the city, and gave incentives for businesses to move into specific growth zones.

I don't think Dallas regrets anything!  Booming economy, great streets, wonderful parks and recreation areas, tons of new jobs every year, and some of the best quality of living in the country.  

Tulsa, on the other hand, is so behind on planning that when a 4 lane road is finished it is already obsolete.  It then costs twice as much to make the improvements necessary to clear that artery.  All because the city thinks that it will contain that area through strict zoning.  

Zoning is no more than an informed suggestion.  It is easily changed with the stroke of a pen. The purpose of Planning is to anticipate!  Planners that think they can rely on zoning to contain growth in an area will always produce flawed plans.  

You will never contain or control the people!

"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words."

[tulsa1603]

quote:Originally posted by spoonbill

quote:Originally posted by tulsa1603

quote:Originally posted by spoonbill

quote:Originally posted by pfox

I am not sure the developers are "missing" it.  I just think it is a combination of a few things: first, the cost of developing infill projects and making decent margins doing so, the market's general wariness of condos (here in Tulsa) as good investment property, and financing multifamily projects.  

These projects are tricky to finance.  Many lenders require you to have commitments for at least 50% of your units before they will release the loan.  Also, Tulsa had a burgeoning condo market in the 80's, but the real estate market went upside down, and no one could sell their condo. Locally, lenders, builders and buyers are still a little gunshy about it.  Should the market warm up to the condo, I think you will see it change.  You need to account for the fact that places like the Dallas Metro add nearly 50000 jobs a year to their market.  That is a huge boon for the housing industry.  We need more jobs if we want more young people and more growth.

In Tulsa the same $300,000 you would spend on a 1,800 sq.ft. "loft" or condo downtown 5 minutes from the office will buy you a very nice 3,000 sq.ft. home in South Tulsa, Jenks, or Broken Arrow with a big yard, neighborhood amenity package, great schools, and the promise of increased property value only 15 minutes from the office.  We have a healthy home inventory and developers willing to continue expansion.  

The promise of increased property value in the burbs is a joke.  Go to Owasso, Jenks, or BA and ask people there what kind of increases they are seeing.  Why would anyone want to buy a 5 year old house there when there are a dozen new ones being built around the corner?  It's a stack 'em deep and sell 'em cheap mentality.

Cities like Dallas are not known as good examples of urban design.  They are getting better due to necessity, but the sprawl that they have created over the last 40 years is something they surely regret.

That's the flaw in the argument.  A city does not create "sprawl."  People do.  

I would argue that a city has no control over "sprawl."  
It's part of the natural evolution of a city that is not bound by geography.  

Academia has attempted to teach young aspiring planners and architects that there is such thing as sprawl, and that it must be contained through careful zoning and planning, but people will always find a way to overcome government regulation.  Planning should serve the purpose of anticipating growth rather than containing it.  Planners have to work with economic development officials to encourage the smart placement of businesses.

I think Dallas did a wonderful job of anticipating and accepting growth.  They built 6 lane highways when all they needed was 4.  They incorporated surrounding land and built the infrastructure to accommodate the fact that geographically they were destine to expand quickly.  They kept taxes low to funnel the growth into the city, and gave incentives for businesses to move into specific growth zones.

I don't think Dallas regrets anything!  Booming economy, great streets, wonderful parks and recreation areas, tons of new jobs every year, and some of the best quality of living in the country.  

Tulsa, on the other hand, is so behind on planning that when a 4 lane road is finished it is already obsolete.  It then costs twice as much to make the improvements necessary to clear that artery.  All because the city thinks that it will contain that area through strict zoning.  

Zoning is no more than an informed suggestion.  It is easily changed with the stroke of a pen. The purpose of Planning is to anticipate!  Planners that think they can rely on zoning to contain growth in an area will always produce flawed plans.  

You will never contain or control the people!

"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words."

I won't disagree with you on people creating sprawl rather than cities.  But we're just going to have to disagree on this:  Sprawl leads to decay in the core.  Part of me feels like you are saying 'lets go ahead and sprawl away and let what happens happen naturally'.  If a city can encourage redevelopment of it's core RATHER than encouraging it's residents to move to other cities in outlying areas by providing 6 lane roads to get them there, it's a good thing.  Tulsa's situation is that we are encouraging people to move to Jenks, Owasso, and BA.  That equals more infrastructure (which we can't afford), it moves sales tax generators to those cities rather than keeping them here, yet many of those same people still work in Tulsa, using our existing infrastructure which we can no longer afford to maintain due to the loss of tax revenue, etc.  I'm not saying we need to create a moratorium on sprawl.  I just think that Tulsa needs to figure out ways to redevelop areas within.  

I also think you are making an unfair comparison by saying that the $200,000 loft is competing with a $200,000 house in Jenks or BA - Most people don't look at those as comparable.  Most people that want a loft would never consider living in the suburbs and vice versa.

[TheArtist]

The word sprawl itself carries a negative connotation. However there are good examples of suburban growth and bad. I think booming suburbs and suburban growth done well can defintiely be a positive.  As for the lofts, and even the boom in midrise and highrise condos you see in places like Dallas and Denver, I dont think they are going for the young family with kids. A 300,000 dollar loft is not really competing with the 300,000 dollar house in the burbs. Single YPs, couples without kids and even empty nesters are more the market lofts and condos in the city are catering to. Usually when you do get the kids, then you often head to the burbs. Plus many people like living in an urban environment. I think Tulsa should be able to compete as a city with other cities by offering good urban lifestyle choices. Someone like me would rather rot in heck than live in the suburbs lol. No matter how cheap and nice the home was. Just not my thing.  

Areas like Brookside and Cherry Street are just beginning to offer that more urban, walkable, dense, lifestyle. Part of its appeal is being around lots of other young people like yourself. When an area begins to look like an area lots of YPs live in with lots of trendy shops, restaurants, and a lot of loft and midrise condos, It begins to take on an energy and growth mode all its own. The larger it becomes the more appealing it becomes. Young entreprenures start setting up shop in the area, they create more jobs, a readily available large market of educated young people easily enables more businesses to enter and expand, etc. Those areas begin to become engines that grow the economy and make the city more attractive and lively, etc. It becomes a kind of reinforcing snowball effect, one thing helps another which helps the first thing and so on.  

Tulsa has been sorely lacking in this type of growth and lifestyle option. Thats not a  judgment for or against suburban growth, its simply adding another attractive lifestyle choice for Tulsa to offer.

[spoonbill]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

The word sprawl itself carries a negative connotation. However there are good examples of suburban growth and bad. I think booming suburbs and suburban growth done well can defintiely be a positive.  As for the lofts, and even the boom in midrise and highrise condos you see in places like Dallas and Denver, I dont think they are going for the young family with kids. A 300,000 dollar loft is not really competing with the 300,000 dollar house in the burbs. Single YPs, couples without kids and even empty nesters are more the market lofts and condos in the city are catering to. Usually when you do get the kids, then you often head to the burbs. Plus many people like living in an urban environment. I think Tulsa should be able to compete as a city with other cities by offering good urban lifestyle choices. Someone like me would rather rot in heck than live in the suburbs lol. No matter how cheap and nice the home was. Just not my thing.  

Areas like Brookside and Cherry Street are just beginning to offer that more urban, walkable, dense, lifestyle. Part of its appeal is being around lots of other young people like yourself. When an area begins to look like an area lots of YPs live in with lots of trendy shops, restaurants, and a lot of loft and midrise condos, It begins to take on an energy and growth mode all its own. The larger it becomes the more appealing it becomes. Young entreprenures start setting up shop in the area, they create more jobs, a readily available large market of educated young people easily enables more businesses to enter and expand, etc. Those areas begin to become engines that grow the economy and make the city more attractive and lively, etc. It becomes a kind of reinforcing snowball effect, one thing helps another which helps the first thing and so on.  

Tulsa has been sorely lacking in this type of growth and lifestyle option. Thats not a  judgment for or against suburban growth, its simply adding another attractive lifestyle choice for Tulsa to offer.

I agree.  Especially about the snowball effect, but currently Tulsa has a growing inventory of these offerings and they are slow to move.  My point is that the market is not here yet.  The YP market is currently very transient.

[cannon_fodder]

quote:FOTD wrote
ah, but what is the cost to our society if both work while they have children?

define "easily afford"....

The cost to our society if we both work is, ummm, some negative number (negative cost =...).  Society gains a person educated in Elementary Education and Childhood Development in my wife and an Attorney with a business background in myself - both staying in the workforce.  Society gains jobs for people who enjoy children as a profession in more aftercare programs.  My child gets an opportunity to interact with other children outside of school for 2 hours a day.

What in the hell am I supposed to do?  We have a kid so I'm supposed to sit at home and clean my house while he is in school from 7:45 - 3:00 and then at Tae Kwon Do from 3:30-5:00?  Man, that would be SOOO much better for society if I could keep up with Oprah.  I guess I don't know, share with me the horrid and detrimental costs I am casting onto society by working instead of sitting at home.

quote:
define "easily afford"....

If I so chose I could curtail spending in other areas and afford the aforementioned dwelling without detrimental effect on my livelihood.    Who cares anyway?  If the developer thinks their is a demand and I'm not getting hosed for the capital, good for him.  Build as many luxury condos as you want.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by spoonbill

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

The word sprawl itself carries a negative connotation. However there are good examples of suburban growth and bad. I think booming suburbs and suburban growth done well can defintiely be a positive.  As for the lofts, and even the boom in midrise and highrise condos you see in places like Dallas and Denver, I dont think they are going for the young family with kids. A 300,000 dollar loft is not really competing with the 300,000 dollar house in the burbs. Single YPs, couples without kids and even empty nesters are more the market lofts and condos in the city are catering to. Usually when you do get the kids, then you often head to the burbs. Plus many people like living in an urban environment. I think Tulsa should be able to compete as a city with other cities by offering good urban lifestyle choices. Someone like me would rather rot in heck than live in the suburbs lol. No matter how cheap and nice the home was. Just not my thing.  

Areas like Brookside and Cherry Street are just beginning to offer that more urban, walkable, dense, lifestyle. Part of its appeal is being around lots of other young people like yourself. When an area begins to look like an area lots of YPs live in with lots of trendy shops, restaurants, and a lot of loft and midrise condos, It begins to take on an energy and growth mode all its own. The larger it becomes the more appealing it becomes. Young entreprenures start setting up shop in the area, they create more jobs, a readily available large market of educated young people easily enables more businesses to enter and expand, etc. Those areas begin to become engines that grow the economy and make the city more attractive and lively, etc. It becomes a kind of reinforcing snowball effect, one thing helps another which helps the first thing and so on.  

Tulsa has been sorely lacking in this type of growth and lifestyle option. Thats not a  judgment for or against suburban growth, its simply adding another attractive lifestyle choice for Tulsa to offer.

I agree.  Especially about the snowball effect, but currently Tulsa has a growing inventory of these offerings and they are slow to move.  My point is that the market is not here yet.  The YP market is currently very transient.

Yes our YP market is very transient. The general sense I get is that there are more moving into the area, often because of jobs. But we are still losing a lot of young people to other cities as well. Our expanding college options help. The decent economy helps. Even the expanding population in general, including the suburbs, helps and will do more as some of those kids in the suburbs grow up and look to move to the city. We have actually come a ways in the last several years but are still walking the line, gaining some, losing some, still not enough critical mass to quite take off yet.

If things keep plodding along in a positive direction over the next 2 or 3 years, I think we are going to be perched to get to that critical mass to see more rapid and secure growth start to take off.

I remember Brookside and Cherry street being much the same for a looong time. Heck, since the 80s. It would fluctuate up a bit, some new business here and there, a little more life showing... then things would slow down and you would see businesses close, nothing new start, then another part of town would perk up a bit, then fall and so on in a repeating cycle of buzz and hope then sad let down. Same thing with downtown.

These last few years have been the first time in my adult life when all of these areas have been slowly, steadily growing and improving. All at the same time! That in itself is amazing to me lol. Thats quite a change right there. I see these "signs of hope" and real growth but still cant help but feel that sinking feeling in my stomach warning me that it could all falter as it has before. Watching the national housing and job markets fall doesnt help that any lol.

Each one of these small developments that actually happens brings us that much closer to those areas having that critical mass where they can either start to grow on their own or at least be able to weather the next downturn and not completely shutter down back to square one, once again. We are not there yet, but getting close.

Thats why I have been pushing for some sort of project like the East End or the Tulsa Landing to happen. Something along those lines could push us across that psychological barrier and begin to create enough buzz, activity, and growth to get to that critical mass that can sustain itself and get the core of this city to take off. We can do it slow and steady... but ONLY if we can keep it going and we dont falter back to square one again as we have before. Lets hope those negative national trends dont start affecting Tulsa.