Monstrosity on 25th street

[spartanokc]

Not going to lie.. I actually like the new infill "McAwfuls." I dislike tearing down significant 2-story colonials, but let's be real.

This house


Is not this house


Of course we should fight against destroying the more significant homes (like the bottom pic) as well as the environment around them, but as for homes like the top pic.. let's face it. It's insignificant, small, and not worth what the bottom pic is. Nor is it an architectural style that is unique enough to preserve, such as with the Lortondale homes. The house in the top pic, in terms of Midtown Tulsa, truly is what you call a tear-down--no offense to who lives there but hey, it aint the Philbrook.

Maybe if Midtown is opposed to any new construction replacing homes 40+ years old, the city should step in and propose a "zone" for tear-downs..designate a neighborhood that's close to downtown, where nobody would miss an existing home. Maybe one of the neighborhoods that back up to the BA? That way you capitalize on the market forces that are always going to lead to infill McMansions and you can improve a neighborhood at the same time.

[Red Arrow]

You should have centered your picture better on the tear-down at the left side rather than the nice brick house more in the center.

[waterboy]

Well, I live in a neighborhood that has many of these insignificant homes but from a different age. Our little craftsman cottages built in the first decades of the 20th century, were overshadowed by the nearby "real mansions" built during the following oil boom. Had we followed your logic, an entire species of home would have been destroyed in the rush to build bigger, brick ranch style ramblers during the Eisenhower and Johnson era's. At one time even the large mansions were held in low esteem as "dated" energy guzzlers that required too much energy to make habitable. Now these homes, which include impossible to recreate elements and extremely durable materials, are in demand. We exceed $ per square foot of most of the city. The mid century homes you so cavalierly want to replace may someday be revered.

Be patient, live and let live.

[patric]

Of course we should fight against destroying the more significant homes (like the bottom pic) as well as the environment around them, but as for homes like the top pic.. let's face it. It's insignificant, small, and not worth what the bottom pic is. Nor is it an architectural style that is unique enough to preserve, such as with the Lortondale homes. The house in the top pic, in terms of Midtown Tulsa, truly is what you call a tear-down--no offense to who lives there but hey, it aint the Philbrook.

Maybe if Midtown is opposed to any new construction replacing homes 40+ years old, the city should step in and propose a "zone" for tear-downs..designate a neighborhood that's close to downtown, where nobody would miss an existing home. Maybe one of the neighborhoods that back up to the BA? That way you capitalize on the market forces that are always going to lead to infill McMansions and you can improve a neighborhood at the same time.

While you make the case that there exists 'disposable architecture' in Tulsa, it's too much of a leap to imply that justifies replacing them with this

[Red Arrow]

While you make the case that there exists 'disposable architecture' in Tulsa, it's too much of a leap to imply that justifies replacing them with this

The house in this picture is truly aesthetically challenged.  It's not only worthy of a tear down, it never should have been built in the first place, anywhere in Oklahoma.

[Red Arrow]

Some of the houses near 31st or 41st and Lewis were built without insulation.  At the time they were built, it was cheaper to heat and cool them than to insulate them.  At least that is what one of my professors from TU said when he moved out of one of those houses in the late 70s for what we would now call a greener house.

[Red Arrow]

Now these homes, which include impossible to recreate elements and extremely durable materials, are in demand. We exceed $ per square foot of most of the city. The mid century homes you so cavalierly want to replace may someday be revered.

Are "these" homes the cottages, brick ramblers, or true mansions?  All 3?

Is it really impossible to recreate them or just economically unfeasible?  I'm not interested in recreating lead based paint but aside from safety issues, it should be possible to recreate almost any style.

[waterboy]

Many of these homes were built with materials that are nearly impossible to find, like old growth Loblolly Pine, Walnut and quarter sawn Oak. Rock from area quarries that no longer exist or are no longer available. Even the humble cottages have solid brass fixtures, maple flooring, ornate light fixtures and basements. Where do you find the skills necessary to produce a lath and plaster wall? (Of course there are also examples of brickwork using Arkansas River sand that had too high content of salt which caused them to crumble and plumbing that is just plain wierd by today's standards).

When you consider that each generation of workers has different materials available, different labor skill sets and different tools to work with, you find that you may put together an expensive facsimile of them but not an exact replica. Take into account skills possessed by period artists and local artisans who designed them and you find its not possible. How do you replace a mural done by the Artist twenty years after his demise? The best example is the Pyramids. We simply couldn't do them today. Apparently we can't do streets anymore either.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that judgements made about even the humblest of simple brick Ranch style homes that they are not worthy because they could be better replaced with larger, more modern, more acceptable styles is suspect to me. I happen to remember being thrilled when I had a chance to rent one of those simple brick homes that OKSpartan thinks is not worthy. A two car garage! Oak floors! Two baths! Astonishing!

One man's ceiling.....

[Red Arrow]

... you find that you may put together an expensive facsimile of them but not an exact replica.

I'll have to agree there would not be an exact replica.

Local natural materials would certainly be a problem as you described.  Solid brass fixtures,  lath and plaster walls could probably be done but would certainly be expensive.  Original artwork can never really be replaced but a new artwork could be put in its place.  Never the quite the same but possibly still acceptable. I have seen on This Old House where they replace plaster trim etc with like materials.  They repair/replace fancy woodwork with new pieces that I cannot tell from the original, at least on the TV screen. That talent may not exist in Tulsa but evidently it can be found.

My intent was to repair or replace a style of home/building with something very close to similar rather than a complete change of style.

[Gaspar]

You should have centered your picture better on the tear-down at the left side rather than the nice brick house more in the center.

I agree.  That house on 27th sticks out like the a$$ on a baboon in that neighborhood.  It's awful! It's like someone took a nice 3,500 sq/ft South Tulsa home and smashed it onto a tiny midtown lot.  All Drivit and odd sized windows with no landscaping to even attempt to blend it to the lot or neighborhood.

[HelenH]

It is very difficult to argue what is good aesthetics versus what is just very bad taste when it applies to McMansions.

That being said, McMansions can also have the following impact:
1) Removal of affordable, entry level housing in midtown neighborhoods
2) Removal of the tree canopy
3) Increased lot coverage creates increased stormwater run-off
4) Decreased property values
5) Increased construction debris in our landfills
6) Increased impact on our aging sewer systems

The "Build, Baby, Build" mantra of the HBA and realtors is a dangerous war chant.

[Conan71]

It is very difficult to argue what is good aesthetics versus what is just very bad taste when it applies to McMansions.

That being said, McMansions can also have the following impact:
1) Removal of affordable, entry level housing in midtown neighborhoods
2) Removal of the tree canopy
3) Increased lot coverage creates increased stormwater run-off
4) Decreased property values
5) Increased construction debris in our landfills
6) Increased impact on our aging sewer systems

The "Build, Baby, Build" mantra of the HBA and realtors is a dangerous war chant.

I think McMansions represent one heck of a lot of audacity to come in and build something entirely out of character with the rest of the neighborhood.  To me, it screams out that someone either didn't want to drive in from a suburb where their creation would have been more at home or they were too cheap to pay the cost of admission to build the home in an appropriate crammed together development for similar McMansions in mid-town.  I see there is movement in replacing ranch style homes between 26th & 31st just west of Harvard with dryvit Tuscan nightmares.  Sure many of the homes being torn down aren't considered "historically significant" but coming in and just deciding you want to plop down something entirely out of whack with the neighborhood just screams to me: "Hey I'm a totally inconsiderate bastard, and I'm your neighbor now!!!"

[heironymouspasparagus]

All that points to the Tulsa-lack-of-planning and the UnZoning commission.

Plus the people who have been sold the bill of goods that somehow having more volume (bigger box) is somehow a standard of living consideration.  Yeah, the HBA is better off.  The property tax man is better off.  The vendors of building supplies is better off.  You as a home buyer/owner are not.

And granite counter tops.

Here is  something to pique some interest and maybe discussion...

http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/

[heironymouspasparagus]

And LortonDale.  Geez, what a mess those were.  Pure example of how some fool architect so completely ran out of ideas that they just stopped and said, "Ok, I give up.  Build a box and just put a lid on it."

Oh, yeah, and we can save some money by leaving off the garage.  Just make a carport and we will call it a feature.  Can be a 'front yard patio'.

And we now call it "design".

What was that story about the Emperor who had some special clothes??

I knew an architect of the era who was appalled by that mess.  (Can you spell "snow" - as in our 12" March storms?)

[Gaspar]

You don't have to be an architect in Oklahoma to design a house (or even a commercial building under 3 stories).  Many of these homes are selected by builders or homeowners from catalogs, and then the attempt is made to cram it on a lot.  Some are designed by the builder, taking ideas from other builders and attempting to merge 3, 4, 10 different styles into a single look.  Some are provided by hardware vendors who offer a bargain price on windows, doors, or moldings if you use their designs, or provide the design for free as a way to sell product.

IMO the lack of an architect's eye when it comes to residential design is the root of the problem.  If Tulsa required an architect's stamp on each residential plan, most (if not all) of this would stop.  To an architect, the surrounding architecture has a great deal of bearing on the design.