Monstrosity on 25th street

[Conan71]

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?)

You obviously know nothing of MCM architecture, nor have you paid close attention to Lortondale.  After several decades of viewing Lortondale as a "dump" and "anachronism" I finally saw the inside of one of these around Xmas of '08.  I had no idea the potential of these homes, nor had I bothered to drive around the neighborhood and see how much renovation and preservation had been done.  Unfortunately, the only look most people get of Lortondale is some of the neglected corner homes along Yale.  I wound up buying one of these homes a few months later and have never regretted the decision.

My house is one of a very, very small handful which were built without a garage originally.  Many were converted to extra rooms as became the rage to do with attached garages in many types of homes around Tulsa in the late '60's through the '80's. So your comment about lack of garages shows your relative ignorance on the style.

This design style introduced some design elements which we still see used (even in traditionals) today, like open floor plans, great rooms, and lots of natural lighting.  This was also the first (or one of the first) planned community(ies) in the country with central heat & air, dishwashers as a standard feature, and floating slab foundations which were quite innovative.  They featured great casework and millwork which was all done on-site in the development.

Whether you like it or not, it's an historically significant neighborhood.  It's not everyone's cup of tea, but I think you are suffering from the same myopia I was before I had actually been in one of the houses or paid attention to what's happening in that neighborhood today. 

[nathanm]

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.

It would be nice to require an architect design all new structures, but that would be a great way to stop infill in its tracks. I think a better solution would be neighborhood oriented regulations. If nobody else around you is using more than x% of their lot, you ought not be using more than x+10% or so. Similarly, infill shouldn't be built a whole lot taller than the existing stock surrounding it.

I almost like the style of the house that sparked this thread, or I would if it didn't have the enormous garages. I find some merit in almost everything that hasn't been overdone in thirty subdivisions in town already, though.

[dsjeffries]

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.

Glad my photos have come in handy.

However, I think you're missing the point of all of these photos. All of these photos were taken in the same neighborhood, within around a two block radius, and the homes in the top and bottom picture are basically around the corner from one another. The neighborhood isn't all the same style (and that's not a bad thing), but that doesn't mean that the top house is any more 'teardown-ready' than any of the others. All of the houses in the neighborhood basically are of the same scale, generally set back the same, and have other similarities in their massing, roof pitches, etc. Are there variations in all of these? Of course. But none of the variations are drastic, as is the case with the McMansions. Just because you don't think the house is stylish enough or big enough doesn't mean it should be torn down and be replaced with a monstrosity like its new McNeighbor.

Its new McNeighbor doesn't fit a single aspect of that neighborhood. It's tall, its massing and scale are completely out of tune with the entire neighborhood, and to be quite honest, it makes the owners look foolish and ridiculous for building it. It's simply out of place, and if you suggest that simply because the top house isn't significant enough to save, you're mistaken. If more people followed that logic, most neighborhoods in most cities would be ripped to shreds by McMansions. And I find it quite comical that you think THOSE little houses aren't significant enough, but that the McMansions are. Quite the opposite is true.

We've already discussed at length the qualities that give charm to a neighborhood. So please, do tell, how do these McMansions that I have photographed add to the a) charm, b) integrity, c) neighborliness, or d) uniqueness of that neighborhood?

[tulsabug]

I think a better solution would be neighborhood oriented regulations.

This. Most architects these days couldn't design themselves out of a paper bag. Seems the current design trend is ugly and obnoxious with too many lines going in too many directions - hardly what I'd want to call 'home'.

[Cats Cats Cats]

People want to live there and their best solution is to tear down an old house.  Sad that's true, but that is life and capitalism.  The first one looks out of place but once they start going....  In 60 years somebody will be saying the same about people that want to get rid of the McMansions.

[dsjeffries]

People want to live there and their best solution is to tear down an old house.  Sad that's true, but that is life and capitalism.  The first one looks out of place but once they start going....  In 60 years somebody will be saying the same about people that want to get rid of the McMansions.

I really doubt most of the McMansions are built to last more than 25 or 30 years. And the capitalism argument doesn't really hold--when you build anything with cheap, almost disposable materials, it hardly seems like a good investment. I doubt these houses will maintain their value in the long term, and even if they did, I think that in the next 5-10 years, people are going to be increasingly leery of buying them and increasingly aware of the amount of destruction they have caused to the neighborhood.

Even if a teardown actually is necessary, building something like the above is absolutely not. There are great ways of doing infill. McMansions are not.

[Cats Cats Cats]

I really doubt most of the McMansions are built to last more than 25 or 30 years. And the capitalism argument doesn't really hold--when you build anything with cheap, almost disposable materials, it hardly seems like a good investment. I doubt these houses will maintain their value in the long term, and even if they did, I think that in the next 5-10 years, people are going to be increasingly leery of buying them and increasingly aware of the amount of destruction they have caused to the neighborhood.

Even if a teardown actually is necessary, building something like the above is absolutely not. There are great ways of doing infill. McMansions are not.

I was using capitalism in the sense that, the people with the money make the rules.

If somebody wants to buy something they buy it.  If they want to tear down their own house then they should be able to tear it down.  They could build a new house every year if they wanted to if they had the money.  And everybody else has the right to buy these houses and hold them so nobody tears them down.  I am not saying that its what is best, but if somebody has the money and wants to live in that location they can.

[Conan71]

I was using capitalism in the sense that, the people with the money make the rules.

If somebody wants to buy something they buy it.  If they want to tear down their own house then they should be able to tear it down.  They could build a new house every year if they wanted to if they had the money.  And everybody else has the right to buy these houses and hold them so nobody tears them down.  I am not saying that its what is best, but if somebody has the money and wants to live in that location they can.

Enforceable neighborhood covenants and/or strict zoning policies would put an end to this.  I think the rights of all neighborhood owners should exceed that of the individual homeowner when it comes to what they can or can't do with a lot for the simple reason that if someone wants to put something on a lot which adversely affects the value of surrounding properties, it hurts the other owners.  Building a house out of character for the neighborhood may well increase market time for other homes if you can't find willing buyers for properties adjacent to a McMansion which totally usurped set-backs, spacing, and style for the 'hood.  I do appreciate your point that someone should be able to do as they see fit with personal property (though real estate and personal property are essentially two different things).

I'm all about individual liberty, but when someone exercizing their liberty starts to impinge on the liberty of others, it becomes an issue.

[YoungTulsan]

You wouldn't be able to build a McDonald's in the middle of a residential neighborhood, if it were your personal property or not.  Building a giant monstrosity complete with dance floor and sniper's nest in the middle of a quaint mid-town neighborhood is damn near as absurd.

[Rico]

Conan71> >     "Enforceable neighborhood covenants and/or strict zoning policies would put an end to this.  I think the rights of all neighborhood owners should exceed that of the individual homeowner when it comes to what they can or can't do with a lot for the simple reason that if someone wants to put something on a lot which adversely affects the value of surrounding properties, it hurts the other owners.  Building a house out of character for the neighborhood may well increase market time for other homes if you can't find willing buyers for properties adjacent to a McMansion which totally usurped set-backs, spacing, and style for the 'hood.  I do appreciate your point that someone should be able to do as they see fit with personal property (though real estate and personal property are essentially two different things).

I'm all about individual liberty, but when someone exercizing their liberty starts to impinge on the liberty of others, it becomes an issue.

Very well balanced opinion. You should be the one being nominated to be on the TMAPC, with Michelle.

Instead of the man named Gomez....
The "chicano that is muy estupido"

[Cats Cats Cats]

Err.. How does building a house on your own property infringe "liberties" of your neighbor.  Actually, you would be infringing their liberties by putting restrictions on what they can do with what they own.  I think it would be interesting to find that higher dollar houses brings down the surrounding houses.  Conventional wisdom is the other way around.  In fact, I think if you had 1 $100k house that was surrounded by 5 million dollar homes on the same lot size it would increase substantially.

I am just taking the other side.  I honestly don't care.  As long as homeowners in a neighborhood agree to certain rules then they should be carefully disclosed  to expected buyers before purchasing in the area and then enforced.

[Conan71]

Err.. How does building a house on your own property infringe "liberties" of your neighbor.  Actually, you would be infringing their liberties by putting restrictions on what they can do with what they own.  I think it would be interesting to find that higher dollar houses brings down the surrounding houses.  Conventional wisdom is the other way around.  In fact, I think if you had 1 $100k house that was surrounded by 5 million dollar homes on the same lot size it would increase substantially.

I am just taking the other side.  I honestly don't care.  As long as homeowners in a neighborhood agree to certain rules then they should be carefully disclosed  to expected buyers before purchasing in the area and then enforced.

This is how I'm viewing it, Trog:  If someone plants a modern monstrosity in the midst of modest colonials, someone who wants to live in a colonial neighborhood will likely avoid being on a block where someone plopped down a blighted tribute to themselves.  They certainly won't purchase a house right next to or across from the design which goes against the prevailing design in the neighborhood.  That drives down demand, and ergo value of the surrounding properties at the least.  Someone will eventually buy one of the surrounding homes when they come on the market because, chances are, they will either be considered a great deal for the neighborhood or purchased by someone who really doesn't care what the neighbor's homes look like.  In all cases, it may not drive down costs, but in many cases it will.

I know if I wanted to enjoy the charm of a Florence Park Gingerbread, I sure as heck wouldn't buy one across the street from or next to some hideous knockdown/rebuild with a garage on the front which looks like it belongs in a generic Broken Arrow neighborhood.  I'm not alone in that line of thinking, I'm quite sure.

I can honestly see a property owner wanting the right to do whatever improvements they see fit.  I simply don't think it should be allowed where it negatively impacts the value of other's properties, and disrupts the flow of the neighborhood.

Great discussion, BTW.

Oh, and Rico, I'm flattered

[Cats Cats Cats]

This is how I'm viewing it, Trog:  If someone plants a modern monstrosity in the midst of modest colonials, someone who wants to live in a colonial neighborhood will likely avoid being on a block where someone plopped down a blighted tribute to themselves.  They certainly won't purchase a house right next to or across from the design which goes against the prevailing design in the neighborhood.  That drives down demand, and ergo value of the surrounding properties at the least.  Someone will eventually buy one of the surrounding homes when they come on the market because, chances are, they will either be considered a great deal for the neighborhood or purchased by someone who really doesn't care what the neighbor's homes look like.  In all cases, it may not drive down costs, but in many cases it will.

I know if I wanted to enjoy the charm of a Florence Park Gingerbread, I sure as heck wouldn't buy one across the street from or next to some hideous knockdown/rebuild with a garage on the front which looks like it belongs in a generic Broken Arrow neighborhood.  I'm not alone in that line of thinking, I'm quite sure.

I can honestly see a property owner wanting the right to do whatever improvements they see fit.  I simply don't think it should be allowed where it negatively impacts the value of other's properties, and disrupts the flow of the neighborhood.

Great discussion, BTW.

Oh, and Rico, I'm flattered

Yeah..  I know what you mean about the houses..  I think it would limit one group but then increase the likely hood of a knockdown/rebuild buyer.

I know what you mean about the houses..  I know this isn't what you guys like (houses over 1200 sq ft).

But this house was for sale
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=715+w+98th+st,+jenks,+ok&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=45.8712,93.076172&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=715+W+98th+St,+Jenks,+Tulsa,+Oklahoma+74037&ll=36.019453,-96.000713&spn=0.005753,0.011362&z=17&layer=c&cbll=36.019461,-96.000853&panoid=eTVMuUdmN-9rFPTFTBEKZQ&cbp=12,211.29,,0,1.94 *sorry for the long URL*  The neighborhood varies from 1970's to 2008 builds.  Do a 360 and then go down 1 house to the white brick house.  I wouldn't want to look at it every day.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Conan,
I met my first school and church friends in the late '50s.  Several of them lived in Lortondale.  The characters changed over the years, but there were always at least 3 or 4 - sometimes more who lived there and whom I visited fairly regularly.  Even had a junior high school sweetheart who lived there and I saw her house a lot.  Stopped going there in the early '70s.

The insides were mostly very nice places, like most in the surrounding 2 mile radius.  Not huge, but neat, orderly, comfortable and if they had put some insulation in the walls....less drafty.

Still b*** ugly on the outside.  I guess the designer used up all his imagination on the inside.

Full disclosure;  here is a target for you.  I feel the neighborhoods between about 4th and 15th, from Lewis to maybe Yale (??) have some of the finest examples of family home design, not just in Tulsa, but arguably anywhere in the country.  (Not counting Maple Ridge because of the cost of admission...not really 'family friendly').

Hansel and Gretel houses are my favorites - brick with high peaked gables scattered around the house.  Also have very fond memories of the "shotgun bungaloes" style.  Love the big front porches!!

McMansions??  Obscene waste of time, space, energy (mental and physical, but also heating/cooling), and parts.

And as always;  never bag your grass!!

[Conan71]

I once owned the classic hansel & grettel gingerbread on the sw corner of 14th & Gary pl. Owned another down the block as well some 20 years later. MCM style was not widely accepted and long forgotten and maligned with many Tulsans (including myself for years). Fortunately there are people more astute than me who love them even more who started renovating and preserving them in the '90's. My tastes were always cottage and/or traditional so this was a surprise break for my tastes. 

/edit- correcting iPhone & short hand errors...LOL