Brookside: Upscale Apartment Complex Proposal

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

quote:Originally posted by inteller

I'm shocked that bumgarner isn't behind this monstrosity.  all the same, I plan on supporting the Brookside neighbors to fight this garbage.

What in God's name are you talking about? You haven't even seen renderings. Stick to the South Side, bro. You can have all the sprawl you want out there. We don't need to pick a fight with these people, assuming they're plans are reasonable.  These are the kind of developers we need in the Tulsa market because they clearly understand the value (and profit) available from building in urban, walkable settings.  Let's try not to chase them away.

contrary to popular belief tulsa is not a vertical town.  5 story APARTMENTS?  take it into the IDL where there are less stringent height restrictions.

4 story apartments sitting on top of parking. My guess is parking will be at least somewhat underground. That puts it at maybe 10' higher than Food Pyramid?

Not so fast, when you allow for mechancial systems, figure about 12' per floor.  They would likely wind up with something about twice the height of Food Pyramid IF parking is underground.

I didn't say I'm against it, just having a hard time picturing this sticking up overlooking Brookside and I think some of the surrounding neighborhoods are going to have a problem with it.

I think Tulsa needs some verticality in these areas.  Currently when you drive around Brookside the only high elevations you see are quite ugly with the exception of some of the old churches.  We have that damn disposable EFIS architecture everywhere.  

From an artistic perspective I like the idea of seeing storefronts with elegantly designed buildings looming in the background.  

The problem is, making sure that the buildings look like what was proposed.  That's why realistic renderings are so important.  They become a record of what was designed and proposed, and in most cases, they lock the developer into using specific materials rather than "value engineering" to the point of EFIS and metal siding.

When you put this on your sign and it's on the documents submitted to the planning commission.

You better not start slapping on vinyl siding.  You can drive by this one on 41st and Rockford and it looks identical to this model I created last year.

I can always spot a cheap developer, because they want renderings and sketches that are more "sketchy" than realistic.  Beware of proposals with "sketchy" imagery.  They do it for a reason!

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71


How many of the people in Bolewood are going to want to look off the NW side of their property at an apartment building?  Not many is my guess.

Do they not have trees?

[midtownnewbie]

I like the idea.

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

YT -

At a whim their landlord could say he no longer wants to rent to them and kick them out with no compensation at the end of their lease.  If they have a term in their lease they are entitled to some form of compensation (usually minimal).  Tenants have a right to occupy and use the land for a stipulated amount of time, they have no right of continuing that occupation.

Not that it wouldn't be nice to give them moving expenses or some other little kick back to help things out, just sayin' they sure don't have to.

Oh definately.  I know that legally, any renter with a landlord possessing an IQ over 30, will have signed agreements that say the landlord can move them out in the event they sell their property.  I'm just saying, the NICE thing to do would be to offer people a little bit of assistance with moving costs.  If the property owner has a ton of other properties, he could even offer them a good deal on a new place to live.  They aren't legally obligated, I'm sure.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by nathanm

quote:Originally posted by Conan71


How many of the people in Bolewood are going to want to look off the NW side of their property at an apartment building?  Not many is my guess.

Do they not have trees?

Used to before the TREE HOLOCAUST of 2008.

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by White Choc Hot Choc

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

I'm having a hard time getting over something like this popping up over the neighborhood and can be seen in every direction.  Wouldn't surprise me if Bolewood got involved in fighting this as well.

Great idea, wrong area for a five story building.

Why would Bolewood fight it?  They already have RE zoning.  (Estate).

How many of the people in Bolewood are going to want to look off the NW side of their property at an apartment building?  Not many is my guess.

Here is your homework assignment for the night:

Go to these following locations and look towards Wild Oats:

43rd & St Louis (41st & St. Louis, drive 2 blocks south into the neighborhood and you hit 43rd).

42nd & Victor (41st & Victor Ave, drive a block south to where 42nd hooks in from the east)

37th & Troost (37th & Utica, then 1 block west)

Go to these spots, look towards Wild Oats, and tell me what you see.  I'm guessing all you will see are the mature trees that cover the area.  You couldn't see across the horizon enough to spot a 5 story building.  42nd & Victor is what is considered "Bolewood", and there is no way they could possibly be seeing a 5 story building from there.  For extra points: From each of these locations, look for Channel 2's tower/doppler radar.  You'll get a straight view of it from 37th & Troost I bet, but from Bolewood/42nd & Victor, you probably cannot even find it.

Why would Bolewood protest about a building they wouldn't be able to see?

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

YT -

At a whim their landlord could say he no longer wants to rent to them and kick them out with no compensation at the end of their lease.  If they have a term in their lease they are entitled to some form of compensation (usually minimal).  Tenants have a right to occupy and use the land for a stipulated amount of time, they have no right of continuing that occupation.

Not that it wouldn't be nice to give them moving expenses or some other little kick back to help things out, just sayin' they sure don't have to.

Oh definately.  I know that legally, any renter with a landlord possessing an IQ over 30, will have signed agreements that say the landlord can move them out in the event they sell their property.  I'm just saying, the NICE thing to do would be to offer people a little bit of assistance with moving costs.  If the property owner has a ton of other properties, he could even offer them a good deal on a new place to live.  They aren't legally obligated, I'm sure.

Typically those buy-out agreements are for two or three months rent in cash compensation.  So if somebody's in the middle of a $800/month lease, it'll cost the landlord $1600 or $2400 to move them out.

[perspicuity85]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

I'm shocked that bumgarner isn't behind this monstrosity.  all the same, I plan on supporting the Brookside neighbors to fight this garbage.

Way to jump to conclusions there.  I'm all for not displacing the elderly, but the fact remains; as a renter, you have no say in what the owner of your home does, unless he/she breaches the lease contract.  The owner of the property is free to sell it to whomever he chooses, as long as he doesn't break lease contracts.  Do you expect some invisible force to sweep in and undo a fundamental aspect of the capitalist system?    

In reading most of your posts, I often wonder if you are just misinformed, or opposed to change or progress in general.  You seem to object to any kind of development at all.  Do you stand to realize some economic incentive if Tulsa as a whole does not progress, or are you just a cynic?

Or perhaps you are truly an altruistic person, and want to genuinely help a group of elderly individuals that may be forced to find a new place to live.  If that's the case, then perhaps you should help organize an assisted relocation effort, or volunteer to help the residents physically move some of their belongings some weekend.  

Don't expect the economic sustainability of a region to halt.  With just about every form of progress, some individuals are adversely affected.  People have to adapt in order for progress to occur.

[dsjeffries]

Well, KTUL just showed the renderings on screen... and by 'show', I mean they panned across the image in about 1.2013 seconds.

It looks like they have a circular drive in the front, and the building materials appeared to be some kind of stone (~25%) and stucco.

[TheArtist]

I am headed to the meeting. Will try and get some pics.

[booWorld]

The building height limitation in all of the residential districts except for RM-3 is 35 feet.  At 39th St, the land west of Rockford appears to be zoned RM-1 and the land east of Rockford zoned RS-3.

To build an apartment building taller than 35 feet on the west side of Rockford, the developer could propose a PUD.  All owners of property within 300 feet of the proposed PUD would require notification per Section 1107.D of the zoning code to allow for any objections to be heard at a public hearing.

The floor to floor height in an apartment building can vary depending on the structural support system.  In apartment buildings with concrete frames, the floor to floor height on the residential floors can be 9 feet.

[TheArtist]

Got back from the meeting was quite interesting.
Some of the residents of the duplexes were upset that they would be losing their homes. But it was pointed out that the developer found the site because it was up for sale. Since this is becoming a desirable area its likely that whoever buys this property would tear down what is there and build something new. They are going to be losing their homes one way or another.  One lady who lived right across from the proposed development was veeeeeeery upset and extremely angry about it. Made the comment that it would be a disaster for the area and her property values would go down. Also ranted something about kids being run over and drunks. (apparently this development has a wine bar in it for the tennants) She went on quite a furious diatribe, it was something to see. Even the developer seemed taken aback a bit. A guy who also lived right by the development said he was all for it and that it would likely bring his property values up.

Here are two photos I shot.

They are wanting to replace this....



With this..... (just a basic rendering, details may change, color of stoccoe areas, etc.)



The height thing was brought up by several people. They did a "raising of hands" just a little over half were against the height, just under half had no problem. The developer was asked if he could lop off a floor. He mentioned that at the price points he could likely expect to get, the cost of a class A development, the cost of the property and the amount available to build on pretty much meant you were likely to either build a lower quality, class C develoment or the larger, higher quality, class A development in order for the numbers to work out.  One of the people with the office development that is going in across the street on 41st got up later and mentioned that they had considered that property before as well, and had come to the same conclusions. They had decided in the end not to do anything there because they did not want to do residential.

[patric]

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

I can always spot a cheap developer, because they want renderings and sketches that are more "sketchy" than realistic.  Beware of proposals with "sketchy" imagery.  They do it for a reason!

Im also leery of sketches that dont show how it will be lit.  Usually means the plan is somewhat lacking.

[dsjeffries]

I'm really excited that this is going in--it will bring a huge number of people to the Brookside area, increase density, get rid of some substandard housing, etc... but I can't help but to think that there are some much better areas in Brookside to put this.  It would be fantastic to have it closer to the heart of Brookside (around 34th is what I consider the 'downtown' of Brookside), facing Peoria and including retail on the first level.  Visibility would be higher, it would be closer to the real action of Brookside and would promote walking/bicycling more than this location will.

I just think it would have a more profound effect on the neighborhood if it were situated in a different location within Brookside.

I'd really like to see Brookside turn into more than just a 'strip'.  Most, if not all, Tulsa's "districts" are no more than one block wide.  I don't really consider that a district--to me, a district is less of a mile-long, single street, and more like several square blocks which are developed.  Take, for instance, Little Italy (or ANY district) in NYC... It's not just Mulberry Street which makes up Little Italy--it's Mulberry, Broome, Grand, Hester, Mott, Elizabeth, etc.  I want our little strips to become full-fledged districts.  Something a little less "superficial"...

[dsjeffries]

quote:Originally posted by patric

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

I can always spot a cheap developer, because they want renderings and sketches that are more "sketchy" than realistic.  Beware of proposals with "sketchy" imagery.  They do it for a reason!

Im also leery of sketches that dont show how it will be lit.  Usually means the plan is somewhat lacking.

I actually sent the developer an email last night as soon as I heard about the project, and asked a ton of questions, including lighting.  I'll wait and see what their response is [^].