Brookside: Upscale Apartment Complex Proposal

[TheArtist]

One of the things that this development has brought up that bothers me is the 3 story height restriction for Brookside.

The people who came up with the recent Brookside Plan, or whatever its called, decided that 3 stories is appropriate.

Then I hear that the Brookside Neighborhood Association and the Brookside Business Association are gung ho about this development and think it fits in perfectly with what the Brookside plan was wanting to achieve?

I believe they were the ones who came up with the plan and the 3 story limit.

I have mentioned this development to several people and how because its 5 story they will have to ask for a variance because 3 stories is the limit. Everyone I have talked to, without exception, the first thing they ask with a puzzled look on their face is... "Why would they put a 3 story limit in that area?" "That area would be perfect for a 5 story developments like this."

Brookside prides itself on being a walkable urban district. It wants to grow and improve. Anyone with half a brain would tell you that, 4 stories minimum, best at 6 stories, is the classic, traditional, age old, well proven, most practical, etc. type of development to create just such a district.  3 stories?  How would 3 stories make any sense? All the similar areas in other cities have the traditional 5 and 6 story developments going in. And if Brookside wants to be as nice and successful as those areas... why 3 stories? Suburban areas have 3 story apartments, uburban areas and developments are traditionally 5 and 6. Heck, look at the Bomasada website, notice where the 3 story developments are and the 5 and 6 story developments are.

I hope this goes through, but it seems odd that there should be an argument because there was a height restriction of 3 stories in this area. Yet the people who came up with the 3 story limit themselves say this is the perfect development for Brookside? Sounds like someone wasnt thinking this through and truly realizing where this area was naturally going to be heading development wise.

[tim huntzinger]

As soon as my tear-down sells I will be a Brooksider no longer, so I could care less.  The infrastructure is not designed to handle that kind of traffic, and frankly I do not think the market is there for the price tag.  Y'know, Brookside's dumpiness emanates from all over, and not just those fleabag apartments.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

As soon as my tear-down sells I will be a Brooksider no longer, so I could care less.  The infrastructure is not designed to handle that kind of traffic, and frankly I do not think the market is there for the price tag.  Y'know, Brookside's dumpiness emanates from all over, and not just those fleabag apartments.

Selling out to someone who wants to build a Tuscan nightmare?

[cannon_fodder]

Artist, I agree with you that semi-high rise construction of 4-6 stories will work out best and I understand the economics of the area dictates such structures.  But I also understand what the planners were thinking.

Oslo, Amsterdam, and San Francisco are among the most urban landscapes in the world.  Most of their territory is 3 or 4 story structures.  Perhaps they were thinking 1 six story building could be 2 three story buildings instead.  While ignoring the economics of the issue, it could make the area seem more urban faster if done with zero lot lines etc.  

Another idea is that they wanted to reserve exceptions for anything over 3 stories.  It would be hard for a three story structure to really ruin the neighborhood, but one seriously ugly 6 story structure could make a good run at it.

I'm in favor of this development 95% (I wish it was actually along Peoria and zero lot line so the area really started looking more Urban, but space and economics says I don't get everything I want), but am just playing devils advocate.

[Donna]

I live in the Brookside area near Saint Mary.  I think this devlopment will be good for Brookside.  I have been hoping for some improvements in our area.  If they could get rid of the apartments behind Waffle House that would greatly improve the area.

[tim huntzinger]

Yeah, probably.  Too bad, the house was built by the Core(sp) family in '39 who built a lot of the brick homes in Brookside.  They built on to it a couple of times and we thought we had it in us to do more remodeling than we did, and big downturn in my income and so adios Brookside.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

As soon as my tear-down sells I will be a Brooksider no longer, so I could care less.  The infrastructure is not designed to handle that kind of traffic, and frankly I do not think the market is there for the price tag.  Y'know, Brookside's dumpiness emanates from all over, and not just those fleabag apartments.

Parking Garages + Well Designed Mass Transit = no infrastructure problem.

The market is there. This is just the start of a dumpiness clearing of sorts. You can't say people wouldn't pay $1,000 for an apartment when they paying $100 for a plate and $150 for a shirt just a few blocks away.

[cannon_fodder]

Plus, who cares if the market isn't there?   That really is not our concern nor the development boards.  If there was public money involved, it would matter.  But as it stands there is not really any involved.

If the market is not there the developer will have to sell the building at a loss.  The new buyer will then have lower costs and can charge less rent to fill it.  So, in that instance, we get really nice apartments for what would probably be below initial cost.

Not all bad.

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Plus, who cares if the market isn't there?   That really is not our concern nor the development boards.  If there was public money involved, it would matter.  But as it stands there is not really any involved.

If the market is not there the developer will have to sell the building at a loss.  The new buyer will then have lower costs and can charge less rent to fill it.  So, in that instance, we get really nice apartments for what would probably be below initial cost.

Not all bad.

Agreed.  One assumes that if the developer is worth his salt, he's done feasibility studies and knew the market is there before he even started sketching.

[tim huntzinger]

If the market was there though what about Southbrooke or whatever Gray's PUD was about?  NO WAY folk are going to put down mad money for a condo but use Tulsa's bus system.  It will not be bad on 41st but Rockford may be an issue.

Another stucco monstrosity?  Friggin shoot me. NOW.  Still, better than the dump that's there now, I agree.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

If the market was there though what about Southbrooke or whatever Gray's PUD was about?  NO WAY folk are going to put down mad money for a condo but use Tulsa's bus system.  It will not be bad on 41st but Rockford may be an issue.

Another stucco monstrosity?  Friggin shoot me. NOW.  Still, better than the dump that's there now, I agree.

I said well designed mass transit. What makes you think that has anything to do with Tulsa's bus system?

[Conan71]

So if a developer starts deviating from his original PUD, does that mean he's playing....

eh, nevermind.

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

If the market was there though what about Southbrooke or whatever Gray's PUD was about?  NO WAY folk are going to put down mad money for a condo but use Tulsa's bus system.  It will not be bad on 41st but Rockford may be an issue.

Another stucco monstrosity?  Friggin shoot me. NOW.  Still, better than the dump that's there now, I agree.

I don't see the infrastructure problem with just one development of this sort.  I'm sure if 3 or 4 of these went in in the immediate vicinity, it would start to cause problems.  I think an example of a similar traffic creator would be the University Club Towers at 17th & Carson.  Cars turning out into Boulder and Denver are not really an issue.  In this case it would be sending cars out onto 41st and Peoria.

From an efficiency standpoint, you are doing much better building apartments like this in a walkable area.  Less people will be making car trips out to perform basic tasks when they have 2 grocers, sandwiches, pizza, liquor, videos, restaurants, bars, hardware, barbars, cleaners, coffee, parks, jogging trails, and trendy shopping all within a couple minutes walking distances, in ADDITION to many OTHER Services built into the first class development (like a gym and swimming pool good enough to actually use) - Yes, you add to the traffic problem, but on a level much lower per person when you make it that dense, and so close to all sorts of services.

[TheArtist]

One thing I could see is having buildings along brookside be 3 story then the next row behind that 5. That way you keep the "quaint" look of the street and the traffic, clubs and restaurants, noise, etc. along that road with the living just behind in a quieter zone.

As for Brooksides dumpiness its not much different than whats around Cherry Street. Those two streets are where Tulsa is most likely to infill with the kind of development that will attract the YP, Creative Class, empty nester, urban living, set.

Tulsa is shifting into a new infill growth pattern. Its pretty much filled up its borders in the desirable, suburban type areas so now there will be slow growth in the "undesirable" areas within Tulsa and lots of urban infill in the desirable areas... This is just the new reality that Tulsans are just now starting to wake up to and understand.  Plus there is an urban living, Urban Village, "fad" or movement, all across America and Tulsa will catch that wave.

Where else other than Brookside and Cherry Street will this type of inevitable development gravitate to in Tulsa? Downtown still does not have that Urban Village feel to it in order to be a draw yet. "Dumpy" as those areas are, where else is this going to happen?  I can easily point to areas in other cities like Dallas that were a couple of decades ago very much like Brookside is today, now they are filled building after building of 5 and 6 story apartments and condos with parking and retail at street level. Unless you suppose Tulsa is not going to mature and grow anymore, I dont know what your thinking is going to happen in those areas? Its just the natural course of things. Happens in every city at this stage.

Its going to happen, and those are the areas its going to happen in. Period.    Unless.... we create additional areas with competitive desirability in other places by doing something like the Pearl District, something along the river, or getting downtown going. Or Jenks steals a good chunk of that demographic away with the River District and we sit around blocking construction and complaining about how our tax base isnt growing enough lol. Think about it. This development alone is going to add a couple hundred good taxpayers to help keep up the same stretch of road thats already there, AND they are in a walkable district. Few less trips per person and lots of extra taxes paid per person,,, Thats a good combination if you ask me.

[cannon_fodder]

The concerns about traffic are a bit double edged too.  Where would be a good place for development?

How about Owasso with nice wide new streets.  Then all we have to do is put in a new $20,000,000 interchange at 169 and the BA since we'we just got done widen those roads.  After that we'll just redo the next choke point.  Then for lunch, those people have a good chance of ending up at Brookside anyway.

Arguing it is too dense for Brookside is an argument in favor of sprawl over infill.