Bomasada Development (NOT) Going Forward

[Red Arrow]

Sad. Sometimes I think density is impossible in this town.

Put it in the right place without trying to force it on an unwanting neighborhood and make it look good and it will be accepted. 

[tshane250]

Put it in the right place without trying to force it on an unwanting neighborhood and make it look good and it will be accepted.

Yeah, that will happen when the sun rises in the west and sets in the east.   

Seriously though, the only places that density could easily be added without lots of negative push back would be downtown and/or the parking lot wasteland of uptown.  Anywhere there are single family neighborhoods, there will be push back, IMO.

So, is this development really dead in the water?  Source?

[nathanm]

Put it in the right place without trying to force it on an unwanting neighborhood and make it look good and it will be accepted. 

Find me owners of single family homes who are ever in favor of increased density in their neighborhood and I will probably have a heart attack.

Homeownership has almost a 100% correlation with not wanting anything in your neighborhood to change. (And some irrational obsession with harassing others when the homeowner thinks they are impacting the homeowner's property value..see the fairgrounds as one big example)

Maybe I should start complaining about TU and how their damn football stadium doesn't have enough onsite parking. I bought my house after football season was over, so how was I to know that people would be parking all up in my hood! 

I'm wondering how the development could have been done better for the neighborhood. Aesthetic concerns are not something other property owners should have any say over, except in the situation where a neighbor is causing an actual nuisance. (like grass growing so high that it attracts snakes or having standing water that breeds mosquitoes) The development was on a commercial block, as close to the edge of the neighborhood as is possible. What more could they reasonably ask for?

On the bright side, this died not because of neighborhood concerns, but because of the developer's inability to secure the necessary loans.

[YoungTulsan]

So who paid for the purchase of the land, the demo of the rotten buildings, etc?  Did Bomasada get any government funds to do this?  Do they currently own and plan to sell that plot of land?  That is still prime area for something nice, even if we are in a downturn.

[swake]

So who paid for the purchase of the land, the demo of the rotten buildings, etc?  Did Bomasada get any government funds to do this?  Do they currently own and plan to sell that plot of land?  That is still prime area for something nice, even if we are in a downturn.

This was just a private development, and what they said was it was on hold pending finance markets improving

[Red Arrow]

Seriously though, the only places that density could easily be added without lots of negative push back would be downtown and/or the parking lot wasteland of uptown.  Anywhere there are single family neighborhoods, there will be push back, IMO.

Why do you and others want so much to put in high density next to places that don't want it when there are places like downtown and the parking lot wasteland to put it.  Probably because the places you want to go are nice.  The local residents think the places are nice because they are not densely populated.

How would you feel if I were able to buy up several apartment complexes or, if we had them, multi-use areas, tear them down and install single family dwellings at 1 or 2 per acre?  Don't worry, I don't have that kind of money.

[tshane250]

Why do you and others want so much to put in high density next to places that don't want it when there are places like downtown and the parking lot wasteland to put it.  Probably because the places you want to go are nice.  The local residents think the places are nice because they are not densely populated.

How would you feel if I were able to buy up several apartment complexes or, if we had them, multi-use areas, tear them down and install single family dwellings at 1 or 2 per acre?  Don't worry, I don't have that kind of money.

I think you quoted the wrong person.  I am in favor of density downtown and in the parking lot wasteland of uptown.

[Red Arrow]

Find me owners of single family homes who are ever in favor of increased density in their neighborhood and I will probably have a heart attack.

I think you are safe unless you have other contributing health factors.


Homeownership has almost a 100% correlation with not wanting anything in your neighborhood to change. (And some irrational obsession with harassing others when the homeowner thinks they are impacting the homeowner's property value..see the fairgrounds as one big example)

Maybe I should start complaining about TU and how their damn football stadium doesn't have enough onsite parking.

Isn't that one of the primary goals of urban life, not enough parking.  Ponder Inc should love it.

I bought my house after football season was over, so how was I to know that people would be parking all up in my hood! 

I expect you are being sarcastic.  For those that don't research a neighborhood a bit, I have little sympathy.  Often the reason for "affordable" properties is because there is some kind of nuisance nearby.  I can sympathize with someone who had a nuisance move in near to them or the character of that nuisance changes.


I'm wondering how the development could have been done better for the neighborhood. Aesthetic concerns are not something other property owners should have any say over, except in the situation where a neighbor is causing an actual nuisance. (like grass growing so high that it attracts snakes or having standing water that breeds mosquitoes)

I will be a bit inconsistent with myself here and somewhat agree with you. 

However, try the following scenario. Suppose there was a nice multi-use area with multi-story buildings, mom and pop stores on the first floor, apartments/flats on the higher floors, sidewalks to the pavement etc (all the things dreamed for on this forum).  The only problem is one lot is empty.  Someone wins a lottery or otherwise come into money they wouldn't ordinarily get.  They decide they want to live in this nice area but don't really care for the style of the buildings.  How about a mobile home set back far enough for a small yard up front.  A couple rows of paving blocks to make driveway to a garage in the back yard would be nice.  A frame built garage with roofing paper to protect all the exposed surfaces would work fine.  Add a front porch for the home supported by cinder blocks.  And so on.  I thoroughly expect there would be an outcry of "doesn't fit our neighborhood" that would be heard without electronic amplification all the way to Kansas.   I know the scenario is virtually impossible but I think there might be a bit of a double standard hiding in the hearts of high density fans.


The development was on a commercial block, as close to the edge of the neighborhood as is possible. What more could they reasonably ask for?

Something more in line with the style and size of the existing neighborhood.  I know you disagree.


On the bright side, this died not because of neighborhood concerns, but because of the developer's inability to secure the necessary loans.

[sgrizzle]

Why do you and others want so much to put in high density next to places that don't want it ...

So wait.. they want to build this in brookside, one of the few TINY plots of land in Tulsa that actually have any density and you're saying it's a bad fit?

[Red Arrow]

I think you quoted the wrong person.  I am in favor of density downtown and in the parking lot wasteland of uptown.

No cut and paste here, just used the quote button.

Perhaps I misunderstood the tone of your post.  I believed you thought that downtown and the parking lot wasteland were less desirable places to develop with high density than someplace mixed with single family homes.

[Red Arrow]

So wait.. they want to build this in brookside, one of the few TINY plots of land in Tulsa that actually have any density and you're saying it's a bad fit?

If the exact location was such a good fit, why the complaints from the neighbors?  I don't live there so I don't have any direct benefit either way.

[YoungTulsan]

Why do you and others want so much to put in high density next to places that don't want it when there are places like downtown and the parking lot wasteland to put it.  Probably because the places you want to go are nice.  The local residents think the places are nice because they are not densely populated.

How would you feel if I were able to buy up several apartment complexes or, if we had them, multi-use areas, tear them down and install single family dwellings at 1 or 2 per acre?  Don't worry, I don't have that kind of money.

Because Brookside is one of the few places close to that critical mass.  You can't just build a 400 unit complex in "parking lot wasteland" as you put it, because abandoned parking lots and no shops as far as the eye can see is not a synergistic community.  Brookside has businesses you can walk up to, grocery stores, restaurants, bars, clubs, and every kind of service imaginable available.   That is absolutely the spot where dense new urban development is called for.  Young people want to live there, and are driving up the prices on dilapidated rent houses because that is all that is available.  They would gladly pay for an upscale modern construction dense residential development.

[Red Arrow]

Because Brookside is one of the few places close to that critical mass.  You can't just build a 400 unit complex in "parking lot wasteland" as you put it, because abandoned parking lots and no shops as far as the eye can see is not a synergistic community.  Brookside has businesses you can walk up to, grocery stores, restaurants, bars, clubs, and every kind of service imaginable available.   That is absolutely the spot where dense new urban development is called for.  Young people want to live there, and are driving up the prices on dilapidated rent houses because that is all that is available.  They would gladly pay for an upscale modern construction dense residential development.

As I remember, the initial proposal was for a 5 story building.  I also seem to remember a rendering of a not so attractive building, however, attractive is in the eye of the beholder.  Perhaps if a less grand proposal, maybe 3 stories, were initially proposed it would have met less resistance.  Once the just say no crowd was established, there was not much chance to get the community approval.  Try to insert a 400 unit complex into Brookside and even the most urban of posters will want wider roads.  Just to exaggerate a bit, I think trying to insert Hong Kong density into almost any part of Tulsa except the parking lot wasteland (actually tshane250's term in this thread) will meet with resistance.  A modest increase will perhaps not be appreciated but probably not fought against too much either.

[nathanm]

As I remember, the initial proposal was for a 5 story building.  I also seem to remember a rendering of a not so attractive building, however, attractive is in the eye of the beholder.  Perhaps if a less grand proposal, maybe 3 stories, were initially proposed it would have met less resistance.  Once the just say no crowd was established, there was not much chance to get the community approval.  Try to insert a 400 unit complex into Brookside and even the most urban of posters will want wider roads.  Just to exaggerate a bit, I think trying to insert Hong Kong density into almost any part of Tulsa except the parking lot wasteland (actually tshane250's term in this thread) will meet with resistance.  A modest increase will perhaps not be appreciated but probably not fought against too much either.

The proposal ended up being for 3 stories across from the existing neighborhood and four further to the interior of the development and where it abutted existing commercial properties. I think the initial four stories all around was also reasonable, but you can't say that they made no concession to the neighbors.

I would be much more understanding of complaints if the property hadn't previously been a (lower density) apartment complex and if it were not on the edge of the residential area.

And you were right, I was being sarcastic. I don't mind folks parking in front of my house. The things that bothered me about the situation were the folks who felt the need to park in contravention of posted signs, in the middle of intersections, and otherwise blocking sight lines at intersections. There's a reason for all the "no parking from corner" signs next to intersections.

I'm in favor of increased density, even in my neighborhood. I want more restaurants nearby. I want more shops nearby. That would be great. I'm still mad that there's no more auto racing at the fairgrounds and that Bell's was moved along because of idiots who bought next to the fairgrounds and didn't expect occasional noise. With that precedent in place, I should be able argue that TU should no longer be allowed to have sporting events on campus. (I don't seriously believe that)

Remember the furor over the new apartment complex at 81st and Mingo? That's essentially proof to me that there's nothing that could induce the suburbanite crowd to accept nearby higher density, even when they made the choice to live near commercial corridors or along a major road.

[YoungTulsan]

Try to insert a 400 unit complex into Brookside and even the most urban of posters will want wider roads.  Just to exaggerate a bit, I think trying to insert Hong Kong density into almost any part of Tulsa except the parking lot wasteland (actually tshane250's term in this thread) will meet with resistance. 

Brookside does not have a traffic problem.  Besides, they were building in an area with tons of walkable things to do, and probably more walkable things would have sprung up nearby to get the dollar of the new residents.  Not to say that these people would magically give up their Tulsa car-oriented lifestyle, but that kind of development will put LESS people on the road than any other.

If you built a 400 unit complex smack in the middle of nothing-to-do land, everyone is driving every time they want to do something - This is, if anyone moves there in the first place (they wouldn't, and that's why they aren't proposing this kind of development there)