Bomasada Development (NOT) Going Forward

[TheArtist]

A. I would love it if they built something like this right across from me. And no, wouldn't want the streets widened one bit.
B. I went to the Brookside meetings Bomasada had, and there were neighbors who liked the development, and also those who didnt mind the density  but would have rather had a different style. I dont know the "percentage" but to suggest that all of the neighbors were against it is not right.
C. The Brookside Plan, approved by the people in Brookside, encourages more density as one of its goals, the compromise to the plan was about the approved height limit, and some argued about its design having a lack of walkability.

Do want to point out that we havent heard a lot of rattling about the possible QT expansion that would absolutely be a contravention to the agreed upon Brookside Plan. One could argue about "letter and intent of the plan" with the Bomasada development, (was taller but did add density so at least it went in one direction) but cant for the life of me make any argument that tearing out a building and expanding the QT will enhance any part of the Brookside plan or any of its intents.

[YoungTulsan]

The QT plan doesn't sound too bad.  Granted they are tearing down a perfectly good building in the Lee bicycle place, but if Lee moves down the street into a currently abandoned video store, that is a decrease in abandoned commercial property along Brookside.  Their demand clearly surpasses a 6 pump location there.  Would you rather QT abandon the property on 36th and purchase and build on the land abutting Crow Creek to the north of 33rd?  Bet they could afford it.  Much less destructive when they can expand a current one then to abandon the current one and build down the street.

[TheArtist]

The QT plan doesn't sound too bad.  Granted they are tearing down a perfectly good building in the Lee bicycle place, but if Lee moves down the street into a currently abandoned video store, that is a decrease in abandoned commercial property along Brookside.  Their demand clearly surpasses a 6 pump location there.   Much less destructive when they can expand a current one then to abandon the current one and build down the street.

"Would you rather QT abandon the property on 36th and purchase and build on the land abutting Crow Creek to the north of 33rd?  Bet they could afford it."   

I bet they could afford to wipe out half of Brookside if they wanted.

If a store wanted to expand and become "Wal-Mart" sized with a huge parking lot in front you could say.... well Would you rather they abandon such and such property and purchase and build on the land abutting Crow Creek to the north of 33rd? Bet they could afford it." At least they are decreasing abandoned commercial property..."   

The Brookside plan wants to create an ever more connected and pedestrian friendly street front. Whenever a new building goes in fronting Brookside, or a change is made, the goal is for it to enhance the pedestrian friendly nature of the area. In the past, some developers came in and would put parking in front using a more suburban, non pedestrian friendly, model of development. Now the plan is to stop that type of development and encourage redevelopment of new businesses to be; up to the sidewalk, 3 stories in height, have lots of permeability "windows and doors", etc. to create a pleasing walking experience up and down the street. If someone came and tore down the Blockbuster say, and wanted to build something new, they would have to, according to the plan, build the new building up to the sidewalk and put the parking in back. Not have all the parking in front like it is now. Also, you couldnt tear down and older building that is up to the sidewalk and put parking in front, that would be completely against what they are trying to do. Again, the goal is to expand, connect and better the pedestrian friendly, street wall, all up and down Brookside. Not do anything that will cause the opposite to happen. There are certain ways to develop and redevelop any part of the city, one way will encourage a more car oriented feel, another will encourage a more pedestrian friendly setting. Having higher density, residential infill just behind the street facing buildings, and having mixed use, multi-story buildings (retail on ground floor, living or office above for example) on the main street, will also go to create and support a good pedestrian friendly "Urban Village" environment.

Over time they want the area to evolve into an ever more, pedestrian friendly, "Urban Village" form, and move ever more away from any car oriented, suburban strip mall form. These are 2 very different types of form that dont get along well lol.   Not gonna say which form is better, just trying to state the goals for this area. Whats the point in having a direction you want to have development go in, if developers continue to ignore that direction and go in an opposite one? Might as well have no plan and goal at all. The QT may be a small infraction, but its also in an important area, and I dont see that there is any positive (in relation to the Brookside aims) to this potential redevelopment, unlike Bomasada, which wasnt perfect, but at least was adding density like the Brookside Plan wanted, and made concessions for height to make it closer to the Brookside Plans intentions. If the QT wasnt there at all, and they tried to go in that spot with their usual form, they wouldnt be allowed. Whether the "demand was there" for 6 or 12 pumps or not,,, you couldnt allow it for whats to stop something else tearing down more buildings along Brookside and putting in more "Blockbusters" until you destroy the pedestrian nature of the area and make it completely different. Could still be a very busy, bustling commercial area for all we know, but still NOT the direction the people in this area said they wanted to go when they created the Brookside Plan.

[cannon_fodder]

Density inherently increases property values (the new property would be valued at ~ $40,000,000.  The old was purchased for a small fraction of that) .  It is also vastly more efficient in terms of fire, police, utilities and other infrastructure.  You want good public transportation and walkable neighborhoods?  Than more projects like the one Bomasada proposed are what is needed.

And yes, I am aware that some residence were not happy to see the dilapidated duplexes torn down.  NOT IN MY BACKYARD is a strong battle cry in Tulsa.  But density is probably why they live there - the ability to walk to restaurants, shops, grocery stores, and everything else Brookside offers.   Brookside is exactly the area developments like this belong:  Brookside, Cherry Street, and downtown are primed for the urban growth that has been seen the last decade+ in cities throughout the nation (ie, Westport in KC.  Downtown Albuquerque or Des Moines, even Little Rock is in on the action).   For some reason large portions of our community want to see our unsustainable and inefficient pattern of suburban growth continue as our streets crumble, our fire cost/citizen ratio goes to hell and our police struggle to cover our sprawl.

Additionally, this development wasn't for 240 units of Section 8 housing, this was for upper middle class housing.  Density would have gone up, but it wouldn't be like it is ruining the neighborhood.  If anyone wants to buy the slum apartments just down the street from my house and put in a larger unit to attract affluent people to my neighborhood, you are welcome to do it.  In fact, let me know how I can help.

All that said, nothing has changed.  It is on hold pending financing.   I'd love more up-to-date information but I have been unable to contact their offices today.  I see no news nor anything on their website indicating they have ceased operations or otherwise that this status has changed (someone more ambitious could contact their other properties and inquire).

[tshane250]

All that said, nothing has changed.  It is on hold pending financing.

Then why is this being discussed as if it was a dead deal?  For all intents and purposes, this development is going to happen.  It's merely on hold. 

[cannon_fodder]

Then why is this being discussed as if it was a dead deal? 

Because some new poster revived this thread essentially proclaiming it dead.  I have not seen nor been shown any information that the situation has changed.  Though, I tried to contact Bomasada again and failed . . . I just keep getting the VM system.

[YoungTulsan]

Artist, I know the scope and size of a typical QuikTrip, and I'm just not as bothered by it I suppose.  It is nothing like a Wal-mart, and will likely never grow larger once it gets the redesign.

[Red Arrow]

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.

Is what is being put in within the price range of these young people or will they be driven to somewhere else?  Then they will advocate higher density at the new location and in turn be driven from there by new high priced housing.  Maybe.  I am actually asking since I don't know what incomes these young folks have.  I think one reason there is so called affordable housing in some older cities is because the stuff built 100 yrs ago has lasted until now.  Some is OK, some needs some serious renovation.   Take the Google Street View trip along Girard Ave in Philadelphia and the immediate neighborhoods.  When that street was built by Stephen Girard, he was one of the richest men in the world.  You can be sure what was built was originally pretty pricey.

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.

This doesn't surprise me.  I believe you to be a frustrated urbanite that cannot find what he really wants in Tulsa.  I think what you want should be available but not at the expense of people that do not.


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.

Pre-existing nuisances, previously discussed.  I also missed the auto racing on Sat night.  It was one of the fun things to go to when we first moved here in '71.


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.

I think there was a mix of misrepresentation and lack of research.  In an area like that, higher density could just have easily been a 2 story apartment complex. I  think there would not have been so much objection to such an increase.   Even if "there's nothing that could induce the suburbanite crowd to accept nearby higher density", does that surprise anyone?  I think that most suburbanites live there because they don't want to live in higher density. 

A. I would love it if they built something like this right across from me. And no, wouldn't want the streets widened one bit.

Doesn't surprise me a bit.  I think there are a significant number of Tulsans that would not be so happy.  One apartment complex of 240 won't require any roads to be wider.  Start filling the area with them and depending on whether jobs follow the development, at least some other folks may want better roads or at least better public transportation.

B. I went to the Brookside meetings Bomasada had, and there were neighbors who liked the development, and also those who didnt mind the density  but would have rather had a different style. I dont know the "percentage" but to suggest that all of the neighbors were against it is not right.

I never intended that all the neighbors protested the development as originally presented.  I probably believed that more objected than may really have.


C. The Brookside Plan, approved by the people in Brookside, encourages more density as one of its goals, the compromise to the plan was about the approved height limit, and some argued about its design having a lack of walkability.

Increased density has a big range in an area of mostly single family homes.  Was the amount of that increase quantified?  As any area gets infiltrated by people with a different vision for a neighborhood, eventually it will change.  I don't believe in stopping change for only a handful of objectors but their concerns should be addressed.  Having re-read most of this thread, perhaps most concerns were in this (Bomasada at Brookside) instance. Maybe in another 10 or 15 years the urban density crowd will be able to tear down the next few blocks away and fill them with high density future slums, I mean housing.

Do want to point out that we havent heard a lot of rattling about the possible QT expansion that would absolutely be a contravention to the agreed upon Brookside Plan. One could argue about "letter and intent of the plan" with the Bomasada development, (was taller but did add density so at least it went in one direction) but cant for the life of me make any argument that tearing out a building and expanding the QT will enhance any part of the Brookside plan or any of its intents.

One could also argue that your QT project is the same contravention as a 3 or more story apartment building is to 81st & Mingo.  I didn't hear you say QT should be evicted from the area (although you may wish that privately) but that it should be in keeping with the intent of the area.

  For some reason large portions of our community want to see our unsustainable and inefficient pattern of suburban growth continue.....

Probably because they don't share the vision of urban life and all the other reasons that have been discussed for wanting a single family dwelling.


Additionally, this development wasn't for 240 units of Section 8 housing, this was for upper middle class housing.  Density would have gone up, but it wouldn't be like it is ruining the neighborhood.  If anyone wants to buy the slum apartments just down the street from my house and put in a larger unit to attract affluent people to my neighborhood, you are welcome to do it.  In fact, let me know how I can help. 

Ruin the neighborhood is in the eye of the beholder.  As long as most residents of the area agree to the amount of the increase in density, so be it.  Also, what would be wrong with some more affordable housing, say lower middle class or middle middle class?  I am not proposing to build crap but not everyone can afford or needs real granite counter-tops etc.

Anyway, I will back off on some of my Bomasada/Brookside specific objections having re-read earlier parts of this thread.  I still believe there is too much of an attitude by some urbanists that suburbia will be the downfall of the earth. There is a lack of understanding that some people just don't want to live in a  high density area.  It has pretty much been that way even around the old east coast cities. The rich folks moved out.  As transportation (Real Trolleys and other rail) improved, the middle class could move out.  They didn't have the multi-acre estates but they moved from places like where Bill Murray was in Stripes to row houses, duplexes, and single family homes.  Now the tables have turned and young folks in particular want to re-invent the city.  That's fine with me as long as my option remains open to need the telephone to "touch my neighbor".

[nathanm]

Anyway, I will back off on some of my Bomasada/Brookside specific objections having re-read earlier parts of this thread.  I still believe there is too much of an attitude by some urbanists that suburbia will be the downfall of the earth. There is a lack of understanding that some people just don't want to live in a  high density area.  It has pretty much been that way even around the old east coast cities. The rich folks moved out.  As transportation (Real Trolleys and other rail) improved, the middle class could move out.  They didn't have the multi-acre estates but they moved from places like where Bill Murray was in Stripes to row houses, duplexes, and single family homes.  Now the tables have turned and young folks in particular want to re-invent the city.  That's fine with me as long as my option remains open to need the telephone to "touch my neighbor".

I think suburbia on the scale it is currently practiced in this country in general and in Tulsa in particular won't be sustainable for much longer. That said, I don't mind if that's what people want. My problem comes in when they live along a busy corridor and expect empty lots to remain empty forever and expect only single family homes nearby.

If this development were built in the middle of Lortondale, I'd understand and even support the neighborhood being upset. If people choose to live near amenities, they should not be shocked when higher density development occurs near those amenities. Other people want to live in walkable neighborhoods, too.

Basically what I'm saying is that if you abut commercial development, you should not get upset when apartments are built there next door.

All that said, I very much enjoyed the time when I lived out of town on relatively large properties. And while I can't for the life of me understand why on earth anyone would want to live in the uncanny valley of small subdivision lots rather than in denser neighborhoods next to amenities or out in the country (or at least on a quarter acre lot!), people should certainly have the right to do so. Their desires are not contingent on my understanding.

[sgrizzle]

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.

[Red Arrow]

I think suburbia on the scale it is currently practiced in this country in general and in Tulsa in particular won't be sustainable for much longer. That said, I don't mind if that's what people want. My problem comes in when they live along a busy corridor and expect empty lots to remain empty forever and expect only single family homes nearby.

Since the last empty lot near us was sold 15 years ago, I am not really worried about someone putting a big apartment building next to me.  I know people here hate the strip development along the arterials but they really don't generate much traffic and provide the stuff you all want to walk to.  Some of the people living close to the main road could walk.  I don't see the need for a big box store every mile.  If you want to be that close to the amenities, live in the city.

If this development were built in the middle of Lortondale, I'd understand and even support the neighborhood being upset. If people choose to live near amenities, they should not be shocked when higher density development occurs near those amenities. Other people want to live in walkable neighborhoods, too.

No problem here with some smaller apartment complexes. I just don't want a 4 or 5 story behemouth sharing with single or maybe 2 story single or duplex homes.  Big apartment complexes do contribute the need to widen roads for most of us.  I guess Artist is lucky enough to wait for traffic to die down before he needs to go anywhere.

Basically what I'm saying is that if you abut commercial development, you should not get upset when apartments are built there next door.

Depends on the size of the apartments and what it does to the infrastructure requirements.  Plop a few extra thousand people and cars in an otherwise sprawling area and all of  a sudden we need wider roads......

All that said, I very much enjoyed the time when I lived out of town on relatively large properties. And while I can't for the life of me understand why on earth anyone would want to live in the uncanny valley of small subdivision lots rather than in denser neighborhoods next to amenities or out in the country (or at least on a quarter acre lot!), people should certainly have the right to do so. Their desires are not contingent on my understanding.

We finally somewhat agree.  Our development is on mostly 1 acre lots.  I also do not understand why someone would want to live so close to their neighbor that it is physically impossible to drive a car between the houses without the amenities of being more city-like.  There are none of the advantages of being in the suburbs and none of the advantages of being in the city.  Possible advantages include having a relatively new, trouble free home and possibly a better school district.

[Red Arrow]

It's the length of the complaint line, not the fact that it exists.  I have backed off somewhat on the specifics of Bomasada at Brookside.

[nathanm]

I know people here hate the strip development along the arterials but they really don't generate much traffic and provide the stuff you all want to walk to.  Some of the people living close to the main road could walk.  I don't see the need for a big box store every mile.  If you want to be that close to the amenities, live in the city.

All that is perfectly well and good. Out there. 

As an aside, back when I lived out South I once got some new tires down at Hesselbein in Bixby. Given that it was going to take them a couple of hours and that I lived a couple of miles away, I figured I'd go next door to Chili's, grab some lunch and maybe wander over to GameStop or something. I ended up feeling lucky I could make it over to the auto parts store to buy some wipers. Between the folks in cars not expecting pedestrians and the complete lack of any pedestrian infrastructure, I gave up.

I wasn't about to chance getting creamed by one of the folks turning onto 111th from Memorial after nearly getting hit just trying to cross the driveway between the bank and Chili's. No video game browsing for me.

My point being that even in that situation the tiniest amount of thought given to pedestrians would have made it a much more reasonable endeavor. Sidewalks, preferably with some sort of physical delineation (perhaps make the crossing concrete) where they crossed the driveways would have made it much more appealing. I say this as a person who never had a problem walking from my apartment to the QT at 101st and Memorial despite Memorial having no sidewalks there. (At least until the BMW dealership was put in..that one has a sidewalk, unlike the other two on that side of the street)

[TheTed]

All that is perfectly well and good. Out there. 

As an aside, back when I lived out South I once got some new tires down at Hesselbein in Bixby. Given that it was going to take them a couple of hours and that I lived a couple of miles away, I figured I'd go next door to Chili's, grab some lunch and maybe wander over to GameStop or something. I ended up feeling lucky I could make it over to the auto parts store to buy some wipers. Between the folks in cars not expecting pedestrians and the complete lack of any pedestrian infrastructure, I gave up.

I wasn't about to chance getting creamed by one of the folks turning onto 111th from Memorial after nearly getting hit just trying to cross the driveway between the bank and Chili's. No video game browsing for me.

I had the same situation trying to get tires at Hibdon at the south end of Tulsa Hills. There was a sidewalk in front of the tire place, but nowhere connecting it to the rest of the shopping center. Talk about an unpleasant walk up to Target to get some supplies and to Buffalo Wild Wings for lunch. No sidewalks. I either had to walk in some a field or the street. I chose the street. Drivers were not happy about that.

[Red Arrow]

There's now sidewalks from the turnpike to 111th.  I don't know if they put in a crossing signal to cross 111th.  Crossing Memorial isn't quite so bad since the median gives you a break. 

Side note: You were probably at Robertson tires if you were near Chiles. 

I'm not going to try to BS anyone by saying the area is pedestrian friendly.  You need to dig back to college and Road-Crossing 302 (More intense than 101)