Cherry Street Lofts (for real.... honest)

[si_uk_lon_ok]

Thanks for the pictures Artist. I think it is really great that this development is taking place. It is adding another type of dwelling type into the housing mix and that's a good thing.

Tulsa was built on boosters and people who were going around encouraging development, people who spent their money on the buildings that we still have as a legacy in downtown and all around Tulsa, I think these modern developers are no different. It saddens me when people would rather see areas turned into open air museums than allowing Tulsa to develop, dense up and grow as a city.

[Kenosha]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

quote:Originally posted by Kenosha

It seems we have placed an unbalanced importance on buildings, rather than the people who live in them.

I agree -- much like the over-emphasis placed on a single mode of transportation (rail) which will serve few people in the context of our zoning and land use policies.  Many Tulsans want to have plenty of space separating themselves from other people, from colorful buildings, etc.

"Oh, give me land, lots of land under starry skies above, don't fence me in."    ~Cole Porter

I see what you are trying to do, Boo, but that analogy makes no sense.

My concern is less about the buildings than the life that occurs in between them.  As far as transportation is concerned, I believe we should have a comprehensive transportation system: Cars, Pedestrians, Bikes, Transit should all be accommodated.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

It saddens me when people would rather see areas turned into open air museums than allowing Tulsa to develop, dense up and grow as a city.

This saddens me a bit also.  With the proposed Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD) ordinance, I think the pressure will trend toward lower densities, not higher.  My property already has been downzoned against my wishes to allow for only 9% of its former development potential.  The buildable area of the lot for the primary use structure was reduced by 25%.  In fact, the setbacks were increased so much that my house, which had been in the same position on its lot for 80 years prior to the re-zoning, suddenly became a "non-conforming" structure.  Meanwhile, there are districts 30 feet to the south and 30 feet to the east of my property where the development potential is 11 times greater than it is for my land.

I bought my property with the goal of helping to create a denser and more sustainable Tulsa.

I looked at the Comprehensive Plan.  It encouraged multi-family development.

I looked at the zoning.  It was zoned for multi-family.

I looked across the street and noticed the big trash dumpster for the 12-unit apartment complex about 65 feet away from the property I was considering purchasing.  I noticed the stacked flats directly across the street, and I noticed the 8-plex three doors down.

I looked at the required setbacks for my district before I purchased the property.  Those were increased against my wishes after I had already bought the land.

I noticed a certain built character in my neighborhood, and I liked it.  Old and new buildings were there.  Single story bungalows stood across the street from highrises.  There was a mixture of styles.  That didn't bother me.

I saw commercial and office use directly abutting and sometimes within the same building as residential.  That was fine with me.

I noticed that some properties had no off-street parking at all, and many had no garages.  Okay by me.

I saw lots of apartments above garages, also.  I thought that was actually a good method of bolstering the population density a bit without changing the character of the neighborhood.  INCOG staff thought otherwise.

I did quite a bit of research before I purchased the property.  I understood the rules (or at least I thought I did), and I was satisfied with them.

But then, someone wanted to change the rules.  They wanted to prevent any infill development other than detached single family dwelling units in a neighborhood that had been a mixture of dwelling types and uses for at least 75 years.  I wound up on the edge of an extremely low density residential district abutting much higher density districts in two directions.  

The downzoning wasn't a problem for the owners of the multi-family property across the street, because while I was restricted to a single family dwelling by right and a duplex dwelling by special exception, they reserved their right to maintain or re-develop their property at many times the density of mine.  The downzoning wasn't a problem for the owners of property closer to the center of the proposed lower density district, either.  In that case, my property served as a nice buffer between their low density district and the threat of more apartment units.

My property was downzoned against my wishes to a maximum development potential of 2.66 dwelling units per acre by right.  This isn't anywhere close to a sustainable level for a city in terms of supporting viable mass transit or long term maintenance of infrastructure.  It doesn't meet my own goals for a sustainable Tulsa.  My block had a density of 12 dwelling units per acre with a potential of approximately 29 dwelling units per acre when I purchased my property, but now rules have been imposed on me by others which limits me to 2.66 dwelling units per acre by right and 5.32 dwelling units per acre by special exception.  That's not sustainable.

I don't begrudge neighborhoods that want something in place to protect their existing character.  As long as they are completely voluntarily self-imposed restrictions and boundaries, then I think NCD guidelines would be a good way for those who actually want the restrictions to conserve the characteristics of their own property which they enjoy.  Personally, I find Tulsa's current zoning districts too restrictive for my neighborhood and for the city in general.  Many Tulsans want lots of space separating themselves from others.  There are many opportunities to live a low-density, car-oriented, non-sustainable lifestyle in Tulsa.  But some of us would prefer more compact neighborhoods which are pedestrian-friendly and truly dense enough to sustain an urban infrastructure and amenities.  We shouldn't be forced into a non-sustainable development pattern by others who desire huge setbacks, low roof heights, low densities, or whatever.

[spoonbill]

The more I look at these, the less I like them.  I can't help but think "What will these look like in 40 years?"  

I don't think they will last that long.  The one that looks like an angry elf will have problems with drainage caused by leaves, ice, snow, etc. accumulating on the roof.  It is designed to be a disaster.  

All of the others with the stucco parapet walls will degrade quickly because of the lack of overhang.  

This is fad architecture at it's best!  Popular for about 10 years, ugly in 20 years, and demolished by 40 years.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by Kenosha

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

quote:Originally posted by Kenosha

It seems we have placed an unbalanced importance on buildings, rather than the people who live in them.

I agree -- much like the over-emphasis placed on a single mode of transportation (rail) which will serve few people in the context of our zoning and land use policies.  Many Tulsans want to have plenty of space separating themselves from other people, from colorful buildings, etc.

"Oh, give me land, lots of land under starry skies above, don't fence me in."    ~Cole Porter

I see what you are trying to do, Boo, but that analogy makes no sense.

My concern is less about the buildings than the life that occurs in between them.  As far as transportation is concerned, I believe we should have a comprehensive transportation system: Cars, Pedestrians, Bikes, Transit should all be accommodated.

The analogy makes plenty of sense.  We have the development patterns that we have today as a result of planning.  Many Tulsans want to live in detached single-family dwellings with lots of grass and trees and huge setbacks.  Many Tulsans love driving hither and yon because it's relatively easy to do, and it gives them great freedom in where they can go at any time of the day or night.

I agree that the life which occurs between buildings and within them is more important than the buildings themselves.  But I wish there wasn't so darn much space between the buildings.  Of course we ought to have a comprehensive transportation system with many options, but our land use policy system is geared toward sprawling suburbs designed primarily for the movement and storage of private automobiles, not for the dense type of transit oriented development needed to support a viable mass transit system.

We've reaped what we've sown.

"Oh, give me land, lots of land under starry skies above, don't fence me in."    ~Cole Porter

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by spoonbill

The more I look at these, the less I like them.  I can't help but think "What will these look like in 40 years?"  

I don't think they will last that long.  The one that looks like an angry elf will have problems with drainage caused by leaves, ice, snow, etc. accumulating on the roof.  It is designed to be a disaster.  

All of the others with the stucco parapet walls will degrade quickly because of the lack of overhang.  

This is fad architecture at it's best!  Popular for about 10 years, ugly in 20 years, and demolished by 40 years.

Most of them do not look to have the best exterior materials. Except for the first 2. However, thats an easy upgrade in time if needed and the property values go up to make it worth it. Hopefully if this area truly settles in and shows its able to attract the kind of people willing to pay for higher quality construction, more of the buildings in the future will be of a higher quality. ( but here again, we dont have any rules that tell property owners that they have to, or cant, use certain materials.) And yes, most new styles are popular for a time, then get ugly, then become retro, then either get preserved or torn down.  Some of these will last, some will not. And then something else will get put in their place. Some bungalos will last and survive, some will not (especially in this particular area lol).

One thing that interesting to consider is where this new development is actually happening, or where its NOT happening. All of these new places are on the North side of Cherry Street "except for the one nearer downtown".  I dont mind that strip between the highway and Cherry street being done like this. I can see most of the homes in that strip being turned into these new developments and creating a "contiguous" contained development of a mix of new and older apartment buildings. It works for me. However... I dont think I would like it so much if they started randomly putting in these developments on the South side of Cherry Street. Within the first block, perhaps, because there are already a number of apartment buildings scattered there already. But if they were mixed in further in the neighborhood.... I dont think it would work. Not only for the neighborhood, but also for the developers themselves. Part of the attraction of the North side is that you do have a contained area. A lot of these new buildings can be built in that contained area to create a unique neighborhood thats attractive to people who want to live, not just in a new, hip designed, building, but  around lots of other similar people in an environment thats new and "hip". There is a Community and lifestyle aspect that makes it desirable to have lots of these together in one spot.

Perhaps instead of moving to the South of Cherry Street we will begin to see more of the "modern yp" type developments go downtown. All we need is that critical mass of interest. If we were to get a baseball stadium there with a few more things. And I think there are a couple new contemporary loft homes going in along the east end. Then you may see the gravity of interest for this type of living shift towards downtown. But there has to be something else down in that area to make it attracive.

Interestingly enough, It seems that one way to preserve the character of some areas would be to create desirable areas in other locations in the city. Like along the river. If the Tulsa Landing development had gone in I bet you would have seen new development go in that neighborhood behind it. If the Pearl District would get funded you would likely see these new types of developments go in along the 6th street corridor. If the East End were to pick up then more condos and loft apartments would go in that area. There is only so much market for the "contemporary loft" type living in Tulsa and that market will only grow so much in the future regardless of what happens. If the only place thats currently desirable for that type of development is along Cherry Street, then thats where its going to go. So for those of you who complain about spending any money on getting new development areas started, then complain about the older attractive areas being torn up.... Put that thought into your equations.

[waterboy]

Boo, consider moving. You seem pre-occupied with what you want, how you were screwed because you can't increase density on your property so you can enjoy all the rights that you think you deserve. YOU might be happier living somewhere else.

The idea that there should be 100% approval by a neighborhood to protect itself from whats happening in Cherry Street just so we can drastically increase density for survival of infrastructure is not reasonable. Its necessity is debatable. These hoods have survived for a century under current zoning. What you see as Okay for yourself is not okay for many of us. I'm not okay with dumpsters in sight of my front porch. They slipped in those non conforming, high density structures during a time when the near downtown area was in decline as the burbs grew. Surprisingly what you call low usage of land was considered a tight fit back in the 60's-70's. Builders were looking for cheap land to build apartments and commercial buildings and no one was there to protect these period neighborhoods till Horowitz stiffened her back over destroying Lee School and its surroundings. Since the cost of infrastructure was already paid for and the land was cheap, they devoured historic properties like green beer at Kilkenny's. But those who couldn't leave the old hoods or preferred them made accomodations. I too enjoy some of the different styles and uses, but the next wave of infill could choke the life out this area. Build your high densities in the acres of empty parking lots downtown.

I hope people derive as much enjoyment out of the new Cherry Street as I did out of the old one. I suspect they may soon realize that the elements that made the area quirky, avante guard, interesting and specific are being converted into something akin to a Disney World production. Franchise restaurants, expensive contemporary townhouse apartments renamed "lofts" and congested streets. The funny thing is, before all this "improvement" began it was one of the most walkable, self sustaining, charming little hoods in the whole city replete with grocery stores, laundromats, bars, car repair, offices, schools, churches...the works. Ask anyone who grew up in the area.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by spoonbill

The more I look at these, the less I like them.  I can't help but think "What will these look like in 40 years?"  

I don't think they will last that long.  The one that looks like an angry elf will have problems with drainage caused by leaves, ice, snow, etc. accumulating on the roof.  It is designed to be a disaster.  

All of the others with the stucco parapet walls will degrade quickly because of the lack of overhang.  

This is fad architecture at it's best!  Popular for about 10 years, ugly in 20 years, and demolished by 40 years.

Most of them do not look to have the best exterior materials. Except for the first 2. However, thats an easy upgrade in time if needed and the property values go up to make it worth it. Hopefully if this area truly settles in and shows its able to attract the kind of people willing to pay for higher quality construction, more of the buildings in the future will be of a higher quality. ( but here again, we dont have any rules that tell property owners that they have to, or cant, use certain materials.)...

We do have rules about what materials must be used on single-family, duplex, and townhouse dwellings.  Take a look at chapters 12 and 18 of Tulsa's Zoning Code.  The duplex on Rockford which you featured in your first photo is supposed to be clad with the following customary residential exterior finishing materials:  Customary roofing  materials include composition shingles, fiberglass shingles, wood shingles (shakes), and clay tile applied according to the manufacturers specifications. [Notice that modified bituminous roofing and grass are not on that list.]  Customary siding materials include aluminum lap or vinyl lap siding, cedar or other wood siding, masonry (stucco, brick, stone, block, tilt-up panel) and woodgrain weather resistant pressboard siding.  [Notice that COR-TEN steel is not included on the list of siding materials.]

I'm not saying that I agree with those rules for materials, but the rules do exist.  There are standards for exterior materials in building codes as well.

quote:
... I dont think I would like it so much if they started randomly putting in these developments on the South side of Cherry Street. Within the first block, perhaps, because there are already a number of apartment buildings scattered there already. But if they were mixed in further in the neighborhood.... I dont think it would work. Not only for the neighborhood, but also for the developers themselves...

Apartments have been in the midst of that neighborhood for decades.  Take a look around 17th Street.  Also, a number of apartments were demolished to make way for commercial development along Utica.

quote:
Interestingly enough, It seems that one way to preserve the character of some areas would be to create desirable areas in other locations in the city.

Very true.  But with the NIMBYism so prevalent in Tulsa, this is not easy to do or likely to happen.  It could.  If millions upon millions are invested in rail transit, then higher density development near the stations ought to be a requirement.

quote:So for those of you who complain about spending any money on getting new development areas started, then complain about the older attractive areas being torn up.... Put that thought into your equations.

My complaint is about spending public funding on getting new development started when the TMAPC decided to strip the development rights from my own property.  It's interesting how the folks at INCOG villainized me and ripped me to shreds for actually wanting to develop near the downtown and then expect me to be enthusiastic about raising taxes on myself to help fund development in the hinterlands along with the infrastructure to support it.  Sorry, INCOG, but that's not sustainable.

quote:
And yes, most new styles are popular for a time, then get ugly, then become retro, then either get preserved or torn down.  Some of these will last, some will not. And then something else will get put in their place.

That's the ways things are done in Tulsa.  We build up and then tear down a few decades later.  That's not sustainable, either.


"I walk this empty street -- on the boulevard of broken dreams..."

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

Boo, consider moving. You seem pre-occupied with what you want, how you were screwed because you can't increase density on your property so you can enjoy all the rights that you think you deserve. YOU might be happier living somewhere else.

I've considered moving, but I've chosen to make a home in Tulsa.  I'm somewhat pre-occupied with density because so much else depends on it.  I'm more concerned with the fairness of the zoning process.  It's messed up, and it's anything but fair.

quote:
The idea that there should be 100% approval by a neighborhood to protect itself from whats happening in Cherry Street just so we can drastically increase density for survival of infrastructure is not reasonable. Its necessity is debatable. These hoods have survived for a century under current zoning...

Current zoning hasn't been around for 100 years.  It's been around for about 40 years.  The neighborhood itself hasn't been around for a century.  Infrastructure wears out and eventually needs to be replaced.  Average family sizes are decreasing.  There simply aren't enough people in some of these older areas to support the streets and utilities.  The land use pattern is not sustainable.

quote:
...What you see as Okay for yourself is not okay for many of us. I'm not okay with dumpsters in sight of my front porch.

I don't think I said I was okay with dumpsters.  I said that I noticed one across the street from my property before I purchased it.  I didn't buy real estate and then start complaining about where it was.  My complaint stems from the fact that the development rights were stripped from my property against my wishes while those same rights were preserved for the property on the other side of the street.  There was no conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.  I never would have purchased my property if the rules as they are now had been in place.  Zoning is supposed to provide predictability for land owners, not surprises and retroactive rule changes.

quote:
...But those who couldn't leave the old hoods or preferred them made accomodations...

I'm trying to make accommodations since I've already sunk a considerable amount of my life savings into property which no longer has the development potential it had when I purchased it -- not even close.

quote:
...I too enjoy some of the different styles and uses, but the next wave of infill could choke the life out this area. Build your high densities in the acres of empty parking lots downtown.

The infill being discussed on this thread is adding life to the Cherry Street district, not choking it out.

quote:
I hope people derive as much enjoyment out of the new Cherry Street as I did out of the old one. I suspect they may soon realize that the elements that made the area quirky, avante guard, interesting and specific are being converted into something akin to a Disney World production. Franchise restaurants, expensive contemporary townhouse apartments renamed "lofts" and congested streets. The funny thing is, before all this "improvement" began it was one of the most walkable, self sustaining, charming little hoods in the whole city replete with grocery stores, laundromats, bars, car repair, offices, schools, churches...the works. Ask anyone who grew up in the area.

In general, I'm not fond of the new development shown in TheArtist's photos.  I don't think those sideways apartments fit into their neighborhood very well at all.  I've spent countless hours considering ways to improve the built environment in Tulsa.  I've owned property in two neighborhoods, and I do have the big picture in mind -- not only for my property.  I'm one of the more comprehensive-thinking people on this forum or in Tulsa.  For years, I've spent days and days of vacation time attending TMAPC meetings and contacting grumpy INCOG staff in an effort to get form based codes adopted in Tulsa because I think those types of codes would be better for Tulsa as a whole than neighborhood conservation district overlay guidelines will be for select areas.  I've begged the TMAPC to consider revising the zoning code to prevent the types of apartments that are being built north of 15th Street, but for the most part, my pleas have been ignored, or worse, I've been villainized in public meetings for suggesting more sustainable land use patterns.

As I mentioned, we've had our current zoning code for about 40 years.  We've had zoning laws in Tulsa since the 1920s, so restricting the use of private property isn't a new idea here.  The concept of Neighborhood Conservation Districts has been considered in Tulsa for at least a decade.  I've made a few suggestions to the authors of the NCD draft ordinance on how to improve it and how to speed up the process.  Have you?

So far, I've received some positive responses on my proposed revisions to the NCD draft ordinance.  It's a work in progress.  Call my ideas unrealistic if you want, but they are a direct response to the concerns from those opposed to the ordinance.  Totally voluntary, self-imposed restrictions could work in some neighborhoods, and I think it would be a matter of weeks before some neighborhoods would establish NCD boundaries and guidelines because they've been thinking about them for so long.

I've chosen to be involved in the process of changing Tulsa for the better rather than moving away, but thanks for reminding me that I might be happier living elsewhere.  You sound like someone who's well-versed on the subject of happiness.  []

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

Build your high densities in the acres of empty parking lots downtown.

What do you consider to be "high densities"?

[waterboy]

Screw you. You're so special. You think you're he first speculator to be screwed by bureaucracy? Consider revisiting your assumptions and questioning yourself instead of attacking INCOG, TMAPC and anyone who disagrees with you. The snarkiness I detect in your responses to others make me wonder how much respect you showed them.

When you "noticed" the dumpsters across from your property you didn't object to them so one would assume you accepted them. You accepted them because you intended to add more of them. Your assertion that Cherry Street type development would be acceptable south of 15th and in other old areas simply because they already have some of those abuses from the 60's era. I disagree. It would negatively affect the attractiveness/saleability of those neighborhoods, unless you like dumptsters in view of your porch. But I do agree it is inevitable because of the use of that logic. BTW, my remark about zoning being a century old meant restrictions in some form or another. You seem to lose the bigger picture in deference to details. And yes smartypants, homes have been in the near downtown area since 1907. You pointed that out to me in a previous post.

I don't offer suggestions to those entities because unlike you I have not spent all my spare time learning the arcane details of zoning.  Good for you, like I said, you're indeed special.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

Screw you. You're so special. You think you're he first speculator to be screwed by bureaucracy?

I'm only one person.  And, no, I don't think I'm the first or will be the last person to be screwed by a screwed up bureaucracy.

quote:...Consider revisiting your assumptions and questioning yourself instead of attacking INCOG, TMAPC and anyone who disagrees with you. The snarkiness I detect in your responses to others make me wonder how much respect you showed them.

Changing the rules retroactively wasn't my idea.  I was treated with extreme rudeness by the TMAPC and by INCOG staff.  Not all of them behaved rudely, but those who did do not deserve my respect.  I'm paying their salaries.  I expect better treatment than I received.  The last time I checked, I had title to my property, not INCOG.

quote:
When you "noticed" the dumpsters across from your property you didn't object to them so one would assume you accepted them. You accepted them because you intended to add more of them.

Wrong.  That was not my intention.

quote:
Your assertion that Cherry Street type development would be acceptable south of 15th and in other old areas simply because they already have some of those abuses from the 60's era. I disagree. It would negatively affect the attractiveness/saleability of those neighborhoods, unless you like dumptsters in view of your porch. But I do agree it is inevitable because of the use of that logic.

I've stated that in general I am not fond of the type of development which TheArtist photographed.  We can do better infill than those apartments crammed sideways onto their lots.

quote:
BTW, my remark about zoning being a century old meant restrictions in some form or another. You seem to lose the bigger picture in deference to details.

Wrong again (about my losing sight of the big picture).  Correct about the fact we've had property restrictions for decades.  We've had lots of them.

quote:
I don't offer suggestions to those entities because unlike you I have not spent all my spare time learning the arcane details of zoning.  Good for you, like I said, you're indeed special.

I don't really know that much about the zoning code because it's complex.  I haven't read all of it, and my ignorance of the subject is vast.  I changed a post yesterday because I did look something up, and I found out I was wrong.  I am often wrong.  I am learning all the time.  I haven't given up.  I want to participate in public discussions such as this forum.

I see a glimmer of hope with the TMAPC, because the commissioners seem to be changing their tune.  There is more opportunity for public input now than there was 10 years ago, but the system has a long way to go.

With INCOG, I wasn't asking for special treatment or special exceptions or any variations from the restrictions as they were.  In fact, all I wanted was standard treatment -- the very same treatment my neighbors across the street received.  I'm not asking for special treatment, but thanks for thinking I'm special, anyway.  []

"From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs..."

[spoonbill]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist


Most of them do not look to have the best exterior materials. Except for the first 2. However, thats an easy upgrade in time if needed and the property values go up to make it worth it. Hopefully if this area truly settles in and shows its able to attract the kind of people willing to pay for higher quality construction, more of the buildings in the future will be of a higher quality. ( but here again, we dont have any rules that tell property owners that they have to, or cant, use certain materials.) And yes, most new styles are popular for a time, then get ugly, then become retro, then either get preserved or torn down.  Some of these will last, some will not. And then something else will get put in their place. Some bungalos will last and survive, some will not (especially in this particular area lol).

One thing that interesting to consider is where this new development is actually happening, or where its NOT happening. All of these new places are on the North side of Cherry Street "except for the one nearer downtown".  I dont mind that strip between the highway and Cherry street being done like this. I can see most of the homes in that strip being turned into these new developments and creating a "contiguous" contained development of a mix of new and older apartment buildings. It works for me. However... I dont think I would like it so much if they started randomly putting in these developments on the South side of Cherry Street. Within the first block, perhaps, because there are already a number of apartment buildings scattered there already. But if they were mixed in further in the neighborhood.... I dont think it would work. Not only for the neighborhood, but also for the developers themselves. Part of the attraction of the North side is that you do have a contained area. A lot of these new buildings can be built in that contained area to create a unique neighborhood thats attractive to people who want to live, not just in a new, hip designed, building, but  around lots of other similar people in an environment thats new and "hip". There is a Community and lifestyle aspect that makes it desirable to have lots of these together in one spot.

Perhaps instead of moving to the South of Cherry Street we will begin to see more of the "modern yp" type developments go downtown. All we need is that critical mass of interest. If we were to get a baseball stadium there with a few more things. And I think there are a couple new contemporary loft homes going in along the east end. Then you may see the gravity of interest for this type of living shift towards downtown. But there has to be something else down in that area to make it attracive.

Interestingly enough, It seems that one way to preserve the character of some areas would be to create desirable areas in other locations in the city. Like along the river. If the Tulsa Landing development had gone in I bet you would have seen new development go in that neighborhood behind it. If the Pearl District would get funded you would likely see these new types of developments go in along the 6th street corridor. If the East End were to pick up then more condos and loft apartments would go in that area. There is only so much market for the "contemporary loft" type living in Tulsa and that market will only grow so much in the future regardless of what happens. If the only place thats currently desirable for that type of development is along Cherry Street, then thats where its going to go. So for those of you who complain about spending any money on getting new development areas started, then complain about the older attractive areas being torn up.... Put that thought into your equations.

My son was in town, so we drove through today.  The siding is already buckling and coming off of this one.



And with the misty rain, we noticed drainage problems already developing with this one.




These just look like tenements with garages.




I hate to be overly critical, but there is nothing lasting about this stuff!  Must be a young designer trying to make his mark!  

I admit, I liked some of these when they were just designs and sketches, but now that I see them built, they just look cheap.

Somebody turn this bus around before we scorch all of cherry street with this stuff!

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by spoonbill


I hate to be overly critical, but there is nothing lasting about this stuff!

You aren't being overly critical, merely observant.  Thank you for posting your honest observations and opinions.

[waterboy]

Bud, you got an attitude problem.

" I was treated with extreme rudeness by the TMAPC and by INCOG staff. Not all of them behaved rudely, but those who did do not deserve my respect. I'm paying their salaries. I expect better treatment than I received. The last time I checked, I had title to my property, not INCOG."

That kind of snark crap usually elicits negative responses from government employees or anyone who carries the burden of dealing with the often arrogant public. I'm guessing you were treated with the same attitude you brought.