SoSA District

[Pete]

Unofficially, it's Classen to Walker and 6th to 9th.

[warreng88]

Unofficially, it's Classen to Walker and 6th to 9th.

So, does that make the Lisbon Lofts not a part of SOSA since they are north of 9th? Would that make it more of a Midtown property?

[Urbanized]

The "creative" aspect of SoSA is starting to be shared with the "let's make some money" aspect. SoSA started organically, with architects looking for a place to exercise design freedom close to the CBD. They wanted to live there, to be part of the blossoming downtown. It wasn’t a planned resurgence… it was more of an accident.

Freedom of design resulted with edgy, cool buildings that had never before been seen together in OKC. Some people hated it, some thought it was odd, and some loved it. Eventually it became clear that a trend was occurring, and like vultures circling a carcass, in came the realtors and speculators… “Let’s build cool stuff and make money!”

But guess what? Realtors and speculators can’t do cool. Cool takes passion and an esthetic sense. It takes a passion for wanting to be there. Their passion is making a buck. They’d rather spend a little, and gain a lot. I think that’s a careless motive.

Witness the likes of 802 NW 8th.

Appears to have been a seagull posting.

[dwellsokc]

Regarding 802 NW 8th, is there some indication that it is being done in a below standard manner, or is the objection purely that a 100+ year old building is not being radically altered to match the prevailing style of this particular moment in time?

The floor plan isn't being altered to take advantage of the view, or to create interior space with character... Notice the kitchens: do they appear functional to you? Yes, it's great that the old building is being utilized, but architecturally it glaringly misses a opportunity to do much more. I think that's due in part to the motive: Make money, not space.

[Spartan]

These are actual developments which aren't the problem. We need housing in the 700/800 a month range for artists and people right out of college like myself. The real problem we should wave our pitchforks at is land speculation.

[dwellsokc]

Didn't you just flip a lot in SoSA for substantial profit?

My wife and I bought the subject lot to prevent someone sitting on it for "developmental control," and profit. We intended to resell immediately to an owner who intended to design and occupy a house soon. In the meantime someone wanted our existing house more than we did, so we sold it and decided to build on our new property. We spent several months designing our house. The design was approved by the UDC. Then life happened... we couldn't afford to build what we wanted, and we decided to buy an existing house and be done with it. We did just that, and sold the lot (VERY quickly) to an excited couple who intend to build their dream house. The lot was worth EXACTLY what the owner paid.

Because of their passion and love of the neighborhood, I bet their house will be much cooler than a profit-driven design.

[flintysooner]

My wife and I bought the subject lot to prevent someone sitting on it for "developmental control," and profit. We intended to resell immediately to an owner who intended to design and occupy a house soon. In the meantime someone wanted our existing house more than we did, so we sold it and decided to build on our new property. We spent several months designing our house. The design was approved by the UDC. Then life happened... we couldn't afford to build what we wanted, and we decided to buy an existing house and be done with it. We did just that, and sold the lot (VERY quickly) to an excited couple who intend to build their dream house. The lot was worth EXACTLY what the owner paid.

Because of their passion and love of the neighborhood, I bet their house will be much cooler than a profit-driven design.

Very good post as is the one about place making being the ultimate goal. Lots of critics but not so many doers.

[Urbanized]

Lots of assumptions.

[Rover]

Because of their passion and love of the neighborhood, I bet their house will be much cooler than a profit-driven design.

If someone bought it at a higher price, then they agree that it is cool enough to buy. To ignore the value of companies and entrepreneurs in America, or to demonize them is astounding. The way it works is, if they don't create value, no one buys it and the for profit doesn't make any.

BTW, if you or others are so altruistic, then you should have passed the lot on for what you paid so they could afford to build an EVEN COOLER home. Your profit taking reduced their ability to express themselves I guess. Once you took your profit, how ever you rationalize it, you became a "for profit" entity and the righteous indignation is forfeited. BTW, did you take a profit on the original home you sold, or did you donate the profits for the public good.

I don't understand why certain individuals expect more from business than they are willing to do themselves. If you don't believe profit is a worthy goal, then trade without profit.

Just curious what you do for a living and whether it is truly part of a for profit company.

[LakeEffect]

Just curious what you do for a living and whether it is truly part of a for profit company.

Dennis is an architect.

[soonerguru]

If someone bought it at a higher price, then they agree that it is cool enough to buy. To ignore the value of companies and entrepreneurs in America, or to demonize them is astounding. The way it works is, if they don't create value, no one buys it and the for profit doesn't make any.

BTW, if you or others are so altruistic, then you should have passed the lot on for what you paid so they could afford to build an EVEN COOLER home. Your profit taking reduced their ability to express themselves I guess. Once you took your profit, how ever you rationalize it, you became a "for profit" entity and the righteous indignation is forfeited. BTW, did you take a profit on the original home you sold, or did you donate the profits for the public good.

I don't understand why certain individuals expect more from business than they are willing to do themselves. If you don't believe profit is a worthy goal, then trade without profit.

Just curious what you do for a living and whether it is truly part of a for profit company.

Another gratuitous lecture.

[Spartan]

My wife and I bought the subject lot to prevent someone sitting on it for "developmental control," and profit. We intended to resell immediately to an owner who intended to design and occupy a house soon. In the meantime someone wanted our existing house more than we did, so we sold it and decided to build on our new property. We spent several months designing our house. The design was approved by the UDC. Then life happened... we couldn't afford to build what we wanted, and we decided to buy an existing house and be done with it. We did just that, and sold the lot (VERY quickly) to an excited couple who intend to build their dream house. The lot was worth EXACTLY what the owner paid.

Because of their passion and love of the neighborhood, I bet their house will be much cooler than a profit-driven design.

Absolutely - actual people willing to invest more in a property have long been known to care more about the neighborhood.

[Spartan]

If someone bought it at a higher price, then they agree that it is cool enough to buy. To ignore the value of companies and entrepreneurs in America, or to demonize them is astounding. The way it works is, if they don't create value, no one buys it and the for profit doesn't make any.

BTW, if you or others are so altruistic, then you should have passed the lot on for what you paid so they could afford to build an EVEN COOLER home. Your profit taking reduced their ability to express themselves I guess. Once you took your profit, how ever you rationalize it, you became a "for profit" entity and the righteous indignation is forfeited. BTW, did you take a profit on the original home you sold, or did you donate the profits for the public good.

I don't understand why certain individuals expect more from business than they are willing to do themselves. If you don't believe profit is a worthy goal, then trade without profit.

Just curious what you do for a living and whether it is truly part of a for profit company.

You just went all tea party on one of OKC's top architects... Congrats

[Rover]

A for profit architect. I just don't understand the animosity towards business and profit. For profit is developing a huge amount of downtown. There are lousy for profit and there are great for profit companies willing to invest and grow our city while hoping the redeem some value created. If you are going to preach the evils of for profit then don't take part in it. But profit motive is a huge engine for change and progress.

And I doubt an architect would say the best homes are designed and constructed by people who actually create their own designs and drawings and people just don't care as much about homes designed by architects.

[Urbanized]

I admire DWells and love his passion for SoSa, but he has been on record in the past in his (now-offline) blog and elsewhere with comments indicating disdain for older neighborhoods and buildings, more or less equating love for such things with some sort of character flaw. I fundamentally disagree. I think there is room for both modern architecture AND good HP in a city - especially in a funky eclectic neighborhood - and I'm pretty sure MOST architects would agree with that position. I also think that some people would prefer to live in historic housing that had not been dramatically altered inside, and that is a valid choice. Simply doing a spot-on renovation of an old property doesn't automatically qualify someone as a profiteer or as a person without vision.

The real question is whether or not the building in question is receiving a high-quality renovation, of which I have no idea. But if it is, I don't think it is fair to disparage someone for not wanting to dramatically alter a 100+ year old building simply for the sake of ego or for the sake of "the view".

[LakeEffect]

I admire DWells and love his passion for SoSa, but he has been on record in the past in his (now-offline) blog and elsewhere with comments indicating disdain for older neighborhoods and buildings, more or less equating love for such things with some sort of character flaw. I fundamentally disagree. I think there is room for both modern architecture AND good HP in a city - especially in a funky eclectic neighborhood - and I'm pretty sure MOST architects would agree with that position. I also think that some people would prefer to live in historic housing that had not been dramatically altered inside, and that is a valid choice. Simply doing a spot-on renovation of an old property doesn't automatically qualify someone as a profiteer or as a person without vision.

The real question is whether or not the building in question is receiving a high-quality renovation, of which I have no idea. But if it is, I don't think it is fair to disparage someone for not wanting to dramatically alter a 100+ year old building simply for the sake of ego or for the sake of "the view".

Another reason why you and I virtual friends.

[Urbanized]

YES!! Hey, I need all of the friends I can get...

[dankrutka]

I just don't understand the animosity towards business and profit.

The biggest reason you don't understand is probably because this perceived issues largely only exist in your own mind. Any time anyone has a critique/opinion regarding any business or business practice (which is healthy), you post a diatribe about showing the proper deference to our capitalist Gods. Seriously, most posters here are very good with capitalism, rich CEOs, and profit. You don't have to convince us. The U.S. won the Cold War. Lol.

[flintysooner]

A for profit architect. I just don't understand the animosity towards business and profit. For profit is developing a huge amount of downtown. There are lousy for profit and there are great for profit companies willing to invest and grow our city while hoping the redeem some value created. If you are going to preach the evils of for profit then don't take part in it. But profit motive is a huge engine for change and progress.

And I doubt an architect would say the best homes are designed and constructed by people who actually create their own designs and drawings and people just don't care as much about homes designed by architects.

It is not that profit is evil; rather, that the making of a place should take precedence when discussing development and especially development of a neighborhood. Both of these as well as other objectives are desirable and achievable. That's certainly not to say that compromise should not occur. As Mr. Wells stated sometimes "life happens" and interferes with the best plans.

Passion about a place and what it can become is a goal that should never be devalued. Development should not be just about drawing lines to maximize the number of salable lots or leasable area.

[metro]

dwells, what are you up to these days now that you sold 2 SoSA properties?

[dwellsokc]

I admire DWells and love his passion for SoSa, but he has been on record in the past in his (now-offline) blog and elsewhere with comments indicating disdain for older neighborhoods and buildings, more or less equating love for such things with some sort of character flaw. I fundamentally disagree. I think there is room for both modern architecture AND good HP in a city - especially in a funky eclectic neighborhood - and I'm pretty sure MOST architects would agree with that position. I also think that some people would prefer to live in historic housing that had not been dramatically altered inside, and that is a valid choice. Simply doing a spot-on renovation of an old property doesn't automatically qualify someone as a profiteer or as a person without vision.

The real question is whether or not the building in question is receiving a high-quality renovation, of which I have no idea. But if it is, I don't think it is fair to disparage someone for not wanting to dramatically alter a 100+ year old building simply for the sake of ego or for the sake of "the view".

I have never disdained older neighborhoods and buildings, nor have I ever disparaged those who do. I lived in an old house before SoSA, and I live in an HP district now! I postulated that everyone in America has a love affair with the quintessential cottage (including me!), and that Thomas Kinkade capitalized on that fact. I did disparage those who believed that more rules rather than fewer rules would improve the future of a budding funky neighborhood. I promoted freedom of design while others lobbied for restricting freedom.

I share your thoughts regarding modern architecture AND historic architecture… there are places for both in any good city, and especially in funky eclectic neighborhoods. No argument there. And you’re right: simply doing a spot-on renovation of an old property doesn’t automatically qualify someone as a profiteer, or person without vision… but it does qualify them as not having as much skin in the game as someone who occupies their own design.

I simply stated an observation: Passion for a neighborhood results in cooler architecture than does turning a profit. (And that statement doesn’t belittle capitalism!)

[metro]

The biggest reason you don't understand is probably because this perceived issues largely only exist in your own mind. Any time anyone has a critique/opinion regarding any business or business practice (which is healthy), you post a diatribe about showing the proper deference to our capitalist Gods. Seriously, most posters here are very good with capitalism, rich CEOs, and profit. You don't have to convince us. The U.S. won the Cold War. Lol.

LOL, I agree with what you're saying to said poster, but the Cold War never died, and is roaring it's ugly head again (look at Ukraine, Georgia, Sochi, Syria).

[dwellsokc]

dwells, what are you up to these days now that you sold 2 SoSA properties?

I'm living happily ever after! (...see the seagull heading for the beach.)

[dwellsokc]

...but he has been on record in the past in his (now-offline) blog and elsewhere with comments indicating disdain for older neighborhoods and buildings, more or less equating love for such things with some sort of character flaw.

Correction on my previous response: I do disdain historic preservation zealots who advocate protection of structures based only on age, rather than quality. I think that position is a result of ignorance... not character deficit.

The recent URS study (acknowledged as a "resource" by the City), recommended creation of an historic district that overlaps SoSA. This study definitely had character flaws... it identified "significant historic structures" that were built as late as the 80's and 2000's, that had ZERO historic significance. It, and similarly zealous attempts to preserve "history" should be critically examined. I do advocate preservation of truly historic structures. However, the designation criteria must be vetted for honesty. If not, our funky eclectic neighborhoods might be ruined.

[LakeEffect]

Correction on my previous response: I do disdain historic preservation zealots who advocate protection of structures based only on age, rather than quality. I think that position is a result of ignorance... not character deficit.

The recent URS study (acknowledged as a "resource" by the City), recommended creation of an historic district that overlaps SoSA. This study definitely had character flaws... it identified "significant historic structures" that were built as late as the 80's and 2000's, that had ZERO historic significance. It, and similarly zealous attempts to preserve "history" should be critically examined. I do advocate preservation of truly historic structures. However, the designation criteria must be vetted for honesty. If not, our funky eclectic neighborhoods might be ruined.

Said study stated that a historic district may be created based on the extant resources. (http://www.okc.gov/planning/plans+st...029%202011.pdf - see pages 20 and 21) The consultants were hired to complete surveys and basic historical analysis. They are historians and architectural historians, it's their job to recommend things. Notice that the City has not acted on the recommended residential HP districts. The document can still be a resource.

Your use of the word zealot is entirely distasteful. Also, your instance on saving "truly historic structures" destroys the essence of a historic district. How many "truly historic structures" exist on their own in your neighborhood, or Mesta Park, or Heritage Hills?

The funky, eclectic neighborhood will be ruined by the architectural free-styling that results in full-scale destruction of the historical character and the removal of the "fun" from the neighborhood. Part of the beauty, I think, is the juxtaposition of the traditional and the contemporary. Remove all the traditional and build only contemporary, and the district will lose all its excitement.