Dwellings at SoSA

[Pete]

I was going off of Steve's article in the paper today but that may have been update or revised. His numbers in the paper might have included some of the outdoor space too, not sure.

The numbers have been revised to what I posted.

[okatty]

That size makes a lot more sense in terms of the footprint, cost, etc.

[Pete]

There are at least 7 letters submitted to the Urban Design Commission in opposition to this project.

All are from current residents / property owners concerned about the height and density.

It's a very interesting situation because lots of people have big investments now and are worried about their views and appropriate density and scale.

My understanding is that the units will be within the height restrictions.


I'll post some of the letters later but IMO this is all part of a much bigger discussion about how this sort of thing is going to be handled, as it's going to start happening more frequently as existing owners and proposed developers clash.

[Teo9969]

I really can't wait until these people are told, essentially, to shove it.

Sorry, but if you think that building a single family home anywhere in the interstate ring entitles you to a spectacular view, you're being naïve, self-centered, and arrogant.

Though there aren't minimum height "requirements" throughout most of downtown, owners/developers need to realize that they are selling the city short when they build anything less than 3 stories downtown, and even 4/5 stories in certain non-CBD areas. You don't deserve anything just because you spend a couple million dollars (if that). If a view is crucial to your decision making process, I say 5 stories minimum…otherwise, prepare for it to go be cropped or go away entirely sometime in the next 10-15 years.

I'd say, tough luck, but it's not really bad luck at all…just poor forethought.

[Pete]

One thing to keep in mind, the UDC in it's last meeting and with the current new-ish lineup of members rejected a proposal to put 3 units on one SoSA lot, and this project equates to about 3.5 units per lot.

So, we are definitely into precedent setting territory.

More or less like parking disputes, these types of tensions are part of the gradual infill of urban neighborhoods.


This next UDC meeting should be very interesting.

[LakeEffect]

There are at least 7 letters submitted to the Urban Design Commission in opposition to this project.

All are from current residents / property owners concerned about the height and density.

It's a very interesting situation because lots of people have big investments now and are worried about their views and appropriate density and scale.

My understanding is that the units will be within the height restrictions.

I'll post some of the letters later but IMO this is all part of a much bigger discussion about how this sort of thing is going to be handled, as it's going to start happening more frequently as existing owners and proposed developers clash.

Saw that coming...

[Architect2010]

I really can't wait until these people are told, essentially, to shove it.

Sorry, but if you think that building a single family home anywhere in the interstate ring entitles you to a spectacular view, you're being naïve, self-centered, and arrogant.

Though there aren't minimum height "requirements" throughout most of downtown, owners/developers need to realize that they are selling the city short when they build anything less than 3 stories downtown, and even 4/5 stories in certain non-CBD areas. You don't deserve anything just because you spend a couple million dollars (if that). If a view is crucial to your decision making process, I say 5 stories minimum…otherwise, prepare for it to go be cropped or go away entirely sometime in the next 10-15 years.

I'd say, tough luck, but it's not really bad luck at all…just poor forethought.

I agree. I hope they didn't wish for this lot in particular to stay empty forever. At 3 or 4 stories, they're lucky something of a larger magnitude wasn't proposed. With development occurring all around SoSA, it's pretty apparent that it would eventually creep in towards the neighborhood. Thing is, this is the type of development that would add to SoSA's vibrancy and appeal, not detract. I guess the homeowners who have an issue can only see the vision of the skyline outside of their patio, and not the vision of a fully-fledged and dense neighborhood developing around them.

[Pete]

One interesting aspect of all of this is that the all the recent development has created a situation where lot prices are so high, it's very hard to justify building just one unit per lot; or even two.

Also, there are plenty of multi-lot tracts that have yet to be developed in the area.

I suspect we'll see a bunch more of these types of projects but they get to be the first guinea pig, since Lisbon Lofts was somewhat separated from the single family development and drew no real opposition.

[Architect2010]

One thing to keep in mind, the UDC in it's last meeting and with the current new-ish lineup of members rejected a proposal to put 3 units on one SoSA lot, and this project equates to about 3.5 units per lot.

Shame, unless the proposal was entirely inappropriate, but are there grounds for them to dismiss such a project for having 3 units on a lot? What was the issue? Seems we already have a precedent with the Lisbon Lofts, so that seems strange.

[Anonymous.]

Well it's pretty obvious who the 7 letters are from. There are exactly 7 residences that would be behind this proposed complex in regards to the DT skyline. Including the recently finished one with luxury pool and large patio in the "back".

[Pete]

Well it's pretty obvious who the 7 letters are from. There are exactly 7 residences that would be behind this proposed complex in regards to the DT skyline. Including the recently finished one with luxury pool and large patio in the "back".

They aren't all from people who would have obstructed views.

[musg8411]

One interesting aspect of all of this is that the all the recent development has created a situation where lot prices are so high, it's very hard to justify building just one unit per lot; or even two.

Also, there are plenty of multi-lot tracts that have yet to be developed in the area.

I suspect we'll see a bunch more of these types of projects but they get to be the first guinea pig, since Lisbon Lofts was somewhat separated from the single family development and drew no real opposition.

Some people are rejecting stupid money for lots down there. We bought down in Sosa and its funny to sit back and watch the developers argue because of conflicting styles and site lines. I think a lot of it is that they aren't million dollar houses.

[Anonymous.]

They aren't all from people who would have obstructed views.

Interesting, not sure to think if it is businesses, or other nearby residents. Either way I see zero reason to oppose it? The only people who I can see that have any actual argument are the people who will have obstructed views.

I find this verty interesting...

[Pete]

Will be very interesting to see who shows up at the meeting to oppose and how that discussion goes.

BTW, the developers of this project (Vincent Le and Kayla Baker) live in SoSA and have developed other properties as well.

[Spartan]

This strikes me as a Maywood Park v Bradshaw kind of struggle. Except this developer is probably RAISING the bar with this development (whereas Bradshaw set the bar high at first and then went downhill).

This will be a really nice project. Perhaps the opposition doesn't want to be exposed as not really million dollar homes?

[Architect2010]

..., since Lisbon Lofts was somewhat separated from the single family development and drew no real opposition.

Very true.

[dwellsokc]

Will be very interesting to see who shows up at the meeting to oppose and how that discussion goes...

Those opposing based on view obstruction have no ground to stand on. If they didn't understand the development potential of that site when they bought, they should have. There are no view corridor guidelines in the regulations, and the zoning code allows for more height and density than is being proposed... not to mention commercial uses that would probably return more profit to the developers.

The Dwellings @ SoSA is in compliance with all design guidelines and zoning codes... it will be approved on the first pass if neighborhood supporters exceed those opposing. It will be approved on the second pass if not.

[Pete]

Just read the staff report and the City planning department has recommended approval of this project.

[LakeEffect]

Just read the staff report and the City planning department has recommended approval of this project.

After reading the protest letters, I see that they're all concerned about density and making it appropriate to the district. I think that might hold water if they were proposing it north of 6th street, but since it's on 6th, I don't see how that holds up. 6th has a completely different character, and I would never view it as the single-family residential character that exists in the northern/western parts of the district.

[onthestrip]

After reading the protest letters, I see that they're all concerned about density and making it appropriate to the district. I think that might hold water if they were proposing it north of 6th street, but since it's on 6th, I don't see how that holds up. 6th has a completely different character, and I would never view it as the single-family residential character that exists in the northern/western parts of the district.

Where did you read the letters?

[LakeEffect]

Where did you read the letters?

http://www.okc.gov/AgendaPub/meet.aspx - Look at the June 24 Urban Design Commission Agenda.

[One Dot Less Than Nine]

After reading the protest letters, I see that they're all concerned about density and making it appropriate to the district. I think that might hold water if they were proposing it north of 6th street, but since it's on 6th, I don't see how that holds up. 6th has a completely different character, and I would never view it as the single-family residential character that exists in the northern/western parts of the district.

I agree. I think this is why I and several others had an aversion to the multi family development that was proposed for NW 8th St near Classen Blvd.

I would say that if I had spent the $$ for a single family residence over on 7th street I wouldnt be thrilled about suddenly losing my skyline view.

[LakeEffect]

I agree. I think this is why I and several others had an aversion to the multi family development that was proposed for NW 8th St near Classen Blvd.

I would say that if I had spent the $$ for a single family residence over on 7th street I wouldnt be thrilled about suddenly losing my skyline view.

But wouldn't you have had at least an inkling that you were moving into downtown and the density that entails? It's naive, at best, to maintain that you'd expect a single family neighborhood to not feel development pressure on its edges when it is so closely related to downtown.

[Teo9969]

I agree. I think this is why I and several others had an aversion to the multi family development that was proposed for NW 8th St near Classen Blvd.

I would say that if I had spent the $$ for a single family residence over on 7th street I wouldnt be thrilled about suddenly losing my skyline view.

This isn't meant to be disrespectful, but rather just an alternative perspective:

A single family home on these lots, unless it's made of material that is absurdly expensive, is quickly going to become a lowest-use land-use. We're not 20 years away from every lot in SoSA being worth as much as the constructions costs of the single family homes that have been constructed. That's why you have density in the first place: Land becomes valuable because it's close to a large number of amenities and is a desirable place to live. So eventually the only way it can be worth paying the amount for the land that it will cost, is to increase the number of people living on that land. So while the single-family home owner has invested a few hundred thousand dollars on their lot, someone else is investing 3/4/5 times as much on their lot than the SFH owner. If one wants to own a single family home with a view, they should sell their lot for an obscene profit, and use it to build/remodel a single-family home a little bit outside the core that has a view.

[One Dot Less Than Nine]

This isn't meant to be disrespectful, but rather just an alternative perspective:

A single family home on these lots, unless it's made of material that is absurdly expensive, is quickly going to become a lowest-use land-use. We're not 20 years away from every lot in SoSA being worth as much as the constructions costs of the single family homes that have been constructed. That's why you have density in the first place: Land becomes valuable because it's close to a large number of amenities and is a desirable place to live. So eventually the only way it can be worth paying the amount for the land that it will cost, is to increase the number of people living on that land. So while the single-family home owner has invested a few hundred thousand dollars on their lot, someone else is investing 3/4/5 times as much on their lot than the SFH owner. If one wants to own a single family home with a view, they should sell their lot for an obscene profit, and use it to build/remodel a single-family home a little bit outside the core that has a view.

None taken. I don't disagree however, OKC has a tremendous amount of under developed / under utilized land in and around its core. If OKC had the population and density like larger cities then you are correct, the single family residence would be much less viable. OKC doesn't have either of those and won't for quite some time.