Modern Tulsa

It appears the Tulsa Club Building Downtown may be up for grabs. It just blows my mind to think any building of this stature could be valued less than many peoples’ homes. Interesting article below.

From Urban Tulsa

Downtown Tulsa Club

A classic downtown example of Tulsan art deco architecture could soon become available to the highest bidder at a sheriff’s auction, though the new owner would need to undertake plenty of repairs before opening it for any type of public use.

The City of Tulsa filed a foreclosure action in late December against Carl J. Morony of California, owner of the Tulsa Club building at 115 E. Fifth St., near the intersection with S. Boston Avenue. The building has been cited for violation of fire, electrical and plumbing codes as well as collapsed ceilings and evidence of trespassing and other possible criminal activity. The city had assessed a $1,000 fine each day since August 2007 until a Tulsa County judge awarded the city a $331,815 civil judgment in October for the unpaid charges.

“The present owner got it for $125k at a sheriff’s sale, which unfortunately makes the vacant land worth as much as the building itself, so he has allowed the building to demolish itself through a lack of maintenance,” said Rex Ball, president of the Tulsa Art Deco Society.

The roof, in particular, is a significant problem, Ball said; but allowing the building to disappear would be a shame for many reasons. He pointed out that the Tulsa Club building is the only surviving multi-story building designed by renowned architect Bruce Goff, and it contains many “striking” art deco features, including ornamentation on the interior and exterior walls, elevator shaft and doors, columns, light fixtures, mouldings and fireplace tiles.

The building was completed in 1927 as a joint project of the Tulsa Chamber of Commerce and the Tulsa Club, an exclusive organization started by Tulsa oilmen. The first five floors of the structure, which was then known simply as the Tulsa Building, were occupied by the chamber, while the Tulsa Club filled the top six floors and the roof garden.

“A surprising feature a lot of people don’t know about is the roof garden, which was sensational, and the parties up there were always great,” Ball said. “It looked out over the Philcade [Towers] and the skyline to the east of downtown. It was really pretty glamorous, actually.”

The club also had a slumber room, gymnasium, squash courts, steam room, barber shop, lounge and two-story ballroom with art deco detailing, though many of the art deco features were lost during an earlier renovation. Ball also said the “skirt” of glass block and stone on the exterior of the ground floor was added during a renovation.

What to Do?

Extensive renovations would be required to bring the building up to code today, but Tulsa’s chief economic development officer, G.M. “Mike” Bunney, said the new owner would not need to worry about being fined by the city for code violations.

“We would work with the new owner however necessary to help them get some time and work on the building. They’re not going to get it into code overnight,” he said. “Any kind of reasonable extensions are granted as a matter of course.”

In 2005, a group called the Tulsa Club Development Company applied to the City of Tulsa for a $2.5 million no-interest loan to aid development of the structure as a mixed-use building. The city was distributing $10 million to promote downtown living through its Vision 2025 initiative, but the Tulsa Club Development Company was turned down in favor of the TransOK Loft Apartments, The Mayo Lofts, The Mayo Building and The First Street Lofts. Kanbar Properties, owner of the TransOK building, ultimately turned down the $1.5 million it was offered because the firm was not ready to move forward with the development.

The proposal from the Tulsa Club Development Company called for placing retail shops and office space on the first two floors, with the remaining floors residential. It would have contained 47 condominiums ranging from 746 square feet to 1,000 square feet, which were projected to sell for between $111,000 and $150,000 each. In addition, 13 penthouses of 1,300 square feet were projected to sell for $260,000. Completing the project was estimated to cost $6 million.

Separately, the Tulsa Foundation for Architecture has held regular meetings to discuss other options regarding the future of the Tulsa Club building.

The Tulsa Club Building was one of 60 vacant downtown structures that the city identified in 2007 to be targeted for revitalization. An inspection executed with a court-ordered search warrant turned up the violations.

It is unclear how long the court process regarding the foreclosure action will take or how soon the property could go to auction. If the property sells for more than $331,815, the excess money would be used to pay any other creditors, with the remainder sent to Morony. The building has been vacant since the Tulsa Club closed in 1994.

Though there are myriad problems with the interior of the structure, Ball stressed that it is a “stout” building that can be saved.

“It would be a challenge [to renovate the building], but the exterior of the building is limestone, and the structure is exceedingly sound,” Ball said. “It might be difficult to get it back into operation, but I can assure you it would be a challenge to get it down.”

This is an article regarding the ONEOK Field I saw in Urban Tulsa, written by Michael Bates. Marti Newman makes some excellent points. How do you feel about it?

When History Needs to Repeat Itself
Downtown ballpark could fill an historic gap. To prevent a contrived, “iconic” modern design, how about a humanistic approach to urban architecture

Is it dishonest to build a new building that looks old? Is it cowardly?

The questions were raised and answered in the affirmative in a note I received from Tulsa preservationist Marty Newman in response to my recent column about the proposed design for the new downtown baseball stadium.

In that column, I wrote that the modern design approach proposed for the ballpark — glass and metal and not discernibly a ballpark — reflected “a lack of self-confidence. A confident city could have a baseball stadium that looks like a stadium. An embarrassed and self-conscious city has to have an iconic thingamajig.”

Instead, I urged the architects to look back to classic building styles for inspiration to “create a ballpark that looks like it has been around for 100 years and will be around for at least a 100 more.” I suggested resurrecting the style of one of downtown’s lost treasures — the Coliseum, the Dreamland Theater, or the Cimarron Ballroom, to name three.

Newman emphatically takes exception with this approach:

“I believe that new buildings should look new. Their scale, materials, design, etc., should respect the environment in which they are inserted but they should benefit from a contemporary design palette.

“An urban environment is an opportunity to visibly enjoy the physical embodiment of chronology. Re-creating historic styles interrupts this visual display of time and is, inherently, dishonest.”

He singles out the downtown Tulsa Transit station, built in 1998 in a streamline Art Deco fashion, as “a wasted design opportunity and the physical embodiment of a city so lacking in the confidence of its own ability that it was only comfortable repeating the success of the past. If Tulsans of the ’20s, ’30s and ’40s had exhibited the same cowardice we would have no art deco here!”

Later in his note, Newman writes, “I want our new buildings to insert themselves lovingly into the preexisting urban fabric but I very much do not want a brand new building to look like it has been in place for 100 years. We are not the Disney Company and Downtown Tulsa is not a theme park.”

Newman’s credentials to opine about preservation are beyond question. He is a board member of the National Trust for Historic Preservation and played a major role in bringing that organization’s annual conference to Tulsa this year. He rescued the Fire Alarm Building, one of our city’s finest examples of New Deal-era Art Deco.

(more…)

What started out as a novel idea has become a widespread epidemic. The north Cherry Street area has become quite the rage for the walkable, modern lifestyle. Beginning about three years ago with a single company, today the competition is steep and selection abundant for urban lofts and condos.

I hopped on my bike the other evening to get some exercise and thought I’d check in on the progress of this scene. Living across Cherry street myself (in a historic home) I am through this area often and keep in touch with the movement. It is, however, always a surprise to find numerous historical homes have fallen since my last visit to accommodate the town homes and condos moving in.

As with most urban development there is dispute as to whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. In fact it’s become a little heated in the comments section to this article on tulsa lofts.

I for one think there are some great benefits seen by the new development. Though I’m a big fan of historic preservation I am equally a fan of walkable urbanism. There is unfortunately almost always bad with good and in this case the same applies. We do have to sacrifice a few blocks worth of older homes, but in exchange we gain the opportunity to allow Cherry Street to flourish. The increase in population to the area this development creates is extremely healthy for businesses in the Cherry Street area and will likely spur additional development making this area more desirable and valuable. While this may upset a few historic preservationists it is in my opinion healthy for the district and ultimately healthy for the City of Tulsa.

Do you agree? Have anything to add? This is meant to be a discussion. Please share your thoughts below.

From Urban Tulsa, written by Katie Sullivan

Downtown is once again a magnet for development and living. As the urban lifestyle becomes more accessible, hipsters are finding a place of their own around the downtown fringe.

A chain reaction has ignited the streets of downtown Tulsa and surrounding areas. You’ve seen the various stages of construction on Brookside, Cherry Street, 18th and Boston and downtown. Although enticing due to its rarity in our young city, the modern architecture sticks out like a sore thumb.

The loft industry finally made its boom. A market that is well underway in Dallas and Kansas City is now flourishing around our parts at a rate that some developers consider too much too fast. The neighborhood between Cherry Street and the Broken Arrow Expressway is hardly recognizable, with the bungalows that once lined Quincy, Rockford, St. Louis and Trenton Streets now sparse against the two and three-story, loft-style condos and townhomes.

Real estate developers are claiming land in the area like it’s the Oklahoma Land Rush. A few of the projects include the Lofts at Cherry Street, 18th and Boston Lofts, First Street Lofts, The Mayo Hotel Lofts and Metro Lofts. Most of these developers have both finished lofts and projects under construction. Downtown’s Tribune Lofts and Philtower Loft Apartments are readily available for rent. More hotel projects with residential space are becoming an option for those brave individuals looking to call downtown Tulsa home.

The idea behind much of the growth is to create a place for Tulsans to live, work and play. The problem that the city has long faced is a lack of people who want to take that first risky step. Developers from out of town have said that, while Tulsans preach for change, as soon as anyone presents an idea that can spark change, the beggars and pleaders are quick to pinpoint something wrong with every plan (think river development).

Most agree that the BOK Center and the downtown ballpark are examples of people or groups who were willing to take the plunge. Finally, it seems, the city is serious about making downtown a livable environment.

(more…)