The dog issue is interesting. I find it odd that the apartment complexes can allow dogs without providing any green space for them. One day soon, the HOA may have to buy and maintain space for dogs just to keep the neighborhood from turning into one big dog toilet.

We have an urban potty but in good weather I walk my dogs. Richard McKeown was supposed to be creating a dog park but that hasn't happened.

The person with the one story addition wanted a bit of a yard, and a rooftop deck since they don't have one on their brownstone. I'm kind of sorry I didn't think of that.

A lot of places have a poop and scoop ordinance. Does OKC?

I think allowing the one-story construction is just a tremendous mistake. It detracts from the brownstones. Minimally, they should have asked for at least two stories. The construction sticks out like a sore thumb.

This seems extremely short sighted.

It will look fine once there's a 3 to 4 story building next to it and it's bricked and has wrought iron railings on it. Had I owned it, I would have done a trellised wrought iron "roof" but they still could. It just looks awkward because it has no brick, its adjacent to the ugly styrofoam wall and has no railing.

It will look fine once there's a 3 to 4 story building next to it and it's bricked and has wrought iron railings on it. Had I owned it, I would have done a trellised wrought iron "roof" but they still could. It just looks awkward because it has no brick, its adjacent to the ugly styrofoam wall and has no railing.

You're probably right. I can't see how one lot with varied height could be "extremely" anything. And certainly not for the owners. I like how the brownstones are varied in height to begin with, so this isn't that strange.

The proposed flats and the other lots have a lit more potential to not fit in. I'm sure the other owners are just glad it's not going to be something else completely.

Photo from shawnw...

Wow, lots of money and work for a very small addition.

I suppose they will fence in the rest of the area and use it as a yard.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/brownstones031114.jpg

Woeful immediately comes to mind

Okay, wow. That's pretty bad.

How was this allowed? Are the Brownstones over? What about protecting the investment of the urban pioneers like betts who bought in?

All this because they wanted their own greenspace/yard? Money...


With the opposition to the flats/rental units and now the new "private property gates". I am beginning to wonder if maybe some of the people who bought Brownstones wanted them to remain surrounded by this:

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/ptownsnwbrdr/DSCF0973.jpg

The only thing I "sympathize" with is that they are very expensive homes to start with, now surrounded by rental properties, which doesn't help their value. Granted many of them should have known that day would come. But for the homeowners association to allow this is just terrible. If you wanted your own yard then why even move downtown?

How was this allowed?

Good question.

I have no inside knowledge, but it seems the developer owned the land and sold it for a nice little profit. So, money.

I love the Brownstones (except the oft-discussed styrofoam crap that mars them), but this speaks to the importance of market research and timing. The staggering price points for these made them out of reach to the most interested consumers. They have taken too long to sell. Now, they are allowing strange land uses like this. I don't live there but I find this maddening.

also, are the owners or HOA responsible for the exteriors looking like that? what happened to pride in ownership?

This is awful. Such a short-sighted waste of property. In an area where land is drying up very quickly, and all new construction is 2-4 stories and fills the entire lot, this is shameful. It goes 100% against what Deep a Deuce is going for.

Captain Picard Facepalm!!

Guys, I'm going to predict that when this block is full, no one will remember what they were complaining about. The Brownstones are selling at a reasonable pace these days. What happened happened because the developers made the mistake of starting the Brownstones right before the crash of 2008 and I think they misguessed their market, but that is for a different post. When I am in downtown Chicago, one of the things that makes me smile the most is seeing the little two or three story houses amidst the high-rises. They're like little surprises. When this addition is complete, has its rooftop deck, all the walls are bricked and it has three and four story brownstones or flats to the west, it will look like a bit of serendipity in a wall of townhouses. I think it will add a bit of surprise and interest. Hopefully they'll have some nice greenery on that deck.

Why the styrofoam walls look so bad is also a story of 2008. There were supposed to be more townhouses added on, and that styrofoam is part of the build-block wall that is visible. When the crash occurred and they couldn't sell existing brownstones, they painted the ends to match the brick. But developers who are losing money dont always understand that to make money you need to make things look nice. I had multiple conversations with them about those walls and got nowhere. But, with more construction now planned, they are going away, hopefully in the very near future.

As far as our investments go, I knew buying downtown was a risk. I think we'll be fine, but I buy my house to live in and if I eventually make money, great. If not, hopefully I have enjoyed my home and am out no less than if I'd rented the entire time.

Meh…as long as they keep it looking nice once they finish it out, color me undisturbed. If OKC is going to build dense, urban street scape, it will have to come at the expense of height at some point. There's plenty that they can do (and hopefully they do) to make it a nice addition to the district.

Not everything is going to be 4 stories high, that's just not realistic. The real problem I have with this is that there is now a permanent problem with keeping the side of that brownstone from looking like total crap, and it will be visible from quite a few angles throughout downtown.

Guys, I'm going to predict that when this block is full, no one will remember what they were complaining about. The Brownstones are selling at a reasonable pace these days. What happened happened because the developers made the mistake of starting the Brownstones right before the crash of 2008 and I think they misguessed their market, but that is for a different post. When I am in downtown Chicago, one of the things that makes me smile the most is seeing the little two or three story houses amidst the high-rises. They're like little surprises. When this addition is complete, has its rooftop deck, all the walls are bricked and it has three and four story brownstones or flats to the west, it will look like a bit of serendipity in a wall of townhouses. I think it will add a bit of surprise and interest. Hopefully they'll have some nice greenery on that deck.

Why the styrofoam walls look so bad is also a story of 2008. There were supposed to be more townhouses added on, and that styrofoam is part of the build-block wall that is visible. When the crash occurred and they couldn't sell existing brownstones, they painted the ends to match the brick. But developers who are losing money dont always understand that to make money you need to make things look nice. I had multiple conversations with them about those walls and got nowhere. But, with more construction now planned, they are going away, hopefully in the very near future.

As far as our investments go, I knew buying downtown was a risk. I think we'll be fine, but I buy my house to live in and if I eventually make money, great. If not, hopefully I have enjoyed my home and am out no less than if I'd rented the entire time.

Agreed and very well said. I welcome the unexpected and a little bit of "oh, that's odd" to the downtown community. Isn't one of the reasons we chose to live downtown was to get away from the homologous landscape of suburbia? Or is that just me.

I think the outsiders are way more concerned about this than the people that actually live down there. Nobody's investment is going to be harmed by this

Meh…as long as they keep it looking nice once they finish it out, color me undisturbed. If OKC is going to build dense, urban street scape, it will have to come at the expense of height at some point. There's plenty that they can do (and hopefully they do) to make it a nice addition to the district.

Not everything is going to be 4 stories high, that's just not realistic. The real problem I have with this is that there is now a permanent problem with keeping the side of that brownstone from looking like total crap, and it will be visible from quite a few angles throughout downtown.

That particular wall will be bricked when the addition is bricked, very shortly. The other styrofoam walls will be covered once additional flats or brownstones are built, which is going to happen reasonably soon. In the long run, those ugly styrofoam walls will be a bad memory. I told the developers they would sell brownstones faster if they bricked those walls, but they clearly didn't believe me.

So, the Maywood Flats (if built) would go right next to this one story addition?

So, the Maywood Flats (if built) would go right next to this one story addition?

I believe the flats are/were going on the West end.

I believe the flats are/were going on the West end.

Well never mind. I guess this structure is on the West end. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Following the thread this is the NW brownstone?

I think the outsiders are way more concerned about this than the people that actually live down there. Nobody's investment is going to be harmed by this

You're probably right. They're probably just happy it's more land dedicated to an owner occupied dwelling. And when finished that brownstone will probably have some of the best valuation on the block, which helps everyone that actually owns their home in the area. Personally, I think the single family stuff downtown needs a bit more variety. Not that one small 30' wide strip of land makes any difference, but at least it's not exactly the same. And I agree that when people see the wall being finished, no one will care about the addition having a different height.

So, the Maywood Flats (if built) would go right next to this one story addition?

No. Two lots away. And the first flats would be across the street, on the south side.

Photo from shawnw...

Wow, lots of money and work for a very small addition.

I suppose they will fence in the rest of the area and use it as a yard.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/brownstones031114.jpg


Nice little game room he's building.

Nice little game room he's building.

Every time I walk by I shake my head. Seems a waste of space and money. To each his own, I suppose, but for what it probably cost to buy the space and knock out a wall, you'd think they'd have gone a little bigger on the addition.

Every time I walk by I shake my head. Seems a waste of space and money. To each his own, I suppose, but for what it probably cost to buy the space and knock out a wall, you'd think they'd have gone a little bigger on the addition.

Maybe he'll invite you in for a game of pool when it's finished.

Maybe he'll invite you in for a game of pool when it's finished.

Maybe if he offers a beer as well.

Seems like he could have gotten some investors, built a full brownstone, but with half the first floor attached to his unit, sold the rest of the brownstone, making his investors' money back. Or something like that.

Looking at the plans, it doesn't look like there is a direct interior connection between the addition and the townhouse.



http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/bsplan1.jpg



http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/bsplan2.jpg



http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/bsplan3.jpg

You have to think that's an error in the plans, that hall across the front has to connect.

Are they going to brick the entire west side?

This will be fine if something new will be built directly to the west. Drove by yesterday and both me and me stepmom thought it looked gawdy...

Are they going to brick the entire west side?

That would really upset the carefully curated appearance... Next you'll want to know if they're going to brink up the far NE unit.

That would really upset the carefully curated appearance... Next you'll want to know if they're going to brink up the far NE unit.

I was asking because I think it's kind of crappy that they have to pay to have it done. I assume they bought the unit with the thought that eventually the developer would add units and complete the ends. Kind of sucks that they have to do it on their own now.

I was asking because I think it's kind of crappy that they have to pay to have it done. I assume they bought the unit with the thought that eventually the developer would add units and complete the ends. Kind of sucks that they have to do it on their own now.

This is true. You'd think there'd have been something in the covenants, but I would have no clue. Still, it's been a LONG time, you'd think pride in ownership would have led them to do something.

I was asking because I think it's kind of crappy that they have to pay to have it done. I assume they bought the unit with the thought that eventually the developer would add units and complete the ends. Kind of sucks that they have to do it on their own now.


This is true. You'd think there'd have been something in the covenants, but I would have no clue. Still, it's been a LONG time, you'd think pride in ownership would have led them to do something.

Why does it "suck"? IF someone else had bought and built a unit next door, theoretically they would be paying for the brick since it would have been rolled into their purchase price. Since the owner of the unit in mention bought it, why shouldn't they burden the costs, he owns the land it's on!! The owner CHOSE NOT TO HAVE A NEIGHBOR, SO THEY SHOULD BURDEN THE COST!

Why does it "suck"? IF someone else had bought and built a unit next door, theoretically they would be paying for the brick since it would have been rolled into their purchase price. Since the owner of the unit in mention bought it, why shouldn't they burden the costs, he owns the land it's on!! The owner CHOSE NOT TO HAVE A NEIGHBOR, SO THEY SHOULD BURDEN THE COST!

You are correct. As a member of the board, it was a pleasure to work with this owner. While the owner didn't get everything he wanted, he accepted our input and willingly agreed to brick the entire face. Something the developers have been unwilling to do! This addition may seem small, but it protects the sanctity of the street wall and will blend in nicely when the next Brownstone (which is in the planning stages), is built to the west.

All we get from the developers are attempts to gerrymander the vote to allow stucco! Well, that and do away with the architectural committee, build multi-family (with, in some cases, not even one parking space per bedroom), contrary to the very covenants they wrote, tear up our water lines, destroy driveways with heavy equipment, smash gas lines, not control their renters (trash cans left out for weeks, monster trucks parked on the grass, etc.), put up satellite dishes in violation of the covenants, not pay their dues... And then wonder why people won't buy their product.

They are finally selling some of their lots, without the requirement that the developers must be the builder. So, now we are seeing responsible buyers like this one moving in. More lots have been sold, and we are enjoying our new neighbors.

Brick pallets are out for that expansion piece.

For those of you wondering what a random 1 story structure in the middle of a multi-story block looks like:

7587

For those of you wondering what a random 1 story structure in the middle of a multi-story block looks like:

7587

I think sometimes people get so focused of the first 20 feet in front of them that they fail to see things in context. Without context, it is just pretext. Thanks for posting the picture.

So they're adding a two or three story building to the west of this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We don't know.

But even if it were another one story or even an empty lot it wouldn't stick out in an otherwise fully developed core. The only time single-story development or even an empty lot sticks out in dense urban fabric is when it resides on a corner lot. At that point, you notice big time. If I can get back to that spot in the next couple days, I'll try and take a picture to demonstrate, but just to the left of the picture there is a single story building on the corner lot with space on both sides. Now that definitely stuck out to me as I was walking, and it was only once my frame of mind was shifted to paying attention to the development that I saw the mid-block 1-story. I've been meaning to take a picture of such a thing since people threw their hands up in disgust, but always forgot when I was in the streets.

The addition is almost entirely bricked now. I will try and get a photo. From what I could see the other day, the side of the original brownstone has not started.

I think the hang ups with the addition have become laughable. Even the original construction has varying heights of from 2.5, 3, and 3.5 stories (the "halves" being the patios) and this will extend above the one story line like the patios do. And Teo's picture only verifies that if and when it is all filled in, you barely even notice it. I've lived in a major urban city and never thought to question a one story development among multistory ones, especially a private residential one. The set back is consistent and that's what you notice most from the street, and even then, some variation for courtyards, porches, and patios are good, too.

IMO, Rudy's and the House/Office on 2nd street standout more because they are detached and sit next to parking lots, but, so what? I think density of quality development is more important than homogeneity of development.

But whatever, lol!

Calvary Church is a great example of how the corner is the important part in an area still feeling dense. Walking along 2nd street, from LEVEL toward Perry, you don't get an overwhelming sense that the fabric really changes, even with the parking lot east of the Church. I'd still prefer development there, but as urbanity is so new in OKC, as Rover said, we tend to look so skeptically at everything initially presented that we're not envisioning the big picture.

The bigger thing I've noticed in my time away from our region of the country, especially outside of the US, is that we need to find some spots on the city that focus on lot development rather than block development. There's nothing new that's being constructed that looks like the picture above. Everything is one big homogenous project rather than lots of varying projects from a variety of people. There are not a lot of people who can whip out $24M to build something like Mosaic. There are a lot more people who can whip out $800k - $1.25M to build something like the proposed Firehouse project (that unfortunately seems to be dead). The more people that are invested downtown, the quicker things develop and the more unique it is.

In this vein, the for-sale housing in DD is all fantastic, and the scope of something like the Lisbon Lofts is really appreciated. It would be great if someone could convince one of the big-time developers to construct a row of developments that has a lot more variety like in the picture above…it might inspire citizens visiting downtown to realize that they could buy a lot and build themselves. I think we also need to try and find some pressure to put on OCURA to put out some RFPs with these types of requests instead of allowing all of our OCURA property to be massive developments.

So they're adding a two or three story building to the west of this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not on the architectural committee, but one of my neighbors said that the two lots to the west of the one story building have either sold or a sale has been agreed to. I feel quite sure that anything built to the west will be 3 to 4 stories and so the single story addition will just be a bit of variety. I went to Chicago a couple of weeks ago and noticed that there were small buildings tucked away in downtown Chicago more often than I'd realized and you think nothing of it when you see them. If they're attractive, they actually are fun to see in the midst of much bigger buildings.

In this vein, the for-sale housing in DD is all fantastic, and the scope of something like the Lisbon Lofts is really appreciated. It would be great if someone could convince one of the big-time developers to construct a row of developments that has a lot more variety like in the picture above…it might inspire citizens visiting downtown to realize that they could buy a lot and build themselves. I think we also need to try and find some pressure to put on OCURA to put out some RFPs with these types of requests instead of allowing all of our OCURA property to be massive developments.

I agree. There are a lot of possibilities that could help expand the for sale housing mix with quality construction. I think there is interest in custom homes as well, with SOSA as evidence. SOSA still has sort of a disconnected feel and still has a long way to go in terms of upgrading the properties, but despite that, there has been a healthy interest in the area from people who want to custom build downtown. And when the developers of the brownstones have been agreeable to it, there has been interest in the vacant lots for the same reasons. And really, when the developer is the person who is actually going to live in it, you see less interest in cutting corners or wanting to use cheaper materials to increase the margin on the flip. It's their home, after all. You still have to have some oversight and guidelines to protect against spec builders building on the cheap, though. The trick is figuring out a way to ensure quality while still achieving variety. It's always hard to get that variety when the development all comes at once or in spurts, too.

I think Oklahoma and maybe parts of Walnut could be good places to explore the concept of piecing off the lots for custom housing. Midtown is full of undeveloped property too. I don't know what is left in OCURA's hands, but it may be time for them to try and go after something other than the whole block apartment developments. Those can definitely be good and add needed density, but a mix of housing, not just in design, but in type, will create the most character and a more diverse living experience.

I agree. There are a lot of possibilities that could help expand the for sale housing mix with quality construction. I think there is interest in custom homes as well, with SOSA as evidence. SOSA still has sort of a disconnected feel and still has a long way to go in terms of upgrading the properties, but despite that, there has been a healthy interest in the area from people who want to custom build downtown. And when the developers of the brownstones have been agreeable to it, there has been interest in the vacant lots for the same reasons. And really, when the developer is the person who is actually going to live in it, you see less interest in cutting corners or wanting to use cheaper materials to increase the margin on the flip. It's their home, after all. You still have to have some oversight and guidelines to protect against spec builders building on the cheap, though. The trick is figuring out a way to ensure quality while still achieving variety. It's always hard to get that variety when the development all comes at once or in spurts, too.

I think Oklahoma and maybe parts of Walnut could be good places to explore the concept of piecing off the lots for custom housing. Midtown is full of undeveloped property too. I don't know what is left in OCURA's hands, but it may be time for them to try and go after something other than the whole block apartment developments. Those can definitely be good and add needed density, but a mix of housing, not just in design, but in type, will create the most character and a more diverse living experience.

I agree. It would be great for the neighborhood mix to parcel out the land in smaller bits, so that even smaller but not individuals could develop lots. There are places where you could stick 5-7 townhouses, etc and given some latitude, some different architects could bring some diversity to the area.

I agree. It would be great for the neighborhood mix to parcel out the land in smaller bits, so that even smaller but not individuals could develop lots. There are places where you could stick 5-7 townhouses, etc and given some latitude, some different architects could bring some diversity to the area.

Yeah, and those type of developments have the potential to create some shared amenities in sort of a semi-private way like pools, green space, workout areas, and rec rooms. I think that would be a good investment for small developers, because it helps to mitigate the reservations of people in Oklahoma City who have only experienced suburban living, want to try urban living, but feel they may be "giving up" something by doing so.

You know, if the brownstone developers took a lot or two to do this, I bet they'd sell whatever else they want to do much quicker, hmmmmm....

I agree. It would be great for the neighborhood mix to parcel out the land in smaller bits, so that even smaller but not individuals could develop lots. There are places where you could stick 5-7 townhouses, etc and given some latitude, some different architects could bring some diversity to the area.

This reads as though you would be against individuals developing lots, if that's wrong, then disregard the following thoughts.

If OKC wants to develop downtown quickly, and if OKC wants downtown to be a unique place with real genuine character, with people being the main point of interest, then individuals are an important part of the puzzle.

I understand the hesitancy because of an individual's ability to kind of do whatever they want within the framework of some rather questionable ordinances that would allow for development that is not ideal in anyway, but the only way OKC is going to have much of a say in this anyway is by putting out RFPs through OCURA, in which case OCURA can reject an offer that doesn't fit the mold. It really wouldn't be that hard to for OCURA to take a block they own (and remember they're gobbling up C2S), parcel out the land and ask entities/individuals to submit RFPs for corner lots or mid-block lots, with whatever requirements you want to add, and OCURA can then pick the projects that make for a more eclectic outlook. That's obviously a stupid-simplified version of what OCURA would actually do, but the goal needs to be infusing downtown with more individual interest through owner occupied property.

Also, while I am all for sustainability and building things to last, cheap infill (relatively speaking) on a single lot is not the end of the world. Should something bigger and better come along, it's easy to make happen. The same can not be said for block-scale developments even as small as Mosaic.

But at this point, I feel very confident in saying that if individuals don't see an example of what could be in their own city, they'll never jump into making it happen themselves. Nothing is stopping people from doing it right now other than ignorance and fear.

This reads as though you would be against individuals developing lots, if that's wrong, then disregard the following thoughts.

If OKC wants to develop downtown quickly, and if OKC wants downtown to be a unique place with real genuine character, with people being the main point of interest, then individuals are an important part of the puzzle.

I understand the hesitancy because of an individual's ability to kind of do whatever they want within the framework of some rather questionable ordinances that would allow for development that is not ideal in anyway, but the only way OKC is going to have much of a say in this anyway is by putting out RFPs through OCURA, in which case OCURA can reject an offer that doesn't fit the mold. It really wouldn't be that hard to for OCURA to take a block they own (and remember they're gobbling up C2S), parcel out the land and ask entities/individuals to submit RFPs for corner lots or mid-block lots, with whatever requirements you want to add, and OCURA can then pick the projects that make for a more eclectic outlook. That's obviously a stupid-simplified version of what OCURA would actually do, but the goal needs to be infusing downtown with more individual interest through owner occupied property.

Also, while I am all for sustainability and building things to last, cheap infill (relatively speaking) on a single lot is not the end of the world. Should something bigger and better come along, it's easy to make happen. The same can not be said for block-scale developments even as small as Mosaic.

But at this point, I feel very confident in saying that if individuals don't see an example of what could be in their own city, they'll never jump into making it happen themselves. Nothing is stopping people from doing it right now other than ignorance and fear.

No, I'm am not at all against individuals developing, but if that's the approach, I'd like to see a design review committee or some sort of neighborhood focused review process. I'd love to see some individual projects, but it just hasn't happened, so I was just thinking linearly, where maybe we could see some smaller scale multi-unit properties infill some of the larger gaps. The home proposed on the southern edge of the DD area has ostensibly fell through, or is on indefinite hold. I'm not sure the economics work in favor of an individual doing their own design/build. I'd like to be proven wrong, though.

Yeah, and those type of developments have the potential to create some shared amenities in sort of a semi-private way like pools, green space, workout areas, and rec rooms. I think that would be a good investment for small developers, because it helps to mitigate the reservations of people in Oklahoma City who have only experienced suburban living, want to try urban living, but feel they may be "giving up" something by doing so.

You know, if the brownstone developers took a lot or two to do this, I bet they'd sell whatever else they want to do much quicker, hmmmmm....

I've been telling them that for years. I've also been telling them they would sell the Brownstones quicker if they did something to make the styrofoam walls looks better and if they improved the landscaping. I think I'm right too, but now they're selling anyway. So they're for sure not going to listen to me now.

The economics work for an owner-occupant for sure…they just don't work right away. The value of everything in downtown is only going to go up, and go up by a lot. You're not going to double your money in 10 years, but in 25 years, you may just triple your money. Right now, value is only going to go up little by little because there's tons of space all over downtown, but once the space is gone, it's gone…It works the same way in suburban neighborhoods…if you get in early, your value sees a bump once the last lots have been purchased and built out.

The difference is that Deep Deuce will be a happening place for the foreseeable future, whereas most suburbs start hitting the "rolling ghetto" phase mentioned in another thread within 25 years, and the value stops seeing major increase long before that. Those who own Brownstones now, will probably all be holding onto minimum $800k homes in 10 to 15 years and probably well into $1M in 25 years.

That will be true if the buildings that go in around them are quality construction and maintained properly. Urban areas have rolling ghettos also.

That will be true if the buildings that go in around them are quality construction and maintained properly. Urban areas have rolling ghettos also.

Ish.

Quality construction doesn't guarantee anything. Depending on what you mean by maintained properly, sure.

The district will stay alive if it's a place people want to live, work and play. Being so close to Bricktown, Deep Deuce will maintain its viability unless Bricktown goes to hell as well, something that has relatively no chance of happening in the next 10 years, and as long as it continues to reinvent itself with projects like RIP, and the assumed one day renovation of the current UHaul building plus plenty of other infill that will pop up, you're talking about 20 years before Bricktown has any real chance of starting to go south. Top that off with everything directly north of Deep Deuce, it's going to be a while before the area has the chance of experiencing a drop-off in value.

I'd guess that there's not much of a chance of anything in the core stopping in value-gain until OKC starts knocking down swaths of single-family homes to build urban development. Even with all the "sprawling" that's going on in downtown right now, it's really only because OKC is so far from having adequate urban fabric for a city of 600,000+ residents and a metro area of 1.3M.

Quality construction doesn't guarantee anything.

That's an interesting perspective. So, if something requires excessive maintenance and becomes a visual sore and dead spot, it isn't a big deal? If tenants have problems and you can't keep it leased except to low paying renters and they cant afford maintenance, it isn't a problem?

If you don't believe that poor constructions standards don't adversely affect property values, in downtowns or elsewhere, I find that an interesting hypothesis. If you think urban settings aren't subject to rolling ghetto's, I also find that interesting.

Via @tylerbholmes twitter last night. 7599