Northline Development has revealed plans for 14 luxury for-sale units to be built on a vacant lot at the northeast corner of NW 6th and Francis in the South of Saint Anthony (SoSA) area of Midtown.


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/817nw6a.jpg

Plans call for two rows of 2- and 3-story stand-alone units, all with rooftop terraces and attached garages.

The project is yet another is the booming SoSA area, with dozens of largely contemporary residences proposed, under construction or recently completed.


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/817nw6b.jpg

The area still has some of the original small bungalows, but the majority have demolished to make way for larger, multi-story homes that generally offer commanding views of the downtown skyline.

The architect for the project is ADG of Oklahoma City.

The area has become a showcase for modern architecture. See our SoSA Summary (http://www.okctalk.com/showwiki.php?title=SoSA%20District) for a complete index of nearly 40 projects in the area.


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/817nw6.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/817nw6f.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/817nw6c.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/817nw6d.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/817nw6e.jpg

Looks very cool....I like their house on 8th (think that is their project as well).

I absolutely love this. Very similar to Lisbon Lofts and 915 NW 8th.

Question. Will this development block the awesome views of downtown from the personal homes built directly north the past few years?

One key difference between these and Lisbon is they are completely free-standing and detached. No shared walls.

One key difference between these and Lisbon is they are completely free-standing and detached. No shared walls.

That's a huge plus.

This kind of reminds of an area in Austin that is being gentrified. The first townhomes that went in to the area all had great views of downtown Austin, but when newer homes came in they were built taller with a lot blocking their neighbors. I know that comes with the territory, but hopefully that can be somewhat avoided here.

Not only is there better privacy without shared walls, it allows for windows on the east side of each home.

And on the west side of most of them, there will no be windows, so people will get the direct light from the east and not be staring in the windows of their neighbor.

Pretty cool but also much more expensive to build this way. These are not going to be cheap.

Is there a pre-sale contact yet? I know someone that would probably get on that list immediately if possible.

Is there a pre-sale contact yet? I know someone that would probably get on that list immediately if possible.

Looks like it might be Kayla Baker: Northline Development (http://www.northlineventures.com/)

thanks

Looks similar to the Urban 8 townhomes under construction in downtown Tulsa. Also detached but very close to each other.
http://urban8tulsa.com/images/urban8_buildings.jpg

^

Who is the architect for that development? For this project, it's ADG.

Exciting, but alas, another for-sale development probably out of my price range.

Exciting, but alas, another for-sale development probably out of my price range.

Don't despair completely! By offering rich folks a desirable place to live this development will, in its own small way, keep other, existing urban neighborhoods more affordable. To paraphrase Matt Yglesias: it's either the rich people get to build homes in the most desirable part of town, or they all just buy a place in Classen-Ten-Penn (or Lincoln Terrace or the Paseo or Gatewood or, eventually Capital Hill), gut it and put in granite countertops and a master suite.

^

Who is the architect for that development? For this project, it's ADG.

James Boswell

I would really love to know more about the listings if/when they're available. Unit cost, square footage, layout, etc.

I absolutely love this. Very similar to Lisbon Lofts and 915 NW 8th.

Question. Will this development block the awesome views of downtown from the personal homes built directly north the past few years?

One of the pioneers of modern SOSA housing, Brian Fitzsimmons, will likely have his downtown view eliminated. But I guess thats life in a growing downtown.

Doesnt Northline have for sale, or did recently sell, one of their duplex units on 8th for north of $275/ft? And those looked to be pretty basic units and construction. That tells me they will be asking quite a bit for these 14 units. I feel like they might struggle to sell these if they are price near $300/ft.

Doesnt Northline have for sale, or did recently sell, one of their duplex units on 8th for north of $275/ft? And those looked to be pretty basic units and construction. That tells me they will be asking quite a bit for these 14 units. I feel like they might struggle to sell these if they are price near $300/ft.

YEs pretty sure that sold or was under contract. Think it was about $250 ft (450K / 1800 ft).

Looks similar to the Urban 8 townhomes under construction in downtown Tulsa. Also detached but very close to each other.
http://urban8tulsa.com/images/urban8_buildings.jpg

I love these in Tulsa, but wish they had ground level retail spaces considering they went into a dense area with incredible potential. Still two great developments.

Doesnt Northline have for sale, or did recently sell, one of their duplex units on 8th for north of $275/ft? And those looked to be pretty basic units and construction. That tells me they will be asking quite a bit for these 14 units. I feel like they might struggle to sell these if they are price near $300/ft.

They won't.

Steve's article has a video interview with Kayla Baker of Northline Development. She gives more background into their thinking process for this project along with a tentative timeline for development.

http://www.oklahoman.com/article/5422998&headline=Downtown%20Oklahoma%20City%27s%20scare%20 for-sale%20housing%20market%20to%20get%20boost%20from% 20modern-style%20townhomes

Kayla and I met a while back to discuss her plans and she isn't going to have these priced so high that they will be out of reach. I won't mention the pricing she had in mind but I'm certain they will be obtainable by more people than one would think. I'm pretty sure they will go fast at pre-sale. I'm excited for her and SoSA both, as she has a great track record and awesome vision.

At $250 a foot it would be in the $515K-585K area for 2058 to 2340 feet. Based on Pete's comment above maybe lower per sq footage price than that. Ten percent reduction would pull it down into the $450k range on the smaller unit. Lisbon units were priced in the $270 foot range so this would actually be lower than those (different groups I know).

The units will be between 1,642 and 1,922 SF.

The units will be between 1,642 and 1,922 SF.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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...

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.

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?

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

Very true.

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.

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

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.

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?

Where did you read the letters?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not sure the rest of OKC is relevant to this discussion, right? THIS neighborhood is quickly filling up, ganing value, and adding density. That's all that matters for SoSA, right?

Not sure the rest of OKC is relevant to this discussion, right? THIS neighborhood is quickly filling up, ganing value, and adding density. That's all that matters for SoSA, right?

:rolleyes:

Nearly the same thing happened in DeepDeuce with Brownstone and Maywood Loft owners not being happy with the eventual Maywood apartments and now Mosaic. It's almost as if people who move there first have a perceived entitlement to the area.

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.

What you are seeing here is the first appearance of that kind of density in the Midtown area.

OKC will see pockets of this density growing over the next 20 years or so. Gradually these places will grow together, and then I expect development to really take off. At some point you'll be able to walk from Bricktown, through Deep Deuce, down Automobile Alley, through Midtown, down through SoSA, to Film Row, and over to the Farmer's Market, and you won't pass any empty lots. We aren't there yet, but that day is not far away. I think you're going to see a lot more of this kind of development once it proves to be successful. The less land there is available, the more dense these projects will get.

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.

Why can't people who want to retain their view build taller additions? That's what I would do.

:rolleyes:

How on earth did my comments, which I actually phrased as questions because I was seeking clarification and further discussion, merit eye rolls and giving up on the site? I'm still learning about this kind of stuff so I am here for the discussion...

... It's almost as if people who move there first have a perceived entitlement to the area.

Would that be called an entitlement mentality? I think you might be on to something...

Although I do feel sorry for those opposed it is not for the reasons you might think. I feel sorry that they didn't put much (or more) effort into developing their lots appropriate for a major city's downtown. Sure, OKC was desolate and those opposed were urban pioneers who we all greatly thank and appreciate getting downtown started. But, you have to realize that this is downtown and an urban neighbourhood at that, so once things get rolling you have to expect dense development and taller buildings to be erected. One other clue on this is existing city codes have no height or density RESTRICTIONS. clue clue clue - you're in a major downtown setting that likely will take off just like the other side of said downtown did - so plan accordingly.

When I think of SoSa I think of Chicago's Near North Side (in development). There, you have multi-million dollar homes just down the street from major development and attractions of the global world city that Chicago is; homeowners likely built to retain some sort of view as development took off as was expected in Streeterville and River North. SOSA is similar and there should ahve been planning/thought into how it would develop as OKC's Near North Side.

The 'nice' thing for the op-posers is that 1) you can sell your home/land for likely FAR more than you paid/invested into it OR 2) just wait as high-rise development will likely spread NW and the views will be 'back' - ala Chicago Near North side but smaller scale of course.

How on earth did my comments, which I actually phrased as questions because I was seeking clarification and further discussion, merit eye rolls and giving up on the site? I'm still learning about this kind of stuff so I am here for the discussion...

It really didn't merit it at all.

But, you have to realize that this is downtown and an urban neighbourhood at that, so once things get rolling you have to expect dense development and taller buildings to be erected. One other clue on this is existing city codes have no height or density RESTRICTIONS. clue clue clue - you're in a major downtown setting that likely will take off just like the other side of said downtown did - so plan accordingly.

When I think of SoSa I think of Chicago's Near North Side (in development). There, you have multi-million dollar homes just down the street from major development and attractions of the global world city that Chicago is; homeowners likely built to retain some sort of view as development took off as was expected in Streeterville and River North. SOSA is similar and there should ahve been planning/thought into how it would develop as OKC's Near North Side.

There are height restrictions; I believe they are 3 stories or 50'. This was to preserve the cottage in cottage district, though cottages are few and far between.

The ironic thing is that there are no height restrictions on the south side of 6th Street (I believe), so this proposal stands a strong chance of having a "view" of nothing in the not too distant future.