River development and new sources of city revenue

[rebound]

Yeah, I'm going to have to agree with Conan.  If we don't assume that future generations will utilize a thing, and that it was only being built for those that fit the age/interest pattern at the time, we'd never build anything.  (Or we really would be tearing everything down every thirty years.)  If the resource, be it a park, golf course, lake in river, etc..,  is kept up well, future generations will use it.  It may have to be tweaked (you don't see many racquetball courts anymore...) but good recreational facilities will always be an asset.

But I am with you on hanging onto the best things.  Tulsa had definitely had it's share of destruction of historical structures, etc.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Tulsa has a bad habit of not maintaining it’s assets in re: Riverparks and our park system which the city is now considering selling up to 17 city parks for other development.  Why has there been an issue with the LWD at Zink Lake for several years now?  Because we did not maintain it.  Now, it’s finally being fixed.

Other cities seem to have a sense of history and preserve their gems.  Tulsa doesn’t seem to appreciate history and preservation seems to be a foreign concept in the private and public sectors looking at all the landmark buildings which are now gone from the downtown landscape.

Tulsa builds public amenities with no regard to future maintenance needs or simply cuts corners in the design and engineering phase to simply make it happen which helps to shorten the life-span.  Structures get neglected, erode, then the cheapest thing to do is simply destroy it or sell it off like old City Hall and the Civic Center Plaza or the amphitheater.

Exactly.  The point I made about the Civic Center a couple of years ago....while building the Crashship.

[Conan71]

Exactly.  The point I made about the Civic Center a couple of years ago....while building the Crashship.

The Maxwell House suffered from functional obsolescence moreso than its deferred maintenance issues.  It’s still used as a convention center today.  We needed the additional seats the BOK (Craship, duct tape roll, etc.) offered to get major concerts and events that promoters had passed Tulsa over for years because we couldn’t sell enough seats to get the likes of Paul McCartney, Elton John, or NCAA regional playoff games.

This turned out to be one of the more brilliant moves at marketing Tulsa and helping to revitalize downtown.  That’s one time I’m happy to say I was wrong in my predictions for the new arena.

[TheArtist]

The Maxwell House suffered from functional obsolescence moreso than it’s deferred maintenance issues.  It’s still used as a convention center today.  We needed the additional seats the BOK (Craship, duct tape roll, etc.) offered to get major concerts and events that promoters had passed Tulsa over for years because we couldn’t sell enough seats to get the likes of Paul McCartney, Elton John, or NCAA regional playoff games.

This turned out to be one of the more brilliant moves at marketing Tulsa and helping to revitalize downtown.  That’s one time I’m happy to say I was wrong in my predictions for the new arena.

second that

[Gaspar]

Yeah, the arena is great, but still short on seats. Especially for the cost. We spent a lot of money on stained stainless steel plates, and it looks like we will spend more.   I wish it had been more of a conventional design with far more emphasis on capacity.

[TheArtist]

I don't think downtown development and river development are incompatible or even dependent on each other. That was a fallacious argument used to kill river efforts.

The issues are what jumps at me now. Funding methods and failure to identify a specific need for dams. This reminds me so much of the 60's/70's period in Tulsa when everyone seemed convinced of the obvious logic of urban renewal and destructive expressways. Now we wonder how they could be so short sighted. Long term funding for cities that evens out sales tax revenue and eschewing unsupportable projects no matter how sexy they may seem will keep us from repeating that era.

I was one very vocal person who argued for the dams before and did not think it would hurt downtown development.  But, we are in a different economic climate, development climate and "demand/interest" climate than we were then.  There are times to "seize the day" when certain factors align (including development fads).   Right now I think we would get more economic benefit ("new sources of city revenue" via increased sales tax collections and the benefits that would come from that, including in the future building the dams) from using those funds to further develop downtown, Pearl, Brookside/Crow Creek, and other nearby areas than we would by spending that money on the River.  If anything we can see that the new Kaiser funded park and improvements will step in to add improvements to our "Quality of Life" offerings in that area.  The river will continue to be a great asset and be an even greater one once the park is built as another major jewel along the ever improving River Parks system.  

 If you want more retail sales/tax growth in the city, the Downtown/Mid-town areas that are starting to develop would today be a better investment than dams in the river.  The interest, desire  and potential is greater there now than ever "seize that" and run with it now while the momentum is there.  While now it also seems that interest in putting dams in the river is even less than it ever was with the over all populace and even with developers, other than perhaps the Casino.

[Conan71]

I was one very vocal person who argued for the dams before and did not think it would hurt downtown development.  But, we are in a different economic climate, development climate and "demand/interest" climate than we were then.  There are times to "seize the day" when certain factors align (including development fads).   Right now I think we would get more economic benefit ("new sources of city revenue" via increased sales tax collections and the benefits that would come from that, including in the future building the dams) from using those funds to further develop downtown, Pearl, Brookside/Crow Creek, and other nearby areas than we would by spending that money on the River.  If anything we can see that the new Kaiser funded park and improvements will step in to add improvements to our "Quality of Life" offerings in that area.  The river will continue to be a great asset and be an even greater one once the park is built as another major jewel along the ever improving River Parks system.  

 If you want more retail sales/tax growth in the city, the Downtown/Mid-town areas that are starting to develop would today be a better investment than dams in the river.  The interest, desire  and potential is greater there now than ever "seize that" and run with it now while the momentum is there.  While now it also seems that interest in putting dams in the river is even less than it ever was with the over all populace and even with developers, other than perhaps the Casino.

Consider the impact building a Branson Landing-esque development on the west bank would have had in stifling retail growth in downtown and midtown.  All that after buttering the concrete plant owner to the tune of $50 million for a few acres of land. 

[DTowner]

Now back to the discussion.   Honest question here.  How long should "long term" be for planning a project?  30 years or so is a generation, and with the exception of roadways it would seem that thinking beyond that timeline for most projects would  be speculation, at  best.   

I think it is a great question as every generation falls prey to the latest development trends and fads - Tulsa is hardly alone.
I don’t think you can look at different assets and think on the same time horizon.  Things like office buildings, parks and infrastructure by their nature should have a longer life span than suburban style apartment complexes.  

For all our tut-tutting now, the indoor shopping mall became wildly popular for a good reason.  Then along came big box stores, only to see the rise of life-style centers.  The internet now threatens the viability of much of the brick and motor shopping model.  Even Wal-Mart is planning to build smaller stores that only carry basic items and will serve primarily as a location for customers to pick up their on-line purchases.  Some things we build simply are not built to last because they won’t.

Tulsa’s convention center did not become obsolete because it was poorly designed or Tulsa’s leaders were not forward thinking.  It was built to the standards of the day and what was reasonably anticipated to come.  It was a premier center that was a major stop for most concerts and hosted premier events such as the U.S. National Figure Skating Championship.  It became obsolete because everyone else was not standing pat, and the needs of conventions and concerts/events changed in such a way that it could no longer service them.

The BOK Center, as awesome and successful as it is, will likely be obsolete in 30 years or so.  Then it will have to be massively remodeled or replaced to match whatever the latest and greatest centers then have to have to be successful.  That’s not a failure of the Tulsans who led the way for its creation, but simply reality.

Tulsa’s worst failures over the past 30 years were not necessarily in what we did (although there were plenty of mistakes made along the way), but in thinking that our 1960s structures and investments were enough to carry us into the 21st Century without anything more.  

[AquaMan]

I was one very vocal person who argued for the dams before and did not think it would hurt downtown development.  But, we are in a different economic climate, development climate and "demand/interest" climate than we were then.  There are times to "seize the day" when certain factors align (including development fads).   Right now I think we would get more economic benefit ("new sources of city revenue" via increased sales tax collections and the benefits that would come from that, including in the future building the dams) from using those funds to further develop downtown, Pearl, Brookside/Crow Creek, and other nearby areas than we would by spending that money on the River.  If anything we can see that the new Kaiser funded park and improvements will step in to add improvements to our "Quality of Life" offerings in that area.  The river will continue to be a great asset and be an even greater one once the park is built as another major jewel along the ever improving River Parks system.  

 If you want more retail sales/tax growth in the city, the Downtown/Mid-town areas that are starting to develop would today be a better investment than dams in the river.  The interest, desire  and potential is greater there now than ever "seize that" and run with it now while the momentum is there.  While now it also seems that interest in putting dams in the river is even less than it ever was with the over all populace and even with developers, other than perhaps the Casino.

And I would tend to agree with you but they are just "feelings" based on perceived logic. The same way leaders in the 60/70's just felt that historic old buildings and nearby neighborhoods needed to be razed to make room for expressways to lower crime and speed access to the suburbs. Right now, I can't see and have not seen:
     - any quantitative analysis that shows building dams is worth the large investment, ongoing maintenance and the ecological upheaval they bring
     -No numbers from comparable developments in other cities.
     -No explanation of what development is and where it would be.
     -no projection of sales tax revenues or increased tourism (without tourism the pie is merely being redistributed and then I agree downtown gets screwed). 

I suspect a dam near the casino is the real goal and frankly, they can build one themselves if they desire.

This whole idea of increased sales taxes being generated by river development is just a guess. More likely that nearby homes will increase in value and we could extract some property tax increases but that goes to the county. This is a twofold problem: lack of compelling numbers for river development via this type of dam construction and stubborn insistence that sales taxes are our only route to budget balancing.

We're swinging at fastballs in the dark.

[TheArtist]

Consider the impact building a Branson Landing-esque development on the west bank would have had in stifling retail growth in downtown and midtown.  All that after buttering the concrete plant owner to the tune of $50 million for a few acres of land.  

In hindsight it probably would have been a dud.  The economy was going gangbusters for quite a while and by the time we got on the ball to do something and catch some of that growth, well it was towards the end and right before the recession.  Things are actually doing ok now for parts of the country anyway and I almost get worried that we only have about 5 years before things slow down again.  Would like to see downtown and those other areas get solidly anchored in and well done before that, not go off and start "another project" that by the time it just about gets underway, the rug again gets pulled out from under us leaving it not done or done right and also downtown/mid-town not where it should have been had we kept focus.

[heironymouspasparagus]

The Maxwell House suffered from functional obsolescence moreso than its deferred maintenance issues.  It’s still used as a convention center today.  We needed the additional seats the BOK (Craship, duct tape roll, etc.) offered to get major concerts and events that promoters had passed Tulsa over for years because we couldn’t sell enough seats to get the likes of Paul McCartney, Elton John, or NCAA regional playoff games.

This turned out to be one of the more brilliant moves at marketing Tulsa and helping to revitalize downtown.  That’s one time I’m happy to say I was wrong in my predictions for the new arena.

The Crashship is fine - it's doing much better than I expected and I am very glad for that.  The whole gist of what I have always tried to get at was that we should never have let the Civic Center go down like it did.  It appears as though the general decay was used as part of the rationalization of why we needed new, rather than make the case as a standalone issue.  But perhaps that would have made it even harder to get done...??

Duct tape - that's good, too!   That has been out in the Oklahoma sun too long and slumped sideways.

[Hoss]

The Crashship is fine - it's doing much better than I expected and I am very glad for that.  The whole gist of what I have always tried to get at was that we should never have let the Civic Center go down like it did.  It appears as though the general decay was used as part of the rationalization of why we needed new, rather than make the case as a standalone issue.  But perhaps that would have made it even harder to get done...??

Duct tape - that's good, too!   That has been out in the Oklahoma sun too long and slumped sideways.

The Tulsa Metro outgrew the Civic Center with it's 9600 maximum capacity.  That was more of it.  Too many good acts passing up Tulsa because of not having a venue with enough seats.

The Civic Center still hosts venues it will hold.  Myself, I'm glad I had the opportunity to go see Rush and Foo Fighters and other bands that otherwise would have passed on us for either OKC or Little Rock or Kansas City.

And I like the design of the BOK.  I've been to MANY cookie cutter arenas in the country.  What I can say is that here, the concourses aren't crowded because of the open design.  I went to several NHL games in St Louis at the ScottTrade.  It's a great facility, but the concourse are too narrow.  AA Center in Dallas is the same way.  Toyota Center in Houston.

[Townsend]

Task Force Thinking Trust for Dam Funding



http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/task-force-thinking-trust-dam-funding

A task force continues to figure out how to pay for dams that would put water in the Arkansas River.

Members support a trust funded by sales or property taxes. Tulsa City Councilor Phil Lakin said operating and maintaining low-water dams needs consistent funding.

"It's tons easier to contribute $100,000 a year for 30 years rather than trying to find $3 million in a budget 30 years from now to replace the gates or paint or replace parts of the dam or do anything else," Lakin said.

For Zink Dam, the air bladders that move the gates last about 30 years and cost $1.2 million to replace. Putting $40,000 a year into a designated fund would save enough money to replace them at cost.

Creating an entity similar to Tulsa’s stadium trust could work. Funding from sales tax would have to be approved by voters, while special assessment districts could be created by each participating city’s government.

Vic Vreeland handles government affairs for Creek Nation. He said there’s one wrinkle in the plan.

"Riverwalk on the Jenks side's not in tribal trust, but the casino on the Tulsa side is in tribal trust," Vreeland said. "When it's in tribal trust, there's no taxation there as far as ad valorem tax or sales tax."

The Creeks could contribute payments in lieu of taxes based on what tribal land would generate if it could be taxed.

Tribal leaders support building the dams.

[DTowner]

"Support" is nice, but the real question is how much the Creek Nation is willing to contribute to build a damn.  No single entity stands to gain more than the Creek Nation on its casino/resort/Riverwalk investment in putting water in the river.

[AquaMan]

To me the real question remains why we should build another dam at all. Has not been established. To use an Okie'ism, "we buyin' a pig in a poke".