|
Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Renaissance on October 03, 2007, 12:48:02 pm I finally got a scoop . . .
This is really, very exciting if it comes to pass. Not that I have any real hope, but I will definitely cross my fingers. http://tulsabusinessjournal.com/article.asp?aID=46028 quote: Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: cannon_fodder on October 03, 2007, 01:03:31 pm Holy crap, that sounds awesome. Actual development from a private party - perhaps the YES people knew something they couldnt tell us? Mind you, it stops short of actual commitment.
Also: quote: If they are building one seating MORE than that they are banking on getting AAA ball. Which would also be great. But if we stay at AA the extra 10,000 seats will be used about as much as (insert something clever thats rarely used). - - - Hope this happens. God I hope this happens. I'm tired of whispers and announcements and then nothing (actually, sometimes regression - like when whats his nuts tore buildings down after promising to renovate them, and then making a parking lot after promising green space). Great scoop Floyd! (http://tulsabusinessjournal.com/images/photos/hiltonoutside.jpg) Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: sgrizzle on October 03, 2007, 01:10:42 pm So Maybe that is why they want to move, so they can go for AAA ball.
These developers have made announcements about this project before, but it sounds like they are serious now. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Renaissance on October 03, 2007, 01:19:29 pm You know, the only AAA ballparks that have that kind of seating capacity are dual-use stadiums that can also accomodate . . .
wait for it . . . paging USRufnex . . . just a wild thought based on that capacity number . . . Soccer. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: sgrizzle on October 03, 2007, 01:20:43 pm quote: Quick, someone shine a spotlight that looks like a soccerball into the sky... Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: carltonplace on October 03, 2007, 01:34:27 pm But that will only upset Patrick
Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Townsend on October 03, 2007, 01:40:08 pm Wow, 30 minutes since the original post and no negatives yet. Could everyone be pleased with this sort of announcement?
Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Renaissance on October 03, 2007, 01:52:14 pm Oh don't kid yourself--they're just waiting on the write up by "the daily paper" (can't EVER lend the World the credibility of mentioning it by name!) so they can get more details to twist and turn and rail against.
Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Townsend on October 03, 2007, 02:00:40 pm I know. I was just throwing that out there to make it shiny and happy for the moment.
Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Oil Capital on October 03, 2007, 02:22:27 pm Tulsa Landing is potentially a VERY exciting project. This is not really much more information than we had before. This article does, however, raise some questions; red flags, if you will.
We have been repeatedly told that the funds in the River Tax allocated to real estate acquisition will be replenished when the real estate is re-sold to developers. It's not really sounding like Huffman is planning on buying this real estate and replenishing the river fund...("Passage of the vote is necessary for land acquisition," Huffman said Wednesday morning.) ("Ownership of the property would be decided at a later date, he said. "Once the tax has been approved, then the project goes to developers like us. We have not figured out land ownership yet.") Interesting, very interesting... Doesn't really sound like what we've been told regarding the River Tax real estate acquisition funds... Sounds like they are heading down the road of having the river authority buy the property, and leasing it (on very favorable terms of course) on a long-term lease to the Tulsa Landing people. There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with that approach, but it's not what we're being sold by the River Tax marketers. Another little problem. Didn't the owner of the Drillers already rule out a Tulsa Landing location? AND, FWIW, we need the baseball stadium DOWNTOWN. Anything else will be another huge missed opportunity in the dream of a revitalized downtown tulsa. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Conan71 on October 03, 2007, 02:23:47 pm Holy crap! We gotta vote for this now! Little kids, baseball, Grandma, pools for north Tulsa, Apple Pie in the sky!
What does that do to the Driller's letter of intent with Jenks on a new ball park? Nice add to the private plan. Problem with AAA ball is it's still not "the show". They will never draw 20K people to a baseball game in Tulsa, maybe 12 to 15K for the odd game. The Drillers have been a pipeline for some pretty choice players over the years. Baseball fans in the farm leagues are going to go regardless if it's A or AAA. It's not going to create that much more interest except if you got someone like A-Rod rehabbing for a few games. I'm not entirely poo-pooing this, just saying 20 to 22,000 seats doesn't mean there's an donkey for every seat. A new stadium along the banks would have a real "cool" factor to it. Now one benefit I could see is as this being a large outdoor concert venue down on the river which might get some bigger acts during the summer tours. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: sgrizzle on October 03, 2007, 02:28:51 pm Chuck Lamson's letter with the river district people just said he was interested and was completely non-binding. He also said that jenks riverfront was his #3 choice. Tulsa riverfront was his #2.
I am hoping the added seats are for amphitheater or alternate sports. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Conan71 on October 03, 2007, 02:29:47 pm Eh, I just had to crap the thread before FB got a chance.[:D]
Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Renaissance on October 03, 2007, 02:36:22 pm There they are! (kidding)
OC, those are solid points. It definitely sounds like they're hunting for a favorable lease from the city. And I agree this isn't what we were originally sold, at least as far as rumors go (nothing on the ballot either way). I can deal with a sweetheart lease deal as long as the development itself is sound. I will be less than thrilled if it's a carte blanche land grant by the County. But I agree that one way or another, the City/County is going to have to subsidize this thing to make it happen. And I'm okay with subsidization--as long as the city retains some modicum of design leverage in doing so. I'm honestly thrown for a loop by the suggestion that this thing will have a 20,000 stadium, since that's a necessity for AAA baseball. This has got to be nothing more than pretty pictures, or else a smokescreen. First of all, it takes some serious heavy lifting to get a AAA franchise--there is only one per MLB team so we'd have to snag it from Des Moines or Sacramento or someplace like that. Second, AAA seating standards are in the 8,000-12,000 range. 20,000 is not a baseball stadium number I'm used to seeing; it's either 9,000 for a new intimate minor league park or 35,000 for a new "intimate" major league park. And yeah--didn't Lamson say it was basically downtown or Jenks? I thought the river had been ruled out as well. I have a feeling we're going to see something basically identical to the Jenks proposal: a pretty picture with a stadium as a placeholder. I would also reiterate that the capacity figure does seem in line with what we keep hearing as an ideal MLS venue size. Could we be seeing the beginnings of a hint-hint to soccer people? Who knows. We'll know more when the World gives us a write up tonight or in the morning. Agreed, though--this is potentially VERY exciting, but I'm not getting my hopes up too high just yet. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Renaissance on October 03, 2007, 02:40:16 pm quote: I didn't mention this above but I completely agree. We NEED the Drillers to be in a new park downtown, either at OSU-Tulsa or on the site of the Hartford building. Lamson has got to be one happy camper, though--he's going to basically have his pick of venues. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: carltonplace on October 03, 2007, 02:52:12 pm I want the Drillers downtown. I'm very happy that the west bank could be developed and I'll be the first one there for happy hour, but down town needs a baseball field more than the river does. It still doesn't diminish the announcement for me.
Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Conan71 on October 03, 2007, 03:50:25 pm Feh, I think we ought to throw a penalty flag at the yes campaign for "piling on".
Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Sangria on October 03, 2007, 03:55:47 pm I was just thinking Tulsa needs a brand new baseball stadium for people to not go to.
Are those people on drugs?[:D] If not.... can someone please pass them a reality pill before it's too late? Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: dsjeffries on October 03, 2007, 05:16:33 pm KTUL reported on this and had some renderings... Renderings which made me smile--they were multi-level and at least looked like they could have apartments over businesses, and that's something that was mentioned in the KTUL story... Residential makes me happy. [^]
KTUL says that it will include a 4-star hotel, as well... something not mentioned in the TBJ article. I'm Very excited about this development--I've been anxiously waiting for some kind of announcement or visual representation of their vision. So far, it looks promising. I don't care what size the stadium is, really, and from the maps, the stadium could be kicked out of the plan and it would still be an impressive development--the stadium is at one end of the development across the street... I DO like the fact that it seems favorable for soccer! :-) It's interesting that they're also including a 'major cultural attraction or museum' as part of the plan... Now, who wants to guess what this attraction or museum is? KTUL just put up the video and article. You can pause it on the maps and renderings... Check it out: http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/1007/460761.html (http://"http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/1007/460761.html") I'm actually taking screenshots of the renderings... They'll be up here shortly. (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1193/1480078908_e7ffaf6f1f_o.jpg) (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1130/1480078682_3a14d4cd80_o.jpg) (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1245/1480077198_2c2051ba45_o.jpg) (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1137/1480077810_bfcee87289_o.jpg) Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: YoungTulsan on October 03, 2007, 05:28:23 pm That baseball stadium in the rendering would really have a nice view.
That being said, 22,000 seats? I heard a report on the radio (I think KRMG but I sometimes cant tell them and KFAQ apart when not paying attention) that merely referred to it as a "sports facility". 22,000 seats would make it prime for a potential MLS stadium. At the very least it should be multi-purpose. So what would happen if we got AAA baseball? Would that shut down the Drillers? Would they keep the Drillers franchise and name - and upgrade/trade up players? Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: bassfisher74133 on October 03, 2007, 05:50:42 pm Honestly I was a Vote NO person but now after seeing this plan I have decided to vote YES! On the river.
Hopefully someone can educate me on this river plan because I have a few questions on more of a south Tulsa friendly plan. Basically some of the questions I have are back when the river plan was originally drawn up it was almost the full river bed that was being developed from 101st to 21st (I believe) and it included water taxi’s and little river channels that made small river walks up and down the river bank… is this still planned or have they done away with dressing up the south Tulsa area??? Where can I look at the art renderings for there plan? Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: YoungTulsan on October 03, 2007, 06:00:13 pm quote: I think it was pie in the sky thinking all of that INCOG river corridor stuff was going to happen anytime soon. (assuming the tax passes) we'll get the low water dams, a few new park areas donated, and some commercial development will pop up here and there. But funding for the entire Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan (I think thats what it is called) would cost many times more than what we are currently freaking out at each other over. In other words, it is easy to make renderings of all this stuff on the river, but funding it is an entirely different story. Maybe if this tax passes, we'll have another "phase" to vote on in 7 years - or maybe an entire penny when 2025 runs out. And it will always remain incomplete enough to continue to vote on more taxes and keep the construction companies rolling in the green. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Rico on October 03, 2007, 06:34:27 pm Si este es lo verdad....?
It sounds very, very, interesting..... They say it can all be built in two years...? Must be a lotta private dinero on the table. This position at a poker table is when you get to see everyone's cards... It would be normal to hear a follow up from the City Hall.. As I said Kenosha.... "For a ten pound bag of 100 Dollar Bills$$$$ I will vote yes." This may weigh pretty close to 10 pounds. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: dsjeffries on October 03, 2007, 07:47:14 pm (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1332/1480721084_5fadc41b5a_o.jpg)
I was looking more closely at the renderings and noticed something VERY interesting about the above picture.... I noticed the oil derrick earlier, but this time, I noticed the Drillers' logo... See it now? I know it's just Huffman's plan, but maybe it indicates that a river location actually hasn't been ruled out. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Rico on October 03, 2007, 08:25:06 pm The way this vote will happen... If passed.. The land acquisition would be property placed in the hands of the City of Tulsa. Then it would be put out as an RFP...(Request for Proposals) I think they have to do that according to law. What sort of guarantee does the City or Mr. Huffman have that he would be the chosen RFP..? Is it legal to place property out on an RFP basis.. if the winning RFP has already been chosen? Could one of the fine Attorneys on the board help with this...? [?] Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: sgrizzle on October 03, 2007, 08:25:32 pm I really like the renderings. Structured parking and pedestrian atmosphere.
Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Renaissance on October 03, 2007, 08:49:35 pm quote: No question, the RFP process would have to be followed. What has happened here is that Huffman and HCW have put their cards on the table early. They want the voters to know that if they support the property acquisition, there will be at least one viable, financed proposal immediately on the table. They probably also want to head off competitors. There's nothing improper about this--it's a strategy by the developer to take full advantage of the political process. That's why this "Tulsa Landing" is still nothing but pretty pictures. There is most likely a design team on standby, waiting on poll results, to put some specifics on paper. The bottom line is: unlike the TDA's acquisition of the Towerview property, and unlike like old City Hall, there's a developer with financial backing waiting in the wings. This is not a gamble. This is a sure thing, if the voters approve the property acquisition. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Double A on October 03, 2007, 09:39:21 pm I think this is a sure thing even if the vote fails. I still vote no.
Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: RecycleMichael on October 03, 2007, 10:36:21 pm quote: Please take time to read, doubleA. The construction will hinge on Tulsa County voters approving the sales tax on Oct. 9, said Rick Huffman, CEO. Why would you try and write something else? What possible knowledge do you have that the rest of Tulsa doesn't have on this project? Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Double A on October 03, 2007, 10:57:45 pm quote: Just my opinion, never made any other assertion, so don't try to put your spin in my mouth cause it would make it unclean. Maybe you should take the time to read? Here's another opinion, cronyism, nepotism and the good ole' boy network are what holds Tulsa back and the family llc is the personification of that. How'd ya like them apples? Cheers. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: BKDotCom on October 04, 2007, 06:58:29 am quote: quote: Where's the spin?? Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Breadburner on October 04, 2007, 07:13:41 am He's a developer he can by his own land.....
Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: sgrizzle on October 04, 2007, 07:27:12 am quote: As mentioned in one or the articles, the land may stay city property, leased to the developer. Tulsa's Urban development group will tell you there have been dozens of developers consider Tulsa, all scared off because they need the land to be in one parcel. It's not the cost of the land, it's getting it in one parcel. The east end is an example of why not having it in one parcel is a bad thing. We now have multiple developers owning pieces and the remaining land owners jacking up their prices enormously. Urban Tulsa wants millions for their on-ramp shack. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: cannon_fodder on October 04, 2007, 07:43:00 am I'm going to do some more research into this project and see if I can't find anything, I heard some whispers and will try to confirm the details they floated.
However... The LARGEST stadium in AAA right now is 22,000 and that's in Omaha. Most are in the 10-15,000 seat range (what we have now). Of the AAA teams it seems Charlotte (White Sox) and the Yankees teams might move (Yankees want to move their team down the road, Charlotte wants to bid on a MLB franchise), the mention of Des Moines is a failing one as they have a wonderful new stadium and amazing fan support - too bad, I'm a comes fan. [edit]One more thing, the NEW stadiums on the following list are in the 10-12K range. [/edit] AAA Stadiums: http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/aaaballparks.htm Not sure what a 22+K sports venue would be for in Tulsa if not MLS or AAA, that's a ton of people. on a side note, this is in fact the same line the developer has been giving for months: http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2007/08/24/2885371.htm Just letting a little more slip to get the votes. Smart move from him. And yes, as mentioned above - the developer said getting 100 urban acres in a single plot is the problem. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: swake on October 04, 2007, 08:06:07 am quote: No, this isn’t piling on. The piling on happens in the next couple of days when based on this development plan Jim Inhofe announces his support of the tax plan. I will say it again, 54%-46% yes. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Oil Capital on October 04, 2007, 08:15:54 am quote: This morning's Whirled says that the "sports facility" is NOT for minor league baseball. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Renaissance on October 04, 2007, 08:33:35 am quote: They're sniffing out MLS. I'm sure of it. The "multi-sport facility" is a placeholder until the vote result is known. Too much financial insecurity to even mention bringning a franchise here at this point. Where they hell is that USRufnex dude? I'm just going on what he's posted in the past. And yes, this, plus Inhofe, *might* put the plan over the edge. Maybe. 51-49, if we're lucky. Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin . . . Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Conan71 on October 04, 2007, 09:25:53 am The timing of the renderings is not all that surprising. In lieu of having the major details worked out, throw out a little more window-dressing. Even though Huffman's development is but one potential for the RFP, they've got someone who could crank out some quick renderings and build more excitement.
I did notice from the rendering that the ball park or multi-sport facility would be on the former city maintenance and engineering facility. That would be a logical use of the land. I'm still not swayed, patience people, patience. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: brunoflipper on October 04, 2007, 09:38:24 am c'mon 7...
(http://www.atlantasilverbacks.com/siteadmin/news_images/stadiuminfo.jpg) Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: sgrizzle on October 04, 2007, 09:38:37 am Is USRufnex being intentionally silent?
Someone, take him to gitmo and see what he knows! Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: cannon_fodder on October 04, 2007, 10:31:28 am We find out USRuf is really George Kaiser and he has bought the KC Wizards. They are moving here no matter what, but he wants his river tax to pass. I love you George, do you need a personal attorney?
Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Conan71 on October 04, 2007, 11:53:10 am quote: Bruno, I'm not much of a soccer guy. Put a 3/8 mile dirt oval in the stadium and I'm in. [;)] Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Double A on October 04, 2007, 01:31:31 pm quote: Chili bowl, I presume? Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: sgrizzle on October 04, 2007, 01:39:22 pm quote: Chili Bowl is made famous by it's indoor location and should stay indoors. But with no circle cirt racing at the fairgrounds or anywhere else in tulsa, something needs to be done. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Conan71 on October 04, 2007, 02:58:16 pm Grizz is right. Being indoors is the cool factor, that and the time of year ensures huge car counts.
I still remember buying a "First Annual" Chili Bowl shirt in 1987 before the races and chuckling thinking they effed up by putting "annual" on it as hardly anyone figured it would happen again. A race track by the river would never, ever fly, just couldn't resist tossing that one back @ Bruno. One of these days, I'll scan some of my old racing photos and post one from time-to-time. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: T-TownMike on October 04, 2007, 03:12:19 pm Here's some orher cool renderings if the tax passes....
http://ourriveryes.com/maps-and-renderings/ Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Kenosha on October 04, 2007, 03:20:06 pm Those are some awful large footprints on a few of those buildings...I'm just sayin'.
Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Double A on October 04, 2007, 05:18:33 pm quote: A ZEV track might fly. Noise pollution and emissions would not be an issue. NASCAR for tree huggers? Stranger things have happened. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Rico on October 04, 2007, 06:09:45 pm quote: Thanks Floyd..... Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Rico on October 04, 2007, 06:19:44 pm quote: pssst... conan.. Bruno is in to like major league parties and dice tables... and those French girls with the... well you know.. [}:)] Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: TheArtist on October 04, 2007, 07:52:53 pm quote: Patience patience. Don't go with the first person that asks ya to the dance.... Hows that Towerview property going? Hows that East End development going? How many years do you have in mind for us to wait? Decades perhaps? Where are all the other offers to dance? Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: brunoflipper on October 05, 2007, 06:59:15 am oh well, got some more dirt on the "stadium"...
(http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/29/53/23235329.jpg) nonetheless it is nice thought... Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Oil Capital on October 05, 2007, 07:47:05 am While this appears like it would be a great development, won't it pretty much kill off any hope for significant downtown retail/restaurant/club/pedestrian development for a very long time to come? I mean, there's only so much demand for central city retail/housing/urban lifestyle development and I'm afraid Tulsa Landing would pretty much satisfy that demand for quite some time.
Personally, I think we'd be better off with just several restaurants developed on the west bank of the river, keeping the "festival grounds" (BTW, where will we be having Octoberfest and other festivals...?), rather than plopping down an entire suburban lifestyle center on the festival grounds... Imagine several restaurants directly on the west bank, with large decks on the river with the beautiful view of Tulsa's skyline. Have some little ferry boats to take people to and from the restaurants from the east bank... Somehow provide a better connection to downtown and do something more to encourage retail/club/restaurant/housing/pedestrian lifestyle development DOWNTOWN. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Breadburner on October 05, 2007, 07:51:20 am Oktoberfest will probably end up in Pryor....I cannot stress this point enough...The Crow Creek corridor needs to be developed not the freaking river....The Improvements to the trails I whole heartedly agree with.....
Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: cannon_fodder on October 05, 2007, 08:05:42 am Oil Capital:
Such things feed off of each other. While there is only so much demand, a big retail development actually creates demand for MORE retail in the area (think 71st Street after Woodland Hills Mall). Corporate heard mentality I guess. Think about it, why are retailers trending South? Because that's where the new developments are. Get new retail and residential near downtown and downtown becomes a viable place to live/develop etc. I think this will help DT in the long run, but may preclude a home run development package for a few years. Breadburner: If Oktoberfest was moved ANYWHERE outside the City of Tulsa I would be EXTREMELY pissed off. I'm having 6 people fly in from Chicago, Des Moines, and Minneapolis for Oktoberfest this year - that's how big of a deal it is in my household. I see no reason why the parkland in that area would not compliment any development or if need be Oktoberfest be held downtown like in Munich. Beer tents, beer bars, and chicken hats. Tulsa Oktoberfest is wundervoll! Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Conan71 on October 05, 2007, 09:51:07 am quote: Honestly, I think if it fails, we will see this again in a year or two, not decades. At the very least, they should have waited on the USACE environmental report due this fall. Secondly, I think it wise to wait and see what the construction fall out is going to be after the "mass exodus" before Nov. 1. Construction wages are bound to go up and passing the tax on Oct. 9th does not lock contractors into paying the same wage structure they are paying today. IOW- I bet construction cost will wind up being 25% higher than what has been presented in the estimates which means the tax will need to be extended or promised features will be left off from the final plan. I would think it wise to go back and do further studies on project costs. It's not like doing a small project with the Parks Dept. in 8 weeks, lots more details to flesh out. [;)] Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Double A on October 05, 2007, 09:55:15 am quote:This will be a cannibalistic tax that will only shift collections from other areas of town. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: bassfisher74133 on October 05, 2007, 10:01:38 am quote: So this Links http://www.incog.org/ark%20river/default.htm renderings are nothing but a pipe dream? This is my problem with this whole river plan there are all these art renderings and none of them are the actual plan. I was under the impression the Do The River First.com was the very latest to be done. can someone point me to the actual web page that shows what im voting on. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: dsjeffries on October 05, 2007, 10:57:40 am quote: http://www.ourriveryes.com (http://"http://www.ourriveryes.com") shows all the plans and renderings of what THIS project entails. The INCOG site shows the entire Master Plan. This project includes parts, but not the whole plan. It would take several hundred million more dollars to incorporate the remainder of the Master Plan. You can also check out http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/content/2007/river_site/default.aspx (http://"http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/content/2007/river_site/default.aspx") http://www.ktul.com/external.hrb?p=riverplan (http://"http://www.ktul.com/external.hrb?p=riverplan") or http://www.kotv.com/special/river/ (http://"http://www.kotv.com/special/river/") Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: YoungTulsan on October 05, 2007, 11:14:27 am quote: Don't be so quick to fall for the our river yes website. Tell me, PLEASE tell me, where in the tax there is money for THIS: (http://www.ourriveryes.com/images/maps/large/018-Broken-Arrow-Persp-I.jpg) (click to enlarge) What? There isnt! All of those concepts are just that. Concepts. Feel good images of what MIGHT be. Apparently, if we build dams upstream from Broken Arrow (which in turn puts zero new water in the river for BA) puts some sort of impetus to Broken Arrow to do what looks like a several hundred million re-make of Indian Springs? Again, it is easy to draw a concept, but the stuff still requires money. Why does the ourriveryes website have a rendering of the trail improvements? THEY ARE NOT A PART OF THE TAX. Work has already begun. The money was already donated. One of the few things on their rendering that will actually come true. As far as I know, the QuikTrip people are the only ones with actual concrete designs for their donation (the 41st street meeting area). All of the other "Riverfront developments" pictured on that site are what someone imagined "what could be" after smoking some potent stuff, not worrying about how costly it would be. Is Kaiser's gift paying for this? (http://www.ourriveryes.com/images/maps/large/015-71st-St-Persp-G.jpg) (click to enlarge) That looks nice. I hope it is being donated (because there is NO TAX MONEY in the bill for this) - But it looks, to my glance, like something that would take a couple hundred million to re-landscape over half a mile complete with a large pond/fountain and hardened up shore-lines. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Oil Capital on October 05, 2007, 11:52:55 am Thank you for pointing that out YT. I, too, noticed that the "Ourriveryes" website includes renderings of a lot of stuff that is NOT part of the tax package OR the donation package (at least as far as we've been told). The mendacity would be hilarious if it weren't potentially so costly.
Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Renaissance on October 05, 2007, 12:50:06 pm First of all, you're off topic.
Second of all, gathering spaces. I'm not going to question your reading comprehension, since you're intelligent individuals. But why are you blind to the fact that this plan includes a hell of a lot of funding for new gathering spaces along the river? You've questioned that concept before, OC. You can mock the idea of them, you can suggest that no one will use them, but to play dumb is insulting to all of us. I don't have the time or energy to lay it out in mind-numbing detail, but believe me, what's in the drawings is a conceptualization of what's on the ballot combined with the promised donations. Back on topic- I worry about canniabalizatoin too. I worry this will set downtown back. But the dance card is nearly empty. One suitor (Global) couldn't deliver. This one can, and in a spot that is still revitalizing to the urban core. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: TheArtist on October 05, 2007, 12:55:23 pm I don't think a Tulsa Landing type development will hurt downtown at all. The types of things going on in downtown are very different from what is proposed for Tulsa Landing. I do wish there was more residential with the TL, but they can always add more later. Plus the object is to grow the pie not shuffle pieces around. We want to bring more people into town, give them more things to do, get more people to live in the central core.
Tulsas population is going to have to grow somewhere, assuming we want it to grow. Downtown, certain spots along the river, areas in north Tulsa, and other infill spots are the most likely candidates. Most of the suburban type land available in south Tulsa is quickly being used up. More dense urban type development in Tulsas core has to be an option. As for the renderings. I complained long ago about what I saw as being on the west bank in the INCOG plan at 21st. But was reminded that these are only possibilities for what can go in the area. There are actually several renderings of what can go at 71st, the original incog plan, that I liked, then there is also the new version that yes, Kaiser is paying for. Again, I dont think the incog plan was a real plan but just showing what that area was for and some possibilities. Whether the Kaiser plan that he wants to do at 71st is down to actual nuts and bolts surety I dont know. If he wont be building it because the tax doesnt pass, (it includes a large dock that goes out over the river and if there is no water in the river, well there is no need for there to be a dock)then he may not want to bother with getting an architect to do detailed plans and builders lined up. Many developers, even after they have funding, continue to refine and adjust their developments. The riverwalk phase 2 is an example. He had an initial idea of what it was going to be like, but over time he changed the plan and even added on. Banks and lenders often have a say during the process (they are often push against mixed use developments because it is difficult for them to figure out just how to make the numbers work, Is this retail? A shopping center? and do we crunch the numbers that way? Is this an entertainment venue? A condo or housing project and how do we figure the risks? When you get to the point of meeting with the lenders they often have their own opinions and say. These developments cant be finalized until later down the road for many reasons, including possible tennants and who turns up. They dont even know if they are going to be able to do anything at this point. The lenders would look at you like you were crazy at this point. Is it going to be a tiff? Renting property from the city or buying? What type of infrastructure? Is there going to be a baseball team? etc. I dont know why they have some renderings of things that arent in this particular plan. Other than possibly some tiny amount of money will be going to them? Isnt Bixby getting a token amount for something? The BA thing I am not sure is getting anything and so should not be on there at all imo, but has been part of their plans. They also show the incog master plan maps and there is a lot of stuff that will not be built with this plan on those. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Double A on October 05, 2007, 01:22:00 pm quote: Historically speaking, the gathering places will just be another spot on the river for perverts seeking perverts to engage a little rough trade on the river. I wonder if we have enough money in the city budget to station the sex crimes division on the river? Looks like we're gonna need to if this passes. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Double A on October 05, 2007, 01:24:05 pm quote: There isn't one, because the way the ballot language is written, they can pretty much do whatever they want. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Oil Capital on October 05, 2007, 02:16:59 pm quote: I didn't say anything in this thread about gathering places.... Not sure what your point is. What about that Broken Arrow "concept sketch" complete with water in the river (downstream from the Jenks low-water dam, no less)? How is that included in this plan? Even without water, it seems QUITE unlikely there will be enough money to acquire land and pay for infrastructure for that "concept", the "concept" in Jenks, the "concept" in Bixby, the "concept" in Sand Sprins (as the river tax people like to call it) AND the Tulsa Landing. Clever way to try to get votes from all five cities, but it does not strike me as the most honest presentation I've ever seen, to say the least. (I'm a little surprised they haven't thrown in Collinsville and Owassa concepts, or suddenly remembered that there are a few million dollars of the donations that, oh, yes, were ALWAYS meant for those cities...) Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: waterboy on October 05, 2007, 02:20:50 pm Floyd-" I don't have the time or energy to lay it out in mind-numbing detail, but believe me, what's in the drawings is a conceptualization of what's on the ballot combined with the promised donations."
Believe me Floyd, they are depending on this response. They have flooded these posts with as many stupid allegations as time permits with no real support for their claims forthcoming. Multiple threads by the same folks all with some "new" fallacy or weakness in the plan. The idea is to poke as many little holes in the plan as they can by hinting at incompetence, insider activity, and rushed planning. By poking all those little holes they believe the public will perceive that it is a leaky boat. As far as cannabalizing, thats also a weak argument. I once asked a K-mart manager if he was concerned about a new Target opening up nearby. He said he was excited as hell. They do excellent site research, advertise a lot and wherever we are near one, our store shows consistently increasing sales. The synergy of pumping more capital into an area and seeing it create more sales for everyone else is well known. That is why a shopping center always wants a visible, active anchor who spends money to bring in customers. All the little stores want to coat tail. It may be counter-intuitive but no mystery to those involved. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: waterboy on October 05, 2007, 02:28:27 pm I believe the BA rendering was done before the Mayor changed direction of the city and dragged longstanding river development supporters along with him. It still is a good concept of what could happen there. Broken Arrow doesn't seem to think they have any shoreline. Odd. Its right behind the trees at the Sports Complex, you know, right near where some of the BA fathers want to put a golf course. Golf being a sport of common folk and all. Maybe they didn't want any of that river development interfering with their course.
Someone said that there would be no water in the river around BA with this plan. That is incorrect. There will probably be no water if they never do anything with their shoreline. Why would Jenks release water if BA doesn't care. BTW, the crook in the river at BA already insures there is water there more often than the stretch in Tulsa. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Conan71 on October 05, 2007, 03:09:06 pm quote: I do. Sales job. I'm surprised no plan to deal with the rough slum to the west of the concrete plant has been mentioned. That's really going to be a black eye to have right across the street from a prime development. C'mon Yes'ers- come up with a plan for that blight by next Tues! Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Renaissance on October 05, 2007, 03:47:12 pm quote: Gentrification based on increased property values, which will be brought about by city-supported commercial development in the area. Proven to work in cities across the nation, and - you guessed it - across the state. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Renaissance on October 05, 2007, 03:57:06 pm quote: I wasn't really coming after you -- I was coming after YoungTulsan, the guy who thinks the kayakers he sees in the river are part of a grand conspiracy to convince him to vote yes. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: TheArtist on October 05, 2007, 03:58:01 pm quote: Have you seen some of the homes that are right near the Riverwalk in Jenks? Do you remember what some of those booming areas near downtown OKC used to look like. Talk about slums. Someone from OKC mentioned that OKCs roads ranked an F. They passed their redevelopment plans before doing major arterial road repairs. And are now getting ready to vote on a big road program. Any truth to that? Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Double A on October 05, 2007, 04:12:40 pm quote: How many K-marts have closed their doors in Tulsa? Too easy. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: USRufnex on October 05, 2007, 04:31:58 pm quote: Here's one for ya Conan... http://blogs.jsonline.com/businessofsports/archive/2007/07/30/one-more-soccer-stadium-idea.aspx quote: Oh... and can sombody put me down for a ten-spot on "MLS in Tulsa" at 100:1 odds... [8D] http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sports/2007/sep/18/566654916.html Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: perspicuity85 on October 05, 2007, 05:09:46 pm quote: To answer your question Oil Capital: No. The Landing project as I understand it will be primarily retail focused, with some housing and office. Downtown is obviously still the hub of office space for the Tulsa metro area, and the Blue Dome and Brady Arts districts can still provide residential space in closer proximity to workplaces than the Landing project will. When you talk of demand, you must also consider the possibility of creating demand. The more successful downtown becomes in attracting nightlife, the higher the demand for downtown housing will be. Within a target market, all products/concepts go through a life cycle. Take cell phones, for example. How many people did you know that owned cell phones fifteen years ago? Probably very few, the ones that did are known as the innovators. How about ten years ago? Probably a lot more, but probably not the parents or grandparents of the individuals who did own cell phones at the time. The ten-year cell phone owners are known as early adopters. The last two categories in the process are the late adopters and the laggards. Urban housing works the same way. The demand increases as the product becomes more proven and as less and less psychological risk is associated with the product in the mind of consumers. Locally, Tulsa's urban housing dwellers are mostly part of the innovator group. But I can tell you from my personal "young professional" experience, urban housing is in even higher demand on a local scale than the city leaders realize. Today, you may be right. If today, there suddenly appeared a Tulsa Landing and all of the Downtown loft projects were finished, there might be a lot of vacancy for a while. But as it stands, there is a lot of build-up and not a lot of products. Most downtown loft projects are not finished and Tulsa Landing still only exists in paper and digital form. As long as Tulsa doesn't have a major recession, or some other exogenous factor doesn't weigh in, I believe a Tulsa Landing-type project and Downtown lofts can coexist. The combined metro population of Tulsa; OKC; Ft. Smith, AR; Northwest AR; Springfield, MO; Joplin, MO; and Wichita, KS; is over 3.5 million people. You can't tell me there aren't at least a thousand or two individuals within that 3.5mil+ population that can't be reeled into Tulsa's urban scene. With an adequate marketing effort, all of Tulsa's urban housing nodes will complement each other. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: dsjeffries on October 05, 2007, 07:15:10 pm quote: See, this is why your name is perspicuity... Nicely put [:D] Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: USRufnex on October 05, 2007, 09:13:17 pm quote:"The baseball stadium will be large enough to house a AAA franchise, which requires seating capacity between 20,000 and 22,000, Huffman said." ---from 10/3 Tulsa Business article "It is not intended to be the home of a minor league baseball team, Huffman said." ---from 10/5 Tulsa World article Either this is spin or "Lucy's got some splainin to do..." [:I] Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: TheArtist on October 05, 2007, 09:40:45 pm OMG, I just got a new kitten!
Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: USRufnex on October 05, 2007, 10:57:04 pm Yeah, I'll keep the kitty on here until Tuesday's vote... but the hypno-toad is starting to get jealous...
Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Double A on October 05, 2007, 11:46:42 pm quote: Show me where all the high paying jobs are in Tulsa for young professionals that pay enough to afford 250,000-$300,000 dollar mortgages. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: TheArtist on October 06, 2007, 08:30:36 am quote: If your reading this... your looking right at it. Many people can work from their computers. Many people travel all over the country for work. They can pretty much choose wherever they want to live. I have a friend who is a motivational speaker and writer. Another who works for companies helping them find ways to make them more efficient. Another who is a language specialist,teaches and helps with movies by making sure an actors accent is correct for instance. Another in sales advertising. I know several architects. I am an artist but do work all over the country, more and more casinos in Oklahoma lately lol. Many are self employed, or own their own businesses and employ people. In other words, they dont get hired, they do the hiring. Have several friends who have started their own computer related businesses. Plus, many of those people, and others I know, often do more than one thing for a living or have more than one source of income. Your very question shows what your used to, your frame of reference, and the world you are familiar with and how that works. But that is not the only way. There are different ways of seeing and doing things that others are used to. Different perspectives and expectations. The use of the word "job" instead of "career" can be telling. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: waterboy on October 06, 2007, 09:59:57 am quote: That's your problem AA. You always think things are easy. Try to camouflage your lack of knowledge with more clever one liners. Its not the players doofus (K-Mart) its the concept of synergy. Players in retail come and go. Visit 21st and Yale and watch how that synergy put a Target, a Sears and Gordmans all in one strip. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: sgrizzle on October 06, 2007, 03:57:32 pm quote: 1? 51st & harvard, 21st & 169, Sand Springs are all open. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: swake on October 06, 2007, 04:50:30 pm quote: And the closing of the stores was not for local reasons, K-Mart went into bankrupcy in 2002 closing more than 300 stores and laying off more than 30,000 employees nationally. I think we lost two stores in the metro. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: waterboy on October 06, 2007, 05:17:10 pm Downtown, Pearl, Cherry Street, Brookside, Tulsa Hills, Red Fork, Osage casino and future northside retail, RiverWalk, Owasso, Broken Arrow, Sand Springs, Jenks, Bixby and the county in general all will benefit from the development of the river when Tulsa is perceived as a destination for entertainment, dining, arts and recreation. The river area would be our anchor tenant. You don't have to be flashy, but you have to be something. It's up to the surrounding areas to coat tail off the momentum. You get all that for 1/4cent for 7 years or less.
Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Oil Capital on October 07, 2007, 04:44:01 pm quote: You may be right. I just don't think there's enough to create enough critical mass in 2 or more areas to really attain that urban energy we're hoping for. And you completely lost me when you started adding together the populations of Tulsa, OKC, Wichita, Springfield, Joplin, Northwest Arkansas and Fort Smith. Few things could be less relevant. First, I'm not buying that the Tulsa Landing, or any collection of Tulsa Landings, downtown lofts, and iconic arenas are going to cause any significant number of people from those cities and areas to move to Tulsa. ESPECIALLY since most of them are either doing similar things or are years ahead of Tulsa in this sort of development. Rein in the expectations a bit... ;-) Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Oil Capital on October 07, 2007, 04:45:42 pm quote: And THERE is the problem with your analogy, Waterboy. They want the synergy from being in the same strip (and thus the various businesses in Tulsa Landing will love the fact that they are all located on the same parking lot in a pedestrian friendly environment, creating synergy. They are NOT much interested in being 2 1/2 miles and across a river from other similar establishments. There is no synergy in such an arrangement. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: perspicuity85 on October 07, 2007, 04:46:06 pm quote: I'm not sure where you're getting your specific mortgage figures. Urban housing and employment go hand in hand these days. Employers frequently locate offices in cities that have a lot of highly skilled and/or educated workers. Young professional workers typically want to live in a vibrant urban environment. There are some very high quality young professional jobs in Tulsa. Off the top of my head: Winnercomm, SemGroup, BOk, IBM, NORDAM, Gemstar-TVGuide, ONEOK, HILTI, the BAMA Cos, Williams, Dollar Thrifty, Enterprise-Vanguard, QuikTrip Corporate, Flight Safety, Magellan Midstream, and all jobs associated with Tulsa's regional medical services industry are a great place to start. Continued urban development and further improvements to Tulsa's higher education infrastructure can also play a potentially huge role in attracting more high-paying professional jobs to Tulsa. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: waterboy on October 07, 2007, 09:11:10 pm quote: I'm not sure who "they" is. What I was trying to show is that development in general feeds off of itself. So in my mind, when a new area like Pearl starts to germinate, it can only have positive impact on the city as the city gains cred, if you will, for being a growing city with many choices. The pie tends to get bigger. Whether that transfers to loft housing is not certain to me but makes sense. Having more than one choice, downtown, would seem to create more buzz among that demo. When Woodland Hills opened many felt it would suck the life right out of 41st and Yale. But it didn't as they remodeled, re-targeted and found counter puncher retail to come in, thus we got two shopping areas instead of one. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: perspicuity85 on October 07, 2007, 11:49:44 pm quote: I don't see how any of the areas I mentioned, except for OKC, are ahead of Tulsa in urban development. There are other cities Tulsa's size and smaller whose urban areas are becoming more and more vibrant every day. Look into Little Rock, Omaha, or Albuquerque if you don't believe me. And you're right, the urban lofts, river development, and iconic architecture will not bring in the young professional masses alone. That's just the product focus. There has to be a market focus also. The young professional masses will come when Tulsa is perceived as a vibrant urban city by both residents and visitors. It's not just the products themselves that make people want to buy them, it's the perceived value they carry, and the perceived benefit they provide the customer. No matter how special the product you're selling actually is, all that matters is that it's special in the mind of the buyer. The river infrastructure will provide a better product that will then have to be marketed. Except for OKC, the metro areas I mentioned are largely lacking in urban development, and the perceived urban lifestyle. Hello, target market for Tulsa! Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: carltonplace on October 10, 2007, 10:41:37 am Question, does the TDA have the ability or the money to buy the west bank and sell/lease it to Tulsa Landing. Is there any way to save this project? Based on the precinct map people near the river support river development and would likely frequent water front endeavors. I'm betting that people from the No precincts would visit as well, but don't want to pay for it.
Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: sgrizzle on October 10, 2007, 11:55:50 am quote: Hardesty could donate his property to the city who could then give the whole area they need to the developer. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: USRufnex on November 10, 2007, 12:30:27 am quote: Could you cut me a piece of that pie?!? [:D] After the narrow defeat of the River Tax on a countywide vote, maybe it's time to take a closer look at the options for this mysterious "22,000 seat baseball stadium on the Arkansas River"... I already posted this link on another thread, but it may be more appropriate here... Portland's PGE Park, MLS and a new minor league ballpark... http://wweek.com/editorial/3351/9893/ quote: Unfortunately for Tulsa, stadium deals in KC and St Louis seem to be progressing-- there's just no way I can see that MLS would expand to Tulsa if teams already exist in KC, StLouis, Dallas and Houston... http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_news/story/350874.html quote: http://milwaukee.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2007/09/10/daily21.html quote:And a couple of comments from Peter Wilt, the point man for MLS in Milwaukee... "I've been taught never to say never, but i think the best chance now is to steal an existing team that's struggling in the future...and that's hard/impossible to do without a stadium or stadium plan in place." "We never did get a potential owner with financial viability to the stage where we could present a viable plan to MLS." "In the last two years, MLS has turned 180 degrees from a buyers market to a sellers market. If we had gotten to that stage two years ago, i believe we would've been approved. Now, i'm not so sure. Market size, however, is NOT what's preventing Milwaukee from getting an MLS team right now. It's lack of a stadium and owner." So, the folks from Branson have few options... they could go the route of USL1 and look at a smaller stadium... but Seattle's USL owner Adrian Hanauer kind of let it slip recently that his team was losing $300,000 a year playing in that league... they might want to speak with Rochester, NY people about a USL team, since they seem to be the ones running in the black... ...or, they could take a chance and go ahead full press for the 20k-22k seat stadium and look at it from the same kind of standpoint seen in Springfield, MO's quest to get a Texas League baseball team... build it first and... ??? That'd be a really gutsy call, but may have the best chance at success... Then there's the pesky land acquisition since the River Tax didn't pass... Yawn. And so it goes... or doesn't go... Mmm. Good pie. [:P] Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Conan71 on November 10, 2007, 01:07:24 am Take heart in this Ruf: The rendering of the stadium was south of the bridge. That's property the city already owns, not subject to massive greed by the owner of the concrete plant. Stick a stadium there and I think someone would step up to develop north of that.
With Wally World saying no thanks on the east end sure makes it look like the Drillers are headed to Jenks. Maybe someone could step up and build a multi-use stadium at 23rd & Jackson. Maybe Recyclemichael could organize an aluminum can campaign to pay for it. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: bacjz00 on November 11, 2007, 07:32:49 pm quote: Just so I understand...you're saying that the Drillers coming to downtown somehow HINGED on Wal-Mart building a store nearby?? I guess I don't follow your logic. From what I see, that land is now available for development possibilities again and most are in favor of seeing Tulsa's team play IN Tulsa. Maybe a stadium DOESN'T get built there, but if it's because the Wal-Mart pulled out...we really are a worthless city. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Conan71 on November 11, 2007, 07:59:16 pm I may have developments and developers mixed up, but my understanding was that Seay's group was depending heavily on Wal-Mart anchoring the development plan they had. Just assuming that there was going to be a TIF district in that area which would help pay for the stadium.
Parking lots and no or very limited retail just doesn't raise a whole lot of money in a TIF, a baseball stadium sure wouldn't raise much. If you get a large anchor with $$$ that tends to attract others to develop. Rarely works the other way around these days. I just think with the Drillers already having a "letter of intent" with Jenks and now Wal-Mart backs out, it's not looking all that great for downtown to get the Drillers. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: swake on November 11, 2007, 08:34:02 pm quote: You are a bit confused. Global Development of Washington DC was (hopefully now is?) going to build the "East End". They had a letter of intent to buy the Nordam land in the eastern part of downtown along with a number of other plots. The center piece of the development was a baseball stadium to be built on the Nordam land. Global was going to ask for a TIF and was rumored to have Target in the mix for the development. Global was able to close on some of the smaller plots but had a cash crunch and were delayed in closing on Nordam. Nordam broke the letter of intent and went with The Seay Group of Arkansas and a developer from Claremore just as Global was finally able to raise the cash to close. Nordam sold to Seay and Co instead who were in with Wal-Mart. They also wanted a TIF to fund some condos and an "urban" Wal-Mart. No Stadium as part of the development. The city may have been able to expand the TIF to fund a baseball stadium themselves on city owned land on 2nd, but that was not part of the development. Hopefully the city can bring Seay and Global together as they now own most of the eastern section of downtown and together they can build some version of the "East End" and include a baseball stadium as the center piece as Global intended. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Conan71 on November 11, 2007, 08:39:29 pm Thank you for the clarification Swake.
There have been so many different announcements/rumors from/about Global, Heavenly Hospitality, Seay, etc. that it's hard to keep it all straight. Something needs to happen with other development for a TIF to work in that area. I'm waiting for some nut-job parking lot/vacant lot preservation group to try and put the brakes on developing the east end. [xx(] I think KOTV's move is a big deal. They will bring a presence to the Brady District and will free up their studio space on Frankfort for something else. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: TheArtist on November 11, 2007, 10:33:57 pm Yes and with the city now leaving its building over there, there is plenty of room. My guess is that the Seay group will try to bring in some other development other than the wal-mart. They invested a lot to just let the whole deal go too easily. Plus they had plans for the apartments. Frankly I did not like the layout of the apartments either so I would rather them just back out and sell to Global. I wonder if Global is still even interested at this point?
I just wonder how long this soap opera is going to go on? Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Conan71 on November 12, 2007, 09:18:14 am Whispers are starting about the next recession. I can only wonder if that is why Wal-Mart is showing some caution on their Supercenter developments right now. That and forecasts for higher oil and gas prices.
I believe I remember hearing when gas prices soared in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Wal-Mart's same-unit sales ranged from flat to down and their analysts blamed it on people needing to spend more disposable income on gasoline. I could be way off-base on that but those folks at Wal-Mart know their business pretty well and dropping some Supercenters makes me think they are anticipating some factors out of their control which could affect sales, profits, and growth in the next few years. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: cannon_fodder on November 12, 2007, 10:05:27 am Someone is always calling for the next recession. High oil, weak dollar, losing markets. So long as the economy keeps creating jobs the impact will be minimalized. Most of it is long in coming.
- We knew we had a housing bubble - We knew many stocks were AGAIN over priced - We knew the dollar was over valued - We have known for decades that our reliance on oil would bite us in the donkey All came true and we are shocked. SHOCKED I tell you. /will save rant for appropriate thread. Sorry. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: rwarn17588 on November 12, 2007, 11:27:35 am Conan wrote:
Whispers are starting about the next recession. I can only wonder if that is why Wal-Mart is showing some caution on their Supercenter developments right now. That and forecasts for higher oil and gas prices. I could be way off-base on that but those folks at Wal-Mart know their business pretty well and dropping some Supercenters makes me think they are anticipating some factors out of their control which could affect sales, profits, and growth in the next few years. <end clip> It's a bit more complicated than that. I've observed Wal-Mart for years, and it's been struggling to meet profit forecasts in recent years, even before the housing problems hit. Wal-Mart is hampered by market oversaturation and stiff competition from Costco and Target. I didn't find their announcement about cutting back on Supercenters as all that surprising, given the other factors that I've mentioned. I don't think there's going to be a recession. Remember, a recession means two straight quarters of negative GNP. Growth will certainly slow, but we're a long way from a true recession. Those people who are cry "recession" all the time are the ones trying to unload gold stocks and other crap. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: Conan71 on November 12, 2007, 11:39:30 am I'm rather skeptical of another recession myself, but all it takes is talk of a recession to get companies to start pulling in their oars, freeze hiring, slow down or freeze expansion, consumption slows down, etc. and a recession will happen.
Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: cannon_fodder on November 12, 2007, 12:33:38 pm Keep in mind the guy that is being cited over and over on the recession made his bank shorting stocks in the 1980's and doing the same on junk bonds in the early 1990's. BY his own account he stands to make BBBBBillions if the economy tanks on his short and contrarian positions. Likewise, the credit crunch lines his pockets as junk bonds default.
Him telling you the economy will tank is like Warren Buffet telling you Berkshire Hathaway rules. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: TheArtist on November 12, 2007, 12:36:28 pm I dont know if there is going to be a recession. If there is one I dont think it will be that severe. But its often the fear itself that will crimp some areas economies.
When things are looking up, taking a risk on an area like downtown Tulsa is not so bad. But when an area is already struggling to find its footing, to go in when things are indeed faltering, regardless of the reason, its, well not the time to do that. Downtown Tulsa is already a tricky proposition even when your thinking the economy is doing well and will likely go up. But when the national economy is slow and showing signs of weakness, going into an already weak situation sounds kind of stupid frankly. I dont know if the lenders will want to take those risks. I just hope the small amount of growth we have seen in retail, restaurants, etc, downtown are able to hang in there and weather this. By the middle of next spring I think we will definitely have a better feel for how all of this current economic uncertainty and weakness is going affect Tulsa. I currently think that some sort of large development by the river is our best bet. It may take a while for the property owners and developers to sort things out. Course unless the city or whoever doesnt get on the ball with the river development we may lose that opportunity as well depending on how the economy does. Title: The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes) Post by: USRufnex on November 14, 2007, 05:17:35 pm Just in case anyone was wondering where alot of this stadium stuff comes from... 2003 feasability study...
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=030215_Ne_a1_study quote: quote: quote: |