http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/sports/othersports/22oklahoma.html?ex=1209528000&en=8ce8f37fc59fea06&ei=5070&emc=eta1
Revival of a River Alters a City's Course in Sports
Sarah Phipps for The New York Times
A restored stretch of river in Oklahoma City has become a top site for kayaking and rowing.
By KATIE THOMAS
Published: April 22, 2008
OKLAHOMA CITY — As the nation's top kayakers and canoeists dipped their paddles in the Oklahoma River over the weekend while competing for a spot on the United States Olympic team, it was possible to imagine that a few city leaders had something else on their minds.
Like, take that, John Steinbeck.
Almost 70 years after Steinbeck popularized the plight of Oklahoma's Dust Bowl refugees in "The Grapes of Wrath," residents here still chafe at the city's reputation as a barren place. As recently as a decade ago, the river was a scar through the city's heart, at times a trickle of water in a ditch so overgrown it had to be mowed three times a year.
Civic leaders and politicians gambled millions that a rejuvenated river would attract investors to an economically struggling city known for its love of football and rodeo. But to the surprise of even those behind the effort, the river has spawned something else.
The city has become a mecca for elite water sports. Last fall, a crowd of 50,000 showed up for a rowing competition that drew Olympic athletes from Australia and the Czech Republic. Three local universities have begun varsity rowing programs, and a fourth is considering one.
"We completely did it by accident," Mayor Mick Cornett said.
After a series of floods devastated the area in the 1920s, Oklahoma City and the United States Army Corps of Engineers sought to prevent future catastrophes by straightening, widening and redirecting a stretch of the North Canadian River away from the population center.
"They said, 'That will never happen again,' " Cornett said. "And sure enough, they took all the water out of our river."
Talk of bringing the river back persisted for decades, especially as civic leaders and planners searched for ways to turn the city around after the oil bust of the 1980s left the local economy reeling. In 1993, taxpayers narrowly approved a sales tax dedicated to an ambitious redevelopment, including the creation of a ballpark, an arena, a library and a trolley system. The tax also included money for the river.
In 1999, engineers began erecting a series of dams and locks that transformed the ditch into a bona fide waterway. Along with the Corps of Engineers, the city planted thousands of trees and added wetlands and walking trails along the banks.
By the time the corridor opened to the public in December 2004, the city and the federal government had spent a combined $54 million. State legislators renamed a seven-mile stretch the Oklahoma River, and private investors built a futuristic boathouse.
The city has since attracted an estimated $700 million in new development. A Dell office complex is on the riverfront, and a multimillion-dollar American Indian Cultural Center is under construction.
Renaming the river was the idea of Ray Ackerman, an advertising executive from Oklahoma City who said he cringed whenever he flew over the ditch on his way home. Ackerman argued that the name North Canadian River would confuse out-of-towners, but the change drew grumbles from many longtime residents who worried history was being erased.
People like Ackerman saw economic opportunity in the river. Mike Knopp's view was more elemental — the newly filled waterway could now float a boat. Knopp, a rowing enthusiast, looked at one 2,000-meter stretch that was perfectly straight and realized the Army Corps of Engineers had unwittingly created an ideal location for a boat race.
"It's very spectator-friendly," he said. "And that is pretty unique, to have an urban venue like this."
In 1998, Knopp invited Pat Downes, a consultant to the Oklahoma City Riverfront Redevelopment Authority, to a regatta on a nearby lake. It was a cold, rainy day, Downes recalled, but he saw an opportunity. "The sight of those long, graceful rowing shells on a body of water is truly a remarkable sight," he said.
The river's potential as a sporting site has become an integral part of city leaders' dreams for the future. Of course, the city continues to pursue other sports projects. Last week, for example, N.B.A. owners approved the relocation of the Seattle Supersonics to Oklahoma City. Still, little has captured the community's imagination more than boating.
Knopp quit his job as a lawyer and became the rowing coach at Oklahoma City University, one of the three local universities that offer rowing as a varsity sport with athletic scholarships.
With the help of corporate donors like the locally based Chesapeake Energy Corporation, Knopp set about building a state-of-the-art boathouse. It filled almost immediately after opening in 2006.
Jim Abbott, the athletic director of Oklahoma City University, said he was skeptical when Knopp approached the institution.
"This is Oklahoma — we're football, we're rodeo," he said. "So rowing five years ago was nowhere on the minds of the average Oklahoman."
But he quickly saw the benefits. Since September 2003, when the team began, 70 athletes have enrolled at the university because of the rowing program.
"The four largest events in the history of our university are the four regattas that we've hosted," Abbott said. Those events now draw the nation's top rowing teams, including Harvard, and attendance has quintupled since the first regatta was held in 2004, Abbott said.
The sport's popularity has grown so fast that the three university teams are planning to build boathouses along the river, and another university is considering erecting a fourth. There is even talk of constructing a white-water course near the new boathouses.
Kayakers at the weekend Olympic trials, which drew between 10,000 and 15,000 spectators, said they had heard about Oklahoma City through their friends in rowing. Aside from some concerns about the city's ferocious winds, the athletes said they were pleased.
"I think they've definitely proven that they can provide a solid race course and event," said Carrie Johnson, who earned a spot on the Olympic team in the 500-meter single kayak event on Friday.
Johnson was the only athlete over the weekend to be definitively selected for the United States team; the rest will be selected after races in Montreal and Szeged, Hungary.
"The actual boathouse is one of the best that I've seen," she said.
The Oklahoma River has also won over Norman Bellingham, the chief operating officer of the United States Olympic Committee and a gold medalist in kayaking.
"I was a little bit in disbelief," he said, recalling his initial reaction to rowing in Oklahoma City. "I had to come out and see it myself."
Then, at the USA Rowing World Challenge held in Oklahoma City last October, Bellingham spotted a top competitor from New Zealand. He said he knew the site had been accepted.
Perhaps the best test, he said, was that he got few questions when he told people where the Olympic trials were being held. In the boating world, "it seems like a very natural, logical statement to make," he said. "You don't get that second look like, did I hear that correctly?"
Don't attack all at once, Smartalecks.
Another fine example of posting articles whole sale and not even bothering to comment on them.
Does anyone read his drive by article postings?
No attacks to be made. Some of us wanted it for Tulsa, too. We didn't get it.
shrug.
That's right. I don't need to comment when it would just be to hear myself talk. Thought it would interest you. It may have been appealing to those in other parts of our country. Oklahoma is in the spotlight. It sours some to feel left out.....
Spent $54MM and now have attracted $700MM in new developement? 50M spectators?
Any reason Tulsa could not do the same? Oh yeah, do the streets first.
serenity now...serenity now...
quote:
Originally posted by bokworker
Spent $54MM and now have attracted $700MM in new developement? 50M spectators?
Any reason Tulsa could not do the same? Oh yeah, do the streets first.
And now they want us to do rail. [:P] When are we going to do some things that will get our city to grow. Streets and rail can "corral" or shuffle what growth you have to one place or another, but we actually need some growth first.
quote:
And now they want us to do rail. When are we going to do some things that will get our city to grow. Streets and rail can "corral" or shuffle what growth you have to one place or another, but we actually need some growth first.
Artist...I can't tell if you are yanking my chain, or if you are being serious.
Please tell me you are yanking my chain when you say stuff like that.
There is no way to comment on the story without sounding snarky or sour grapes. They take risks, we don't. They benefit from those risks and forward thinking, we argue about roads and taxes.
Don't worry. We'll apply the same killer arguments to rail as well.
Do TCC first...
[:P]
Tulsa has been welcome to exploit what was created by the LWD at the old railroad bridge at any time in the last 25+ years. Instead, it's been more important to have a city M & E yard, public housing, and WWT plants on the west side and a restrictive policy on any sort of commerce between River's Edge Bistro at 21st to the Casino (or thereabouts) on the East side. The concrete plant off the 21st St. bridge could have been bought by visionary developers at any time for much less than the price has been inflated to with the heightened interest of recent development proposals and an option to purchase by some wealthy Tulsans.
RPA has a nice deep ribbon of property between the M & E facility and the river south of 21st which could have been used for commercial development at any time.
Instead of an obtuse excuse for a comprehensive tax package, we could have had a smaller one, or at least a better-defined package presented in a prudent manner after many of the variables were known. We had to be in a big damn hurry because a whole year would have made a big difference to some folk, it would seem.
Since the failure of that measure I've spoken with several people who were prominent outspoken supporters of the project who have admitted the package was rushed way too quick in front of the voters and there were certain aspects which were a total cluster-****. No, I'm not referring strictly to other members of this forum (unless they are lurkers).
None of the people I've talked to know or is willing to share whether Kaiser approached local gov't or vice versa. No one seems overly-certain if whispers starting to swirl last spring of a coming recession, or obvious street neglect was part of the hurry.
Unknown to many, Tulsa has a nice, functional, and slightly drab, boathouse on the west bank thanks to a generous gift from the Oliphant family. It was considered quite up with the times until Chesapeake opened in Oklahoma City. It's still a really nice facility which the club owns debt-free.
Honestly, Chesapeake will make any boathouse in the U.S. look like a dump. I'm told it's light years ahead of anything else in the U.S. I can't say for certain, I've only seen that one, the TRC house, and the new TU women's boathouse at the Port of Catoosa which was completed in the last year or so.
OKC managed to do what they did with around $50mm in public funds, including Fed'l, according to the NYT story. The Oklahoma River is also narrower there than the Arkansas, it's still not quite "human scale" like the canal.
OKC does have the relative advantage of that stretch of the North Canadian as being somewhat of a waste-land for years which went back a quarter mile or better off the water which makes private development less problematic than along the Arkansas. Rip Rap has cleaned up the riverbank quite nicely and stabilized it.
CBH is the focal point for all the racing and Olympic trial activity noted in the story. All it would take is a generous corporate donor like SEM Group or BOK to up the ante on boat-houses if we want that sort of draw in Tulsa. Tulsa has a great rowing program and has been quite fortunate to have donors like the Oliphants and Zinks who have provided multiple facilities including an indoor rowing "tank" at TU.
I've got a daughter who competes in the TRC Jr. program. She will be vying for a spot on OU's new women's rowing team this fall. Now I've caught the bug from her and am learning to row. I gotta say, I've never seen a sunset quite like tonight from a seat in a quad shell on the river. We are fortunate to have the rowing program we have. No, we don't have quite the level of facilities they have down there, but I believe the attention will help further interest in rowing and can bring more national focus here to all programs which won't hurt.
Conan71, in my case, and I assume for others as well, the wi****l feeling of seeing success down the turnpike does not translate into bitterness at that one vote. It is disappointment in city vision as well as the inability of city leaders (public and private) to practically execute on what visions they have.
The impending success of the downtown ballpark efforts will demonstrate the way to do things in the future. Grand visions are lovely, but for every Bing Thom who wants a palate for their excessive designs, there are dozens of practical entrepreneurs who simply need modest collaboration with a cooperative city government.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Conan71, in my case, and I assume for others as well, the wi****l feeling of seeing success down the turnpike does not translate into bitterness at that one vote. It is disappointment in city vision as well as the inability of city leaders (public and private) to practically execute on what visions they have.
The impending success of the downtown ballpark efforts will demonstrate the way to do things in the future. Grand visions are lovely, but for every Bing Thom who wants a palate for their excessive designs, there are dozens of practical entrepreneurs who simply need modest collaboration with a cooperative city government.
Spot-on Floyd.
quote:
for every Bing Thom who wants a palate for their excessive designs, there are dozens of practical entrepreneurs who simply need modest collaboration with a cooperative city government
+1
Being business friendly would do far more for Tulsa than being tax happy or grand plan proud.
I agree Floyd. The last river vote was a continuation of decades of shortsighted non development. The bitterness expressed is not focused on that particular vote but the hopelessness of watching one person, Kaiser, do the river his way while we all watch.
The Chesapeake boat house is the result of open mind thinking. Not that rowing is such a great sport (I'm glad your family enjoys it though), it is the result of "what if" thinking that didn't get shot down immediately. At the time they did this river a boat house wasn't the centerpiece they envisioned. It happened because they envisioned a river with multiple uses and the boathouse naturally followed.
Here's an insight into the differing mind sets. Pat Downes, the consultant to the OKC Riverfront Development Authority, is a native Tulsan. I spoke with him before the boathouse was even considered and they were looking for ways to utilize the planned river. His only remark about Tulsa river development was that it was mired in politics and personalities.
Many people have approached the RPA over the years with "what if" thinking and were laughed off. I know from talking to them personally. Others managed to make it through the first hurdle only to be tangled up in the authority's meddling. Now, a few wealthy men from foundations and a convenience store chain along with suburban leadership are molding the banks of the river the way they want to. Nice men I'm sure with noble motivations, but the public is not really giving much input.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Conan71, in my case, and I assume for others as well, the wi****l feeling of seeing success down the turnpike does not translate into bitterness at that one vote. It is disappointment in city vision as well as the inability of city leaders (public and private) to practically execute on what visions they have.
The impending success of the downtown ballpark efforts will demonstrate the way to do things in the future. Grand visions are lovely, but for every Bing Thom who wants a palate for their excessive designs, there are dozens of practical entrepreneurs who simply need modest collaboration with a cooperative city government.
Spot-on Floyd.
Thanks. That xxx-ed out word above should be "wi****l." I think I mistyped.
Edit: didn't mistype. For some reason, w i s t f u l is getting censored.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I agree Floyd. The last river vote was a continuation of decades of shortsighted non development. The bitterness expressed is not focused on that particular vote but the hopelessness of watching one person, Kaiser, do the river his way while we all watch.
The Chesapeake boat house is the result of open mind thinking. Not that rowing is such a great sport (I'm glad your family enjoys it though), it is the result of "what if" thinking that didn't get shot down immediately. At the time they did this river a boat house wasn't the centerpiece they envisioned. It happened because they envisioned a river with multiple uses and the boathouse naturally followed.
Here's an insight into the differing mind sets. Pat Downes, the consultant to the OKC Riverfront Development Authority, is a native Tulsan. I spoke with him before the boathouse was even considered and they were looking for ways to utilize the planned river. His only remark about Tulsa river development was that it was mired in politics and social personalities.
Many people have approached
For an old-fartish guy with bad knees and an 18 y/o with bad ankles from gymnastics, it's been a blessing to keep in shape without being confined to the four walls of a gym. It's not for everyone. Rowing definitely isn't NASCAR- that's for sure. [;)]
I'll certainly defer to your opinions on the river. I don't think there's anyone else on this forum who has had contact with as many different individuals and government entities on ways to make the Arkansas much better and more user-friendly.
One opinion I've long held of Tulsa is that our city could make it a lot easier to do business here. There are too many hurdles and bureaucrats trying to earn a paycheck for many potential entrepreneurs tastes.
Here's another couple of insights. OKC has managed to get primarily good press for their river with barely a mention of the mis-steps that have occurred. Anyone remember the hydro-plane speed boat races they had that involved a fatality crash? Or the expected hotels that were going to spring up along the banks?
It became apparent to them that there would not be much bank development until there was established usage of the river itself. We operate on the opposite assumptions.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Conan71, in my case, and I assume for others as well, the wi****l feeling of seeing success down the turnpike does not translate into bitterness at that one vote. It is disappointment in city vision as well as the inability of city leaders (public and private) to practically execute on what visions they have.
The impending success of the downtown ballpark efforts will demonstrate the way to do things in the future. Grand visions are lovely, but for every Bing Thom who wants a palate for their excessive designs, there are dozens of practical entrepreneurs who simply need modest collaboration with a cooperative city government.
Spot-on Floyd.
Thanks. That xxx-ed out word above should be "wi****l." I think I mistyped.
Edit: didn't mistype. For some reason, w i s t f u l is getting censored.
No, S T F U is censored.
OKC also has a cool name for another river-related project: "Core to Shore"
(In Tulsa, we call this "connecting the river to downtown.")
Here's the OKC concept. Looks pretty cool. http://www.okc.gov/Planning/coretoshore/visuals_data.html
quote:
Originally posted by pfox
quote:
And now they want us to do rail. When are we going to do some things that will get our city to grow. Streets and rail can "corral" or shuffle what growth you have to one place or another, but we actually need some growth first.
Artist...I can't tell if you are yanking my chain, or if you are being serious.
Please tell me you are yanking my chain when you say stuff like that.
I am playing devils advocate on my own behalf to make sure I really have the different perspectives down. Most people on here are used to my strange, arguing it one way then turning around and arguing another game.
However... do you really think our city is seeing anywhere near the type of growth that those other cities like Dallas, Austin, and Denver were seeing when their rail got going? All the rail or zoning in the world wont create growth, ask Detroit. You have to have a city that is attracting people in the first place, that is growing in the first place. Then when you put in the rail you get TOD.
You mentioned on the news the other night something to the effect that if we waited for federal funding it could take us a decade to get started but that if we did it locally we could get started sooner. I would say that even 10 years may be jumping the gun it a bit. Hopefully Tulsa will turn the corner and we will see some real development happening in this city. What we have now is pitiful. Lets get our city "on the right tracks" development wise, attractiveness wise, improving our schools and colleges, developent along the river, Letting Brookside and Cherry Street fill out and get that attractive "critical mass" going,... etc.
We need to create a city that is well on its way to attracting and growing good jobs and people. Not barely eeking by. Then once we get that in order, then, you can start doing the rail. I just think we are being premature with the rail idea and need to get our priorities straight. Otherwise we will just be trying to draw what little development we do have from one place to another, in the end making it take even longer and more difficult to have any decent development areas anywhere. Rail doesnt create growth, we have plenty of opportunity to create efficient, walkable, wonderful, urban districts here and in the suburbs. Lets use our limited funds and efforts on getting our city solidly going in that direction and growing... like those other cities were, and not jump the gun.
Its kind of like what people have mentioned on here about the river in OKC, get some usage and attraction first, then the hotels and other grand plans will follow. Make a city or place that people want to go to, then you get development. Rail can corall what development you have, but you got to have some development TO corall first. We have a river that is supposedly a great draw for development and we havent seen it happen. We have developers having a hard time making the numbers work on areas like Brookside and Cherry Street, already some of the most desirable spots in the city. Yet even here growth is meager. Supposedly the Arena is to be a draw for development but we havent seen much of anything around it yet. What kind of growth, in this environment, do you see happening around rail? Its just going to be another area and expense where growth is somehow magically supposed to happen.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by pfox
quote:
And now they want us to do rail. When are we going to do some things that will get our city to grow. Streets and rail can "corral" or shuffle what growth you have to one place or another, but we actually need some growth first.
Artist...I can't tell if you are yanking my chain, or if you are being serious.
Please tell me you are yanking my chain when you say stuff like that.
I am playing devils advocate on my own behalf to make sure I really have the different perspectives down. Most people on here are used to my strange, arguing it one way then turning around and arguing another game.
However... do you really think our city is seeing anywhere near the type of growth that those other cities like Dallas, Austin, and Denver were seeing when their rail got going? All the rail or zoning in the world wont create growth, ask Detroit. You have to have a city that is attracting people in the first place, that is growing in the first place. Then when you put in the rail you get TOD.
You mentioned on the news the other night something to the effect that if we waited for federal funding it could take us a decade to get started but that if we did it locally we could get started sooner. I would say that even 10 years may be jumping the gun it a bit. Hopefully Tulsa will turn the corner and we will see some real development happening in this city. What we have now is pitiful. Lets get our city "on the right tracks" development wise, attractiveness wise, improving our schools and colleges, developent along the river, Letting Brookside and Cherry Street fill out and get that attractive "critical mass" going,... etc.
We need to create a city that is well on its way to attracting and growing good jobs and people. Not barely eeking by. Then once we get that in order, then, you can start doing the rail. I just think we are being premature with the rail idea and need to get our priorities straight. Otherwise we will just be trying to draw what little development we do have from one place to another, in the end making it take even longer and more difficult to have any decent development areas anywhere. Rail doesnt create growth, we have plenty of opportunity to create efficient, walkable, wonderful, urban districts here and in the suburbs. Lets use our limited funds and efforts on getting our city solidly going in that direction and growing... like those other cities were, and not jump the gun.
Those are good insights.
The one caveat I might make is that a rail stop on the West Bank is the kind of thing that might encourage Rick Huffman to go ahead with Tulsa Landing.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
The one caveat I might make is that a rail stop on the West Bank is the kind of thing that might encourage Rick Huffman to go ahead with Tulsa Landing.
That one almost makes too much sense for our city, considering a rail runs right through the area Huffman wanted to develop. [;)]
A Jenks to DT line could make a lot of sense as our starter line. The rail infrastructure is there. All that would be needed is a sufficient parking lot on either end. I believe it would be useful for work commuters from So Tulsa, as well as people looking for recreation on the weekends.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
However... do you really think our city is seeing anywhere near the type of growth that those other cities like Dallas, Austin, and Denver were seeing when their rail got going? All the rail or zoning in the world wont create growth, ask Detroit. You have to have a city that is attracting people in the first place, that is growing in the first place. Then when you put in the rail you get TOD.
...
Lets get our city "on the right tracks" development wise, attractiveness wise, improving our schools and colleges, developent along the river, Letting Brookside and Cherry Street fill out and get that attractive "critical mass" going,... etc.
We need to create a city that is well on its way to attracting and growing good jobs and people. Not barely eeking by. Then once we get that in order, then, you can start doing the rail. I just think we are being premature with the rail idea and need to get our priorities straight. Otherwise we will just be trying to draw what little development we do have from one place to another, in the end making it take even longer and more difficult to have any decent development areas anywhere. Rail doesnt create growth, we have plenty of opportunity to create efficient, walkable, wonderful, urban districts here and in the suburbs. Lets use our limited funds and efforts on getting our city solidly going in that direction and growing... like those other cities were, and not jump the gun.
Artist, I have to disagree, and here's why: I think you're missing the goal of building rail right now. The discussion isn't "how can we get more development?", but "how can we get people to and from work quickly and easily?" and "how can we reduce emissions and keep off the dirty air list?".
This rail discussion isn't intended to create commercial or residential development, but to move people.
Why would it be so wrong for Tulsa to focus on its own quality of life...something you keep insisting on? Rail could definitely boost our quality of life, and eventually, when Tulsa is growing the way we want it to, it can be expanded.
-------------------------
I think the Times kind of missed the boat on this article. To me, it seems as though they're trying to say that the cleaning up of the river was responsible for all the growth in DTOKC when it was actually Bricktown. Was there a ditch--er, I mean river--revival? Yes. Was it the cause of a boom of interest in downtown? No.
I think rail actually can spur development...if the development is planned accordingly. It's worked in other cities. The developments increase the tax base (which is something Tulsa desperately needs), which is one of the ways you pay for transit/rail.
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
I think rail actually can spur development...if the development is planned accordingly. It's worked in other cities. The developments increase the tax base (which is something Tulsa desperately needs), which is one of the ways you pay for transit/rail.
I understand the argument for developments increasing tax base. The only way that works is if the development also includes the creation or influx of permanent quality jobs, not call centers.
Unless there's a way for people to pay to live in development areas like that, there's no new migration to the area to increase the tax base, otherwise it's just one geographic area of the city cannibalizing from other areas.
One of the stated benefits of west bank development in the river tax proposal was going to be the creation of jobs. Only problem is, other than retail and re-locating existing companies to office space, there really weren't any permanent high-paying occupations being created.
I believe with Tulsa Hills and the new development down in Jenks, we are getting close to retail saturation for about the next ten years, if we have not already over-built.
The first time I noted that there would be no meaningful development ALONG the river until there was meaningful use OF the river, I was criticized. Notably I remember someone telling me I had lost all credibility with that remark.
Both OKC and the Channels folks both operated on that assumption and ended up with different results. Channels simply over reached. But the concept is correct. In the same vein, if anything rejuvenates downtown it will be the Arena. There simply has to be some sort of usage, even if it is pumping taxes into the improvement of infrastructure or public facilities, for an area to justify development. IMO, the rail movement would qualify.
The thing is, we have to say yes to something. Lowering taxes and road building is stuff that people love to talk about but doesn't generate an investment in development.
quote:
Originally posted by dsjeffries
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
However... do you really think our city is seeing anywhere near the type of growth that those other cities like Dallas, Austin, and Denver were seeing when their rail got going? All the rail or zoning in the world wont create growth, ask Detroit. You have to have a city that is attracting people in the first place, that is growing in the first place. Then when you put in the rail you get TOD.
...
Lets get our city "on the right tracks" development wise, attractiveness wise, improving our schools and colleges, developent along the river, Letting Brookside and Cherry Street fill out and get that attractive "critical mass" going,... etc.
We need to create a city that is well on its way to attracting and growing good jobs and people. Not barely eeking by. Then once we get that in order, then, you can start doing the rail. I just think we are being premature with the rail idea and need to get our priorities straight. Otherwise we will just be trying to draw what little development we do have from one place to another, in the end making it take even longer and more difficult to have any decent development areas anywhere. Rail doesnt create growth, we have plenty of opportunity to create efficient, walkable, wonderful, urban districts here and in the suburbs. Lets use our limited funds and efforts on getting our city solidly going in that direction and growing... like those other cities were, and not jump the gun.
Artist, I have to disagree, and here's why: I think you're missing the goal of building rail right now. The discussion isn't "how can we get more development?", but "how can we get people to and from work quickly and easily?" and "how can we reduce emissions and keep off the dirty air list?".
This rail discussion isn't intended to create commercial or residential development, but to move people.
Why would it be so wrong for Tulsa to focus on its own quality of life...something you keep insisting on? Rail could definitely boost our quality of life, and eventually, when Tulsa is growing the way we want it to, it can be expanded.
-------------------------
I think the Times kind of missed the boat on this article. To me, it seems as though they're trying to say that the cleaning up of the river was responsible for all the growth in DTOKC when it was actually Bricktown. Was there a ditch--er, I mean river--revival? Yes. Was it the cause of a boom of interest in downtown? No.
My counter argument would be that we can reduce emissions and keep off the dirty air list by decreasing the number of trips by creating more urban, walkable districts. You dont have to have rail to do that. Even with rail we are going to have more cars on the road in the future. With or without rail we need better land use policies. People can get to and from work more easily if they live near where they work. You can also reduce trips and the distance of trips to the grocery store, bank, barber, etc. in more dense areas.
Again,... not against rail, not against rail in Tulsa. Its a matter of when, how, where, what goes with it, what comes first, etc. Have finally come to some general conclusions on the matter, will elaborate later, on a different thread so I wont keep hijacking this one lol.
Or the expected hotels that were going to spring up along the banks?
Mmm. no that wasn't expected right away. No one in Oklahoma City is expecting that kind of development until after the Core 2 Shore development begins, which will take off after the three mile stretch of I-40 is relocated. In the meantime, the city of OKC is still working on zoning details for river front development. Honestly, I doubt any river front development will take place until Core 2 Shore is well under way. The new three-mile stretch of I-40 is expected to be finished by 2012. By then, people in OKC will begin to see some dramatic changes.
quote:
Originally posted by okcpulse
Or the expected hotels that were going to spring up along the banks?
Mmm. no that wasn't expected right away. No one in Oklahoma City is expecting that kind of development until after the Core 2 Shore development begins, which will take off after the three mile stretch of I-40 is relocated. In the meantime, the city of OKC is still working on zoning details for river front development. Honestly, I doubt any river front development will take place until Core 2 Shore is well under way. The new three-mile stretch of I-40 is expected to be finished by 2012. By then, people in OKC will begin to see some dramatic changes.
Perhaps someone forgot to tell the PR outlets that bit of info? Before the words "core to shore" were ever uttered the press was showing renderings of hotels along the shoreline and talking about how much interest there was by them. It lead people to believe it was imminent.
There are three new hotels going in along the river along the Meridian corridor near the western river taxi landing.