The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Talk About Tulsa => Development & New Businesses => Topic started by: tim huntzinger on December 15, 2006, 08:50:40 am



Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: tim huntzinger on December 15, 2006, 08:50:40 am
PJ Lassek reports on 'Branson Landing' developers (http://"http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=061129_To_A1_Anoth1921")

Where on the west bank is this mythical development being considered?

Also, for all the talk of 'private enterprise,' why are tax breaks being considered?  Help me out, but did JGordon secure the tax breaks before putting in his thrice-mortgaged Riverwalk?



Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: tim huntzinger on December 16, 2006, 07:49:48 am
Wow! I suck!  No replies!

No wonder, there it is: 'between the 21st and 11th St Bridges.' Doh!

If Howell were interested in the welfare of Tulsa, maybe he should invest in the City, instead of the far-off environs of his Christian compound on lake Skiatook (get it, 'Cross'-timbers? Wink-wink!)

I for one am sick and tired of these private-public partnerships that are nothing more than handcrafted gimmes to some insider or another.  TIFFs are being abused by so-called free-marketers who want the benefits of being an investor without the risk.

Do not tell me about the nobility of the uber-wealthy investment class and how visionary they are when they cannot even open a hot dog stand without a tax break.

This line of policy - narrow tax breaks granted for private business - are bankrupting our nation.


Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: TheArtist on December 16, 2006, 08:27:10 am
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger

PJ Lassek reports on 'Branson Landing' developers (http://"http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=061129_To_A1_Anoth1921")

Where on the west bank is this mythical development being considered?

Also, for all the talk of 'private enterprise,' why are tax breaks being considered?  Help me out, but did JGordon secure the tax breaks before putting in his thrice-mortgaged Riverwalk?





It says in the article where he would like it to be. And we already have a thread that has talked about this.


Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: Kenosha on December 16, 2006, 08:21:15 pm
(http://www1.hilton.com/ts/en_US/hotels/content/HROBRHH/media/images/photo_gallery/HROBRHH_Hilton_Promenade_at_Branson_Landing_gallery_welcome.jpg)

(http://www1.hilton.com/ts/en_US/hotels/content/HROBRHH/media/images/photo_gallery/HROBRHH_Hilton_Promenade_at_Branson_Landing_gallery_accom_2ndstreet_view_large.jpg)

(http://www1.hilton.com/ts/en_US/hotels/content/HROBRHH/media/images/photo_gallery/HROBRHH_Hilton_Promenade_at_Branson_Landing_gallery_accom_street_view_large.jpg)

(http://www1.hilton.com/ts/en_US/hotels/content/HROBRHH/media/images/photo_gallery/HROBRHH_Hilton_Promenade_at_Branson_Landing_gallery_accom_groundlevel_courtyard_large.jpg)

(http://www1.hilton.com/ts/en_US/hotels/content/HROBRHH/media/images/photo_gallery/HROBRHH_Hilton_Promenade_at_Branson_Landing_gallery_accom_courtyard_large.jpg)

(http://www1.hilton.com/ts/en_US/hotels/content/HROBRHH/media/images/photo_gallery/HROBRHH_Hilton_Promenade_at_Branson_Landing_gallery_accom_plaza_large.jpg)

(http://www1.hilton.com/ts/en_US/hotels/content/HROBRHH/media/images/photo_gallery/HROBRHH_Hilton_Promenade_at_Branson_Landing_gallery_accom_water_feature_large.jpg)

(http://www1.hilton.com/ts/en_US/hotels/content/HROBRHH/media/images/photo_gallery/HROBRHH_Hilton_Promenade_at_Branson_Landing_gallery_accom_aerial_view_large.jpg)

(http://www1.hilton.com/ts/en_US/hotels/content/HROBRHH/media/images/photo_gallery/HROBRHH_Hilton_Promenade_at_Branson_Landing_gallery_restaurants_libertytavern_large.jpg)



Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: tim huntzinger on December 17, 2006, 08:51:30 am
A collection of articles on Tax Increment Financing (TIF)  from Heartland.org (http://"http://www.heartland.org/PolicyBotTopic.cfm?artTopic=305")

(http://www.hotelerezerwacje.com.pl/Disney/mapadisneyland2.JPG)

(http://www.hong-kong-travel.org/Image/Disneyland14MainStreetUSA.jpg)

(http://perso.orange.fr/anthony.atkielski/DisneylandSmall.jpg)

(http://www.mousepal.com/ParkPics/raft%20to%20Tom%20Sawyers%20island.jpg)


Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: PonderInc on December 18, 2006, 10:43:44 am
quote:
Originally posted by Kenosha

(http://www1.hilton.com/ts/en_US/hotels/content/HROBRHH/media/images/photo_gallery/HROBRHH_Hilton_Promenade_at_Branson_Landing_gallery_welcome.jpg)

(http://www1.hilton.com/ts/en_US/hotels/content/HROBRHH/media/images/photo_gallery/HROBRHH_Hilton_Promenade_at_Branson_Landing_gallery_accom_2ndstreet_view_large.jpg)

(http://www1.hilton.com/ts/en_US/hotels/content/HROBRHH/media/images/photo_gallery/HROBRHH_Hilton_Promenade_at_Branson_Landing_gallery_accom_street_view_large.jpg)

(http://www1.hilton.com/ts/en_US/hotels/content/HROBRHH/media/images/photo_gallery/HROBRHH_Hilton_Promenade_at_Branson_Landing_gallery_accom_groundlevel_courtyard_large.jpg)

(http://www1.hilton.com/ts/en_US/hotels/content/HROBRHH/media/images/photo_gallery/HROBRHH_Hilton_Promenade_at_Branson_Landing_gallery_accom_courtyard_large.jpg)

(http://www1.hilton.com/ts/en_US/hotels/content/HROBRHH/media/images/photo_gallery/HROBRHH_Hilton_Promenade_at_Branson_Landing_gallery_accom_plaza_large.jpg)

(http://www1.hilton.com/ts/en_US/hotels/content/HROBRHH/media/images/photo_gallery/HROBRHH_Hilton_Promenade_at_Branson_Landing_gallery_accom_water_feature_large.jpg)

(http://www1.hilton.com/ts/en_US/hotels/content/HROBRHH/media/images/photo_gallery/HROBRHH_Hilton_Promenade_at_Branson_Landing_gallery_accom_aerial_view_large.jpg)

(http://www1.hilton.com/ts/en_US/hotels/content/HROBRHH/media/images/photo_gallery/HROBRHH_Hilton_Promenade_at_Branson_Landing_gallery_restaurants_libertytavern_large.jpg)



What I like are all the attractive, clean-cut, physically fit, upper-middle class, white people in the pictures.  (Oh how the streets will be full of them in this developer dreamscape!) But I wonder...where did they park their SUVs?  Because we all know that these suburban types don't walk (see River"walk" crossing for an example.)  Perhaps the SUVs are hidden out back with all the obese and/or darker-skinned folks...and all of their tatooed/pierced and/or goth children...and the hookers.

And for a place with no trash cans, there sure isn't much litter!


Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: SXSW on December 18, 2006, 03:59:18 pm
^ I believe their SUV's are tucked away in a parking garage or underground.  Either way they are out of sight, which is better than how it is at Riverwalk.


Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: TheArtist on December 18, 2006, 05:43:02 pm
No no no, Branson Landing isn't the SUV crowd, its the RV crowd. Should be pics of little old ladies wearing quirky vests and silly ear rings they find at craft shows. I know, because my parents have morphed into that crowd. [:)]


Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: swake on December 20, 2006, 04:56:43 pm
I’ve been paying attention to the Branson Landing people’s project and I’m liking what I am hearing less and less.

I listened to the developer from Springfield on KFAQ and also Ron Howell (Cross Timbers and the other developer). I also read bates article in UT and I read the stuff in the World.

The development sounds good, mixed use, multi story. But not great, Branson Landing is anchored by Belk’s and Bass Pro. Wow. Can we pay for a second Bass Pro in town so it will also fail to meet it’s projections on revenue (and thus rent payments)? Belk’s? There’s one in Owasso and another being built at Tulsa Hills. Maybe that’s upscale for Branson, but it’s just another shopping center here.

Branson Landing got over $100 million in public funding, I don’t feel like paying $100 million for things the quality of Belk’s and Bass Pro. This is a strip mall with housing above the stores. And I don’t like what Bates had to say about the lack of involvement between the project and the water.

And, finally, the killer, Ron Howell said something really interesting, That the city could not back both the East End and his project. What? You want people vote between The East End and giving money so a Belk’s can be built on the river? How fast can I say go back to Branson and stay there?

A glorified discount store strip mall (Tulsa Hills?) on the water or a mixed use development and ballpark downtown. What’s your vote? I also really don’t even see them having the same clientele, but that’s me.


Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: TheArtist on December 20, 2006, 07:19:00 pm
It seems like people are saying he is building another Branson Landing here, same stuff and all. The developer specifically stated that it would not be another Branson Landing but would be something thats unique to Tulsa. Plus there is no way there is going to be another Bass Pro in town, especially over there.


Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: SXSW on December 20, 2006, 07:33:44 pm
I like this setup and think it would work well along the river:
(http://www1.hilton.com/ts/en_US/hotels/content/HROBRHH/media/images/photo_gallery/HROBRHH_Hilton_Promenade_at_Branson_Landing_gallery_accom_aerial_view_large.jpg)

It reminds me of Washington Harbor in Georgetown.  Large plaza areas RIGHT ON THE WATER with shops/restaurants with outdoor seating opening out to this plaza.  On the west bank you could do this along the shoreline and then reroute Jackson Ave. behind the stores (with condos above) and have streetfront retail along that road as well.  The other side of the road could just be residential development.  

Maybe by deleting some of the retail component (like no department store) but keeping the condos and maybe a hotel would be better.  Then the East End and projects in Uptown could be more retail-oriented.  I like having it mixed-use but it doesn't need to be an outdoor mall like Branson Landing.  A few shops, yes, and lots of restaurants facing the water.


Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: sgrizzle on December 21, 2006, 08:13:06 am
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc


What I like are all the attractive, clean-cut, physically fit, upper-middle class, white people in the pictures.  (Oh how the streets will be full of them in this developer dreamscape!) But I wonder...where did they park their SUVs?  Because we all know that these suburban types don't walk (see River"walk" crossing for an example.)  Perhaps the SUVs are hidden out back with all the obese and/or darker-skinned folks...and all of their tatooed/pierced and/or goth children...and the hookers.

And for a place with no trash cans, there sure isn't much litter!



It's in branson. I think they were just aiming for their demographic. I don't see any trucker hats, camo, or "stars and bars." though.

I'm a fat suburban white guy, do I walk? I'm confused on the rules.


Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: PonderInc on December 22, 2006, 02:52:55 pm
I know I'm a snob, but I swear, if there's one thing that Tulsa doesn't need it's another national chain.  No matter where it's located....but ESPECIALLY on the river or in/near downtown.

Our goal MUST be to differentiate ourselves from the generic offerings that can be found in any town or suburb in America.  No more Belk's, no more Bass Pro Shops, no more Chili's, or Kohl's, or Panera's, or Office Depots, or Applebee's, or whatever!  Drive up to Owasso.  They have one of everything.  Drive over to Stillwater.  They have one of everything.  Drive down to 71st and Mingo...yep, all of the same crap.

Sometimes I think we're so desperate for a date, that we'll sleep with anyone with a few bucks and a vague interest to "develop" something.  

Tulsa needs to stand up and decide what we want to be.  Another cookie-cutter retail outlet providing the same shopping opportunities available in the burbs?  Or something real and vital and unlike anywhere else in the region?

Relying on national chains to fill giant new developments demonstrates a complete lack of imagination.  Why do people go to Austin?  Because it's unlike anywhere else.  Guess what: nobody travels to Broken Arrow b/c it's a unique destination...b/c it's not.

I worry about the East End, b/c I think that allowing a single developer control over 45 acres of downtown will result in a homogenous development where everything old is demolished to build something new that looks sort of old (in a plastic fake way).  

I worry about river developments that rely on national chains to fill them.  Nobody is going to travel from Owasso to shop at a Belks on the river.  Why should they?  They've already got one.  Think about it.


Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: SXSW on December 22, 2006, 03:09:08 pm
^ That is why I am reluctant to support any kind of mass retail area (like a Riverwalk) on the west bank.  I think more of a dense residential area with a handful of shops and restaurants is better than a "mall on the river".  And yes I worry about mega developments like the East End which will inevitably have chain restaurants/retail.  That's to be expected but I do hope it also includes a lot of local businesses (which downtown is almost exclusively made up of now) that opened up because of the traffic a few "high-end" chains could bring.  Things like a Barnes & Noble, Cheesecake Factory, California Pizza Kitchen, etc. are chains I wouldn't mind seeing but then lots of local places in between.  Notice Austin used to be known for its abundance of local places but on a recent trip there I saw quite a few new chains taking up shop in the downtown area.


Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: TheArtist on December 22, 2006, 06:59:41 pm
^ I get both your points and agree that we need something on the river that will not be same ol same ol.  But, I think if the development is designed properly visually and structurally, with parking garages, living quarters, not spread out but more urban, some public spaces etc. that such a place, even if in the beginning it is mostly "chain" stores and restaurants, that it can evolve to be what we want.  Even the Riverwalk, though it has some chain places has local ones and I think any like place on the river in Tulsa would as well.  What you want is a space that is nice enough and designed so that if the "Belks" pull out at some time it is easily useable for other businesses.


Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: SXSW on December 26, 2006, 03:01:31 am
I could envision our west bank looking something like this someday, high density residential with a mix of retail at the base of the midrises facing the water and along a blvd. on the other side:
(http://k53.pbase.com/o4/73/280873/1/56481484.SouthshoreCondos.jpg)



Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: bacjz00 on December 26, 2006, 02:24:54 pm
Hey Tim...

Can you kindly scale down your Disney park pic so we can read these posts without having to scroll to the right....thanks ;)


Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: tim huntzinger on December 26, 2006, 03:02:00 pm
[Hey Mod, salright to delete the Disney pics - do not know why they are tweaking screens look OK here]


Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: ttown_jeff on December 29, 2006, 10:50:43 am
Tim, thanks for keeping the light on the TIF issues.

SWSX,
That artist's rendering is cool. Lets see if I get it - So the Lexises drive right up into the buildings, the inhabitants go into the elevators, and up to their $400k flats and flip on Survivor and pop open a Brewski, never to be seen again until the next day?

Is there anywhere to get a head of lettuce, or a grape Nehi?

There's a Jane Jacobs name for this type of development - I can't think of it. - I think "Beautiful City" development is what she calls it. It mostly doesn't work very well, the way you have it, in a practical way. For starters, if you put 2000-3000 people in those midrises with no walkabale utilitarian type retail, how do you handle the massive traffic problems?  Riverside can't handle it. You need a good local grocery in your rendering and a light rail, buses, etc., OR you have to put a 12 lane freeway somewhere.  I don't see many alternatives.

Are the watercraft in your droring WaterTaxis?  Now there's an idea.


Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: SXSW on December 29, 2006, 01:34:19 pm
Well maybe not towers EXACTLY like that, but something midrise.  I think it would almost be better for the potential businesses along the river to have a new blvd. (the much talked about Riverside West) going along the west bank, maybe as part of the levee.  Have a large promenade with sidewalks and landscaping butting up against the river and then the retail/restaurants on the other side of the road overlooking the river.  Since the road is already elevated on the levee the businesses would be elevated as well, and any of the residential space would be above said businesses.  That would then create space for covered parking below the businesses because of the levee.  The parking would be accessed by Jackson Ave. and the existing rail line (which could be commuter rail someday) would be by Jackson as well as it is now.

I just don't like the "Riverwalk" concept of having the businesses fronting the river and then having a blank wall along the main road.  The businesses would have better access if they were on a main road with on-street parallel parking overlooking the river because of its position on the levee.  All of the European cities with active riverfronts have this setup: promenade on both sides of the river, roads on both sides, retail/cafes fronting that road on each side.


Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: TheArtist on December 29, 2006, 08:11:02 pm
My "dream" version of how river development would be on the west side near downtown would be something like the right side of this pic... guess the left side would be riverside drive[:P]




(http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/5849/seinexz4.jpg)

Like something you would see in the great river cities of europe.  Shops, cafes, businesses on the ground floor, living above, nice wide sidewalks, then a small street, then a sidewalk for walking, and biking with trees, lights and benches, then the river right there, not far away. So that when you are walking along the sidewalk by the shops and sitting at the cafe you are right near the river, you can see it, you are not seperated from it with parking, a park or large green space.  Other parts of the river can have the green space but have that old world urban development ON the riverfront near downtown. Ideally a square or plaza would open up in the middle of that area facing downtown with buildings around it and a fountain in the middle, to have a larger gathering space for festivals, art shows etc.


Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: SXSW on December 29, 2006, 09:11:10 pm
That pic illustrates what I was thinking as well.  We already have the green space/trees/trails on one side of the river and it's a great series of parks.  The RiverParks is a Tulsa treasure.  The other side of the river should be more developed because lots of it is simply wasteland and the views of the river with the trees and park and skyline above are outstanding.  

The promenade we should try to emulate would be wide enough for walkers, bikers, and joggers and come up right to the river with a concrete wall going down to the water, as in the pic above.  Maybe some areas like the one on the west bank by the pedestrian bridge where steps lead down to the water.  Then your new Riverside West parkway provides the necessary access to the area, and then your various shops and restaurants with outdoor seating overlooking the river on the other side of the street.  Plenty of trees would shade the sidewalk on the west side of the road.

I would like to someday see a new pedestrian bridge built to replace the existing one, something tall and iconic.  And then a 41st Street bridge would provide better access from Midtown to the new River West parkway.  A new off ramp at I-44 would be necessary as well so the new blvd. could go from I-44 all the way along the river to SW Blvd./Hwy. 75.

And yes I agree some of the development should be ON the river.  I think a good area for that would be the cove by the festival park.  It could be a scaled-down version of Branson Landing with the shops and restaurants surrounding that cove with a boat marina in the center and maybe a larger amphitheatre?  That would be a great place for a marina because the inlet is already there.


Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: OurTulsa on December 30, 2006, 10:58:19 am
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist

My "dream" version of how river development would be on the west side near downtown would be something like the right side of this pic... guess the left side would be riverside drive[:P]




(http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/5849/seinexz4.jpg)

Like something you would see in the great river cities of europe.  Shops, cafes, businesses on the ground floor, living above, nice wide sidewalks, then a small street, then a sidewalk for walking, and biking with trees, lights and benches, then the river right there, not far away. So that when you are walking along the sidewalk by the shops and sitting at the cafe you are right near the river, you can see it, you are not seperated from it with parking, a park or large green space.  Other parts of the river can have the green space but have that old world urban development ON the riverfront near downtown. Ideally a square or plaza would open up in the middle of that area facing downtown with buildings around it and a fountain in the middle, to have a larger gathering space for festivals, art shows etc.



I would love to see part of our river develop like the Siene.  Very urban with walks wide enough to accommodate lazy strollers and people biking and running and great connections between the river and nearby districts and the rest of the City.  I live a block from the river near Riverview and would love for the row of apartment buildings (save the dalmation bldg.) to be replaced with 4-8 story multifunctional structures with interactive store fronts spilling out onto wide walks separating the city from Riverside Dr.  Lovely!  

BTW, is that McBirney Hotel in the foreground of your picture, Artist?  I'm telling you, if done right, the McBirney Hotel could be the start of a wonderful development trend for Tulsa on Riverside Dr.


Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: ky on December 31, 2006, 09:18:17 pm
[8D] we dont need another Branson Landing too many projects going on right now!


Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: tim huntzinger on January 03, 2007, 08:43:38 am
I talked to someone from Branson and their sales tax is a whopping 9%.  Further, until the 'Landing' Branson had no big-box commercial conglomeration.  What else, comparing the bucolic pastoral setting of the Ozarks and its national-profile context with our homely riverbank downtown is ludicrous.

Why are these nominal conservatives pushing for a downtown retail development when all the growth is south?  What sense does it make to place this downtown when the Creek Turnpike, Creek Casino, and future Toll Bridge all point to better synergies down South?

Call them STAR bonds, or TIFFS, any public financing of this means more debt for the City.  Howell's proxies can spew anything they want about how minimal the public investment is, but a bail-out is a bail-out and a gimme is a gimme any way one slices it.


Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: PonderInc on January 03, 2007, 05:22:13 pm
B/c anything you can do to encourage development in older, central parts of the city is actually more cost-effective long term.  (No new infrastructure costs, no further expansion of police/fire coveraage, no extra costs to maintain an ever-increasing road system.)

Anything that encourages development in existing, under-utilized areas provides long-term cost benefits.  Encouraging the city to grow outward is unsustainable long-term...b/c as the infrastructure ages, it will outstrip our ability to keep up with maintenance.

Also, why put money into areas where property taxes support the Union school district...instead of boosting areas that will help TPS.  And why encourage car-dependent development, when the future needs to be more walkable, bikeable, transit-oriented...just so we won't have to support the economies of such steller countries as Iran, Iraq, Argentina, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria...


Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: TheArtist on January 03, 2007, 08:44:47 pm
^ Also we have to think of what kind of people we want to be able to attract as a city.

  The kind that want to have that city life?  Then downtown and mid-town are where we should place some attention.  

Those who want a liveable, walkable environment, where they can live, work, shop, dine within walking/biking distanc?.  Then again, downtown and mid-town are the obvious choices to try and have such a lifestyle available for those people, or they can easily choose to live in other cities where they can find that kind of environment.

Those who want to live in the suburban type areas like in South Tulsa?  Well we are not going to be able to attract that many more of those in the near future.  The space that remains within the city limits for new neighborhoods like that are becoming a bit scarce, unless you start more development north of downtown. Which would be fine with me.  Otherwise the growth we would be promoting is for the suburbs, thats their job, not ours. Let them do the work to attract their own people, and pay for roads,sidewalks, sewer, police, trash,parks, etc. etc. The mere fact that Tulsa and its amenities are near benefits them anyway.

As for the Branson Landing developers.  Lets wait and see what they present before we criticize it lol. Plus there may be other options to choose from by then.


Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: tim huntzinger on January 10, 2007, 09:58:13 am
What has happened is that their blatant attempt at political blackmail did not work.  Their stooge Howell is meddling once again in Tulsa's affairs.

A good faith effort does not require immediate action, right now, give us what we want or we take our marbles and leave.  A bad used car salesman uses that, but not serious developers.

The Mayor has more than a few things on the drawing board, and for Howell and his group to take this tact demonstrates their lack of good faith.


Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: sneezye on February 06, 2007, 04:52:45 pm
I don't know all the details of what the Branson Landing people are proposing in Tulsa but I live right across Lake Taneycomo from the Landing and I have to be honest... the thing is ugly from this side. The cargo doors face the lake. There isn't a single shop facing the lake. So all you see while driving down Lakeshore (which runs down the oposite side of the lake from the Landing) are blank walls and cargo doors. As for the Landing being a hangout for the RV types, I'd say that's way off. On any given day, 90% of the people there are "high-class" Table Rock Lake inhabitants. The RV crowd usually chills over at the Wal-mart.


Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: TheArtist on February 06, 2007, 06:51:43 pm
quote:
Originally posted by sneezye

I don't know all the details of what the Branson Landing people are proposing in Tulsa but I live right across Lake Taneycomo from the Landing and I have to be honest... the thing is ugly from this side. The cargo doors face the lake. There isn't a single shop facing the lake. So all you see while driving down Lakeshore (which runs down the oposite side of the lake from the Landing) are blank walls and cargo doors. As for the Landing being a hangout for the RV types, I'd say that's way off. On any given day, 90% of the people there are "high-class" Table Rock Lake inhabitants. The RV crowd usually chills over at the Wal-mart.



What do you call "high class"? There may be different RV crowds, but the ones I am familiar with have more than a few pennies to rub together. Those RVs can run around a quarter million or more.  My parents have an RV, a boat, a plane, home on a lake, time share in Florida, etc.  However I would not in any way call them high class though lol. And yes my parents practically live at Wal-Mart.  The only place they probably spend more time at is Disney World, what their fascination with the place is I will never understand.  I have only been there about 7 or 8 times but I practically have every resort and park, every store, gift shop and ride memorized. uck lol

As for the developer not facing things towards the lake... Sorry to hear that.  But I would lay odds that he will have it facing the river here.  He will have too just to attract people over to that side, plus you would be missing the view of the river and downtown if you didn't.  Fingers crossed though.

Question.. Will nothing on this front be started until the river plan is voted on next year?  Whats the status of that property anyway?


Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: waterboy on February 06, 2007, 08:06:51 pm
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:
Originally posted by sneezye

I don't know all the details of what the Branson Landing people are proposing in Tulsa but I live right across Lake Taneycomo from the Landing and I have to be honest... the thing is ugly from this side. The cargo doors face the lake. There isn't a single shop facing the lake. So all you see while driving down Lakeshore (which runs down the oposite side of the lake from the Landing) are blank walls and cargo doors. As for the Landing being a hangout for the RV types, I'd say that's way off. On any given day, 90% of the people there are "high-class" Table Rock Lake inhabitants. The RV crowd usually chills over at the Wal-mart.



What do you call "high class"? There may be different RV crowds, but the ones I am familiar with have more than a few pennies to rub together. Those RVs can run around a quarter million or more.  My parents have an RV, a boat, a plane, home on a lake, time share in Florida, etc.  However I would not in any way call them high class though lol. And yes my parents practically live at Wal-Mart.  The only place they probably spend more time at is Disney World, what their fascination with the place is I will never understand.  I have only been there about 7 or 8 times but I practically have every resort and park, every store, gift shop and ride memorized. uck lol

As for the developer not facing things towards the lake... Sorry to hear that.  But I would lay odds that he will have it facing the river here.  He will have too just to attract people over to that side, plus you would be missing the view of the river and downtown if you didn't.  Fingers crossed though.

Question.. Will nothing on this front be started until the river plan is voted on next year?  Whats the status of that property anyway?



If you're referring to 11-21st on the West side, the concrete plant and the apartments are still under option by the Channels group I believe. The area sandwiched in between is RPA property.

From what I have read on this thread it looks like regular Tulsa stuff. Champagne tastes on beer budget. No wonder movement is so slow. The dreams are so large, the viewpoints so divergent that in the end its gridlock. I see visions of Europe, Disneyland, Georgetown as well as Hillbilly heaven. I see competition among downtown, river and South expansion interests.

Let me point out that there is no water in the river. There hasn't been water in the river all winter. That is odd. Predictions are this will continue after spring rains. So even if we build dams there may be little water to fill them and still plans show no interconnect between them. Little synergy between developed areas. Any development under these conditions is forced and doomed.

People show actual interest in doing something and they're "stooges" "elitists" or government tax chiselers. I love the pictures but I've seen pictures since back in the 50's of the potential development along the river and they start to look less and less viable all the time.

This bears repeating, we need to make small steps. Development that is aggregate in nature is easier to manage. Mistakes can be caught and corrected before they're catastrophic and the movement begins to gain momentum, real momentum that private industry will fuel. Forget what Riverwalk looks like and understand what it is.


Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: perspicuity85 on February 07, 2007, 08:16:01 pm
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Let me point out that there is no water in the river. There hasn't been water in the river all winter. That is odd. Predictions are this will continue after spring rains. So even if we build dams there may be little water to fill them and still plans show no interconnect between them. Little synergy between developed areas. Any development under these conditions is forced and doomed.

People show actual interest in doing something and they're "stooges" "elitists" or government tax chiselers. I love the pictures but I've seen pictures since back in the 50's of the potential development along the river and they start to look less and less viable all the time.

This bears repeating, we need to make small steps. Development that is aggregate in nature is easier to manage. Mistakes can be caught and corrected before they're catastrophic and the movement begins to gain momentum, real momentum that private industry will fuel. Forget what Riverwalk looks like and understand what it is.



The low water dams clearly will make river development in Tulsa much more attractive.  If I could afford to be a Tulsa philanthropist, I would see that the low water dams were completed as soon as possible.  From there, I would put up a buffer between the Westport Apts. and the refineries.  I would raise hell to my local elected officials if the refineries ever violated any EPA regulation.  After that, I would completely re-do the Westport Apts. to make them more attractive and more urban looking, while keeping them in a mid-level price zone.  I would then develop my former concrete plant land into a mixed-use sustainable urban development that utilizes views of the river and the skyline.

Any Tulsa philanthropists care to leave me in their will????


Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: waterboy on February 07, 2007, 09:38:52 pm
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85

quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Let me point out that there is no water in the river. There hasn't been water in the river all winter. That is odd. Predictions are this will continue after spring rains. So even if we build dams there may be little water to fill them and still plans show no interconnect between them. Little synergy between developed areas. Any development under these conditions is forced and doomed.

People show actual interest in doing something and they're "stooges" "elitists" or government tax chiselers. I love the pictures but I've seen pictures since back in the 50's of the potential development along the river and they start to look less and less viable all the time.

This bears repeating, we need to make small steps. Development that is aggregate in nature is easier to manage. Mistakes can be caught and corrected before they're catastrophic and the movement begins to gain momentum, real momentum that private industry will fuel. Forget what Riverwalk looks like and understand what it is.



The low water dams clearly will make river development in Tulsa much more attractive.  If I could afford to be a Tulsa philanthropist, I would see that the low water dams were completed as soon as possible.  From there, I would put up a buffer between the Westport Apts. and the refineries.  I would raise hell to my local elected officials if the refineries ever violated any EPA regulation.  After that, I would completely re-do the Westport Apts. to make them more attractive and more urban looking, while keeping them in a mid-level price zone.  I would then develop my former concrete plant land into a mixed-use sustainable urban development that utilizes views of the river and the skyline.

Any Tulsa philanthropists care to leave me in their will????



Ok, you're king for the day. You have one thing you can do as a benevolent authoritarian to please your people. What is it? A low water dam?


Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: perspicuity85 on February 09, 2007, 01:50:29 pm
I wasn't implying that I would put low water dams ahead of charities like Habitat for Humanity or education.


Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: waterboy on February 09, 2007, 02:42:45 pm
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85

I wasn't implying that I would put low water dams ahead of charities like Habitat for Humanity or education.



I don't know why I asked that question. I guess I am frustrated with so many critics and visioneers, so few activists. Easier to be the former.

I don't think the lowater dams will make the river more attractive to develop by default. It is the money pumped into activity on or along the river in itself that will attract creative development. Then, if allowed, development will prosper and the river will be utilized. I wish it were the opposite but alas, land doesn't ebb and flow like the river.


Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: perspicuity85 on February 10, 2007, 05:32:54 pm
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I don't know why I asked that question. I guess I am frustrated with so many critics and visioneers, so few activists. Easier to be the former.

I don't think the lowater dams will make the river more attractive to develop by default. It is the money pumped into activity on or along the river in itself that will attract creative development. Then, if allowed, development will prosper and the river will be utilized. I wish it were the opposite but alas, land doesn't ebb and flow like the river.



While I don't consider the low water dams to be the savior of the river, I do think they are a necessary component in the overall improvement plan.  More water in the river make the proposed marina, the Tulsa Wave pool, and water taxis possible.  I am hoping that as the Core of Engineers' study concludes, we will see someone step up to bring the dams to fruition.  I would love to be an activist, but unfortunately my resources only permit me to be a visionary.


Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: waterboy on February 10, 2007, 08:07:22 pm
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85

quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I don't know why I asked that question. I guess I am frustrated with so many critics and visioneers, so few activists. Easier to be the former.

I don't think the lowater dams will make the river more attractive to develop by default. It is the money pumped into activity on or along the river in itself that will attract creative development. Then, if allowed, development will prosper and the river will be utilized. I wish it were the opposite but alas, land doesn't ebb and flow like the river.



While I don't consider the low water dams to be the savior of the river, I do think they are a necessary component in the overall improvement plan.  More water in the river make the proposed marina, the Tulsa Wave pool, and water taxis possible.  I am hoping that as the Core of Engineers' study concludes, we will see someone step up to bring the dams to fruition.  I would love to be an activist, but unfortunately my resources only permit me to be a visionary.



We all do what we can. [:)]


Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: tim huntzinger on March 05, 2007, 09:15:28 am
'Hat tip' to DAVID.S for noting on his forum that forum (http://"http://voicesoftulsa.com/index.php") the developers of Branson Landing and the City of Branson are being sued by the development's architects. (http://"http://www.bransondailynews.com/story.php?storyID=2698")


Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: sgrizzle on March 05, 2007, 10:04:58 am
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger

'Hat tip' to DAVID.S for noting on his forum that forum (http://"http://voicesoftulsa.com/index.php") the developers of Branson Landing and the City of Branson are being sued by the development's architects. (http://"http://www.bransondailynews.com/story.php?storyID=2698")



Sued, yes. In the wrong?


Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: MichaelC on March 07, 2007, 03:48:19 pm
From Tulsa World (http://"http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070304_Ne_A15_Brans32923")

quote:
 The city and the developer of Branson Landing are still talking about river development.

But whether or not Rick Huffman will create a unique riverfront development for Tulsa as he did in Branson, Mo., is still undecided, officials say.

"We had a very good meeting with the mayor and the city's Economic Development Director Don Himelfarb," said Kevin Coutant, a Tulsa attorney working for Huffman's company, HCW Development.

Coutant said during a recent meeting Mayor Kathy Taylor and Himelfarb showed a great deal of interest and excitement for a river development project generally of the type represented by Branson Landing.

"Nobody is talking about doing the same thing in Tulsa as what is in Branson. That wouldn't make sense. But, instead, a development that included a mixed-use, regional lifestyle center that would really be a showpiece for the city," he said.

Himelfarb said the city is looking seriously at river development that can be achieved ahead of other river issues such as getting water in the river, creating corridor zoning and setting up a river development authority.

"What we are doing is trying to understand what can be done now, zero in on it, and if it makes sense, try to make it happen," he said.

Huffman and his associates recently met the city officials
in a consulting capacity to help the city understand what can and cannot be done, Himelfarb said.

"These guys have what we believe is a successful waterfront development, and they have offered up their expertise to help talk us through their experience. It was a very useful meeting," he said.

Coutant said there was discussion about the best development locations along the river. The west bank between the 11th Street and 21st Street bridges with the view of downtown "sure seems to be the obvious one and is identified on the Arkansas Corridor Master Plan," he said.

Last fall, Huffman said he had serious interest in that site.

Himelfarb said that with any development of this magnitude, there is going to be a need for government involvement of some sort, whether it is infrastructure or incentives.

A private-public partnership is likely because these types of projects usually have a public component of significance like an amphitheater or other facility, he said.

"What exactly the city's role will be is what we're trying to determine and we're talking to a lot of different people. We probably at some point will have to go outside and get some experts to help guide us so that we do it right," Himelfarb said.

The biggest hurdles for the city to attract a significant development like a Branson Landing is gathering the land and dealing with issues of financing, engineering, environment, and traffic in and out of the area, he said.

Coutant said Huffman encouraged the city to gather the land and then seek development proposals. Huffman likely would be one of several developers to bid, he said.

Himelfarb said that at no time did Huffman's group ask for anything inappropriate. The group knows Tulsa has to be open and operate in a competitive manner on public-owned land, he said.

The city owns land on the west bank between the 21st Street and 11th Street bridges. The area also has the Mid-Continent Concrete Co. and the Westport on the River apart ments, which are privately owned.

In November, it was announced that the William K. Warren Medical Research Center had signed purchase options totaling $65 million on the two private properties. The land was being sought for a proposed $788 million river development called The Channels, which would included three islands to be constructed in the Arkansas River.

At that time, it was said that the options were good through March. Nobody associated with The Channels project could be reached for comment.

It also was released that the purchase option for the 23.7-acre apartment site was $28 million and the 26.7 acre concrete site was $37 million.



Title: 'Branson Landing'
Post by: TheArtist on June 13, 2007, 09:09:27 pm
Apparently "Tulsa Landing" is a go.  Official announcement to happen possibly next week.  First reports say it is to be a 550 million dollar development.  Could be started as early as next year and finished by 2010 or 2011.