I'm not necessarily questioning whether we have nice parks. I think we do. River Parks was nice and is improving by leaps and bounds. I always love a good stroll through Woodward and the Garden. Centennial Green has been a positive addition to downtown. And Centennial Park/Central Park is a wonderful example of turning a utility into an asset. And maybe beneficial is the wrong word but...
Our Parks are not economic generators. I can't think of one that has been improved and subsequently improved the neighborhood around it more than just indirect aesthetics. Even Centennial Park/Central Park at 6th and Peoria Av. (one of our recent crown jewels of park improvements) has not had a significant economic impact on the surrounding area - the townhomes were going in prior to the park and demand for them doesn't appear to have significantly increased with the development of that nice park. Now, certainly the areas around our parks would be worse off without them however I can't think of one park that appears to have had a significant impact on its urban counterpart.
Example: while RiverParks is dolling out $$$ for improvements the east side of Riverside Dr. is stagnant and I dare say nasty most of the length between 11th St. and the Creek Tnpk. The edges of neighborhoods surrounding Woodward while mostly dignified are no different than thier contemporaries further in. There's been no marked improvement any of our City parks.
It seems like we do a very poor job of intertwining our City parks with the areas they are set in. In that regard they are no better than the suburban shopping centers we so frequently deride. Woodward would be vastly improved with a clear and pleasant walking edge and strong connection to Utica Sq. or up to Swan Lake and over to Maple Ridge. RiverParks, in my mind, would be a significantly better experience if during the course of a stroll I could easily cross Riverside to an active urban edge -a pleasant urban promenade with a correspondingly urban built environment .
Is there any reason that Owen Park couldn't have a similarly (be it scaled) urban edge that transitioned up to the neighborhoods.
What's missing? Anything?
And then there is this in today's World: Fired park chief says she questioned Taylor
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090628_11_A10_Calnig201088 Our Parks Department is decimated. There's not much to it.
Here's the inspiration for my post:Good Parks Are Good for the Economy
http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/parks/20090624/14/2949Granted this is comparing apples to oranges. In NY parks are very necessary as there is very little green space in many parts. Maybe that's it. In Tulsa many of us have our own mini-parks behind our houses so there is less concern for common park spaces. I still think that our parks could be significant assets and contribute to a much better built environment for our City.