River development and new sources of city revenue

[Red Arrow]

I even wonder what effect the new park by the river will have on downtown.  Over all, and over a longer period of time, I think it will absolutely be a plus, but I can see some of the Guthrie Green crowd going to the new park and thus decreasing traffic there. There will likely be new events and "programming" at that new park and from my experience here, those types of things can cause retail downtown to be slow on those days. I want to build up more good days downtown and not have more lackluster ones added to the mix.

Again over all that park will be a huge plus for Tulsa, but as for more city funding to try and spur tax growth in the area around the river. I think you will get more bang for your buck using even half that money to spur more development downtown and the Pearl, etc. at this time, then once that is on more solid footing try the river.  

Maybe the park could be a Trolley Park like the ones from the turn of the 19th to the 20th Century.

[TheArtist]

Maybe the park could be a Trolley Park like the ones from the turn of the 19th to the 20th Century.

Love the idea!  Kind of like Oricutt Park (now Swan Lake)  Used to be you would take the trolley all the way south as far as it would go to the "lake out in the country" and go picnicking, rent a rowboat, swimming, dance at night in the pavilion, etc.  So soon people could enjoy themselves out in the new park then go downtown or to Brookside and dine/shop and make a whole day or weekend of it.  And visitors/tourists/residents to downtown could have another really interesting place to easily get to. 

But of course there won't be any money for trolleys, dams are more important.

[heironymouspasparagus]

M

[AquaMan]

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

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

[Conan71]

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

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

Aqua, a thought occurred to me yesterday about how ADHD our development goals seem to be.  30 years ago, it was a grand idea to have apartments on the west bank of the river and an amphitheater for events.  Fast forward and the Westport Apartments were ready to be sacrificed for The Channels project or even whatever development might have come on the west bank as a result of the '07 River Tax.  Now the amphitheater sits un-used, the stage sold off in the last city auction.  Our idea of "long-term" seems to be about 20-30 years when it comes to development in Tulsa. 

[AquaMan]

If that long. RPA systemTically removed vestiges of 70's supporters by letting stuff just waste away. Landscaping,art and trees placed in honor of everyday people. The message that sends is clear.

Something doesn't feel right about t-town right now. Good editorial contribution by Bill Leighty in World this am.

[rebound]

Side note to start.  I just re-read most of this thread, and I have to say that this is the type of discussion that I joined up for.   Local concerns discussed, with insight from those impacted and those that have experience and/or direct involvement in the issue at hand.   Unlike the National and International political discussions that most often dissolve into inanity.

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

Take the Westport Apartments example.  I lived there in '88-'89.  Loved it.  Went to events at the amphitheater, ran the trails, etc.  It was a great setup.  But now both the apartments and the amphitheater are old and would need significant money to renew, and maybe now (30+ years after they were built) the growth and use patterns are changing and maybe something different needs to done in that area.  (I'm not advocating a change, just saying that an honest evaluation is not a bad thing.)  That doesn't mean that the decision 30+ years ago was wrong.  Both the apartments and amphitheater added value and no doubt contributed in their time to bringing the West side of the river into the fold of greater Tulsa.  To that end they did their job, but 30-40 years changes things and maybe Tulsa needs something different now.

The point is not "change for change sake", but also we should not allow ourselves to question something because in 30 years or so we might want to do something different.

[Gaspar]

Spending the week in Austin. We should build a bat habitat under our bridges. Bats are the key to river development.

[RecycleMichael]

The Congress Avenue bridge in Austin is amazing. They have bat viewing parks along the river to see the million bats all fly at sunset. Standing on the bridge looking down with thousands of bats flying under your feet is very cool.

[Gaspar]

Watching highly highly intoxicated people watching the bats has been even more fun!  Every time I visit I'm amazed by how drunk everyone is. Watched an older woman walk down the street nude from the waist down and covered in her own vomit yesterday evening as I ate dinner at a 6th street restaurant at about 6:30pm. By about 8, everyone walking the streets was staggering hammered.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Long term funding for cities that evens out sales tax revenue and eschewing unsupportable projects no matter how sexy they may seem will keep us from repeating that era.

I bet we will repeat.

We still have the "growth for growth's sake" thing going on. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

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

Take the Westport Apartments example.  I lived there in '88-'89.  Loved it.  Went to events at the amphitheater, ran the trails, etc.  It was a great setup.  But now both the apartments and the amphitheater are old and would need significant money to renew, and maybe now (30+ years after they were built) the growth and use patterns are changing and maybe something different needs to done in that area.  (I'm not advocating a change, just saying that an honest evaluation is not a bad thing.)  That doesn't mean that the decision 30+ years ago was wrong.  Both the apartments and amphitheater added value and no doubt contributed in their time to bringing the West side of the river into the fold of greater Tulsa.  To that end they did their job, but 30-40 years changes things and maybe Tulsa needs something different now.

The point is not "change for change sake", but also we should not allow ourselves to question something because in 30 years or so we might want to do something different.

Couple things about the 30 years...one thing would be to stop allowing development projects like Westport and the apartment "stuff" going on all over town where the design life expectancy is 25 of those 30 years.  Require building standards to a longer design life.  But then the price goes up some, and that is poison to a "value of money" calculation.

Second is how do you get human nature of this country to have a societal attention span of longer than that.  Right now we are "celebrating" the re-use of what is left of the old - 1920's and 1930's - buildings in downtown Tulsa.  This is a fad that is likely to run it's course in about another 15 to 20, if that long, since it has been in process for most of the last decade.  At that point, the next 20 year fad will be in full swing.


I watched Wesport being built - had a nephew working on them - and a couple family members have lived there over the years.  Nice places at the time, if kinda sloppy built.  Don't know how they are now.  Sounds like they are beyond salvage if gonna bulldoze them for the next new thing.  Not mechanically, just at end of fad life.

The stuff going in all over town is probably worse.  Today's apts are the mobile homes of urban housing.

[Conan71]

There's nothing wrong with Westport.  From the exterior, they appear to still be in good repair and when I was in a friend's unit five years ago, it was well-maintained.  I've heard nothing to the contrary since.  We need housing in the area for active singles or couples as well as students at OSU Med School.

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

http://www.fox23.com/news/news/local/city-tulsa-identifies-parks-possible-sale/ngcRW/

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

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

[AquaMan]

Rebound, I know things change as do the frame you view the world from. Smart  cities hang onto the best from each period to provide some continuity and context. We seem to not do that. Downtown is lovely but we almost lost it.

During fireworks at Boulder park a friend remarked to me that he feared the whole river area  and the gathering place has been redesigned to favor a slice of population that ride bikes, push strollers and walk dogs. As such when they approach middle age or empty nester status the whole area will fall in disrepair due to dis interest. That may only be 15 years.

[Conan71]

Rebound, I know things change as do the frame you view the world from. Smart  cities hang onto the best from each period to provide some continuity and context. We seem to not do that. Downtown is lovely but we almost lost it.

During fireworks at Boulder park a friend remarked to me that he feared the whole river area  and the gathering place has been redesigned to favor a slice of population that ride bikes, push strollers and walk dogs. As such when they approach middle age or empty nester status the whole area will fall in disrepair due to dis interest. That may only be 15 years.

I don't see that happening.  There will always be younger people who will utilize the RP system to replace those who "age" out of it.  It's been that way since the early 1970's.  Now, whether or not RPA chooses to maintain them is another issue entirely.  Let's hope the KFF gives them a generous endowment to at least have the funds on hand to maintain them.

Anyone remember when they first constructed the pea gravel trails?  I was thinking around 1973 or '74.