A grassroots organization focused on the intelligent and sustainable development, preservation and revitalization of Tulsa.
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 17, 2017, 08:43:08 pm
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 37   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: REI  (Read 64544 times)
Bamboo World
Philanthropist
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


« Reply #495 on: February 22, 2017, 07:52:07 pm »



I doubt the "new" plan will do much to save these trees.  To protect an established tree during construction, you basically need to fence around it at the drip line of the tree (ie: prevent trucks and bulldozers from driving underneath any of the branches, damaging limbs, and compacting roots).


Also, to protect an established tree, it's best to maintain the existing grade within the tree's root zone.  If berms (as proposed in the "new" plan) are added within the root zones of existing trees, those trees most likely will suffer.

So, the berms might have a negative effect, depending on exactly where they are placed.

The "new" plan is worse than the "old" plan in one regard for sure:  Pedestrian access along the southern edge.  The "old" plan showed a path with crosswalk connecting the sidewalk along Riverside to the trail along the river.  In the "new" plan, the crosswalk has been removed, and the path from Riverside to the river is discontinuous.

Logged
Red Arrow
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 10232


WWW
« Reply #496 on: February 22, 2017, 10:35:50 pm »

Great development!! Hope it gets built soon!!

Are you referring to REI?

Certainly not.
Logged

 
cannon_fodder
All around good guy.
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 9159



« Reply #497 on: February 23, 2017, 08:02:10 am »

Great development!! Hope it gets built soon!!

I'd like to hear your perspective. What makes this a great development?  Do you mean you want to see this particular store or do you find the design of the development itself to be something special?  Do you have an opinion on the sale of public land for private use at what appears to be below market rates?

I need to hear more from someone adamantly in favor.
Logged

- - - - - - - - -
I crush grooves.
RecycleMichael
truth teller
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 12861


« Reply #498 on: February 23, 2017, 09:13:53 am »

I haven't weighed in on this thread with my opinions, and am still conflicted.

I work for a company that builds parks. We protect green space. I want to save all park type land, especially near the river. But I also have to realize that I live in a city that needs development.

I would have tied myself to a tree to defend Turkey Mountain. It is true urban wilderness. This land is not.

The city has about 123,000 acres of land. How much of this should be protected? 2 percent? 20 percent? If we can make such a decision, what land should be protected?

My issue is what makes this land worth protecting. It is undeveloped land on the banks of the river. That ain't being protected much along the 24 miles that the river runs through Tulsa County. I see apartments, a casino, refineries, a cement plant, shopping malls and a restaurant all along the banks already existing with very little chance to make them go away. Does the fact that we have already developed so many acres of the riverfront make this 9 acres more or less important? Is the fact that this parcel also is on 71st street that connects our two biggest malls (Woodland Hills and Tulsa Hills) make it more appropriate to add retail there more than anywhere else on the riverfront?

Is this the nine acres the line in the sand (literally) that we so no to development? Is this land special enough to fight for?

I can't say it is. It has a Burger King across the street. It ain't the urban wilderness that Turkey Mountain gives us. It ain't Woodward Park or Mohawk Park or even any of the lesser 130 parks that Tulsa maintains. It is riverfront, so it is close, but I can't honestly feel the same passion to protect as I do for Turkey Mountain.

I probably oppose this development. My reasons are not because it is the nine acres I love. I have walked the area a couple of times and don't play volleyball. I also would probably never shop at REI and won't be seen at the Starbucks. I don't think the city should have put out an RFP that got them a price below what I think they could have got. I feel strongly the guy involved should have never been given the authority to make a bad deal. He was in over his head and agreed to sell the land to a Texas guy instead of locals. A bad deal to an outsider pisses me off.

But I can't argue that it has to be a park forever. There is a damn Burger King across the street.

It looks to me that the new Mayor has tried to find a way to get more and has committed to put all the funds into improvements for the remaining park left unsold. I have much more faith in his development team. He has pledged to make the remaining area a better park than we have now. If he does that, I will be satisfied that we may have nine acres less park, but many more acres of better park.
Logged

Power is nothing till you use it.
DowntownDan
Philanthropist
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 782


« Reply #499 on: February 23, 2017, 10:09:32 am »


It looks to me that the new Mayor has tried to find a way to get more and has committed to put all the funds into improvements for the remaining park left unsold. I have much more faith in his development team. He has pledged to make the remaining area a better park than we have now. If he does that, I will be satisfied that we may have nine acres less park, but many more acres of better park.

This is the part that might convince me, but I can't really get over the purchase price.  If it's going towards the park, they could have gotten a lot more to make the park a lot better.  And the fact that REI had to be basically forced into changing the design to embrace the park environment tells me they really don't care.  They'll do the bare minimum with the building design then run the business as though they were in Bixby.  It's shocking to me that a place like REI with it's reputation wasn't chomping at the bit to do something unique that interacts with the park.  The fact that they won't is a damn shame.
Logged
swake
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 7284



« Reply #500 on: February 23, 2017, 10:23:08 am »

This is the part that might convince me, but I can't really get over the purchase price.  If it's going towards the park, they could have gotten a lot more to make the park a lot better.  And the fact that REI had to be basically forced into changing the design to embrace the park environment tells me they really don't care.  They'll do the bare minimum with the building design then run the business as though they were in Bixby.  It's shocking to me that a place like REI with it's reputation wasn't chomping at the bit to do something unique that interacts with the park.  The fact that they won't is a damn shame.

Is it REI or the developer?
Logged
patric
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6318


These Aren't the Droids You're Looking For


« Reply #501 on: February 23, 2017, 11:33:26 am »


I would have tied myself to a tree to defend Turkey Mountain. It is true urban wilderness. This land is not.


Add in the precedent set by allowing a public park ... any park ... to be sold off to any developer with a wad of cash in hand, and the scope broadens to potentially encompass the parks that matter more.

It wont stop here.
Logged

"Tulsa will lay off police and firemen before we will cut back on unnecessarily wasteful streetlights."  -- March 18, 2009 TulsaNow Forum
RecycleMichael
truth teller
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 12861


« Reply #502 on: February 23, 2017, 01:49:06 pm »

I don't disagree.

But where was that argument from you and others with the last Mayor?

Sale of 11 Tulsa city park properties under consideration

Facing the possible closure of 11 park properties, Tulsa Parks and Recreation Board members on Tuesday urged the city to move forward cautiously and with community input.“They do not make more open space,” said Parks Board member Teresa Burkett. “Some of these are our green space. Some of these things are what make Tulsa beautiful, our neighborhoods attractive. … I would just like to know, is there a problem?

“I look at some of these things, and I’m kind of offended by the thought of this.”

Burkett spoke after the board was presented with a list of 11 park properties identified for possible lease, sale or repurposing.
The properties include Hawthorne, Lantz and Mitchell parks as well as several smaller pieces of land without amenities.
The board took no action on the issue Tuesday. Parks Director Lucy Dolman determined the list of properties as part of the city’s effort to identify underused assets that could potentially be leased, sold or repurposed.

All city departments have been going through the exercise since last year. Dolman stressed to Park Board members that the vetting process for the 11 identified parks has just begun. Parks could be taken off the list if it is determined they include vital infrastructure, such as storm sewer systems, or utilities that the city must retain, Dolman said.

“What we have to do is try to look at everything and make the best choice,” she said. “Not that there is a good choice when we’re talking about parks.”
City spokeswoman Michelle Allen said the Asset Management Department, in conjunction with a Real Estate Oversight Committee made up of department heads and other city officials, is evaluating all properties and facilities owned by the city and categorizing them according to several criteria.

“A number of parcels fall into the underutilized or surplus category,” she said. “These properties are no longer being used for their original purpose or used to some extent, but costly to maintain, need repairs or abandoned.” She noted that the city recently netted $230,000 when it auctioned off two unused fire stations. “The Asset Management Department continues to examine property lists with other departments to see if potential underutilized properties are viable for redevelopment and for the betterment of Tulsa,” Allen said.

Dolman said she was asked to identify 20 properties. “So there is nothing wrong with any of these pieces?” Burkett said. “They are not a problem? You were just told to make (a list) of things to get rid of?” Dolman said she based her selections on the park’s proximity to other parks, usage, the condition of the park’s amenities and whether the park is being used for its intended purpose. Lantz Park, for example, has two softball fields that are no longer large enough, Dolman said. For whatever reason, “they’re hitting the ball over the fence,” she said. Mitchell Park’s baseball fields, meanwhile, are no longer being used for baseball. Hawthorne Park’s pool has not been open since 2001, Dolman said, and could be leased to a private organization. “But first it has to be surplused,” she said.

Park Board member John Favell said he believes the public needs to be involved in the discussion, noting that replacing a green space with a filling station, for example, could change the makeup of a neighborhood. “What are we doing as far as talking to the immediate community about their feelings?” Favell asked Dolman. Dolman acknowledged that public input has not been part of the process but said after Tuesday’s meeting that she is open to working with residents who want to voice an opinion about a property.

Ultimately, it is up to the City Council to declare that a park is no longer needed for park use. Many of the parks on the list presented Tuesday aren’t being used frequently, if at all, she added. “I think there is no question there are some pieces that we could take off and probably some people — except those people who are going to live across the street — aren’t even going to notice any difference,” Dolman said.

Burkett said after the meeting that she is not opposed to the review process but said city leaders need to focus on what would ensure Tulsa’s long-term quality of life — not simply what short-term benefit a sale or lease of property could have on the city’s general fund. “Just because a neighborhood park is not seen by city leaders does not mean it should be surplussed and sold,” Burkett said. “Because it can still be special to the neighborhood.”


http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/city-park-properties-identified-for-possible-sale-repurposing/article_c52947df-2888-59ef-b8fc-a3cabdd32154.html
Logged

Power is nothing till you use it.
cannon_fodder
All around good guy.
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 9159



« Reply #503 on: February 23, 2017, 02:37:57 pm »

I don't disagree.

But where was that argument from you and others with the last Mayor?

It was here:
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=20885.0

Not nearly as much conversation, but the proposal didn't get nearly as close to completion either.
Logged

- - - - - - - - -
I crush grooves.
PonderInc
City Dweller
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2459


« Reply #504 on: February 23, 2017, 08:06:32 pm »

I understand that GT has worked hard to make improvements to the crappy development.  The additional landscaping and larger islands in the parking lot are a nice feature that would improve any of our hideous commercially zoned properties around town.  In fact, the newest design looks a lot like what many cities require by default for landscaping in and around typical suburban shopping centers.  (By the way, we're going to be updating the landscaping section of our zoning code soon.  Maybe we can catch up!)

I just can't bring myself to support it.  I've been to great parks with coffee shops in them.  None of them EVER had a drive thru!  I've been to great parks with restaurants in them.  None of them EVER included loading docks for semi-trailers.  I'm trying to think of a terrific park that has a bunch of auto-centric commercial/retail...and I just can't think of anything.

Here's a nice restaurant in the middle of Minnehaha Park in Minneapolis.  They have a ton of parking...for bikes!


Minnehaha is a huge park, but you can get there by transit or on a bike.  They have some parking, which serves the entire park. The closest parking lot to the restaurant has space for about 100 cars.  



This is what it means to have a commercial use that accentuates the park land.  You can have great places and great parks that incorporate commercial enterprises.  But they are never designed by suburban developers from Dallas.  Parking, not parks is their forte.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2017, 08:08:37 pm by PonderInc » Logged
Bamboo World
Philanthropist
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


« Reply #505 on: February 23, 2017, 08:37:19 pm »



I'd like to hear your perspective. What makes this a great development?  Do you mean you want to see this particular store or do you find the design of the development itself to be something special?  Do you have an opinion on the sale of public land for private use at what appears to be below market rates?

I need to hear more from someone adamantly in favor.


In_Tulsa posted an explanation last year:


I know I'm in the minority. But I think this is a great development in a great location.  This kind of element will definitely enhance riverside.  This development will bring people to the river that have never experienced the river in Tulsa.  I think it's crazy that everybody is so against this right off of 71st. Very few ever use that part of the park.  Now that national businesses are looking to expand in the Tulsa market I think we need to move to a more pro development community.
 

Logged
SXSW
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3416


WWW
« Reply #506 on: February 23, 2017, 08:42:48 pm »

Look no further than Denver for how REI can interact with a riverfront location and enhance a park/trails space.  Of course REI there is in an old trolley barn and one of their flagship stores but still.  I would only support this if it were just REI and maybe an adjacent restaurant or cafe.  Cut out the outparcel buildings and cut the parking in half.  Push REI and the restaurant closer to the bridge and preserve more of the 9 acres as park, like it's supposed to be.  An REI that looks more like this with expansive river views would be pretty cool:


But overall this still stinks and hopefully the council rejects it.
Logged

 
Bamboo World
Philanthropist
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


« Reply #507 on: February 23, 2017, 09:10:50 pm »



Look no further than Denver for how REI can interact with a riverfront location and enhance a park/trails space.  Of course REI there is in an old trolley barn and one of their flagship stores but still.  I would only support this if it were just REI and maybe an adjacent restaurant or cafe.  Cut out the outparcel buildings and cut the parking in half.  Push REI and the restaurant closer to the bridge and preserve more of the 9 acres as park, like it's supposed to be.  An REI that looks more like this with expansive river views would be pretty cool:


But overall this still stinks and hopefully the council rejects it.


Windows facing toward the river were included in G.T. Bynumm's [sic] proposal, but in my opinion, the "new" proposal isn't very much different than the old one. 

I agree, SXSW.  It stinks.

Logged
Conan71
Recovering Republican
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 28709



« Reply #508 on: February 24, 2017, 10:07:28 am »

Look at any REI which was not an adaptive re-use and it's big box dreck with some sort of architectural or design feature on the front which does a poor job of disguising that it is ubiquitous lay up slab big box.

With Macy's closing at Promenade and the announcement JC Penney is closing stores, there are two more mid-town locations which would be great for REI in addition to the Sears which is being abandoned at 21st & Yale.

In the meantime, Helmerich park is not a very attractive park nor very functional for the larger part of its acreage.  I still have mixed thoughts on this issue.  I think the biggest single sticky point on developing it is the nature of the really sh!tty backroom deal our previous director of ED got us into on this.  

No one seems or seemed too upset about the Blue Rose development and I don't recall any public push-back on it and that was developed in an area of Riverparks which was already pretty attractive.  (By appearances that place may be up for grabs for another venture before long.)  

One thing I do like about the nature of Mayor Bynum trying to make the best of a bad situation which came with his new job is re-investing in the park from sale proceeds of the land.  This could be such a better park but we have never had public or private funds to make this something more like the parks at 41st St. or 96th St along Riverside.  It's current appearance on the plot proposed for development looks like a squatter vollyball camp on abandoned land.

I have wondered if the previous administration had done a much more transparent RFQ process, done a proper abandonment, and gotten more of an appropriate FMV for the land if there would have been so much outcry.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2017, 10:09:15 am by Conan71 » Logged

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first” -Ronald Reagan
PonderInc
City Dweller
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2459


« Reply #509 on: February 28, 2017, 09:56:19 am »

In case you missed Blake Ewing's facebook post...
https://www.facebook.com/a.blake.ewing/posts/1236434066476979

I will vote no to surplus the property on Wednesday night. I have no problem locking that in right now. Here’s why.

1. We shouldn’t sell the parkland. Giving up control of one of our community’s most valuable assets isn’t wise. We’ve asked the community to invest nearly 200 million dollars in improvements to the river corridor with the promise of improved quality of life and tremendous economic development returns. We then identified four key places of potential commercial development throughout the entire corridor, one of which is this area. We can’t follow up the public’s Vision Tulsa investment with this. We have to do much better with public waterfront property and maintaining control of that land best facilitates the city’s long-term objectives.

2. Forward-thinking cities aren’t subsidizing these types of developments. If a developer wants to build a 600-space surface lot surrounding a big box and a drive-through coffee retailer, that’s fine. There are places in our community where that type of development is prevalent and where the zoning and customer base to support it already exists. While I’m typically against that type of development as a general rule, I’m ardently opposed to using public dollars and the discounted sale of public parkland to encourage it. It’s just unacceptable. If we’re going to incentivize waterfront development, we should incentivize the kind of development that best supports the long-term goals of being a world-class city. The river should be a destination and the public investment that was overwhelmingly supported by the community demands that we utilize our assets along the waterfront to continue to add to that destination, not waste our chances on run of the mill suburban style big box stores surrounded by parking lots. I need this to be really clear. This is not an issue of personal taste. Those opposed to this development don’t oppose it out of some high-minded development snobbery. Best practices for development in places like this have been well-defined internationally. You could search for days and not find anyone in the professional planning community who would suggest that this proposal is the best use of this public land. We have a responsibility to ensure that the public’s land achieve its potential. This isn’t even close. One last thing here. It’s as much about the lack of density and the destruction of green space as it is the issues with the design and placement of the buildings. This project needs to be more dense. The parking needs to be stacked to preserve park space. If you’re not a design and planning type person, I get it. Don’t take my word for it. Spend some time doing some basic internet research. Look up the ways other communities are solving parking in parks. Look up the ways they’re integrating a mixture of uses into the same buildings. Look at what they’re doing with art and landscaping in public places. We can do something special here. I’m not trying to knock UCR. They’re just doing what they do. I’m trying to say that in Tulsa, Oklahoma, at 71st and Riverside, we should do something wonderful that our children and grandchildren will enjoy. There’s been a lot of guessing about what Walt Helmerich intended for the site. I have no idea about any of that. I never met him. I have to believe, however, that we honor the legacy of the Tulsans who built this great city by continuing to demand excellence in the ways they did. If we settle for “just okay” because we’re worried about our reputation, I believe we do a disservice to the past and the future at the same time.

3. In addition to being asked to consider this piece of property as surplus, we’re also being asked to pitch in an additional half a million dollars of public funds to support this project with infrastructure. When we included funds in the Improve Our Tulsa program for economic development infrastructure, I was under the impression we were including that to provide funds as an incentive to desired development, not to further subsidize development that has already been subsidized with a dramatically reduced purchase price and that doesn’t begin to match our long-term community objectives.

4. Big box retail is an unwise community investment. Let me be clear, I’m all for new retail development in Tulsa. I hope to see it all over town. I’m completely fine with private developers doing as they choose with their dollars. If REI thinks Tulsa is a good place to invest, I agree with them. I’m simply suggesting the City of Tulsa should not be investing your dollars to entice national, large-footprint retail. It’s unsustainable and is being proven daily to have a very limited shelf-life. Drones will be delivering this stuff to your house any day now. I’d much rather see us invest in locally-owned, diverse, walkable, mixed-use developments that include smaller footprint retail and high quality materials. There’s a reason Brookside and Cherry Street are the most popular destinations in town for retailers and for shoppers. They operate on a proven concept of walkable, diverse, unique and attractive destinations. They also happen to generate more tax dollars (sales and property) per square foot than any other part of the city while also demanding the highest rent rates. Shouldn’t we be working to create more unique destinations for Tulsans and for visitors? If we’re going to invest your tax dollars to incentivize retail developments, it should be to pursue the outcome that generates the highest and most proven return on investment. Consequently, those ad valorem taxes support your public schools, library system, health dept., vocational schools, community college, county services, municipal bond issues, etc. with the most possible dollars. One last note on big box retail. It encourages driving to a place, parking your car, walking in, and walking back out to your car to go home. It isn’t experiential and it almost never occurs as a true destination, I’ll make an exception for IKEA and Bass Pro Shops and maybe even for REI in Denver or Seattle. This REI is not like those. This one is very much like Sun and Ski Sports. In fact, it’s almost exactly like Sun and Ski sports in terms of size and types of products offered. The real difference seems to be the neater brand and the cool membership component. Anyway, more and more of these big boxes will be repurposed into fitness centers, churches, call centers, and gymnastic facilities the years to come. That’s all fine, but please, let’s not dramatically discount land and provide economic development funds to out of state developers to make building it on precious parkland any easier than it should be.

5. One of the key arguments for selling the parkland is to resolve the current lawsuit and avoid future litigation. I contend that the long-term financial gain from doing this project the right way will far exceed any losses from litigation or settlement. Sometimes, the best thing to do is take it on the chin, settle the deal and move on to something bigger and better. Trust me that I know what I’m talking about as it relates to this.

6. One of the other key arguments is that Tulsa is developing a reputation as a city in which it is difficult to develop and that pushing this forward will help to correct that. While the bit about the reputation taking a hit may be true to some degree, forcing this thing along isn’t going to change our reputation. By improving our public input process, cleaning up our zoning code, improving and modernizing our development services, and communicating standards and incentives clearly, we will most certainly improve our reputation. We have done and are doing each one of those things already. Maybe more importantly, what potential developments do we see waiting in the wings in which an out of state developer’s opinion of Tulsa is going to break the deal? Let’s be practical. I tend to believe that most developers are simply looking for strong economic conditions. They’ve all dealt with these same things in cities across the county. I’d rather us worry about our reputation in a different way. I’d rather see us work to develop a reputation as a city with incredibly high self-esteem, well-contemplated standards, and a real willingness to work with any developer who loves Tulsa as much as we do and who shares those high standards. I don’t really care if the developers who want to see what they can get away with here decide to develop somewhere else. In this particular case, the primary attraction to develop should be the location along the Arkansas River, not the cheap land and bonus bucks the city is throwing into the deal. We’re not desperate. We shouldn’t act like we are.

7. The site should remain a park first. This may get me in trouble with some of you, but I can handle it. There should definitely be development here. There should be substantially more development here than what is proposed in the UCR plan. It should be done in such a way, however, that the integrity of the park remains in-tact. It should feel like a park that happens to have stores in it, not like a big box store surrounded by asphalt parking and landscaped saplings and a drive-thru Starbucks on a busy corner. If you’re struggling to imagine how this is possible, Google “Cincinnati waterfront park”. Your city leaders spent time in Cincy just last year in an effort to learn from their successes and failures. I’d say one of their great successes is their Banks project. They’ve managed to build a destination park that also features restaurants, retail, office, residential, etc.. It’s absolutely wonderful and a real crown jewel of their city. They’ve figured out that waterfront land is precious and should be treated as such. They wouldn’t even think about paving it for surface parking. They buried a parking garage under a park in another part of the city, in fact. We should’ve learned while we were there. Maybe we need to go back.

8. We should value local over out of state. We have plenty of local developers who are proving to do incredible work with very high standards. I haven’t talked to one yet who even knew this property was in play. They weren’t contacted. They certainly didn’t know it was for sale. I’ve been told on more than a few occasions by different local developers that they would’ve paid far more for the property had they known it was for sale. Add to that the local retailers who have to compete with the heavily subsidized, national chain. Why on earth would we subsidize a company to come to town to compete with the locally owned business who make our city unique. Again, I don’t mind at all when national businesses choose to locate here. I love it. I just don’t like us paying them to do it. It’s hard enough being an independent local retailer without having the city sell parkland at a fraction of its value to a large, big box competitor. We shouldn’t do that. We should create something special there and fill it up with attractions unique to Tulsa.
I have friends on both sides of this issue. There are people I care about a great deal that just completely disagree with me. I understand. I don’t believe at all that they have malicious intent or that there’s something underhanded or sinister going on. Sometimes people who care a whole lot about something can just disagree on the best way to do something. We’re all just human beings with our own ways of seeing things. I will continue to respect and care about those with whom I disagree. I did feel that I owed it to those who look to me for my thoughts on such things to communicate clearly about why I’m going to do what I’m going to do. I welcome your feedback.

That’s enough. Thanks for caring.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 37   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

 
  Hosted by TulsaConnect and Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
 

Mission

 

"TulsaNow's Mission is to help Tulsa become the most vibrant, diverse, sustainable and prosperous city of our size. We achieve this by focusing on the development of Tulsa's distinctive identity and economic growth around a dynamic, urban core, complemented by a constellation of livable, thriving communities."
more...

 

Contact

 

2210 S Main St.
Tulsa, OK 74114
(918) 409-2669
info@tulsanow.org