Vision Extension - IDL Removal/Demolition

[LandArchPoke]

Wanted to post an update to the website/proposal (www.infrastructuretulsa.org)

I have redone several sections of the website along with creating a GoFundMe account and a Change.org petition to help build support for this project. Please share and sign the petition if this is something you'd like to see in the upcoming Vision2025 or to see this project happen in general. Also, any funds raised will go directly into engineering studies to help better estimate the costs of this project.

https://www.change.org/p/city-of-tulsa-state-of-oklahoma-rebuild-the-idl
http://www.gofundme.com/letsrebuildtheIDL

We now have a Facebook and Twitter page as well, so feel free to like and share with friends.

https://www.facebook.com/infrastructuretulsa
https://twitter.com/Infra_Tulsa

Here are a few pictures of the revamped proposal. It includes a 1.1 million sq. ft. urban retail center on the former location of the Southeast Interchange, Un-capping of Elm Creek, and a new Soccer Stadium/mixed-used development on the land by Home Depot/East Leg of the IDL.













The last picture shows how the transition would go from Freeway to at-grade complete streets. The BA would be split and exit to 14th Street and 13th Place which would be reconstructed as 2-way streets with 3 lanes each direction (total of 6). During rush hours the in-bound (morning rush) or out-bound lanes (evening rush) would be no parking zones, which during non-rush hour times the outside lanes would be used for on-street parking. This would actually increase the capacity of the corridor into and out of downtown from 3 freeway lanes to 6 at-grade lanes during peak travel periods.

I am working on more exciting details of the proposal to hopefully release soon. Feel free to post questions, reach out to me directly on here, or through the website. And share with friends to get the word out!

[heironymouspasparagus]

I'll add this map below to give everyone an idea in terms of a starter system we could pay for using value capture from new developments built on the IDL east/south leg land. The dots are where stations/stop could potentially be located


This is based off a cost of $30 million per mile - this total starter system would cost $309.3 million and extend a total of 10.31 miles. Now imagine how much development potential this could unlock? .

Good start.  Better investment than similar amount to put water in the river - if we insist on both, then do this one first, so the new activity can help pay for the river boondoggle...

[Conan71]

Go back about eight years in the TNF archives.  We had a really spirited discussion about the potential in uncapping Elm Creek in the run up to the 2007 river tax package vote.  There was also discussion about other canals we could have taken advantage of such as Crow Creek and Cherry Creek.

Good stuff!  Keep it coming!

[heironymouspasparagus]

Canals through the watersheds are a concept that could be a huge game changer for Tulsa.  Done properly, this would leapfrog over the Oklahoma River and Austin combined!!  Think Paris, Venice (Italy AND California), etc.  Small scale river "cruises" around town.  Small scale barge traffic.  I would love to lease a docking space for a river houseboat!!

Digging a big ditch/trench can't be that much more than laying a slab of a$$fault!!

https://www.google.com/search?q=parisian+canals&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CDcQsARqFQoTCPzzrofxjccCFZUQkgodgVYAjA&biw=1308&bih=651

[SXSW]

LandArchPoke, these are the game changing ideas that Blake Ewing has requested.  Bravo sir.  Obviously we can't do all of them but at least one should be a good start.  Streetcar would be my vote, but connect to TU down 11th as part of the starter line (and with major streetscape improvements/implementation of the Route 66 OU Urban Design plan).

[TheArtist]

Canals through the watersheds are a concept that could be a huge game changer for Tulsa.  Done properly, this would leapfrog over the Oklahoma River and Austin combined!!  Think Paris, Venice (Italy AND California), etc.  Small scale river "cruises" around town.  Small scale barge traffic.  I would love to lease a docking space for a river houseboat!!

Digging a big ditch/trench can't be that much more than laying a slab of a$$fault!!

https://www.google.com/search?q=parisian+canals&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CDcQsARqFQoTCPzzrofxjccCFZUQkgodgVYAjA&biw=1308&bih=651

I don't think there is going to be barges or anything but I like the idea of small creek or canal type water features around downtown like the Pearl and this plan could have. 

I think this type of "water in the river" is a better investment than the dams along the Arkansas.  As the architect for the Channels noted, the Arkasas is really "too wide" to be an intimate urban water feature used to stimulate "active" development alongside it (which is why he proposed the island to in effect cut the river down to size so to speak).  It's great as nature/park and perhaps living.  But what would be far more attractive and thus lively would be smaller creeks running down avenues, sprinkled with water features, sculptures, trees and plantings, with sidewalks and development on either side as I have seen done in many cities.  Those are the more lively places where people walk and congregate, even in most river cities.  It's the smaller tributaries that lead into the main river which are more attractive because the scale feels right.  Sure the big river can offer a view if there is something to see on the other side, but people still move on and then linger in the smaller cozy areas.   

[Conan71]

I don't think there is going to be barges or anything but I like the idea of small creek or canal type water features around downtown like the Pearl and this plan could have. 

I think this type of "water in the river" is a better investment than the dams along the Arkansas.  As the architect for the Channels noted, the Arkasas is really "too wide" to be an intimate urban water feature used to stimulate "active" development alongside it (which is why he proposed the island to in effect cut the river down to size so to speak).  It's great as nature/park and perhaps living.  But what would be far more attractive and thus lively would be smaller creeks running down avenues, sprinkled with water features, sculptures, trees and plantings, with sidewalks and development on either side as I have seen done in many cities.  Those are the more lively places where people walk and congregate, even in most river cities.  It's the smaller tributaries that lead into the main river which are more attractive because the scale feels right.  Sure the big river can offer a view if there is something to see on the other side, but people still move on and then linger in the smaller cozy areas.   

That’s what the charm of the river walk in San Antonio, and to a lesser extent, in Bricktown is.  As you alluded to, canals are more of a “human scale”.

[AquaMan]

I have been holding back my comments and visions of the Tulsa I would like to see because at my age, 63 hard fought years, it doesn't really matter. We had our visions 30 years ago and got some of them accomplished and screwed up a bunch too. The next generations have to offer up their plans and suffer similar outcomes. However, since our tax dollars are also going into the bucket we still have some say.

LAP has had the best, and the most defendable proposals. We need big ideas, not necessarily big construction projects. I dearly hope he/she pulls up the old discussions we had about tearing out the dispersal loop and Elm Creek type development. There were detractors then of limited vision and experience who see all taxpayer funded development as boondoggles. That put us way behind other cities and states.

If my proposal for building canals along the Arkansas as it passes through the metro is still archived here I would love to see your comments regarding feasibility. It avoided the problematic concept of building a holding pond upstream of Sand Springs and instead spread out that pond into navigable, easily managed canals adjacent to the banks that would accommodate light development and water users all year long. When water releases are high the canals offer little resistance as the gates on both ends are flattened. Yet when water recedes the gates partially close and hold the water and a small current. They are built one at a time about a mile long and on opposite sides of the river as demand dictates. That way you include West side involvement. Easily scoured of sand and no ecological damage.  The remarks about perspective made me remember.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Make one dam on the Arkansas - or better yet, put a pipeline to route water from Keystone to a series of canals...there should be almost enough elevation change to supplement what naturally occurs in the creeks mentioned.  Maybe take it from behind Zink dam...?


Barges - not like at Port Catoosa - more like a gondola or small houseboat that might be found in the cities mentioned.  An excursion "boat bus" to haul people around...like OKC, but big enough to become viable public transport mechanism around town....30 to 40 people maybe?

[heironymouspasparagus]

I have been holding back my comments and visions of the Tulsa I would like to see because at my age, 63 hard fought years, it doesn't really matter. We had our visions 30 years ago and got some of them accomplished and screwed up a bunch too. The next generations have to offer up their plans and suffer similar outcomes. However, since our tax dollars are also going into the bucket we still have some say.

LAP has had the best, and the most defendable proposals. We need big ideas, not necessarily big construction projects. I dearly hope he/she pulls up the old discussions we had about tearing out the dispersal loop and Elm Creek type development. There were detractors then of limited vision and experience who see all taxpayer funded development as boondoggles. That put us way behind other cities and states.

If my proposal for building canals along the Arkansas as it passes through the metro is still archived here I would love to see your comments regarding feasibility. It avoided the problematic concept of building a holding pond upstream of Sand Springs and instead spread out that pond into navigable, easily managed canals adjacent to the banks that would accommodate light development and water users all year long. When water releases are high the canals offer little resistance as the gates on both ends are flattened. Yet when water recedes the gates partially close and hold the water and a small current. They are built one at a time about a mile long and on opposite sides of the river as demand dictates. That way you include West side involvement. Easily scoured of sand and no ecological damage.  The remarks about perspective made me remember.

Was that proposal here?

[AquaMan]

Yes. My head was still swimming with ideas relating to the river from my four years of hands on experience running airboats, patio boats and canoes from the dam down to Tulsa. I even paid for a watercolor depiction that I uploaded here. Alas, my timing was off and my ideas and reputation were being panned. Probably around 2006/07. Momentum was shifting away from grandiose ideas like the Channels and more dams towards downtown.

It was later we took up the subject of Elm Creek. Using those creeks to help fill the canals didn't occur to me. I hope Blake's request is real and not a distraction.

[TheArtist]

Someone on Facebook mentioned that this plan has the old Art Deco Warehouse Market torn down?  If thats true I am gonna find out who you are and you will not like it. 

[LandArchPoke]

Someone on Facebook mentioned that this plan has the old Art Deco Warehouse Market torn down?  If thats true I am gonna find out who you are and you will not like it.  

That would be 110% incorrect. See below. Only thing being Demoed is the Home Depot - which would be rebuilt as one of their urban concept stores on one of the other blocks opened for development.



I think that's a fantastic building, and you could incorporate it into a mixed-use stadium site (preferably done in a similar architecture style) and infill around this building and create a really cool retail/entertainment area. You could flank retail all the way up Elgin underneath the stadium seats and create an interactive street level that would connect into this building.



I have not seen this comment on Facebook - would you might sharing with me where this is at so I can address it? Or at least share that picture.

Tearing down buildings is kind of the complete opposite of this proposal if you look at it - as I'm trying to repair the damage of tearing down all the housing and commercial structures that the IDL caused.

[LandArchPoke]

LandArchPoke, these are the game changing ideas that Blake Ewing has requested.  Bravo sir.  Obviously we can't do all of them but at least one should be a good start.  Streetcar would be my vote, but connect to TU down 11th as part of the starter line (and with major streetscape improvements/implementation of the Route 66 OU Urban Design plan).

Thanks - I appreciate that. Part of the development plan would be a major retail center on the SE Interchange (I'm very confident there is demand for it). This would replace Promenade Mall as the region's additional "mall/regional center". A new urban walkable retail center would bring in a lot of new tenants that can't or won't locate in Tulsa currently because there isn't anything that fits their product type they will locate in. There are a lot of tenants who refuse to locate in malls now, and will only open locations in lifestyle centers or urban areas.

With the new retail - what I'd suggest is forming a TIF and BID district that would capture the new sales taxes. Use these to pay for a street car system. Especially with a connection to Expo Square where there is over 7,000 parking spaces not used 99% of the year which would act as a commuter or overflow lot for downtown. This would open up millions of sq. ft. for additional development and reduce a lot of parking costs for developers downtown.

I don't think all the sales taxes need to be captured - but even $100 per sq. ft. of sales from this new retail center could raise about $300 million for infrastructure improvements - like a streetcar - over a 25-year period.

Forming a TIF/BID District around the rest of the land the IDL currently occupies and diverting some of those funds into further infrastructure projects like commuter rail, BRT, or more streetcar lines is very plausible and is a way to shift the burden off tax payers and using one strategic infrastructure investment/project that unlocks a lot of land that is not currently creating any value (ODOT does not pay taxes).

Yes. My head was still swimming with ideas relating to the river from my four years of hands on experience running airboats, patio boats and canoes from the dam down to Tulsa. I even paid for a watercolor depiction that I uploaded here. Alas, my timing was off and my ideas and reputation were being panned. Probably around 2006/07. Momentum was shifting away from grandiose ideas like the Channels and more dams towards downtown.

It was later we took up the subject of Elm Creek. Using those creeks to help fill the canals didn't occur to me. I hope Blake's request is real and not a distraction.

I haven't been able to track down that old discussion yet - I'm going to try to look through the archive's tonight.

I would at least like to provide the ability for people to rent a paddle board or canoe and go back and forth between the pond by 15th and the pond by 6th. If the other Pearl pond projects could be built with canal connections in a way that provides further access for people via water I think that would be fantastic as well. I don't know if it could be connected to the Arkansas or not - you'd have to find some route from 15th to Veterans Park most likely.

[TheArtist]

That would be 110% incorrect. See below. Only thing being Demoed is the Home Depot - which would be rebuilt as one of their urban concept stores on one of the other blocks opened for development.



I think that's a fantastic building, and you could incorporate it into a mixed-use stadium site (preferably done in a similar architecture style) and infill around this building and create a really cool retail/entertainment area. You could flank retail all the way up Elgin underneath the stadium seats and create an interactive street level that would connect into this building.



I have not seen this comment on Facebook - would you might sharing with me where this is at so I can address it? Or at least share that picture.

Tearing down buildings is kind of the complete opposite of this proposal if you look at it - as I'm trying to repair the damage of tearing down all the housing and commercial structures that the IDL caused.

Good to know, I think Shane Hood is the one who made the comment.  It was also mentioned that the Boston Avenue appeared top be turned into park space. 

Just FYI, I am not sure how much traction you would get in moving the Home Depot.  I believe it is one of the highest grossing of their stores in the area and definitely the largest retail tax base generator in downtown. Just be careful in how you word all that.