I thought I'd start a new topic on Arkansas River tributary development since it's an interesting concept and might be able to provide the "cozy waterway" concept we were talking about on the River Infrastructure thread.
Would Michael Bates be so kind as to post the map of the Elm Creek layout?
Thanks for starting a new topic about this, Conan.
The premise is that successful waterside development in other cities is along relatively narrow channels, much narrower than the Arkansas River at Tulsa. The San Antonio River at the Paseo del Rio is about 30' wide. The same is true of the artificial Bricktown Canal. Zink Lake on the Arkansas River is 30 to 40 times wider. One of the problems Bing Thom was trying to solve with "The Channels" was creating a water feature narrow enough that you could wave at a friend on the other side.
But this sort of arrangement is possible in Tulsa without massive modifications to the Arkansas. We could reopen one of the buried tributaries to the Arkansas.
Many years ago, creeks in and near downtown were converted to storm sewers -- buried underground for most of their length.
One of these is Elm Creek. The main branch flows underground from 7th and Utica west to Centennial Park where it joins another branch fron the north. It is open in Centennial Park's new lake, then goes back underground through a 7' high tunnel along a south-southwesterly course, through the Gunboat Park neighborhood (11th to 13th, Elgin & Frankfort), to 16th and Boston, 18th and Baltimore, then along the western edge of Veterans Park. Elm Creek empties into the Arkansas beneath the 21st St. bridge.
In 1991, John Neas did a concept drawing of opening up the lower part of Elm Creek. Ignore the buildings and the street closings, and focus on where the channel would be. It would create a natural transition and connection between the clubs of 18th & Boston (SoBo) and River Parks.
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1189/1056623657_d8d6122c16_o.png) (//%22http://www.flickr.com/photos/batesline/1056623657/%22)
More recently, the 6th Street task force came up with proposal to canalize Elm Creek between Centennial Park and a proposed detention pond further east, as a part of the stormwater management plan for the neighborhood. In this sketch, from the 6th Street Infill Plan, the canal is shown going down 7th St, creating a new location for a public promenade. It's my understanding that they've also discussed rerouting the creek down the center of 6th Street.
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1233/1056625971_bf282ec750_o.jpg) (//%22http://www.flickr.com/photos/batesline/1056625971/%22)
I've also seen, but can't find, sketches of a water feature on the Gunboat Park segment of Elm Creek, part of a grad school urban design project.
Another possibility for unburying a creek to be used as a waterside promenade: Cat Creek flows beneath Archer Street downtown, then bends southwest, following the railroad tracks (or more likely the railroad tracks followed it), emptying into the river under the I-244 bridge. The section along Archer could be opened up.
Crow Creek is not buried, but it is hidden and hemmed in by rock walls. It is the brook for which Brookside was named, and it would make a natural link between the river and Brookside. One concept would have replaced Place One Apartments (whatever it's called now) with a mixed use development, with paths linking that along Crow Creek to River Parks and to the site of the old Boy Scout Center just north of the Creek on Peoria. I've heard that the county commissioners' approval of a conduit loan to renovate the apartment complex put an end to that concept.
Crow Creek also links to Philbrook. Out of the three scenarios it sounds like Crow Creek development would give the most bang for the buck and connect with the most attractions in the nearest proximity.
Yes I would love to see the Pearl District plan implemented. Instead of a blighted area that effectively seperates nice ones now, it would connect, TU, Downtown, Cherry Street and the Utica Square. It would promote and open up a large area for infill development and help create a huge and beautiful central core for the city.
(http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/9028/pearldistrict4webwt1.jpg)
(http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/7/pearldistrict3webau6.jpg)
(http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/6082/pearldistrictwebxi3.jpg)
(http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/3369/pearldistrict5webjf5.jpg)
(http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/8705/cpark3awebgo2.jpg)
While not as "sexy" as river development, I think it is an important thing to do. It could definitely take future development in the area up from average to above average. We should do that for Tulsa.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Crow Creek also links to Philbrook. Out of the three scenarios it sounds like Crow Creek development would give the most bang for the buck and connect with the most attractions in the nearest proximity.
I agree and was all excited about the possibilities, but with the way the neighborhood raised heck last time it was brought up, I dont think it can happen. And like Bates mentioned, at about the same was when they started the renovation plan for the apartments. Just made my heart sink.
At least with the Pearl, you have a bunch of people trying to fight for it to happen. Plus they worked to make it a creative part of the cities master plan for flood control.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Crow Creek also links to Philbrook. Out of the three scenarios it sounds like Crow Creek development would give the most bang for the buck and connect with the most attractions in the nearest proximity.
I agree and was all excited about the possibilities, but with the way the neighborhood raised heck last time it was brought up, I dont think it can happen. And like Bates mentioned, at about the same was when they started the renovation plan for the apartments. Just made my heart sink.
At least with the Pearl, you have a bunch of people trying to fight for it to happen. Plus they worked to make it a creative part of the cities master plan for flood control.
Yep, big NIMBY problem with the Crow Creek crowd, and that's a shame.
Looks like the Elm Creek alignment would affect fewer homeowners, which means fewer objections unless there are any north Maple Ridge homeowners who would be impacted.
I am really shocked at how few people I talk to who have bothered to look close at the Centennial Park development other than driving by it on the IDL. I've even talked to long-time Tulsan's who are only vaguely aware that any renovation and improvement has happened around there.
Sorry to be such a "late-comer" to the idea of narrow waterways (I just can't say "channels" without a smirk now).
It was sort of a "burning bush" moment when I was at New River a week and a half ago and saw the parallels from other waterways in other cities I've visited which were vibrant.
I figured Bing Thom was talking about us plebes waving from the west bank to the fortunate few up in their high-rise condos near the east bank and didn't see the coziness of the project. I guess I let the messengers cloud my comprehension of the Channels a bit too much.
If the
city would undertake such a project with a general obligation bond, I'd be tempted to vote for it, even with our crappy roads which are being ignored.
This alignment would also bring something to an area of downtown which is largely dead space except for parking during the day.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
I've also seen, but can't find, sketches of a water feature on the Gunboat Park segment of Elm Creek, part of a grad school urban design project.
You can find the Gunboat images here:
http://tulsagrad.ou.edu/studio/gunboat/gunboatcomposite.pdf
I can see great things with the Elm Creek plan and would carry that banner. But only if its part of a more general plan that other creeks, notably Crow Creek, Cherry Creek, Joe Creek and any others that have been covered or ignored are included. It is personalized development for each neighborhood that can be accomplished without the large investment in low water dams and their attendant problems. Of course because of that it has a low % of being taken seriously. Who would lead the charge?
Why would we let the mostly cosmetic remodel of Place One stop that development? Buy the land, pay the mortgage and make better use of the land. I got the feeling at the time that we didn't want to pay the price that the process would involve (assuaging the neighbors, paying the higher price for apartments).
There is another potential canal that would energize as well but I am hesitant to even mention it. People who spout new ideas have generally been marginalized during this process. The first reaction is "that can't be done", the next is "no one else wants that" followed by "that's too expensive". Then we see other cities doing it and we wonder how that happened. How many other potential ideas are out there that simply got ignored because of the momentum of the "dam the river" crowd? That is the fallacy of public input that the v2025 cabal touts.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
I've also seen, but can't find, sketches of a water feature on the Gunboat Park segment of Elm Creek, part of a grad school urban design project.
You can find the Gunboat images here:
http://tulsagrad.ou.edu/studio/gunboat/gunboatcomposite.pdf
Re-doing Gunboat would be amazing. That was the first time I remember being glad a liquor store/bar closed near me. Phat Phillies needs some good neighbors.
WB,
I can't speak for others but I'm always interested in your ideas. What other canal do you have in mind?
WB, I can see where Joe, Cherry, and Crow Creek could all have value as public gathering places or parks w/o commercial development that the neighborhoods abhor, if that is the sticky issue with them. Talk about an improvement in the quality of life in a neighborhood.
Please tell us what your other idea is. I can't shoot it down till I know what you are talking about. [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
WB,
I can't speak for others but I'm always interested in your ideas. What other canal do you have in mind?
Are you prepared for the process? Guffaws...discouragement....dismissal?
Let's just say for a moment that the Nimby movement could be managed. This may be one of the few times in recent history that it could. Why? Because there is strong movement back into the city by people with money. Witness the controversy of infill development. That can bolster the value of existing homes. As one poster pointed out, there is something to be gained by all the players in this game. Some strong alliances by developers, neighborhoods and city coucilors could make it manageable. Right now they are uneasy with each other.
Imagine that you have the Kaiser types stop lunching with status quo movers and shakers for awhile and spend more time with activists in each of these old hoods. More time with Lucky Lamons, Bates, TN members... less time with INCOG/Miller/Simonson/Taylor/Lorton....
Then refine the idea of canals that apparently has been around since the early nineties. I stumbled upon the concept the same way Bing Thom did. Walk or jog the areas and let it hit you.
Then take into account why the old part of the city is built the way it is. Its the railroads. The railroads had to make their routes as flat as possible because heavy locomotives don't climb hills well. That means they took naturally undulating topography and raised the elevation or flattened it out to achieve a gradual incline or decline. Of course the area surrounding them still follows a downward incline towards the river. The rr beds are so well designed and built that a hundred years later some are still in operation and the others are now paths.
Most all railroads in this area were constructed for industrial purposes on land that was not residential at the time. Homes that sprung up near the rr were not usually the best in the hood. Gentrification and the closing of these industrial based rails has saved those homes.
Now think big. The most powerful, beautiful neighborhood in town has an abandoned rail road bed that runs right down its backside. Its remains start near 18th & Boston. Near the Elm Creek path. It has deep canal like ditches on each side of it that are engineered to empty into Zink Lake right next to the largest undeveloped piece of real estate on the river, the Blair Mansion. It crosses over into West Tulsa where the city owns a huge parcel of land soon to be vacated.
Put water into it. This shallow canal could be tastefully, designed for low impact usage of electric ferryboats connecting restaurants and shopping areas as well as gathering spots on both sides of the river. It could connect with both an Elm Creek branch as well as a Crow Creek branch. It is separated from most of the neighborhood on its upper reach by high sides. As it drops it becomes higher than the surrounding hood and would need to be walled off. It can be done if we have the guts.
WB--where is Cherry Creek?
Cherry Creek is a west bank tributary located near 47th and Elwood. It can be seen from I-44 looking back to the north by the wastewater lift station.
Cherry Creek was registering with me, I just couldn't place it. D'oh! I drive over it every day. [:o)]
That would be cheaper land acquisition, for a west bank stream development though the industrial surroundings might not make it as attractive for comm'l development, but you wouldn't have a PITA with a neighborhood association. FAIK, the Cherry Creek Mobile Home park is the only housing along the route until it winds back behind Garden City near the refinery. Tie that in with a 41st. St. ped or ped/vehicle bridge, and that might become viable.
Only thing I can think of with Cherry Creek which might stop that cold is there's either a major gas or oil pipeline right of way on the east bank off W. 41st. Not sure if that wraps around toward Elwood or goes over the creek and on south.
Waterboy- great idea, BTW.
I think Cherry Creek meanders around behind and south of 41st almost to Union. There is a nice park at 41st & Union it could tie into also. Not to leave out other creeks that empty into the Arkansas. These are the ones I know the names of.
A method of keeping water in these creeks would need to be devised. But its been done. I think the Bricktown canal pumps well water into the canal, then re-circulates it. We could pump river water to add to regular run-off.
The best part of the idea is that it can be done incrementally with direct input from the affected 'hoods yet co-ordinated with each other. It should positively affect drainage as cleaning them is easier too. Having gathering areas on each end of the creeks means minimal disturbance as well.
For those concerned with property values, consider the Swan Lake, Owen Park and 31st/Gary homes as examples of increased value vs. the surrounding area.
I've been pondering the same idea of how to keep water in the creeks and came to the same conclusion as you.
Do we need another low water dam downstream of I-44 to accomplish that? Not really. I believe the cost of piping and pumps from Zink lake a mile upstream to keep that particular creek full would be less than a low water dam spanning more than a quarter mile of river.
For Crow Creek and Elm Creek the problem is even simpler.
Cherry Creek forks, either that or they dredged in a drainage tributary at some point paralleling Hwy 75. There is a channel which goes under Hwy 75 (Tulsamini feel free for any correction) to Reed Park, there is also an over-sized grassy drainage ditch which forks north of the Reed Park finger, and continues northward toward Sinclair refinery.
That might cut off the west side of Cherry Creek from the 75 viaduct to the river, but there's no reason that area cannot be improved for the enjoyment of those living on the west side of 75. God only knows they've been neglected by the city long enough.
I had given even more thought to the primary use of Cherry Creek from the river to the highway and think it might be best as improved park and trail. As it is now, there is a loop just south of the I-44 bridge which is pretty much the west side terminus of the River Parks. Turning Cherry Creek west of Elwood into park area would bring a unique feature.
As well, there is a lot south of the lift station at Cherry Creek on the river which used to have an asphalt race track on it. It's just overgrown with weeds & trees now. I've assumed for years this is city property since they own the land north and south of there for a treatment plant. Unless there is some underlying environmental issue with it, I don't see why that can't be developed into public use area as well with another park. Though it's hard to envision something next to the I-44 bridge as a peaceful haven.
I'll drive around after work this evening to look at key places along Cherry Creek since we are talking about something a half mile from my office in about any direction.
I'm assuming this would entail fewer impact studies and infrastructure engineering than dams and what it does to flow up and down stream of low water dams. I'm under the assumption that many studies were done when the main stream bed was concreted in. I imagine there's more to uncovering Elm Creek than just ripping up asphalt, but this sounds like a more desireable and innovative plan to me.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Then take into account why the old part of the city is built the way it is. Its the railroads. The railroads had to make their routes as flat as possible because heavy locomotives don't climb hills well. That means they took naturally undulating topography and raised the elevation or flattened it out to achieve a gradual incline or decline. Of course the area surrounding them still follows a downward incline towards the river. The rr beds are so well designed and built that a hundred years later some are still in operation and the others are now paths.
Most all railroads in this area were constructed for industrial purposes on land that was not residential at the time. Homes that sprung up near the rr were not usually the best in the hood. Gentrification and the closing of these industrial based rails has saved those homes.
Now think big. The most powerful, beautiful neighborhood in town has an abandoned rail road bed that runs right down its backside. Its remains start near 18th & Boston. Near the Elm Creek path. It has deep canal like ditches on each side of it that are engineered to empty into Zink Lake right next to the largest undeveloped piece of real estate on the river, the Blair Mansion. It crosses over into West Tulsa where the city owns a huge parcel of land soon to be vacated.
Put water into it. This shallow canal could be tastefully, designed for low impact usage of electric ferryboats connecting restaurants and shopping areas as well as gathering spots on both sides of the river. It could connect with both an Elm Creek branch as well as a Crow Creek branch. It is separated from most of the neighborhood on its upper reach by high sides. As it drops it becomes higher than the surrounding hood and would need to be walled off. It can be done if we have the guts.
Your insight about the relationship between railroad tracks and streams is brilliant. You see the same thing with the Frisco and Sand Springs tracks through downtown -- they follow the underground course of Cat Creek until they reach the river, at which point the SSRR veers west to Sand Springs and the Frisco goes across the river to West Tulsa.
I was just looking at a satellite image of the Maple Ridge area, wondering where Swan Creek emerges into the river. This tributary starts at Swan Lake and heads southwest, and you can see the above-ground remnants of it in Woodward Park's pond. My suspicion is that it follows Owasso Ave.'s diagonal path until it reaches the old Midland Valley ROW.
^ Swan Creek is piped below the Sunset Terrace neighborhood. Some of the streets there are laid out along the creek, and there are a couple of small triangular parks near the creek's intersection with Norfolk Avenue.
I've wondered for a long time if Swan Creek could be exposed to create a small water feature in the larger of the two triangles. The neighborhood is nice enough with the subsurface creek, but I think it could be even better with the water flowing at the surface as it does through the corner of Woodward Park.
I am heartened by your responses. It seems to me this plan requires less risk, less money, has more potential return, and utilizes standard engineering. If SS and Jenks want to build the low water dams, then do so at their own expense. That may be why they are so pumped about the existing plan anyway, because we will pay for 70% of it, yet we have the lowest potential return. I guess this would reverse that formula. If they build them, they pay and we get the better return. However, we could still do the living river concept on our stretch of river.
To keep water in the creeks, and to maximize their potential, we could tie them all together at the river by digging a short canal that runs from Crow Creek, past the Midland Valley outlet (Swan Creek?) and ending at Elm Creek. This canal would capture water as the river rises each night. We then pump that water up to the head waters of each creek. It then flows back into the river during the day. On low flow days we could augment the flow using water wells which have always been easy to drill over there.
Of course we line the creeks with running paths and bike paths.
The result is that a visitor could enjoy dinner in the Pearl district, shopping in Brookside, a beer at Rivers Edge or music in SoBo then take a silent cruise through park settings to any of the other areas on the circuit. The boats could be weatherized for year round use. The impact to the neighborhoods is positive. The areas already have foot and bike traffic through these areas and the entertainment/commercial is limited to existing areas. Maybe new construction would be appropriate along them.
I just jogged the course of the Midland Valley running path this morning. We just call it "the path". That's the one that starts at 18th & Cincinnati and continues to the pedestrian bridge at Riverside (about a mile). I tried to envision how it would work, where the crossovers/unders would be and the intersection with the Arkansas and the other creeks. It seems alarmingly uncomplicated. This is city park land so not much has been done to it. There would be very little utility re-routing, the housing sits pretty far back, the parking areas are in place on each end. Shopping, restaurant and available commercial at upper end.
This creek would travel over Riverside Drive (the road dips at this point) and deposit into the fountain area at the pedestrian bridge where it would flow into a canal. This canal would only need to carry water for about two blocks from the low water dam to Crow Creek.
At 19-21st & Riverside, where the mouth of the Elm Creek would empty, there is a straight path up 19th to Boulder, along the edge of Boulder Park, then upwards towards the start of the Midland Path Creek. Elm then runs up towards Pearl.
The result is a continuous water connection between three shopping/entertainment districts, Philbrook and near downtown. The water connection to Cherry Creek is more tenuous since that part of the river tends to dry up but offers similar potential on that side of the river. A wing dam could be built to hold and direct water that way for a year round connection to the other creeks.
MB, how was Neas's plan received in 1991 and why was it not acted on? Was it part of a funded study?
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
^ Swan Creek is piped below the Sunset Terrace neighborhood. Some of the streets there are laid out along the creek, and there are a couple of small triangular parks near the creek's intersection with Norfolk Avenue.
I've wondered for a long time if Swan Creek could be exposed to create a small water feature in the larger of the two triangles. The neighborhood is nice enough with the subsurface creek, but I think it could be even better with the water flowing at the surface as it does through the corner of Woodward Park.
A side note: If you drive down Cincinnati, there is a lot with the foundations of a house & a stop work order attached. I have heard that the foundation is directly over the sewer carrying Swan Creek, hence the stop work order.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
^ Swan Creek is piped below the Sunset Terrace neighborhood. Some of the streets there are laid out along the creek, and there are a couple of small triangular parks near the creek's intersection with Norfolk Avenue.
I've wondered for a long time if Swan Creek could be exposed to create a small water feature in the larger of the two triangles. The neighborhood is nice enough with the subsurface creek, but I think it could be even better with the water flowing at the surface as it does through the corner of Woodward Park.
A side note: If you drive down Cincinnati, there is a lot with the foundations of a house & a stop work order attached. I have heard that the foundation is directly over the sewer carrying Swan Creek, hence the stop work order.
I wondered about that. A friend of mine owned a house that was built over Elm Creek on Detroit around 17th. The basement kept filling up with water. Finally, the city bought the house and razed it.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
A side note: If you drive down Cincinnati, there is a lot with the foundations of a house & a stop work order attached. I have heard that the foundation is directly over the sewer carrying Swan Creek, hence the stop work order.
Doh!
Waterboy-
I drove around the Cherry Creek area yesterday. The creek running under Union south of 41st. is Red Fork Creek. It merges with Cherry Creek just east of a point about 1/3 of the way down the northbound exit ramp from H 75 onto W. 41st.
I've never really taken much notice of this particular channel other than thinking of it as a large drainage ditch. I drove back over into Reed Park and drove up Elwood to where there is a gravel road off the south side of the creek. On the north side is a gravel trail, but there is a pipe gate in place. I'm not sure if it's to keep vehicle traffic limited to stormwater management and pipeliners, or is intended to discourage pedestrians as well. It's quiet and deserted. That trail follows the contour of the creek around to west 41st St. just east of the Hwy 75 exit.
IOW- there is trail already there people could enjoy. It might be it is okay to walk and bike back there but it's under-publicized and under-utilized. Some enhancements like benches, additional trees, drinking fountains, or a pavillion or two could be added at minimal cost compared to other options which have to be created. It could be a nice area to essentially "continue" the west bank trail. Many people are likely not aware it exists. I wasn't, and I've worked within a half mile of it for three years. There is even a pedestrian underpass under the Elwood bridge. There might never be demand for commercial entertainment development back there, but it could be useful for public gathering. It's an interesting layout looking at it from Google Earth.
Back to the mid/downtown channels- I'll second Michael Bates' "brilliant" and raise it a "why haven't we done that?"
I don't know why Mr. Neas was ignored. Perhaps my post above explains: "People who spout new ideas about river development have generally been marginalized during this process. The first reaction is "that can't be done", the next is "no one else wants that" followed by "that's too expensive". Then we see other cities doing it and we wonder how that happened. How many other potential ideas are out there that simply got ignored because of the momentum of the "dam the river" crowd? That is the fallacy of public input that the v2025 cabal touts."
I originally thumbnailed the concept of the Midland Valley creek to River Parks Authority staff back in 2002. Their response was simple. That will never work. End of discussion. When you look at who is now on the RPA board you get the feeling that would be in bold type now.
Waterboy - I don't mean to rain on your parade, but I don't think the Midland Valley Canal idea makes a whole lot of sense. You'd basically have a canal going through people's backyards. Not the most scenic route. Whereas the Pearl District plan would have commerical areas fronting the canal, you'd have back fences. Not to mention, we'd lose a great trail connection from midtown to the river.
That said, I like the general idea of open canals when they can be incorporated into neighborhood developement.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Waterboy - I don't mean to rain on your parade, but I don't think the Midland Valley Canal idea makes a whole lot of sense. You'd basically have a canal going through people's backyards. Not the most scenic route. Whereas the Pearl District plan would have commerical areas fronting the canal, you'd have back fences. Not to mention, we'd lose a great trail connection from midtown to the river.
That said, I like the general idea of open canals when they can be incorporated into neighborhood developement.
We wouldn't lose that connection. Run the path along the edge. Its a beautiful route that has a solitude to it that inspires and the commercial parts would be on each end leaving the path its character. At the beginning the yards are out of view over your head. Towards the river it is so heavily treed that the yards are hardly noticeable and few fences. Have you been on it recently?
Pearl would be good, Crow would be good too, Cherry has less potential but ...different strokes. Having all four would be the ticket.
Doesn't matter really. There are some squeaky wheels in that hood that would stake themselves to the path to stop it.
I still maintain Crow Creek is the best place to start, it already has nearby commercial, rooftops and access to some of Tulsa's best public parks, cultural and recreational attractions. We just have to do it in a way that is in character, scale, and harmony with existing neighborhoods. Besides, it is already exposed so it would be much less difficult for the general public to picture whatever proposed development that might take place. City planning should do a crow creek plan like the the INCOG plan or the Lewis Infill Plan as a pilot program to implement so we can use it as a prototype for designing a plan for the other potential tributary developments within the city in the comprehensive plan update.
How would you do Crow Creek without razing the Legacy (Former Place One) apartments? And how would it still be infill if you moved 500-1000 people out of the area? You'd need a mid-rise residential structure or two to keep the same population levels up. Not that that would be a bad thing, but would it happen?
(Im not saying screw the idea, Im just asking how would be the best way for it to work?)
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
I still maintain Crow Creek is the best place to start, it already has nearby commercial, rooftops and access to some of Tulsa's best public parks, cultural and recreational attractions. We just have to do it in a way that is in character, scale, and harmony with existing neighborhoods. Besides, it is already exposed so it would be much less difficult for the general public to picture whatever proposed development that might take place. City planning should do a crow creek plan like the the INCOG plan or the Lewis Infill Plan as a pilot program to implement so we can use it as a prototype for designing a plan for the other potential tributary developments within the city in the comprehensive plan update.
You make a good argument for Crow Creek being first. It is open already. However, it goes through some expensive land east of Peoria and some resolute owners to the west. That makes Pearl more inviting as the attention would be more welcome. However, starting from Peoria westward would be a good and visible start.
Its not that Legacy is so important as a structure YT. You are right in noting that its the 300-500 residents that you would want to make allowance for. Hard to find decent subsidized apartments with such great proximity to shopping and the river. Perhaps a new multi-story construction would allocate part of its tenancy to that market. Perhaps not all of the complex would need to be razed. Not an insurmountable problem.
Cherry is also an interesting first as it is under the radar. A west Tulsa sponsor could really get mileage out of it too.
Cherry presents the fewest impediments from neighborhood associations and reluctant commercial property owners. The city or county already has a broad right-of-way along the bank for about a mile from Elwood snaking back to W. 41st. As well, commercial and the little bit of residential which is already there has a decent set-back. A large open space to the south of the lift station on Elwood which could be used for parking. That's the upshot.
The downside is that likely it has the least attractiveness to the majority of Tulsans and likely wouldn't be the first choice for commercial developers. That still shouldn't be a reason to continue shafting people who live on the west side. But who says comm'l development has to be a necessity on each and every tributary. Expanding attractive and useable Public space can be a good thing w/o commercial development.
quote:
MB, how was Neas's plan received in 1991 and why was it not acted on? Was it part of a funded study?
The Neas plan (Neas was not involved when the plan was conceived) was an exercise by several people with talent during a slow time in Tulsa. I have been told that the key person is now a professor or dean at a university in Georgia.
It was not a funded study. As far as I know, the only presentation has been at Spirit Bank to presidents of the homeowner groups, Riverview Addition and Maple Ridge, and property owners. I believe Lucky Lamons has sat in on one of the meetings.
The response has been very favorable. I believe that NIMBY would be minimal for a well planned development. The Urban Design Group at OU has selected it as a possible project but I do not believe a masters student has taken it for this fall.
quote:
Originally posted by John Neas
quote:
MB, how was Neas's plan received in 1991 and why was it not acted on? Was it part of a funded study?
The Neas plan (Neas was not involved when the plan was conceived) was an exercise by several people with talent during a slow time in Tulsa. I have been told that the key person is now a professor or dean at a university in Georgia.
It was not a funded study. As far as I know, the only presentation has been at Spirit Bank to presidents of the homeowner groups, Riverview Addition and Maple Ridge, and property owners. I believe Lucky Lamons has sat in on one of the meetings.
The response has been very favorable. I believe that NIMBY would be minimal for a well planned development. The Urban Design Group at OU has selected it as a possible project but I do not believe a masters student has taken it for this fall.
So what is your idea as to the best way to get this plan back in front of the masses? It's got "potential" written all over it.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
I still maintain Crow Creek is the best place to start, it already has nearby commercial, rooftops and access to some of Tulsa's best public parks, cultural and recreational attractions. We just have to do it in a way that is in character, scale, and harmony with existing neighborhoods. Besides, it is already exposed so it would be much less difficult for the general public to picture whatever proposed development that might take place. City planning should do a crow creek plan like the the INCOG plan or the Lewis Infill Plan as a pilot program to implement so we can use it as a prototype for designing a plan for the other potential tributary developments within the city in the comprehensive plan update.
You make a good argument for Crow Creek being first. It is open already. However, it goes through some expensive land east of Peoria and some resolute owners to the west. That makes Pearl more inviting as the attention would be more welcome. However, starting from Peoria westward would be a good and visible start.
Its not that Legacy is so important as a structure YT. You are right in noting that its the 300-500 residents that you would want to make allowance for. Hard to find decent subsidized apartments with such great proximity to shopping and the river. Perhaps a new multi-story construction would allocate part of its tenancy to that market. Perhaps not all of the complex would need to be razed. Not an insurmountable problem.
Cherry is also an interesting first as it is under the radar. A west Tulsa sponsor could really get mileage out of it too.
I think you do Pearl first and then the Crow Creek crowd will see what they are missing out on.
Another member who is interested, and myself are interested in forming some sort of committee to look further into this. If anyone is interested in getting involved, please PM me and let's see where this goes.
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
I still maintain Crow Creek is the best place to start, it already has nearby commercial, rooftops and access to some of Tulsa's best public parks, cultural and recreational attractions. We just have to do it in a way that is in character, scale, and harmony with existing neighborhoods. Besides, it is already exposed so it would be much less difficult for the general public to picture whatever proposed development that might take place. City planning should do a crow creek plan like the the INCOG plan or the Lewis Infill Plan as a pilot program to implement so we can use it as a prototype for designing a plan for the other potential tributary developments within the city in the comprehensive plan update.
You make a good argument for Crow Creek being first. It is open already. However, it goes through some expensive land east of Peoria and some resolute owners to the west. That makes Pearl more inviting as the attention would be more welcome. However, starting from Peoria westward would be a good and visible start.
Its not that Legacy is so important as a structure YT. You are right in noting that its the 300-500 residents that you would want to make allowance for. Hard to find decent subsidized apartments with such great proximity to shopping and the river. Perhaps a new multi-story construction would allocate part of its tenancy to that market. Perhaps not all of the complex would need to be razed. Not an insurmountable problem.
Cherry is also an interesting first as it is under the radar. A west Tulsa sponsor could really get mileage out of it too.
I think you do Pearl first and then the Crow Creek crowd will see what they are missing out on.
Funding the Pearl plan will be widely opposed, and fail miserably, making it very difficult to get funding for other tributary development in the future. It would stand a much better chance of happening if the public had a successful tributary development to point to. It is painfully obvious to me that crow creek has the best chances of being that successful development. BTW, didn't we get this field of dreams song and dance about how if we build they will come when Jamie got money for the retention pond. Have they? Where are all the private developers lining up to do commercial and residential development in this area? The public will not support funding the pearl plan first, it's too expensive, too complicated, and has too much risk associated with it.
Sounds like too many NIMBY's on the Crow Creek alignment, AA.
There are thousands of people who don't even know Elm Creek exists, nor the potential for what could be done with it. It's closer to downtown (hell, is downtown) which provides the downtown to river link that so many seem to want and has been mentioned constantly. It's a natural flow (pardon the pun) to the 11th to 31st corridor.
Risk? Care to elaborate? More risk than say, low water dams?
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Sounds like too many NIMBY's on the Crow Creek alignment, AA.
There are thousands of people who don't even know Elm Creek exists, nor the potential for what could be done with it. It's closer to downtown (hell, is downtown) which provides the downtown to river link that so many seem to want and has been mentioned constantly. It's a natural flow (pardon the pun) to the 11th to 31st corridor.
Risk? Care to elaborate? More risk than say, low water dams?
I think the "downtown to river link" as far as our city planners are concerned, means "Widen Denver"
Look at those Channels drawings, they had some weird row of giant, mature trees lined all the way up a re-done Denver avenue.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A Funding the Pearl plan will be widely opposed, and fail miserably, making it very difficult to get funding for other tributary development in the future. It would stand a much better chance of happening if the public had a successful tributary development to point to. It is painfully obvious to me that crow creek has the best chances of being that successful development. BTW, didn't we get this field of dreams song and dance about how if we build they will come when Jamie got money for the retention pond. Have they? Where are all the private developers lining up to do commercial and residential development in this area? The public will not support funding the pearl plan first, it's too expensive, too complicated, and has too much risk associated with it.
It won't be "funding for the Pearl Plan," it will be "funding for drainage and retention," and it will fly under the radar until it's already funded. My understanding is that the Central Park retention pond cost the same either way - it was simply a choice to make it soft 'n' purty instead of rectangular and drab.
I'm confident we'll see the Pearl Plan come to fruition in the next 10 years, as infrastructure funds become available.
I am fascinated by this creek that you would never know even exists, and the great opportunities it presents us. I am reminded of Waller Creek in Austin or, better, the Providence River in Providence, RI that was once covered and is now an asset. I would love to see this plan begin to garner more public attention. Elm Creek could be marketed as one approach with the Pearl/6th Street side and the SoBo/Veterans Park side.
It's a shame that we moved Elm creek under ground in our past flood mitigation plans. In many portions of the flood plain it makes sense to take the top off and create more water features.
Yea the drainage stuff, ponds and connectors, has to happen in the Pearl District one way or another. Plus the roads/sidewalks, etc. are going to need to be redone in that area as well. They are crumbling and falling apart. Its not IF, its How and when its going to be done.
If they can spend 25mill or more widening a typical intersection in South Tulsa without blinking. They can fix the roads, sidewalks, intersections and do the flood protection/water retention stuff in this area of town for what they are thinking it will cost.
Not to burst everyones bubble, but I dont see how elm creek could be turned into an open water way without significant excavation. It would be extremely expensive and impractical considering that most of it is 60 + feet underground. Also, I dont see how a considerable water level could be maintained in elm creek if it were an open water way due to the elevation change from central park to the river. Central park is a basin that over flows into elm creek, and elm creek only has a large amount of water in it when it is raining or has just rained. At any given time, there is only about a foot of water in elm creek. It is a good idea none the less. At the exit point at the river it is about 16' in diameter and continues that size for about a mile. It also has a large 30 inch forced main sewer line running down through it, which would also pose a problem for maintanence issues, if opening it up as a water way. Having said that, a small portion of it (around highway 75) that is not quite as deep would be able to be opened up. I have been down it many times and made a map that is fairly accurate. Anyways, thats my two cents...
(http://i439.photobucket.com/albums/qq112/Mr_Fiend/Misc/Map.jpg)
I would have to look at the new the downtown master plan for more info, but one thing I do think I remember them saying was that the current tunnel wouldnt actually be removed but would remain for overflow/flood situations. The water would at normal times flow above, then during heavy rain events a gateway would open up and both the lower and upper parts would be able to carry even more water. I think they use a similar configuration in San Antonio.
Just opening up the creek as it flows through Veterans Park to the river would be nice. Veterans Park is basically just an open field and could use an interesting water feature and landscaping a la Central Park just to the northeast.
Quote from: Fiend on July 01, 2009, 08:24:08 PM
Not to burst everyones bubble, but I dont see how elm creek could be turned into an open water way without significant excavation. It would be extremely expensive and impractical considering that most of it is 60 + feet underground. Also, I dont see how a considerable water level could be maintained in elm creek if it were an open water way due to the elevation change from central park to the river. Central park is a basin that over flows into elm creek, and elm creek only has a large amount of water in it when it is raining or has just rained. At any given time, there is only about a foot of water in elm creek. It is a good idea none the less. At the exit point at the river it is about 16' in diameter and continues that size for about a mile. It also has a large 30 inch forced main sewer line running down through it, which would also pose a problem for maintanence issues, if opening it up as a water way. Having said that, a small portion of it (around highway 75) that is not quite as deep would be able to be opened up. I have been down it many times and made a map that is fairly accurate. Anyways, thats my two cents...
Nice map, thanks for sharing. I don't think maintaining levels would be that big a deal if you use a series of gates. Not much different than the Oklahoma River just south of Bricktown.
Did anything ever become of this thread? I read back through it and kind of enjoyed its progress. Is any of it reflected in downtown plans?
I was in Veterans Park yesterday and remembered this thread. While opening up Elm Creek along its entire length would be extremely difficult and expensive it would be really cool to see opened up through Veterans Park as it flows into the river. You could still preserve a good chunk of the park for open space good for sports and events but have the landscaped Elm Creek channel create a nice feature similar to what has been done at Central Park. I could see Veterans Park lined with townhomes someday along 21st, 18th, and Boston and some park improvements would go a long way to making the area more desirable. It already benefits from being next to the river and adjacent to Maple Ridge, and the view of downtown is great.
If you have the Mid-Continent property on the west bank as one big riverfront park with big open spaces you could convert Veterans into more of a natural space while opening up Elm Creek either as a landscaped creek or a small lake. Something like that could really be a catalyst for growth in that area around the park.
Quick MS Paint showing Elm Creek (buried underground in light blue) with the small lake similar to what was done on the upper reach of the creek at Centennial Park. Main would dead end at 18th.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/bg918/veteranslake.jpg)
Quote from: John Neas on August 14, 2007, 04:46:44 PM
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> MB, how was Neas's plan received in 1991 and why was it not acted on? Was it part of a funded study? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The Neas plan (Neas was not involved when the plan was conceived) was an exercise by several people with talent during a slow time in Tulsa. I have been told that the key person is now a professor or dean at a university in Georgia.
It was not a funded study. As far as I know, the only presentation has been at Spirit Bank to presidents of the homeowner groups, Riverview Addition and Maple Ridge, and property owners. I believe Lucky Lamons has sat in on one of the meetings.
The response has been very favorable. I believe that NIMBY would be minimal for a well planned development. The Urban Design Group at OU has selected it as a possible project but I do not believe a masters student has taken it for this fall.
Anyone have contacts in the OU-Tulsa urban design program? This would be a great project for a master's student to tackle. Even if it was just opened up in Veterans Park that would be a nice improvement for that area.
Website I found with pictures of the Elm Creek Tunnel under Veterans Park
http://www.uer.ca/locations/show.asp?locid=29140 (http://www.uer.ca/locations/show.asp?locid=29140)
It would be really cool to see this uncovered, even just a small part of it. It certainly would make a good Urban Tulsa or This Land story.