|
Title: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: DowntownDan on December 01, 2010, 11:44:44 am Anyone have any inside info on this?
Quote Developer claims that Tulsa mayor is interfering with plan By P.J. LASSEK World Staff Writer Published: 12/1/2010 2:20 AM Last Modified: 12/1/2010 4:53 AM Local developer Jerry Gordon claims that Mayor Dewey Bartlett has interfered with Gordon's plans for west bank river development to allow a group from Branson, Mo., to develop the land instead. Gordon, who initially was involved with the RiverWalk development in Jenks, said he has been working for seven months on a plan that includes the River West Festival Park and the Mid-Continent Concrete plant. Both properties lie directly north of the 21st Street Bridge. He said he also has negotiated a plan with the owners of the concrete plant to acquire the site and has met with River Parks officials to present his plan. Gordon's river development plan includes a large entertainment area with restaurants and bars, a plaza, a retail area similar to Pearl Street in Boulder, Colo., and a new amphitheater and common areas. The development would use wind and solar power and would be designed to give River Parks riverfront space for its festivals, such as Oktoberfest, he said. Gordon said that when he presented his plan to Bartlett and others in the administration, they expressed excitement. Then recently, when the owner of the concrete plant wanted to meet with the mayor about the plan, Gordon said he was told that the mayor wasn't interested. "I'm floored that all of a sudden (mayoral Chief of Staff) Terry Simonson has blocked me, saying they are going in a different route and aren't interested in meeting with me or the concrete owners," Gordon said Tuesday. Simonson told Gordon in an e-mail last week that the mayor is open to conversations with all interested developers, including the group that developed Branson Landing, records show. The Branson Landing developers have been to Tulsa in previous years seeking to develop the west bank of the Arkansas River near downtown. "It really makes me mad that people can use for their political gain the ability to squash a plan that not only is great river development but would create a lot of local jobs through the construction process," Gordon said. "I'm a local developer. I hire locally." He said his plan also would ensure that River Parks is incorporated because "I know the value of it." The mayor announced last week that the city would seek bids for west bank river development on several parcels, including the festival park and concrete plant, as well as Tulsa West Park and the Public Works facility just south of the 21st Street Bridge. Bartlett said his meeting with Gordon was "just talk." He said there was no deal or any exclusivity promised to Gordon on developing the area. Bartlett said seeking bids provides the city the opportunity to shop for the best project from an array of developers. He said Gordon has the right to submit his plan through the bidding process. During a council committee meeting Tuesday on the bidding process, Councilor Bill Christiansen mentioned Gordon's plan, noting that he's "a local guy, with a local idea," with river development experience. Gordon, who was not present for the council meeting, and some of the councilors questioned how the city's bidding process could involve private property. City Economic Development Director Mike Bunney said it could be done by making the situation clear in the request for proposals. He said the administration will be meeting this week with the owners of the concrete plant to discuss acquisition of the site. Bunney said the consensus from the many developers who have approached the city on developing the area is that "the concrete plant site needs to be acquired." Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=20101201_11_A13_Lcldvl930950&archive=yes Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: RecycleMichael on December 01, 2010, 01:06:30 pm It sounds to me like a guy with a dream doesn't have his financing together. At the same time the city needs to take multiple proposals and other people may have other ideas.
Show me the money that you can get the deal done before I feel sorry for you. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: SXSW on December 01, 2010, 01:30:20 pm I still think the Mid-Con plant would be better as a park creating a larger, grander Festival Park on the west bank. I just don't see a large scale residential or retail district working there, mainly due to the low income neighborhood to the west. Such a development would also siphon investment in downtown and midtown which I don't want to see happen. Can this city and developers not just focus on a few select areas instead of spreading everything so thin? I fear anything built there will turn into another Riverwalk Crossing...
My hope has been for the George Kaiser foundation to buy the concrete plant and announce plans for a larger park. Such a park, if done right, would be a huge asset for this city. Much more than some chain stores and cheap apartments, which is what we'd get if Branson Landing Tulsa Edition gets built. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: TheTed on December 01, 2010, 02:46:22 pm I still think the Mid-Con plant would be better as a park creating a larger, grander Festival Park on the west bank. I just don't see a large scale residential or retail district working there, mainly due to the low income neighborhood to the west. Such a development would also siphon investment in downtown and midtown which I don't want to see happen. Can this city and developers not just focus on a few select areas instead of spreading everything so thin? I fear anything built there will turn into another Riverwalk Crossing... My hope has been for the George Kaiser foundation to buy the concrete plant and announce plans for a larger park. Such a park, if done right, would be a huge asset for this city. Much more than some chain stores and cheap apartments, which is what we'd get if Branson Landing Tulsa Edition gets built. Agree. I don't see the need for river development. It's great the way it is. We need to focus our development on something near the river that's, except for a few pockets, not great right now: downtown. We need to become more like Memphis: concentrated development, and less like St. Louis, a city of neighborhoods. From a visitor's point of view, most prefer Memphis just because everything is there in one area. Whereas St. Louis probably has more great stuff, but it's spread out so much that visitors can't and don't see most of it: Soulard, the Central West End, Washington Avenue, Midtown Alley, Delmar, etc., etc., etc. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Gaspar on December 01, 2010, 02:53:56 pm This is not a surprise. You should have been able to see this coming from about 220 miles away. . .
People have been trying for years to get the developers of Branson Landing to come and develop the West bank. Every developer tries to compare their great river development "concept" to Branson Landing. I can't count how many times I've heard "Just like Branson Landing." I can only imagine how many development consultants have tried to stake an interest in attracting the Branson Landing group to Tulsa. I wonder how many times the Chamber has schmoozed the concept with them? It seems that as soon as Jerry presented his design to the city, and made it public, someone decided to use is as fodder to try and stimulate "their deal" with the Branson folks. I'm just surprised that Jerry didn't anticipate this. When it comes to river development, the city is enemy territory, because all of the players involved have been entertained by other interests on this subject at one time or another. "Hey, that's a great idea! Thanks for all the hard work. Do you mind if I keep a copy of this? We'll be in touch." Jerry should have been aware or someone should have made him aware of this. His best option would have been to approach the Branson Landing folks and say "I want to do this WITH you." Less money, but less headache, and far more than a 2% chance of it happening. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: SXSW on December 01, 2010, 03:59:55 pm I'd rather see more development in Riverview near the 21st St. bridge. Lots of redevelopment potential along Denver from Riverside to 16th, and in the areas further east toward Boulder and Main north of Veterans Park.
Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Conan71 on December 01, 2010, 11:16:44 pm SXSW's idea is closest to my own for that land.
Whatever the case, I don't want the city to be on the hook for $20mm, $50mm or whatever the concrete plant owners think the property is worth now. I notice the "owners" of the plant are not identified in the story. Does anyone know who does own that property now? I'd heard at one point that Roger Hardesty sold Mid-Continent Concrete but did not sell the property to the new owners. I've also heard it rumored that the Warrens or Kaiser had already bought the property (heavy emphasis on "rumored") during The Channels era. If Gordon, Branson Landing, or some other developer wants the concrete plant, let them purchase it themselves. Didn't the city claim, in making their case for the purchase of the Borg Cube, that they would divest themselves of certain properties including the M & E yard and engineering facility south of 21st St.? That's a nice parcel with the exception of the refinery at the south end of it. In any case, whomever develops there has to realize the low-income apartments will likely not be going anywhere soon since the ones on the north side of 21st have just undergone a heavy facelift. I can't imagine the city having the kind of money laying around they would need to move several hundred units of low income housing somewhere else to satisfy a developer. I rather like the under-developed nature of our Riverparks. We don't have to be just like Austin, San Antonio, or our stepmother at the other end of the Turner. I still would love to see Elm Creek uncovered through the Maple Ridge/SoBo area and develop along it. That's the kind of waterway development that would make better sense. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: SXSW on December 02, 2010, 09:15:54 am SXSW's idea is closest to my own for that land. Whatever the case, I don't want the city to be on the hook for $20mm, $50mm or whatever the concrete plant owners think the property is worth now. I notice the "owners" of the plant are not identified in the story. Does anyone know who does own that property now? I'd heard at one point that Roger Hardesty sold Mid-Continent Concrete but did not sell the property to the new owners. I've also heard it rumored that the Warrens or Kaiser had already bought the property (heavy emphasis on "rumored") during The Channels era. If Gordon, Branson Landing, or some other developer wants the concrete plant, let them purchase it themselves. Didn't the city claim, in making their case for the purchase of the Borg Cube, that they would divest themselves of certain properties including the M & E yard and engineering facility south of 21st St.? That's a nice parcel with the exception of the refinery at the south end of it. In any case, whomever develops there has to realize the low-income apartments will likely not be going anywhere soon since the ones on the north side of 21st have just undergone a heavy facelift. I can't imagine the city having the kind of money laying around they would need to move several hundred units of low income housing somewhere else to satisfy a developer. I rather like the under-developed nature of our Riverparks. We don't have to be just like Austin, San Antonio, or our stepmother at the other end of the Turner. I still would love to see Elm Creek uncovered through the Maple Ridge/SoBo area and develop along it. That's the kind of waterway development that would make better sense. Conan, that is exactly what I'm thinking. And I'm with you on Elm Creek, and would rather see the money spent there where the infrastructure is already in place. While we don't have to be like Austin, what they are doing with Waller Creek through downtown is a good model for us to follow with Elm Creek if we can get it uncovered first. Keep the riverfront natural with parks, trees, a larger amphitheater, maybe a cafe on the west bank that could be combined with a new boathouse, and more trails/open space. And then develop the existing urban areas next to the river in Riverview/Uptown/Sobo along Elm Creek. If you were going to live in new high density apartments near the river would you want to be next to low income housing and oil refineries or next to Maple Ridge? Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: waterboy on December 02, 2010, 11:43:28 am Add me to the list Conan. Although I do think we are capable of doing both river development and Downtown at the same time. THe seeds for downtown have been sown and are growing. I can't say the same for the river. THe dams are not seeds they are the irrigation system. They have shown no success for leveraging development.
I'm in for Elm Creek and believe it could identify the area beyond housing additions., Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Conan71 on December 02, 2010, 12:36:15 pm Waterboy, agreed. Uncovering Elm Creek on the East End could also be a good hook for development in that area. What's the street behind Boston in the 17th to 18th area? Baltimore? That could be a cool re-development opportunity with a waterway through there.
Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: waterboy on December 02, 2010, 01:12:05 pm I think you mean Cincinnati between 15th and 17th? That is built over a creek and tends to hold water. The other area might be the street from the Spirit Bank parking lot over to behind the old Gastro Pub.
Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Conan71 on December 02, 2010, 01:23:08 pm I think you mean Cincinnati between 15th and 17th? That is built over a creek and tends to hold water. The other area might be the street from the Spirit Bank parking lot over to behind the old Gastro Pub. The overlay drawing SXSW had put on the original tributary development thread made the alignment look like it came down the west side of Boston rather than the east at 18th. I need to see the overall view again from Centennial Park to the river. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: waterboy on December 02, 2010, 01:41:22 pm There were lots of little "veins" to that Elm Creek artery.
Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: SXSW on December 02, 2010, 03:15:40 pm Waterboy, agreed. Uncovering Elm Creek on the East End could also be a good hook for development in that area. What's the street behind Boston in the 17th to 18th area? Baltimore? That could be a cool re-development opportunity with a waterway through there. The south end of Baltimore would work at 18th but it starts to slope as you move north of 17th. Drive or ride a bike down 15th from Peoria to Main. You'll start going down near Madison and the creekbed is near where Cincinnati is now and then you'll go back up just west of Boston with a pretty decent slope from Boston to Main. The same thing happens as you go south on Baltimore, Main and Boulder and east/west on 18th because you are going down into the Elm Creek valley. It may be problematic (and prohibitively expensive) to unearth it along its entire path but maybe in a few select areas like through Veterans Park. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Gaspar on December 09, 2010, 07:32:12 am Let the character assassination begin!
Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Conan71 on December 09, 2010, 09:27:36 am Oh geez, they were playing this up on KRMG. Even though I'm no fan of Mayor Simonson and his sock puppet, I think they are going to be wrongly accused by the public for stifling development. That's not the case. They are going to put out an RFP which is entirely appropriate.
My read on this was Jerry Gordon might be able to put financing together to build the buildings, but the only land on the west bank in that vicinity for private development would be the concrete plant or Westport. There's a gaping hole in the middle there that belongs to- the citizens of Tulsa. There's the parcel north of the bridge, but that belongs to the citizens as well. Seeing that public land is involved or rumors that he was wanting the city to purchase the concrete plant, putting this out for RFP is the proper way to go about it. I suspect Gordon could not get his financing in order and this is his way of saving face. I can't believe a developer with his experience would think he could simply work out an exclusive deal with the city and the city would not look at all options available. This is the same process used in awarding the site on the east bank of the river to the Blue Rose. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: sgrizzle on December 09, 2010, 09:59:44 am During a council committee meeting Tuesday on the bidding process, Councilor Bill Christiansen mentioned Gordon's plan, noting that he's "a local guy, with a local idea," with river development experience. Um.. isn't he bankrupt and had to turn over parts, if not all, of his last development to other people? Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: RecycleMichael on December 09, 2010, 10:01:35 am I suspect Gordon could not get his financing in order and this is his way of saving face. Bingo. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Conan71 on December 09, 2010, 10:06:12 am Bingo. Kind of like blaming the dog for your own fart, don't you think? Bartlet (sic) has gotten the image of an incompetent leader, so he's an easy target for Gordon to blame his own shortcomings. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Gaspar on December 09, 2010, 01:34:57 pm Defiantly not the way to go about things. It seems like this was an emotional moment, perhaps fueled by consumption of too many non-Marshalls products.
I wonder how long he hovered his cursor over the send button before he clicked. 50% of business is being able to anticipate the fruits of your actions. . .all of them. ??? Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Conan71 on December 09, 2010, 03:10:28 pm The email he sent to Mayor Simonson. No one makes a remote attempt to defend Gordon in the comments section. As I recall, his Easyriders store failed. What has this guy done commercially which has been a complete success?
"From: Jerry Gordon Date: Friday, December 3, 2010 Subject: To: "Simonson, Terry" CC: Christiansen, Bill; CC: Robertson, Jim Mr. Simonson, This letter is to inform you that at this time I am backing down on my plans to develop the West bank as I have spent the last 7 months planning. I have to say you and the Mayor's interference in my project is legally wrong and could be fought as Tortuous (sic) interference, also known as Intentional interference with contractual relations but I think fighting that is something that this City doesn't need to go through at this time with this administration. I was trying to help MY city, not hurt it as I feel you are doing. I will warn you of this though, Please do not attempt to distribute or copy my plans in any way or I will seek legal action. I confided in you and the Mayor and expect that much out of you. One more point, when I started this process I asked of Julie Minor and Clay Byrd, in our first meeting, to please not let politics get into our planning because I have seen what can happen. You have sure shown me why Tulsa s always trailing Oklahoma City. Jerry R. Gordon JRG Developments,LLC" http://krmg.com/localnews/2010/12/jerry-gordon-email-to-tulsa-ma.html Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Gaspar on December 09, 2010, 03:51:42 pm The plan was kinda cool. It incorporated a harbor.
(http://jrgdevelopment.com/images/belt_street.png) Besides the RiverWalk, I think he has only built houses under "Timbercarver Homes." I think he's been a partner in several developments, but they are all residential to my knowledge. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Gaspar on December 09, 2010, 03:58:43 pm BTW, That image is on the projects section of Jerry's website. Download it now, because i'm sure it will be gone by tomorrow.
Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Conan71 on December 09, 2010, 04:05:42 pm Ooops, I think you distributed his "plan". Nice knowing you...
The plan was kinda cool. It incorporated a harbor. (http://jrgdevelopment.com/images/belt_street.png) Besides the RiverWalk, I think he has only built houses under "Timbercarver Homes." I think he's been a partner in several developments, but they are all residential to my knowledge. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Conan71 on December 09, 2010, 04:08:01 pm Good Gawd, who is his web developer?
http://www.tulsa-riverwalk.com/ Where was the plan you had, not having luck finding "that" site. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: jne on December 09, 2010, 04:19:41 pm You think this thing works in reverse?
http://wonder-tonic.com/geocitiesizer/ The real test would be the OK legislature page. I often send that to friends in other corners of the country. Its always good for a laugh. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: waterboy on December 09, 2010, 04:40:30 pm That "harbor" appears to be the lagoon that the amphitheater floats in. That's no harbor and is planned to be filled in because it just doesn't work right. A harbor is possible but it wouldn't look like that and it wouldn't be right there if I built it.
Secondly, this guy needs to get a pr person or a lawyer to write his stuff and meet with people. That letter to Simonson sucks, It is filled with sour grapes over not getting firs dibs, (and I don't even care for the current administration), but that is just not appropriate. I tried to make contact with him back when he was building Riverwalk to try and incorporate a harbor there. I used to drive my airboat past the farm that was there. I could never get a face to face with him. The best I got was an e-mail iirc that simply said "maybe later". Lots of marketing blunders over there. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Conan71 on December 09, 2010, 04:47:04 pm That "harbor" appears to be the lagoon that the amphitheater floats in. That's no harbor and is planned to be filled in because it just doesn't work right. A harbor is possible but it wouldn't look like that and it wouldn't be right there if I built it. Secondly, this guy needs to get a pr person or a lawyer to write his stuff and meet with people. That letter to Simonson sucks, It is filled with sour grapes over not getting firs dibs, (and I don't even care for the current administration), but that is just not appropriate. I tried to make contact with him back when he was building Riverwalk to try and incorporate a harbor there. I used to drive my airboat past the farm that was there. I could never get a face to face with him. The best I got was an e-mail iirc that simply said "maybe later". Lots of marketing blunders over there. As I recall from the failed Easyriders development, the esteem he's got for himself is a bit high. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Gaspar on December 09, 2010, 05:00:21 pm Good Gawd, who is his web developer? http://www.tulsa-riverwalk.com/ Where was the plan you had, not having luck finding "that" site. http://jrgdevelopment.com/ Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: spartanokc on December 11, 2010, 01:42:31 am "From: Jerry Gordon Date: Friday, December 3, 2010 Subject: To: "Simonson, Terry" CC: Christiansen, Bill; CC: Robertson, Jim Mr. Simonson, This letter is to inform you that at this time I am backing down on my plans to develop the West bank as I have spent the last 7 months planning. I have to say you and the Mayor's interference in my project is legally wrong and could be fought as Tortuous (sic) interference, also known as Intentional interference with contractual relations but I think fighting that is something that this City doesn't need to go through at this time with this administration. I was trying to help MY city, not hurt it as I feel you are doing. I will warn you of this though, Please do not attempt to distribute or copy my plans in any way or I will seek legal action. I confided in you and the Mayor and expect that much out of you. One more point, when I started this process I asked of Julie Minor and Clay Byrd, in our first meeting, to please not let politics get into our planning because I have seen what can happen. You have sure shown me why Tulsa s always trailing Oklahoma City. Jerry R. Gordon JRG Developments,LLC" http://krmg.com/localnews/2010/12/jerry-gordon-email-to-tulsa-ma.html He forgot to mention to them that their mothers are fat and ugly. Did he ever *have* a contract in the first place, or is he just kvetching because Bartlett and Christiansen led him on? Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Hawkins on December 15, 2010, 09:11:55 pm If the Riverwalk hadn't been such a failure for him, then perhaps Jerry Gordon could have made it happen here as well.
But given his history, with financing issues always chasing him, and partnerships evaporating all around him, it is not surprising in the least that the Mayor's office gave him the cold shoulder. He was in the Tulsa World recently threatening to sue his last business partner/Riverwalk investor over Riverwalk management rights if I remember correctly. The city of Tulsa doesn't need more of that. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Conan71 on December 16, 2010, 10:47:08 am http://jrgdevelopment.com/ From their web page headar, he's not a very good spellar at al: JRG Developments, LLC Developing a Differance since 1982 Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Gaspar on December 16, 2010, 10:54:47 am From their web page headar, he's not a very good spellar at al: JRG Developments, LLC Developing a Differance since 1982 It's a bad bad website all around. I bet he has a kid that does it. It's built with GoDaddy's Website Tonight engine. . .but then again, I'm a bit of a web snob. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: waterboy on December 16, 2010, 11:40:24 am I'm not surprised at the level of communication or the website sophistication. They blew a bundle on opening advertising in Tulsa People. I like that mag just fine but to depend on it for your main opening vehicle was one of several blunders. But at the time they smugly fancied themselves the Utica Square of Jenks/South Tulsa. They told prospective tenants that the low water dam was to open within 12 months and that would create a mountain of customers and pr. Then in spite of the hype, they grand opened with Cabos, a childrens store, Gino's, Gary's, a nail salon and I think Tsunami's. Underwhelming.
They grossly missed their target shopper. People showed up with Sonic bags and camped near the path while the kids ran around. I have been back several times and it appears they have started to move towards reality but there is still not enough tenant variety to draw from 5 miles away. It still has plenty of potential when the economy swings back and a dam is reality. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Teatownclown on August 08, 2011, 02:33:04 pm http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=20110808_11_A1_CUTLIN94234
Not only are the posties at TNF getting tired but the RFP submissions look like the bottom of the river.... Pathetic. Where are the Bloodsuckers. Ain't no bread in the city breadbox....just crumbs. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Conan71 on August 08, 2011, 03:20:04 pm http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=20110808_11_A1_CUTLIN94234 Not only are the posties at TNF getting tired but the RFP submissions look like the bottom of the river.... Pathetic. Where are the Bloodsuckers. Ain't no bread in the city breadbox....just crumbs. Those were horrible. A total bucket of smile. 800 ft. oil derrick? Did an 800 ft. Golden Driller appear to them? Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: AquaMan on August 08, 2011, 03:20:49 pm Yeah, underwhelmed is a good description. Dazed and confused is another. 80 story oil derrick? Well, good place to put a cellular transmitter I guess. That one has been floating around for a decade. At least they moved it onto the bank from its original concept of being in the middle of the river. Roller coaster and theme park next to a seniors complex? I don't see that synergy.
I have to admit, its time to have someone from outside look at us and give a second opinion as to why we can't show much creativity with the West Bank. Or, just wait. No hurry. The Whitewater kayaking segment of the low water dam will be the biggest incentive for developing the area. Some really good ideas will come from that. Blue Rose is untested as yet. Everyone goes to a new restaurant in a unique location. But unless everything is just right fickle Tulsan's are already looking for another fave before the startup costs are met. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: ZYX on August 08, 2011, 03:21:42 pm I will cry long and hard if that oil derreck is built. 700-800ft tall, just think of how ugly that would be! Wow, imagine if we would have had the almost naked indian and this, that would have been interesting. Although, I like the idea of the American, but it would just be over the top cheesy with both.
Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Conan71 on August 08, 2011, 03:24:27 pm Yeah, underwhelmed is a good description. Dazed and confused is another. 80 story oil derrick? Well, good place to put a cellular transmitter I guess. That one has been floating around for a decade. At least they moved it onto the bank from its original concept of being in the middle of the river. Roller coaster and theme park next to a seniors complex? I don't see that synergy. I have to admit, its time to have someone from outside look at us and give a second opinion as to why we can't show much creativity with the West Bank. Or, just wait. No hurry. The Whitewater kayaking segment of the low water dam will be the biggest incentive for developing the area. Some really good ideas will come from that. Blue Rose is untested as yet. Everyone goes to a new restaurant in a unique location. But unless everything is just right fickle Tulsan's are already looking for another fave before the startup costs are met. An 800 foot obstruction on the extended glide path for Riverside airport is a really bad idea. They would have trouble getting that past the FAA, IMO. I've heard grumblings about the parking situation at Blue Rose and this was not entirely unexpected, especially when they are sharing a parking lot with people coming down to the river for recreation. But, I don't believe it's seriously affected their till. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: DTowner on August 08, 2011, 03:46:41 pm Given the quality of these proposals, I'm surprised The Channels did not make a return appearance.
I wonder if the likelihood that there will be no federal money any time soon to pay for dam(s) to keep water in the river had an effect on the number and type of proposals. I can't see anyone wanting to sink a lot of money on an already risky location (refineries/public housing as neighbors) without assurances that the water issue will be addressed. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: TheArtist on August 08, 2011, 04:10:15 pm The oil derreck thing just made me wince. What, are third graders coming up with this stuff? Fortunately if they are relying on donors, its not going to get built.
Olympic stadium! Seriously?! OMG let this one die please. Theme park with a Theme hotel by a Retirement Center... At first glance I know it will sound absurd to most because your thinking "kids/teens and amusement park". But, having parents and other relatives of retirement age that practically live at Disney World and Branson, if you pull it off right and keep out the riff raff this one could actually work. We aren't talking Bells where fights are breaking out and its run down, we are talking clean, themed, cutsey, entertainment, shopping, restaurants, few themed rides, Disneyfied sanitized fantasy streetscapes, controlled by a corporation with strict dress and behavior controlls. You will get them old people and middle class suburbanites in there lol. They like a safe, clean, people sanitized environment. Just as long as someone with deep pockets isnt stealing my DECOPOLIS, deco era, 20's-50's theme park idea. Cuz if they iiiis, Louigi the Knee Cap Man will be payin someone a viiiisit 8). Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: DowntownDan on August 08, 2011, 04:43:28 pm I wish these people pushing for the olympics would just stop. It's making a laughing stock of our city. Lets focus on something real, not something that would never happen, and even if it did, what the hell is Tulsa going to do with an Olympic size stadium afterwards but suck money and fall apart without any use? Just let it go. Otherwise, these proposals are all underwhelming. I guess the west bank is just destined to be what it is for the next few decades. I wonder if the shady apartments nearby have a negative affect. Maybe build Branson Landing type apartments on the west bank, and have someone convert the shady apartments into a nice (completely renovated) retirement community, if there is a market for retirment community on that side of the river.
Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: AquaMan on August 08, 2011, 04:59:13 pm I want to emphasize what someone else said. Those apartments are not a big problem as far as behavior. Yes, the people are poor but the buildings are well kept and have been recently renovated. There isn't a burgeoning crime wave over there.
But, yes, the perception may be holding development back. Just like the exhorbitant cost of the cement plant, the former Litho building, the railroad and the city public works buildings. Nothing that can't be resolved however. Especially if you have a good idea and some financial support behind you. Then those other problems start to resolve themselves. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Truman on August 08, 2011, 05:42:31 pm A giant oil derrick
The man with the "Giant Indian" will be next in line. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: SXSW on August 08, 2011, 06:36:25 pm Still a fan of turning it all into a big park space with a larger amphitheater and then redeveloping the Westport apartments into something denser. Keep the "development" on the east bank i.e. redevelopment of Riverview area into denser apartments/condos around Riverside & Denver, the residential development of the Blair property by the pedestrian bridge and the redevelopment of the Crow Creek apartments at 31st & Riverside.
The latter two projects could have some interesting synergies with the whitewater park proposed for the pedestrian bridge area and the eventual construction of a Crow Creek jogging/bike trail from the river to Brookside/Zink Park. I saw someone posted on the TW that the West Bank should be like Tulsa's version of Austin's Zilker Park/Auditorium Shores and I totally agree. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: TheArtist on August 08, 2011, 07:36:34 pm Still a fan of turning it all into a big park space with a larger amphitheater and then redeveloping the Westport apartments into something denser. Keep the "development" on the east bank i.e. redevelopment of Riverview area into denser apartments/condos around Riverside & Denver, the residential development of the Blair property by the pedestrian bridge and the redevelopment of the Crow Creek apartments at 31st & Riverside. The latter two projects could have some interesting synergies with the whitewater park proposed for the pedestrian bridge area and the eventual construction of a Crow Creek jogging/bike trail from the river to Brookside/Zink Park. I saw someone posted on the TW that the West Bank should be like Tulsa's version of Austin's Zilker Park/Auditorium Shores and I totally agree. I think the whitewater park and something around the Blair Mansion/Crow Creek area will actually get people to see the potential river development has for Tulsa. It will help them feel a little more connected to the river and its "seasons". That in turn will imo make the West Bank appear much more attractive. Running along the trail or driving past is one thing, but to have an area where a lot of people can comfortably go down beside the water will make a difference. The part of the river that runs through downtown/mid-town Tulsa is beautiful no matter what side you are on. Where as in Jenks for instance, looking across from the Riverwalk is ho-hum boring, and the Riverwalk itself is set back from the river and when you do go closer to the edge where you can see the "shore" so to speak, its as boring as the dickens too, just grass and a mud drop off to the water. There are ditches by my house that have more character and interest. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: custosnox on August 08, 2011, 09:44:01 pm I want to emphasize what someone else said. Those apartments are not a big problem as far as behavior. Yes, the people are poor but the buildings are well kept and have been recently renovated. There isn't a burgeoning crime wave over there. I would disagree. While not the worst area in Tulsa, it is bad enough. My ex lived there with my kids for a while, and there was quiet a bit of crime there, including two of her cars getting stolen, which is really sad given the condition of the cars she drives. It isn't bad enough that I watch over my shoulder when in the area, it's bad enough to drag development down. But, yes, the perception may be holding development back. Just like the exhorbitant cost of the cement plant, the former Litho building, the railroad and the city public works buildings. Nothing that can't be resolved however. Especially if you have a good idea and some financial support behind you. Then those other problems start to resolve themselves. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Conan71 on August 08, 2011, 09:44:57 pm I would disagree. While not the worst area in Tulsa, it is bad enough. My ex lived there with my kids for a while, and there was quiet a bit of crime there, including two of her cars getting stolen, which is really sad given the condition of the cars she drives. It isn't bad enough that I watch over my shoulder when in the area, it's bad enough to drag development down. Exactly. You just don't hear much gunfire from over there. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: custosnox on August 08, 2011, 09:53:11 pm Exactly. You just don't hear much gunfire from over there. key word is much, but about half as much as you hear in the 31st and Garnett areaTitle: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: AquaMan on August 09, 2011, 06:51:03 am I made that remark based on the reduced number of police/fire/ambulance calls I see over there. Also there used to be a lot of street toughs hanging around and whether or not its the heat, I see fewer nasties than I used to. Used to be when you stopped at the light they would come up to your car. When I put my boat in over there crack heads would send their children to beg money. I just don't see that anymore. Seriously, Brightwaters closer to Southwest Blvd. is where the action is. Gun shots, domestic disturbances etc. Conan, is there a lot of theft or vandalism when the bike club parks over there each week?
Theft is citywide and becoming a culture of its own. We don't seem to want to put pressure on their outlets for movement of product (pawn shops, salvages, craigslist) so it is considered an alternate income. Saddest story I saw last week was about an 80 year old woman in Texas who died in her small home because some thieves stole her air conditioner. Anyway, there is no doubt that area would be tastier for development without the project. One big impediment to development of the area that people seldom note is the railroad. Seriously, I remember an event over there that was totally shut down for hours because the railroad moved some of their boxcars over there and left them for hours waiting for who knows what. Traffic backed up and became angry. The railroad guys couldn't have cared less. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Conan71 on August 09, 2011, 07:51:16 am I made that remark based on the reduced number of police/fire/ambulance calls I see over there. Also there used to be a lot of street toughs hanging around and whether or not its the heat, I see fewer nasties than I used to. Used to be when you stopped at the light they would come up to your car. When I put my boat in over there crack heads would send their children to beg money. I just don't see that anymore. Seriously, Brightwaters closer to Southwest Blvd. is where the action is. Gun shots, domestic disturbances etc. Conan, is there a lot of theft or vandalism when the bike club parks over there each week? Theft is citywide and becoming a culture of its own. We don't seem to want to put pressure on their outlets for movement of product (pawn shops, salvages, craigslist) so it is considered an alternate income. Saddest story I saw last week was about an 80 year old woman in Texas who died in her small home because some thieves stole her air conditioner. Anyway, there is no doubt that area would be tastier for development without the project. One big impediment to development of the area that people seldom note is the railroad. Seriously, I remember an event over there that was totally shut down for hours because the railroad moved some of their boxcars over there and left them for hours waiting for who knows what. Traffic backed up and became angry. The railroad guys couldn't have cared less. It's very rare. I know of one vehicle break in at the skate park south of 21st St. and another right outside the TRC boathouse in the last year. In one case, one of my cycling buddies had left his jeans sitting on the passenger seat. Someone probably thought there was a wallet in the pants. I have no idea whose car it was that got broken into by the boathouse, but I figured the thieves had been and gone, so probably pretty safe to park there, especially after calling the cops and alerting them to it. To date, I've not heard of people getting broken into on either side of the block for Weds. Night Ride. People start rolling out from about 4:30 to 6:30 and go varying distances, so there's almost always someone on both sides of the street on Weds. Worst I've seen is a drunk or two wandering through the parking lot looking for chump change. There was a car wreck that happened last fall that happened well after dark while some people were still sitting around chatting. The driver of the car fled the scene almost as soon as it came to a rest. No idea if he was a resident of the nearby apartments or not. In other words, really not much worse than any other part of the city. I frequently ride south from the Sperry area back to downtown on Cincinnati. I never get messed with riding through there. They actually tend to exhibit more courtesy towards cyclists than I get out west or toward Skiatook. I guess they figure if a white boy wearing spandex is crazy enough to ride through that rough hood on a bicycle, he's best left alone. ;) Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: AquaMan on August 09, 2011, 08:25:48 am Its respect for the uniform, man.
Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: DTowner on August 09, 2011, 01:20:47 pm If I'm a developer looking to invest millions, the mere existence of the public housing near by, not necessarily the crime statistics, is going to be a serious concern.
I hope the City takes the current lack of serious interest in the west bank as an indicator that it needs to focus on the one area right now where things are happening - downtown - and put all of its energy into attracting employers and employees downtown to keep the momentum going in the right direction. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Conan71 on August 09, 2011, 01:22:02 pm If I'm a developer looking to invest millions, the mere existence of the public housing near by, not necessarily the crime statistics, is going to be a serious concern. I hope the City takes the current lack of serious interest in the west bank as an indicator that it needs to focus on the one area right now where things are happening - downtown - and put all of its energy into attracting employers and employees downtown to keep the momentum going in the right direction. Winner winner! Chicken dinner! Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: SXSW on August 09, 2011, 04:27:38 pm If I'm a developer looking to invest millions, the mere existence of the public housing near by, not necessarily the crime statistics, is going to be a serious concern. I hope the City takes the current lack of serious interest in the west bank as an indicator that it needs to focus on the one area right now where things are happening - downtown - and put all of its energy into attracting employers and employees downtown to keep the momentum going in the right direction. Agree. Though a park proposal would be nice, even if it's 5-10 years away from realistically happening. At least the public would know something is happening over there and the concrete plant would be cleaned up. If you're going to look at developing the riverfront, get the whitewater park built at pedestrian bridge. And continue to redevelop the Riverview area along Riverside around Blue Rose. Development doesn't have to be on the river bank itself. Leave that as it is. And yes continue to focus on downtown. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Conan71 on August 09, 2011, 05:39:58 pm Development doesn't have to be on the river bank itself. Leave that as it is. And yes continue to focus on downtown. Agreed and agreed. We've got a beautiful commodity in the green space and trails around Riverparks, I'd had for that to be crapped up with a bunch of commercial properties when it's not really necessary. Recreation is a fantastic use of the area next to the river banks. Well, and in between them too. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: OpenYourEyesTulsa on August 10, 2011, 01:19:07 pm I heard one of the proposals is to put the Olympics 2020 stadium on the west riverbanks. I thought the Olympic bid was over but I guess not. It would be very cool if it did happen. They could reuse the stadium for an NFL team ;)
Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Conan71 on August 10, 2011, 10:23:35 pm I heard one of the proposals is to put the Olympics 2020 stadium on the west riverbanks. I thought the Olympic bid was over but I guess not. It would be very cool if it did happen. They could reuse the stadium for an NFL team ;) Or unicorn races Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Hoss on August 10, 2011, 10:26:49 pm Or unicorn races You know what C? Arrowhead Pale Ale ain't cheap. Now I have half of one residing on my office wall from laughing...thanks a lot! ;) Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Conan71 on August 11, 2011, 09:34:57 pm Quit teasing! I've had to look at that case of beer since the day after it came out.
Last thing I did before I left for Colorado was stick two sixers in the fridge for my return. ;) But...I will get to enjoy some Pagosa Brewing Pow Pow IPA Sunday night. Great way to fall off the beer wagon! Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Hoss on August 12, 2011, 12:13:41 am Quit teasing! I've had to look at that case of beer since the day after it came out. Last thing I did before I left for Colorado was stick two sixers in the fridge for my return. ;) But...I will get to enjoy some Pagosa Brewing Pow Pow IPA Sunday night. Great way to fall off the beer wagon! Let me know when you get back; maybe we'll just go to McNellie's and we can have 'em on tap. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Townsend on August 12, 2011, 08:00:49 am Let me know when you get back; maybe we'll just go to McNellie's and we can have 'em on tap. Give me a head's up. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Conan71 on August 18, 2011, 10:01:29 am Mon/Tues next week are best for me.
I brought back two growlers one with the PBC IPA and their red ale. Unfortunately, the seal on their growlers are incredibly sensitive and I had a couple of spray-outs. Just hoping I can drink them quick enough so they don't lose the fizz ;) Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Townsend on August 18, 2011, 10:28:48 am Good either day
Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Ronnie Lowe on August 18, 2011, 01:55:21 pm I drove over the Canadian River on my way to Dallas a while back and noticed that it was one of those "Sandy Bar" rivers like the Arkansas River. It looked like the Arkansas River I remember from growing up here and I thought how unnatural and wasteful the low water dams on the Arkansas are and will be. There is a clique of opinion makers hereabouts that have decided Tulsa's greatest purpose is to be a Branson, Missouri knock off.
But, instead of junking up the west bank of the Arkansas with cheapy "built to be torn down" developments why don't we take all available land on the west bank for parkland and mirror the paths that are so well loved on the east bank of the river? I know, too classy for T-town. Now, here come the misguided opinion-makers with their tired old mantra "water in the river, water in the river." Millions and millions spent on low water dams that won't survive a generation. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Townsend on August 18, 2011, 02:04:21 pm Now, here come the misguided opinion-makers with their tired old mantra "water in the river, water in the river." Makes you look bad when you type things like that. Just a heads up. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Ronnie Lowe on August 18, 2011, 02:12:21 pm Saying things like that certainly won't endear me to the tired old opinion-makers.
Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Townsend on August 18, 2011, 02:15:22 pm Saying things like that certainly won't endear me to the tired old opinion-makers. Or people looking to have a civil discussion. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Conan71 on August 18, 2011, 02:59:00 pm I drove over the Canadian River on my way to Dallas a while back and noticed that it was one of those "Sandy Bar" rivers like the Arkansas River. It looked like the Arkansas River I remember from growing up here and I thought how unnatural and wasteful the low water dams on the Arkansas are and will be. There is a clique of opinion makers hereabouts that have decided Tulsa's greatest purpose is to be a Branson, Missouri knock off. But, instead of junking up the west bank of the Arkansas with cheapy "built to be torn down" developments why don't we take all available land on the west bank for parkland and mirror the paths that are so well loved on the east bank of the river? I know, too classy for T-town. Now, here come the misguided opinion-makers with their tired old mantra "water in the river, water in the river." Millions and millions spent on low water dams that won't survive a generation. Actually Ronnie, they have and recently completed a complete re-pave of the west trail system all the way to I-44. There's trails running from 11th St. (SW Blvd) to 71st on the west bank. Unfortunately, they don't get completely unfettered access to the riverbank due to existing power plant and waste treatment plant structures. If you have not been out there since it was completed, go visit the new Turkey Mountain urban wilderness area on Elwood north of 71st. It's one of the more peaceful and scenic places in Tulsa. I've enjoyed being able to row on Zink Lake so I guess you'd say I have skin in the game when it comes to the LWD at 31st. I'm somewhat ambiguous on LWD's further down or upstream and really don't care for a bunch of drecky commercial development up and down the banks. Finally, quit being a stranger. I like to hear you chime in, even if it's usually half way twisted ;) Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Ronnie Lowe on August 18, 2011, 03:20:47 pm Or people looking to have a civil discussion. The term "water in the river" has risen above discussion and become a mantra. It has become a symbol. You literally hear those words repeatedly, as if they were echoes of a speech at a meeting. It reminds me of other of Tulsa's mantras like the "Diversification" mantra that was repeated for decades as the reality of diversification was slowly imploding. Mantras have lives of their own, separate from reality. A park lining the west bank, including the parcels offered for development, would be a wonderful asset for Tulsa and would best showcase the river. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: AquaMan on August 18, 2011, 06:08:13 pm Strangely, my views are similar to Conan's on this subject. I do hear the mantra and I always try to defend this natural river's personality which doesn't always include water. But I too enjoy kayaking on Zink Lake (was out there this evening) and I think it serves a purpose as an inner city attraction. It needs more attention to detail and certainly more usage by watercraft. A big bag of money would help that.
I have seen the plans for the white water kayak park below a re-designed low water dam and I think you would be impressed. These guys put some real life thought into its design. It is tons better than any west bank development plans I've seen and will attract actual usage of the river on the east side and perhaps stimulate some development at 31st. That will leave the west bank, whose paths are already improved, a fine location for a big park as SXSW and others have described. But you should note, Ron, that even the Corps of Engineers had included in their long range plans the construction of a re-regulating dam in the Sand Springs area from the very beginning. The idea is to keep enough water in the river to sustain wildlife and keep it sandy. When SS hurriedly built a low quality dam and eventually had to blow it up, the river began to change for the worst. In spite of my hesitance for dam construction, I think one re-regulating dam upstream is probably necessary. W Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: TheArtist on August 18, 2011, 06:58:09 pm I agree enhancing the park space along the west bank would be nice, there are some nice trails and park spaces already there. Lets also remember that the parcels we are talking about developing across from downtown represent a tiny fraction of the entire river as it runs through Tulsa and Tulsa County. There will be pleeeeenty of space left by the river that can have all kinds of various types of parks, from more natural to manicured, etc. along it.
I also think that redoing the SS dam and doing it as a more capable re-regulating dam would be welcome. It would help the water flow at more times for it would contain big flows from Keystone and then a little more naturally "parcel" that out over longer periods of the day. Won't return the river back to the way it was before Keystone, but will help a little, and will have the side effect of putting "water in the river" more often. I also like the new kayak park and hope they enhance the old zink dam to make it easier for fish to migrate over and add safety features. Will they be doing more of a stair step feature with the improvements? As for any other dams, I have no interest for its mostly Jenks that wants one lol. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: AquaMan on August 19, 2011, 07:12:13 am The new design dissipates the energy of the water after it travels over the dam. I don't remember the specific terminology but it is fairly simple utilizing large rocks piled against the downside of the dam to eliminate the undertow. A person who insists on going over the dam may end up with broken bones but could still survive.
As far as the West Bank development being developed as a Central Park type use, there are several impediments involving those parcels of land. The cement plant will be very expensive both in purchase and reclamation, the design of the amphitheatre lagoon is ghastly and has to be redone, the amphitheatre itself needs replaced, and public Works has to be dealt with. Then a design that creatively uses such a large tract of land, divided by 23rd street and adjoining subsidized low income housing and that returns little or no revenue to the city/county.....is going to be a neat trick. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: SXSW on August 19, 2011, 01:18:15 pm The new design dissipates the energy of the water after it travels over the dam. I don't remember the specific terminology but it is fairly simple utilizing large rocks piled against the downside of the dam to eliminate the undertow. A person who insists on going over the dam may end up with broken bones but could still survive. This should also make the dams look more attractive as they will resemble more of a natural waterfall/rapids. Especially if they end up using rocks and not just concrete. As far as the West Bank development being developed as a Central Park type use, there are several impediments involving those parcels of land. The cement plant will be very expensive both in purchase and reclamation, the design of the amphitheatre lagoon is ghastly and has to be redone, the amphitheatre itself needs replaced, and public Works has to be dealt with. Then a design that creatively uses such a large tract of land, divided by 23rd street and adjoining subsidized low income housing and that returns little or no revenue to the city/county.....is going to be a neat trick. Agree...either way it will be difficult to develop because of these issues. Though turning it into a park would be easier. A larger amphitheater actually on land next to the water (like Auditorium Shores in Austin) would be much more utilized than what's currently there, which is falling apart. Some really cool park design ideas could be implemented over there for the same amount of money some developer would pour into a residential/shopping complex at that site. I still think our focus should be on developing existing areas along the river, and those areas are on the east bank: Riverview, Blair property, Pedestrian Bridge/whitewater park, Crow Creek Apartments, etc. I personally love what Louisville did with their recently-built riverfront park. Like our west bank their site was old industrial property next to a major highway interchange, not the best land for residential/retail development even though downtown is nearby and it's next to the Ohio River. Instead they turned it into a multi-use park with trails, green space, water fountains, playgrounds, a marina, beach, natural areas, etc. I drove through Louisville earlier this summer and checked it out and it's great. I would LOVE to see something like this on the west bank in Tulsa. Aerial (http://www.hargreaves.com/projects/PublicParks/LWDOverall/LWDOverall_1.jpg) Amphitheater (http://www.skyshotsblimpcam.com/db2/00172/skyshotsblimpcam.com/_uimages/waterfront_lg.gif) They planted the majority of these trees (http://www.louisvilleky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/EDA43D6A-D328-46DC-865A-86CF8004DFEA/0/wpafterlg.jpg) Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: we vs us on August 20, 2011, 08:26:09 pm So what's the deal with Westport? You've got several acres of rental condos over there in one of the worst conceivable places in Tulsa IMHO (right under an elevated highway, near a train yard, near freaking REFINERIES, near public housing, far far away from any amenities); yet they don't seem to get the lowest common denominator, and they seem to have relatively robust occupancy. Westport seems to prove that residential can happen over there, and yet I can't for the life of me identify what qualities it's got that makes people who aren't squatters want to live there.
EDIT: Okay I take that back: proximity to downtown and proximity to the river. But that's all I got. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Hoss on August 20, 2011, 09:45:49 pm So what's the deal with Westport? You've got several acres of rental condos over there in one of the worst conceivable places in Tulsa IMHO (right under an elevated highway, near a train yard, near freaking REFINERIES, near public housing, far far away from any amenities); yet they don't seem to get the lowest common denominator, and they seem to have relatively robust occupancy. Westport seems to prove that residential can happen over there, and yet I can't for the life of me identify what qualities it's got that makes people who aren't squatters want to live there. EDIT: Okay I take that back: proximity to downtown and proximity to the river. But that's all I got. Those aren't condos. They're apartments, unless something has changed in the last 10 years. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Conan71 on August 21, 2011, 12:20:31 am For one thing, OSU medical center is a draw. Secondly, rents are kept high enough to keep riff-raff out, third, they are pretty well-maintained.
And yes, they are apartments and always have been. As far as proximity to refineries, I'm not even aware you have a view of a refinery from there. Great view of downtown though. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Hoss on August 21, 2011, 01:47:19 am For one thing, OSU medical center is a draw. Secondly, rents are kept high enough to keep riff-raff out, third, they are pretty well-maintained. And yes, they are apartments and always have been. As far as proximity to refineries, I'm not even aware you have a view of a refinery from there. Great view of downtown though. Absolutely. Good friends of mine lived there in the past. I almost moved there after moving from Texas to here because of it's proximity to my work (at the time I worked at Bender Direct Mail just north of the Rodgers Litho building at 23rd and Jackson). That would have been a five minute walk every day. I just had most of my friends and my girlfriend at the time lived in East Tulsa/Broken Arrow. It was always awesome to know someone that lived there during the 4th; you could sit out in their courtyard and have a front row seat. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: SXSW on August 21, 2011, 10:35:24 am I seem to remember part of the river plan in 2007 included a proposal to raze Westport and redevelop it. I think it's fine as it is but would support a plan to redevelop it into something better in that location with the larger park to the south.
Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Hoss on August 21, 2011, 10:43:14 am I seem to remember part of the river plan in 2007 included a proposal to raze Westport and redevelop it. I think it's fine as it is but would support a plan to redevelop it into something better in that location with the larger park to the south. Why? There's really nothing wrong with it now. I think many people have the misconception that it's dilapidated because of its location. That's just not the case. It's a gated access apartment. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: AquaMan on August 21, 2011, 10:46:30 am You can't underestimate the difficulties of developing anything in that area. The sub-soil is the problem. Not only soft sand but potential for surprises that the oil industry has left in the last 120yrs. I know there are problems with settling around the apartments. They had originally planned them to be higher but it would have required too much underpinning and potential remediation.
I know people who have lived there and really liked the experience, though they thought it a bit pricey. Like Conan said that may be by design. The apartments are pretty well run and maintained. They are near a popular path for running, biking, walking and within a short drive to downtown, shopping at Utica Square and hospitals. In balance a pretty good location for short duration accommodations. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Breadburner on August 21, 2011, 11:06:25 am Actually sandy soil is an excelent sub base to build on very stable.......The key to it all which everyone here knows is finding the right developer......
Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Teatownclown on August 21, 2011, 11:12:40 am .......The key to it all which everyone here knows is finding the right developer...... ....who can deal with toxins. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Breadburner on August 21, 2011, 11:56:35 am ....who can deal with toxins. And the paraonoid negative nelllie makes his appearance..... Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: DTowner on August 21, 2011, 05:25:37 pm I just assumed that all the west bank development dreams always included replacing Westport because its surbuban style that doesn't fit with the modern style faux-style of the moment for mixed used development. I haven't been in Westport for years, but from the outside it appears to be a well-maintained early/mid 1980s style apartment complex.
Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: dbacks fan on August 21, 2011, 08:52:26 pm I just assumed that all the west bank development dreams always included replacing Westport because its surbuban style that doesn't fit with the modern style faux-style of the moment for mixed used development. I haven't been in Westport for years, but from the outside it appears to be a well-maintained early/mid 1980s style apartment complex. Westport was built in 1983 at the same time and the same group that built Southern Slope behind where the Double Tree at 61st & Yale is. At the same time, Sugarberry 61st & Garnett, Glen Eagles and the place just west were being built just north of Union HS, the apartments south of 61st and east of 169, Waterford at 53rd & Harvard, and two complexes just sout of 71st and east of Mingo, and Chardonay behind the QT on 71st across from Woodland Hills. All of these were the first "upscale" apartments built in Tulsa since The Villa Fontana/Terrace, and The Falls were built in the early 70's and those two were on the decline at that point. Interesting fact about Villa Fontana, The Falls, and Place One on Riverside, all three of these complexes had full bars in them as they were a members club, and only the residents of those complexes could get memberships IIRC. Place One had Club One, The Falls had The Cave Club with panoramic views, and I can't remember the name of the one at Villa Fontana. Forgot one, One Eaton Square that had a spectacular fire while under construction in early '84 that you could see the flames from at 71st & Elm in BA. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Breadburner on August 21, 2011, 09:03:46 pm Club One was public.....
Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: dbacks fan on August 21, 2011, 09:05:42 pm Club One was public..... Was that before LBTD passed in '84? I'm just going by what I remember before I turned 21. If all three were public with a "membership" I stand corrected. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Red Arrow on August 21, 2011, 09:13:30 pm Forgot one, One Eaton Square that had a spectacular fire while under construction in early '84 that you could see the flames from at 71st & Elm in BA. I think I remember seeing flames at 41st & Sheridan. Smoke for sure. I think the cause was some plumbing work. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: AquaMan on August 21, 2011, 09:27:43 pm Westport was built in 1983 at the same time and the same group that built Southern Slope behind where the Double Tree at 61st & Yale is. At the same time, Sugarberry 61st & Garnett, Glen Eagles and the place just west were being built just north of Union HS, the apartments south of 61st and east of 169, Waterford at 53rd & Harvard, and two complexes just sout of 71st and east of Mingo, and Chardonay behind the QT on 71st across from Woodland Hills. All of these were the first "upscale" apartments built in Tulsa since The Villa Fontana/Terrace, and The Falls were built in the early 70's and those two were on the decline at that point. Interesting fact about Villa Fontana, The Falls, and Place One on Riverside, all three of these complexes had full bars in them as they were a members club, and only the residents of those complexes could get memberships IIRC. Place One had Club One, The Falls had The Cave Club with panoramic views, and I can't remember the name of the one at Villa Fontana. Forgot one, One Eaton Square that had a spectacular fire while under construction in early '84 that you could see the flames from at 71st & Elm in BA. Man, you were involved with those in some way I'm guessing. Or you have a fantastic memory. My father worked on Fontana, The Falls and probably the others too. He really got shafted on the Falls when the builder got caught in a real estate collapse at the time. The Falls went bankrupt IIRC. I also lived in Place One in the mid to late 70's and often visited the club. It was small and always packed. On Friday nights we enjoyed "Free Beer" at the nearby clubroom. Place One was still pretty cool then. Olympic size pool, weight room, Sauna, showers and Tennis courts. Club One may have been private, (I remember having to carry a club membership card) but the laws were so screwy back then. I had a dozen or so cards. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: dbacks fan on August 21, 2011, 09:49:25 pm Man, you were involved with those in some way I'm guessing. Or you have a fantastic memory. My father worked on Fontana, The Falls and probably the others too. He really got shafted on the Falls when the builder got caught in a real estate collapse at the time. The Falls went bankrupt IIRC. I also lived in Place One in the mid to late 70's and often visited the club. It was small and always packed. On Friday nights we enjoyed "Free Beer" at the nearby clubroom. Place One was still pretty cool then. Olympic size pool, weight room, Sauna, showers and Tennis courts. Club One may have been private, (I remember having to carry a club membership card) but the laws were so screwy back then. I had a dozen or so cards. Oh the life I've led. I actually worked security while Southen Slope and Westport were being built, and the company I worked for also took care of the properties around 71st & Mingo. I later worked for Finger Furniture Rental, and got to see every apartment complex in Tulsa for residential, and did lots of work downtown on the office side as well. The worst was when we went to pickup all of the damaged furniture after the Memorial Day flood. There's nothing worse than picking up mattresses and couches that have been sitting in standing water, and then airing out. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Conan71 on August 21, 2011, 09:50:16 pm Westport was built in 1983 at the same time and the same group that built Southern Slope behind where the Double Tree at 61st & Yale is. At the same time, Sugarberry 61st & Garnett, Glen Eagles and the place just west were being built just north of Union HS, the apartments south of 61st and east of 169, Waterford at 53rd & Harvard, and two complexes just sout of 71st and east of Mingo, and Chardonay behind the QT on 71st across from Woodland Hills. All of these were the first "upscale" apartments built in Tulsa since The Villa Fontana/Terrace, and The Falls were built in the early 70's and those two were on the decline at that point. Interesting fact about Villa Fontana, The Falls, and Place One on Riverside, all three of these complexes had full bars in them as they were a members club, and only the residents of those complexes could get memberships IIRC. Place One had Club One, The Falls had The Cave Club with panoramic views, and I can't remember the name of the one at Villa Fontana. Forgot one, One Eaton Square that had a spectacular fire while under construction in early '84 that you could see the flames from at 71st & Elm in BA. And out of those cited, I believe Westport is the only one which has not become a mini-ghetto. It serves a purpose as affordable housing for average working folk and college students. Why do we always think there's a better formula for the inhabitants of a city which involves "upscale" development? Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: we vs us on August 21, 2011, 09:54:54 pm And out of those cited, I believe Westport is the only one which has not become a mini-ghetto. It serves a purpose as affordable housing for average working folk and college students. Why do we always think there's a better formula for the inhabitants of a city which involves "upscale" development? That's the thing I found really interesting. The Mrs. and I looked at Westport way back when we were moving here in 2007. As soon as we saw the surroundings we discarded it as an option but were impressed by the generally good upkeep of the facility for where it was. It's not upscale but it's definitely not downscale, either. That's the question, really . . . can you bottle what makes Westport stable and solvent, and then spread it liberally all over the riverbanks down to 31st? That may be the way to make the west river pay off. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Conan71 on August 21, 2011, 10:14:08 pm That's the thing I found really interesting. The Mrs. and I looked at Westport way back when we were moving here in 2007. As soon as we saw the surroundings we discarded it as an option but were impressed by the generally good upkeep of the facility for where it was. It's not upscale but it's definitely not downscale, either. That's the question, really . . . can you bottle what makes Westport stable and solvent, and then spread it liberally all over the riverbanks down to 31st? That may be the way to make the west river pay off. I really don't mean to belittle your opinion of the river from 31st to 11th, but I don't think you really spent much effort considering it at the time or since then. I believe any option north of 61st St. along Riverside is a fantastic option. FAIK the apartments lining the east bank from 33rd to 31st are quite stable and low crime. Too bad there's an image issue, apparently. Maybe we could attract even more people like you and your wife, who are exactly who that style of living should appeal to. If there was a misconception of those properties, please expand on it because there is something for us all to learn from it. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: dbacks fan on August 21, 2011, 10:21:13 pm IIRC Westport, Southern Slope and Waterford were the first gated complexes ever in Tulsa. Even now I would consider Westport as an option to move into because of it's location especially if I could get a river view unit. Why that one has been able to stay a good place? The people that live there are either as pointed out OSU students at the nearby facilities (It;s strange for me to refer to the old Osteo Hospital as OSU, and the other location was also, and may still be the medical examiners office) but it always had poeple who had moved to Tulsa for work downtown as a transitional place. Back in the mid '80s if you lived at one of these three you were considered to be doing well. The only thing I can attribute Westports success to is execellent property management, and a screening method to keep the standards high. By the mid 80's Villa Fontana, The Falls and a lot of the Hardesty properties had become dives, and LPC, Lincoln Property Company, just became concerned with occupancy rates. The others I mentioned were really nice but slipped quickly in the 90's. Most of them had family areas, and adult only areas, but I think they just let it go to all in one. The biggest problem that I did not like back then was Place One and Villa Fontana had central plants for the HVAC, so the complex contolled the heating and cooling schedule. But there were so many places that during the late 70's to the late 90's when I left just went downhill. The people that built the complexes off of 71st & Mingo also built a nice one near West 61st and Union that went down hill quickly, and even Sand Dollar at 61st and Riverside was a nice place as well. I believe (just my opinion) is that most of them began accepting gov't subsidices to keep units full to satisfy the managemnet companies bottom line.
Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Teatownclown on August 21, 2011, 10:28:44 pm Place One rocked...
And the only good visuals I ever caught of our "scenic" river was back in the 60's when they'd fire up the PSO plant during the night and it would look simply spectacular. Of course, I didn't comprehend pollution in the 1960's as a pre teen. It wasn't taught back then. You have got to believe there's a ton of remediation to be done on that west bank property but "as is" is just that. Could that explain the poor proposals, BB? Times have changed. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: we vs us on August 22, 2011, 05:39:55 am I really don't mean to belittle your opinion of the river from 31st to 11th, but I don't think you really spent much effort considering it at the time or since then. I believe any option north of 61st St. along Riverside is a fantastic option. FAIK the apartments lining the east bank from 33rd to 31st are quite stable and low crime. Too bad there's an image issue, apparently. Maybe we could attract even more people like you and your wife, who are exactly who that style of living should appeal to. If there was a misconception of those properties, please expand on it because there is something for us all to learn from it. Just to clarify: I meant on the west bank. I'm totally cool with the whole eastern strip, and the Mrs. and I have periodically tried to make the move closer to the river during our time here . . . we've just not found a place that fits our needs for the money. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Conan71 on August 22, 2011, 07:40:46 am Just to clarify: I meant on the west bank. I'm totally cool with the whole eastern strip, and the Mrs. and I have periodically tried to make the move closer to the river during our time here . . . we've just not found a place that fits our needs for the money. And that alone might be why Westport has remained a viable property as Brookside bungalows can be somewhat spendy. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: DTowner on August 22, 2011, 08:26:37 am In summer of 1987 I came to Tulsa to look at apartments and visited several in the 61st-71st/Peoria-Riverside area. I also visited Westport. All were pretty new and were offering many inducements as the oil bust was in full swing and the apartment market was obviously overbuilt. I remember Westport offered "happy hours" by the pool every Friday evening. That was a very tempting pitch.
I ended up living on-campus at TU, but I had friends who lived at apartments on Peoria between 61st & 71st for all 3 years of law school. That area changed dramatically during those 3 years, and not for the better. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: DowntownDan on August 22, 2011, 08:56:06 am Westport is always ranked as one of the top 3 apartment complexes by Urban Tulsa Weekly, and has even been number 1 at some point over the last few years. They are obviously doing something right. I'm not sure it would make much difference to west bank development though since the areas being discussed are south of the complex.
Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: TURobY on August 22, 2011, 09:22:55 am I lived at Westport for a couple of years during grad school.
I found the staff to be incredibly helpful when anything went wrong, the price point to be reasonable, and the view to be incredible (I and my ex paid a little extra for an apt on the river with a view of downtown). The only thing that made me move was when I found a house. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Conan71 on August 22, 2011, 10:09:18 am In summer of 1987 I came to Tulsa to look at apartments and visited several in the 61st-71st/Peoria-Riverside area. I also visited Westport. All were pretty new and were offering many inducements as the oil bust was in full swing and the apartment market was obviously overbuilt. I remember Westport offered "happy hours" by the pool every Friday evening. That was a very tempting pitch. I ended up living on-campus at TU, but I had friends who lived at apartments on Peoria between 61st & 71st for all 3 years of law school. That area changed dramatically during those 3 years, and not for the better. I dated a girl who lived at Sand Dollar. Amazing how quickly that place went downhill. I believe the older apartments just to the east became section 8 about that time. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Teatownclown on August 22, 2011, 11:55:38 am I dated a girl who lived at Sand Dollar. Amazing how quickly that place went downhill. I believe the older apartments just to the east became section 8 about that time. You're always out front.... ;) Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Conan71 on August 22, 2011, 12:04:03 pm You're always out front.... ;) I always say: "Lead with the head" ;) Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Teatownclown on August 22, 2011, 02:43:53 pm LOL Conan...
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YJ4w1J-4s0&NR=1[/youtube] OK, TTC suggests turning the site into a mountain....(of toxic debris :D) " I'm gonna build a daydream, from a little hope. I'm gonna push the daydream, up that mountain slope. I'm gonna build a daydream, woah, I'm gonna see it through, Gonna build a mountain and a daydream, Gonna make 'em both come true." Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: custosnox on August 22, 2011, 04:30:32 pm now this may come as a surprise to some of you, but it is official, we are not going to be getting the Olympics
http://www.newson6.com/story/15311011/tulsas-bid-to-host-2020-olympics-officially-ended Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Townsend on August 22, 2011, 04:40:28 pm now this may come as a surprise to some of you, but it is official, we are not going to be getting the Olympics http://www.newson6.com/story/15311011/tulsas-bid-to-host-2020-olympics-officially-ended Well what the crap? I thought that was why we were fixing our streets or whatever. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: custosnox on August 22, 2011, 05:01:51 pm Well what the crap? I thought that was why we were fixing our streets or whatever. What are you talking about? I was hoping we would get it so that they would really fix our streets.Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: SXSW on May 22, 2014, 10:42:21 am Saw that River West is getting a $6 million upgrade mainly at the amphitheater, and that the floating stage is being auctioned.
http://m.tulsaworld.com/news/local/river-parks-floating-stage-lands-on-auction-block/article_d1f0c6f3-ce2d-588a-b9e2-5051fabed17e.html?mode=jqm (http://m.tulsaworld.com/news/local/river-parks-floating-stage-lands-on-auction-block/article_d1f0c6f3-ce2d-588a-b9e2-5051fabed17e.html?mode=jqm) I think this amphitheater is severely underutilized and hopefully the improvements will change that. I still would like to someday see the Mid-Con plant next door turned into an extension of the park with a larger amphitheater and green space for bigger festivals with a great view. As I've said before something like Zilker Park in Austin or this proposal for Nashville: http://www.musicrow.com/2014/05/get-an-early-look-at-nashvilles-west-riverfront-park/ (http://www.musicrow.com/2014/05/get-an-early-look-at-nashvilles-west-riverfront-park/) Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Conan71 on May 22, 2014, 10:50:52 am I can’t imagine there will be great interest in the stage. Removal and haul-off costs are likely more than the scrap value of the stage. I suspect it ends up getting wrecked in place by RPA.
Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: sgrizzle on May 22, 2014, 02:54:55 pm I can’t imagine there will be great interest in the stage. Removal and haul-off costs are likely more than the scrap value of the stage. I suspect it ends up getting wrecked in place by RPA. How much space your backyard have? Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Conan71 on May 22, 2014, 02:58:57 pm How much space your backyard have? I think we can get the stage in, but the grandstands would need to be built up onto my roof. I’m thinking a floating stage in my backyard might take the cra-cra next door over the top though. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: sgrizzle on May 22, 2014, 02:59:46 pm I think we can get the stage in, but the grandstands would need to be built up onto my roof. I’m thinking a floating stage in my backyard might take the cra-cra next door over the top though. And the problem with that would be? Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Townsend on May 22, 2014, 03:20:23 pm I think we can get the stage in, but the grandstands would need to be built up onto my roof. I’m thinking a floating stage in my backyard might take the cra-cra next door over the top though. I'll buy a ticket to the cra cra blow out. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: AquaMan on May 22, 2014, 03:24:42 pm The insurance requirements will cost more than the value of the stage. Wouldn't surprise me if it spontaneously combusts.
Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Conan71 on May 22, 2014, 03:28:51 pm The insurance requirements will cost more than the value of the stage. Wouldn't surprise me if it spontaneously combusts. Hey, it’s been down-stream of Sun/Holly for 30 years, it’s possible! Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: BKDotCom on May 23, 2014, 12:26:13 pm I can’t imagine there will be great interest in the stage. Removal and haul-off costs are likely more than the scrap value of the stage. I suspect it ends up getting wrecked in place by RPA. Blow it up as part of the 4th-o-July fireworks show Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: YoungTulsan on May 23, 2014, 01:51:52 pm I can’t imagine there will be great interest in the stage. Removal and haul-off costs are likely more than the scrap value of the stage. I suspect it ends up getting wrecked in place by RPA. Removal and haul-off costs? It floats, right? Have the Corps of Engineers open up Keystone, then set it free. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Conan71 on May 23, 2014, 02:16:43 pm Removal and haul-off costs? It floats, right? Have the Corps of Engineers open up Keystone, then set it free. You would have to get it pretty high to get it over the Zink dam. Good idea though. Float it all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: Townsend on May 23, 2014, 02:17:22 pm Removal and haul-off costs? It floats, right? Have the Corps of Engineers open up Keystone, then set it free. Heads up, Bixby. Here comes a new entertainment venue. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: TulsaRufnex on May 24, 2014, 02:39:44 pm The insurance requirements will cost more than the value of the stage. Wouldn't surprise me if it spontaneously combusts. Kinda like the Towerview Apartments? Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: AquaMan on May 24, 2014, 09:06:18 pm Oh, yeah.....
They burned up nicely and timely. Title: Re: Tulsa West Bank Development Post by: BKDotCom on May 31, 2014, 02:21:19 pm A couple dingbats bought it for $550
http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepage1/floating-ark-river-stage-elicits-bid-winner-uncertain-of-plans/article_6edfcc0f-65a2-5632-a8b0-724b154c0f41.html only a mater of time before the city sues em to remove it. |