Tulsa People vote on favorite river plan

[RecycleMichael]

Tulsa People has an interesting article on the four river plans, The Landing, The Channels, Incog and Dan Hicks version.

http://www.tulsapeople-digital.com/tulsapeople/200701/

It is kind of hard to navigate the website, but the story is accessed on page 52. You can also pick up a hard copy at many area locations.

They are asking people to vote on which one they like best.

I voted for the Incog version.

[perspicuity85]

How can the Landing be part of the vote?  The developers of the Landing have barely started their plan for Tulsa.  We can't just assume they plan on building a carbon copy of Branson Landing in Tulsa.

[aoxamaxoa]

Man, am I tired already of this crap. It was bad enough when everyone started pumping up on 2025. Now this.

[Renaissance]

I really like the INCOG plan.  It focuses on developing the natural beauty of the river in a way that would best benefit the public and have the most manageable footprint.  

The "Tulsa Landing" plan seems too retail-centric, and it seems like it might keep the East End from happening.  My ideal vision develops downtown as a retail/entertainment center and the river as a public gathering place.

[Renaissance]

Oh also, it's worth admitting that even though it has boondoggle written all over it, the Channels is really really cool looking.

[perspicuity85]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

Oh also, it's worth admitting that even though it has boondoggle written all over it, the Channels is really really cool looking.

I wish someone would develop a scaled-down version of the Channels.  The issue the Channels addressed of connecting the west side with the east side and downtown has yet to be duplicated.  I would like to see a single island developed between the festival park and the east bank.  I have a very reliable source who told me there were several hotel and condo developers contacting the Stakeholders about developing the high-rise structures in the conceptual photos.  But I guess in the end the initial investment required was just too much.

[TheArtist]

I like pretty much everything about the INCOG plan.... EXCEPT the concept for the one area near downtown lol.  IMO development in that area should be urban and right up on the river.  It should be what a city would have, not a small suburb.

[citizen of the world]

I agree that the INCOG plan looks the best and it not only looks attractive but feasible!  Where do we get behind this project?  But what about the east bank apartments that are tagged for 'potential mult-family redevelopment'?  That area is not designated as 'blighted' and hence inelegible for redevelopment funds.  How would that be managed?

How about the 'Pedestrian Promenade and Overlook/Light Tower areas'?  Where can we get more detail on those features?  Are they like little piers in the river?  Could we hope for 'water taxi' stops?  Such great potential in this project.  Good luck with it Tulsa.

Artist, what are you referring to with the 'downtown' thing?  If it's about new urbanism on the river, I'm all for it.  

But we better get Patric on this thing so they don't stick us with 'acorn' streetlamps.  That's a huge potential problem that demands immediate attention.  Somebody call the mayor and Don Himelfarb quick!

Down with the Burbs!

[RecycleMichael]

I think it is important to let Tulsa People know what you think. They ran this story and are expecting feedback which they hope will help sway whatever decision is made.

E-mail the editor at this e-mail address and let them know what you prefer...

tpeditor@langdonpublishing.com

[TheArtist]

here is what I sent...


All of these plans have good points and some bad. I would propose a mixture of what I see as being the best points of each.
 
I like INCOG's plan of having low water dams and development all up and down the river in various communities.  I also like that they have different levels of development from, leaving areas completely natural, to parks, to low intensity, to... well, here is where I see INCOG's biggest flaw, its lack of urban density planning and preparation for the area near downtown Tulsa.
The type of development they propose for that area is what one would expect to see in a suburb, not a city.  Tulsa should have urban river development near its core, not suburban development.  Suburban type development will not make Tulsa competitive with other large cities.  It will only catch us up with places like Jenks.  Is that what Tulsa Wants?  
The Channels proposal for islands, is very expensive and I think we can set up for and encourage great, attractive,development on the west bank.  I do agree with the Channels and Tulsa Landings notions that a more dense, mixed use development, having; living, shopping, entertainment and public spaces is whats needed near Tulsa's central core.  They both also recognize that development in that area should be right on the river, not set far away from it like the INCOG plan shows.  By both hardening the shoreline as the Channels propose and setting the "water height" with either a large Channels type dam or a lower INCOG dam,  developers now and in the future will know exactly where they can develop, and will be able to develop next to the river without us or them having to worry about things changing down the road.

If we do it right the potential will be set, done and ready to go for generations.