River Revival....OKC

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

I agree Floyd. The last river vote was a continuation of decades of shortsighted non development. The bitterness expressed is not focused on that particular vote but the hopelessness of watching one person, Kaiser, do the river his way while we all watch.

The Chesapeake boat house is the result of open mind thinking. Not that rowing is such a great sport (I'm glad your family enjoys it though), it is the result of "what if" thinking that didn't get shot down immediately. At the time they did this river a boat house wasn't the centerpiece they envisioned. It happened because they envisioned a river with multiple uses and the boathouse naturally followed.

Here's an insight into the differing mind sets. Pat Downes, the consultant to the OKC Riverfront Development Authority, is a native Tulsan. I spoke with him before the boathouse was even considered and they were looking for ways to utilize the planned river. His only remark about Tulsa river development was that it was mired in politics and social personalities.

Many people have approached

For an old-fartish guy with bad knees and an 18 y/o with bad ankles from gymnastics, it's been a blessing to keep in shape without being confined to the four walls of a gym.  It's not for everyone.  Rowing definitely isn't NASCAR- that's for sure.  []

I'll certainly defer to your opinions on the river.  I don't think there's anyone else on this forum who has had contact with as many different individuals and government entities on ways to make the Arkansas much better and more user-friendly.

One opinion I've long held of Tulsa is that our city could make it a lot easier to do business here.  There are too many hurdles and bureaucrats trying to earn a paycheck for many potential entrepreneurs tastes.

[waterboy]

Here's another couple of insights. OKC has managed to get primarily good press for their river with barely a mention of the mis-steps that have occurred. Anyone remember the hydro-plane speed boat races they had that involved a fatality crash? Or the expected hotels that were going to spring up along the banks?

It became apparent to them that there would not be much bank development until there was established usage of the river itself. We operate on the opposite assumptions.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

Conan71, in my case, and I assume for others as well, the wi****l feeling of seeing success down the turnpike does not translate into bitterness at that one vote.  It is disappointment in city vision as well as the inability of city leaders (public and private) to practically execute on what visions they have.

The impending success of the downtown ballpark efforts will demonstrate the way to do things in the future.  Grand visions are lovely, but for every Bing Thom who wants a palate for their excessive designs, there are dozens of practical entrepreneurs who simply need modest collaboration with a cooperative city government.

Spot-on Floyd.

Thanks.  That xxx-ed out word above should be "wi****l."  I think I mistyped.

Edit: didn't mistype.  For some reason, w i s t f u l is getting censored.

No, S T F U is censored.

[PonderInc]

OKC also has a cool name for another river-related project: "Core to Shore"  

(In Tulsa, we call this "connecting the river to downtown.")  

Here's the OKC concept.  Looks pretty cool.  http://www.okc.gov/Planning/coretoshore/visuals_data.html

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by pfox

quote: And now they want us to do rail.  When are we going to do some things that will get our city to grow. Streets and rail can "corral" or shuffle what growth you have to one place or another, but we actually need some growth first.

Artist...I can't tell if you are yanking my chain, or if you are being serious.

Please tell me you are yanking my chain when you say stuff like that.

I am playing devils advocate on my own behalf to make sure I really have the different perspectives down. Most people on here are used to my strange, arguing it one way then turning around and arguing another game.

However... do you really think our city is seeing anywhere near the type of growth that those other cities like Dallas, Austin, and Denver were seeing when their rail got going? All the rail or zoning in the world wont create growth, ask Detroit. You have to have a city that is attracting people in the first place, that is growing in the first place. Then when you put in the rail you get TOD.

You mentioned on the news the other night something to the effect that if we waited for federal funding it could take us a decade to get started but that if we did it locally we could get started sooner. I would say that even 10 years may be jumping the gun it a bit. Hopefully Tulsa will turn the corner and we will see some real development happening in this city. What we have now is pitiful. Lets get our city "on the right tracks" development wise, attractiveness wise, improving our schools and colleges, developent along the river, Letting Brookside and Cherry Street fill out and get that attractive "critical mass" going,... etc.

We need to create a city that is well on its way to attracting and growing good jobs and people. Not barely eeking by. Then once we get that in order, then, you can start doing the rail. I just think we are being premature with the rail idea and need to get our priorities straight. Otherwise we will just be trying to draw what little development we do have from one place to another, in the end making it take even longer and more difficult to have any decent development areas anywhere. Rail doesnt create growth, we have plenty of opportunity to create efficient, walkable, wonderful, urban districts here and in the suburbs. Lets use our limited funds and efforts on getting our city solidly going in that direction and growing... like those other cities were, and not jump the gun.

Its kind of like what people have mentioned on here about the river in OKC, get some usage and attraction first, then the hotels and other grand plans will follow. Make a city or place that people want to go to, then you get development. Rail can corall what development you have, but you got to have some development TO corall first. We have a river that is supposedly a great draw for development and we havent seen it happen. We have developers having a hard time making the numbers work on areas like Brookside and Cherry Street, already some of the most desirable spots in the city. Yet even here growth is meager. Supposedly the Arena is to be a draw for development but we havent seen much of anything around it yet. What kind of growth, in this environment, do you see happening around rail? Its just going to be another area and expense where growth is somehow magically supposed to happen.

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by pfox

quote: And now they want us to do rail.  When are we going to do some things that will get our city to grow. Streets and rail can "corral" or shuffle what growth you have to one place or another, but we actually need some growth first.

Artist...I can't tell if you are yanking my chain, or if you are being serious.

Please tell me you are yanking my chain when you say stuff like that.

I am playing devils advocate on my own behalf to make sure I really have the different perspectives down. Most people on here are used to my strange, arguing it one way then turning around and arguing another game.

However... do you really think our city is seeing anywhere near the type of growth that those other cities like Dallas, Austin, and Denver were seeing when their rail got going? All the rail or zoning in the world wont create growth, ask Detroit. You have to have a city that is attracting people in the first place, that is growing in the first place. Then when you put in the rail you get TOD.

You mentioned on the news the other night something to the effect that if we waited for federal funding it could take us a decade to get started but that if we did it locally we could get started sooner. I would say that even 10 years may be jumping the gun it a bit. Hopefully Tulsa will turn the corner and we will see some real development happening in this city. What we have now is pitiful. Lets get our city "on the right tracks" development wise, attractiveness wise, improving our schools and colleges, developent along the river, Letting Brookside and Cherry Street fill out and get that attractive "critical mass" going,... etc.

We need to create a city that is well on its way to attracting and growing good jobs and people. Not barely eeking by. Then once we get that in order, then, you can start doing the rail. I just think we are being premature with the rail idea and need to get our priorities straight. Otherwise we will just be trying to draw what little development we do have from one place to another, in the end making it take even longer and more difficult to have any decent development areas anywhere. Rail doesnt create growth, we have plenty of opportunity to create efficient, walkable, wonderful, urban districts here and in the suburbs. Lets use our limited funds and efforts on getting our city solidly going in that direction and growing... like those other cities were, and not jump the gun.

Those are good insights.

The one caveat I might make is that a rail stop on the West Bank is the kind of thing that might encourage Rick Huffman to go ahead with Tulsa Landing.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd


The one caveat I might make is that a rail stop on the West Bank is the kind of thing that might encourage Rick Huffman to go ahead with Tulsa Landing.

That one almost makes too much sense for our city, considering a rail runs right through the area Huffman wanted to develop.  []

A Jenks to DT line could make a lot of sense as our starter line.  The rail infrastructure is there.  All that would be needed is a sufficient parking lot on either end.  I believe it would be useful for work commuters from So Tulsa, as well as people looking for recreation on the weekends.

[dsjeffries]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist
However... do you really think our city is seeing anywhere near the type of growth that those other cities like Dallas, Austin, and Denver were seeing when their rail got going? All the rail or zoning in the world wont create growth, ask Detroit. You have to have a city that is attracting people in the first place, that is growing in the first place. Then when you put in the rail you get TOD.

...

Lets get our city "on the right tracks" development wise, attractiveness wise, improving our schools and colleges, developent along the river, Letting Brookside and Cherry Street fill out and get that attractive "critical mass" going,... etc.

We need to create a city that is well on its way to attracting and growing good jobs and people. Not barely eeking by. Then once we get that in order, then, you can start doing the rail. I just think we are being premature with the rail idea and need to get our priorities straight. Otherwise we will just be trying to draw what little development we do have from one place to another, in the end making it take even longer and more difficult to have any decent development areas anywhere. Rail doesnt create growth, we have plenty of opportunity to create efficient, walkable, wonderful, urban districts here and in the suburbs. Lets use our limited funds and efforts on getting our city solidly going in that direction and growing... like those other cities were, and not jump the gun.

Artist, I have to disagree, and here's why:  I think you're missing the goal of building rail right now.  The discussion isn't "how can we get more development?", but "how can we get people to and from work quickly and easily?" and "how can we reduce emissions and keep off the dirty air list?".

This rail discussion isn't intended to create commercial or residential development, but to move people.

Why would it be so wrong for Tulsa to focus on its own quality of life...something you keep insisting on?  Rail could definitely boost our quality of life, and eventually, when Tulsa is growing the way we want it to, it can be expanded.

-------------------------

I think the Times kind of missed the boat on this article.  To me, it seems as though they're trying to say that the cleaning up of the river was responsible for all the growth in DTOKC when it was actually Bricktown.  Was there a ditch--er, I mean river--revival? Yes.  Was it the cause of a boom of interest in downtown? No.

[PonderInc]

I think rail actually can spur development...if the development is planned accordingly.  It's worked in other cities.  The developments increase the tax base (which is something Tulsa desperately needs), which is one of the ways you pay for transit/rail.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

I think rail actually can spur development...if the development is planned accordingly.  It's worked in other cities.  The developments increase the tax base (which is something Tulsa desperately needs), which is one of the ways you pay for transit/rail.

I understand the argument for developments increasing tax base.  The only way that works is if the development also includes the creation or influx of permanent quality jobs, not call centers.

Unless there's a way for people to pay to live in development areas like that, there's no new migration to the area to increase the tax base, otherwise it's just one geographic area of the city cannibalizing from other areas.

One of the stated benefits of west bank development in the river tax proposal was going to be the creation of jobs.  Only problem is, other than retail and re-locating existing companies to office space, there really weren't any permanent high-paying occupations being created.

I believe with Tulsa Hills and the new development down in Jenks, we are getting close to retail saturation for about the next ten years, if we have not already over-built.  

[waterboy]

The first time I noted that there would be no meaningful development ALONG the river until there was meaningful use OF the river, I was criticized. Notably I remember someone telling me I had lost all credibility with that remark.

Both OKC and the Channels folks both operated on that assumption and ended up with different results. Channels simply over reached. But the concept is correct. In the same vein, if anything rejuvenates downtown it will be the Arena. There simply has to be some sort of usage, even if it is pumping taxes into the improvement of infrastructure or public facilities, for an area to justify development. IMO, the rail movement would qualify.

The thing is, we have to say yes to something. Lowering taxes and road building is stuff that people love to talk about but doesn't generate an investment in development.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by dsjeffries

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist
However... do you really think our city is seeing anywhere near the type of growth that those other cities like Dallas, Austin, and Denver were seeing when their rail got going? All the rail or zoning in the world wont create growth, ask Detroit. You have to have a city that is attracting people in the first place, that is growing in the first place. Then when you put in the rail you get TOD.

...

Lets get our city "on the right tracks" development wise, attractiveness wise, improving our schools and colleges, developent along the river, Letting Brookside and Cherry Street fill out and get that attractive "critical mass" going,... etc.

We need to create a city that is well on its way to attracting and growing good jobs and people. Not barely eeking by. Then once we get that in order, then, you can start doing the rail. I just think we are being premature with the rail idea and need to get our priorities straight. Otherwise we will just be trying to draw what little development we do have from one place to another, in the end making it take even longer and more difficult to have any decent development areas anywhere. Rail doesnt create growth, we have plenty of opportunity to create efficient, walkable, wonderful, urban districts here and in the suburbs. Lets use our limited funds and efforts on getting our city solidly going in that direction and growing... like those other cities were, and not jump the gun.

Artist, I have to disagree, and here's why:  I think you're missing the goal of building rail right now.  The discussion isn't "how can we get more development?", but "how can we get people to and from work quickly and easily?" and "how can we reduce emissions and keep off the dirty air list?".

This rail discussion isn't intended to create commercial or residential development, but to move people.

Why would it be so wrong for Tulsa to focus on its own quality of life...something you keep insisting on?  Rail could definitely boost our quality of life, and eventually, when Tulsa is growing the way we want it to, it can be expanded.

-------------------------

I think the Times kind of missed the boat on this article.  To me, it seems as though they're trying to say that the cleaning up of the river was responsible for all the growth in DTOKC when it was actually Bricktown.  Was there a ditch--er, I mean river--revival? Yes.  Was it the cause of a boom of interest in downtown? No.

My counter argument would be that we can reduce emissions and keep off the dirty air list by decreasing the number of trips by creating more urban, walkable districts. You dont have to have rail to do that. Even with rail we are going to have more cars on the road in the future. With or without rail we need better land use policies. People can get to and from work more easily if they live near where they work. You can also reduce trips and the distance of trips to the grocery store, bank, barber, etc. in more dense areas.  

Again,... not against rail, not against rail in Tulsa. Its a matter of when, how, where, what goes with it, what comes first, etc. Have finally come to some general conclusions on the matter, will elaborate later, on a different thread so I wont keep hijacking this one lol.

[okcpulse]

Or the expected hotels that were going to spring up along the banks?


Mmm. no that wasn't expected right away.  No one in Oklahoma City is expecting that kind of development until after the Core 2 Shore development begins, which will take off after the three mile stretch of I-40 is relocated.  In the meantime, the city of OKC is still working on zoning details for river front development.  Honestly, I doubt any river front development will take place until Core 2 Shore is well under way.  The new three-mile stretch of I-40 is expected to be finished by 2012.  By then, people in OKC will begin to see some dramatic changes.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by okcpulse

Or the expected hotels that were going to spring up along the banks?


Mmm. no that wasn't expected right away.  No one in Oklahoma City is expecting that kind of development until after the Core 2 Shore development begins, which will take off after the three mile stretch of I-40 is relocated.  In the meantime, the city of OKC is still working on zoning details for river front development.  Honestly, I doubt any river front development will take place until Core 2 Shore is well under way.  The new three-mile stretch of I-40 is expected to be finished by 2012.  By then, people in OKC will begin to see some dramatic changes.

Perhaps someone forgot to tell the PR outlets that bit of info? Before the words "core to shore" were ever uttered the press was showing renderings of hotels along the shoreline and talking about how much interest there was by them. It lead people to believe it was imminent.

[JLCinOKC]

There are three new hotels going in along the river along the Meridian corridor near the western river taxi landing.