Why not knock down the north side of the IDL?

[deinstein]

-It would connect OSU-Tulsa with the Brady District.

-It would not separate downtown from North Tulsa, and thus encourage development beyond the I-244 boundary.

-It's in horrible condition and is just more tax dollars going to waste for years to come.

-You already have a detour taking the I-444/75 route on the east side of the IDL.

-The only people this would be a pain for is commuters coming on I-244 heading towards Sand Springs/Stillwater...and they can just deal with the extra two minute commute.

Thoughts?

[FOTD]

That's nuts.

[mrB]

Here's my similar thought from this thread:  Cathedral Square

quote:
Cathedral Square would be a great benefit to southside Downtown. My suggestion is to take it a step higher.

Let's bulldoze Hwy75 between US244 on the north and Hwy51/64 on the south. It's not needed, you can still go around the CBD via the highway system to the west. The CROSSTOWN can exit 1st/2nd at Kenosha into the Greenwood/Ballpark/Brady/BlueDome districts. The BA [51/64] can exit/enter on 13th at Detroit or Cincinnati into the southside district of downtown. Or further west at Cheyenne/Denver or Houston at 11th.

A gateway into the CBD could be developed along Cheyenne/Denver at 11th. A gateway into the Entertainment District [EnDi] could be developed on 1st/2nd at Kenosha. Detroit and Cincinnati at 13th could be the gateway into the south downtown [SoDo] Residential Park District.

Mixed-use, 3-story+ walk-ups, residential and walkable retail [grocer/meat mkts, etc] could develop north along Boston/Cincinnati/Detroit towards Cathederal Square, the CBD and EnDi.

When Hwy75 between US244 on the north and Hwy51/64 on the south is bulldozed. We now have land available to make Tulsa's very own Madison Avenue Park [just west of existing Madison Ave.] or enlarging Central Park!

click map to enlarge>>



This new park running for 11 blocks, north and south would re-connect the Pearl District and its residential neighborhoods to Downtown. Thus making 3rd and 6th streets prime areas for growth and redevelopment. Walkable, high density residential as far east as TU. Just think of the blend of residential and retail that could grow in intensity from Delaware Ave all the way west to Downtown.

Well, just on man's opinion.

[booWorld]

It would be fine with me to see the entire IDL demolished.

Tulsa was a better city before the IDL, IMO.

[deinstein]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

That's nuts.

I argue it's nuts to have it there and I gave my reasons. What's your argument besides it just being there?

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by deinstein

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

That's nuts.

I argue it's nuts to have it there and I gave my reasons. What's your argument besides it just being there?

Why destroy destruction?

Makes no sense. Sorry Einstein.

[deinstein]

Are you just trying to pad your post count or can you give me some legitimate reasons why keeping it there would do better for Downtown & Greenwood?

[SXSW]

I'd like to see it torn down too.  But I'd rather see limited transportation funds go towards a light rail system and finally completing the Gilcrease Expressway first.

[YoungTulsan]

Complete the Gilcrease loop and there are a plethora of options you can use from there.

First step: Re-sign the Gilcrease as 244 / US412.

- Could get rid of the north leg of the IDL
- Could even get rid of current I-244 from Downtown to Memorial theoretically
- Could get rid of the West Tulsa leg of I-244 that runs from US-75 to I-44

Lots of North Tulsa and West Tulsa development problems would be fixed without highways cutting through neighborhood flow/connectivity.

Admiral could be the new 71st street if I-244 were demolished/all of that space cleared.

(I say the new 71st from a development opportunity standpoint, not to piss off all the hippies who want the car banned)

(Yes, I know this idea would never happen)

[Red Arrow]

Not having a "Berlin Wall" in downtown would probably help development. Until there is a transit option or an alternate route for rubber tire vehicles, it would be foolish to consider getting rid of major portions of the IDL. Finishing the widening of I-44 would be a good first start for through traffic. They have no need to go through downtown.  From my experience, I wouldn't want to go through downtown of a place I was passing through. The exception is US75 to I-35E in Dallas.  Any other option to South Texas adds about 50 miles to the trip.  (Just did that trip last Saturday and Tuesday.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

That's nuts.

+1. This guy is full of expensive, hair brained ideas. I'm surprised he's not employed in the Taylor administration.

[deinstein]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

That's nuts.

+1. This guy is full of expensive, hair brained ideas. I'm surprised he's not employed in the Taylor administration.

Really?

Because my argument is how not having it would save money long-term, while stimulating the area even more economically.

So, what's your counter-argument for it staying?

[Kenosha]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

That's nuts.

+1. This guy is full of expensive, hair brained ideas. I'm surprised he's not employed in the Taylor administration.

Wanna know what else is expensive?

Maintaining an elevated highway.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by deinstein

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

That's nuts.

+1. This guy is full of expensive, hair brained ideas. I'm surprised he's not employed in the Taylor administration.

Really?

Because my argument is how not having it would save money long-term, while stimulating the area even more economically.

So, what's your counter-argument for it staying?

If it ain't broke(it's not) why fix it?

This is all pure speculation on your part. Show me the evidence that tearing this down will pay for itself. The closest thing I can think of is the big dig, and that was a huge boondoggle that hasn't gotten anywhere near the return on that investment.

Wanna help North Tulsa? Finish the f#*king Gilcrease expressway. Get light rail out  there(the infrastructure is already mostly in place) and get reliable, efficient, convenient, bus service. Spend a little time out on the Northside and learn about their needs before deciding what's best for them. This isn't it. This is as ridiculous as your idea about getting rid of the on street parking on Cherry St. for bike lanes.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by Kenosha

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

That's nuts.

+1. This guy is full of expensive, hair brained ideas. I'm surprised he's not employed in the Taylor administration.

Wanna know what else is expensive?

Maintaining an elevated highway.

Not maintaining it and letting it deteriorate to the state it's in makes it expensive, if it had been maintained it wouldn't be that expensive.