Blue Rose wins Rivers Edge Location...

[SXSW]

I like the schematic design, I hope it stays contemporary with maybe a mix of wood and aluminum siding.  This would make an ideal 'green' project.

[PonderInc]

My favorite thing about Rivers Edge was that you could incorporate it into a walk or bike ride around the river... You didn't have to "go in" to an establishment.  You could just plop down for a few minutes and take it all in. 

If the music was good, I would commit to a longer stay and a beer.  If I spotted friends, I might decide to join them.  If the music was not my taste, I'd just walk on down the path.

I doubt I will ever just "pop in" to a bar in my sweats and sneakers.

[BierGarten]

Can someone explain to me how a 3,000 square foot structure, built on piers over the river, with kitchen equipment and other fixtures, etc... can be built for $392,000?

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090313_11_A1_Thisar764511

[rbryant]

As a person who lives nearby, uses the trails and hangs out in that areas all the time... this disturbs me on multiple levels.

3,000-square-feet with capacity for 216 patrons (116 inside and 100 outside) -- that just seems huge and completely out of scale to the area.  And capacity for 216?  Where will they all park?  We definitely can't add more parking here without destroying the park, but according to current zoning laws, we would have to.  The cool thing about River's Edge is that most people walked or rode bikes, it was open and inviting, it was a good public gathering space.  People could stop for a drink while walking their dogs.  Sometimes the tables would all be full and people would spill out to the picnic tables or bring picnic blankets.  That was cool.  But I don't think I ever saw anything close to 90 people there all at once, much less 216. 

I very concerned about the length of the process.  18 months of construction is a long time, taking over that area of the park for a year and a half.  And construction almost always takes longer than estimated.  Will the construction be in the way of or inhibit park usage in any way?  Plus with all of the other processes they have to complete before they even get started on construction...It could be a few years.

I'm also concerned about the ducks that hang out there all the time on the bank.  I love watching people bring their children to the park to feed the ducks.  And what about the public access to the river's edge?  It looks like that area is being removed, and now the only way to be at the river's edge is by being a customer of the restaurant.  The design (and I admit you can't tell a lot from one photo) seems insensitive to the park users.

I'm glad a locally owned restaurant is going to be there instead of a chain.  I'm just concerned about the scale and its effect on the park and ability to be a true public gathering spot with this current design.  I'm also concerned about the overhead they're getting themselves into and how likely they are to succeed if they don't get the numbers they expect. 

[rbryant]

Here are a few photos I took at River's Edge on a busy day:









Fun times.

[pmcalk]

As a person who lives nearby, uses the trails and hangs out in that areas all the time... this disturbs me on multiple levels.

3,000-square-feet with capacity for 216 patrons (116 inside and 100 outside) -- that just seems huge and completely out of scale to the area.  And capacity for 216?  Where will they all park?  We definitely can't add more parking here without destroying the park, but according to current zoning laws, we would have to.  The cool thing about River's Edge is that most people walked or rode bikes, it was open and inviting, it was a good public gathering space.  People could stop for a drink while walking their dogs.  Sometimes the tables would all be full and people would spill out to the picnic tables or bring picnic blankets.  That was cool.  But I don't think I ever saw anything close to 90 people there all at once, much less 216. 

I don't know that the zoning code will have much to say with respect to parking.  The Arkansas river is zoned agriculture; technically, no restaurant would be allowed.  My guess is that they will find some sort of special exception to allow it, and the BOA will set the number of parking spaces.  Really, 3,000 square feet wouldn't require that much parking.  If you went strictly by the zoning code, a restaurant that big would only need 30 parking spaces.  That's smaller than the parking lot next to Camilles.  Personally, I don't see how you could seat that many people in a restaurant that small.

[rbryant]

I don't know that the zoning code will have much to say with respect to parking.  The Arkansas river is zoned agriculture; technically, no restaurant would be allowed.  My guess is that they will find some sort of special exception to allow it, and the BOA will set the number of parking spaces.  Really, 3,000 square feet wouldn't require that much parking.  If you went strictly by the zoning code, a restaurant that big would only need 30 parking spaces.  That's smaller than the parking lot next to Camilles.  Personally, I don't see how you could seat that many people in a restaurant that small.

Even as few as 30 additional parking spaces could really reduce the quality of the park.  Do you think they would consider making due with the current parking that is already there, with the understanding that many people would use bicycles or be pedestrians?  ...I just know how "suface-parking-crazy" we can sometimes be in this town.

[PonderInc]

There are already existing parking lots to the north and south of this location.  I would make a huge stink if this proposal required an increase in surface parking. 

The BOA and the Riverparks need to make damn sure they don't screw up the park to create a  big surface parking lot for this bar.   If they don't calculate bike racks and pedestrians when considering "parking requirements" it will be an utter farce.

In fact, if I were the Blue Rose, I would market this very thing:  "Walk or Bike in and get 10% off!"   (Or half-price appetizers, or $3 burgers, or whatever.)  Or you could issue walk/bike cards, and get a stamp every time you show up via foot or bike...earn a free entree every 10 trips, or whatever.

(Or they could create "I Bike to Blue Rose" T-shirts... to help spread the concept.)

[waterboy]

Is this Authority entirely bound by city rules for zoning and parking? My understanding is that they don't care much what the city wants since they are partially funded by the city, the county and contributors. There have always been "special case" scenarios because of proximity to the river and multiple funding.

All good points RB. Sensitivity to park users is not their strong suit.

[SXSW]

I hope they go with a green design, maybe even LEED certification.  No new parking (plenty of spots in the existing lot and on the streets), more bike racks, enhancement of the park, and better defined 'river's edge' providing public access to the river itself through a beach or boardwalk.  With its location in a park along the river I hope they look into sustainable design i.e. maximize daylighting, planting native vegetation, utilizing recycled/local materials, etc.

[OurTulsa]

My feeling is that the Blue Rose and RiverParks will deal with the issue of parking before it gets to the BOA - not necessarily suggesting they will come up with the right scheme however I would suspect the two entities would walk to the BOA together with an agreed upon design and unless it's incredibly harsh the BOA's not going alter it...unless they are compelled by public input.

It may be worth it to call on RiverParks to provide input now before the design is beyond the conceptual stage.  Does anyone know Tom Dittus personally? 

Again, I just have a feeling that the City's BOA is going to be hardpressed to change something that's a semi-public project...unless some of us decide to charge the dias during the public hearing and make some compelling arguments.

Of course, I (we?) may be jumping the gun and they may come with some killer plan that works the restaurant into the trail and river magically without providing any more surface parking...for cars!

[waterboy]

Dittus will need more than just a good plan to succeed in the River Parks regardless of the location and design. Hopefully, he has close support of one of their moneyed darlings. Otherwise, RPA has a long checkered history of being impossible to deal with on a regular basis. The only exception was Rivers Edge and that was not a typical business arrangement. Selling beer in a public park on a daily basis from a publicly funded building? It was always believed that someone knew where the bones were buried....

[hello]

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090709_11_0_TheRiv809032

"The River Parks Authority on Thursday approved a 30-year ground lease so that the Blue Rose Cafe can be resurrected on the east bank of the Arkansas River.

Tom Dittus, a member of Swamphouse Partners LLC, which is pursuing the project, said the goal is for patrons to be eating burgers and other meals at the restaurant by Feb. 15."

Does anyone know exactly where the restaurant is to be located? In the rendering it looks like it will be built partly over the river. But they might keep the River's Edge location? Add 30 parking spaces? There is a nice little seating area turnout, the former River's Edge and a playground all in that area. Are those all staying? While I do want river development I can't say I wanted it to be on that kind of scale. I can't visualize how this will work.

[Nik]

"There can be no competition for the restaurant within 300 yards."

Not a fan of this. I was hoping this would be the beginning of a River District. Guess not.

[waterboy]

No competition? Or no food/drink oriented competition? That leaves out any festival activity, sno-cones, fund raisers etc on the east side of the river in that area. I hope the neighbors enjoy their new biker bar and those sweet sounding hogs.