Vision 2025...Part 2?

[AquaMan]

I want someone to convince me that the rewards for this are widespread and not just focused on the contractors, casino, politicians, government administrators, etc. I am not against river development any more than I was against the Arena. In fact, most folks I spoke to during that time who were involved with the entertainment industry didn't think it would draw concerts and certainly not top name entertainment. They were wrong because their vantage point was too narrow.

It comes down to what Artist and others have pointed out frequently. We are barely, if at all, growing in population. The corollary to that is that disposable income continues to concentrate at higher levels. Therefore the pie is staying the same and the players are taking larger slices of that pie. In this case, the taxpayer is baking the pie.

And that to me is the "crux of the biscuit" (Frank Zappa). If this can be shown to be a PR success, that grows Tulsa's image as a growing, progressive, innovative, youth oriented city that not only turned its vacant downtown into a vibrant cultural location, but is now focused on its natural resources, then perhaps that grows the population as well. Then we all benefit.

But that isn't the case being presented. As it stands we would attract more population by sinking that money into attracting large employers developing the ones we have or spreading out the wealth in some other manner.

That's my take anyway.

[cynical]

There is more than one way of looking at things. There is no consensus at all that population growth is desirable. If there had been, more effort would be made to create conditions conducive to population growth. My own feeling is that a community either grows or withers and dies, but many times I feel like a lonely voice in the wilderness. This is one reason I keep reading TulsaNow.

"Quality of life," has been treated as a pretext in this discussion, when I think it is absolutely critical to attracting new business and the educated workforce that those businesses need. There is one line of reasoning in Oklahoma that low taxes alone should be enough. We are seeing from the experience of our immediate neighbor to the north, my home state of Kansas, that low taxes alone don't cut it. Infrastructure can be narrowly defined and limited to things like streets, highways, energy, water supply and the like, or it can be broadly defined as the entire community support system that sustains businesses and their employees. Tulsa is making headway toward recognizing the bigger picture, but it has refused to commit to a global effort involving both the private and public sector in creating an environment that attracts people to this area. The current political leadership of the city is divided between a Mayor who does nothing and a handful of councilors who would do more if they weren't limited by the powers given to the Mayor under the Charter. In a way, the current situation is precisely the reverse of what we had during the Taylor administration. Under Taylor, the Mayor had a vision and had to drag along a council stuck in a negative and reactionary mode. Now, with the council agenda being pushed by those who would be more positive, the Mayor is simply ignoring them and doing as little as he can. To be fair, there's little that can be done that would require money when the city is mainly funded by consumption taxes, which is another area in which effective political action could benefit Tulsa.

I haven't been sold on the idea that "water in the river" is a quality of life benefit that will help Tulsa turn the corner, but I'm at least willing to listen to the proponents' case.

I want someone to convince me that the rewards for this are widespread and not just focused on the contractors, casino, politicians, government administrators, etc. I am not against river development any more than I was against the Arena. In fact, most folks I spoke to during that time who were involved with the entertainment industry didn't think it would draw concerts and certainly not top name entertainment. They were wrong because their vantage point was too narrow.

It comes down to what Artist and others have pointed out frequently. We are barely, if at all, growing in population. The corollary to that is that disposable income continues to concentrate at higher levels. Therefore the pie is staying the same and the players are taking larger slices of that pie. In this case, the taxpayer is baking the pie.

And that to me is the "crux of the biscuit" (Frank Zappa). If this can be shown to be a PR success, that grows Tulsa's image as a growing, progressive, innovative, youth oriented city that not only turned its vacant downtown into a vibrant cultural location, but is now focused on its natural resources, then perhaps that grows the population as well. Then we all benefit.

But that isn't the case being presented. As it stands we would attract more population by sinking that money into attracting large employers developing the ones we have or spreading out the wealth in some other manner.

That's my take anyway.

[Conan71]

There is more than one way of looking at things. There is no consensus at all that population growth is desirable. If there had been, more effort would be made to create conditions conducive to population growth. My own feeling is that a community either grows or withers and dies, but many times I feel like a lonely voice in the wilderness. This is one reason I keep reading TulsaNow.

"Quality of life," has been treated as a pretext in this discussion, when I think it is absolutely critical to attracting new business and the educated workforce that those businesses need. There is one line of reasoning in Oklahoma that low taxes alone should be enough. We are seeing from the experience of our immediate neighbor to the north, my home state of Kansas, that low taxes alone don't cut it. Infrastructure can be narrowly defined and limited to things like streets, highways, energy, water supply and the like, or it can be broadly defined as the entire community support system that sustains businesses and their employees. Tulsa is making headway toward recognizing the bigger picture, but it has refused to commit to a global effort involving both the private and public sector in creating an environment that attracts people to this area. The current political leadership of the city is divided between a Mayor who does nothing and a handful of councilors who would do more if they weren't limited by the powers given to the Mayor under the Charter. In a way, the current situation is precisely the reverse of what we had during the Taylor administration. Under Taylor, the Mayor had a vision and had to drag along a council stuck in a negative and reactionary mode. Now, with the council agenda being pushed by those who would be more positive, the Mayor is simply ignoring them and doing as little as he can. To be fair, there's little that can be done that would require money when the city is mainly funded by consumption taxes, which is another area in which effective political action could benefit Tulsa.

I haven't been sold on the idea that "water in the river" is a quality of life benefit that will help Tulsa turn the corner, but I'm at least willing to listen to the proponents' case.

With our consumption-based revenue system, population growth coupled with job growth is essential for the tax base to expand.  Either that or Tulsa has to become more of a tourist mecca.  Is $225 million in river infrastructure really necessary to successfully commercialize the banks of the Arkansas River?  I don't think a full river or dry prairie river would make much difference in getting someone from Muskogee or Owasso to drive in to dine, drink, and walk around on the river banks.  

It's really nothing spectacular or unique and not really much of a different draw than any number of watering holes at any of the area recreational lakes.

We don't have beaches nor mountains close enough by to drive the sort of tourism enjoyed by other cities.  I'm not being pessimistic that there is nothing to do or see in Tulsa, I simply don't think more consistent water in the corridor from Bixby to Sand Springs will vastly change our fortunes or make Tulsa more livable.  

Speaking of Kansas, Wichita has done some really nice things in their downtown.  They also have a more scaled down stream with the Little Arkansas.  But there is simply nothing compelling about Wichita that would make my wife and I drive there to spend a weekend.  I used to travel there on business quite a bit, my daughter's had a gymnastics meet at WSU every year, and I used to compete at a rowing regatta in the middle of fall every year.  Since I no longer have any other attendant reason to be there, there is nothing compelling to attract my wife and I there.

Personally, I prefer our less commercialized riverfront so I can get away from every day trappings for an hour or two.  But that's just my middle aged rantings, what do I know?

[Weatherdemon]

With our consumption-based revenue system, population growth coupled with job growth is essential for the tax base to expand.  Either that or Tulsa has to become more of a tourist mecca.  Is $225 million in river infrastructure really necessary to successfully commercialize the banks of the Arkansas River?  I don't think a full river or dry prairie river would make much difference in getting someone from Muskogee or Owasso to drive in to dine, drink, and walk around on the river banks.  

It's really nothing spectacular or unique and not really much of a different draw than any number of watering holes at any of the area recreational lakes.

We don't have beaches nor mountains close enough by to drive the sort of tourism enjoyed by other cities.  I'm not being pessimistic that there is nothing to do or see in Tulsa, I simply don't think more consistent water in the corridor from Bixby to Sand Springs will vastly change our fortunes or make Tulsa more livable.  

Speaking of Kansas, Wichita has done some really nice things in their downtown.  They also have a more scaled down stream with the Little Arkansas.  But there is simply nothing compelling about Wichita that would make my wife and I drive there to spend a weekend.  I used to travel there on business quite a bit, my daughter's had a gymnastics meet at WSU every year, and I used to compete at a rowing regatta in the middle of fall every year.  Since I no longer have any other attendant reason to be there, there is nothing compelling to attract my wife and I there.

Personally, I prefer our less commercialized riverfront so I can get away from every day trappings for an hour or two.  But that's just my middle aged rantings, what do I know?

Seems a narrow perspective.

There are already quiet a few people from the burbs that go to Riverparks everyday for a jog, a walk, a family outing, etc and that's with the river looking pretty fugly south of the pedestrian bridge. I've driven from Owasso on several occasions just to take my kids to walk the river and it is always active pending the weather.

There are hundreds of millions being put into the Gathering Place and you will have a ton of people from Muskogee, Owasso, hell, people from OKC and Wichita will probably come to see what hundreds of millions of dollars worth of park looks like next half empty river. Have some water in that river to go along with the park, the Casino, River Walk, and other potential growth and you're talking significantly positive impact on the perception of Tulsa for young professionals through to retirees and even as a potential tourist destination.

[TeeDub]

Speaking of Kansas, Wichita has done some really nice things in their downtown.  They also have a more scaled down stream with the Little Arkansas.  But there is simply nothing compelling about Wichita that would make my wife and I drive there to spend a weekend.  I used to travel there on business quite a bit, my daughter's had a gymnastics meet at WSU every year, and I used to compete at a rowing regatta in the middle of fall every year.  Since I no longer have any other attendant reason to be there, there is nothing compelling to attract my wife and I there.

I feel the same way about OKC.   Does anyone really travel regionally to go to the Bricktown area or does it just move the dollars spent from the OKC suburbs more toward downtown?

[AquaMan]

Weatherdemon-
Unfortunately the river will still be perceived as fugly for you. It will not change from the Zink lowater dam to the 71st street bridge. And won't change much at Zink till the last dam is built in sands springs years later (if it ever is).

[Conan71]

Seems a narrow perspective.

There are already quiet a few people from the burbs that go to Riverparks everyday for a jog, a walk, a family outing, etc and that's with the river looking pretty fugly south of the pedestrian bridge. I've driven from Owasso on several occasions just to take my kids to walk the river and it is always active pending the weather.

There are hundreds of millions being put into the Gathering Place and you will have a ton of people from Muskogee, Owasso, hell, people from OKC and Wichita will probably come to see what hundreds of millions of dollars worth of park looks like next half empty river. Have some water in that river to go along with the park, the Casino, River Walk, and other potential growth and you're talking significantly positive impact on the perception of Tulsa for young professionals through to retirees and even as a potential tourist destination.

Nowhere did I say that River Parks isn't attracting people from the suburbs.  It most definitely does.  Would a full river attract more people?  I seriously doubt it.  

My main point was, more water in the river will not create more of an attraction unless it is safe and offers recreational opportunities for most everyone.  As someone who has been a member of Tulsa Rowing Club, I'd love to see more water in Zink Lake on a consistent basis and I'd re-up my membership with them.  Still, rowing isn't for everyone, and one regatta a year isn't one of the larger tourist draws for Tulsa.  

I agree that The Gathering Place will be a nice draw.  Regional in scale?  That's hard to predict.  Will it be perceived as another park and once you have "been there done that" is there a reason to return?  I'd hope there would be a reason to return.  

My personal feeling on commercial development along River Parks is I'd rather leave it the way it is, rather than wall-to-wall restaurants and bars in certain areas along the west bank that the city is proposing to commercialize.

[Weatherdemon]

Weatherdemon-
Unfortunately the river will still be perceived as fugly for you. It will not change from the Zink lowater dam to the 71st street bridge. And won't change much at Zink till the last dam is built in sands springs years later (if it ever is).

Maybe so. But there is alot that could be done to clean it up around there.

The bulk of the estimates call for about $200 million to construct three low-water dams in Sand Springs, Jenks and Bixby, and to rebuild Tulsa's Zink Dam near 31st Street and Riverside Drive. These may not be completed for 5-10 years but if no money is ever approved then nothing will be done.

[Weatherdemon]

Nowhere did I say that River Parks isn't attracting people from the suburbs.  It most definitely does.  Would a full river attract more people?  I seriously doubt it.  

My main point was, more water in the river will not create more of an attraction unless it is safe and offers recreational opportunities for most everyone.  As someone who has been a member of Tulsa Rowing Club, I'd love to see more water in Zink Lake on a consistent basis and I'd re-up my membership with them.  Still, rowing isn't for everyone, and one regatta a year isn't one of the larger tourist draws for Tulsa.  

I agree that The Gathering Place will be a nice draw.  Regional in scale?  That's hard to predict.  Will it be perceived as another park and once you have "been there done that" is there a reason to return?  I'd hope so.  

My personal feeling on commercial development along River Parks is I'd rather leave it the way it is, rather than wall-to-wall restaurants and bars in certain areas along the west bank that the city is proposing to commercialize.

I agree that a river full of water in and of its self wouldn't be a major draw unless, like you said, there are plenty of safe recreational opportunities there.
I do think it would work well in conjunction with the Gathering Place.

As far as commercial development, I'm torn. I would like to see some eateries, gift shops, maybe a couple of restaurants with nice bars, and touristy stuff on the west side but, I don't want that to be a huge negative on the more natural east bank.
I think the two could work in conjunction unless you allow the stuff on the west side to get too loud and obnoxious.

[Conan71]

I agree that a river full of water in and of its self wouldn't be a major draw unless, like you said, there are plenty of safe recreational opportunities there.
I do think it would work well in conjunction with the Gathering Place.

As far as commercial development, I'm torn. I would like to see some eateries, gift shops, maybe a couple of restaurants with nice bars, and touristy stuff on the west side but, I don't want that to be a huge negative on the more natural east bank.
I think the two could work in conjunction unless you allow the stuff on the west side to get too loud and obnoxious.

The truck lot Clay Bird was proposing in the Riverwest Festival Park was what I perceived as one of those loud and obnoxious developments, though I could be entirely wrong about what kind of draw it is.

[heironymouspasparagus]

There are hundreds of millions being put into the Gathering Place and you will have a ton of people from Muskogee, Owasso, hell, people from OKC and Wichita will probably come to see what hundreds of millions of dollars worth of park looks like next half empty river. Have some water in that river to go along with the park, the Casino, River Walk, and other potential growth and you're talking significantly positive impact on the perception of Tulsa for young professionals through to retirees and even as a potential tourist destination.

You specifically mention Wichita - they have already done something similar to what we are talking about here.  On the same river,  Upstream of all the salt additions before it gets to Keystone. 

It also has more water in a longer stretch of the river.... for part of the time.  Google earth shows the sand river bed in Wichita in its latest views.  I was there about 3 weeks ago, and the river was full for miles.  Their "hundreds of millions" (no idea how much they really spent) left them with a part time river, but water for a slightly longer percentage of the year.  As will ours.  It is NOT going to be a full time river like the Missouri or Mississippi...no matter what we do.  If we put infrastructure in to make it that way, we would have Keystone II.  And would likely lose a lot of the 'shoreline' we are supposedly trying to "enhance".

Ya can't get there from here....


This whole plan is a corporate welfare enterprise.

[SXSW]

I agree that The Gathering Place will be a nice draw.  Regional in scale?  That's hard to predict.  Will it be perceived as another park and once you have "been there done that" is there a reason to return?  I'd hope there would be a reason to return.  

It has the potential to be a regional draw with a full river next to it with the Zink Dam improvements and what they have planned for the whitewater chute.  The success of the park is tied to the river.  

 

[TeeDub]

Doesn't it already have a whitewater area?   The "Tulsa Wave"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov4Mou4RGj8

[Weatherdemon]

The truck lot Clay Bird was proposing in the Riverwest Festival Park was what I perceived as one of those loud and obnoxious developments, though I could be entirely wrong about what kind of draw it is.

If they don't have electric ran to them then there will be the lovely natural sound of generators everywhere... ugh.

[Weatherdemon]

You specifically mention Wichita - they have already done something similar to what we are talking about here.  On the same river,  Upstream of all the salt additions before it gets to Keystone. 

It also has more water in a longer stretch of the river.... for part of the time.  Google earth shows the sand river bed in Wichita in its latest views.  I was there about 3 weeks ago, and the river was full for miles.  Their "hundreds of millions" (no idea how much they really spent) left them with a part time river, but water for a slightly longer percentage of the year.  As will ours.  It is NOT going to be a full time river like the Missouri or Mississippi...no matter what we do.  If we put infrastructure in to make it that way, we would have Keystone II.  And would likely lose a lot of the 'shoreline' we are supposedly trying to "enhance".

Ya can't get there from here....


This whole plan is a corporate welfare enterprise.

I mentioned Wichita because Wichita had been mentioned.
I understand it will never be full time water in Tulsa and the dryness in Tulsa has been exacerbated by the prolonged drought but, I still think it would much more inviting to have water in it as whenever possible.