River West Festival Park

[Conan71]

When I was out your way in Nov. '08, I checked out the riverfront at Tempe and it was really cool.  My only disappointment was not being able to hook up with the Rio Salado Rowing Club when I was there.  I finally got an email reply from someone about 8 weeks later wanting to know if I was still wanting to row. LOL

[SXSW]

I went back and read the thread from the beginning. The reason I ask is, if it were made part of RP, it would give the area between 21st and the edge of Westport, roughly 1.6 million sqft of space, thats almost twice the size of Tempe Beach Park and could be very well developed.

Yep.  The question is who will get their hands on it [the Mid-Con property] first, the land developers wanting to develop Riverwalk Crossing/Branson Landing-Tulsa Edition or Kaiser/Warren who would likely turn it into a larger Festival Green/Amphitheatre and multi-use park space.  

The Warrens had a plan to buy Westport at one time and redevelop it into denser apartments and possibly mixed-use.  That would be fine.  But first make Festival Park larger and concentrate other development on the east bank where there is already an established neighborhood with plenty of redevelopment opportunities.  

[SXSW]

Another good example of what Festival Park could be is in Louisville, KY:

Maps



Aerials



Terraced-seating amphitheatre

[ZYX]

A good example, but I think it could be improved.

[ZYX]

RFP put out for west bank development. Under the best circumstances construction could begin in a year, but I think it will probably be more like two years.

http://m.newson6.com/LocalNewsStory.html?pid=2264&parenturl=http%3a%2f%2fkotv.com%2fapi%2fgetFeed.aspx%3fid%3d4%26date%3d20110304&itemurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.newson6.com%2fglobal%2fstory.asp%3fS%3d14301299%26clienttype%3drssstory

[SXSW]

RFP put out for west bank development. Under the best circumstances construction could begin in a year, but I think it will probably be more like two years.

http://m.newson6.com/LocalNewsStory.html?pid=2264&parenturl=http%3a%2f%2fkotv.com%2fapi%2fgetFeed.aspx%3fid%3d4%26date%3d20110304&itemurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.newson6.com%2fglobal%2fstory.asp%3fS%3d14301299%26clienttype%3drssstory

It will be interesting to see the proposals.  I hope GKFF is involved and it becomes one large Festival Park with Westport redeveloped into the mixed-use and/or residential "development". 

[Teatownclown]

5 years in the best case scenario....

[ZYX]

It will be interesting to see the proposals.  I hope GKFF is involved and it becomes one large Festival Park with Westport redeveloped into the mixed-use and/or residential "development". 

Yeah, same here. I think that about 2/3 if this land should be dedicated to expanding the park, with the remaining 1/3 used for some quality development. I don't want anything cheaply constructed, or another Riverwalk. Riverwalk is okay, but we don't need another one. Plus, I think our main focus should still be in downtown. I don't want to see some suburban style development on the west bank take some of the glory away from downtown. In a few more years (5-10), when downtown is more established, THEN I would like to see maybe something similar to the old Channels project, except on land. A highrise condo tower constructed there would have some amazing views of downtown. But even if that were to happen, I would still rather our development focus stay on the east side if the river.

[SXSW]

Yeah, same here. I think that about 2/3 if this land should be dedicated to expanding the park, with the remaining 1/3 used for some quality development. I don't want anything cheaply constructed, or another Riverwalk. Riverwalk is okay, but we don't need another one. Plus, I think our main focus should still be in downtown. I don't want to see some suburban style development on the west bank take some of the glory away from downtown. In a few more years (5-10), when downtown is more established, THEN I would like to see maybe something similar to the old Channels project, except on land. A highrise condo tower constructed there would have some amazing views of downtown. But even if that were to happen, I would still rather our development focus stay on the east side if the river.

Completely agree. The east bank around Riverside & Denver is where the riverside "development" should take place.  Yes it's not a brownfield like the west bank and involves redeveloping existing properties but you are able to then create more synergy between the riverfront, existing urban neighborhoods in Riverview, downtown, 18th & Boston and midtown.  IMO that area is perfect for a midrise/highrise residential tower and higher density redevelopment of the apartments along Riverside overlooking the river.  A huge park across the river enhances that view and would make up for losing part of RiverParks around Blue Rose due to potential future riverfront development and expanded parking in that area.

[Teatownclown]

I'm thinking more in terms of this:
http://gawker.com/#!5682021/this-bible-amusement-park-will-let-you-walk-on-water-with-jesus
or
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-12-02/news/27083133_1_amusement-park-theme-park-creation-museum

Non profit, no doubt and an unlikely payer of ad valorem taxes.  

Environmental section is interesting...land is "as is". And they know it failed an audit....and 2 tracks have not been tested.

The Deciders... p. 30 #1. Oy!

Can of worms....

[Gonesouth1234]

Yeah, same here. I think that about 2/3 if this land should be dedicated to expanding the park, with the remaining 1/3 used for some quality development. I don't want anything cheaply constructed, or another Riverwalk. Riverwalk is okay, but we don't need another one. Plus, I think our main focus should still be in downtown. I don't want to see some suburban style development on the west bank take some of the glory away from downtown. In a few more years (5-10), when downtown is more established, THEN I would like to see maybe something similar to the old Channels project, except on land. A highrise condo tower constructed there would have some amazing views of downtown. But even if that were to happen, I would still rather our development focus stay on the east side if the river.

The development of the Brick Yard area in Oklahoma City has had several factions in this city almost drooling for years as plans have been  presented to the unwashed to develop the riverfront.

The plans that have come out over the last 4 decades just don't seem to get the public excited.    I don't think that most of our citizens are really aware of what great potential there is in the river development, and what an asset
we have in the Arkansas; as long as the development doesn't lead to another Riverwalks, read commercial development.

Unfortunately, and I'm one that used to think that way, the term river development, with the various plans that were presented, came to mean two things:  High density commercial development, think the 71st street ribbon running south from downtown to 44, or just another bond issue that will  allow more concrete structures spread up and down Riverparks' banks, that eventually turn into something like that floating stage.

The plans that were conceived and presented to the voters always seemed to focus on development of one or both banks, but some were so radical,or exorbitant in cost , such as The Channels, that most of our citizenry
obviously just didn't buy into  it.  When there are potholes in the streets, most citizens have other priorities on their wish list for development.
 
Master plans in this city, prior to PlaniTulsa, were either not followed, if approved by voters, or died at the ballot box because of the investment required by the voting public.   And river development, after some years,  just seemed to fall into that same category.

It's going to be interesting to see what sort of development plans are presented to us when the bidding period is closed on the current request period.