Tulsa Harbour

[AquaMan]

That makes sense.

[Conan71]

The old lot at where Elwood curves to the northwest is closed, and that may be the lot you're talking about... but the new lot closer to 71st is open and is quite nice, actually.

From the Riverparks website:

Seems plenty big enough to me.

I suspect the cars at the top of Elwood Hill are people who are hiking or biking back toward the Y and don't want to have to climb out from the base lot.

I've seen a few hobo encampments there over the years.

[ZYX]

I very much hope this project never goes anywhere. The parks along our river are the best part about this city in my opinion. I do not want it to be ruined with a bunch of development. In my ideal world, both the east and west banks would be lined with parks with development behind the parks, not right up against the bank.

[dbacks fan]

So, parking is blocked off at the top yet they reference the location as if it is at the top and say they don't want to ruin the natural wildlife of the the mountain even though the park is down along with river?
I'm confused. Sounds like the City just doesn't want these people doing it.

Didn't they block off that lot to keep people from catching the gay?

[AquaMan]

Didn't they block off that lot to keep people from catching the gay?

Judging by some of the signs of wild-life up there (condoms, beer cans, clothing) there was some kind of happiness being spread.

[dbacks fan]

Judging by some of the signs of wild-life up there (condoms, beer cans, clothing) there was some kind of happiness being spread.

So that's what they were spreading.......

[AquaMan]

I very much hope this project never goes anywhere. The parks along our river are the best part about this city in my opinion. I do not want it to be ruined with a bunch of development. In my ideal world, both the east and west banks would be lined with parks with development behind the parks, not right up against the bank.

See, that I don't understand. Ruined? Aesthetically having both sides lined with parks is a nice idea. In reality, aesthetics don't really do much for the bulk of the taxpaying public. You drive down Riverside and do a Chevy Chase, (yeh, uh-huh, yeh) and keep driving. Its like having a guest bathroom remodeled for Home and Garden magazine and never used.

Some of that natural aesthetic that we all pay for could be set aside for actual use by people other than runners, bikers, dogs and hobos. Something like an amusement park, boat rides, fishing, restaurants, etc. While some of it could be set aside for no development whatsoever. We have started down that path by having an assortment of activities like the Aquarium, a hotel, sand volleyball, soccer fields, frisbie course, rugby field, skate park, some shopping, and restaurant/bars besides the paths.

I would think an amusement park would be one more general population use that we could accommodate on the 40miles of river bank.

[nathanm]

So that's what they were spreading.......

I believe the correct phrase is "spreading santorum".

[AquaMan]

I use a drop spreader each year on my front lawn to get rid of that....creeping santorum. It stays dormant through most of the season then surges when springtime comes. Some folks say you can romney it and it will go away, but I have my doubts.

[dbacks fan]

Didn't realize that they had bulldozed Hissom, knew that it was going to be done. As was pointed out there is a long stretch of the river that could be developed this way and would hate to see it be Turkey Mtn. But just my $.02 it looks rather lofty in the rendering much like the Channels project. Don't get me wrong, I think an amusment park development would be great, and it sounds like Robbie Bell is confined to kiddie rides at a swapmeet parking lot, I see at as an ambituous dream.

[Conan71]

Didn't realize that they had bulldozed Hissom, knew that it was going to be done. As was pointed out there is a long stretch of the river that could be developed this way and would hate to see it be Turkey Mtn. But just my $.02 it looks rather lofty in the rendering much like the Channels project. Don't get me wrong, I think an amusment park development would be great, and it sounds like Robbie Bell is confined to kiddie rides at a swapmeet parking lot, I see at as an ambituous dream.

And that is becoming an industrial site as Webco is building a new plant there.

[ZYX]

See, that I don't understand. Ruined? Aesthetically having both sides lined with parks is a nice idea. In reality, aesthetics don't really do much for the bulk of the taxpaying public. You drive down Riverside and do a Chevy Chase, (yeh, uh-huh, yeh) and keep driving. Its like having a guest bathroom remodeled for Home and Garden magazine and never used.

Some of that natural aesthetic that we all pay for could be set aside for actual use by people other than runners, bikers, dogs and hobos. Something like an amusement park, boat rides, fishing, restaurants, etc. While some of it could be set aside for no development whatsoever. We have started down that path by having an assortment of activities like the Aquarium, a hotel, sand volleyball, soccer fields, frisbie course, rugby field, skate park, some shopping, and restaurant/bars besides the paths.

I would think an amusement park would be one more general population use that we could accommodate on the 40miles of river bank.

Could boat rides and fishing not tie into parks? I don't believe I suggested (sorry if I did) that the parks on either side have to be trails. I would like to see trails incorporated into them, but I would love to see them be large, engaging parks, not just trails. Things like boat rides, fishing docks, volleyball courts, frisbee courses, skate parks, and even a small restaurant here and there could all be tied in with the parks, and ideally they would become a place that families would spend their weekend afternoons.

And perhaps I'm just naive, but why do people need to live, work, shop, etc. as close to the river as possible? I do not see the draw of having these things right against the water itself, vs them abutting lush and interactive parks. Do that many people really want to live on the river?

[AquaMan]

I see that when you say development you mostly mean housing and shopping. I didn't catch that at first.

People want to live next to visually attractive and/or unique vistas. Often that means a pond, a lake, a river, a skyline. I even have had people on canoe trips on the Arkansas gush over the sight of the refinery towers as foreground to the skyline just as evening light dims. It adds a little seasoning to your life.

[TheArtist]

I don't think that area would be a good place for an amusement park.  I like to think that there is some sort of general, over all master plan/vision for the River Parks that envisions having areas of all sorts available, aka. "untouched" wilderness, to "cleaned up" parkland, semi-developed parkland, to higher density development.  

There are areas that lend themselves more to each type and this does not really fit that scenario.  

Also, like people have mentioned, there are a lot of parties involved with this piece of property from River Parks to INCOG to the city, Kaiser, the Master Plan, etc. And to think that these developers would consider this obviously very difficult and "political" area makes me wonder about the depth of their research/thoughs on this project and their thoroughness as business people.  Are they serious people dedicated to the idea, or someone with some "fun" dreams and the money to get some drawings done?

[AquaMan]

I don't think that area would be a good place for an amusement park.  I like to think that there is some sort of general, over all master plan/vision for the River Parks that envisions having areas of all sorts available, aka. "untouched" wilderness, to "cleaned up" parkland, semi-developed parkland, to higher density development.  

There are areas that lend themselves more to each type and this does not really fit that scenario.  

Also, like people have mentioned, there are a lot of parties involved with this piece of property from River Parks to INCOG to the city, Kaiser, the Master Plan, etc. And to think that these developers would consider this obviously very difficult and "political" area makes me wonder about the depth of their research/thoughs on this project and their thoroughness as business people.  Are they serious people dedicated to the idea, or someone with some "fun" dreams and the money to get some drawings done?

did you know this area they describe is next to the bridge, over old acid pits and not really available for current use? Untouched would be a good description.