(PROJECT) A Gathering Place For Tulsa

[sgrizzle]

However, the Gathering is a project of its own and the Water in The River movement to me is only mildly connected to it. There is no physical connection, other than the pedestrian bridge and no opportunity to experience the river or use it imaginatively. Its just adding an expensive coat of paint to the background wall a fine piece of art is hanging on. It won't take long for folks to realize that the real benefit of the dams is to the casino and nearby Jenks.

The gathering place goes all the way down to the river, including walking paths and trails at water level. Riverside Drive goes under the park.

[AquaMan]

The gathering place goes all the way down to the river, including walking paths and trails at water level. Riverside Drive goes under the park.

I've seen the renderings. Those walking paths, trails and a bridge over Riverside Drive are already there. I don't think you're with me. There is no real active connection with the river other than what is already there. The river might as well be filled in with concrete, painted blue and made into a skate park for all its relevance to the Gathering Place. (I hope the young Lortons don't get any ideas from that....)

Had they allowed for a white water rafting area, a sluice that allowed the lakes to be interconnected, a moveable fishing platform, a water flume from the park to the river, zip lines, whatever, you would have some reason for building or elevating that dam and some reason to believe it would have economic impact. As planned it has absolutely nothing to do with the dams other than backdrop.

[sgrizzle]

I've seen the renderings. Those walking paths, trails and a bridge over Riverside Drive are already there. I don't think you're with me. There is no real active connection with the river other than what is already there. The river might as well be filled in with concrete, painted blue and made into a skate park for all its relevance to the Gathering Place. (I hope the young Lortons don't get any ideas from that....)

I must have missed these last time I went to riverside. Also missed the two giant land bridges over riverside drive and the bridge over Crow Creek with the waterside walking trails that take you from Riverside down crow creek.


http://

[rebound]

I've seen the renderings. Those walking paths, trails and a bridge over Riverside Drive are already there. I don't think you're with me. There is no real active connection with the river other than what is already there. The river might as well be filled in with concrete, painted blue and made into a skate park for all its relevance to the Gathering Place. (I hope the young Lortons don't get any ideas from that....)

Had they allowed for a white water rafting area, a sluice that allowed the lakes to be interconnected, a moveable fishing platform, a water flume from the park to the river, zip lines, whatever, you would have some reason for building or elevating that dam and some reason to believe it would have economic impact. As planned it has absolutely nothing to do with the dams other than backdrop.

Sorry Aqua, but you are so biased against the dams that you can't even acknowledge that the river is an integral design factor for the park.  Or even that a lot of people would prefer lakes to an unstable, often-dry, and unusable river channel running right next to one of the largest recreational areas in the city.   I'm not sure where it's coming from, but I don't understand the level of antipathy you have for the dams.   Not trying to be rude, honestly, but I just don't get it.

[AquaMan]

I must have missed these last time I went to riverside. Also missed the two giant land bridges over riverside drive and the bridge over Crow Creek with the waterside walking trails that take you from Riverside down crow creek.


http://

You're being kind of dense. Or just smart donkey. There is no interaction with the adjacent river other than to walk or bike past it, just like you can now.

You don't want to address that fine. I love the park and love its a freebie. The dams are going to be expensive and useless.

[AquaMan]

Sorry Aqua, but you are so biased against the dams that you can't even acknowledge that the river is an integral design factor for the park.  Or even that a lot of people would prefer lakes to an unstable, often-dry, and unusable river channel running right next to one of the largest recreational areas in the city.   I'm not sure where it's coming from, but I don't understand the level of antipathy you have for the dams.   Not trying to be rude, honestly, but I just don't get it.

What are you sorry for? I supported the dams in the previous elections. So, I am not biased. I am seeing them from a different perspective than you guys, though thats for sure. I offered in the past to conduct a trip from the Keystone Dam down to Zink Lake on my canoes and kayaks so that people on here could see what they are doing and pick my brain. No takers. I offered a ride on a double decker English bus that would or could have enlightened some folks around here. Once again no takers. Its feeling a bit personal and yet I am on record with my background while others I feel are not so forthcoming.

How many of you have fished, swam, boated, researched, promoted, invested in or otherwise utilized the river? Who has had direct experience with the new caretaker of the Gathering Place, RPA? Other than myself, I know of two, Conan and V2025. I will ask them, have my views changed? Am I anti-river development? Haven't I been open to discussion and flexible in my views on the river?

We could have such a vibrant river, canoing, kayaking, interactive science, zip lines, swimming, .....fun stuff. But folks are so thankful that a foundation has fulfilled its mission by donating funds to improve its local community that they feel any criticism is tantamount to crazy. I suggest you step back and look at what was presented to you and by who. Who stands to benefit most and why no economic numbers have been forthcoming. Then, most importantly, ask how it was presented to you. It wasn't, "What could we do with money from V2025," but "here's what we're doing with V2025 money, what kind of imput do you have?". Any salesman will tell you, you've just been had.

[sgrizzle]

So what Aqualad is saying is that if you aren't IN the water, either personally or in a watercraft, there is no reason to be near it or improve it.

A Gathering place brings people down to the waterfront, within inches of contacting the water, but since they don't get wet, it doesn't count.

[AquaMan]

So what Aqualad is saying is that if you aren't IN the water, either personally or in a watercraft, there is no reason to be near it or improve it.

A Gathering place brings people down to the waterfront, within inches of contacting the water, but since they don't get wet, it doesn't count.

The current Riverparks paths and bridges, bring people down to the waterfront, within inches of contacting the water, but since the water is not deep enough to be picture perfect year round, it doesn't count. We must spend $160,000,000 and reinforce levees, to get full enjoyment of the Gathering Place.

Grizz, spin it however you desire. You're ignoring my points in favor of sarcasm (cause your arguments are weak I guess). Go forth and spread the message. I won't be living here by the time the dams are built anyway but my renters will. I'll raise the rent to help you all out.

[Red Arrow]

Grizz, spin it however you desire. You're ignoring my points in favor of sarcasm (cause your arguments are weak I guess). Go forth and spread the message. I won't be living here by the time the dams are built anyway but my renters will. I'll raise the rent to help you all out.

Why not just get out of Tulsa completely?  Sell the place and not have to put up with renters.

That aside, I agree that merely putting water in the river is not a cure for Tulsa's "problems".

[heironymouspasparagus]

So what Aqualad is saying is that if you aren't IN the water, either personally or in a watercraft, there is no reason to be near it or improve it.

A Gathering place brings people down to the waterfront, within inches of contacting the water, but since they don't get wet, it doesn't count.

That makes no sense at all. 

Seems like you are in favor of Gathering place - ok.  Dams?  Why?  Again, not just to you, but to anyone/everyone...since no one has ever answered other than deflection/dissemination...what is a dam gonna do that couldn't be done now?  And how will it succeed any better than Riverwalk?  (Hint; it won't if as poorly implemented.)

If those pictures are the way it turns out, it should be very nice and could be quite popular!  With or without water.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Why not just get out of Tulsa completely?  Sell the place and not have to put up with renters.

Let's take that a step further; why don't all the 'aliens' sell out and leave it to people born here?  End the cycle of "imports" coming here, draining the state of resources, then taking their plunder and leaving to retire elsewhere....

Kinda sounds like the "Patriot Patrols" there, doesn't it?  Yankee Carpetbaggers coming to the southern tier of states fretting and stewing about illegals coming here and "ruining" their way of life....  Irony.


Chuckle....

[Conan71]

Other than myself, I know of two, Conan and V2025. I will ask them, have my views changed? Am I anti-river development? Haven't I been open to discussion and flexible in my views on the river?

No, no, yes.

[AquaMan]

Why not just get out of Tulsa completely?  Sell the place and not have to put up with renters.

That aside, I agree that merely putting water in the river is not a cure for Tulsa's "problems".

"Get out of Tulsa" sounds a bit tough. I guess I could move to Bixby! Or Mounds. I just figure that by the time the park is built, the dams are built and the dust settles, I'm likely to be forced out of my home by the immense increase in appraised value (since I live a mere block from the Katy running path) that will skyrocket my ad valorem tax. So, I'll rent the place out and look for greener pastures.

[Red Arrow]

"Get out of Tulsa" sounds a bit tough. I guess I could move to Bixby! Or Mounds. I just figure that by the time the park is built, the dams are built and the dust settles, I'm likely to be forced out of my home by the immense increase in appraised value (since I live a mere block from the Katy running path) that will skyrocket my ad valorem tax. So, I'll rent the place out and look for greener pastures.

My misunderstanding.  I thought you were getting fed up with Tulsa and the area and just wanted out.  I understand the tax thing.

[AquaMan]

No, no, yes.

Thank you.

This morning I ran along the river as I have since 1975. My current favorite route is across the 23rd street bridge, then north to the 66 bridge then back south along Riverside, then back up 21st to the Katy path (wrong name I'm sure, its just what I call it). When I crossed the first bridge and looked south I had a mental epiphony. The river area is no longer mine to selfishly covet. All that's left is one mile along the cement plant, rowing crew and apartments that's even close to my old path memories. I miss the creaky wooden bridge.

It belongs to a much younger generation now that sees the world differently than we did. We ran the paths with roller skaters, bums, fishermen, fitness enthusiasts and a few walkers with dogs. Most dogs ran loose. Our running shorts were embarrassingly short and our athletic socks way too high. We wore headbands. But everyone seemed fairly happy and because there was little parking most river folks lived in apartments nearby. Downtown really was dangerous after dark and we had 35000 people working there. The river was popular and very bohemian. Our leaders were James Jones, Mike Synar, David Boren, the Elder LaFortune, Betsy Horowitz, Ms Eagleton and Inhofe.

Now its bikes, strollers, runners with dogs, groups of runners, groups of bicyclists and a few walkers all with some sort of electronics attached. Most seem to be punishing themselves for some reason. To find a smiling face you have to run before 8am or over 100 degrees. Not as many bums and everything seems so neat, the paths too good to be true and imo, pretty boring. Now downtown is safer, and bohemian. Now its Coburn, Britenstein, Mullin, Bartlett, Blake and....Inhofe. That's a big change in ideology if you're not familiar with those names.

Up to now, we've voted down river issue after issue regardless of politics or politicians. Only Inhofe's creative determination to by pass the public's will and do what he thought was best enabled the Zink lake dam to be built. His best move as a politician imo. Sand Springs built one as well though I don't know how. I didn't pay much attention back then because I was recently out of college, divorced and into establishing myself in some way. We ran and played there without water, we ran and played there when water arrived. Water in the river was inconsequential.

So, the thing is that every young generation gets to choose the mistakes and the brilliance they want to be known for. At least till you're 45.  I don't support this one because of my hands on experience with the river and the lack of water activity this plan has. Not just a little activity....none. That and the poor economics, outside of the casino, and its potential ecological pitfalls keeps me from embracing it. I don't care about the taxes as you know. If it could generate cash, I'm in. If it relies on increased ad valorem, nay.

But I won't campaign against it, nor will I repeat myself. Good luck with it, research Coffeyville, Kansas and buy yourself a canoe. 16 ft is good enough.