(PROJECT) A Gathering Place For Tulsa

[guido911]

If I was a property owner anywhere else in Maple Ridge I'd be mad, and tell the folks living along Riverside to deal with it because you're the one who bought property next to a large public thoroughfare.

Did they buy that property thinking that "public thoroughfare" would turn into the public's playground?

[TheArtist]

Maybe what these people want are folks that don't live in this area to APPRECIATE their concerns. Maybe if this was your neighborhood that is about to eat a ton of new traffic, have bunches of strange people walking around your house at all hours, cars parking in front of your house, etc. you might have some empathy for their lot.

I would love that to happen in my neighborhood!  Sign me up! It would almost be like living in a normal city like normal human beings.  This city is so dead and depressing.  You rarely see other human beings out and about.  No wonder our suicide rates in these suburban style neighborhoods are some of the highest in the world (even higher than our high homicide rates, but doesn't make the news for some reason).

Heck, we live in a city with a metro of nearly a million and I can't even get "people walking around and parking in front of my store at all hours".... in the middle of downtown! Egads!

[TheArtist]

Did they buy that property thinking that "public thoroughfare" would turn into the public's playground?

Who would have thought they could be so lucky?

[LandArchPoke]

Did they buy that property thinking that "public thoroughfare" would turn into the public's playground?

How long has RiverParks been there? It didn't magically turn into the public's playground over night when this park was announced. It's been that way for decades. Before that, it was going to be an Expressway.

You do realize how much parks increase property values too right? It's funny that all these people in Maple Ridge have their pants so tightly in a bunch over this when in 10 years this park will help their property appreciate probably faster than almost any neighborhood in the State of Oklahoma.

If they want a private community that no one outside of them and their neighbors are allowed to walk and park in, I suggest many of the fine gated communities in South Tulsa and our other suburbs.

This still doesn't detract from the fact that the land owners along Riverside are just trying to dump the issue further to the east of them, and onto the land owners adjacent to the Midland Valley Trail. I'm amazed at how this hasn't caused a bigger rift internally in the neighborhood association. Frankly, if there is no parking in the park (which there will be plenty) and I have to walk into the park from the outside and they don't build this sidewalk... I'm still going to park in Maple Ridge. I'm just going to park in front of a house by the trail, and walk in that way instead of by one the houses by Riverside and using the sidewalk. What they don't realize is that if they are truly trying to keep outsiders from their neighborhood, they are failing at it. In the end they are just going to cost the tax payers more money when we end up building the sidewalk 2-3 year later and have to close Riverside for another 6 months to do so.

[guido911]

How long has RiverParks been there? It didn't magically turn into the public's playground over night when this park was announced. It's been that way for decades. Before that, it was going to be an Expressway.

You do realize how much parks increase property values too right? It's funny that all these people in Maple Ridge have their pants so tightly in a bunch over this when in 10 years this park will help their property appreciate probably faster than almost any neighborhood in the State of Oklahoma.

If they want a private community that no one outside of them and their neighbors are allowed to walk and park in, I suggest many of the fine gated communities in South Tulsa and our other suburbs.

This still doesn't detract from the fact that the land owners along Riverside are just trying to dump the issue further to the east of them, and onto the land owners adjacent to the Midland Valley Trail. I'm amazed at how this hasn't caused a bigger rift internally in the neighborhood association. Frankly, if there is no parking in the park (which there will be plenty) and I have to walk into the park from the outside and they don't build this sidewalk... I'm still going to park in Maple Ridge. I'm just going to park in front of a house by the trail, and walk in that way instead of by one the houses by Riverside and using the sidewalk. What they don't realize is that if they are truly trying to keep outsiders from their neighborhood, they are failing at it. In the end they are just going to cost the tax payers more money when we end up building the sidewalk 2-3 year later and have to close Riverside for another 6 months to do so.

Yeah. Screw those homeowners.

And speaking about pants being in a tight bunch, how come you are not so critical of those with Lycra crammed far up their rears over Turkey Mountain? Maybe you should suggest that people who want an urban wilderness should go out and buy their own damned mountain playground instead of bitching over a private developer wanting to build on their land.

[LandArchPoke]

Yeah. Screw those homeowners.

And speaking about pants being in a tight bunch, how come you are not so critical of those with Lycra crammed far up their rears over Turkey Mountain? Maybe you should suggest that people who want an urban wilderness should go out and buy their own damned mountain playground instead of bitching over a private developer wanting to build on their land.

Let me try to speak more simply because obviously you can't comprehend what I'm saying. If a private developer wants to build on their land and pay for the infrastructure needed to build said development, there's not much I can say unless I live adjacent and I feel like they will be having some harm to my property (water run-off, trash, etc.). What you can't seem to comprehend is the outlet mall becomes a public development as soon as they request a TIF or any form of public assistance. Get it?

As for this actual topic. What you again don't understand is the fact that this sidewalk and Riverside improvements are in fact being paid for by everyone in the City of Tulsa. Which means everyone gets to have a voice. See the parallel there? Good.

Now, Maple Ridge residents have every right to put in a voice on how these improvements are done, because at the end of the day this is their neighborhood. I think if Riverside is built the way it's currently planned (14' lanes) it might impact property values negatively along the road as it will become a defacto highway. It's not the sidewalk that will do it. I think at the end of the day this will lead to a better designed Riverside Drive (or I'm hopeful it will).

[Conan71]

Maybe what these people want are folks that don't live in this area to APPRECIATE their concerns. Maybe if this was your neighborhood that is about to eat a ton of new traffic, have bunches of strange people walking around your house at all hours, cars parking in front of your house, etc. you might have some empathy for their lot.

But hey, after reading about how awful and unfair owners wanting to development their own property for an outlet mall is unfair to those non-property owners using Turkey Mountain at no cost to them, and how those people's opinions should be taken seriously, maybe the same courtesy can be extended to Maple Ridge folks. Here's a thought. Maybe those people who are upset about the outlet mall can make a video or use some other media that we all can make fun of. That would be a hoot.

edited.

I did see that those opposing the outlet mall have gone all Facebook-y.

https://www.facebook.com/NoMallByTurkeyMountain

On the cover page there is a pic of a guy running. Were is that?

The nature of both of these projects involves public infrastructure and/or public funding.  That's why citizens at large have a say.

You keep ignoring the fact that Simon has said they will be seeking a TIF for site improvements.  Their development will, without a doubt, drive more traffic to an area which does not presently have the infrastructure to support the traffic.  Couple this with additional development between I-44 and Jenks and highway 75 will require additional lanes.

What is the true net economic impact of this development between TIFs and state-paid DOT expenditures to expand and improve 75 and access the arterials intersecting 75?  There will need to be millions and millions in improvements.

[Conan71]

Let me try to speak more simply because obviously you can't comprehend what I'm saying. If a private developer wants to build on their land and pay for the infrastructure needed to build said development, there's not much I can say unless I live adjacent and I feel like they will be having some harm to my property (water run-off, trash, etc.). What you can't seem to comprehend is the outlet mall becomes a public development as soon as they request a TIF or any form of public assistance. Get it?

As for this actual topic. What you again don't understand is the fact that this sidewalk and Riverside improvements are in fact being paid for by everyone in the City of Tulsa. Which means everyone gets to have a voice. See the parallel there? Good.

Now, Maple Ridge residents have every right to put in a voice on how these improvements are done, because at the end of the day this is their neighborhood. I think if Riverside is built the way it's currently planned (14' lanes) it might impact property values negatively along the road as it will become a defacto highway. It's not the sidewalk that will do it. I think at the end of the day this will lead to a better designed Riverside Drive (or I'm hopeful it will).

If you think about it, Guido is missing the irony of his comments.  The Gathering Place is technically not a public project as all funding comes from the GKFF.  Imagine that, people wanting to tell a private developer what can and can't be done in their project which necessarily impacts public infrastructure.  Just like what will happen with the Simon project.  The homeowners don't own the land the sidewalk would be placed on yet they want their say.  The public wants a sidewalk on public property, so they want their say as well.  

[rdj]

Conan, GKFF and private donors are not paying for all of the Riverside Dr improvements/changes.  They applied for a TIGER grant and were denied, so the city is paying for those changes.

[swake]

Conan, GKFF and private donors are not paying for all of the Riverside Dr improvements/changes.  They applied for a TIGER grant and were denied, so the city is paying for those changes.

They got the Tiger grants on the second application.

[Red Arrow]

The homeowners don't own the land the sidewalk would be placed on yet they want their say.

I believe the sidewalks may go on an easement but the property is still owned by the homeowners and they must maintain the area.

[rebound]

I believe the sidewalks may go on an easement but the property is still owned by the homeowners and they must maintain the area.

Are you sure the homeowners would have to maintain that area?  It makes no sense.  If the brick wall goes in, there will not even be direct access to the sidewalk from some of those homes.   It would seem reasonable that if this were built as planned, the city would own the upkeep of the strip from the wall to the street.

[Red Arrow]

Are you sure the homeowners would have to maintain that area?  It makes no sense.  If the brick wall goes in, there will not even be direct access to the sidewalk from some of those homes.   It would seem reasonable that if this were built as planned, the city would own the upkeep of the strip from the wall to the street.

We (thankfully) don't have sidewalks in our 1 acre lot size neighborhood.  At our previous home (yes, in PA) we were responsible for maintenance of the sidewalk including shoveling snow and replacing broken parts of the sidewalk.  At the time, there were trees between the curb and sidewalk.  The tree roots would raise and crack the sidewalk.

http://goo.gl/maps/PFl0E
(Most of the houses have additions since we were there 40 years ago.)

[rebound]

We (thankfully) don't have sidewalks in our 1 acre lot size neighborhood.  At our previous home (yes, in PA) we were responsible for maintenance of the sidewalk including shoveling snow and replacing broken parts of the sidewalk.  At the time, there were trees between the curb and sidewalk.  The tree roots would raise and crack the sidewalk.

http://goo.gl/maps/PFl0E
(Most of the houses have additions since we were there 40 years ago.)

I understand that normally this is the case (had it Dallas when we lived there before), but in this particular case, with the city building a solid brick wall to block off the house yard from the sidewalk area, it seems illogical (not that that has ever stopped anyone...) for this to be maintained by the homeowner.

[Red Arrow]

I understand that normally this is the case (had it Dallas when we lived there before), but in this particular case, with the city building a solid brick wall to block off the house yard from the sidewalk area, it seems illogical (not that that has ever stopped anyone...) for this to be maintained by the homeowner.

I am confident that the city will not maintain it.