River development and new sources of city revenue

[DTowner]

I'm not fired up by the "put water in the river" message, but it seems self-evident that walking/jogging/biking/recreating in River Parks is much more enjoyable north of Zink dam than south of it.  Whatever the Arkansas River was and is with or without Keystone Dam, our general preceptions are that rivers should have water in them and a 1/4 wide expanse of gravel bars with a small creek running through it does not feel like a real river to most of us.

Fix Zink Dam and upgrade it to make it safer and more usable.  The more grandiose plans should be funded in large part by those with the most to gain (i.e. Creek Nation, Jenks, etc.).  Tulsa's portion of the River is mostly developed and it can afford to patiently await creative concepts and funding while focusing its scarce resources on more pressing needs downtown where the potential and rewards are much greater.  We should not let politicians seeking a legacy-style project to cloud our vision.

[Conan71]

It's not fair to say "well if the market wanted it it would do it" when the zoning and regulations are pro one type of development and anti another type. Either fix the zoning to encourage good urban development, as we have zoning that encouraged good suburban development, or acknowledge that it's not fair and realize your going to have to occasionally subsidize if you want urban/transit friendly development.

I wasn't aware that zoning issues are preventing anyone from developing housing downtown at the moment.

I certainly appreciate the concept of making things more pedestrian-friendly if more people would take advantage of it and actually walk, ride, or take mass transit to their destination.  I do see more people who live near the urban core walking and riding so it's obvious there should be incentives to encourage a pedestrian-friendly environment if that is what we want to cultivate.

As far as the building on 11th St. the parking requirements puzzle me.  I can't imagine Chris would need a ton of parking for his business unless he was going to bring in several other eye docs.  I guess the issue the city takes with not having enough parking is then patrons resort to parking on side streets and disrupting the residential section of the neighborhood?  Correct?

And, by the way, I filled up at the 11th & Utica QT this morning, it still makes me sick to see how much lot space they took for that POS. 

[TheArtist]

I wasn't aware that zoning issues are preventing anyone from developing housing downtown at the moment.

Just about anything is possible.  What we are talking about is how the city basically encourages through zoning and a certain type of development/usage (making it more efficient and inexpensive to build) and that same zoning discourages another type of development/usage (making it less efficient and more expensive).  While downtown can be said to be "neutral" on the matter, it exists in a context that greatly influences the direction of that "neutrality".   

I certainly appreciate the concept of making things more pedestrian-friendly if more people would take advantage of it and actually walk, ride, or take mass transit to their destination.  I do see more people who live near the urban core walking and riding so it's obvious there should be incentives to encourage a pedestrian-friendly environment if that is what we want to cultivate.

As far as the building on 11th St. the parking requirements puzzle me.  I can't imagine Chris would need a ton of parking for his business unless he was going to bring in several other eye docs.  I guess the issue the city takes with not having enough parking is then patrons resort to parking on side streets and disrupting the residential section of the neighborhood?  Correct?

Yes people would walk/bike/take transit more if we provided the environment to do so.  Currently that is illegal.

No Chris would not need many parking spaces for his practice as a sole doc.

And yes, patrons might resort to parking on side streets (also more might use transit and walk/bike further distances if there were a more pedestrian/transit friendly area).  Though in many old photos when our city was actually more walkable, you would indeed see cars along downtown and adjacent neighborhood streets as you would in many cities all over the world without end of the world consequences.

But what we have here is more accommodation for autos and auto centric development than pedestrians and transit friendly development.

Minimum parking requirements are an acknowledgment, proof if you will, that zoning works and is important.  Minimum parking requirements help make auto centric development work well.

Thing is there is no similar acknowledgement that pedestrian friendly development also needs certain things in order to work well.

What may be good for one may indeed actually hurt the other.  What we are essentially saying in our city is that we will try in every way to not have inconveniences for auto centric development, and then turn a blind eye to the inconveniences, added costs, inefficiencies, etc. that pedestrian friendly developments face in that environment.  And then say "It's up to the free market, if people wanted it they would build it."  Thats unfair and not right.

[SXSW]

I'm not fired up by the "put water in the river" message, but it seems self-evident that walking/jogging/biking/recreating in River Parks is much more enjoyable north of Zink dam than south of it.  Whatever the Arkansas River was and is with or without Keystone Dam, our general preceptions are that rivers should have water in them and a 1/4 wide expanse of gravel bars with a small creek running through it does not feel like a real river to most of us.

I agree with that.  I enjoy the river trails much more either when I'm north of Zink Dam, or when the river is full south of it.  I imagine the majority of people feel the same way.  Having a constant level of water in the river is important in that regard.

As for "river development" I hope that is just more recreational opportunities and things like parks, green space and trails.  As has been mentioned if you have to have urban development along a waterway do it along Crow Creek in Brookside, or the proposed canal in the Pearl.  Keep the focus on "development" in existing areas downtown and midtown, but enhance the river as a regional recreational destination.

[nathanm]

It's not fair to say "well if the market wanted it it would do it" when the zoning and regulations are pro one type of development and anti another type. Either fix the zoning to encourage good urban development, as we have zoning that encouraged good suburban development, or acknowledge that it's not fair and realize your going to have to occasionally subsidize if you want urban/transit friendly development.

I think a large part of the reason why people fail to notice the way that suburban style development is both required and massively subsidized is that it's "just been that way" for so long. The rules and requirements and flow of funds fades into the background much as the carnage on our highways and the great number of firearm-related homicides do. That is not the case for transit oriented development and pedestrian friendly zoning and subsidies directed at them. It's new and different, so people realize that it's happening.

What often infuriates me is that they confuse the former for the "invisible hand". Markets sell two things: the most profitable, and that which is required by law, rule, or custom. They don't sprout in a vacuum. It took thousands of years worth of government and private sector support to move beyond barter to legal tender, thus reducing the friction of markets and enabling large scale banking. But again, it has faded into the background, so it's "the market speaking."

Until people are willing to recognize that the status quo is the status quo because of all kinds of human effort rather than having sprung forth fully formed from nothing, we will continue to flounder as a city and as a nation because we'll continue to refuse to do anything truly different.

[Red Arrow]

My younger years were spent near the Delaware River.  In the Philly area, it is subject to noticeable changes in levels due to tides.  The marina at Essington (near Phila Int'l Airport) had very big mud flats at low tide.   Kind of ugly really but that was the state of that river. The mud flats were totally gone at high tide.  The Arkansas frequently has sand bars.  That is the state of "our" river.

I believe Tulsans in general would be better served with a good downtown circulator transit system. Branches to Cherry St., Brookside, and the new park would be a real plus.  My choice would be fixed rail guided real trolleys but even a better bus system would be an improvement.

[AquaMan]

Who here considers themselves part of "the stakeholders"? One city councillor was ecstatic in proclaiming that the stakeholders are all together on this river development plan. Doesn't look like we have a consensus on this forum, but then we're just the ones who are going to pay for the dams. Nothing to see here. Move along.

My odds on dams within a decade? 40% chance. I can live with that. Better than the odds of downtown trolleys, forms based zoning or a major league sports team locating here.

[nathanm]

My odds on dams within a decade? 40% chance. I can live with that. Better than the odds of downtown trolleys, forms based zoning or a major league sports team locating here.

Until a few years ago, despite Tulsa not yet being what I really wanted out of a city, I was optimistic and determined to stick it out until progress was made on the issues important to me, like transit. We were moving in the right direction and talking seriously about making the sort of livability improvements that would make me proud of what Tulsa is, rather than what it once was and has the potential to be again.

Sadly, the past couple of years have shaken my conviction and I'm seriously considering a move elsewhere. I'm tired of waiting. I'm tired of plans being made to great fanfare and then unceremoniously shelved. I'm tired of us building ourselves into the poorhouse with zero examination of how it is we keep coming up short in the budget year after year despite year after year of cuts to parks and transit and everything else not aimed at the suburban lifestyle. At this point, good news is almost always despite the city, not because of it. If it weren't for the small core of determined developers, nonprofits, and our big donors, we'd be going backwards instead of just treading water as we have been recently.

Don't get me wrong, things are a lot better than they were when I first arrived here. Unfortunately, it seems that our city's leaders are and think we should all be satisfied with where we are. They appear to be of the belief that all we need now is window dressing and adjustments around the edges. Much of this can be laid at Dewey's feet, but he didn't elect himself.

[heironymouspasparagus]

My younger years were spent near the Delaware River.  In the Philly area, it is subject to noticeable changes in levels due to tides.  The marina at Essington (near Phila Int'l Airport) had very big mud flats at low tide.   Kind of ugly really but that was the state of that river. The mud flats were totally gone at high tide.  The Arkansas frequently has sand bars.  That is the state of "our" river.

I believe Tulsans in general would be better served with a good downtown circulator transit system. Branches to Cherry St., Brookside, and the new park would be a real plus.  My choice would be fixed rail guided real trolleys but even a better bus system would be an improvement.

Anchorage, AK is a lot like that - high tide they have a bay.  Low tide they have a mud flat WAY out that way!!

[heironymouspasparagus]

I'm not fired up by the "put water in the river" message, but it seems self-evident that walking/jogging/biking/recreating in River Parks is much more enjoyable north of Zink dam than south of it.  Whatever the Arkansas River was and is with or without Keystone Dam, our general preceptions are that rivers should have water in them and a 1/4 wide expanse of gravel bars with a small creek running through it does not feel like a real river to most of us.

Fix Zink Dam and upgrade it to make it safer and more usable.  The more grandiose plans should be funded in large part by those with the most to gain (i.e. Creek Nation, Jenks, etc.).  Tulsa's portion of the River is mostly developed and it can afford to patiently await creative concepts and funding while focusing its scarce resources on more pressing needs downtown where the potential and rewards are much greater.  We should not let politicians seeking a legacy-style project to cloud our vision.

That seems strange to me, but that's kind of typical around here - I drive and walk up and down the Riverside zone every chance I get - usually only about half dozen times a month, but I just don't see the river water as being that big a deal.  The park area and the road always takes the majority of my attention....but a sand bar is a feature too, as well as water.  And there is a VAST number of people south of the dam - more than north of it!  Yeah, I know - it's because that's where the paths go, and there is a greater length so will obviously have more people.  

The general perception of a river full of water is NOT a prairie river.  We live in a prairie...well, except for all those big lakes surrounding us!


The "put water in the river" message appears to be have become a mantra around town that just doesn't make sense.  The message is trying to sell us the idea the growth and livability depend somehow on this carp.  What have we been doing up to this point - somehow NOT living and growing??  Hog.  Wash.  If we are gonna have SO much better lives, brighter teeth, and good cell phone service just because of river, then that would mean the Riverwalk Crossing failed because they didn't have 100% water, 100% of the time!!   Anyone who seriously tries to advance THAT crock of carp loses all credibility!  Besides being an idiot!

For the supporters:  what "growth" or "development" or other benefit to the city might come from another dam??   Specifics - not glittering generalities, 'cause we have seen specifics fail on the river and NOT because of a little sand sitting in the river bed!  How is spending a ton of tax money gonna make it work any better?

The biggest problem we have is the attention span of a kindergartener....once the glow fades from the next Big Thing (Riverwalk), we are looking for the newest next Big Thing!  It is a societal ADHD issue - and I don't believe in Ritalin for kids or societal Ritalin for cities!!   (Let's see how far the "pissing off" goes with that one about kids...?)

We have an amazing amount of stuff going on downtown, on 15th street, down the river - all over town!  Again, anyone who tries to advance the notion that OKC is "so far ahead" of us just because they can put some rowing boats in their drainage ditch is again, an idiot!  And hasn't spent that much time there....they are busy, but not that much ahead of us!  If any...

Having been there /\ , let me clarify - I love water features - lake, river, pond, fountains in a garden, whatever.  It might be nice to have water below Zink, but it s NOT a prerequisite to using some imagination - ya don't have to have a Mississippi river to have stuff going on along a prairie river!

[rebound]

That seems strange to me, but that's kind of typical around here - I drive and walk up and down the Riverside zone every chance I get - usually only about half dozen times a month, but I just don't see the river water as being that big a deal... 

...The general perception of a river full of water is NOT a prairie river.  We live in a prairie...well, except for all those big lakes surrounding us!...

...Having been there /\ , let me clarify - I love water features - lake, river, pond, fountains in a garden, whatever.  It might be nice to have water below Zink, but it s NOT a prerequisite to using some imagination - ya don't have to have a Mississippi river to have stuff going on along a prairie river!

The family and I were down in Tulsa yesterday going through open houses as part of our plan to move to mid-town, and at one point we turned North up Riverside, somewhere about 26th street.  The river was flowing bank-to-bank, and my wife (totally unprovoked by me) said "Wow, that is just amazing! It's too bad we can't get serious about keeping water in this river full-time.  It's beautiful, and would do so much for the area."  (or something pretty close to that.)   It really was nice, and I agree it is just an opinion, but it's so much nicer when there is water in the river. Of course if Zink Lake dam gets fixed  that particular stretch will be a lake anyway, and maybe that's good enough for now. 

I can't quantify it, and per my earlier comments I don't know how to put a monetary value on it (although I would assume it could be done), but people like water in rivers.  Much more so than they like a dry river bed.  (Unless we want to open it up to "muddin" when the level goes down. Lots of folks in 4x4s might love that.)  I still think, respectfully, that you are too hung up on the whole Prairie River thing.  I get that in it's natural state, that is what it was.  But it's not natural anymore.  And even then, with the previously mentioned flooding, etc, people wanted to control it.  (Which is true for just about every river of this type going through any major city.  You have to control the flooding.)  At least for the stretch going through the populated areas around Tulsa (Sand Springs, Tulsa, Jenks, etc...) "natural" never has worked, and it's not natural now, so let's have an unbiased look of what we'd like it to look like.

Again, I appreciate the "we can only do so much and it would be better spent in other areas" argument.  And I  agree, to a certain extent, with those.  But that doesn't mean that the dams are a bad idea,  but rather that we should get this first one back in place and allow that to guide our thinking for future development.  It doesn't have to be all or nothing, but to discount the idea in total is not the best direction, either.

[Conan71]

The family and I were down in Tulsa yesterday going through open houses as part of our plan to move to mid-town, and at one point we turned North up Riverside, somewhere about 26th street.  The river was flowing bank-to-bank, and my wife (totally unprovoked by me) said "Wow, that is just amazing! It's too bad we can't get serious about keeping water in this river full-time.  It's beautiful, and would do so much for the area."  (or something pretty close to that.)   It really was nice, and I agree it is just an opinion, but it's so much nicer when there is water in the river. Of course if Zink Lake dam gets fixed  that particular stretch will be a lake anyway, and maybe that's good enough for now. 

I can't quantify it, and per my earlier comments I don't know how to put a monetary value on it (although I would assume it could be done), but people like water in rivers.  Much more so than they like a dry river bed.  (Unless we want to open it up to "muddin" when the level goes down. Lots of folks in 4x4s might love that.)  I still think, respectfully, that you are too hung up on the whole Prairie River thing.  I get that in it's natural state, that is what it was.  But it's not natural anymore.  And even then, with the previously mentioned flooding, etc, people wanted to control it.  (Which is true for just about every river of this type going through any major city.  You have to control the flooding.)  At least for the stretch going through the populated areas around Tulsa (Sand Springs, Tulsa, Jenks, etc...) "natural" never has worked, and it's not natural now, so let's have an unbiased look of what we'd like it to look like.

Again, I appreciate the "we can only do so much and it would be better spent in other areas" argument.  And I  agree, to a certain extent, with those.  But that doesn't mean that the dams are a bad idea,  but rather that we should get this first one back in place and allow that to guide our thinking for future development.  It doesn't have to be all or nothing, but to discount the idea in total is not the best direction, either.

Back when Riverside ended at or near 61st St. the south terminus was a place where you would see dune buggies going in and out of the trees to go play on the sand in the river bottom in the late '70's.  I think it's roughly where the mini park is at 61st now.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Again, I appreciate the "we can only do so much and it would be better spent in other areas" argument.  And I  agree, to a certain extent, with those.  But that doesn't mean that the dams are a bad idea,  but rather that we should get this first one back in place and allow that to guide our thinking for future development.  It doesn't have to be all or nothing, but to discount the idea in total is not the best direction, either.

I don't have a problem per se with river to Bixby and beyond (my last comment previously).  To often it is tied to the idea that it must be done and in place before anything else can work.  Well, what we see 'working' - Westport for decades - appears to be on the path of a bulldozer real soon.  Independent of water.

From google view...it appears there is more developed area on the river than there is undeveloped - lots of 'stuff' there all the way to Jenks!  Largest areas left that could be developed are all oil refinery, so may have to just move them!  Sand bars haven't stopped stuff going on at all.  If we wanna make the case that the river should be dammed just to be pretty for it's own sake, well, maybe so....but supporters don't need to make specious ties to "growth and livability" - implying we can't exist or have improvements without a dam or two or three.  It is a perverse intellectual dishonesty that is just all to pervasive in Tulsa.  It is NOT about growth and livability - it is about getting big fat juicy construction contracts for the main "stakeholders"!   Again, can anyone spell "Flintco"??  Who is Chair of the River Parks Authority?   Answer: left as exercise for the casual observer.   (And I really don't have a big problem with Flintco - they seem to do good work from what I have seen - my problem is with the process.)


And why not have a dune buggy park out to the south somewhere in the prairie river - when Keystone is not releasing water?  Can't be much worse than abandoned oil wells and equipment sitting on the river bed...the next flow of water remediates any ruts and paths cut by a 4 wheeler.  Call it "Riverdunes Tulsa Sand Park"...or something.  We could have a festival in August, kind of like a dusty Octoberfest!  Beer!!

Sorry, Aqua, but I bet there are more people who would get enjoyment from 4 wheeling the river bed than go kayaking on the river....

[rebound]

And why not have a dune buggy park out to the south somewhere in the prairie river - when Keystone is not releasing water?  Can't be much worse than abandoned oil wells and equipment sitting on the river bed...the next flow of water remediates any ruts and paths cut by a 4 wheeler.  Call it "Riverdunes Tulsa Sand Park"...or something.  We could have a festival in August, kind of like a dusty Octoberfest!  Beer!!

After I wrote my earlier post, I have to admit that my redneck/country side was just screaming "Hey!  That's not a bad idea!  We could hold races up the river, and rent dune buggies, and all kinds of stuff!"    I grew up in the country with an ATV, and have seen my share of creek and river bottoms.  Don't think it would go over very well in the more populated areas, but down South of the metro that might actually work.

[heironymouspasparagus]

After I wrote my earlier post, I have to admit that my redneck/country side was just screaming "Hey!  That's not a bad idea!  We could hold races up the river, and rent dune buggies, and all kinds of stuff!"    I grew up in the country with an ATV, and have seen my share of creek and river bottoms.  Don't think it would go over very well in the more populated areas, but down South of the metro that might actually work.

It's a great idea!!  People have been doing it for years and having a ball....just illegally.  Son and nephew called me one time to pull them out - buried 4 1/2 feet in the sand.  My gear couldn't get them out.