River development and new sources of city revenue

[AquaMan]

Rebound, you can check the Corps of Engineers website for the Keystone dam releases. It has a historical record of water levels at the 66 bridge dating back to before the dam iirc. You would be surprised to find out that the river at Zink Lake has been high enough to cover the lake probably 80% of the time. It is not that common to find no water in the river around 26th and Riverside. But when it is low the contrast is glaring. The Zink dam leaks and the area in front of it needs dredged. That is analogous to deferred maintenance on an old house. Like neglecting to replace the roof. RPA has been negligent. So, fix the Zink dam and call it a day.

To build more dams like this one for the reasons expressed is folly. What people don't know about the river, the levees, the old sewer and petrochemical lines that criss cross it, the capped wells, the buried toxics, the likely increase in water flows in the next decades, the serious lack of management ability for actually operating them and the increased bureaucratic nightmares.....will come back to bite the taxpayer in the rear.

Another good question for you. What happens if all the dreams come true and the water is neatly backed up into three little ponds starting with Sand Springs. Each community has developed restaurants, bars and parks along the banks. Then the corps has to let out record levels to keep the big dam from failing. Sand Springs isn't going to flood their development. Tulsa won't flood the refineries. Hello floating casino. Or the reverse. Record low flows means Sand Springs will hold water longer, Tulsa will take what it can and ....hello Dune buggies at Jenks.

Now you know why Sand Springs will not get the first dam.

[AquaMan]

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.

That's why they "outlawed" it here. Actually, police have no jurisdiction on the river bottom but they sometimes act like it. A childhood friend of mine was beaten and nearly died at a riverbottom party visited by a motorcycle gang at 61st back in the late sixties. The only way authorities ended the parties was to have RPA own the land adjacent to the river and eliminate access. Levees are also gated off. But if you can get to the river bank through private land, the only authority is the county or the Highway Patrol and the law is fuzzy. Anyway, they got better things to do.

[heironymouspasparagus]

And uncapped wells...I have to take some time to figure out how to post a picture...the well casing is about 12 feet long, broken over with sucker rod still inside and another couple feet of casing sticking out of the sand.  No remediation there at all!!

[Conan71]

Rebound, you can check the Corps of Engineers website for the Keystone dam releases. It has a historical record of water levels at the 66 bridge dating back to before the dam iirc. You would be surprised to find out that the river at Zink Lake has been high enough to cover the lake probably 80% of the time. It is not that common to find no water in the river around 26th and Riverside. But when it is low the contrast is glaring. The Zink dam leaks and the area in front of it needs dredged. That is analogous to deferred maintenance on an old house. Like neglecting to replace the roof. RPA has been negligent. So, fix the Zink dam and call it a day.

To build more dams like this one for the reasons expressed is folly. What people don't know about the river, the levees, the old sewer and petrochemical lines that criss cross it, the capped wells, the buried toxics, the likely increase in water flows in the next decades, the serious lack of management ability for actually operating them and the increased bureaucratic nightmares.....will come back to bite the taxpayer in the rear.

Another good question for you. What happens if all the dreams come true and the water is neatly backed up into three little ponds starting with Sand Springs. Each community has developed restaurants, bars and parks along the banks. Then the corps has to let out record levels to keep the big dam from failing. Sand Springs isn't going to flood their development. Tulsa won't flood the refineries. Hello floating casino. Or the reverse. Record low flows means Sand Springs will hold water longer, Tulsa will take what it can and ....hello Dune buggies at Jenks.

Now you know why Sand Springs will not get the first dam.

Aqua, didn't they run a dredge just north of the 21st St. bridge at the concrete plant there for many years?  Did that stop after Zink dam or before/as a result of the dam?  They dredged south of the Jenks bridge on the property where Riverfront Grill or the hotel is now back in the '70's and '80's when I was going to Jenks schools.

[AquaMan]

Aqua, didn't they run a dredge just north of the 21st St. bridge at the concrete plant there for many years?  Did that stop after Zink dam or before/as a result of the dam?  They dredged south of the Jenks bridge on the property where Riverfront Grill or the hotel is now back in the '70's and '80's when I was going to Jenks schools.

Knowing that they would need to periodically rechannel the dam area to keep the dam effective, RPA purchased a dredger when the Zink dam was first built. As in so many blunders over the years, they decided they could buy and operate one themselves rather than contract with an experienced dredger. I was told by people who were there, that one of our spring storms dumped the dredger over and damaged it to such an extent it had to be salvaged. We lost the entire investment (seems like it was $300k in early 80's dollars) and they gave up on dredging after that. A nearby boathouse was washed away as well. They were located farther south close to the skate park.

What you probably saw in Jenks was an active sand mining operation. Because it is so flat down in that area the sand builds up into major bars. The operation has moved downstream with the sand as it plays out and migrates. A dam will hold lots of sand down there.

I took my airboat down there once. One of the dredging platforms was anchored south of the bridge. It was supposed to be marked and only attached from one side of the river. It wasn't and the morning was foggy. The cables appeared with plenty of time but it could have meant tragedy. For me at least.

[rdj]

#waterintheriver

@fakedeweytulsa

https://twitter.com/FakeDeweyTulsa

[AquaMan]

That's hilarious-

"Cheese biscuits on the river!"

"OKC got the 66ers cause they have more water in their river!"

[Conan71]

Knowing that they would need to periodically rechannel the dam area to keep the dam effective, RPA purchased a dredger when the Zink dam was first built. As in so many blunders over the years, they decided they could buy and operate one themselves rather than contract with an experienced dredger. I was told by people who were there, that one of our spring storms dumped the dredger over and damaged it to such an extent it had to be salvaged. We lost the entire investment (seems like it was $300k in early 80's dollars) and they gave up on dredging after that. A nearby boathouse was washed away as well. They were located farther south close to the skate park.

What you probably saw in Jenks was an active sand mining operation. Because it is so flat down in that area the sand builds up into major bars. The operation has moved downstream with the sand as it plays out and migrates. A dam will hold lots of sand down there.

I took my airboat down there once. One of the dredging platforms was anchored south of the bridge. It was supposed to be marked and only attached from one side of the river. It wasn't and the morning was foggy. The cables appeared with plenty of time but it could have meant tragedy. For me at least.

The Jenks operation was McMichael's south mix plant which served the explosive south Tulsa construction at the time.

[Oil Capital]

The current zoning we have in Tulsa makes it illegal to develop the "quality of life" they have in Portland.  But they will cut the budget here to move forward on changing the zoning and cut the budget on transit versus increasing it, etc.  But they work hard to "find" money for dams, and if they do that will even more likely end up being an excuse to have to not fund, or have the flexibility to fund, those other things.

You can't have it all all at once.  I say do the zoning and transit first (and more for education), then the river.  

Plus, downtown isn't just a tourist attraction.  A quarter of our city population growth is already downtown (city growing about 2,000 per year and about 500 of that going downtown) and it should be higher and could be higher (increasing our over all growth rate) if it were a more attractive place to live for those who want urban living (which is more and more of the population all the time) instead of only offering suburban style living (which is great, don't get me wrong, just not for everyone) and thus missing out on good growth opportunities.

Whoahh there.  Where do you get the idea that downtown is growing by 500 people per year?  According to the Chamber of Commerce, we've added 478 housing units since 2010.  Typical occupancy of urban apartments is no more than 1.25 people per unit.  That would give us a population growth in downtown Tulsa of 600, in four years.  Nice growth, with more to come of course, but well short of 25% of the city's population growth (more like 7.5%).

[TheArtist]

Whoahh there.  Where do you get the idea that downtown is growing by 500 people per year?  According to the Chamber of Commerce, we've added 478 housing units since 2010.  Typical occupancy of urban apartments is no more than 1.25 people per unit.  That would give us a population growth in downtown Tulsa of 600, in four years.  Nice growth, with more to come of course, but well short of 25% of the city's population growth (more like 7.5%).

When did they post that? 2011?   Anywhoo, part of what I was going off of was this TW article ...http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/realestate/downtown-tulsa-living-options-grow-as-units-planned-in-projects/article_66a9f956-e7af-553d-a201-3f34ecec6528.html

I said "about" 500 and was assuming 1.5 occupancy.  In the article they say we are getting 313 units this year and "should" be getting another 381 in 2015 (though yes I know that is likely to change).  And regardless per many other cities, and even what many here say we could be doing, our downtown still isn't reaching it's potential growth for several reasons.  Likely though the rate of development will only increase as more people move downtown and more amenities come online and so on.

Some of the more recent units that I am aware of and not including some single home type developments ...

Mayo 420  Lofts 67

Green Arch 69

Metro at Brady 75

Riverbend Gardens 40

Robinson Packer Lofts 12

Urban 8

Green Arch 70

100 Boulder 18

Philtower 25

Vandever lofts 42

Denver Y 82

Bill White 50

Harrington 24

Flats on Archer 61

Coliseum Apartments 36

Adams Hotel 56

Transok 37

First Street Lofts 23  (2015 maybe?)

111 W 5th 90

[Vision 2025]

The Jenks operation was McMichael's south mix plant which served the explosive south Tulsa construction at the time.

You're not young if you remember that one!

[Conan71]

You're not young if you remember that one!

Not too far off your vintage, Kirby. 

[carltonplace]

When did they post that? 2011?   Anywhoo, part of what I was going off of was this TW article ...http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/realestate/downtown-tulsa-living-options-grow-as-units-planned-in-projects/article_66a9f956-e7af-553d-a201-3f34ecec6528.html

I said "about" 500 and was assuming 1.5 occupancy.  In the article they say we are getting 313 units this year and "should" be getting another 381 in 2015 (though yes I know that is likely to change).  And regardless per many other cities, and even what many here say we could be doing, our downtown still isn't reaching it's potential growth for several reasons.  Likely though the rate of development will only increase as more people move downtown and more amenities come online and so on.

Some of the more recent units that I am aware of and not including some single home type developments ...

Mayo 420  Lofts 67

Green Arch 69

Metro at Brady 75

Riverbend Gardens 40

Robinson Packer Lofts 12

Urban 8

Green Arch 70

100 Boulder 18

Philtower 25

Vandever lofts 42

Denver Y 82

Bill White 50

Harrington 24

Flats on Archer 61

Coliseum Apartments 36

Adams Hotel 56

Transok 37

First Street Lofts 23  (2015 maybe?)

111 W 5th 90

You missed Hartford Square (if that is still planned)...also, can't think of any reason to include First Street Lofts in any list of future planned developments.

[AquaMan]

drifting off here.

When it happens to me I just make a cup of ginseng tea.

[Oil Capital]

When did they post that? 2011?   Anywhoo, part of what I was going off of was this TW article ...http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/realestate/downtown-tulsa-living-options-grow-as-units-planned-in-projects/article_66a9f956-e7af-553d-a201-3f34ecec6528.html

I said "about" 500 and was assuming 1.5 occupancy.  In the article they say we are getting 313 units this year and "should" be getting another 381 in 2015 (though yes I know that is likely to change).  And regardless per many other cities, and even what many here say we could be doing, our downtown still isn't reaching it's potential growth for several reasons.  Likely though the rate of development will only increase as more people move downtown and more amenities come online and so on.

Some of the more recent units that I am aware of and not including some single home type developments ...

Mayo 420  Lofts 67

Green Arch 69

Metro at Brady 75

Riverbend Gardens 40

Robinson Packer Lofts 12

Urban 8

Green Arch 70

100 Boulder 18

Philtower 25

Vandever lofts 42

Denver Y 82

Bill White 50

Harrington 24

Flats on Archer 61

Coliseum Apartments 36

Adams Hotel 56

Transok 37

First Street Lofts 23  (2015 maybe?)

111 W 5th 90

Oh, it seemed like you were telling us that a quarter of our population growth has already been occurring downtown, but apparently you are only predicting that for the future . . . based on planned projects, and assuming that all of the planned projects are actually undertaken and completed in the year planned for.

It's seems pretty safe to say that not only has downtown Tulsa not had 25% of the city's population growth in recent years, it is not going to any time soon.  That does not take anything away from the huge success of downtown Tulsa redevelopment.  It's indeed very exciting to see the relative boom in residential projects downtown, but let's not get carried away.  ;-)