River development and new sources of city revenue

[TheArtist]

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.  ;-)

For a while Tulsa was losing population.  Some areas are still losing population, most holding steady, while areas like Tulsa Hills and the east side have seen increases.

And you might be surprised.   First more and more cities are seeing faster growth than their suburbs.  Very often infill and more urban in nature. Meanwhile our zoning near downtown still pushes for suburban style development and the zoning in downtown does not encourage good urban development either. And now we are beginning to see that in more and more cities the core itself is starting to see more growth than the rest of the city, and its often in those more desirable, pedestrian/transit friendly areas.   And more and more cities over all are trending in both these directions.  Tulsa actually seems behind the curve in that respect and again as the comprehensive plan studies showed that if we changed our zoning, our growth would be faster than it is now with the current zoning.  They said the Tulsa Hills area would give us about a 15 year reprieve to still catch some easy suburban style zoning, and after that, that type of growth in the city would slow down, and if it weren't for strong, likely Hispanic, growth on the east side of town, we might already be barely keeping even.

So we are seeing nationally this trend play out and we are ignoring it.  And we paid for a company to do a study and give us advice, and we are ignoring that too.

One thing I was trying to get at was that we should and could be seeing higher urban style growth in and around downtown if we would zone for it like we do suburban style growth, and that would ramp up our attractiveness and growth numbers over all.

  We have no problem with telling people what to do with their property by having minimum parking requirements and separating uses, but feel it's a terrible intrusion to tell people to build up to the sidewalk and allow for mixed use buildings and neighborhoods.  Not having urban zoning around downtown, hurts downtown.  And not having areas within downtown that zone for pedestrian/transit friendly development, hurts the quality of the urban experience.  Both of those things also hurt our desirability and ability to capture the growing trend of ever more people wanting to live in good quality, pedestrian friendly urban areas.

We indeed are seeing the uptick in downtown growth, with this year and the next "possibly being close to say 20%" (how was that?)  (if city growth is about 2,000 per year and downtown is beginning to average about 400 per year) , and with our current game plan we could reasonably expect growth in the rest of the city to be steadyish over the next 10 years and the core, including downtown to continue to expand its growth rate.  Well, really our core "Could" and should be doing better, if we zoned for it to.  And by the time Tulsa Hills fills out more and begins to slow down, we could then be in an even better position to make up for that with even better growth in the core. They have been fighting for the Form Based Codes to be in the Pearl district for about 20 years now with the fight still going on.  No telling how long it will take to get the new Comprehensive Plan in place (cutting funding and personnel).  But they will fight for and find funding to try and do things like the Gilcrease expressway in order to try and open up more areas of the city for more hoped for suburban style growth.  Meanwhile, not, more easily, working to maximize the trend of people wanting good quality urban living.     

[AquaMan]

Well expressed, and I suppose, related to the topic in that you think its either "Water in the River!" or sustainable, pedestrian, transit friendly, downtown development. I can't agree less. The two are independent imo.

So with that in mind I would say that yes, it seems zoning should be suburban in suburbia and mixed use, form based in the older areas. And the river should be zoned "no artificial obstructions to water flow".

World had more pr for the project this morning. I give them kudos for being straightforward and admitting that this is to complement development of the casino and the gathering place.

[TheArtist]

Well expressed, and I suppose, related to the topic in that you think its either "Water in the River!" or sustainable, pedestrian, transit friendly, downtown development. I can't agree less. The two are independent imo.

So with that in mind I would say that yes, it seems zoning should be suburban in suburbia and mixed use, form based in the older areas. And the river should be zoned "no artificial obstructions to water flow".

World had more pr for the project this morning. I give them kudos for being straightforward and admitting that this is to complement development of the casino and the gathering place.

They aren't related in the sense some might think.  They are related in that I fear the trade off will be, we will find money for the river, and that may likely put more pressure to cut or not fund the new comprehensive plan implementation, any potential trolleys or transit, low interest financing for repurposing historic buildings (like the Tulsa Club) into housing, etc.  

I suppose they will say that water in the river will spur more economic development and increase the quality of life/attractiveness of our city more than those other things.  I have serious doubts about that and think those other things could spur more economic development and more quality of life/attractiveness, and possibly for less.

I would love to do both, but I don't think we can.  If we did one now then the other say in 20 years, ( I know it's just as frustrating for those who want water in the river yesterday, and for those of us who want the zoning changed, etc. yesterday to think of having to wait another 20 years) but which would have been the better option to do first then second?  Which would deliver more over all growth, tax revenue and desirability over that time?  Think about it.

[AquaMan]

I can only speak to the transit/trolleys part of your post. The development of the river, at least the two principal elements of the casino and Gathering Place, would likely justify busses or trolleys running to those areas from downtown and the other entertainment districts.

The weak spot for me is that this development isn't, or hasn't been, quantifiable for return and exposure to liability. Downtown was and has been an economic boon for the city based on tax revenues, increase in property values and livability. We didn't do something out of our reach.

The real costs of "water in the river" are yet to be fleshed out both ecological and economical. For instance, dredging isn't included. Then of course, the fact that no attention is paid to actually doing anything on the river other than the crewing.

I would support fixing or improving the current dam and making provision for dredging and water activities like a white water element and ferry service. We don't need county support for that type of infrastructure improvement, it complements the Gathering Place and doesn't enable the constant drain of money to another country via gambling.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I suppose they will say that water in the river will spur more economic development and increase the quality of life/attractiveness of our city more than those other things.  I have serious doubts about that and think those other things could spur more economic development and more quality of life/attractiveness, and possibly for less.

That is exactly what is said.  It is a lie.  And has been proven wrong - just look around the river above the Zink dam area.  Small, steady things with NO major "home run" development.  There really are limited spaces unless the city gets the refineries out and cleans up that mess (ain't gonna happen).  Or takes out one of the nicer remaining 'wild' spaces in town (Turkey mountain).  Or gets rid of some industry on the West Bank.  What specifics (which I still haven't heard from ANY of the dam fans) is gonna replace what economic activity is already present around the river north of Jenks??  Let's quit fixating on trying to be another Austin or OKC with the river thing and use some imagination to play to our strengths.  Whatever they may be....   but it is NOT the river as "Jewel of the Prairie"!!  (Get the 'Jewel of the Nile' reference?)

Where can this development/growth happen?   (71st to 81st, west side of river?)

What kind of development can it be that will IMPROVE all aspects of economic activity over what is currently being done in those spaces?

Why do we never see specifics mentioned - it's all about the "glittering generalities" of how great it will be when we just " <fill in the latest fad blank> ".



At the other end of the river, Riverwalk Crossing - massive fail!  And NOT because there wasn't any water in the river....much of the time Keystone has put water in the river.  This was "growth for growth's sake".  And people got over that "fad" in just a couple of years!

The aquarium - huge success, at least judging by the crowds I see in the parking lot at the times (random days and times) I get to drive by there!

[SXSW]

The river trails are a source of pride for Tulsa.  They are some of the best in the country, and getting better.  Gathering Place has the potential to be one of the top river parks in our region.  The missing ingredient for this huge asset has been the actual river, which when full is really pretty beautiful since it's so wide and still has plenty of trees and vegetation along the banks.  Yes even with the industry on the West Bank.  If we can make it so that there is a constant level of river it enhances our asset even more. 

Why not make the dams attractions in and of themselves?  Have stacked stones on the downstream side so that instead of a dangerous hydraulic on the other side there is a series of cascades that kayakers could ply.  Get creative with it.

[Conan71]

I've seen a lot of beautiful sunsets from the mountains to the oceans and I can honestly say one of the most beautiful ever was sitting in a rowing shell on Zink Lake.  I'd like for more people to be able to experience that, regardless of the craft they are in or just on the bank.

[RecycleMichael]

At the other end of the river, Riverwalk Crossing - massive fail!  And NOT because there wasn't any water in the river....much of the time Keystone has put water in the river.  This was "growth for growth's sake".  And people got over that "fad" in just a couple of years!

It was more than that that doomed it. It was that you weren't really on the river. You are kinda high above it on a bank covered in vegetation. They just built sidewalks and didn't stabilize the edge and erosion makes it a little dangerous. Someone needs to spend real money making a large deck toward the water.

Riverwalk name implies a walk while experiencing the river. That is what makes the east bank better. It is fixable and could be done by the new owners.

[Conan71]

It was more than that that doomed it. It was that you weren't really on the river. You are kinda high above it on a bank covered in vegetation. They just built sidewalks and didn't stabilize the edge and erosion makes it a little dangerous. Someone needs to spend real money making a large deck toward the water.

Riverwalk name implies a walk while experiencing the river. That is what makes the east bank better. It is fixable and could be done by the new owners.

Go there Thurs-Saturday night and Los Cabos packs them in.  I personally don't get the attraction as their food is nothing crave able.

[Hoss]

Go there Thurs-Saturday night and Los Cabos packs them in.  I personally don't get the attraction as their food is nothing crave able.

Never understood it either.  The one in BA is quite mediocre.  If I want pretty good Mexican food, I'm going to El Rio Verde.

[Conan71]

Never understood it either.  The one in BA is quite mediocre.  If I want pretty good Mexican food, I'm going to El Rio Verde.

Good pick.  The latest hole-in-the-wall-barely-speak-English place MC and I have been frequenting is in a little mercado (It's Tienda something, can't think of the second word in the name at the moment) across the street from Conrow's on 21st.  Tacos Don Francisco next door to Conrow's is really good as well.  We suspect Don Francisco's is probably a front for a gambling operation, there's never anyone in there but the food is really good, somehow that has stayed open for 3-4 years.

Either place would be a quick lunch jaunt from your office.

[Hoss]

Good pick.  The latest hole-in-the-wall-barely-speak-English place MC and I have been frequenting is in a little mercado (It's Tienda something, can't think of the second word in the name at the moment) across the street from Conrow's on 21st.  Tacos Don Francisco next door to Conrow's is really good as well.  We suspect Don Francisco's is probably a front for a gambling operation, there's never anyone in there but the food is really good, somehow that has stayed open for 3-4 years.

Either place would be a quick lunch jaunt from your office.

Yeah, I was thinking that as well.  Not quite sure how these places missed my radar.  I still have yet to try the place at 11th/Mingo that many I know rave about.  I think it's called El Gallo Loco.

[Conan71]

Yeah, I was thinking that as well.  Not quite sure how these places missed my radar.  I still have yet to try the place at 11th/Mingo that many I know rave about.  I think it's called El Gallo Loco.

If that's the one I'm thinking of on Mingo, it's worth the visit.

[Hoss]

If that's the one I'm thinking of on Mingo, it's worth the visit.

In the strip center where the Git N Go used be (northwest corner 11th/Mingo)?

[Conan71]

In the strip center where the Git N Go used be (northwest corner 11th/Mingo)?

That's the one.   Great little dive.