REI

[Vision 2025]

Or, you could just eliminate 3/4 of the proposed surface parking, and you'll have lots of space left over for development.

Oh now you're bringing common sense into it, good luck with that.

[JoeMommaBlake]

This development was revealed to The Tulsa City Council a couple of months ago. Several of us expressed immediate concern with the development plan. They met with  us individually, so there wasn't necessarily continuity. Even Lakin, the biggest REI fan in Oklahoma, had some issues with their plan.

I think I had more issues than anyone. I was familiar with other REI stores and just didn't feel like this was anything close, especially to the one in Denver, which I think is really impressive. I'm also perfectly fine with imposing standards on a developer, especially in an area as important as this and especially when it's publicly held property in a public park.

I wanted more interface with the waterfront and the trail system, more green space, etc. I didn't like the pad on the corner or the 71st Street orientation. Basically, all of the things you guys probably don't like, I don't like them either.

There is no Council legislative action that can keep this from happening or require the developer to change anything. Trust me. I've asked.

The property is held by the TPFA or TIA or something like that. They empowered Clay Byrd to negotiate with REI on this property a long time ago. The Council wasn't aware of negotiations involving this piece of property until this was well down the road. That's pretty standard protocol. They don't want the Council to meddle when private negotiations are taking place, understandably.

Anyway, the property is already zoned for this. If the authority wants to sell it or long term lease it, they are empowered to do so without any interference from The Council. There will be some issue that comes to us regarding the underlying plan, but it's not regulatory. It will be approved. We're working to rezone the adjacent property to AG so that it has to come to The Council for consideration in the event of a PUD.

I met with the developers several times. We discussed alternative design plans and riverfront orientation. They were having none of it. I also worked to find ways the city could contribute to the property to help shrink the parking footprint. At that point, we were told it was too late and that they were moving ahead without a TIF. That's right. They rejected a tax increment financing that would have directed revenues generated by the project back on to the project for public amenities like parking, trail improvements, waterfront access, etc.

I don't like anything about how it has gone down, but there's nothing I can do right now.

I am working with INCOG, city planning and some local design professionals and a few other councilors on a task force to develop river corridor design standards that will apply to all developments after this one. We'll present that draft to the public in the coming months and will hope to have it as the first overlay district after we adopt the new zoning code. It's actually a really great thing as the overlays have been controversial (I love them, some in the development community do not). The desire to have this one on the river has inspired support for them from several of my colleagues, all but guaranteeing their inclusion in the zoning code update.

This is an example of one of those issues I'm glad to weigh in on and share information about. I've made myself available in the past, but am never asked for info by TulsaNow. Instead, I see all kinds of guessing and wondering about these things. I promise. I'm on your side and glad to provide info and it turns out my position as a Councilor grants me access to it. I hope you find this to be helpful and informative. I will remain at your service, but will continue to ask that I be asked for information prior to publicly conspiracy theorizing about the motives and intent of our city leaders. It makes TulsaNow look bad to the very people you hope to influence, especially when it's wrong.

Thanks,

B

[Red Arrow]

Or, you could just eliminate 3/4 of the proposed surface parking, and you'll have lots of space left over for development.

Put a maximum on the surface square feet.  If a developer wants more parking, (s)he has to go vertical.  It should be the cost of doing business in such lucrative spots.

[Red Arrow]

There is no Council legislative action that can keep this from happening or require the developer to change anything. Trust me. I've asked.

I met with the developers several times. We discussed alternative design plans and riverfront orientation. They were having none of it. I also worked to find ways the city could contribute to the property to help shrink the parking footprint. At that point, we were told it was too late and that they were moving ahead without a TIF. That's right. They rejected a tax increment financing that would have directed revenues generated by the project back on to the project for public amenities like parking, trail improvements, waterfront access, etc.

I don't like anything about how it has gone down, but there's nothing I can do right now.

We, as consumers, can just not buy there.  It's after the fact but it might get other developers' attention for future projects. 

[Conan71]

This development was revealed to The Tulsa City Council a couple of months ago. Several of us expressed immediate concern with the development plan. They met with  us individually, so there wasn't necessarily continuity. Even Lakin, the biggest REI fan in Oklahoma, had some issues with their plan.

I think I had more issues than anyone. I was familiar with other REI stores and just didn't feel like this was anything close, especially to the one in Denver, which I think is really impressive. I'm also perfectly fine with imposing standards on a developer, especially in an area as important as this and especially when it's publicly held property in a public park.

I wanted more interface with the waterfront and the trail system, more green space, etc. I didn't like the pad on the corner or the 71st Street orientation. Basically, all of the things you guys probably don't like, I don't like them either.

There is no Council legislative action that can keep this from happening or require the developer to change anything. Trust me. I've asked.

The property is held by the TPFA or TIA or something like that. They empowered Clay Byrd to negotiate with REI on this property a long time ago. The Council wasn't aware of negotiations involving this piece of property until this was well down the road. That's pretty standard protocol. They don't want the Council to meddle when private negotiations are taking place, understandably.

Anyway, the property is already zoned for this. If the authority wants to sell it or long term lease it, they are empowered to do so without any interference from The Council. There will be some issue that comes to us regarding the underlying plan, but it's not regulatory. It will be approved. We're working to rezone the adjacent property to AG so that it has to come to The Council for consideration in the event of a PUD.

I met with the developers several times. We discussed alternative design plans and riverfront orientation. They were having none of it. I also worked to find ways the city could contribute to the property to help shrink the parking footprint. At that point, we were told it was too late and that they were moving ahead without a TIF. That's right. They rejected a tax increment financing that would have directed revenues generated by the project back on to the project for public amenities like parking, trail improvements, waterfront access, etc.

I don't like anything about how it has gone down, but there's nothing I can do right now.

I am working with INCOG, city planning and some local design professionals and a few other councilors on a task force to develop river corridor design standards that will apply to all developments after this one. We'll present that draft to the public in the coming months and will hope to have it as the first overlay district after we adopt the new zoning code. It's actually a really great thing as the overlays have been controversial (I love them, some in the development community do not). The desire to have this one on the river has inspired support for them from several of my colleagues, all but guaranteeing their inclusion in the zoning code update.

This is an example of one of those issues I'm glad to weigh in on and share information about. I've made myself available in the past, but am never asked for info by TulsaNow. Instead, I see all kinds of guessing and wondering about these things. I promise. I'm on your side and glad to provide info and it turns out my position as a Councilor grants me access to it. I hope you find this to be helpful and informative. I will remain at your service, but will continue to ask that I be asked for information prior to publicly conspiracy theorizing about the motives and intent of our city leaders. It makes TulsaNow look bad to the very people you hope to influence, especially when it's wrong.

Thanks,

B

One can only hope the next mayor and their ED will have better respect for Tulsa's best assets and the best way to develop or preserve those assets.  The current admin seems pretty indiscriminate on how they go about trying to capture new sales tax sources.

[swake]

This development was revealed to The Tulsa City Council a couple of months ago. Several of us expressed immediate concern with the development plan. They met with  us individually, so there wasn't necessarily continuity. Even Lakin, the biggest REI fan in Oklahoma, had some issues with their plan.

I think I had more issues than anyone. I was familiar with other REI stores and just didn't feel like this was anything close, especially to the one in Denver, which I think is really impressive. I'm also perfectly fine with imposing standards on a developer, especially in an area as important as this and especially when it's publicly held property in a public park.

I wanted more interface with the waterfront and the trail system, more green space, etc. I didn't like the pad on the corner or the 71st Street orientation. Basically, all of the things you guys probably don't like, I don't like them either.

There is no Council legislative action that can keep this from happening or require the developer to change anything. Trust me. I've asked.

The property is held by the TPFA or TIA or something like that. They empowered Clay Byrd to negotiate with REI on this property a long time ago. The Council wasn't aware of negotiations involving this piece of property until this was well down the road. That's pretty standard protocol. They don't want the Council to meddle when private negotiations are taking place, understandably.

Anyway, the property is already zoned for this. If the authority wants to sell it or long term lease it, they are empowered to do so without any interference from The Council. There will be some issue that comes to us regarding the underlying plan, but it's not regulatory. It will be approved. We're working to rezone the adjacent property to AG so that it has to come to The Council for consideration in the event of a PUD.

I met with the developers several times. We discussed alternative design plans and riverfront orientation. They were having none of it. I also worked to find ways the city could contribute to the property to help shrink the parking footprint. At that point, we were told it was too late and that they were moving ahead without a TIF. That's right. They rejected a tax increment financing that would have directed revenues generated by the project back on to the project for public amenities like parking, trail improvements, waterfront access, etc.

I don't like anything about how it has gone down, but there's nothing I can do right now.

I am working with INCOG, city planning and some local design professionals and a few other councilors on a task force to develop river corridor design standards that will apply to all developments after this one. We'll present that draft to the public in the coming months and will hope to have it as the first overlay district after we adopt the new zoning code. It's actually a really great thing as the overlays have been controversial (I love them, some in the development community do not). The desire to have this one on the river has inspired support for them from several of my colleagues, all but guaranteeing their inclusion in the zoning code update.

This is an example of one of those issues I'm glad to weigh in on and share information about. I've made myself available in the past, but am never asked for info by TulsaNow. Instead, I see all kinds of guessing and wondering about these things. I promise. I'm on your side and glad to provide info and it turns out my position as a Councilor grants me access to it. I hope you find this to be helpful and informative. I will remain at your service, but will continue to ask that I be asked for information prior to publicly conspiracy theorizing about the motives and intent of our city leaders. It makes TulsaNow look bad to the very people you hope to influence, especially when it's wrong.

Thanks,

B

That for the update. That is discouraging.

And seems like a bad sign for Turkey Mountain too.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Sounds like they are "building to the audience".  In Denver there is one set of expectations - it draws kudos from near and far.  In Tulsa and Oklahoma, what we will "settle" for is very different. 

Kind of like kids - they will often live up to, or down to, our expectations.  When ya look at what we require (settle for) versus other, more progressive areas of the country, how can there be any other end result?

[DTowner]

Sounds like they are "building to the audience".  In Denver there is one set of expectations - it draws kudos from near and far.  In Tulsa and Oklahoma, what we will "settle" for is very different. 

Kind of like kids - they will often live up to, or down to, our expectations.  When ya look at what we require (settle for) versus other, more progressive areas of the country, how can there be any other end result?

That's a great point.  We are obviously so desperate to have the same stores all the cool kids have in bigger cities that those stores know they can much put in the cheapest/blandest version and we will still be thrilled. 

I think this development will become an issue with a number of people in the upcoming "water in the river" vote.  If this is the kind of asphalt jungle/suburban development Tulsa will get on our limited waterfront property, then a $300 million investment isn't looking so great.  This REI would be perfectly at home at 71st & Memorial and Tulsan's could save a lot of money on dams.

[Ben]

I think this development will become an issue with a number of people in the upcoming "water in the river" vote.  If this is the kind of asphalt jungle/suburban development Tulsa will get on our limited waterfront property, then a $300 million investment isn't looking so great.  This REI would be perfectly at home at 71st & Memorial and Tulsan's could save a lot of money on dams.

This is very true. I was on the fence about the whole water in the river thing. I get that there are opportunities water brings, but I also appreciate having space that is just green and recreational. For me to support water in the river I have to be convinced that the development is going to enhance an existing asset. Right now I am thinking that water in the river means lots of parking lots. It's just one vote, but right now if it comes down to it I am voting no. If Blake can really get a standard for development set that has teeth and will be enforced Ill gladly reconsider.

[cynical]

This is an interesting discussion, but there are a few missing pieces. Is REI driving the design, or is a developer who will lease to REI making the decisions? The pictures looked like a small shopping center with REI as an anchor tenant, which was not what I expected months ago.

The Denver REI store looks exceptional. My REI experience has been with the Albuquerque store. Its original location close to downtown (next door to the natural history museum) was a fairly plain retail store with a moderate number of surface parking spaces. The Albuquerque store was relocated to a commercial area of NW Albuquerque dominated by a gigantic Costco with acres and acres of surface parking. The REI store again has a moderate number of surface parking spaces. In my experience parking there has never been a problem.

This seems so different than REI's usual pattern. Has anyone talked to REI? REI is a national retail chain cooperatively owned by its customers. It seems they would be sensitive to adverse publicity regardless of the local governmental climate.

Incidentally, REI is not just just a "big city" place. It appears to locate first where there is a local demand for its products, hence locations in Boise, ID, Albuquerque and Santa Fe, NM, Bozeman and Missoula, MT, and Bend OR, to mention a few. These places all have well-established backpacker/climber/cyclist communities. Then there are the large cities. I'm not sure how Tulsa fits in unless REI is planning an outreach to obese adults who love guns. Those folks already have Gander Mountain.

[rdj]

That's a great point.  We are obviously so desperate to have the same stores all the cool kids have in bigger cities that those stores know they can much put in the cheapest/blandest version and we will still be thrilled. 

I think this development will become an issue with a number of people in the upcoming "water in the river" vote.  If this is the kind of asphalt jungle/suburban development Tulsa will get on our limited waterfront property, then a $300 million investment isn't looking so great.  This REI would be perfectly at home at 71st & Memorial and Tulsan's could save a lot of money on dams.

BINGO!

[Townsend]

That for the update. That is discouraging.

Agreed.

What's the point of putting water in the river if this is what is to be built?

[AdamsHall]

Agreed.

What's the point of putting water in the river if this is what is to be built?

I am guessing other developments may go better.  In fact, I prefer to think that if this goes in poorly, then it will turn into the driving force to cause other developments to be more appropriately designed/implemented.

[swake]

I am guessing other developments may go better.  In fact, I prefer to think that if this goes in poorly, then it will turn into the driving force to cause other developments to be more appropriately designed/implemented.

That's what people said about King's Landing.

[SXSW]

Any way this could be made to apply to this development?

I am working with INCOG, city planning and some local design professionals and a few other councilors on a task force to develop river corridor design standards that will apply to all developments after this one. We'll present that draft to the public in the coming months and will hope to have it as the first overlay district after we adopt the new zoning code. It's actually a really great thing as the overlays have been controversial (I love them, some in the development community do not). The desire to have this one on the river has inspired support for them from several of my colleagues, all but guaranteeing their inclusion in the zoning code update.