REI

[BKDotCom]

Mostly really expensive items only hardcore camping/outdoor enthusiasts would need (Many specialized lightweight items for long hiking trips).

Like Backwoods (in the Farm shopping center).  Only bigger.
Everyone needs hybrid composite aluminum alloy tent stakes.
Joking aside,   father's day is coming up and I wouldn't be disappointed with anything from backwoods.

[DowntownDan]

I agree about Elwoods, but I wish they had better food and drink options. It would be neat if they could make it a bit more of a beer-garden. They have to some extent added on to make it more of an outdoor patio area with permanent stage and roped off area.

Parking probably hurts them too, especially being next to the Blue Rose Cafe. Tulsans don't want to park a block away and walk. Plus there's no convenient spot to walk over Riverside with a cross walk. Maybe they should consider adding a pedestrian stoplight and crosswalk there at W 19th St.

They added a ton of parking on Riverside to the north.  I think people are willing to walk a few feet on a trail to get to a cool outdoor eating/drinking establishment.  I didn't know they stopped serving food.  Since they have common ownership, I think it would compliment Blue Rose well to tear down the current shack and replace it with a slightly larger and nicer building with a limited kitchen and cater to trail users like Katy Trail Ice House.

[cannon_fodder]

Speaking with the owner of River's Edge, they were told the building was no longer fit for food service and were essentially shut down. Then Blue Rose took over, got an exclusive lease for food service in the area, had the River's Edge building thrown in for good measure, and used it to serve food for the first few years. Sometimes, you could even get Blue Rose to "deliver" food down the Elwoods (fka River's Edge).

Cycling yesterday, we stopped at Elwoods and were told this season they only serve chips (and drinks).  No idea if it is a business decision, permit thing, or a misinformed employee.

But the REI plan is much closer to a Walmart than it is to Blue Rose or River's Edge OR Icehouse in Dallas.

[Tulsasaurus Rex]

I will ask - are people really against developing this land, as in we  need to preserve park land or is it that people just want to see a smarter development (mixed-use non big box strip center style)? From what I see of the people who filed the lawsuit is that they don't want parkland developed period. To me, I don't mind if we develop parkland in strategic places like this (vast amount of this park is under utilized), but it needs to be high quality development - not like what is proposed.

I think the public opposition to this project has, sadly, become all about saving parkland at all costs, when, in reality, there are more nuanced positions out there. I'm not categorically against developing parkland (this spot or otherwise). Partially because, I think Tulsa is fortunate to have a lot of great parkland and losing Helmerich wouldn't make that big a difference in our park inventory.

But also because, and more importantly, I think development in all of our parks would be great, as long as its done tastefully. The consensus here seems to be that more Elwoods, more things like the Ice House, would be a good thing. That kind of stuff actually draws people out to experience the parks more.  I'd like to see quite a bit of that up and down Riverparks and elsewhere.

The problem with this REI proposal is that's not at all tasteful. So I'm happy to see its certainty waning. I'm afraid, though, that the lesson learned by the townsfolk, city hall, and developers will be "Parks good. Any businesses in parks bad!" And we've shot ourselves in the foot and lost out on opportunities for cool, new stuff in the future.

[DowntownDan]

I'm for development that complements the park land.  "Come enjoy a day at the park and stop by the REI for some outdoor stuff and have a bite to eat and a beer on the patio cafe, and listen to some live music."  This development is what you can build anywhere in town.  It doesn't complement the park it replaces it.  I don't get why it's so controversial to say a park development should acknowledge that its part of a park. 

[AquaMan]

Blue Rose and Elwoods are nice in theory. In reality, they tend to suck. I get nervous when people use them as examples of good development on the river. Too many cars in too few spaces. People park on the grass when it fills up. The restaurant itself spoils what used to be a beautiful sunset view, instead its now employee parking, storage buildings, and refrigerated buildings. Always good to see the employees smoking out there too. The clientele, or visitors to the area are downright scary and some hostile. At the least quite unfriendly. The yoga classes are cool but don't attempt to talk or make eye contact with them. I have biked, ran, partied there for some 30 years. A few weeks ago my sons returned and went biking and riding their old paths. Even they said they would never return.

If you hadn't seen the area before this stellar development you would never know how badly it has evolved. If this is what they have in mind for development I am sorry I voted for it.

[dbacksfan 2.0]

I thought that aside from the aesthetics of the development, the other opposition was in the way the sale of the property was being handled. Wasn't there a large amount of complaining that the city was selling the land at far below the actual value of the land?

[Tulsasaurus Rex]

I thought that aside from the aesthetics of the development, the other opposition was in the way the sale of the property was being handled. Wasn't there a large amount of complaining that the city was selling the land at far below the actual value of the land?

You're right. That's true.

[TulsaGoldenHurriCAN]

Blue Rose and Elwoods are nice in theory. In reality, they tend to suck. I get nervous when people use them as examples of good development on the river. Too many cars in too few spaces. People park on the grass when it fills up. The restaurant itself spoils what used to be a beautiful sunset view, instead its now employee parking, storage buildings, and refrigerated buildings. Always good to see the employees smoking out there too. The clientele, or visitors to the area are downright scary and some hostile. At the least quite unfriendly. The yoga classes are cool but don't attempt to talk or make eye contact with them. I have biked, ran, partied there for some 30 years. A few weeks ago my sons returned and went biking and riding their old paths. Even they said they would never return.

If you hadn't seen the area before this stellar development you would never know how badly it has evolved. If this is what they have in mind for development I am sorry I voted for it.

I agree that a lot of that south side of Blue Rose is unsightly. Also the food and service there is subpar. The actual building design and patio are overlooking the Arkansas River are really well done.

As far back as I remember, this area has been a gathering place for strange and homeless people. Maybe there are more now than in the past but that could be due to most of the park south of there being closed. There was a big group of hippies the last time I was there. They weren't scary and it was kind of cool to see them taking advantage of the nice day at the park, setting up hammocks and playing games. I chatted with them and apparently they do that quite often. I could see some old person thinking they were scary because they are different. Occasionally a homeless person will talk to me but nothing worse than anywhere else downtown. About 12 years ago, a group of homeless men threw a beer can at me right at the overlook area and to me, that era was the worst that area ever was in terms of looking shady and having shady characters around all the time. I haven't experienced anything bad recently.

[rebound]

I agree that a lot of that south side of Blue Rose is unsightly. Also the food and service there is subpar. The actual building design and patio are overlooking the Arkansas River are really well done.

As far back as I remember, this area has been a gathering place for strange and homeless people. Maybe there are more now than in the past but that could be due to most of the park south of there being closed. There was a big group of hippies the last time I was there. They weren't scary and it was kind of cool to see them taking advantage of the nice day at the park, setting up hammocks and playing games. I chatted with them and apparently they do that quite often. I could see some old person thinking they were scary because they are different. Occasionally a homeless person will talk to me but nothing worse than anywhere else downtown. About 12 years ago, a group of homeless men threw a beer can at me right at the overlook area and to me, that era was the worst that area ever was in terms of looking shady and having shady characters around all the time. I haven't experienced anything bad recently.

I also agree on the South End of Blue Rose.  Seems they could do something to clean that up or put in some trees or something.  But overall, they must be doing something right because (to paraphrase Yogi Berra) "I never go there because it's too crowded".  Specifically, I want to go sit on the deck and eat a burger and watch the sun go down over the river, and so do a lot of other people, apparently.  I would like to see Elwood's up their game, but understand what it is and why (to a certain degree) it is what it is.

And as for the trail and parks in the area, yes, there are always homeless in that particular area, especially from the Blue Rose on North.  But I ride there all the time, and my wife rides (alone) multiple times a week on that trail, and neither of us has ever had a bad experience with anyone.

[AquaMan]

Thanks for the old slam. My son's are in their early twenties to early thirties. We have been going there since they were toddlers. They weren't scared, they just didn't like the look and feel. They are big city boys.

Scary was the wrong word. Maybe undisciplined? Self absorbed? Disrespectful?

The homeless never bother me. They always smile and nod if they are conscious. The hippies may have talked to you but they were rude to me. And I was a real hippie back in the day. They are what we called "pseudos".  They block the running path which is sometimes entertaining but not when I have to break stride in the middle of the run. I stopped to chat about one of their nice looking (unleashed) dogs and was ignored. Oh well.

And although the Rose building is itself a fine building and well situated, its views are for paying customers. The rest of us get to see parking and storage. The old Rivers Edge allowed everyone the view. BTW, I've never seen the green area east of the parking lot used for cars until recently. Most notably when the Yoga folks are there. Really tacky.

[cannon_fodder]

Even they said they would never return.

Really?

I have ridden those trails for 13 years. I loved the River's Edge and have hung out with the owners before it closed and after. But the area now occupied by Blue Rose was an overgrown drop off with wet goose poop covered sand. It was so underutilized I often took my dog off-leash to fetch/swim in the area (specifically the footprint of Blue Rose). And yes, there was plenty of parking - because there were less people there! Here is the area in 2007:
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1341594,-95.9913004,3a,75y,231.46h,85.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sap_X-RUba-u4Vocw3OzNUQ!2e0!7i3328!8i1664

From River's Edge the view wasn't terribly different. The sun sets to the west, not the south. The trees blocked the view of the "21st St." bridge almost as well as the new building does. And the beach area is still there - if one cared to climb down to see it (the view there certainly is changed).

The trail is basically unaffected. You lose maybe 3-4 seconds of view as you pedal by... then everything is back as it was.

I'm not arguing the Blue Rose is the greatest restaurant ever. Or that it is the perfect example of everything we want along the river. But as far as development goes in this city, they did a good job. It doesn't occupy much park land. It is a unique design. Has a good vibe. It embraces the river. It doesn't interfere with the trails. And it compliments the area (I often stop for a snack/drink after a ride, just did on Sunday).

There are ~26 miles of river trails, if this 300 feet ruins it for your son, then it is merely the change and he wouldn't like it if anything changed at all.

(on a side note: the trails are horribly mangled at the moment. Closed from ~21st to 36th including the crossing. Single land from 51st to 56th. Closed at Little Joe Creek. Riverwest was recently closed for a couple of weeks.  Sheesh! No matter what goes in along the river... KEEP THE TRAIL OPEN! That should be a priority!)

[AquaMan]

Really. We live in different worlds. At least we can agree the sun sets in the west. Which is west of both Elwoods and Rose.

[TulsaGoldenHurriCAN]

Thanks for the old slam. My son's are in their early twenties to early thirties. We have been going there since they were toddlers. They weren't scared, they just didn't like the look and feel. They are big city boys.

I wasn't calling them old! But was more referring to the old grumpy attitude one might have towards the young wimper snappers who frequent that area. Tally hoe! Got my knickers in a wad!

Scary was the wrong word. Maybe undisciplined? Self absorbed? Disrespectful?

The homeless never bother me. They always smile and nod if they are conscious. The hippies may have talked to you but they were rude to me. And I was a real hippie back in the day. They are what we called "pseudos".  They block the running path which is sometimes entertaining but not when I have to break stride in the middle of the run. I stopped to chat about one of their nice looking (unleashed) dogs and was ignored. Oh well.

Gotcha.. So it was the hippies! They by default hate all the elderly and yuppies unless you have a righteous beard.

I understand about the pseudo hippies. No TRUE Scotsman!

Just kidding about all of this, I'm just giving you a hard time!

[Conan71]

I think the public opposition to this project has, sadly, become all about saving parkland at all costs, when, in reality, there are more nuanced positions out there. I'm not categorically against developing parkland (this spot or otherwise). Partially because, I think Tulsa is fortunate to have a lot of great parkland and losing Helmerich wouldn't make that big a difference in our park inventory.

But also because, and more importantly, I think development in all of our parks would be great, as long as its done tastefully. The consensus here seems to be that more Elwoods, more things like the Ice House, would be a good thing. That kind of stuff actually draws people out to experience the parks more.  I'd like to see quite a bit of that up and down Riverparks and elsewhere.

The problem with this REI proposal is that's not at all tasteful. So I'm happy to see its certainty waning. I'm afraid, though, that the lesson learned by the townsfolk, city hall, and developers will be "Parks good. Any businesses in parks bad!" And we've shot ourselves in the foot and lost out on opportunities for cool, new stuff in the future.

I think what precipitated the awareness of just how tortured this transaction is was the shitty design and ground utilization when it got rolled out.  Had the design been something which really embraced the river, I do believe this project would have never risen to the level of protest that it has.  In fact, it might have happened with relatively little fanfare.  There's something for most everyone to dislike about it whether it is the bad design, the undervalued sale, or simply not following the proper legal process.

Some people have pursued the illegal transaction angle and/or undervalued sale angle to try and combat the terrible design and prevent the transaction from happening.

Terry Young, Herb Beatty, Jeff Immel, et. al. are primarily concerned with the fact this park was placed into a public trust specifically to prevent it from being developed commercially.  Knowing Walt Helmerich's affinity for parks and park land and the work he put into securing this property, there is little doubt the namesake of this park would agree this was not the intended purpose of this land...ever.  His widow has even echoed that sentiment.

That said, there was to have been much more to this park, the intention was never for this to be a sand lot and briar patch which is basically all it has ever amounted to.  There were always bigger priorities in the budget and no one stepped up with a private fund drive to improve the amenities in the park.  But that, in itself, did not allow the TPFA in concert with the mayor's economic development director, to try and develop the land for commercial purposes.

As a secondary issue to this group:  In order for the TPFA to legally sell or otherwise dispose of the property required a declaration from the city council that the land was surplus and was being abandoned from its purpose as a park.  TPFA did not have this granted by the council prior to entering into an agreement with the developer.

It probably would have been a good idea to have had that declaration from the council before an RFP was let out on the land.  The RFP could have also been better promoted so that this didn't take on the appearance of a backroom deal between an out of state developer and a member of the mayor's staff who just so happens to be connected to the real estate business.

What the city has is a bad image problem on its hands.  Its process for this did not follow the law, it was less than transparent, and the development does not harmonize well with its surroundings.

Instead of realizing and owning up to their errors, this administration has a bad problem with blaming "tree-huggers and naysayers" for Tulsa becoming unfriendly to developers.  In reality, our zoning code and approach to developing on properties like this needs to show some self-esteem and respect for the surroundings instead of begging people to plop down layup concrete dreck.