Blake Ewing asking for "Game-Changing Ideas" to be submitted online

[BKDotCom]

Noooo....Colon.........!!!!!

What if it was anchored by REI ?

[Bamboo World]

A call for video presentations of projects vying for upward of $300 million in economic development funding went out at a Tulsa City Council meeting Thursday evening.
Councilor Blake Ewing said he wants project ideas within a broad framework of economic development goals to go viral.
"We're asking for ideas that are game-changing ideas," Ewing said. "That doesn't mean that the small, token things aren't wanted or won't be heard. The idea is that everyone gets to have their idea heard."
Councilor Anna America and Ewing have headed a task force that aims to pitch an economic development funding package that would replace half of Vision 2025's expiring 0.6 percent sales tax. The tax is scheduled to end next year.
The funding package is planned to run alongside a separate proposal for the other half of Vision 2025's expiring tax, led by Councilor G.T. Bynum, to add low-water dams along the Arkansas River. City officials hope both funding proposals will go to voters in November.
Much like the original Vision funding package, which paid for projects such as the BOK Arena and the Cox Business Center renovation, Ewing said he hopes project ideas that match the scale of those will come from the community.

This sounds like an interesting and excellent idea -- inviting the public to submit ideas that go online.

I most certainly will not vote for any of Councilor Bynum's dam proposals which include building new dams.  I think that's a waste of money and harmful to the ecosystem of the Arkansas River.  I might possibly consider voting for the repair of Zink Dam if it's presented as a stand-alone proposal, without being logrolled into other items.  But I live near the Zink Dam, and I'm satisfied with Zink Lake the way it is now, even with the dam's diminished capacity.

I definitely WILL consider voting for proposals gathered by Councilors America's and Ewing's task force.  Already, I see some intriguing ideas proposed on this forum.

But again, I'd prefer to see the individual proposals presented as separate questions on a lengthy ballot, if necessary.  If it becomes a logrolled grab-bag package, I almost certainly will vote against it, even if I'm in favor of most of the proposed projects. 

[Bamboo World]

My "Game Changing" idea would be to have rail transit in Tulsa and TOD (transit oriented development) zoning along with it.

I agree -- this type of development would be a game changer for Tulsa.  But even if fixed rail is determined to be too expensive for now, I'd like to see some rubber-tire trolleys or small shuttles that operate on a fixed route and schedule.

The routes need to be very simple and understandable.  One problem is that the streets downtown seem to be closed so often for special events.  The route proposed by swake is simple and understandable, but has a couple of issues, as I see it:
1) the frequent street closings on Elgin, and
2) the railroad crossing at Elgin.

A few years ago, Jack Crowley proposed fixed rail trolleys on both sides of Boulder from John Hope Franklin to either 18th or 21st -- I don't remember which.  But the idea was that the trolleys would travel north and south on Boulder at 15-minute intervals 24/7, or for very extensive hours, at least.  I thought that rubber-tire trolleys or shuttle buses could be operated on the same schedule for much less, but Crowley was insistent that the system operate on hard rails (so potential developers, merchants, and residents would see a long-term commitment and a substantial investment from the City).

As I understand it, the Boulder Avenue bridge was designed to handle future fixed tracks for a trolley system.

[Breadburner]

What if it was anchored by REI ?

Nooooo....Dot Calm.....!!!!

[Red Arrow]

A few years ago, Jack Crowley proposed fixed rail trolleys on both sides of Boulder from John Hope Franklin to either 18th or 21st -- I don't remember which.  But the idea was that the trolleys would travel north and south on Boulder at 15-minute intervals 24/7, or for very extensive hours, at least.  I thought that rubber-tire trolleys or shuttle buses could be operated on the same schedule for much less, but Crowley was insistent that the system operate on hard rails (so potential developers, merchants, and residents would see a long-term commitment and a substantial investment from the City).

Rubber tire bus routes can be changed with the stroke of a pen.  Fixed rail represents an investment that attracts other investment.  I agree with Artist and Crowley.

[Conan71]

No brainer per the guidelines that Blake and Anna set for this:

• Economic development and sales-tax generation
  Connectivity and transportation choices
  Health, education and safety
  There are other "accent" priorities for ideas that Ewing said the task force hopes to include, which are:
  Project ideas that will reverse negative trends or support positive trends
  Investment in unique and existing Tulsa assets
  Community beautification
  And any other idea that generates substantial public support

Purchase the 60 acres on the west side of Turkey Mountain, build a visitor or heritage center on land already cleared on the south end and provide more parking.

A study by TUWC earlier this spring has determined Turkey Mountain is a great economic driver for west Tulsa and the area east of the 71st St. bridge.

[Tulsasaurus Rex]

So this happened

https://youtu.be/DRA4df64_bs

[AdamsHall]

So this happened

https://youtu.be/DRA4df64_bs

Uhmmm ... hmmm ... not sure what to say about that.

[rebound]

So this happened

https://youtu.be/DRA4df64_bs

That is awesome.  A little out-of-the-box thinking to get people to pay attention. 

[PonderInc]

OK - I know this isn't "game changing" but can vision money go towards burying the dang utilities?  At least along arterial streets?

I've long realized that the power lines were ugly, but they are also the reason why we can't have dignified, tree-lined  streets.  Everywhere that PSO trims trees, they ultimately kill them... either by spreading disease or through poor trimming techniques that leave the trees stressed and weak and susceptible to insects, disease, ice storms, wind, drought, etc.  Then, they also limit the types of trees that can be planted under power lines.  Instead of stately oaks, we get crepe myrtles and Bradford pears.

In older areas where the power lines go down one side of the street but not the other, compare the two sides.  On one side, you've got power lines and crappy shrubs/grass for landscaping.  On the other side, you'll see really nice old trees that shade both the sidewalk and the street. 

Canopy trees improve the appearance of every development and parking lot along the way (by adding a touch of beauty that offsets bad architecture, signage, asphalt, etc). And in the summertime, they just make you feel better.  Trees that shade sidewalks make walking (and thus transit use) not just bearable, but actually pleasant.  They reduce heat islands by reducing surface temperatures by more than 25 degrees (compared to non-shaded areas).

There's plenty of evidence that trees increase property values.  There's even mounting evidence that trees make people healthier and happier.  There's a correlation between trees and improved health outcomes, longer lifespans, and lower crime.

So... can we bury the utilities and start reaping the benefits of shade trees?  In the meantime, we'd have fewer power outages, which represents a major economic benefit / ROI.  And we could also save money on tree trimming (aka butchering).

I don't know how this works, related to the city's contract with PSO, but I'm curious.  Does anyone know if this is possible?

[Conan71]

OK - I know this isn't "game changing" but can vision money go towards burying the dang utilities?  At least along arterial streets?

I've long realized that the power lines were ugly, but they are also the reason why we can't have dignified, tree-lined  streets.  Everywhere that PSO trims trees, they ultimately kill them... either by spreading disease or through poor trimming techniques that leave the trees stressed and weak and susceptible to insects, disease, ice storms, wind, drought, etc.  Then, they also limit the types of trees that can be planted under power lines.  Instead of stately oaks, we get crepe myrtles and Bradford pears.

In older areas where the power lines go down one side of the street but not the other, compare the two sides.  On one side, you've got power lines and crappy shrubs/grass for landscaping.  On the other side, you'll see really nice old trees that shade both the sidewalk and the street.  

Canopy trees improve the appearance of every development and parking lot along the way (by adding a touch of beauty that offsets bad architecture, signage, asphalt, etc). And in the summertime, they just make you feel better.  Trees that shade sidewalks make walking (and thus transit use) not just bearable, but actually pleasant.  They reduce heat islands by reducing surface temperatures by more than 25 degrees (compared to non-shaded areas).

There's plenty of evidence that trees increase property values.  There's even mounting evidence that trees make people healthier and happier.  There's a correlation between trees and improved health outcomes, longer lifespans, and lower crime.

So... can we bury the utilities and start reaping the benefits of shade trees?  In the meantime, we'd have fewer power outages, which represents a major economic benefit / ROI.  And we could also save money on tree trimming (aka butchering).

I don't know how this works, related to the city's contract with PSO, but I'm curious.  Does anyone know if this is possible?

The point is well-taken.  I've lived in a neighborhood that made underground utilities along with backyard transformers (Sungate) one of its hallmarks and it was notably more beautiful than the typical overhead power system.  But that's really more of an issue for the utility rather than the city.

[TeeDub]

I wish this idea the best of luck.    I just don't see PSO investing millions of dollars for aesthetics.

I just want to see what the city pays the consulting firm that contracts out the "study."

[Townsend]

OK - I know this isn't "game changing" but can vision money go towards burying the dang utilities?  At least along arterial streets?

I've long realized that the power lines were ugly, but they are also the reason why we can't have dignified, tree-lined  streets.  Everywhere that PSO trims trees, they ultimately kill them... either by spreading disease or through poor trimming techniques that leave the trees stressed and weak and susceptible to insects, disease, ice storms, wind, drought, etc.  Then, they also limit the types of trees that can be planted under power lines.  Instead of stately oaks, we get crepe myrtles and Bradford pears.

In older areas where the power lines go down one side of the street but not the other, compare the two sides.  On one side, you've got power lines and crappy shrubs/grass for landscaping.  On the other side, you'll see really nice old trees that shade both the sidewalk and the street. 

Canopy trees improve the appearance of every development and parking lot along the way (by adding a touch of beauty that offsets bad architecture, signage, asphalt, etc). And in the summertime, they just make you feel better.  Trees that shade sidewalks make walking (and thus transit use) not just bearable, but actually pleasant.  They reduce heat islands by reducing surface temperatures by more than 25 degrees (compared to non-shaded areas).

There's plenty of evidence that trees increase property values.  There's even mounting evidence that trees make people healthier and happier.  There's a correlation between trees and improved health outcomes, longer lifespans, and lower crime.

So... can we bury the utilities and start reaping the benefits of shade trees?  In the meantime, we'd have fewer power outages, which represents a major economic benefit / ROI.  And we could also save money on tree trimming (aka butchering).

I don't know how this works, related to the city's contract with PSO, but I'm curious.  Does anyone know if this is possible?

I'd be all for this.

[DowntownDan]

I'd be all for burying power lines in key areas.  Downtown, Cherry Street, Brookside, and some of the narrow arterial streets in midtown like you describe.  My recollection is that the cost is astronomical though.

[Conan71]

Recyclemichael's presentation for statues all over town was well worth attending the meeting this week.  Great job RM!