A Critical Look at the Proposed Arkansas River Infrastructure Development

[cannon_fodder]

I heard that story, it raised ore questions than answers. For instance:

What areas do they intend to develop? I have gotten out a map and tried to mark what can be developed, what is parkland, and was is unlikely to be developed (i.e., next to the "turd plant").  Most of the land is parkland, already occupied, Indian land, or refinery land. I'd love to see a comparison of "improved acre" per dollars.

What does "River Parks" zoning mean? Does it mean "this area is park land until we pave over it?"

I have grave doubts about the entire project. Overlall (best investment?), the sales line that it will spur investment, and, frankly, I think it is a development plan to trade parkland for more crappy developments.  Now: we need water in the river to encourage development of under utilized land. Then: We put hundreds f millions into the river, we need to open up more land to develop.

[TMS]

...Why don't they try to get private investment/match from those who will benefit the most like the Casino/Riverwalk in Jenks? If they will see revenue increase from it, they should pay for it.

Absolutely.

[sgrizzle]

Here are a few development areas for Tulsa along the river.

[TeeDub]

You plan includes bulldozing Westport?

Razing current parkland?

Great plan.

[sgrizzle]

You plan includes bulldozing Westport?

Razing current parkland?

Great plan.

Nothing I marked is current parkland other than where REI is going and the soccer fields which I believe are loaned land anyway.

And yes, Westport can go.

[AquaMan]

Inaccessibility. And remember anything is expendable in the name of development for increased tax base. Even when dubious in accomplishing such.

[TeeDub]

Nothing I marked is current parkland other than where REI is going and the soccer fields which I believe are loaned land anyway.

And yes, Westport can go.

Isn't that park land just South of 21st along the river?   

And around 41st...  All those soccer fields?

[carltonplace]

Here are a few development areas for Tulsa along the river.

So really the development area is 71st to 81st on the West bank between the river and the train tracks.
The Airport is south of 81st St and not too sure how that affects development there.

Everything east of 31st is already in an impound area with "water in the river". 

At 41st ST you would also need infrastructure, accessibility and flood mitigation (not that these are gating issues, but they do make it less attractive).

[TeeDub]

At 41st ST you would also need infrastructure, accessibility and flood mitigation (not that these are gating issues, but they do make it less attractive).

The other problems with 41st are that you drive through an industrial area to get there, plus on favorable wind days, you get the wonderful smells from either the refinery, or the southside wastewater treatment facility.

[cannon_fodder]

Thanks Scott. The map serves well to prove the point that arguing "development" is simply a losing argument for buiilding the dams. Of the space you listed, probably 25 acres is actually a viable addition to develop-able land as a result of the dams.

1. Westport is already developed. It is already in a stretch of the river with water. Why would adding water at 101st make Westport more desirable for redevelopment? I agree that a neater Zink dam might help, but I don't think it pushes it over the edge to make it worth demolition ~$35million worth of an ongoing business (assessed value ~$25mil + a conservative 10mil value as a going concern, then whatever you want to build on top of that).

2. Same logic applies to the concrete plant just south of Riverparks West. There is already water in the river there. Why would a new dam at 101st make that space more desirable for development?  I hope that space will be developed, but the company is apparently not wiling to give it away, why would that change because of dams (more likely to change because of the Gathering).

3. The space just South of 21st along the river is pure parkland. Green space, trails, sitting areas, a skate park, restrooms and a parking lot/access point. ~300 yards off the river for a portion of it is a City service center with a gas station, ONG filing station, etc. But it isn't within site of the river. A large part of the green space is bordered by the refinery. Outside of the area taken up by the parking lot and the skate park, there isn't accessible land there that even views the river.

4. The area that would straddle 41st street is mostly owned by River Parks Authority. Those soccer field are owned by River Parks.  So the proposal to develop them would be to strip away park land.

But that isn't the biggest hurdle. Both AEP and particularly the refineries have fought development in that area for decades. I'm fairly confident that's how the parks were created in the first place. It is very unlikely that the area would be developed.

Ignoring, of course, the fact that the area is behind a levy and can't see the river anyway.

5. I refuse to count the REI space. It is being developed even though there is no plan for dams to be built. So what incentive is that to build dams? Plus, its crap development that has nothing to do with the river. You can put your back up against a dry riverbed as well as you can a full one. Irrelevant. Also, giving up parkland for development isn't an argument to fill the river... its an argument against it.

6. The track just south of 71st is owned by the City of Tulsa. Other than some access issues that would need to be addressed, that 25 acres and probably the 20 to the West of it could be developed if we did some serious environmental remediation. There are uncapped oil wells sitting around the site as well as the fact that it is currently used to dry out "biosolids" from the waste water treatment plant.  But it could be done if a developer was willing to spend ~$15mil into buying it and site work and the City was willing to move the biosolids facility, there is probably ~25 acres of space you could build on.

7. The tracks south of that is owned by the Airport Improvement Trust. It is the flight approach to the Jones Riverside Airport (busiest airport in Oklahoma). It will not be allowed to be densely developed or developed into residential.

- - -

So that's ~25 acres that can be built on. At $250mil for dams, that's $10mil an acre.

So arguing for "development" is a really lousy  argument.

[sgrizzle]

I filled in about 600-700 acres. You can't just hand-wave 90% of that away because you think it seems stupid.

1. I've heard more than once this place is not long for this world. While there is water there sometimes, the new dams are supposed to bring a longer and more regular water level.

2. See #1

3. The skate park is in for shape and the city land is a lot closer than your portray it to be. The actual Riverparks area is only about 10 yards across in some of that area.

4. The soccer complex, to the best of my knowledge, is owned by AEP. Most of that land is underused and worth almost nothing now, despite being about a mile off the highway and on the river. Had the 41st bridge been built, there would be development here now. Widening 41st would be easy and the industrial area would become commercial quickly. As for the levy, they could build a parking garage with restaurant/retail above and have killer views.

6. I didn't include the biosolids facility.

[Conan71]

Every now and then "Westport isn't long for this world" comes up.

Why is that?  The complex is still pretty well-maintained- at least from my trail view.  It's been about six years since I've been inside one of the units.  Generally speaking, it attracts med students for OSU med school and young adults.

Don't we want/need some sort of affordable, non-subsidized housing development along the river?  It seems totally counter-intuitive to demolish that complex.  If it was ratty and section 8, I might support the need for it to go.

The skate park area/former Old West Playground is most definitely on Clay Bird's short list of places to develop.  The question is, do the citizens of Tulsa want retail development along the river or keep it as green space.  I think that needs to be voted on rather than un-elected bureaucrats deciding what Tulsans want.

[TeeDub]

I filled in about 600-700 acres. You can't just hand-wave 90% of that away because you think it seems stupid.

1. Tearing down $22million is assessed property is a big gamble.   Granted the apartments are old, but that is a lot of investemtnto remove just for the hopes of more retail shopping.

2. There has been a communal hard on for moving the concrete plant for years.   Still no one has ponied up the money to make it happen.

3. That land is already owned by the City of Tulsa, "TULSA RIVERPARKS AUTHORITY" or "TULSA CO DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO 12".  

4. The soccer complex, per the Tulsa County Assessor's website, is owned by the River Parks Authority.

I guess that leaves us to just hand wave off 75% of it.

[Townsend]

I'm sure I'm being short sited but for the near future, the REI development decided my vote against anything "river".

[cannon_fodder]

I filled in about 600-700 acres. You can't just hand-wave 90% of that away because you think it seems stupid.

I didn't hand waive anything. I covered all the tracks by actually looking at property records. Everything I stated was accurate and you refuted none of it.   I tried to be brief, but I will restate and expand:

1. I've heard more than once this place is not long for this world. While there is water there sometimes, the new dams are supposed to bring a longer and more regular water level.

I canoe on that river. I cycle along the river. I hang out at River Parks West, Blue Rose, and at Elwoods. That stretch of river nearly always has water in it. I'm not sure I have ever seen that part of the river enter into "desert phase" like the southern part of the river does unless Zink is closed for maintenance (which has been a more frequent recent issue).

And that still doesn't cover the economic question. The property is worth tens of millions of dollars as it stands. It is well occupied and reasonably well maintained. The primary draw backs of Westport are the ghetto nearby, the (occasional in my view) refinery smell, and the location (good and bad IMHO). I have never heard anyone who lived at or considered living at Westport say "I would be happy to double my rent if there was another 6" of water in that river."

2. See #1

The concrete plant is even CLOSER to the dam. It always has water, barring some sort of intentional draining of Zink lake. It has been available for development, with water in the river, for decades.

3. The skate park is in for shape and the city land is a lot closer than your portray it to be. The actual Riverparks area is only about 10 yards across in some of that area.

The skate park and parking lot ARE within sight of the river and are within ~100 yards of it. The City land to the West of there is not. Hence, i stated "Outside of the area taken up by the parking lot and the skate park, there isn't accessible land there that even views the river." We certainly could give up the parking lot, access point, restrooms, and skate park for development (there is also some great land currently occupied by dead Roses near 21st and Peoria we could develop!), but the rest of the area is either not accessible or not within sight of the river.

Again, you can see this on the Sat maps in addition to actually being there a couple tie=mes per week. And again, giving up parkland for "development" is not something worth spending hundreds of millions of dollars on.

4. The soccer complex, to the best of my knowledge, is owned by AEP. Most of that land is underused and worth almost nothing now, despite being about a mile off the highway and on the river. Had the 41st bridge been built, there would be development here now. Widening 41st would be easy and the industrial area would become commercial quickly. As for the levy, they could build a parking garage with restaurant/retail above and have killer views.

The land is owned by River Parks. You are again advocating taking away park land and selling it (almost certainly below market value) for development after we spend hundreds of millions to improve it.

Ignoring that, the refinery does not want that land developed and would exert considerable influence to prevent that from happening. AEP does not want that land developed. Access to that site is poor and relies on a small road through an industrial complex, widening that road would not be easy given the location of many of those factories. If you managed to do that, you are surrounded by abandoned houses and, whatever the polite term is for really trashy properties; as well as heavy industry - including the aforementioned refinery. Ignoring all that, the only  draw to that land would be the location in proximity to the "now filled" river.

BUT - the river is behind a levy (sure, we could all build 4 story buildings with views from the roof, but I'm trying to discuss this in practical terms). Also, there is the small matter of the fact THAT THERE WILL NOT BE WATER IN THE RIVER AT THAT SPOT! The south dam only backs water up to 71st, and only to the east bank of 71st.

So that's another instance in which the area could have been developed for decades as it stands. The river at that location is not going to significantly be altered (if the Sand Springs dam were constructed, we would have a small flow at the location, but not "water in the river" like around Zink). Why would it suddenly be desirable (ignoring all the above issues).

6. I didn't include the biosolids facility.

The biosolids plant is part of the same tract of land bordering 71st St. that you did include. Furthermore, to get to the tract of land that you did highlight you would have to drive through the bio solids sites off of 71st St. (recall 71st is elevated at this location) or go up and around and under via the unimproved road (which is an interesting hike, fwiw).  Finally, it seems unlikely that high end condos would go in next to the piles of drying human feces (granted, I've never smelled a problem driving or riding by). So it seems more likely that the City would have to sell the entire tract.

AND, of course, I didn't address the fact that the plans don't call for "water in the river" at that location. At best, there will be a tail of the lake on the east bank of the river behind the big box development. It will be more water than is there now, but not a picturesque lake or anything of sort. It will remain a trickle of water just downstream from the turd plant.

But I granted that this area can potentially be developed.

-- - - - - -




So we could tear down existing successful development and count that as "new." We could develop a site that has sat as a concrete plant alongside a river full of water for 30 years. We could remove a parking lot and skate park in order to put development. We could pretend that we can develop soccer fields that no one has wanted developed for a generation, cant see the river, and won't have water in front of them. And yes, we could develop a small parcel of land near where there might be some water in the river.

Hell, lets ignore all that. Lets pretend all 600 acres is opened up for development and would bring spectacular new growth all along the river. After we spend money on infrastructure and the dams, we are in for more than $500,000 per acre. Even if we weren't trading existing development and park land for it... what's the expected ROI on that?

I'm all for public works projects. I'm for quality of life. I'm for redoing Zink Dam. But the overall plan to add water to Jenks and Creek land makes ZERO sense to me. I see nothing in it for me, for the City of Tulsa, or even for the region. The Creeks will have prettier views for their new quarter billion dollar casino and new shopping complex. Jenks will gain a handful of riverfront parcels... but they won't even gain much.

I don't get it at all.