A Critical Look at the Proposed Arkansas River Infrastructure Development

[carltonplace]

Probably separate ballot issues
1. River
2. Public Safety
3. Everything else.

I hope its not set up like this. Most of the people that I talk to are leaning the same way as the majority on this forum.
They would support fixing the existing dam, they are not that excited about building new dams (and most people are surprised to learn that getting river water on them won't mutate them or end their life on the spot).
They don't see why the city can't fix it's own public safety funding problem by managing the police overtime problem
They see the effect of the first V2025 tax plan on downtown and they would support more projects that would drive actual development.

[johrasephoenix]

Whatever the final mechanism, Tulsa has to get water in the river if it is to compete with surrounding cities on quality of life.  It is the single most obvious thing as you enter Tulsa.  I've had out of town guests obviously repulsed by the gateway to our city being an empty sandpit. 

I am a huuuuuuuge supporter of all things downtown and near downtown.  That said, there are other things that make Tulsa great.  The river is far and away the most obvious one.  It is our greatest natural asset.

Austin isn't awesome because of the Colorado River, which in its natural state is a glorified creek.  But the Colorado River has energized the whole central city corridor.  OKC built a river through downtown (hell they built an entire district).  Cities across America are pouring money into activating their waterfronts - Chicago's Great Rivers project, Boston's Harborwalk, Seattle's Alaskan Way viaduct, Pittsburgh's RiverLife, Providence's Waterplace Park, the list goes on.  The waterfront, arguably only rivaled by the skyline, is how the city orients itself and a source of civic pride and identity.   

People here have such an incredible knee-jerk reaction against public investment.  It's painful, really.  The positive externalities of the first Vision package are incredibly obvious.  But the commenters on the TW world still rail against any continuation.  So depressing.

[carltonplace]

The price is just too high and we can do much more with this amount of money. We could even build our own river by uncapping Elm Creek for this amount of money.

[cannon_fodder]

Tulsa has to get water in the river if it is to compete with surrounding cities on quality of life. . .

Cities across America are pouring money into activating their waterfronts. . .

People here have such an incredible knee-jerk reaction against public investment. . .

Measures of quality of life include health, education opportunities, crime/public safety, recreation activity, cultural activity, income opportunities, and public amenities. Putting water in  the river won't increase health, education, help public safety, provide culture, or increase income. It will provide minimal recreational activities as it will not be a navigable waterway (the Zink dam proposal does include a kayak section). Nor is it considered a public amenity in most measures.

I love waterfronts. From Chicago, to NYC, to San Francisco. Or Dubuque (Iowa - on a river), or Racine (Wisconsin - on a lake), or Ft. Myers (Florida - on a river/ocean). They all used underutilized waterfront areas to add to their city. But all of those are exploiting natural waterfronts. The natural advantages the City was ignoring. OKCs "waterfront" is a moat, it is a contrived district - like it or not, it is not analogous to Tulsa's river.

Adding water to the river will make it prettier for about 5 more miles in Tulsa. The newest "proposal" (it is not a plan yet) has dams at 29th, 49th and 103rd. That would put water in the river where it current is, plus from 29th to 49th, and from ~75th to 103rd. As you drive into Tulsa on I-44, there will not be water in the river under any proposal - the presumed "gateway" you were talking about. And I've discussed the development options ad naseum.

I have an incredible knee jerk reaction in favor of public investment. I agree that quality of life is the avenue that Tulsa needs to compete on a regional and national stage. But I think $250-300 million could fund many more projects that would add much more to Tulsa's quality of life than making the river look pretty. With that same money we could:

1) Make Gilcrease a world class museum, with the same profile as Crystal Bridges (already has a better collection)  [$75mil with additional matching funds from TU)

2) Make Turkey Mountain into a world class mountain bike, BMW, and cycle-cross center (~$3mil)

3) Build a fantastic children's museum ($20mil) [GKFF offers another $10mil matching grant]

4) Implement all three bikeshare/trails proposals for Tulsa ($3mil)

5) Land the BMX national headquarters at Expo ($15mil)

6) Provide Funding for the Arts ($250k)

7) Build half of Michael Patton's famous statutes/or the Goddess of Oil ($2.2 mil)

And that's only $110mil or so. There is no shortage of projects we could fund. All of which likely have a better ROI than water in the river. We could do everything about and the Zink Dam and still have money left over.
https://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/vision/submitted-proposals.aspx

We could built a decent starter light rail. We could fund decent mass transit to start it off, and avoid laying rail right away if we wanted. Or build Blake's mass transit vision.

We could start a venture fund for Tulsa companies.

We could upgrade our schools.

We could fund our parks department and stop shutting down pools/community centers.

I'm a huge fan of funding public projects. Pooling our resources we can do amazing things that add value to our economy and differentiate our City. ROI isn't only measured in dollars and cents. But, unfortunately, we do have limited resources. I don't think investing that much money to make the Arkansas look like an eastern river is worth it.

[TheArtist]

Measures of quality of life include health, education opportunities, crime/public safety, recreation activity, cultural activity, income opportunities, and public amenities. Putting water in  the river won't increase health, education, help public safety, provide culture, or increase income. It will provide minimal recreational activities as it will not be a navigable waterway (the Zink dam proposal does include a kayak section). Nor is it considered a public amenity in most measures.

I love waterfronts. From Chicago, to NYC, to San Francisco. Or Dubuque (Iowa - on a river), or Racine (Wisconsin - on a lake), or Ft. Myers (Florida - on a river/ocean). They all used underutilized waterfront areas to add to their city. But all of those are exploiting natural waterfronts. The natural advantages the City was ignoring. OKCs "waterfront" is a moat, it is a contrived district - like it or not, it is not analogous to Tulsa's river.

Adding water to the river will make it prettier for about 5 more miles in Tulsa. The newest "proposal" (it is not a plan yet) has dams at 29th, 49th and 103rd. That would put water in the river where it current is, plus from 29th to 49th, and from ~75th to 103rd. As you drive into Tulsa on I-44, there will not be water in the river under any proposal - the presumed "gateway" you were talking about. And I've discussed the development options ad naseum.

I have an incredible knee jerk reaction in favor of public investment. I agree that quality of life is the avenue that Tulsa needs to compete on a regional and national stage. But I think $250-300 million could fund many more projects that would add much more to Tulsa's quality of life than making the river look pretty. With that same money we could:

1) Make Gilcrease a world class museum, with the same profile as Crystal Bridges (already has a better collection)  [$75mil with additional matching funds from TU)

2) Make Turkey Mountain into a world class mountain bike, BMW, and cycle-cross center (~$3mil)

3) Build a fantastic children's museum ($20mil) [GKFF offers another $10mil matching grant]

4) Implement all three bikeshare/trails proposals for Tulsa ($3mil)

5) Land the BMX national headquarters at Expo ($15mil)

6) Provide Funding for the Arts ($250k)

7) Build half of Michael Patton's famous statutes/or the Goddess of Oil ($2.2 mil)

And that's only $110mil or so. There is no shortage of projects we could fund. All of which likely have a better ROI than water in the river. We could do everything about and the Zink Dam and still have money left over.
https://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/vision/submitted-proposals.aspx

We could built a decent starter light rail. We could fund decent mass transit to start it off, and avoid laying rail right away if we wanted. Or build Blake's mass transit vision.

We could start a venture fund for Tulsa companies.

We could upgrade our schools.

We could fund our parks department and stop shutting down pools/community centers.

I'm a huge fan of funding public projects. Pooling our resources we can do amazing things that add value to our economy and differentiate our City. ROI isn't only measured in dollars and cents. But, unfortunately, we do have limited resources. I don't think investing that much money to make the Arkansas look like an eastern river is worth it.

Thanks for adding that, oh what is it?  I think your on the board or something if I recall correctly? Some museum or something...

[AquaMan]

It isn't knee jerk against public investment now, though it definitely was in the past. I don't hear the anti-tax crowd or see their "just vote no" signs all over Riverside. I am heartened by the comments I hear which are pretty close to what I espoused in the beginning of this thread and CF has so eloquently pursued. This is now a discussion of ROI, who we trust, the direction of our culture and the best choices for a new generation of taxation.

We are not a water community and we definitely don't have the personality of the cities mentioned. That explains why our river proposals have been so pedestrian and unimaginative. We do what we know and we know how to build concrete structures, biking paths, retail centers and parks.

Providence? IIRC that was the subject of much controversy and criminal taxpayer theft. It was the boondoggle of its decade. A perfect example of what one member of Tammany Hall in the twenties described as "good graft". Watch the bank ad on TV that describes local communities around Oklahoma and how they grew. It is well done. Tulsa is described as a residential developers paradise and a city filled with landscapes and lovely homes. True enough. Now contrast that with the description of the cities J-phoenix listed.

[Conan71]

Whatever the final mechanism, Tulsa has to get water in the river if it is to compete with surrounding cities on quality of life.  It is the single most obvious thing as you enter Tulsa.  I've had out of town guests obviously repulsed by the gateway to our city being an empty sandpit.  

I am a huuuuuuuge supporter of all things downtown and near downtown.  That said, there are other things that make Tulsa great.  The river is far and away the most obvious one.  It is our greatest natural asset.

Austin isn't awesome because of the Colorado River, which in its natural state is a glorified creek.  But the Colorado River has energized the whole central city corridor.  OKC built a river through downtown (hell they built an entire district).  Cities across America are pouring money into activating their waterfronts - Chicago's Great Rivers project, Boston's Harborwalk, Seattle's Alaskan Way viaduct, Pittsburgh's RiverLife, Providence's Waterplace Park, the list goes on.  The waterfront, arguably only rivaled by the skyline, is how the city orients itself and a source of civic pride and identity.  

People here have such an incredible knee-jerk reaction against public investment.  It's painful, really.  The positive externalities of the first Vision package are incredibly obvious.  But the commenters on the TW world still rail against any continuation.  So depressing.

Not to impugn your notion, but I think we hear the complaints of others which are more closely aligned to our own.

My friends seem to complain about the roads.  And not so coincidentally, that seems to be the most obvious deficiency to me.

We've beaten the topic of this for years on here.  The Arkansas River is a much wider scale than other projects you mentioned in other cities.  Uncovering Elm Creek from the Pearl to the river or figuring out a way to utilize Crow Creek from Brookside to the river as has been suggested in the past would actually be more in line with what other cities have done with their prominent stream features and would provide better grounds for economic growth.

Imagine what SoBo, Veteran's Park, East Village or other parts inside of the IDL would look like with a major stream feature right through the middle of it.  Or picture being able to walk or bike from Brookside to the river along the tree-lined Crow Creek corridor.

Personally, the idea of building up the Arkansas River with commercial development seems to fly the middle finger at one of the green spaces that makes Tulsa truly unique.  We barely dodged a bullet with Turkey Mountain, but I think Tulsans are starting to wake up and realize unique quality recreational space has a higher value than lay up slab and dryvit commercial development.

I have utilized the trails along the river as long as they have been here.  I've also utilized the river as a member of the rowing club.  More water in the river wouldn't make it any more aesthetically pleasing to me (other than fixing Zink Dam so there can be sufficient water level for water recreation).  I sort of like the varying ebb and flow during the seasons.  It's amazing what you can see in the water along the river during low flow times.

[carltonplace]

Excellent Post Conan

[rdj]

If this were the Ballot

1. River - NO
2. Public Safety - LIKELY NOT, BUT WITH A PLAN MAYBE
3. Everything else. - MUST HAVE A TRUE VISION TO EARN A YES

I heavily supported 2007 River Tax, campaigned nearly every night for weeks.  Still have a wristband to prove it.  BUT, the ship has sailed in my opinion.  The dollars spent on dams in the river don't raise the ROI watermark high enough to make the other needs happen from the general budget.  Time to focus on passing our peer cities rather than catching up to their late 90's civic projects.  I believe mass transit and public attraction placed within dense areas of development are what should be on ballot item number three.  I fear the river tax will sink all the projects.

[Bamboo World]

If this were the Ballot:

1. River - NO
2. Public Safety - LIKELY NOT
3. Everything Else  - MUST HAVE A TRUE VISION TO EARN A YES

The more I consider it, the more I think damming the river is a particularly bad and expensive decision. 

I've lived near Zink Lake since 1989, and I've enjoyed it.  But it wouldn't bother me if Zink Dam remained as it is now, or even if it were to be completely demolished and never re-built.  I like the ebb and flow of the river level, as Conan and many other Tulsans do. 

[johrasephoenix]

Valid points, all.  This forum is a great place to have these conversations.  I love how everyone is civil with well thought out arguments.

That said, I'll have to agree to disagree on the main point.  I definitely agree that commercial or even residential development along River Parks would be a disaster - that should remain green space.  But green space flowing next to a full river is x10 more iconic than green space next to a dry riverbed.

Done right, water in the river is revolutionary.  That's the kind of project a century later that is still paying dividends when we're all dead.  Everything else is great and important too, but the river is the big one.  

Lastly, most of the benefits of planning outside of downtown are localized to the host neighborhood.  But the river is a truly city-wide asset.  The poorest residents of Turley have just as valid a claim to the riverfront as the wealthiest families in Maple Ridge.  A place where everyone can go in the summer, sneak a beer in a koozie, and watch the sun go down with the skyline behind them.    

[AdamsHall]

Valid points, all.  This forum is a great place to have these conversations.  I love how everyone is civil with well thought out arguments.

That said, I'll have to agree to disagree on the main point.  I definitely agree that commercial or even residential development along River Parks would be a disaster - that should remain green space.  But green space flowing next to a full river is x10 more iconic than green space next to a dry riverbed.

Done right, water in the river is revolutionary.  That's the kind of project a century later that is still paying dividends when we're all dead.  Everything else is great and important too, but the river is the big one.  

Lastly, most of the benefits of planning outside of downtown are localized to the host neighborhood.  But the river is a truly city-wide asset.  The poorest residents of Turley have just as valid a claim to the riverfront as the wealthiest families in Maple Ridge.  A place where everyone can go in the summer, sneak a beer in a koozie, and watch the sun go down with the skyline behind them.    

Agree.  Well put.

[sgrizzle]

Of the three, I'm more wound up (not in the good way) about the public safety aspect. Likely this will be an ask for a tax that will continue forever to go towards Police/Fire which is a beast of a budget need that keeps growing. Spending $150M to make Tulsa's defining geographic feature look better? How about spending the same amount every 15 years or more indefinitely?

[Conan71]

Valid points, all.  This forum is a great place to have these conversations.  I love how everyone is civil with well thought out arguments.

That said, I'll have to agree to disagree on the main point.  I definitely agree that commercial or even residential development along River Parks would be a disaster - that should remain green space.  But green space flowing next to a full river is x10 more iconic than green space next to a dry riverbed.

Done right, water in the river is revolutionary.  That's the kind of project a century later that is still paying dividends when we're all dead.  Everything else is great and important too, but the river is the big one.  

Lastly, most of the benefits of planning outside of downtown are localized to the host neighborhood.  But the river is a truly city-wide asset.  The poorest residents of Turley have just as valid a claim to the riverfront as the wealthiest families in Maple Ridge.  A place where everyone can go in the summer, sneak a beer in a koozie, and watch the sun go down with the skyline behind them.    

In my haste to reply to your first post, I completely neglected the scale of Lady Bird Lake in Austin.  I competed in a regatta on the lake in 2009.  I have not been on it in six years, so my memory of the scale of it is a little foggy.  Looking at maps online, it appears to be about 5 miles from the dam to the western portion of it and the width looks to be roughly 1/3 to 1/4 mile.  Very much Arkansas River scale through Tulsa.

It is definitely a nice asset for Austin and, at least from what I can figure out, they have not built up all along its banks and most anything which is up to the banks is either recreation or entertainment-oriented.

Another from my rowing days is the "Little Arkansas" in the western part of downtown Wichita.  That is more along the scale of what an Elm Creek project would be for Tulsa.  I'm not aware of any major attempts to maintain water on the "big" Arkansas where it goes through Wichita as it has a prairie appearance at times as well.

Please, keep posting here, it's always good to hear different ideas in development.

[TeeDub]

Another from my rowing days is the "Little Arkansas" in the western part of downtown Wichita.  That is more along the scale of what an Elm Creek project would be for Tulsa.  I'm not aware of any major attempts to maintain water on the "big" Arkansas where it goes through Wichita as it has a prairie appearance at times as well.

If you google earth it, they have a fairly large dam on the big Arkansas downstream from the confluence with the little Arkansas.

Although it appears wither their one dam is bigger, or Wichita is flatter as it has apparently backed up the water approximately 2 miles.

Just out of curiosity....    Why did it only cost Wichita $12M to build its dam and the Tulsa dams cost 20 times that?