'Branson Landing'

[SXSW]

I could envision our west bank looking something like this someday, high density residential with a mix of retail at the base of the midrises facing the water and along a blvd. on the other side:

[bacjz00]

Hey Tim...

Can you kindly scale down your Disney park pic so we can read these posts without having to scroll to the right....thanks

[tim huntzinger]

[Hey Mod, salright to delete the Disney pics - do not know why they are tweaking screens look OK here]

[ttown_jeff]

Tim, thanks for keeping the light on the TIF issues.

SWSX,
That artist's rendering is cool. Lets see if I get it - So the Lexises drive right up into the buildings, the inhabitants go into the elevators, and up to their $400k flats and flip on Survivor and pop open a Brewski, never to be seen again until the next day?

Is there anywhere to get a head of lettuce, or a grape Nehi?

There's a Jane Jacobs name for this type of development - I can't think of it. - I think "Beautiful City" development is what she calls it. It mostly doesn't work very well, the way you have it, in a practical way. For starters, if you put 2000-3000 people in those midrises with no walkabale utilitarian type retail, how do you handle the massive traffic problems?  Riverside can't handle it. You need a good local grocery in your rendering and a light rail, buses, etc., OR you have to put a 12 lane freeway somewhere.  I don't see many alternatives.

Are the watercraft in your droring WaterTaxis?  Now there's an idea.

[SXSW]

Well maybe not towers EXACTLY like that, but something midrise.  I think it would almost be better for the potential businesses along the river to have a new blvd. (the much talked about Riverside West) going along the west bank, maybe as part of the levee.  Have a large promenade with sidewalks and landscaping butting up against the river and then the retail/restaurants on the other side of the road overlooking the river.  Since the road is already elevated on the levee the businesses would be elevated as well, and any of the residential space would be above said businesses.  That would then create space for covered parking below the businesses because of the levee.  The parking would be accessed by Jackson Ave. and the existing rail line (which could be commuter rail someday) would be by Jackson as well as it is now.

I just don't like the "Riverwalk" concept of having the businesses fronting the river and then having a blank wall along the main road.  The businesses would have better access if they were on a main road with on-street parallel parking overlooking the river because of its position on the levee.  All of the European cities with active riverfronts have this setup: promenade on both sides of the river, roads on both sides, retail/cafes fronting that road on each side.

[TheArtist]

My "dream" version of how river development would be on the west side near downtown would be something like the right side of this pic... guess the left side would be riverside drive[]






Like something you would see in the great river cities of europe.  Shops, cafes, businesses on the ground floor, living above, nice wide sidewalks, then a small street, then a sidewalk for walking, and biking with trees, lights and benches, then the river right there, not far away. So that when you are walking along the sidewalk by the shops and sitting at the cafe you are right near the river, you can see it, you are not seperated from it with parking, a park or large green space.  Other parts of the river can have the green space but have that old world urban development ON the riverfront near downtown. Ideally a square or plaza would open up in the middle of that area facing downtown with buildings around it and a fountain in the middle, to have a larger gathering space for festivals, art shows etc.

[SXSW]

That pic illustrates what I was thinking as well.  We already have the green space/trees/trails on one side of the river and it's a great series of parks.  The RiverParks is a Tulsa treasure.  The other side of the river should be more developed because lots of it is simply wasteland and the views of the river with the trees and park and skyline above are outstanding.  

The promenade we should try to emulate would be wide enough for walkers, bikers, and joggers and come up right to the river with a concrete wall going down to the water, as in the pic above.  Maybe some areas like the one on the west bank by the pedestrian bridge where steps lead down to the water.  Then your new Riverside West parkway provides the necessary access to the area, and then your various shops and restaurants with outdoor seating overlooking the river on the other side of the street.  Plenty of trees would shade the sidewalk on the west side of the road.

I would like to someday see a new pedestrian bridge built to replace the existing one, something tall and iconic.  And then a 41st Street bridge would provide better access from Midtown to the new River West parkway.  A new off ramp at I-44 would be necessary as well so the new blvd. could go from I-44 all the way along the river to SW Blvd./Hwy. 75.

And yes I agree some of the development should be ON the river.  I think a good area for that would be the cove by the festival park.  It could be a scaled-down version of Branson Landing with the shops and restaurants surrounding that cove with a boat marina in the center and maybe a larger amphitheatre?  That would be a great place for a marina because the inlet is already there.

[OurTulsa]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

My "dream" version of how river development would be on the west side near downtown would be something like the right side of this pic... guess the left side would be riverside drive[]






Like something you would see in the great river cities of europe.  Shops, cafes, businesses on the ground floor, living above, nice wide sidewalks, then a small street, then a sidewalk for walking, and biking with trees, lights and benches, then the river right there, not far away. So that when you are walking along the sidewalk by the shops and sitting at the cafe you are right near the river, you can see it, you are not seperated from it with parking, a park or large green space.  Other parts of the river can have the green space but have that old world urban development ON the riverfront near downtown. Ideally a square or plaza would open up in the middle of that area facing downtown with buildings around it and a fountain in the middle, to have a larger gathering space for festivals, art shows etc.

I would love to see part of our river develop like the Siene.  Very urban with walks wide enough to accommodate lazy strollers and people biking and running and great connections between the river and nearby districts and the rest of the City.  I live a block from the river near Riverview and would love for the row of apartment buildings (save the dalmation bldg.) to be replaced with 4-8 story multifunctional structures with interactive store fronts spilling out onto wide walks separating the city from Riverside Dr.  Lovely!  

BTW, is that McBirney Hotel in the foreground of your picture, Artist?  I'm telling you, if done right, the McBirney Hotel could be the start of a wonderful development trend for Tulsa on Riverside Dr.

[ky]

[8D] we dont need another Branson Landing too many projects going on right now!

[tim huntzinger]

I talked to someone from Branson and their sales tax is a whopping 9%.  Further, until the 'Landing' Branson had no big-box commercial conglomeration.  What else, comparing the bucolic pastoral setting of the Ozarks and its national-profile context with our homely riverbank downtown is ludicrous.

Why are these nominal conservatives pushing for a downtown retail development when all the growth is south?  What sense does it make to place this downtown when the Creek Turnpike, Creek Casino, and future Toll Bridge all point to better synergies down South?

Call them STAR bonds, or TIFFS, any public financing of this means more debt for the City.  Howell's proxies can spew anything they want about how minimal the public investment is, but a bail-out is a bail-out and a gimme is a gimme any way one slices it.

[PonderInc]

B/c anything you can do to encourage development in older, central parts of the city is actually more cost-effective long term.  (No new infrastructure costs, no further expansion of police/fire coveraage, no extra costs to maintain an ever-increasing road system.)

Anything that encourages development in existing, under-utilized areas provides long-term cost benefits.  Encouraging the city to grow outward is unsustainable long-term...b/c as the infrastructure ages, it will outstrip our ability to keep up with maintenance.

Also, why put money into areas where property taxes support the Union school district...instead of boosting areas that will help TPS.  And why encourage car-dependent development, when the future needs to be more walkable, bikeable, transit-oriented...just so we won't have to support the economies of such steller countries as Iran, Iraq, Argentina, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria...

[TheArtist]

^ Also we have to think of what kind of people we want to be able to attract as a city.

 The kind that want to have that city life?  Then downtown and mid-town are where we should place some attention.  

Those who want a liveable, walkable environment, where they can live, work, shop, dine within walking/biking distanc?.  Then again, downtown and mid-town are the obvious choices to try and have such a lifestyle available for those people, or they can easily choose to live in other cities where they can find that kind of environment.

Those who want to live in the suburban type areas like in South Tulsa?  Well we are not going to be able to attract that many more of those in the near future.  The space that remains within the city limits for new neighborhoods like that are becoming a bit scarce, unless you start more development north of downtown. Which would be fine with me.  Otherwise the growth we would be promoting is for the suburbs, thats their job, not ours. Let them do the work to attract their own people, and pay for roads,sidewalks, sewer, police, trash,parks, etc. etc. The mere fact that Tulsa and its amenities are near benefits them anyway.

As for the Branson Landing developers.  Lets wait and see what they present before we criticize it lol. Plus there may be other options to choose from by then.

[tim huntzinger]

What has happened is that their blatant attempt at political blackmail did not work.  Their stooge Howell is meddling once again in Tulsa's affairs.

A good faith effort does not require immediate action, right now, give us what we want or we take our marbles and leave.  A bad used car salesman uses that, but not serious developers.

The Mayor has more than a few things on the drawing board, and for Howell and his group to take this tact demonstrates their lack of good faith.

[sneezye]

I don't know all the details of what the Branson Landing people are proposing in Tulsa but I live right across Lake Taneycomo from the Landing and I have to be honest... the thing is ugly from this side. The cargo doors face the lake. There isn't a single shop facing the lake. So all you see while driving down Lakeshore (which runs down the oposite side of the lake from the Landing) are blank walls and cargo doors. As for the Landing being a hangout for the RV types, I'd say that's way off. On any given day, 90% of the people there are "high-class" Table Rock Lake inhabitants. The RV crowd usually chills over at the Wal-mart.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by sneezye

I don't know all the details of what the Branson Landing people are proposing in Tulsa but I live right across Lake Taneycomo from the Landing and I have to be honest... the thing is ugly from this side. The cargo doors face the lake. There isn't a single shop facing the lake. So all you see while driving down Lakeshore (which runs down the oposite side of the lake from the Landing) are blank walls and cargo doors. As for the Landing being a hangout for the RV types, I'd say that's way off. On any given day, 90% of the people there are "high-class" Table Rock Lake inhabitants. The RV crowd usually chills over at the Wal-mart.

What do you call "high class"? There may be different RV crowds, but the ones I am familiar with have more than a few pennies to rub together. Those RVs can run around a quarter million or more.  My parents have an RV, a boat, a plane, home on a lake, time share in Florida, etc.  However I would not in any way call them high class though lol. And yes my parents practically live at Wal-Mart.  The only place they probably spend more time at is Disney World, what their fascination with the place is I will never understand.  I have only been there about 7 or 8 times but I practically have every resort and park, every store, gift shop and ride memorized. uck lol

As for the developer not facing things towards the lake... Sorry to hear that.  But I would lay odds that he will have it facing the river here.  He will have too just to attract people over to that side, plus you would be missing the view of the river and downtown if you didn't.  Fingers crossed though.

Question.. Will nothing on this front be started until the river plan is voted on next year?  Whats the status of that property anyway?