'Branson Landing'

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by 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?

If you're referring to 11-21st on the West side, the concrete plant and the apartments are still under option by the Channels group I believe. The area sandwiched in between is RPA property.

From what I have read on this thread it looks like regular Tulsa stuff. Champagne tastes on beer budget. No wonder movement is so slow. The dreams are so large, the viewpoints so divergent that in the end its gridlock. I see visions of Europe, Disneyland, Georgetown as well as Hillbilly heaven. I see competition among downtown, river and South expansion interests.

Let me point out that there is no water in the river. There hasn't been water in the river all winter. That is odd. Predictions are this will continue after spring rains. So even if we build dams there may be little water to fill them and still plans show no interconnect between them. Little synergy between developed areas. Any development under these conditions is forced and doomed.

People show actual interest in doing something and they're "stooges" "elitists" or government tax chiselers. I love the pictures but I've seen pictures since back in the 50's of the potential development along the river and they start to look less and less viable all the time.

This bears repeating, we need to make small steps. Development that is aggregate in nature is easier to manage. Mistakes can be caught and corrected before they're catastrophic and the movement begins to gain momentum, real momentum that private industry will fuel. Forget what Riverwalk looks like and understand what it is.

[perspicuity85]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy
Let me point out that there is no water in the river. There hasn't been water in the river all winter. That is odd. Predictions are this will continue after spring rains. So even if we build dams there may be little water to fill them and still plans show no interconnect between them. Little synergy between developed areas. Any development under these conditions is forced and doomed.

People show actual interest in doing something and they're "stooges" "elitists" or government tax chiselers. I love the pictures but I've seen pictures since back in the 50's of the potential development along the river and they start to look less and less viable all the time.

This bears repeating, we need to make small steps. Development that is aggregate in nature is easier to manage. Mistakes can be caught and corrected before they're catastrophic and the movement begins to gain momentum, real momentum that private industry will fuel. Forget what Riverwalk looks like and understand what it is.

The low water dams clearly will make river development in Tulsa much more attractive.  If I could afford to be a Tulsa philanthropist, I would see that the low water dams were completed as soon as possible.  From there, I would put up a buffer between the Westport Apts. and the refineries.  I would raise hell to my local elected officials if the refineries ever violated any EPA regulation.  After that, I would completely re-do the Westport Apts. to make them more attractive and more urban looking, while keeping them in a mid-level price zone.  I would then develop my former concrete plant land into a mixed-use sustainable urban development that utilizes views of the river and the skyline.

Any Tulsa philanthropists care to leave me in their will?

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by perspicuity85

quote:Originally posted by waterboy
Let me point out that there is no water in the river. There hasn't been water in the river all winter. That is odd. Predictions are this will continue after spring rains. So even if we build dams there may be little water to fill them and still plans show no interconnect between them. Little synergy between developed areas. Any development under these conditions is forced and doomed.

People show actual interest in doing something and they're "stooges" "elitists" or government tax chiselers. I love the pictures but I've seen pictures since back in the 50's of the potential development along the river and they start to look less and less viable all the time.

This bears repeating, we need to make small steps. Development that is aggregate in nature is easier to manage. Mistakes can be caught and corrected before they're catastrophic and the movement begins to gain momentum, real momentum that private industry will fuel. Forget what Riverwalk looks like and understand what it is.

The low water dams clearly will make river development in Tulsa much more attractive.  If I could afford to be a Tulsa philanthropist, I would see that the low water dams were completed as soon as possible.  From there, I would put up a buffer between the Westport Apts. and the refineries.  I would raise hell to my local elected officials if the refineries ever violated any EPA regulation.  After that, I would completely re-do the Westport Apts. to make them more attractive and more urban looking, while keeping them in a mid-level price zone.  I would then develop my former concrete plant land into a mixed-use sustainable urban development that utilizes views of the river and the skyline.

Any Tulsa philanthropists care to leave me in their will?

Ok, you're king for the day. You have one thing you can do as a benevolent authoritarian to please your people. What is it? A low water dam?

[perspicuity85]

I wasn't implying that I would put low water dams ahead of charities like Habitat for Humanity or education.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by perspicuity85

I wasn't implying that I would put low water dams ahead of charities like Habitat for Humanity or education.

I don't know why I asked that question. I guess I am frustrated with so many critics and visioneers, so few activists. Easier to be the former.

I don't think the lowater dams will make the river more attractive to develop by default. It is the money pumped into activity on or along the river in itself that will attract creative development. Then, if allowed, development will prosper and the river will be utilized. I wish it were the opposite but alas, land doesn't ebb and flow like the river.

[perspicuity85]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy
I don't know why I asked that question. I guess I am frustrated with so many critics and visioneers, so few activists. Easier to be the former.

I don't think the lowater dams will make the river more attractive to develop by default. It is the money pumped into activity on or along the river in itself that will attract creative development. Then, if allowed, development will prosper and the river will be utilized. I wish it were the opposite but alas, land doesn't ebb and flow like the river.

While I don't consider the low water dams to be the savior of the river, I do think they are a necessary component in the overall improvement plan.  More water in the river make the proposed marina, the Tulsa Wave pool, and water taxis possible.  I am hoping that as the Core of Engineers' study concludes, we will see someone step up to bring the dams to fruition.  I would love to be an activist, but unfortunately my resources only permit me to be a visionary.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by perspicuity85

quote:Originally posted by waterboy
I don't know why I asked that question. I guess I am frustrated with so many critics and visioneers, so few activists. Easier to be the former.

I don't think the lowater dams will make the river more attractive to develop by default. It is the money pumped into activity on or along the river in itself that will attract creative development. Then, if allowed, development will prosper and the river will be utilized. I wish it were the opposite but alas, land doesn't ebb and flow like the river.

While I don't consider the low water dams to be the savior of the river, I do think they are a necessary component in the overall improvement plan.  More water in the river make the proposed marina, the Tulsa Wave pool, and water taxis possible.  I am hoping that as the Core of Engineers' study concludes, we will see someone step up to bring the dams to fruition.  I would love to be an activist, but unfortunately my resources only permit me to be a visionary.

We all do what we can. []

[tim huntzinger]

'Hat tip' to DAVID.S for noting on his forum that forum the developers of Branson Landing and the City of Branson are being sued by the development's architects.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

'Hat tip' to DAVID.S for noting on his forum that forum the developers of Branson Landing and the City of Branson are being sued by the development's architects.

Sued, yes. In the wrong?

[MichaelC]

From Tulsa World

quote:  The city and the developer of Branson Landing are still talking about river development.

But whether or not Rick Huffman will create a unique riverfront development for Tulsa as he did in Branson, Mo., is still undecided, officials say.

"We had a very good meeting with the mayor and the city's Economic Development Director Don Himelfarb," said Kevin Coutant, a Tulsa attorney working for Huffman's company, HCW Development.

Coutant said during a recent meeting Mayor Kathy Taylor and Himelfarb showed a great deal of interest and excitement for a river development project generally of the type represented by Branson Landing.

"Nobody is talking about doing the same thing in Tulsa as what is in Branson. That wouldn't make sense. But, instead, a development that included a mixed-use, regional lifestyle center that would really be a showpiece for the city," he said.

Himelfarb said the city is looking seriously at river development that can be achieved ahead of other river issues such as getting water in the river, creating corridor zoning and setting up a river development authority.

"What we are doing is trying to understand what can be done now, zero in on it, and if it makes sense, try to make it happen," he said.

Huffman and his associates recently met the city officials
in a consulting capacity to help the city understand what can and cannot be done, Himelfarb said.

"These guys have what we believe is a successful waterfront development, and they have offered up their expertise to help talk us through their experience. It was a very useful meeting," he said.

Coutant said there was discussion about the best development locations along the river. The west bank between the 11th Street and 21st Street bridges with the view of downtown "sure seems to be the obvious one and is identified on the Arkansas Corridor Master Plan," he said.

Last fall, Huffman said he had serious interest in that site.

Himelfarb said that with any development of this magnitude, there is going to be a need for government involvement of some sort, whether it is infrastructure or incentives.

A private-public partnership is likely because these types of projects usually have a public component of significance like an amphitheater or other facility, he said.

"What exactly the city's role will be is what we're trying to determine and we're talking to a lot of different people. We probably at some point will have to go outside and get some experts to help guide us so that we do it right," Himelfarb said.

The biggest hurdles for the city to attract a significant development like a Branson Landing is gathering the land and dealing with issues of financing, engineering, environment, and traffic in and out of the area, he said.

Coutant said Huffman encouraged the city to gather the land and then seek development proposals. Huffman likely would be one of several developers to bid, he said.

Himelfarb said that at no time did Huffman's group ask for anything inappropriate. The group knows Tulsa has to be open and operate in a competitive manner on public-owned land, he said.

The city owns land on the west bank between the 21st Street and 11th Street bridges. The area also has the Mid-Continent Concrete Co. and the Westport on the River apart ments, which are privately owned.

In November, it was announced that the William K. Warren Medical Research Center had signed purchase options totaling $65 million on the two private properties. The land was being sought for a proposed $788 million river development called The Channels, which would included three islands to be constructed in the Arkansas River.

At that time, it was said that the options were good through March. Nobody associated with The Channels project could be reached for comment.

It also was released that the purchase option for the 23.7-acre apartment site was $28 million and the 26.7 acre concrete site was $37 million.

[TheArtist]

Apparently "Tulsa Landing" is a go.  Official announcement to happen possibly next week.  First reports say it is to be a 550 million dollar development.  Could be started as early as next year and finished by 2010 or 2011.