Riverwalk Crossing

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

I dislike the idea of a new commission that answers to the county dictating what we can do with our portion of the river. The only benefits would be synergy with other river projects in the county, inclusion in a county wide river master plan and the potential for county wide sales tax funds for any public pieces. But why would Owasso residents with their currently robust sales tax base want to help pay for river development? Ideal river developement for the suburbs is going to be much different than what will work for us. Plus, the extra layer of bureaucracy would tend to be antithetical to developement IMO. The people that live near and play on their prospective portions of the river will hopefully know what works best for them.

I have never been a supporter of authority setups as they exist now. It tends to create kingdoms with little emperors who are untouchable, but require public funding. That said, the plans emerging have widespread effects outside of their own areas. The Channels plan backed up the river to damn near the dam!

That means that there will be controversy and squabbles between neighboring community developments. The decisions made could end up in court or serving small powerful group needs. There needs to be some sort of "larger vision" to sort through the clutter and it would make sense that it be a county organism.

Due to there only being 3 county commissioners, an advisory group comprised of people who actually know something about the river (rather than knowing someone in the government) could actually increase the speed of development while reducing conflict.

[carltonplace]

Waterboy, there is no one else on this forum whose opinion on the river I value as much as yours (and you stand in some impressive company).

You make some valid points, but assuming that the Channels plan is dead and that future development (with the exception of the Corps and INCOG approved low water dams) will be proposed for the existing banks, I don't foresee that river communities would advocate development that would impact their neighbors. I could be wrong. There could be a group of well leveraged and motivated beavers planning to build a damn in whitewater park.

Should there be a master plan for the river that pinpoints where and outlines what to build? Sure. We already have a loose blueprint for that. Do we need a countywide commission to muddy the already murky water? H to the no.

[RecycleMichael]

I am not completely disagreeing or agreeing that a new river authority is needed.

But Waterboy and I both served on the Arkansas River master plan technical committee that reviewed The Channels. From that experience I think there should be some group that does a more-in depth review than the planning commission, INCOG and the city or county commission normally does.

Developments will potentially compete with each other for public dollars and things like the location of low water dams can make or break a developer as well.

I don't know if the current make-up of RiverParks has the expertise to oversee complex development packages and a City of Tulsa Authority could be in conflict with the wants of an upstream or downstream community. The future needs are probably going to be more like the Port of Catoosa Authority than of a park authority.  

I think the discussion of an trust authority that could see the needs of the entire river through this part of the state is needed. Such an authority could be a great thing or could be a unnecessary layer of bureacracy and inside dealings. I don't know which, but the idea is worth discussing.

[waterboy]

Thanks for your confidence guys. It seems the sticking point is the power such a group would wield. No one wants to see another layer of bureacracy that does just enough to justify its existence and slows the process of development with arrogance, all the while asking for more funding. (pointing no fingers here...honestly)

Is there some form of quasi-governmental entity that would serve in a more advisory role to the county? Seems like v2025 had something like that. This advisory board could be designed to filter incoming plans, offer criticism of such to help match the master plans. Taking plans through the process like the Channels review is slow and unwieldy to me.

[carltonplace]

So the crux is; how does one form a county controlled over sight committee that is not demagogical but invites the public opinion and blessing of all interested parties (read: all cities in the county that are situated on the river and support from those without proximity). This entity should create development opportunities rather than hinder them, but should be able to veto development that is contrary to the benefit of all. Unlikely.

The thing is that the county and the cities have all adopted the INCOG plan as the working diagram. Is it perfect? Of course not, but at least its a starting point. The public was invited to weigh in on this plan, I gave my feedback and I'm certain you guys did too. I'm not willing to hand the river over to "representative" government so they can give it to an "impartial" committee to tell me what I want.

Sorry for highjacking the riverwalk thread.

[TheArtist]

One thing I think the Channels did was make people reconsider the INCOG plan.  I think a lot of people realized that the INCOG plan was, well, a bit short sighted and small minded, at least for the area nearest downtown.  Sorry if that sounds harsh, don't know how else to say what I am trying to get at.

Once river development really hit the table and different views and possibilities were presented...it became obvious the Incog plan wasn't going to be sufficient.  Especially for major urban style development along the river near Tulsa's core. The Incog plan was thinking along the lines of something like the Riverwalk for that area, but then people started to realize that what we decide to do now will influence the future and that we need to be planning far far ahead for eventual development like  "this" to be able to evolve 50 to 100 years from now.....



And going from practically nothing to "that" will take some know how, expertise, and definitely intentional planning. You don't want to build a bunch of stuff then have to tear it all out 20 30 years from now because you want to go to the next level. There are questions that need to be answered before ANY development happens, Like,,, Are we going to harden the shoreline in that area?  Should whatever is developed in that area then have consistent set backs so that each development flows and works together (like the shops on Brookside) How far from the river should development be?  How high is the water going to be? Where should the parking be? etc. Where is the public space going to be?  I think there should be a classic 6 story rule for whatever is built right on the west side of the river between the 21st and 11th st bridges. We need to take a breath, figure out where we really want to go with river development, and then lay the proper foundations for it.  Hopefully that breath won't take too long, I wan't something to start happening soon lol.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

So the crux is; how does one form a county controlled over sight committee that is not demagogical but invites the public opinion and blessing of all interested parties (read: all cities in the county that are situated on the river and support from those without proximity). This entity should create development opportunities rather than hinder them, but should be able to veto development that is contrary to the benefit of all. Unlikely.

The thing is that the county and the cities have all adopted the INCOG plan as the working diagram. Is it perfect? Of course not, but at least its a starting point. The public was invited to weigh in on this plan, I gave my feedback and I'm certain you guys did too. I'm not willing to hand the river over to "representative" government so they can give it to an "impartial" committee to tell me what I want.

Sorry for highjacking the riverwalk thread.

For the most part I like the INCOG plan. But it is just a framework. The visioning process should be ongoing not frozen in time, initiated back when people weren't even sure we would do anything more than talk. Also, no slam on them, but INCOG is not a driving force for development. Miller has stepped up to take leadership and could provide that force. A small task force of representatives from each affected function (fire, safety, public works, hydrology etc.) could quickly determine a plans feasibility and encourage or discourage it and refer to authorities.

I think you laid out my thoughts in your first two sentences. Could be I'm naive though.

[Leah]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

Being one of the few females (and hence shoppers) on the board, I hope the next phase includes a higher ratio of shops to food.  I took my mother-in-law there over Christmas, and we really enjoyed it (not the first time).  But we both commented that we had finished going through all of the stores in only about an hour.  Honestly, I am not a big shopper, but I know how it works--you need two or three hours worth of shopping, then someplace to have lunch.  Women are your biggest costumers, and they are less likely to go someplace just for the restaurants.

Im with ya on board!  Im a lady and "We" do need more shops  at least more than an half an hour worth!

[aoxamaxoa]

I see JG got his new financing. Looks weird to me. $43 million on less than 300,000 sq. ft.?
I wonder who did the appraisal work. But I really wonder about the lender.....

[cannon_fodder]

$143 a square foot isnt a dubious amount for the type of construction he is doing.  He isnt just building a large box, but actually have some architectural elements to it.  That money also has to pay for the massive parking lots and the sewer expansion (which, as I understand it, the city isnt paying for... unlike "major retailers" that get such things handed to them).

Anyway, I enjoy that place.  Jenks got lucky that someone had a vision and turned it into a success.  I hope all goes well.  Private development that seeks to incorporate the river - who'd a thunk it (other than half the other cities in the world).

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

$143 a square foot isnt a dubious amount for the type of construction he is doing.  He isnt just building a large box, but actually have some architectural elements to it.  That money also has to pay for the massive parking lots and the sewer expansion (which, as I understand it, the city isnt paying for... unlike "major retailers" that get such things handed to them).

Anyway, I enjoy that place.  Jenks got lucky that someone had a vision and turned it into a success.  I hope all goes well.  Private development that seeks to incorporate the river - who'd a thunk it (other than half the other cities in the world).

Believe me, lots of other people thought about it here. That piece of land was privately owned and in the right place at the right time. There isn't much privately held land in the Tulsa portion of the river. The RPA hasn't been able to develop what they own due to numerous elements not present in the Jenks deal. I love the idea of private land developed under the auspices of an authority that provides some boundaries. Riverwalk didn't fall under that framework. If Jenks was really so smart and the demand was great for that type of development, they would have duplicated the feat by now. Money would be chasing the idea, not being begged for.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by aoxamaxoa

I see JG got his new financing. Looks weird to me. $43 million on less than 300,000 sq. ft.?
I wonder who did the appraisal work. But I really wonder about the lender.....

It isnt just about the square feet. Imagine what the cost of those pavers versus a typical sidewalk must cost.  Then the outdoor fireplaces, benches, fountains, railings, etc.  I think its great that someone is doing something a step above the usual strip mall thing. I work in many high end homes. The trim in a room can easily cost waaaay more than the studs and sheetrock, the actual structure. Details can get ya. We complain and gripe about how cheaply or average most developments are.  Its an above average risk he is taking to do this in an above average manner. Seems to me if we want above average development to happen more in this area, this "experiment" had better work.  If other developers see that putting the extra effort and touches into a development doesnt pay out in the end, they wont take the risk to do it and we will just keep seeing same ol same ol and complaining about it.

[citizen72]

Know some business owners in Riverwalk that are still owed thousands of dollars in tenant development monies.  Perhaps the developer can get them paid now.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by citizen72

Know some business owners in Riverwalk that are still owed thousands of dollars in tenant development monies.  Perhaps the developer can get them paid now.

What are "tenant development monies"?

[citizen72]

It is monies given to a tenant by a landlord to assist them in modifying a space to satisfy their business profile requirments. Many times the tenant will do the improvements and then collect monies from the building owner as the owner's part of the modification costs.