|
|
|
perspicuity85
Guest
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: June 14, 2007, 12:00:38 pm » |
|
It is supposedly the third-largest municipal park in the US, behind Central Park in NYC and one other I can't remember.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
cannon_fodder
|
|
« Reply #2 on: June 14, 2007, 01:12:53 pm » |
|
Central park is only 840 acres. Now those 840 acres are better landscaped and worth more than nearly any other acres in the world... but still only 200 acres more than a full section. Mohawk is the 25th largest city park in the US. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933260.htmlThough I think all the ones in Texas, Arizona, and in the mountains should not count - as it is unusable land. Who cares about 16,000 acres in El Paso? [  ] |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
- - - - - - - - -
I crush grooves.
|
|
|
|
sgrizzle
|
|
« Reply #3 on: June 14, 2007, 01:18:46 pm » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Central park is only 840 acres. Now those 840 acres are better landscaped and worth more than nearly any other acres in the world... but still only 200 acres more than a full section.
Mohawk is the 25th largest city park in the US.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933260.html
Though I think all the ones in Texas, Arizona, and in the mountains should not count - as it is unusable land. Who cares about 16,000 acres in El Paso? []
The title is misleading. Most of those are national or state parks or monuments. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Dana431
Armchair Urbanist
Civic Leader
 Offline
Posts: 172
|
|
« Reply #4 on: June 14, 2007, 02:27:14 pm » |
|
St. Louis's Forest Park is larger than Central Park. http://stlouis.missouri.org/citygov/parks/forestpark/On Topic: Why are adding more land that the city will have to maintain to a city parks system that seems to be strapped for cash? Isn't that why Mayor Taylor was trying to sell off the golf courses? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
cannon_fodder
|
|
« Reply #5 on: June 14, 2007, 03:06:59 pm » |
|
I suppose it is all in the definition Sqrizzle. Is it a park in a city, within X miles of a city, or owned by the city?
Someone can go through the list and figure it all out, I would be interested. Alas, I do not have the time atm.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
- - - - - - - - -
I crush grooves.
|
|
|
|
sportyart
Guest
|
|
« Reply #6 on: June 14, 2007, 09:11:54 pm » |
|
Mohawk Park Vs. Central Park & Forest Park  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sgrizzle
|
|
« Reply #7 on: June 15, 2007, 06:14:21 am » |
|
From the above picture, it looks like we are/will spank the other parks:  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Double A
|
|
« Reply #8 on: June 15, 2007, 10:04:56 am » |
|
I am really excited to see Mohawk finally start getting some improvements, with so many people visiting the zoo it's shame it hasn't happened sooner. I've always thought that Mohawk is one of Tulsa's greatest assets that has never been given the opportunity to live up to it's full potential. I am pretty disappointed to see that the improvements at Oxley are on hold to pay for the arena, though.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
<center>  </center> The clash of ideas is the sound of freedom. Ars Longa, Vita Brevis! |
|
|
|
bacjz00
|
|
« Reply #9 on: June 15, 2007, 08:52:28 pm » |
|
It's really a shame that Mohawk didn't end up being in the middle of the city. I'm sure park planners at the time didn't have any idea the city would grow so aggressively and moreover PREDOMINANTLY towards the south and east only. How cool would it be, if Mohawk Park and the entire nature/zoo complex were actually smack dab in the middle of the population center, ala Balboa Park in San Diego. Seems like all of South Tulsa has really one decent sized public park (Hunter). However, Woodward, Centennial, Owen and River Parks are certainly beautiful centerpieces for our core Tulsa residents.
EDIT ** Here's an interesting blurb I found from the Tulsa Parks website. Kind of explains why Mohawk is out in the middle of nowhere.
The largest park in the system, Mohawk Park, was an afterthought of the Spavinaw Dam that brought water to Tulsa in 1924. An early public- and private-sector partnership, Mohawk's purchase was engineered by a trust comprised of prominent local citizens. Voters then passed a bond issue to buy the trust's option on the park, making it a City property.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dbacks fan
Guest
|
|
« Reply #10 on: June 19, 2007, 11:58:24 am » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Central park is only 840 acres. Now those 840 acres are better landscaped and worth more than nearly any other acres in the world... but still only 200 acres more than a full section.
Mohawk is the 25th largest city park in the US.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933260.html
Though I think all the ones in Texas, Arizona, and in the mountains should not count - as it is unusable land. Who cares about 16,000 acres in El Paso? []
I beg to differ on the parks in Phoenix. People from all over hike the mountain parks in Phoenix, and you never know who you might run into on your hike. There is evrything from easy to difficult in any of the parks. http://www.trails.com/activity.asp?area=12208My wife and I hike Lookout Mountain it's about 3 miles from our house, as well as Piestawa Peak (formerly Sqaw Peak) and the Christiansan Trail. This past winter we met several hikers from Europe that come here routinely for the hiking. Just don't bash it until you try it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MichaelC
Guest
|
|
« Reply #11 on: June 19, 2007, 03:07:07 pm » |
|
Master Plan from City of TulsaClick on image for larger image.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sportyart
Guest
|
|
« Reply #12 on: June 19, 2007, 03:28:02 pm » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
Master Plan from City of Tulsa
Click on image for larger image.
Man, whoever does their work stinks..."cut, copy, paste....don't care if it’s to scale or not." |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
