River Plan- Public Infrastructure

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by perspicuity85

quote:Originally posted by Sangria
What do we really have to gain from this? A few minimum wage jobs?

What events can we have on the river to bring more people to Tulsa that will be big enough to make a difference? Most of all, where will these people park?

Actually major waterfront and/or urban developments have contributed to a positive overall perception of many other cities.  Generally speaking, generation Y isn't willing to take an at-market value job in a non-trendy, non- urban location.  Tulsa doesn't have much of a reputation as an urban, trendy city to outsiders, specifically, regional outsiders, which compose most of Tulsa's tourism and move-in target market.  Urban projects create demand for Tulsa, because they highlight the city's unique features.  In order to be competitive now-a-days, it's not enough to compete with other cities for the next new suburban mall store or restaurant, you have to have a unique and trendy culture.  Believe it or not, a city's perceived culture plays a role in where young job-seekers decide to look for jobs, which ultimately affects the labor pool.

Translation: Drink more of the Kathy Kool-Aid. We know what's best for you. You don't know jack. It's really simple, good jobs, good, safe, public streets, schools, and infrastructure. That is their real concern. After being the collateral damage and first hand witnesses of the dysfunctional denial and emphasis on style of the self indulgent me,me,me, baby boomers all their lives what they really long for is some substance instead of just the image. Just give us something real, just give us something true.

[Renaissance]

Double A - I'm blocking your crap from my forum viewing.  I recommend everyone else a) do the same, and b) ignore the troll.

Nobody likes Debbie Downers, especially socialist ones.  Go cry into a pillow, put on some Coldplay to chill out, but above all, please stop posting.

[Admin]

Incog PDF of the presentation:
http://incog.org/ark%20river/07.18_ArkRiverMaster.pdf

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

Double A - I'm blocking your crap from my forum viewing.  I recommend everyone else a) do the same, and b) ignore the troll.

Nobody likes Debbie Downers, especially socialist ones.  Go cry into a pillow, put on some Coldplay to chill out, but above all, please stop posting.

Stay in denial. It's easier to be sheeple instead of free thinking independent minded people. I'd rather be an honest naysayer than a dishonest cheer leader. You seek to inhibit the freedom of expression and the free exchange of ideas in a public forum especially if they criticize a power mad, corrupt, corporate controlled, authoritarian government. Does that make you a fascist?

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

I am really anxious to see some specifics on this plan. From what I can tell it follows what INCOG worked on and came up with.  They and many citizens of Tulsa have put a lot of work into the master plan for the river. Sooner or later, if we wanted anything done with the river, it would have to be paid for somehow. I think we are quite lucky to have someone wanting to chip in over 100 million to help pay for it. The reason INCOG came up with this plan is because it was felt that there needed to be a plan for the river. Where things could be developed, where they should not be and kept as conservation space, the extent of any development and its place within the context of future city growth, etc.

My favorite part of the INCOG plan was the 71st park area.  I love playing Volley Ball there. For years as soon as it was warm enough until the fall loss of light made it too difficult, I would play out there with dozens and dozens of people every week. And dont forget the annual Sandblazer Vball Tournament that can have over 100 teams playing.  Its a fun sport people can play at all skill levels, and it always offers a lively and favorable impression on our city to visitors who see people out there playing. However the facilities could be greatly improved. They basically dont have any facilities there now other than sand pits and porta potties. Would be nice to have actual restrooms, a drinking fountain, outdoor shower/fountain to rinse sand off and some parking wouldn't be bad either.  

Here is an old INCOG rendering of a possible concept of what could be put there.



Here is the River Corridor Master Plan if any of you havent seen it before. Also note that any plan will also most likely include something for the Tulsa Wave, another great asset that can be improved upon.

http://www.incog.org/ark%20river/default.htm

http://www.incog.org/ark%20river/Reports/Tulsa%20Wave%20Final%20April%202007.pdf


I just found this from something that Kaiser had apparently sponsored. We have heard mention of piers, so this may be something like what they are talking about. It was dated as being March of this year. Don't know if its what their final ideas are hoping to be or if it was just a general starting concept. However...Where are our Vball courts!




Here is an old INCOG rendering of part of a 41st pedestrian bridge concept.



The Kaiser plan does not include a 41st bridge, but does include a 41st pedestrian bridge.  I really hope that they place the pedestrian bridge off to the side a ways so that a Bridge can be added at a later date without any trouble.

Here is an INCOG rendering of a development idea for the west side of the river near the PSO plant. This would be faaaaar in the future. But if we ever want to be able to develop there, we must plan ahead, keeping this in mind, so that we will not waste any money by having to redo, or undo, anything that we are doing now.

 

You should photoshop out the cars and put people on the bridge, since we are not getting the planned progress as promised in regards to that bridge(vehicular bridge). You wouldn't want to be accused of false advertising would you? I would like to see a location made available to the Bell's family on the West bank of the Arkansas river to locate an amusement park with a long term lease $1 a year lease by the county to make amens for the way the County did the dirty to them.

[cannon_fodder]

[edit]removed Grumpy Smurf picture and associated comments per moderator below[/edit]

Though, it would be cool if Bell's was on the West bank.  Neat seeing a roller coaster from the bank and downtown from the coaster.  Of course, Robby could buy the land and be successful in spit of the County if he so desire.

[TheArtist]

Quote from DoubleA..."You should photoshop out the cars and put people on the bridge, since we are not getting the planned progress as promised in regards to that bridge(vehicular bridge). You wouldn't want to be accused of false advertising would you? "



The bridge with the pier is the 71st bridge. It already exists fyi.  I noted in my comments that the 41st bridge will be a pedestrian bridge and that I hoped they made allowances for a future auto bridge by having the pedestrian one off to one side.

[Moderator]

Please keep the discussion civil and keep it only on infrastructure issues on this thread.  If people wish to engage in personal spats, that is what private messages are for.

[tulsa_fan]

Driving in this morning I was listening to exerps from Gov Henry's speech encouraing us to develop the river, if the city is willing to foot so much of the bill, well really, us footing the bill, is there not money available at the state level?  Isn't that what Susan Neal is supposed to be doing, finding state and federal money?  I just never hear any other revenue sources other than new taxes and private donors.  Why can't we try to recoup some of the state tax money for this project?

[Townsend]

quote:Originally posted by tulsa_fan

Driving in this morning I was listening to exerps from Gov Henry's speech encouraing us to develop the river, if the city is willing to foot so much of the bill, well really, us footing the bill, is there not money available at the state level?  Isn't that what Susan Neal is supposed to be doing, finding state and federal money?  I just never hear any other revenue sources other than new taxes and private donors.  Why can't we try to recoup some of the state tax money for this project?

You get a "harumph" from this guy.

Harumph harumph

[lauraj]

Alright, so part of the reason the city figures they can get away with this is because the river is so low for so many years in a row, and a few extra dams will help keep it higher and looking a little nicer.  However, what about years like this, when the river is on the brink of flooding?  In fact, it would have flooded, but they flooded people out upriver instead (anyone been around the Mannford area and noticed the school field is under at least 6 feet of water? Yeah, 6 feet.  Never mind all the actual houses and roads in that area.)  So if you're going to plan how to keep the river stopped up and looking pretty so you can build more casinos in a lame attempt to turn Tulsa into Las Vegas or Branson, you should think about what you're going to do with that water in 5-10 years when we cycle into the heavy rain again.  A note to those concerned why other funds are not available to pay for this, I think it's probably because they spent the money on paying people and themselves to come up with the idea in the first place.

[dsjeffries]

quote:Originally posted by lauraj

Alright, so part of the reason the city figures they can get away with this is because the river is so low for so many years in a row, and a few extra dams will help keep it higher and looking a little nicer.  However, what about years like this, when the river is on the brink of flooding?  In fact, it would have flooded, but they flooded people out upriver instead (anyone been around the Mannford area and noticed the school field is under at least 6 feet of water? Yeah, 6 feet.  Never mind all the actual houses and roads in that area.)  So if you're going to plan how to keep the river stopped up and looking pretty so you can build more casinos in a lame attempt to turn Tulsa into Las Vegas or Branson, you should think about what you're going to do with that water in 5-10 years when we cycle into the heavy rain again.  A note to those concerned why other funds are not available to pay for this, I think it's probably because they spent the money on paying people and themselves to come up with the idea in the first place.

Wow, I don't even know where to begin with this one... so I won't.  I'll leave it at this.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by tulsa_fan

Driving in this morning I was listening to exerps from Gov Henry's speech encouraing us to develop the river, if the city is willing to foot so much of the bill, well really, us footing the bill, is there not money available at the state level?  Isn't that what Susan Neal is supposed to be doing, finding state and federal money?  I just never hear any other revenue sources other than new taxes and private donors.  Why can't we try to recoup some of the state tax money for this project?

                                    Excellent question. Henry needs to put up or shut up.

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by lauraj

Alright, so part of the reason the city figures they can get away with this is because the river is so low for so many years in a row, and a few extra dams will help keep it higher and looking a little nicer.  However, what about years like this, when the river is on the brink of flooding?  In fact, it would have flooded, but they flooded people out upriver instead (anyone been around the Mannford area and noticed the school field is under at least 6 feet of water? Yeah, 6 feet.  Never mind all the actual houses and roads in that area.)  So if you're going to plan how to keep the river stopped up and looking pretty so you can build more casinos in a lame attempt to turn Tulsa into Las Vegas or Branson, you should think about what you're going to do with that water in 5-10 years when we cycle into the heavy rain again.  A note to those concerned why other funds are not available to pay for this, I think it's probably because they spent the money on paying people and themselves to come up with the idea in the first place.

The Army Corps of Engineers handles this, and will continue to handle it if we add more low water dams.  In fact, they have to perform studies and approve of these dams before they are built.  So the research and planning will be done to ensure your scenario of flooding "just because we wanted water in the river" does not occur.

FYI, the Corps have to perform a delicate balancing act of floods in the entire Arkansas river basin in situations like the last couple of months.  You cannot look at one spot and simply conclude that they did not do their job properly.  Like I said, a huge balancing act.  They probably did the best job possible of minimizing floods in light of how much rain fell.  While the river was very high around Tulsa, it was flooding in "moderate" (which is very extensive flooding) downstream towards Muskogee.  They also had to let the floods of the Verdigris river empty into the Arkansas without letting too much out of Keystone to cause a catastrophe while simultaneously letting floodwaters receed in areas like Coffeyville, Dewey, Miami, etc.

Keystone served its purpose in letting the Corps manage the floodwaters instead of them just flowing uncontrolled through the region.  Everything in the area eventually runs into the Arkansas, so someone's summer house on the lake in Mannford flooded to keep 100 people from drowning in Kansas.

[Rowdy]

The water in those pictures needs to be brown. I also realize budgets are budgets but I still can't grasp all this river expansion when we have issues like tall grass and bad roads. That's like putting a 5K dollar paint job on the unearthed Belvedere.

These low water dams really need to be as natural as possible. As long as they have a cascading effect, it will be better.  We could also put in hidden speakers along the river and play Seagull cries.