River Plan- Public Infrastructure

[YoungTulsan]

Seems much more practical than the Channels.  Im scratching my head wondering why people in Broken Arrow, Owasso, or East Tulsa would vote for their money to go to the river though.

[brunoflipper]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper


anyone have an archived version?

The dude abides.

well done

[dsjeffries]

This is very exciting news!  I've been in favor of this plan for a while now, and I'm excited that it's finally more concrete.

I'm also very happy that the rest of the country has decided that Tulsa needs river development ("country" sales tax=national? [}:)]).

When all is said and done, and supposing that Tulsa Landing comes to fruition, the Arkansas will have been changed for the better of the whole area.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

This is obscenely better than the channels.

Welcome back to Waterboy!

While I share excitement with the blair concept shown, I am really hoping there is no excreting of eggrolls involved.

What is really great is that all these plans get people off of riverside drive and closer to the river, sometimes over it. Too bad they couldn't throw in a bit more in the 71st and south areas to draw people up from the riverwalk/aquarium.

Thank you. I wish there were a way to fast track the project. As far as county wide support, I would hope the rest of the county realizes their growth is leveraged by ours.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

Seems much more practical than the Channels.  Im scratching my head wondering why people in Broken Arrow, Owasso, or East Tulsa would vote for their money to go to the river though.

Willing to bet more than a few people from the areas you mentioned go to the Aquarium and River Crossing.  

This would be a good regional draw.

Besides, they owe us for V 2025. []

[YoungTulsan]

It would benefit them overall as a good investment for the local economy.  Im just thinking SOME people might be short sighted and just bottom line it that they dont live by the river so they'll vote no.  Especially if it is posed as a "River tax"

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

It would benefit them overall as a good investment for the local economy.  Im just thinking SOME people might be short sighted and just bottom line it that they dont live by the river so they'll vote no.  Especially if it is posed as a "River tax"

After all the recent ways we've been hit up for improvements and EMSA, anything marketed as a "tax" is going to have a negative connotation.

Personally, I think it's a better investment than BOK Center.  But that's just me, I'm not a fan of 18K seat monoliths.

[YoungTulsan]

Do you think Bells could be involved in this development?

[inteller]

wow, who is passing out the koolaid?

[waterboy]

I would make three changes that would possibly sweeten this plan.

What if:
    1. The temporary tax was raised from .4 cent to a full 1 cent but for a shorter time period. The object would be to fast track the project so that the public actually sees something happening.

    2.Add an inexpensive impound device (wing dam, inflatable low water dam etc.) at the Newblock Park area to back up water to below the Chandler Park area. This way the Sand Springs dam does not have to impact so much of the river and will not have pressure from Tulsa to release its water for our gain. This was the original site suggested for our first low water dam. The added benefit is the possible redevelopment of land along Charles Page Boulevard. This area deserves some juice too.

    3. Write in a public oversight committee to watch over construction and operation of these river areas. The absolute control desired by the city/county needs to be offset with the dispassionate observance of everyday users. The possibility for abuses we have all seen by these entities is inherent in this development.

With these changes the plan would be a winner.

[Chris]

If something like this doesn't happen soon I'm going out there with a shovel and digging my own dam channel!

Oh and do you know where I can get some dam bait?

[YoungTulsan]

We could always release thousands of beavers into the river to solve the problem

[TheArtist]

Lets do it. [8D]

[Breadburner]

Make sure and shave them so they can be identified.....

[OurTulsa]

quote:Originally posted by swake

I am all for this, but there need to be some safeguards as to what we are getting. First, the site between 11th and 21st on the west bank. Before we just hand over land or money to the guys from Branson, we need to dictate style, design and build standards and get from them exactly what they are trying to accomplish. Tulsa Hills on the river is not an option if they want public assistance. Second, the standards need to be applied to the entire riverbank, no more Kum and Go stores backing the river. Let's do this, and let's do this right.

I think development on the river represents the biggest opportunity and potential for blunder.  The City has got to ensure that each node is done well.  As the public will assemble the property it may be an easy opportunity to install a form based code to guide new development.  At any rate we have the opportunity to create some great destinations, even neighborhoods, along the river.  

On the 36th St. pier, give me a gelatto vendor and a Ferris Wheel and I'll be happy.

I'm also thinking Kenosha could be on to something.  Imagine a rail connecting all that suburban excitement that is Jenks to dt Tulsa with several transit and river oriented developments along the way.  The rail, trail, and river could act as one serious string of pearls.  

I'm all on this measly tax; tax me twice.  Beauty is it's not just Tulsans paying for the regional public improvement it's the region paying for it.  And of course Ohhwassans, Arrowites that are broken, and Bixbians should support this it's their amenity as well and it certainly adds to their banal quality of life.