Elm Creek, Other Tributary Development

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

I still maintain Crow Creek is the best place to start, it already has nearby commercial, rooftops and access to some of Tulsa's best public parks, cultural and recreational attractions. We just have to do it in a way that is in character, scale, and harmony with existing neighborhoods. Besides, it is already exposed so it would be much  less difficult for the general public to picture whatever proposed development that might take place. City planning should do a crow creek plan like the the INCOG plan or the Lewis Infill Plan as a pilot program to implement so we can use it as a prototype for designing a plan for the other potential tributary developments within the city in the comprehensive plan update.

You make a good argument for Crow Creek being first. It is open already. However, it goes through some expensive land east of Peoria and some resolute owners to the west. That makes Pearl more inviting as the attention would be more welcome. However, starting from Peoria westward would be a good and visible start.

Its not that Legacy is so important as a structure YT. You are right in noting that its the 300-500 residents that you would want to make allowance for. Hard to find decent subsidized apartments with such great proximity to shopping and the river. Perhaps a new multi-story construction would allocate part of its tenancy to that market. Perhaps not all of the complex would need to be razed. Not an insurmountable problem.

Cherry is also an interesting first as it is under the radar. A west Tulsa sponsor could really get mileage out of it too.

[Conan71]

Cherry presents the fewest impediments from neighborhood associations and reluctant commercial property owners.  The city or county already has a broad right-of-way along the bank for about a mile from Elwood snaking back to W. 41st.  As well, commercial and the little bit of residential which is already there has a decent set-back.  A large open space to the south of the lift station on Elwood which could be used for parking.  That's the upshot.

The downside is that likely it has the least attractiveness to the majority of Tulsans and likely wouldn't be the first choice for commercial developers.  That still shouldn't be a reason to continue shafting people who live on the west side.  But who says comm'l development has to be a necessity on each and every tributary.  Expanding attractive and useable Public space can be a good thing w/o commercial development.

[John Neas]

quote: MB, how was Neas's plan received in 1991 and why was it not acted on? Was it part of a funded study?

The Neas plan (Neas was not involved when the plan was conceived) was an exercise by several people with talent during a slow time in Tulsa.  I have been told that the key person is now a professor or dean at a university in Georgia.

It was not a funded study.  As far as I know, the only presentation has been at Spirit Bank to presidents of the homeowner groups, Riverview Addition and Maple Ridge, and property owners.  I believe Lucky Lamons has sat in on one of the meetings.

The response has been very favorable.  I believe that NIMBY would be minimal for a well planned development.  The Urban Design Group at OU has selected it as a possible project but I do not believe a masters student has taken it for this fall.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by John Neas

quote: MB, how was Neas's plan received in 1991 and why was it not acted on? Was it part of a funded study?

The Neas plan (Neas was not involved when the plan was conceived) was an exercise by several people with talent during a slow time in Tulsa.  I have been told that the key person is now a professor or dean at a university in Georgia.

It was not a funded study.  As far as I know, the only presentation has been at Spirit Bank to presidents of the homeowner groups, Riverview Addition and Maple Ridge, and property owners.  I believe Lucky Lamons has sat in on one of the meetings.

The response has been very favorable.  I believe that NIMBY would be minimal for a well planned development.  The Urban Design Group at OU has selected it as a possible project but I do not believe a masters student has taken it for this fall.

So what is your idea as to the best way to get this plan back in front of the masses?  It's got "potential" written all over it.

[carltonplace]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by Double A

I still maintain Crow Creek is the best place to start, it already has nearby commercial, rooftops and access to some of Tulsa's best public parks, cultural and recreational attractions. We just have to do it in a way that is in character, scale, and harmony with existing neighborhoods. Besides, it is already exposed so it would be much  less difficult for the general public to picture whatever proposed development that might take place. City planning should do a crow creek plan like the the INCOG plan or the Lewis Infill Plan as a pilot program to implement so we can use it as a prototype for designing a plan for the other potential tributary developments within the city in the comprehensive plan update.

You make a good argument for Crow Creek being first. It is open already. However, it goes through some expensive land east of Peoria and some resolute owners to the west. That makes Pearl more inviting as the attention would be more welcome. However, starting from Peoria westward would be a good and visible start.

Its not that Legacy is so important as a structure YT. You are right in noting that its the 300-500 residents that you would want to make allowance for. Hard to find decent subsidized apartments with such great proximity to shopping and the river. Perhaps a new multi-story construction would allocate part of its tenancy to that market. Perhaps not all of the complex would need to be razed. Not an insurmountable problem.

Cherry is also an interesting first as it is under the radar. A west Tulsa sponsor could really get mileage out of it too.

I think you do Pearl first and then the Crow Creek crowd will see what they are missing out on.

[Conan71]

Another member who is interested, and myself are interested in forming some sort of committee to look further into this.  If anyone is interested in getting involved, please PM me and let's see where this goes.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by Double A

I still maintain Crow Creek is the best place to start, it already has nearby commercial, rooftops and access to some of Tulsa's best public parks, cultural and recreational attractions. We just have to do it in a way that is in character, scale, and harmony with existing neighborhoods. Besides, it is already exposed so it would be much  less difficult for the general public to picture whatever proposed development that might take place. City planning should do a crow creek plan like the the INCOG plan or the Lewis Infill Plan as a pilot program to implement so we can use it as a prototype for designing a plan for the other potential tributary developments within the city in the comprehensive plan update.

You make a good argument for Crow Creek being first. It is open already. However, it goes through some expensive land east of Peoria and some resolute owners to the west. That makes Pearl more inviting as the attention would be more welcome. However, starting from Peoria westward would be a good and visible start.

Its not that Legacy is so important as a structure YT. You are right in noting that its the 300-500 residents that you would want to make allowance for. Hard to find decent subsidized apartments with such great proximity to shopping and the river. Perhaps a new multi-story construction would allocate part of its tenancy to that market. Perhaps not all of the complex would need to be razed. Not an insurmountable problem.

Cherry is also an interesting first as it is under the radar. A west Tulsa sponsor could really get mileage out of it too.

I think you do Pearl first and then the Crow Creek crowd will see what they are missing out on.

Funding the Pearl plan will be widely opposed, and fail miserably, making it very difficult to get funding for other tributary development in the future. It would stand a much better chance of happening if the public had a successful tributary development to point to. It is painfully obvious to me that crow creek has the best chances of being that successful development. BTW, didn't we get this field of dreams song and dance about how if we build they will come when Jamie got money for the retention pond. Have they? Where are all the private developers lining up to do commercial and residential development in this area? The public will not support funding the pearl plan first, it's too expensive, too complicated, and has too much risk associated with it.

[Conan71]

Sounds like too many NIMBY's on the Crow Creek alignment, AA.

There are thousands of people who don't even know Elm Creek exists, nor the potential for what could be done with it.  It's closer to downtown (hell, is downtown) which provides the downtown to river link that so many seem to want and has been mentioned constantly.  It's a natural flow (pardon the pun) to the 11th to 31st corridor.

Risk?  Care to elaborate?  More risk than say, low water dams?

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Sounds like too many NIMBY's on the Crow Creek alignment, AA.

There are thousands of people who don't even know Elm Creek exists, nor the potential for what could be done with it.  It's closer to downtown (hell, is downtown) which provides the downtown to river link that so many seem to want and has been mentioned constantly.  It's a natural flow (pardon the pun) to the 11th to 31st corridor.

Risk?  Care to elaborate?  More risk than say, low water dams?

I think the "downtown to river link" as far as our city planners are concerned, means "Widen Denver"

Look at those Channels drawings, they had some weird row of giant, mature trees lined all the way up a re-done Denver avenue.

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by Double A Funding the Pearl plan will be widely opposed, and fail miserably, making it very difficult to get funding for other tributary development in the future. It would stand a much better chance of happening if the public had a successful tributary development to point to. It is painfully obvious to me that crow creek has the best chances of being that successful development. BTW, didn't we get this field of dreams song and dance about how if we build they will come when Jamie got money for the retention pond. Have they? Where are all the private developers lining up to do commercial and residential development in this area? The public will not support funding the pearl plan first, it's too expensive, too complicated, and has too much risk associated with it.

It won't be "funding for the Pearl Plan," it will be "funding for drainage and retention," and it will fly under the radar until it's already funded.  My understanding is that the Central Park retention pond cost the same either way - it was simply a choice to make it soft 'n' purty instead of rectangular and drab.

I'm confident we'll see the Pearl Plan come to fruition in the next 10 years, as infrastructure funds become available.

[SXSW]

I am fascinated by this creek that you would never know even exists, and the great opportunities it presents us.  I am reminded of Waller Creek in Austin or, better, the Providence River in Providence, RI that was once covered and is now an asset.  I would love to see this plan begin to garner more public attention.  Elm Creek could be marketed as one approach with the Pearl/6th Street side and the SoBo/Veterans Park side.

[carltonplace]

It's a shame that we moved Elm creek under ground in our past flood mitigation plans. In many portions of the flood plain it makes sense to take the top off and create more water features.

[TheArtist]

Yea the drainage stuff, ponds and connectors, has to happen in the Pearl District one way or another. Plus the roads/sidewalks, etc. are going to need to be redone in that area as well. They are crumbling and falling apart. Its not IF, its How and when its going to be done.

If they can spend 25mill or more widening a typical intersection in South Tulsa without blinking. They can fix the roads, sidewalks, intersections and do the flood protection/water retention stuff in this area of town for what they are thinking it will cost.

[Fiend]

Not to burst everyones bubble, but I dont see how elm creek could be turned into an open water way without significant excavation. It would be extremely expensive and impractical considering that most of it is 60 + feet underground. Also, I dont see how a considerable water level could be maintained in elm creek if it were an open water way due to the elevation change from central park to the river. Central park is a basin that over flows into elm creek, and elm creek only has a large amount of water in it when it is raining or has just rained. At any given time, there is only about a foot of water in elm creek. It is a good idea none the less. At the exit point at the river it is about 16' in diameter and continues that size for about a mile. It also has a large 30 inch forced main sewer line running down through it, which would also pose a problem for maintanence issues, if opening it up as a water way. Having said that, a small portion of it (around highway 75) that is not quite as deep would be able to be opened up. I have been down it many times and made a map that is fairly accurate. Anyways, thats my two cents...

[TheArtist]

I would have to look at the new the downtown master plan for more info, but one thing I do think I remember them saying was that the current tunnel wouldnt actually be removed but would remain for overflow/flood situations. The water would at normal times flow above, then during heavy rain events a gateway would open up and both the lower and upper parts would be able to carry even more water. I think they use a similar configuration in San Antonio.