$B-B-BILLION Jenks River Development Lure Driller

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

It may have been a nasty mess, Paintin' Billy, but there was no point in smashing Zingo.

The more I look at the Jenks development the more it looks mish-mash.  If they wanted an 'urban' experience why not wrap the retail around the stadium?  I suppose this has to do with the stbility of the river bank, but why not put it closer to the river instead of seperating the stadium the two by a baking hot parking lot?

And is this crew easily connected by a Medlock-o-gram to Ron Howell?

How many small towns or urban centers are wrapped around a baseball stadium? That seems even more faux and artificial. Most baseball and sports stadiums were placed on the edges not in the center of downtown.  A central square, park or plaza is whats supposed to go in the middle not a huge hulking baseball stadiu. Plus, unless there are shops and such around the bottom edge of the baseball stadium it would hurt walkability because you would then only have stuff on one side of the street and a wall of dead space on the other. Just like you wouldnt put a large parking garage in the middle or by a town square without having businesses around it.  Plus this stadium is larger than most parking garages and with shops wrapped around it, it would take up an even larger space that you couldn't cut through and would have to walk all the way around. It would essentially take up 4 blocks if you added buildings around it.

As for being closer to the river. Can you see the river from inside the baseball stadium?  With the way the walls wrap around the stadium, it would seem that the closer you were to the river the more of the river would be blocked from your line of site. I guess if your waay up in the top stands on the SW side you could see out over the river. And even then if you draw a line of sight arrow to the closest area of ground, or river, you could see, its not going to fall anywhere near the stadium.  I dont understand why people want the stadium right up on the river? You wont be able to see it from inside. Is there some other reason?

[waterboy]

From my perspective, its just that I don't relish seeing a parking lot right next to the riverbank. Seems like that would be prime visual land and as pretty as Jenks Lexus' are I don't care to see them next to the bank!

[tim huntzinger]

I like the idea of walking through a neighborhoodish setting to the ballpark, maybe even have shops on the ground level of the park.

That summertime pavement is scorching hot, and the traffic access will obliterate a good portion of the riverfront.  I hope the comments here are right and this is just totally conceptual because it will be pointless to have it near the river if attendees are kept a good quarter mile from it.

Like having an arena that gives one a great view of the downtown skyline - NOT!

[swake]

I noticed there's a train station in the plan.

[jackbristow]

quote:How many small towns or urban centers are wrapped around a baseball stadium?

I may be seeing it a little differently, but I think the point he was trying to make was that it would have been cool to have the baseball field and stadium more incorporated into the retail areas.  If someone could emulate the Wrigley Field experience they would have a definite winner.  Has anyone ever been to a game there and hung out around the surrounding bars, shops, restaurants before and after?  It is awesome.  The stadium is right in the middle of the area and fits in nicely.  This could be mimicked in Jenks or Downtown without a problem.  I don't care where it is frankly.  If it is built and done well, I'll go.

[TheArtist]

That is a legitimate point on the parking lot being near the river and not some sort of shops or living.  However this whole development is not really "river centric" or a boardwalk type development.  Its more a town square type developent that happens to be near the river. You will still get a sense of being near water with the lake, canal, fountains, etc. but its not focused on that like the Riverwalk is. Plus the proposed dam will not put water in the area where the stadiums parking lot is situated. Missed opportunity? Perhaps. But also just doesnt seem to be what these people are going for anyway. And ya know, that parking lot can just as easily be redeveloped in the future with things facing the river, as it could be if they dont end up having any stadium there at all.

I hope that if any development goes in between 11th and 21st on the west bank in Tulsa that it faces downtown and the river and that a good part of it is right on the river. It would be nice for Tulsa to have true riverfront development, not just development thats near the river. That can be one thing that makes our development unique and attractive compared to this one.

[BKDotCom]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

That wasnt an amusement park. It was a nasty mess that kept getting worse every year. Unless the amusement was that it was called an amusement park.

I think he was referring to the former Amusement park (called "Skyline") in Jenks.
skyline info on tulsatvmemories.com

[TheArtist]

Sounds like even this project is in danger of not happening. Apparently there is some loud opposition to the use of a tif for this development. Most notably the use of a tif for the baseball stadium and the fountain. I was really hoping for this development to happen. It would be the first example of new urbanism or the "urban village" concept in the Tulsa area. Perhaps in Oklahoma.

[tulsa1603]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Sounds like even this project is in danger of not happening. Apparently there is some loud opposition to the use of a tif for this development. Most notably the use of a tif for the baseball stadium and the fountain. I was really hoping for this development to happen. It would be the first example of new urbanism or the "urban village" concept in the Tulsa area. Perhaps in Oklahoma.

I understand wanting this to happen, but it's just one more draw away from Tulsa....  Hear that giant sucking sound? =)

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Sounds like even this project is in danger of not happening. Apparently there is some loud opposition to the use of a tif for this development. Most notably the use of a tif for the baseball stadium and the fountain. I was really hoping for this development to happen. It would be the first example of new urbanism or the "urban village" concept in the Tulsa area. Perhaps in Oklahoma.

According to the world, the Jenks school district will actually get LESS money for 18 years than they get now.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by tulsa1603

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Sounds like even this project is in danger of not happening. Apparently there is some loud opposition to the use of a tif for this development. Most notably the use of a tif for the baseball stadium and the fountain. I was really hoping for this development to happen. It would be the first example of new urbanism or the "urban village" concept in the Tulsa area. Perhaps in Oklahoma.

I understand wanting this to happen, but it's just one more draw away from Tulsa....  Hear that giant sucking sound? =)

I compleeetely disagree. First off its so close, it IS Tulsa imo. Losing some tax revenue from some people that shop there instead of Tulsa, yes. But Tulsa itself is growing and Jenks and Glenpool... The pie isnt one size, its growing. Plus this is just the kind of development that the Tulsa area needs to help make it more attractive. We will all benefit from that just like the whole area is better because of that Riverwalk Crossing. Gives us all one more place to go, thing to do. Are you suggesting we have too much of that lol? OH no, there is sooo much to do here, sooo many neat places to go and shop, stop! no more! its just too much![] Again, the population is growing, jobs are growing, etc. This will actually help me feel better about being IN TULSA. I will like living here a little better. Plus things like Tulsa Hills pulling from Jenks and areas out that way will help balance out some of what the River District will pull from Tulsa.

Sometimes its just the appearance of things, the availability of something makes an area more attractive. Like friends of mine who have moved to Dallas. I find out they have really moved to areas like Plano or Addison. But its the "Dallas" that is the draw. Something doesnt have to be directly within the borders of Tulsa to make Tulsa a better place to live. How many people visit the beach every day that live by the ocean on the west coast. The beaches would have millions upon millions of people on them every day even if a percentage went. Its that its there, even if its not used that much. What percentage of people really, actually go to the mountains in Denver, even just once a month? Those things are A reason to live there, but many people do not honestly avail themselves of those reasons on a daily, weekly, even monthly basis.

So on top of the fact that Jenks, Tulsa et. al. are already growing. A nice development like this can actually help those places become more attractive and grow even more. This positive can spill over into Tulsa.

As for losing taxes. The area would lose, according to TW, about 6,000 dollars in taxes each year over the life of the tif. The area now generates about 13,000 a year in property taxes, during the life of the tif it will generate about 7,400 dollars a year. After the 18 years the area is estimated to generate about 21.8 million per year. The school district gets about half. So during the life of the tif the Jenks schools will lose about 3,500 per year. Minus whatever would be developed there without any tif if something is developed there otherwise. The developer says he wont build without the tif.

If that property is developed piecemeal over the years will that area 1. Be as attractive and a draw as it would be if this development were to go through? (I say no)  2.  Would what is likely to go there piecemeal be as nice, dense and make as much taxes over all as this development? (again I say no, its highly unlikely that any development there would have midrise buildings, apartments surrounding structured parking, etc. if its developed with your typical strip mall and big box stores. The typical development will not be as likely to be as dense, expensive and raise as much taxes over the long run as this development would. A large coherent development like this can afford to do more expensive things because each part works together to create a more desirable, cost effective whole. Plus the tif helps that and even small developers with a tif wont likely do as much over all in that area.) Even as nice as the River Walk is, its nothing in comparison to the scale of this. The river district will raise much more taxes in the end than probably anything else that is likely to go there. Plus its not as though Jenks will not be growing more property taxes in other areas. This can actually help spur even more growth.  Its also quite likely that it will take, what, 10 years or more for that area to fill in naturally? Its not as though they are going to be instantly getting the full amount of whatever development begins to go in there if its lots of smaller developments building up over time.

Once this big swath of property is gone in Jenks. There isnt going to be another. They arent going to have another chance at a large development like this. They simply dont have the available land and certainly not land thats this desirably located. This is their best chance to get this type of development if they ever want anything like it.

[spoonbill]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

That is a legitimate point on the parking lot being near the river and not some sort of shops or living.  However this whole development is not really "river centric" or a boardwalk type development.  Its more a town square type developent that happens to be near the river. You will still get a sense of being near water with the lake, canal, fountains, etc. but its not focused on that like the Riverwalk is. Plus the proposed dam will not put water in the area where the stadiums parking lot is situated. Missed opportunity? Perhaps. But also just doesnt seem to be what these people are going for anyway. And ya know, that parking lot can just as easily be redeveloped in the future with things facing the river, as it could be if they dont end up having any stadium there at all.

I hope that if any development goes in between 11th and 21st on the west bank in Tulsa that it faces downtown and the river and that a good part of it is right on the river. It would be nice for Tulsa to have true riverfront development, not just development thats near the river. That can be one thing that makes our development unique and attractive compared to this one.

Simply a concept for now.  The planners haven't gotten ahold of it yet.  Once they start to crunch numbers and review flow and traffic patterns it will change.  Nice preliminary though.

I guarentee it will have a better "riverfront" presence once the final orentaions and spacing is calculated.

[FOTD]

Schools will suffer if extremist developers continue to prey on our funds for schools...

REPOST!

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.c...

Just what the banks need.

The debt bubble is not just sub prime.

Commercial Real Estate nightmare....

[spoonbill]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

Schools will suffer if extremist developers continue to prey on our funds for schools...

REPOST!

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.c...

Just what the banks need.

The debt bubble is not just sub prime.

Commercial Real Estate nightmare....

Huh?
What's an extreemist developer?

I don't get it?

[FOTD]

What's a guarentee???

An extremist developer is one who plops down lots of money for land knowing they will leverage their way into fee development by using the tax system or a dumb banker for their own benefit with the disguise that it's great for the community.

Capitalism?