Riverwalk Phase II

[sauerkraut]

When will Phase III start? In the fall of 2008?[xx(]

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by sauerkraut

When will Phase III start? In the fall of 2008?[xx(]

There is no phase 3. phase 2 takes him all the way to 91st.

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by Floyd



It proves without a doubt that developers will go with the path of least resistance and least cost.

That path does not currently run through Tulsa.  It runs through cheap pasture land and good ole boy mayors.

If you want that to change, one option - the most available, immediate option - is to vote YES for the river plan.  

So your proposed strategy is to incur $280 million of taxes to get around an anti-development River Parks Authority, who, correct me if I'm wrong, will still have full rule over Tulsa's River Parks...??  As Mayor Taylor would say, "That's CRAZY!"  ;-)

I certainly hope they continue to have authority... especially if OUR tax money is being spent... I'd like the Tulsa side of the river to look alot like much of the area east of Lake Shore Drive in Chicago, public areas and parks with a few push-cart vendors.

Besides, is there really any room for private condos/retail/etc between Riverside Drive and the river?!?

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

I'd like the Tulsa side of the river to look alot like much of the area east of Lake Shore Drive in Chicago, public areas and parks with a few push-cart vendors.

Along with the world class museums, skyline, yachts, amusements, professional sports arenas, urbanized river, offices and condos that support that are next to that public area?  I love the Lake Shore area of Chicago, but that's like trying to turn a sand bar in the Arkansas into Key West.  I'm sure it can be nice, but no need to compare it to one of the most desirable and expensive districts in the United States.  Lets keep the goals reasonable.

Unless, of course, you simply meant geared in that direction... then hell yes.  Just don't get your hopes THAT high.

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder


Unless, of course, you simply meant geared in that direction... then hell yes.  Just don't get your hopes THAT high.

I meant "geared in that direction."  I used to live on the northside of Chicago so it's a natural point of reference for me.  BTW, most/many of the beaches on Lake Michigan are NOT part of upscale/luxury areas.  I never intended my comparison to be taken as one between Tulsa's riverfront/downtown and  Chicago's loop/downtown, Navy Pier, Magnificent Mile, etc, etc...

If you find my comparison to Chicago to be unreasonable... my last couple of years in Chicagoland were spent in Elgin, IL, a city about one-quarter the size of Tulsa.  They have a much smaller historic downtown yet have been able to do stuff like this...

http://www.cityofelgin.org/index.asp?nid=501

With these kinds of guidelines.... this link makes for a nice read, hint hint...
http://www.cityofelgin.org/index.asp?NID=528

My personal favorite snippet.... "Well-paying, long-term jobs must be associated with the proposed project (with a wage rate at least 25% above the average of wage rate for the community)."

And finally, for your viewing pleasure, a short history of the Chicago lakefront...

http://foreverfreeandclear.org/LSDHistory

quote:The land that is now Grant Park was deeded to the citizens of Chicago in two phases. Roughly half of the former Fort Dearborn — bounded by Michigan Avenue, the river, the lake, and Madison Street — was deeded on 2 November 1835 for "all time to come for a public square, accessible at all times to the people." This land included the current site of the Chicago Cultural Center (the former Dearborn Park and original Chicago Public Library) and what is now Grant Park between Randolph and Madison streets. The exact boundaries weren't determined until April 1839, when the rest of the Fort Dearborn tract went on sale.

More importantly, the 1836 plat of the State of Illinois' land grant for the I&M canal, supervised by Gurdon Hubbard, William F. Thornton, also included a public ground. On their plat map, they marked the lakefront property east of Michigan, from Madison south to 12th Street (Roosevelt Road) "Public Ground — Common to Remain Forever Open, Clear, and Free of Any Buildings, or Other Obstruction Whatever."

The land that the federal and state governments deeded to the young city as public grounds were, at the time, not of terrible commercial importance to the city. Most commerce tended to congregate near the river's mouth, and the thin, muddy strips of shoreline now in the city's possession were growing thinner and muddier by the year as erosion washed away the sand. City residents were soon requesting a breakwater to protect them from the encroaching lake, and the Illinois Central railroad — eager to connect central Chicago to the southern part of the state — drew up plans for a breakwater and trestle in the lake, along the shore. After a short legislative battle in 1852, the railroad quickly began construction on a new terminal (sited on the remainder of the Fort Dearborn property) and on a trestle that would shut the south side of Chicago off from its lakefront.

The Illinois Central proved a bad precedent for the development of parks along Chicago's lakefront. From 1890 to 1913, retail ogul Aaron Montgomery Ward went to court several times to prevent construction of various structures, from armories to a natural history museum, within the confines of Grant Park. In 1894, his pressure forced the City Council to turn over the Lake Park lands to the South Park Commission, which had been in charge of developing the World's Columbian Exhibition in Jackson Park and the adjacent parklands and set about developing the park. His actions also stopped cold Daniel Burnham's plans for a cultural campus in Grant Park; the museums planned for that site, including the Field Museum of Natural History and the Adler Planetarium, were eventually built on new fill east of the Illinois Central tracks and south of Twelfth Street.

The precedent for Lake Shore Drive was set in 1896, when the Commercial Club asked Daniel Burnham to present some schemes he had been working on for the south lakefront. The areas west of the IC tracks were terribly congested and crowded, despite the new parkways. Burnham planned to fill in vast lakefront areas and to create a network of lagoons, sheltered by offshore islands, along the city\u2019s entire lakefront. A scenic "Outer Park Boulevard" would connect north and south lakefronts, offering a pleasurable Sunday drive for the city's residents. The Commercial Club was so impressed by Burnham's scheme that they commissioned the famous Plan of Chicago, completed in 1909 and widely publicized ever since. Burnham centered the grand plan around the lakefront park and pleasure drive, writing

"First in importance [to the city] is the shore of Lake Michigan. It should be treated as park space to the greatest possible extent. The lakefront by right belongs to the people... not a foot of its shores should be appropriated to the exclusion of the people."

The plan inspired the City Council to pass a lakefront ordinance in 1919, calling for construction on the islands and lagoons, beaches, and a new sports stadium (Soldier Field). The Illinois Central cooperated by electrifying and depressing many of its tracks on the South Side, but progress remained slow due to the intervening Depression and World War Two.

Although the "clear and free" prohibition technically only covered Grant Park, many took the words to cover the entire lakefront park system. To this day, Chicago has a waterfront park system almost unparalleled among major cities worldwide, largely thanks to the vision of its forefathers.

[USRufnex]

Well, if there's anybody who knows tax boondoggles, a case could be made for Kaiser....

http://www.ncrp.org/042505.asp

quote:A Tax Benefit for Big Donors Often Bypasses Idea of Charity

By Stephanie Strom, The New York Times
April 25, 2005

George B. Kaiser, a publicity-shy oilman who built a fortune estimated at $4 billion by snapping up busted petroleum businesses in Oklahoma, set aside roughly $1 billion for charitable endeavors from 2000 to the end of last year.

In exchange, he can now deflect taxes on much of his own income over the next several years.

But it turns out that only $3.4 million of the money he set aside has gone to charities. The rest is sitting in an obscure philanthropic entity called a supporting organization, so named because it is created to support a specific charity or charities.

Supporting organizations are attractive to donors because they offer the generous tax benefits associated with donating directly to charities and operate much like private foundations, but without a foundation's more onerous requirements.

Donors get those perks because they agree to relinquish control over the money. But since they appoint the organization's board, they can retain a great deal of influence over it.

Regulators and lawmakers suspect that many wealthy people have used these organizations more for tax planning than for any charitable aim and are pushing for tighter rules as part of a broader crackdown on charitable tax exemptions.

"I'm deeply disturbed that with a good number of supporting organizations, people are taking multimillion-dollar tax deductions for what they claim are contributions to charity, yet too often the result is a thimbleful of benefit to charity," said Senator Charles E. Grassley, the Iowa Republican who is chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

[TheArtist]

Its a foundation, like many colleges have where your money grows and continues to give.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20060510/ai_n16356182

http://www.tulsacf.org/TulsaSpiritPressRelease.asp

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Its a foundation, like many colleges have where your money grows and continues to give.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20060510/ai_n16356182

http://www.tulsacf.org/TulsaSpiritPressRelease.asp

It is slightly different in that foundations have requirements to disburse certain amounts each fiscal year and are presumably separate from the donors. I think what the article says is that these are special "supportive"  beasts that may accumulate and disburse at will with the directors under pressure from the donor.

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Its a foundation, like many colleges have where your money grows and continues to give.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20060510/ai_n16356182

http://www.tulsacf.org/TulsaSpiritPressRelease.asp

I understand those foundations are also the result of Mr. Kaiser.  However, the lead for the River Proposal is the George Kaiser Family Foundation which is a very effective gift to our community.

But then again how did a tread entitled "Riverwalk Phase II" get to this discussion?

[Sangria]

The people developing Jenks River Crossing are not asking for money from the public because they KNOW without a shadow of a doubt they will get their money back and more.

Tulsa City is making this a county issue because the people wanting to develope it know that it is a huge risk and don't have the confidence that the project will be a money making endever.

They say this river project will add 9,000 jobs. I would love to know how they figure a few resteraunts and shops will hire that many people - unless they mean security jobs to keep the people who go there safe. []

[sauerkraut]

Hey gang, did you see in todays news the re-building of the RiverSide jogging trails? WoW!! The new trail will look real spiffy. They will have two trails one for the bike riders/rollerblades and one for us joggers & runners. The picture they had of it at Tulsa World.com looked like a divided "highway" only it's for joggers and cyclists, instead of cars. I guess they will re-build the jogging trail in sections the first section will be from 21st street to 41st street. The trail will be closed while it's under construction. Then when it re-opens they will re-build the next section 41st to 71st street & so on. It's really going to look great! Great job Tulsa![]

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Sangria

The people developing Jenks River Crossing are not asking for money from the public because they KNOW without a shadow of a doubt they will get their money back and more.

Tulsa City is making this a county issue because the people wanting to develope it know that it is a huge risk and don't have the confidence that the project will be a money making endever.

They say this river project will add 9,000 jobs. I would love to know how they figure a few resteraunts and shops will hire that many people - unless they mean security jobs to keep the people who go there safe. []

Cheesecake factory employs something like 200. Just on restaurant. The Tulsa Landing project would go far towards that number.

[patric]

Nice Acorn lights....  NOT.


They had done a fairly decent job of lighting earlier so im disappointed this phase will be a step backward.  Maybe this time the electricty peddlers "consulted" with them?

My sympathies to anyone on the second or third stories that had hoped for an evening view of the river/skyline, or a dark bedroom to get some sleep in at night.

[cannon_fodder]

A decent sized restaurant (think Applebees) employs around 100, a mid-sized retailer employs about 100 (Wal-Greens, Victoria Secrets, etc.).  So we would need NINETY of those along the river to make that happen.  Or about the same number as are in Promenade mall.

With all the greenspace, that would be a TON.  Especially considering the small business ventures they want to attract usually employ far less.  A Bill and Ruths employs what... 10 people?  River's Edge employs 5 I think.

Those numbers are extremely fishy to me.

[sauerkraut]

I worked as a dishwasher at an AppleBee's in Cincinatti long ago and the total number of employees was something like 20-(25 max)... Wal-Greens employes something like 10 people everytime I go into that store I only see about 4 employees, then when you account for weekend shifts and part time workers I can't see any more than about 10 employees I don't see how they get those numbers.