The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes)

[T-TownMike]

Here's some orher cool renderings if the tax passes....

http://ourriveryes.com/maps-and-renderings/

[Kenosha]

Those are some awful large footprints on a few of those buildings...I'm just sayin'.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Grizz is right.  Being indoors is the cool factor, that and the time of year ensures huge car counts.

I still remember buying a "First Annual" Chili Bowl shirt in 1987 before the races and chuckling thinking they effed up by putting "annual" on it as hardly anyone figured it would happen again.

A race track by the river would never, ever fly, just couldn't resist tossing that one back @ Bruno.

One of these days, I'll scan some of my old racing photos and post one from time-to-time.

A ZEV track might fly. Noise pollution and emissions would not be an issue. NASCAR for tree huggers? Stranger things have happened.

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

quote:Originally posted by Rico


The way this vote will happen... If passed.. The land acquisition would be property placed in the hands of the City of Tulsa.

Then it would be put out as an RFP...(Request for Proposals)
I think they have to do that according to law.

What sort of guarantee does the City or Mr. Huffman have that he would be the chosen RFP..?

Is it legal to place property out on an RFP basis.. if the winning RFP has already been chosen?

Could one of the fine Attorneys on the board help with this...?

[?]

No question, the RFP process would have to be followed.

What has happened here is that Huffman and HCW have put their cards on the table early.  They want the voters to know that if they support the property acquisition, there will be at least one  viable, financed proposal immediately on the table.  They probably also want to head off competitors.  There's nothing improper about this--it's a strategy by the developer to take full advantage of the political process.  That's why this "Tulsa Landing" is still nothing but pretty pictures.  There is most likely a design team on standby, waiting on poll results, to put some specifics on paper.  

The bottom line is: unlike the TDA's acquisition of the Towerview property, and unlike like old City Hall, there's a developer with financial backing waiting in the wings.  This is not a gamble.  This is a sure thing, if the voters approve the property acquisition.

Thanks Floyd.....

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper

c'mon 7...

Bruno, I'm not much of a soccer guy.  Put a 3/8 mile dirt oval in the stadium and I'm in. []

pssst... conan.. Bruno is in to like major league parties and dice tables... and those French girls with the... well you know..

[}:)]

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

The timing of the renderings is not all that surprising.  In lieu of having the major details worked out, throw out a little more window-dressing.  Even though Huffman's development is but one potential for the RFP, they've got someone who could crank out some quick renderings and build more excitement.

I did notice from the rendering that the ball park or multi-sport facility would be on the former city maintenance and engineering facility.  That would be a logical use of the land.

I'm still not swayed, patience people, patience.

Patience patience. Don't go with the first person that asks ya to the dance....

Hows that Towerview property going?
Hows that East End development going?
How many years do you have in mind for us to wait? Decades perhaps? Where are all the other offers to dance?

[brunoflipper]

oh well, got some more dirt on the "stadium"...



nonetheless it is nice thought...

[Oil Capital]

While this appears like it would be a great development, won't it pretty much kill off any hope for significant downtown retail/restaurant/club/pedestrian development for a very long time to come?  I mean, there's only so much demand for central city retail/housing/urban lifestyle development and I'm afraid Tulsa Landing would pretty much satisfy that demand for quite some time.

Personally, I think we'd be better off with just several restaurants developed on the west bank of the river, keeping the "festival grounds" (BTW, where will we be having Octoberfest and other festivals...?), rather than plopping down an entire suburban lifestyle center on the festival grounds...  Imagine several restaurants directly on the west bank, with large decks on the river with the beautiful view of Tulsa's skyline.  Have some little ferry boats to take people to and from the restaurants from the east bank...  Somehow provide a better connection to downtown and do something more to encourage retail/club/restaurant/housing/pedestrian lifestyle development DOWNTOWN.

[Breadburner]

Oktoberfest will probably end up in Pryor....I cannot stress this point enough...The Crow Creek corridor needs to be developed not the freaking river....The Improvements to the trails I whole heartedly agree with.....

[cannon_fodder]

Oil Capital:

Such things feed off of each other.  While there is only so much demand, a big retail development actually creates demand for MORE retail in the area (think 71st Street after Woodland Hills Mall). Corporate heard mentality I guess.  

Think about it, why are retailers trending South?  Because that's where the new developments are.  Get new retail and residential near downtown and downtown becomes a viable place to live/develop etc.  I think this will help DT in the long run, but may preclude a home run development package for a few years.

Breadburner:

If Oktoberfest was moved ANYWHERE outside the City of Tulsa I would be EXTREMELY pissed off.  I'm having 6 people fly in from Chicago, Des Moines, and Minneapolis for Oktoberfest this year - that's how big of a deal it is in my household.   I see no reason why the parkland in that area would not compliment any development or if need be Oktoberfest be held downtown like in Munich.  Beer tents, beer bars, and chicken hats.

Tulsa Oktoberfest is wundervoll!

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

The timing of the renderings is not all that surprising.  In lieu of having the major details worked out, throw out a little more window-dressing.  Even though Huffman's development is but one potential for the RFP, they've got someone who could crank out some quick renderings and build more excitement.

I did notice from the rendering that the ball park or multi-sport facility would be on the former city maintenance and engineering facility.  That would be a logical use of the land.

I'm still not swayed, patience people, patience.

Patience patience. Don't go with the first person that asks ya to the dance....

Hows that Towerview property going?
Hows that East End development going?
How many years do you have in mind for us to wait? Decades perhaps? Where are all the other offers to dance?

Honestly, I think if it fails, we will see this again in a year or two, not decades.  At the very least, they should have waited on the USACE environmental report due this fall.  

Secondly, I think it wise to wait and see what the construction fall out is going to be after the "mass exodus" before Nov. 1.  Construction wages are bound to go up and passing the tax on Oct. 9th does not lock contractors into paying the same wage structure they are paying today.  IOW- I bet construction cost will wind up being 25% higher than what has been presented in the estimates which means the tax will need to be extended or promised features will be left off from the final plan.  I would think it wise to go back and do further studies on project costs.

It's not like doing a small project with the Parks Dept. in 8 weeks, lots more details to flesh out. []

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

While this appears like it would be a great development, won't it pretty much kill off any hope for significant downtown retail/restaurant/club/pedestrian development for a very long time to come?  I mean, there's only so much demand for central city retail/housing/urban lifestyle development and I'm afraid Tulsa Landing would pretty much satisfy that demand for quite some time.

Personally, I think we'd be better off with just several restaurants developed on the west bank of the river, keeping the "festival grounds" (BTW, where will we be having Octoberfest and other festivals...?), rather than plopping down an entire suburban lifestyle center on the festival grounds...  Imagine several restaurants directly on the west bank, with large decks on the river with the beautiful view of Tulsa's skyline.  Have some little ferry boats to take people to and from the restaurants from the east bank...  Somehow provide a better connection to downtown and do something more to encourage retail/club/restaurant/housing/pedestrian lifestyle development DOWNTOWN.

This will be a cannibalistic tax that will only shift collections from other areas of town.

[bassfisher74133]

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

quote:Originally posted by bassfisher74133

Honestly I was a Vote NO person but now after seeing this plan I have decided to vote YES! On the river.

Hopefully someone can educate me on this river plan because I have a few questions on more of a south Tulsa friendly plan.

Basically some of the questions I have are back when the river plan was originally drawn up it was almost the full river bed that was being developed from 101st to 21st  (I believe) and it included water taxi's and little river channels that made small river walks up and down the river bank... is this still planned or have they done away with dressing up the south Tulsa area???

Where can I look at the art renderings for there plan?

I think it was pie in the sky thinking all of that INCOG river corridor stuff was going to happen anytime soon.  (assuming the tax passes) we'll get the low water dams, a few new park areas donated, and some commercial development will pop up here and there.  But funding for the entire Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan (I think thats what it is called) would cost many times more than what we are currently freaking out at each other over.  In other words, it is easy to make renderings of all this stuff on the river, but funding it is an entirely different story.  Maybe if this tax passes, we'll have another "phase" to vote on in 7 years - or maybe an entire penny when 2025 runs out.  And it will always remain incomplete enough to continue to vote on more taxes and keep the construction companies rolling in the green.

So this Links   http://www.incog.org/ark%20river/default.htm renderings are nothing but a pipe dream?
This is my problem with this whole river plan there are all these art renderings and none of them are the actual plan. I was under the impression the Do The River First.com was the very latest to be done. can someone point me to the actual web page that shows what im voting on.

[dsjeffries]

quote:Originally posted by bassfisher74133

So this Links   http://www.incog.org/ark%20river/default.htm renderings are nothing but a pipe dream?
This is my problem with this whole river plan there are all these art renderings and none of them are the actual plan. I was under the impression the Do The River First.com was the very latest to be done. can someone point me to the actual web page that shows what im voting on.

http://www.ourriveryes.com
shows all the plans and renderings of what THIS project entails.  The INCOG site shows the entire Master Plan.  This project includes parts, but not the whole plan.  It would take several hundred million more dollars to incorporate the remainder of the Master Plan.

You can also check out http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/content/2007/river_site/default.aspx

http://www.ktul.com/external.hrb?p=riverplan

or

http://www.kotv.com/special/river/

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by DScott28604

quote:Originally posted by bassfisher74133

So this Links   http://www.incog.org/ark%20river/default.htm renderings are nothing but a pipe dream?
This is my problem with this whole river plan there are all these art renderings and none of them are the actual plan. I was under the impression the Do The River First.com was the very latest to be done. can someone point me to the actual web page that shows what im voting on.

http://www.ourriveryes.com
shows all the plans and renderings of what THIS project entails.  The INCOG site shows the entire Master Plan.  This project includes parts, but not the whole plan.  It would take several hundred million more dollars to incorporate the remainder of the Master Plan.

You can also check out http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/content/2007/river_site/default.aspx

http://www.ktul.com/external.hrb?p=riverplan

or

http://www.kotv.com/special/river/

Don't be so quick to fall for the our river yes website.

Tell me, PLEASE tell me, where in the tax there is money for THIS:


(click to enlarge)

What?  There isnt!  All of those concepts are just that.  Concepts.  Feel good images of what MIGHT be.  Apparently, if we build dams upstream from Broken Arrow (which in turn puts zero new water in the river for BA) puts some sort of impetus to Broken Arrow to do what looks like a several hundred million re-make of Indian Springs?

Again, it is easy to draw a concept, but the stuff still requires money.

Why does the ourriveryes website have a rendering of the trail improvements?  THEY ARE NOT A PART OF THE TAX.  Work has already begun.  The money was already donated.  One of the few things on their rendering that will actually come true.

As far as I know, the QuikTrip people are the only ones with actual concrete designs for their donation (the 41st street meeting area).  All of the other "Riverfront developments" pictured on that site are what someone imagined "what could be" after smoking some potent stuff, not worrying about how costly it would be.

Is Kaiser's gift paying for this?


(click to enlarge)

That looks nice.  I hope it is being donated (because there is NO TAX MONEY in the bill for this) - But it looks, to my glance, like something that would take a couple hundred million to re-landscape over half a mile complete with a large pond/fountain and hardened up shore-lines.