The New Tulsa Landing (if the river vote passes)

[Oil Capital]

Thank you for pointing that out YT.  I, too, noticed that the "Ourriveryes" website includes renderings of a lot of stuff that is NOT part of the tax package OR the donation package (at least as far as we've been told).  The mendacity would be hilarious if it weren't potentially so costly.

[Renaissance]

First of all, you're off topic.

Second of all, gathering spaces.  

I'm not going to question your reading comprehension, since you're intelligent individuals.  But why are you blind to the fact that this plan includes a hell of a lot of funding for new gathering spaces along the river?  You've questioned that concept before, OC.  You can mock the idea of them, you can suggest that no one will use them, but to play dumb is insulting to all of us.  I don't have the time or energy to lay it out in mind-numbing detail, but believe me, what's in the drawings is a conceptualization of what's on the ballot combined with the promised donations.

Back on topic-
I worry about canniabalizatoin too.  I worry this will set downtown back.  But the dance card is nearly empty.  One suitor (Global) couldn't deliver.  This one can, and in a spot that is still revitalizing to the urban core.

[TheArtist]

I don't think a Tulsa Landing type development will hurt downtown at all. The types of things going on in downtown are very different from what is proposed for Tulsa Landing. I do wish there was more residential with the TL, but they can always add more later. Plus the object is to grow the pie not shuffle pieces around. We want to bring more people into town, give them more things to do, get more people to live in the central core.

Tulsas population is going to have to grow somewhere, assuming we want it to grow. Downtown, certain spots along the river, areas in north Tulsa, and other infill spots are the most likely candidates. Most of the suburban type land available in south Tulsa is quickly being used up. More dense urban type development in Tulsas core has to be an option.

As for the renderings. I complained long ago about what I saw as being on the west bank in the INCOG plan at 21st. But was reminded that these are only possibilities for what can go in the area. There are actually several renderings of what can go at 71st, the original incog plan, that I liked, then there is also the new version that yes, Kaiser is paying for. Again, I dont think the incog plan was a real plan but just showing what that area was for and some possibilities. Whether the Kaiser plan that he wants to do at 71st is down to actual nuts and bolts surety I dont know. If he wont be building it because the tax doesnt pass, (it includes a large dock that goes out over the river and if there is no water in the river, well there is no need for there to be a dock)then he may not want to bother with getting an architect to do detailed plans and builders lined up.

Many developers, even after they have funding, continue to refine and adjust their developments. The riverwalk phase 2 is an example. He had an initial idea of what it was going to be like, but over time he changed the plan and even added on. Banks and lenders often have a say during the process (they are often push against mixed use developments because it is difficult for them to figure out just how to make the numbers work, Is this retail? A shopping center? and do we crunch the numbers that way? Is this an entertainment venue? A condo or housing project and how do we figure the risks? When you get to the point of meeting with the lenders they often have their own opinions and say.  These developments cant be finalized until later down the road for many reasons, including possible tennants and who turns up.   They dont even know if they are going to be able to do anything at this point. The lenders would look at you like you were crazy at this point. Is it going to be a tiff? Renting property from the city or buying? What type of infrastructure? Is there going to be a baseball team? etc.

I dont know why they have some renderings of things that arent in this particular plan. Other than possibly some tiny amount of money will be going to them? Isnt Bixby getting a token amount for something? The BA thing I am not sure is getting anything and so should not be on there at all imo, but has been part of their plans. They also show the incog master plan maps and there is a lot of stuff that will not be built with this plan on those.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

First of all, you're off topic.

Second of all, gathering spaces.  

I'm not going to question your reading comprehension, since you're intelligent individuals.  But why are you blind to the fact that this plan includes a hell of a lot of funding for new gathering spaces along the river?  You've questioned that concept before, OC.  You can mock the idea of them, you can suggest that no one will use them, but to play dumb is insulting to all of us.  I don't have the time or energy to lay it out in mind-numbing detail, but believe me, what's in the drawings is a conceptualization of what's on the ballot combined with the promised donations.

Back on topic-
I worry about canniabalizatoin too.  I worry this will set downtown back.  But the dance card is nearly empty.  One suitor (Global) couldn't deliver.  This one can, and in a spot that is still revitalizing to the urban core.

Historically speaking, the gathering places will just be another spot on the river for perverts seeking perverts to engage a little rough trade on the river. I wonder if we have enough money in the city budget to station the sex crimes division on the river? Looks like we're gonna need to if this passes.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

There isn't one, because the way the ballot language is written, they can pretty much do whatever they want.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

First of all, you're off topic.

Second of all, gathering spaces.  

I'm not going to question your reading comprehension, since you're intelligent individuals.  But why are you blind to the fact that this plan includes a hell of a lot of funding for new gathering spaces along the river?  You've questioned that concept before, OC.  You can mock the idea of them, you can suggest that no one will use them, but to play dumb is insulting to all of us.  I don't have the time or energy to lay it out in mind-numbing detail, but believe me, what's in the drawings is a conceptualization of what's on the ballot combined with the promised donations.

Back on topic-
I worry about canniabalizatoin too.  I worry this will set downtown back.  But the dance card is nearly empty.  One suitor (Global) couldn't deliver.  This one can, and in a spot that is still revitalizing to the urban core.

I didn't say anything in this thread about gathering places.... Not sure what your point is.  

What about that Broken Arrow "concept sketch"  complete with water in the river (downstream from the Jenks low-water dam, no less)?  How is that included in this plan?  

Even without water, it seems QUITE unlikely there will be enough money to acquire land and pay for infrastructure for that "concept", the "concept" in Jenks, the "concept" in Bixby, the "concept" in Sand Sprins (as the river tax people like to call it) AND the Tulsa Landing.

Clever way to try to get votes from all five cities, but it does not strike me as the most honest presentation I've ever seen, to say the least.  

(I'm a little surprised they haven't thrown in Collinsville and Owassa concepts, or suddenly remembered that there are a few million dollars of the donations that, oh, yes, were ALWAYS meant for those cities...)

[waterboy]

Floyd-" I don't have the time or energy to lay it out in mind-numbing detail, but believe me, what's in the drawings is a conceptualization of what's on the ballot combined with the promised donations."

Believe me Floyd, they are depending on this response. They have flooded these posts with as many stupid allegations as time permits with no real support for their claims forthcoming. Multiple threads by the same folks all with some "new" fallacy or weakness in the plan. The idea is to poke as many little holes in the plan as they can by hinting at incompetence, insider activity, and rushed planning. By poking all those little holes they believe the public will perceive that it is a leaky boat.

As far as cannabalizing, thats also a weak argument. I once asked a K-mart manager if he was concerned about a new Target opening up nearby. He said he was excited as hell. They do excellent site research, advertise a lot and wherever we are near one, our store shows consistently increasing sales. The synergy of pumping more capital into an area and seeing it create more sales for everyone else is well known. That is why a shopping center always wants a visible, active anchor who spends money to bring in customers. All the little stores want to coat tail.

It may be counter-intuitive but no mystery to those involved.

[waterboy]

I believe the BA rendering was done before the Mayor changed direction of the city and dragged longstanding river development supporters along with him. It still is a good concept of what could happen there. Broken Arrow doesn't seem to think they have any shoreline. Odd. Its right behind the trees at the Sports Complex, you know, right near where some of the BA fathers want to put a golf course. Golf being a sport of common folk and all. Maybe they didn't want any of that river development interfering with their course.

Someone said that there would be no water in the river around BA with this plan. That is incorrect. There will probably be no water if they never do anything with their shoreline. Why would Jenks release water if BA doesn't care. BTW, the crook in the river at BA already insures there is water there more often than the stretch in Tulsa.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist


I dont know why they have some renderings of things that arent in this particular plan.

I do.  Sales job.

I'm surprised no plan to deal with the rough slum to the west of the concrete plant has been mentioned.  That's really going to be a black eye to have right across the street from a prime development.

C'mon Yes'ers- come up with a plan for that blight by next Tues!

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71


I'm surprised no plan to deal with the rough slum to the west of the concrete plant has been mentioned.  That's really going to be a black eye to have right across the street from a prime development.

C'mon Yes'ers- come up with a plan for that blight by next Tues!

Gentrification based on increased property values, which will be brought about by city-supported commercial development in the area.

Proven to work in cities across the nation, and - you guessed it - across the state.

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

First of all, you're off topic.

Second of all, gathering spaces.  

I'm not going to question your reading comprehension, since you're intelligent individuals.  But why are you blind to the fact that this plan includes a hell of a lot of funding for new gathering spaces along the river?  You've questioned that concept before, OC.  You can mock the idea of them, you can suggest that no one will use them, but to play dumb is insulting to all of us.  I don't have the time or energy to lay it out in mind-numbing detail, but believe me, what's in the drawings is a conceptualization of what's on the ballot combined with the promised donations.

Back on topic-
I worry about canniabalizatoin too.  I worry this will set downtown back.  But the dance card is nearly empty.  One suitor (Global) couldn't deliver.  This one can, and in a spot that is still revitalizing to the urban core.

I didn't say anything in this thread about gathering places.... Not sure what your point is.  

What about that Broken Arrow "concept sketch"  complete with water in the river (downstream from the Jenks low-water dam, no less)?  How is that included in this plan?  

Even without water, it seems QUITE unlikely there will be enough money to acquire land and pay for infrastructure for that "concept", the "concept" in Jenks, the "concept" in Bixby, the "concept" in Sand Sprins (as the river tax people like to call it) AND the Tulsa Landing.

Clever way to try to get votes from all five cities, but it does not strike me as the most honest presentation I've ever seen, to say the least.  

(I'm a little surprised they haven't thrown in Collinsville and Owassa concepts, or suddenly remembered that there are a few million dollars of the donations that, oh, yes, were ALWAYS meant for those cities...)

I wasn't really coming after you -- I was coming after YoungTulsan, the guy who thinks the kayakers he sees in the river are part of a grand conspiracy to convince him to vote yes.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

quote:Originally posted by Conan71


I'm surprised no plan to deal with the rough slum to the west of the concrete plant has been mentioned.  That's really going to be a black eye to have right across the street from a prime development.

C'mon Yes'ers- come up with a plan for that blight by next Tues!

Gentrification based on increased property values, which will be brought about by city-supported commercial development in the area.

Proven to work in cities across the nation, and - you guessed it - across the state.

Have you seen some of the homes that are right near the Riverwalk in Jenks? Do you remember what some of those booming areas near downtown OKC used to look like. Talk about slums.

Someone from OKC mentioned that OKCs roads ranked an F. They passed their redevelopment plans before doing major arterial road repairs. And are now getting ready to vote on a big road program. Any truth to that?

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

Floyd-" I don't have the time or energy to lay it out in mind-numbing detail, but believe me, what's in the drawings is a conceptualization of what's on the ballot combined with the promised donations."

Believe me Floyd, they are depending on this response. They have flooded these posts with as many stupid allegations as time permits with no real support for their claims forthcoming. Multiple threads by the same folks all with some "new" fallacy or weakness in the plan. The idea is to poke as many little holes in the plan as they can by hinting at incompetence, insider activity, and rushed planning. By poking all those little holes they believe the public will perceive that it is a leaky boat.

As far as cannabalizing, thats also a weak argument. I once asked a K-mart manager if he was concerned about a new Target opening up nearby. He said he was excited as hell. They do excellent site research, advertise a lot and wherever we are near one, our store shows consistently increasing sales. The synergy of pumping more capital into an area and seeing it create more sales for everyone else is well known. That is why a shopping center always wants a visible, active anchor who spends money to bring in customers. All the little stores want to coat tail.

It may be counter-intuitive but no mystery to those involved.

How many K-marts have closed their doors in Tulsa? Too easy.

[USRufnex]

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. []

Here's one for ya Conan...
http://blogs.jsonline.com/businessofsports/archive/2007/07/30/one-more-soccer-stadium-idea.aspx

quote:Greenberg's new idea is to built a soccer field in the infield of the Milwaukee Mile at State Fair Park. How would that work? Simple, Greenberg says. The field would be built on a tray that could be moved when motor sports events are being held at the Milwaukee Mile. The concept is based on the stadium in Phoenix where the football field can be moved in and out of the stadium.

Greenberg says the Zimmerman Design Group, which is working with Greenberg on the plan, believes it could work. The cost? $40 million.

"It's the last chance for Major League Soccer in the area," Greenberg said.

The plan would call for the Milwaukee Mile group, which has control of the famed raceway, to sub-lease the infield to the soccer group. In that way, Greenberg believes, the Milwaukee Mile would be able to generate more revenue for itself.

Oh... and can sombody put me down for a ten-spot on "MLS in Tulsa" at 100:1 odds... [8D]

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sports/2007/sep/18/566654916.html

[perspicuity85]

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.

To answer your question Oil Capital:
No.  The Landing project as I understand it will be primarily retail focused, with some housing and office.  Downtown is obviously still the hub of office space for the Tulsa metro area, and the Blue Dome and Brady Arts districts can still provide residential space in closer proximity to workplaces than the Landing project will.  When you talk of demand, you must also consider the possibility of creating demand.  The more successful downtown becomes in attracting nightlife, the higher the demand for downtown housing will be.  Within a target market, all products/concepts go through a life cycle.  Take cell phones, for example.  How many people did you know that owned cell phones fifteen years ago?  Probably very few, the ones that did are known as the innovators.  How about ten years ago?  Probably a lot more, but probably not the parents or grandparents of the individuals who did own cell phones at the time.  The ten-year cell phone owners are known as early adopters.  The last two categories in the process are the late adopters and the laggards.  Urban housing works the same way.  The demand increases as the product becomes more proven and as less and less psychological risk is associated with the product in the mind of consumers.  Locally, Tulsa's urban housing dwellers are mostly part of the innovator group.  But I can tell you from my personal "young professional" experience, urban housing is in even higher demand on a local scale than the city leaders realize.  Today, you may be right.  If today, there suddenly appeared a Tulsa Landing and all of the Downtown loft projects were finished, there might be a lot of vacancy for a while.  But as it stands, there is a lot of build-up and not a lot of products.  Most downtown loft projects are not finished and Tulsa Landing still only exists in paper and digital form.  As long as Tulsa doesn't have a major recession, or some other exogenous factor doesn't weigh in, I believe a Tulsa Landing-type project and Downtown lofts can coexist.    The combined metro population of Tulsa; OKC; Ft. Smith, AR; Northwest AR; Springfield, MO; Joplin, MO; and Wichita, KS; is over 3.5 million people.  You can't tell me there aren't at least a thousand or two individuals within that 3.5mil+ population that can't be reeled into Tulsa's urban scene.  With an adequate marketing effort, all of Tulsa's urban housing nodes will complement each other.