We really havent been talking about much lately

[YoungTulsan]

I remember just a few months ago, before the river vote, this forum was full of all sorts of discussion about where Tulsa needs to go, and what promising developments lay on the horizon.  Did everything really just dry up when the tax was voted down?  What things are under works right now?

I think the most positive thing that came out of the river tax debate was that everyone was full of ideas, and we were sharing them with each other.  That seems to have vanished the last couple of months.

Was it the tulsanow server debacle?  I noticed that really killed off a lot of the conversation here.  Then there was the ice storm, many of us without internet for over 2 weeks.  Was that the death blow?  The only conversations I see going now are about Jenks, Owasso, Bixby, etc.  What about Tulsa?

Let's get back to sharing our visions  I used to look forward to loading Tulsanow every night to see what discussions and ideas were being thrown around.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

I remember just a few months ago, before the river vote, this forum was full of all sorts of discussion about where Tulsa needs to go, and what promising developments lay on the horizon.  Did everything really just dry up when the tax was voted down?  What things are under works right now?

I think the most positive thing that came out of the river tax debate was that everyone was full of ideas, and we were sharing them with each other.  That seems to have vanished the last couple of months.

Was it the tulsanow server debacle?  I noticed that really killed off a lot of the conversation here.  Then there was the ice storm, many of us without internet for over 2 weeks.  Was that the death blow?  The only conversations I see going now are about Jenks, Owasso, Bixby, etc.  What about Tulsa?

Let's get back to sharing our visions  I used to look forward to loading Tulsanow every night to see what discussions and ideas were being thrown around.

To me...there is the growing realization that this is an exercise in futility. Tulsa is slow and getting slower. Talk is plentiful and increasingly shallow all over town. The few people on this playground who are well informed and logically oriented are bound up in philosphical circular causation. Mostly it provides a chance for egos to puff and then clash. Yes, there are a few things happening that will make a blip on the screen but its pretty depressing around here if you have high expectations. A lot was invested in the last few efforts to break out of the 'just say no' attitude here, including V2025 and the river projects, and now many of those who voted for them have moved away. The economy is starting to sag, illegals are on the run, Jenks keeps embarrassing us and ....the damn piles of trees! JMO.

[cannon_fodder]

Man, Waterboy is a bit down.

I'd like to be able to say something to deflect some of the criticism but all I can come up with is that Tulsa's population is growing and I don't know anyone that got fed up and left.  I'm still holding on to hope and the fact that Tulsa remains a fine place to live - or I'd be gone myself.

Development is slower than I'd hope for, but winter is generally not when projects make big headway or major announcements surface anyway.

[Renaissance]

I have a feeling there's going to be one more big conversation very soon.  It's going to involve a plan for a baseball stadium downtown as well as adjuacent development.  It's probably going to involve subsidies from the city, which will inflame those who are always against that sort of thing.  The result of that will drive our discussion for a long time--if Tulsa leaders are finally successful in getting commercial development downtown, we're going to have a good time debating the direction of development down there.

If not, we're just going to sit quietly, chat a little bit, and watch the suburbs prosper.

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

I have a feeling there's going to be one more big conversation very soon.  It's going to involve a plan for a baseball stadium downtown as well as adjuacent development.  It's probably going to involve subsidies from the city, which will inflame those who are always against that sort of thing.  The result of that will drive our discussion for a long time--if Tulsa leaders are finally successful in getting commercial development downtown, we're going to have a good time debating the direction of development down there.

If not, we're just going to sit quietly, chat a little bit, and watch the suburbs prosper.

That's interesting.  Do you feel like we're approaching a "last chance" sorta moment?  And if so, before what happens?

[RecycleMichael]

Downtown development is already happening, we just aren't able to completely enjoy it yet. The arena will open this year. The downtown road construction will finish (not soon enough). The Brady art museum, KOTV and the other remodel projects will happen.

Just step back for a second. The area around Blue Dome and McNellies was just one bar, a pawnshop and some vacant buildings five years ago and now finds hundreds of people there on a weekend night. The arena sits on what had to be the nastiest diner in the land just three years ago. We even have a coffee shop opened in the Mayo Hotel.

It is all these little things, combined with a big thing like new roads and an arena that are bringing back downtown. I too am in a hurry, but this is far from a last chance to succeed.

[rwarn17588]

I don't buy this gloom and doom crap for downtown.

The return of downtown is inevitable. It will happen slowly, but these things always do.

Broken Arrow is already creaking with age and bad decisions, and Owasso's embrace of short-term strip-mall hell will look shortsighted in less than a decade. There's no there there.

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

I have a feeling there's going to be one more big conversation very soon.  It's going to involve a plan for a baseball stadium downtown as well as adjuacent development.  It's probably going to involve subsidies from the city, which will inflame those who are always against that sort of thing.  The result of that will drive our discussion for a long time--if Tulsa leaders are finally successful in getting commercial development downtown, we're going to have a good time debating the direction of development down there.

If not, we're just going to sit quietly, chat a little bit, and watch the suburbs prosper.

That's interesting.  Do you feel like we're approaching a "last chance" sorta moment?  And if so, before what happens?

Well, it will certainly be downtown's last chance to secure a ballpark and surrounding development.  It won't be downtown's last chance period--but it's the sort of spark that works in other cities, and in my opinion would work for Tulsa.  Although, there's no guarantee there will even be a downtown plan announced--just a lot of assumptions and scuttlebutt.

Honestly,  the worst case scenario for downtown is not that bad--it's just the status quo.  Without major capital investment, downtown will probably continue to be a half-empty commercial district with a handful of great bars, just enough eateries to supply the lunchtime crowds, and a few enterprising residents who wouldn't live anywhere else.

But, there's also a semi-decent scenario that looks something like the Wal-Mart proposal floated last year.  Basically, someday, these downtown speculators will realize their ship of gold simply isn't coming in, and they'll release their empty lots for a modest gain and move on.  National retailers could move in, and a small, vibrant neighborhood could spring up on the east side.  It wouldn't be a destination for the rest of the city, but it would be self-sustaining and hip.  Meanwhile, the central commercial/arena district could continue to slowly develop, with the opening of the Mayo and one other nice hotel.  Downtown will continue to have its occasional shining moments--e.g., Mayfest, DFest, etc.  But it won't have that constant vibe that other downtowns have achieved.

Tulsa metro will continue to grow.  It's just a matter of where that growth will take place.  Cash follows hype.  Right now the hype is out south.  Without something to reverse that magnetism, the core will continue to maintain, while outlying areas will thrive.  In other words, I don't see Tulsa proper necessarily stagnating or declining, but without more of a kickstart, it's not going to gain population and commercial development.

That's just my prognostication.  I could be wrong--some would say a Tulsa renaissance is right around the corner; others would say it's impossible and Tulsa is in fact about to take a nose dive.  But as long as oil stays above $80/barrel, the economy in this town is going nowhere but up.

[swake]

There are a few reasons. First of all there really  is less going on. The failure of the river vote took the wind out of Tulsa's sails so to speak for development. Tulsa as a city has said it doesn't want to invest in itself. A deal that good almost never comes along, and we said no anyway. For $200 million raised by only 2/10th of a cent in sales taxes Tulsa would have gotten $170 million in donations and at least $500 million in commercial development. We turned down an almost 5-1 return on our money, so developers do not see Tulsa as a pro-development and growth community, at all.

Even with the river vote and the river competing to some extent with downtown before the vote there was a buzz about new activity downtown based on the arena. Now there is nothing, I really think that developers see Tulsa as having a poisoned atmosphere right now for new private projects.

I also think the rampant negativity and all the ridiculous accusations that fly on this site against every project and every person that tries to accomplish anything in this town has killed off much of the more "real" conversation on this board. And the failure of the river vote largely due to the kind of misinformation that has become pervasive on this site killed the rest.  

I think it has become "cool" to be a basher and the ethic both on this board and in Tulsa generally is that only a fool or a crook would see anything positive in any way in this town.

Until that changes the only big projects in the city will be public funded one, the private projects will continue to go outside the city where the land is cheap and the atmosphere for development is more positive.

[TheArtist]

Tulsa has just entered that phase where development is going to be slow. Unless we spend some money to do something transformative with downtown, its going to improve, but will take a slow natural course to do so. The reason developments like The River District are going to the suburbs is because that is where the people are who have money to spend. If we want to spend tax dollars we can choose to make downtown an "attraction/destination". But we can also go the route of building a thriving and attractive, urban neighborhood. Brady District, Greenwood, smaller East End, more housing in old buildings like the Mayo and Philtower, parks, grocery store, etc. can all act to make downtown a very pleasing, place to visit and to live. That in time will itself bring more retail. Plus there are things to do there entertainment and culturally wise. Not flashy BIG developments, but very nice regardless. Shouldnt it be about quality of life not just big and flashy? As long as we are making progress we are doing well. Keep plugging along, but dont forget to relax and enjoy what we do have.

I still have some hope that we will hear about a river development for Tulsa this year. If not, cest la vie. And I still think we will get the baseball stadium downtown as well.

[TeeDub]

Why do "we" have to fund corporate investments?   If it isn't a good enough idea to stand up on its own, why should the taxpayer foot the bill?

I realize in today's day and time everyone feels that having a hand out is okay, but really....   Why do I have to pay for you?

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Man, Waterboy is a bit down.

I'd like to be able to say something to deflect some of the criticism but all I can come up with is that Tulsa's population is growing and I don't know anyone that got fed up and left.  I'm still holding on to hope and the fact that Tulsa remains a fine place to live - or I'd be gone myself.

Development is slower than I'd hope for, but winter is generally not when projects make big headway or major announcements surface anyway.

Yeah, I need a little light therapy.

I don't think masses got peeved and left. But I do remember about 30,000 jobs that left town between 2001 and 2005. Those were the types of jobs held by upper educated folks with good incomes. Those were the folks who helped v2025 pass, helped to underwrite a lot of activities and generally were throwing their money around.

I am tending towards the view that Tulsa will always be a slow developing creature. And if oil drops, it will stop in its tracks.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by TeeDub


Why do "we" have to fund corporate investments?   If it isn't a good enough idea to stand up on its own, why should the taxpayer foot the bill?

I realize in today's day and time everyone feels that having a hand out is okay, but really....   Why do I have to pay for you?

And that's the problem.

If you want everywhere to resemble 71stSt, then great, that's what developers build when left to themselves. And there is cost involved there, lots of it. But it's hidden, it's in the ever widening of streets and highways, the cost of congestion, the cost of pollution that is related to congestion and seas of asphalt. We pay, but we don't pay upfront.

If you want the kind of lasting urban development that makes a city a city and want it done in places where the infrastructure is already in place then we have to help differently. The cost of infill is probably lower in the long run, but the cost is upfront in helping to develop the project rather then on the back end in ever increasing infrastructure needs.

The other bad part about the development along 71st is that it is transitory. We paid to 6 lane 71st and to widen US 169 and everything around it and in 15 years it's going to be a trashy area. There already are empty buildings. There will be more and more of that as the big box format moves onto something else. Places like Utica Square will remain, and will continue to be a place that business adapt to instead of being places they abandon. The River District in Jenks is getting $300 million in public funds and seems to be the kind of development that will last. Nothing on Memorial or 71st or at Tulsa Hills or at Smith Farm will.

Build something of quality and it will remain, the infrastructure that you have paid for will remain useful. Build crap and before long you are building all new infrastructure for all new crap.  

Downtown has the greatest concentration of infrastructure in the city. We need to make use of that instead of always moving further and further out. It's not only cheaper to do, it's also one of those places that make Tulsa unique. 71st is bland crap USA, it looks just the same here as it does in Denver, and Des Moines and 60 other cities, why on earth is that what we should want?

[spoonbill]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by TeeDub


Why do "we" have to fund corporate investments?   If it isn't a good enough idea to stand up on its own, why should the taxpayer foot the bill?

I realize in today's day and time everyone feels that having a hand out is okay, but really....   Why do I have to pay for you?

And that's the problem.

If you want everywhere to resemble 71stSt, then great, that's what developers build when left to themselves. And there is cost involved there, lots of it. But it's hidden, it's in the ever widening of streets and highways, the cost of congestion, the cost of pollution that is related to congestion and seas of asphalt. We pay, but we don't pay upfront.

If you want the kind of lasting urban development that makes a city a city and want it done in places where the infrastructure is already in place then we have to help differently. The cost of infill is probably lower in the long run, but the cost is upfront in helping to develop the project rather then on the back end in ever increasing infrastructure needs.

The other bad part about the development along 71st is that it is transitory. We paid to 6 lane 71st and to widen US 169 and everything around it and in 15 years it's going to be a trashy area. There already are empty buildings. There will be more and more of that as the big box format moves onto something else. Places like Utica Square will remain, and will continue to be a place that business adapt to instead of being places they abandon. The River District in Jenks is getting $300 million in public funds and seems to be the kind of development that will last. Nothing on Memorial or 71st or at Tulsa Hills or at Smith Farm will.

Build something of quality and it will remain, the infrastructure that you have paid for will remain useful. Build crap and before long you are building all new infrastructure for all new crap.  

Downtown has the greatest concentration of infrastructure in the city. We need to make use of that instead of always moving further and further out. It's not only cheaper to do, it's also one of those places that make Tulsa unique. 71st is bland crap USA, it looks just the same here as it does in Denver, and Des Moines and 60 other cities, why on earth is that what we should want?

I agree with most of what you said except for the part about infill development being less.  Infill is usually exceptionally more expensive than new development.  It is also wrought with opportunity for failure.  No matter what your infill project you are subject to a fight from the city and from the existing neighborhoods, or commercial developments.

People don't realize it, but most infill projects fail before anyone ever knows they existed.  Modern environmental and engineering requirements make it next to impossible to do infill development on a parcel that was only subject to old requirements.  

I've seen many that succeeded, but at an incredible expense to the developer and ultimately the consumer (underground retention tanks, dedicated streets, improvements, utility tunnels etc.).

It is far less expensive to build a high-end permanent structure on new land than it is to build a cheep EFIS coated metal econo-box on infill land.

[TeeDub]

Anyone who honestly thinks that putting a road thru the main mall has any interest in trying to develop downtown is deluding themselves.