River development and new sources of city revenue

[AquaMan]

I love the penguins!!  That was brilliant and I want one!!  Or two....

Was in a small town out west somewhere - Utah, I think - and they had the bison equivalent of the penguins!  Very cool.  Need a bison, too!!



I have to spend time to figure out how to post a picture....I have a couple of interesting shots of the old oil well and some of the equipment used with it that is sitting on the Ark River bed.... we should have an oil industry museum here in town.  Something small would do nicely.  I know...it's kind of redundant with what Woolaroc has, and the gas station setup on highway 11 in Barnsdall, but it could be kind of interesting, especially if could get an old gas station building (like the one in Bixby!!)  Maybe get that building and the lot it sits on for the museum...??   I know...it's called the Bixby Museum Complex, but they really haven't a coherent plan there yet - just good intentions that need some help!!

Maybe drag that equipment out of the river to put on display...?  Get hold of the old Spudder Restaurant collection of stuff?  Anyone have an old 'one lunger' engine they don't want?  One that works would be nice..!!??

Could be a nice little attraction.  After all, we like to call ourselves the "Oil Capital"....

Maybe we could talk the fairgrounds out of the Golden Driller....

Are you speaking of the equipment over by Sand Springs park near where their old dam used to be? (the one that promised livability and development and only delivered death and fishing). I've heard many descriptions of what that equipment was from sand dredging to drilling rig. I've seen pics showing lots of derricks on the Cimarron upstream but not near Tulsa.

[AquaMan]

You guys are confusing, or at least confounding,  tourist attractions with livability improvements.   You don't move to Portland for donuts, you move there for the way of life, proximity to the ocean, mountains, etc.  (and you might not move there because of the high cost of living...)  Parks are great, and I'm all in favor of them.  And the resurgence of downtown is awesome and I hope continues.  But neither of those is unique to any other city in the area.  People like water in any form, be it lake, river or coast, and I do think that filling the river with water (and the related activities) would add immensely to the overall livability of Tulsa.   But I can accept that it's a huge monetary investment, and so needs a lot of consideration.  But tourist attractions aren't the answer.  What is something fundamental that Tulsa can do that would greatly enhance the overall livability and attraction of the area?

We started discussing this issue some 8 years ago when I first began to post here. The problems created will far outweigh any benefit, especially in livability. If you want to work with the river instead of against it then yes, the formula changes. But the leaders of these "water in the river" crusades are only interested in one solution, dams. There is a reason and its not livability or development potential or tourism. Three entities stand to gain. Doesn't take much to figure it out either.

[AquaMan]

Rebound, its worth pointing out that few think of Tulsa as a tourist attraction yet when my business was on the river, almost three fourths of my riders were from out of town, out of state and often out of country. They were here on business, for reunions, for layovers, for events, tournaments and some because they saw me on Discover Oklahoma and had never thought of the river as being navigable. Tulsans per se were not big customers because they thought the river was polluted. Big surprise when we travelled a few miles upstream.

When you limit your definition of what tourism is, then yes, we have little tourism. Those hotels aren't filled on weekends with Tulsans.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Are you speaking of the equipment over by Sand Springs park near where their old dam used to be? (the one that promised livability and development and only delivered death and fishing). I've heard many descriptions of what that equipment was from sand dredging to drilling rig. I've seen pics showing lots of derricks on the Cimarron upstream but not near Tulsa.

Maybe a mile or so north of the 71st street bridge...could be a little more.  Well casing, couple spools of wire, an old wooden mounted piece of equipment that looks like an old "one lunger" engine, or maybe just a spool for wire.

It was a few years ago, so might have been taken out....haven't walked the 'beach' - river bed - for a while.

[Townsend]

What is something fundamental that Tulsa can do that would greatly enhance the overall livability and attraction of the area?

Bury powerlines, stop killing the trees to protect the powerlines.  Plant more trees.  Change the parking lot laws.  Change the liquor laws.  Sidewalks, bike lanes, public transportation to name a few things.

[Conan71]

Bury powerlines, stop killing the trees to protect the powerlines.  Plant more trees.  Change the parking lot laws.  Change the liquor laws.  Sidewalks, bike lanes, public transportation to name a few things.

Or move Tulsa somewhere out in the Rocky Mountains or along a coastline.  There's probably a better chance of that happening than your ideas. 

[Townsend]

Or move Tulsa somewhere out in the Rocky Mountains or along a coastline.  There's probably a better chance of that happening than your ideas. 

About as likely to happen

[rebound]

We started discussing this issue some 8 years ago when I first began to post here. The problems created will far outweigh any benefit, especially in livability. If you want to work with the river instead of against it then yes, the formula changes. But the leaders of these "water in the river" crusades are only interested in one solution, dams. There is a reason and its not livability or development potential or tourism. Three entities stand to gain. Doesn't take much to figure it out either.

Good discussions all around on this one...

I had to go back and re-read this thread from the beginning.    There are several good points made along the way, and I have to say that the overall argument around "where to best spend money" is a solid one.  Artist in particular makes a number of good points in this and other threads in support of downtown and related infrastructure improvements having a more immediate payback, and I think there is merit there.

Also several posts around The Channels, and other previous (and in the case of The Channels, stupid...) efforts to do something in the river that have poisoned any reasonable discussion or chance of getting a consensus.   Unfortunately this may be true, but it's sad state of affairs when earlier bad ideas preclude moving forward with possible good ones.

One point or position that keeps coming up that I disagree with, is in referring to the river as "a prairie river", or references to "leaving it in it's natural state".   The river ceased being a natural prairie river when the Keystone dam was put in.  Since then, it's just a tail-race that flows (or not) at the whim of the dam authority.  Better managing the ebb and flow, with dams or some other method, would go far towards proving a more stable environmental background against which to allow organic growth (both actual flora and economic) to occur.

Conan suggests getting Zink lake dam back in order will at least get the rowing club back in business, and if those improvements also create a fixed body of water, and eliminate the danger of the undertow of the previous dam, we should see a natural increase in use along the river anyway, especially when combined with the proximity of the new park.  That should be an interesting test case to see if additional future investment, ala more dams/lakes along the river, is warranted.

[TheArtist]

You guys are confusing, or at least confounding,  tourist attractions with livability improvements.   You don't move to Portland for donuts, you move there for the way of life, proximity to the ocean, mountains, etc.  (and you might not move there because of the high cost of living...)  Parks are great, and I'm all in favor of them.  And the resurgence of downtown is awesome and I hope continues.  But neither of those is unique to any other city in the area.  People like water in any form, be it lake, river or coast, and I do think that filling the river with water (and the related activities) would add immensely to the overall livability of Tulsa.   But I can accept that it's a huge monetary investment, and so needs a lot of consideration.  But tourist attractions aren't the answer.  What is something fundamental that Tulsa can do that would greatly enhance the overall livability and attraction of the area?

The current zoning we have in Tulsa makes it illegal to develop the "quality of life" they have in Portland.  But they will cut the budget here to move forward on changing the zoning and cut the budget on transit versus increasing it, etc.  But they work hard to "find" money for dams, and if they do that will even more likely end up being an excuse to have to not fund, or have the flexibility to fund, those other things.

You can't have it all all at once.  I say do the zoning and transit first (and more for education), then the river.  

Plus, downtown isn't just a tourist attraction.  A quarter of our city population growth is already downtown (city growing about 2,000 per year and about 500 of that going downtown) and it should be higher and could be higher (increasing our over all growth rate) if it were a more attractive place to live for those who want urban living (which is more and more of the population all the time) instead of only offering suburban style living (which is great, don't get me wrong, just not for everyone) and thus missing out on good growth opportunities.  But downtown also needs better zoning (and could use more of the housing assistance funding to help get more old buildings rehabbed, but again, if we build dams with that money instead...) and especially the areas around it need something other than suburban style zoning.  Portland has zoning that even the most fanatical of us on here would not dare to ask for, but we can't even get the meager zoning changes the people have said they want, implemented, for one thing, for lack of funding and the desire to find it.

[AquaMan]

Good discussions all around on this one...

One point or position that keeps coming up that I disagree with, is in referring to the river as "a prairie river", or references to "leaving it in it's natural state".   The river ceased being a natural prairie river when the Keystone dam was put in.  Since then, it's just a tail-race that flows (or not) at the whim of the dam authority.  Better managing the ebb and flow, with dams or some other method, would go far towards proving a more stable environmental background against which to allow organic growth (both actual flora and economic) to occur.

These arguments date back to the start of Tulsa and the construction of levees.

You haven't heard me make the argument re "natural state". But it is by nature a 'braided prairie river". We have temporarily modified this 15 mile section to be a hydraulic river in operation but its nature was long ago determined by geography, geology and meteorology. We constantly fight nature and we pay a price for that. Zink lake is a shallow, sandy pond that is prone to poor water quality due to animal droppings, fertilizer, and leaky sewers. Without the rhythmic cleansing that occurred before the dam was built it will always need to be tested. Now they just post no swimming signs and consider it done.

The Keystone dam opens or closes not by whim of the authority but by the whim of nature. When nature pumps too much water into the reservoir we are forced to open gates. When nature pumps up the heat they are forced to open gates to create electricity to run cooling systems. They manage it, they don't make the decisions.

My objections are based on what other communities have found out to be true. Damming these rivers is only good for the people who build the dams, the employees necessary to manage them, developers and nearby landowners. Even Sand Springs blew theirs up. Even Zink lake is an example of how little economic and livability impact they have. The paths don't need a river to follow. There are other ways to manage this river and create a truly unique area attraction but when they were offered they were tainted by the insistence on dams and overpriced access property.

Just think for a moment. If this project were offered to you as an investor with such little information as to how it will accomplish increased livability, increased economic development and a return on investment greater than or equal to other available investments........would you write the check?

[heironymouspasparagus]

One point or position that keeps coming up that I disagree with, is in referring to the river as "a prairie river", or references to "leaving it in it's natural state".   The river ceased being a natural prairie river when the Keystone dam was put in.  Since then, it's just a tail-race that flows (or not) at the whim of the dam authority.  Better managing the ebb and flow, with dams or some other method, would go far towards proving a more stable environmental background against which to allow organic growth (both actual flora and economic) to occur.

We have had dams and removed them for decades - about a 100 years worth.  How is "organic growth" occur any differently next year, or next decade, than it has in the last 30 or 60 years?  What new plans have been thought of - that have not been advanced or actually done?  Where is the fulfilled "promise" of all this "growth" against the background of the Jim Inhofe Memorial Sewage Lagoon??  Er, uh...the dam at the railroad bridge walk path.  (The bike paths and all the things that have sprung up there are nice and good for the area...we aren't gonna get a Branson out of it, though!  Good enough examples of "organic growth".)



Definitely want to see something more definitive than the glittering generalities that are spread about regarding "growth".   What specific items would be done to after building a new pond?  Are we gonna get gazebos?  More parks?  Another Riverwalk Crossing?  Oops....maybe shouldn't have mentioned the last one....  



As for the flora...well what grows there now IS organic.  It is in great part the native plant species.  How about another Oklahoma Centennial Botanical Garden?  Talk about growth for growth's sake!  Someone benefited from the construction of that all right!  But what a horrendous location!!  How many people have even been there to see it?  How many remember hearing about it at all??  Could have been a Myriad type facility.....

So, who is gonna benefit from yet another dam??  (Can you spell Flintco??)  How about Tulsa citizens as a whole?  Where's the beef??  A dam is NOT in and of itself a destination point - unless it's BIG like the Hoover dam.....


As for flowing at the whim of Keystone...yeah, it does that.  We should probably remove Keystone!  Get back to natural!!  BEFORE Keystone - yeah, I remember that well - the river looked basically the same as it does now.  If anything, there is MORE flow occurring at shorter intervals than before the big dam!  It would be dry for months.  And then when it rained, it became a lake on Brookside that would go across Peoria (almost to Utica at times).  Regularly.

[patric]

Could someone please add a vomit smiley or a face palm smiley to our selection list?  So many time when they are needed.

[AquaMan]

Awwww...Its got my eyes!

[Conan71]

A looming larger priority was exposed on the news last night.  KOTV did a story on the deplorable condition of the Arkansas river levees.  According to Country Commissioner Karen Keith, the estimate is they need $26 million in repairs as of today.  The county is unsure where they will find funds for that. 

The current repairs to Zink dam are funded and I believe nearing completion.  There's a dearth of information on that project either via RPA or the media.  The most recent story is 3+ months old on the progress of the repairs.

Artist, if there is enough demand for housing in downtown, private developers should have no trouble making that happen without a truckload of tax greenmail to make it happen.  I don't believe any ideas for improving livability and reasons to be in Tulsa need to be mutually exclusive of each other.  I certainly do think an "eggs all in one basket" approach is not wise.  The river is close enough to downtown that positive developments in both places will compliment each other.

[TheArtist]

A looming larger priority was exposed on the news last night.  KOTV did a story on the deplorable condition of the Arkansas river levees.  According to Country Commissioner Karen Keith, the estimate is they need $26 million in repairs as of today.  The county is unsure where they will find funds for that.  

The current repairs to Zink dam are funded and I believe nearing completion.  There's a dearth of information on that project either via RPA or the media.  The most recent story is 3+ months old on the progress of the repairs.

Artist, if there is enough demand for housing in downtown, private developers should have no trouble making that happen without a truckload of tax greenmail to make it happen.  I don't believe any ideas for improving livability and reasons to be in Tulsa need to be mutually exclusive of each other.  I certainly do think an "eggs all in one basket" approach is not wise.  The river is close enough to downtown that positive developments in both places will compliment each other.

"I certainly do think an "eggs all in one basket" approach is not wise."

I agree wholeheartedly, thats why I do not think we should put all our eggs in the "auto oriented/suburban development" basket and ignore pedestrian/bike/transit friendly urban development.

As for the tax greenmail.  I don't think we have to have it, but it can help, especially with the older buildings where it often can only make economic sense with the tax credits, versus tearing them down for new development or parking lots.  Plus having the right zoning in and around downtown will help ensure the right kind of development instead of ending up with more suburban style development.

Chris was looking to put in a practice off of 11th between Utica and Peoria in a building that has sat empty for ages.  We have been trying to figure out how to make it work but with the parking requirements and other zoning restrictions, we have realized that essentially nobody can put anything in that spot unless they have deep enough pockets to purchase a building or home nearby to tear down and add parking. An Optometry/Optical is good business and we have financing but the numbers won't work if you have to have the minimum parking requirements.  Essentially the buildings where he is looking at near Ikes Chilli are set up to be pedestrian/transit oriented, though yes indeed it is on Route 66, in that they were built when there were no minimum marking requirements. They are supposed to be adding street front parking starting next year but street parking does not count towards minimum parking requirements. We have space for 3-4 in back, but once you meet the requirement for handicapped parking (which includes the width of the parking space, then an additional 8 feet path, and then an additional 12'drive, drive can't be included, we "may" only be able to get two parking spots in back.  The property owner next door doesn't want to "share".  We don't have the time and the money to sit around and play the "well maybe perhaps you might get a variance" game.

So again, even a halfway pedestrian friendly area with the current zoning your pushed to make it more auto oriented/suburban in nature. That affects how well your transit works and even though its outside the IDL, what's around it affects what's type of development pressures there will be inside it, aka less decent transit and less people using it puts pressure for there to be more expensive parking inside the IDL, even though there are no parking requirements there, rather than decreasing the pressures for it.  Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what will happen within a tiny island of "no requirements" surrounded by a sea of hundreds of square miles of minimum parking requirements and no good transit. The suburban zoning puts added negative economic pressures and costs on your urban development.

It's not fair to say "well if the market wanted it it would do it" when the zoning and regulations are pro one type of development and anti another type. Either fix the zoning to encourage good urban development, as we have zoning that encouraged good suburban development, or acknowledge that it's not fair and realize your going to have to occasionally subsidize if you want urban/transit friendly development.