This really is an incredible idea. Besides the cost, I can't see a negative. Even then, compared to the arena it's in the same price range. I like how they may be able to use some of the proposed Boeing money for this project. WOW.

The city has been devastated twice in the last 30 years by big-caliber floods, granted. But one was caused by the lack of dams on the river, and the second was caused by the opening of the Keystone Dam (in the 80s I believe). The dams have always worked, and dams are a part of this plan.

But you do bring up Brookside and Cherry Street. Imagine this project as a catalyst for the entire city of Tulsa. If this came to fruition, it would be hard not to develop the heck out of other districts.

Schools are all improving, the roads are being built up finally, and crime is actually quartered in the East and North sides of Tulsa. But you make it sound as if crime, schools, and roads are too much to ask for by bringing that up.

As far as a river masterplan goes, we could only have ever hoped that any of that would ever come to fruition. There was no funding behind much, and as far as public input goes for the plan adopted by INCOG, this is a competely public-made plan. Just how much public input do you want?

And as far as developers go, the majority of Tulsa Stakeholders aren't developers, and those that are must be vey qualified to help plan such a proposal, because who else would know the lay of the land better than the developers that built Tulsa?

I am so glad to finally have some debate on here.

What I'm saying is that the club is merely developers and friends of the developers who either say wasting money is such a great idea, or believe they stand to benefit if their friends (Trump) hit it rich. Sound the trumpets I assume.

The river plan won awards, and it did too have funding, thanks in part to the private sector. Crime is actually all over Tulsa, and they are doing absolutely nothing to curtail it. And as far as development catalyst goes, howabout development funnel?

There is no such thing as a fixed demand for only so much good development in a city. It can keep coming. If they develop a lot of downtown condos in Tulsa, word will get out that Tulsa is a booming place and they will start to attract yuppies (sorry for using the 'y' word on this forum) and that will attract companies, TU will benefit from being in the middle of this knowledge-based economy, and in all, Tulsa will become its own catalyst as it already is.

Why do people keep saying that this project is for the Rich? It’s for all the people to use and if you want to live on it, it your decision...

Roads--- Most of the 2 lane roads are already being widened or waiting for construction...

Schools-- Are you talking about the Tulsa school system... They are final turning around... They took off 18 schools from TPS out of the Oklahoma list for improvement this year...

Crime--- Every city is going to have crime... Are you saying that all the Drug traffic that passes trough OKC has stopped...

Even if this project ends of not being built, Tulsa can’t say that they weren’t given a chance to do something with the river... I don’t see other Oklahoma City’s come up with something this big...

Hello all - I was directed to this site by your humble administrator.

I have investigated this plan to the point that I have already met with one of the "Stakeholders."

First the lake will not flood anything, it will not require the refineries to relocate, they are supposedly comitted to not being as much of an "icky" neighbor.

The lake should bring the river to high normal pool levels and they are proposing a spillway gate system to unload the lake in case of potential excessive discharge from Keystone, this gate system would also be employeed to reduce or clear silt build up.

I think they have an uphill battle but at leadt it is visionary.

Hey welcome and thanks for taking the path

That is a good way of putting it...

So did they say about that possibility of the project really being built...?

silt build up--- Vision 2025 Upstream Catch Basin and Slit Removal

Who won't be the icky neighbor, the refinery?

River island plan group seeks input
By P.J. LASSEK World Staff Writer
9/10/2006

Tulsa Stakeholders Inc. is prepared to face public scrutiny as it begins the education process on The Channels, a $788 million Arkansas River development proposal to create a 12-mile lake and three linked islands.

"We have unveiled our story; now it is time to go out and dialogue to get the public's input and see whether or not they will support this," said John-Kelly Warren, one of six individuals who formed the nonprofit group to lead the river development effort.

Of the $788 million price tag, the group is asking for $600 million in public funding and plans to raise $100 million in private donations over a four-year period. The group also projects that $88 million will be raised from power sales from renewable energy sources that are incorporated into the project.

The public funds would pay for an 18-foot dam to create the lake, levee and bank improvements, access roads, subterranean parking and the islands.

If public funding were approved, at least four years would be needed before development on the islands would begin, Warren said.

The permitting process would take two years, and another two years would be needed to construct the lake, infrastructure and islands, he said.

River development expert Bing Thom was commissioned to design The Channels plan.

The project is intended to create something no other city in the country has that will draw workers and jobs to the Tulsa area, Warren said.


The public, however, will play a crucial role if the project is approved, said Ryan Rex, owner of Rex Public Relations, which represents Tulsa Stakeholders.

Rex said the group envisions a public-private trust that would oversee the specific developments for the islands.

He said it is envisioned that the trust would own the island and provide long-term ground leases for developers.

However, Rex stressed that decisions related to ownership and development would ultimately be up to the public officials and voters to decide.

Warren said the discussion with local officials over public funding has already begun.

County Commissioner Randi Miller has said she supports the project and thinks the public funding should be in the form of a county tax since the river stretches through the county.

Miller said if the county agrees to provide the funding, it is likely that the four-tenths of a cent of Vision 2025 tax that is not being collected will be considered. Although voters approved a $885 million Vision 2025 package, it was later reduced to $535 million when Boeing decided not to move to Tulsa. Only six-tenths of the 1-cent tax is now being collected.

Warren said the project cannot be done without public funding.

Exactly what you said Spartan...

Exists or not, if it's a county tax it has to be used throughout the entire county.

With the Dams and flooding the River, It would make the entire Arkansas River Usable by the county...

I don't know if anybody's been picking up on this, but I seriously think that if this project, a good proposal mind you, is to get the green light for tax dollars, then the other Tulsa County suburbs on the river should be entitled to an island each.

You know, I would like to see this project merged with INCOG's master plan, since it (INCOG's plan) has something for the entire stretch of the river in the county. I think it would also encourage more public buy in since it would benefit all communities along the river. This particular project seems too micro-scale to me.

I was looking at it again, and I saw something that said 3,000 people and sub-terranean parking. There will be an outdoor market with a high-tech pavillion capable of alterring winter and summer temps by 13 degrees.

... subterranean parking? I wanna see this project propose a pineapple under the sea while we're at it.