For your reference and mine, here is a link to the website for the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan, developed in 2004 and 2005 by the Indian Nations Council of Governments (INCOG). Not only have they posted the plan itself, but you can separately download presentation graphics, attendance lists for the public meetings, and the public comments. It was a lengthy process, involving a great deal of public input.
If you want to begin with a good overview of the plan, start here, at the page honoring the plan for having won a landscape architecture award from the Texas Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects. It's a good summary of the goals and values, expressed by the public, which were used to frame the design.
With all the hype about The Channels, it's important to remember that that isn't the only river plan out there, and the INCOG plan has had a good deal more deliberation and public input.
By the way, during the Okie Blogger Round-Up, Don Danz pulled up the video of The Channels presentation to show to some Oklahoma City bloggers who thought we were pulling their leg about this $788 million plan to build islands in the Arkansas. One of them, a normally mild-mannered Christian gentleman, loudly exclaimed "Holy $#!+!!!" not in delighted surprise, but in shocked incredulity that Tulsa officials were actually taking the Channels plan seriously.
Comments (4)
it seems like the incog plan concentrates on south tulsa and jenks... is that accurate?
Posted by coleman david | September 26, 2006 1:48 AM
Posted on September 26, 2006 01:48
After reviewing it again, I strongly feel this plan should be brought to the attention of the general public. Unlike "The Channels", the INCOG plan actually makes sense. (Now *there's* a sentence you don't get to say everyday, BTW)
What I find so disconcerting about "The Channels" is the fact that despite being the river-based equivilant of The Emperor's New Clothes, so many people actually seem to be buying this particular Magical Fabric wholesale, without ever holding it up to a strong light.
The Emperor is naked. The Channels are ludicrous. Let's focus on something constructive - something that is right for Tulsa, not OKC, not San Antonio, or any other city. And let's do it right the first time.
Posted by SarahL | September 26, 2006 1:54 AM
Posted on September 26, 2006 01:54
if you want to see a good reason for the chronic low voter turnout, consider how them"islands in the mud" proposal has unfolded. the huge amount of public input for the river plan was ignored by a wealthy few. who the hell wants to vote in elections they know will not effect the direction of the city or its policies. its the weatlhy central families that drive everything. and they as far from the average citizen as they can be because they want it that way.
and kathy taylor is one of them.
Posted by sbtulsa | September 26, 2006 1:57 PM
Posted on September 26, 2006 13:57
Interesting post, Michael. In the public comments, did you notice Rusty Patton's suggestions (page 18) for a "bold new approach" to the river to make it approachable by pedestrians near Tulsa's urban core? In June 2005, his position was that dams across the river caused silting problems ultimately leading to a shallow, stagnant messes. Wouldn't the hydroelectic dam proposed by him and the other five Tulsa Stakeholders eventually cause the same problems?
Posted by Paul Uttinger | September 26, 2006 8:31 PM
Posted on September 26, 2006 20:31