Could Tulsa be North America's Next Vancouver?

[LandArchPoke]

I am not really sure where this should be posted, but the topic is directly associated to development. This is just a quick article I wrote this afternoon, putting some thoughts down, and I thought it would bring up an interesting debate about the possibilities for Tulsa's future.

Could Tulsa be North America's Next Vancouver?

It is well known that Vancouver has been rated as one of the world's most livable communities. What allowed the city to grow and reach the point to be recognized as a world leading city in urban living? Vancouver is now North America's 4th most densely populated city (behind New York City, San Francisco, and Mexico City) and that is quite a feat for a city that has a population of about 550,000 and a metropolitan population of only 2 million.

What can Tulsa take from Vancouver? The city has the advantages for urban growth due to its limited land space being wedged between the ocean, mountains, and the United States border. Through this the inner city government teamed up with the regional government to help preserve the rule farmland from being overtaken by suburban sprawl. With the passage of the Agricultural Land Reserve Act in the 1970s this helped contain suburban sprawl and encouraged the development of high density development in the Vancouver Metropolitan Region.

It is no mystery that land surrounding Tulsa is valuable farm/agriculture or unique ecosystems such as the Osage Tall Grass Prairies, The Crosstimbers, and the Ozark Foothills. Tulsa's metropolitan growth is encoring onto some of Oklahoma's most value, pristine, and beautiful areas. Do we allow ourselves to contain a pattern of madness or do we allow ourselves to build in a more sustainable, responsible nature by encouraging growth within our current metropolitan footprint?
At the time Vancouver was debating the same issues Tulsa and Northeast Oklahoma are facing; Vancouver and Tulsa were pretty similar cities. Vancouver's 1960 population was 384,000 (metropolitan population was 790,000) and 1970s population was 426,000 (metropolitan population was 1,028,000). Tulsa's current population is 390,000 (metropolitan population is estimated close to 1,000,000).

Not only did Vancouver in state policies that allowed more controlled development, but the city was faced with growing traffic problems. Plans surfaced in the 1950s that allowed the city to plan for future mass transit. In the 1980s (city population: 414,000 metro population: 1,169,000) a new system was debuted for the World Exposition in 1986 called and intermediate rapid transit system. With extremely low operating costs compared to other transit systems it allowed for major redevelopment growth around the system due to its higher carrying capacity and much higher reliability than light rail and bus systems. Even with Vancouver's more restrictive development policies in the last 20 years the metropolitan growth has been about 70% and the inner city population growth has been a staggering 31%.

In a 1998 survery of Vancouver residents showed an interesting disapproval of light rail transit in favor of the current SkyTrain system (medium rapid transit).
• 61 percent of Greater Vancouver residents were "more likely" to support the construction of SkyTrain than ground-level Light Rail Transit
• 71 percent said that "even though SkyTrain is more expensive to build, it is better than ground LRT"
• 69 percent felt that SkyTrain would have the largest impact on traffic reduction, followed by either transit links (54 per cent), rapid buses on dedicated lanes such as those used for the B-Line bus routes (40 per cent), and less expensive LRT lines (32 per cent)
• 63 percent said that SkyTrain is the best mode of transportation, followed by the bus system (24 per cent), the West Coast Express (3 per cent) and the SeaBus (1 per cent).

Is a system like Vancouver's SkyTrain the best solution for Tulsa? Well that's up for debate. There is no debate however over the benefits and the quality of life this system has brought to Vancouver, allowing for denser, more sustainable, development.

Would Tulsa become North America's new "Golden City" with its already high quality of life and recreation opportunities? Through urban growth policies such as development limits and better zoning standards the metropolitan region could grow in a sustainable way. Dense growth however needs to be supported with a better transit system. Would policies that could be viewed a radical compared to regional cities like Oklahoma City, Dallas, Kansas City, or Austin set Tulsa apart and encourage development or would it simple kill development momentum by cutting the legs off of suburban sprawl developments?



This map shows what would be the development boundary (Urban Growth Boundary) in the Green bold line and the Yellow color shows where development in the metropolitan region has already happened. I also did draw in the Gilcrease Loop eventhough it is not finished.

[ZYX]

Such an intersesting write up. I think Tulsa could become a more densely populated city like Vancouver if we could somehow find a way to market this strategy. You bring up a very good point when you say that our development is creeping onto farmland and other important areas that we cannot afford to lose. Our problem is that many citizens of the Tulsa metro really don't care. But, we are moving in the right direction. With PlaniTulsa and Fast Forward we should begin to see some interesting things come under the radar.

[Hoss]

Such an intersesting write up. I think Tulsa could become a more densely populated city like Vancouver if we could somehow find a way to market this strategy. You bring up a very good point when you say that our development is creeping onto farmland and other important areas that we cannot afford to lose. Our problem is that many citizens of the Tulsa metro really don't care. But, we are moving in the right direction. With PlaniTulsa and Fast Forward we should begin to see some interesting things come under the radar.

That's where we differ so much from OKC, is our compactness.  OKC, while they may be nearing 600,000 residents in the city limits, their fenceline area is about 600 sq miles.  In our case, we don't even have 200 sq miles of fenceline.  OKC's city population density is about 920 per sq mi; with our meager 390,000 residents, Tulsa's is over 2000 per sq mi.

OKC can add subdivision with all the undeveloped land within their fenceline they have, we'll have to mainly rely on infill at this point.

[Red Arrow]

The densities you talk about are incompatible with automobiles.  An effective public transit system will probably have to come first in the chicken vs. egg discussion.

[rdj]

I could be wrong but I don't believe that Canada encourages home ownership like the US government does.  As long as policy and underwriting at FNMA prefers single family housing US cities will continue to sprawl.

[heironymouspasparagus]

A simple drive in the country - any direction - will show the sprawl and the symptoms that won't allow Tulsa to become more compact.  We love our little "ranchettes" - even if they are only 75' x 125'.

This goes to what I have mentioned in the past about people moving out in the country because they like the space, peace $ quiet, isolation, or whatever "outside the city" feature dujour they like.  Then bringing their "debris" with them; lawn mowers, backyard pool, pavement, McMansion, etc. such that it destroys the "feature" they moved out to 'enjoy'!

Housing additions south of the river, west of Bixby??  Really??

[carltonplace]

Vancouver also has limited highway access to their downtown area. We built the IDL which choked off our downtown from the surrounding communities and gets people out of downtown to the burbs quickly after office hours.

[Hoss]

A simple drive in the country - any direction - will show the sprawl and the symptoms that won't allow Tulsa to become more compact.  We love our little "ranchettes" - even if they are only 75' x 125'.

This goes to what I have mentioned in the past about people moving out in the country because they like the space, peace $ quiet, isolation, or whatever "outside the city" feature dujour they like.  Then bringing their "debris" with them; lawn mowers, backyard pool, pavement, McMansion, etc. such that it destroys the "feature" they moved out to 'enjoy'!

Housing additions south of the river, west of Bixby??  Really??

Tulsa is more compact than the City is simply because we don't have much more room to add on to within the city fenceline.  That was my point.

[carltonplace]

Tulsa is more compact than the City is simply because we don't have much more room to add on to within the city fenceline.  That was my point.

True, at some point we will fill in our anexed areas and will have no other option than to move back to the middle for new development. I can see the burbs continue to grow outward but at some point the strain of growth and providing services to a larger area becomes unsustainable. We learned that the hard way in Tulsa with the glut of backlog in street repairs and the price tag the citizens of COT had to approve just to make a small dent.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I don't disagree with you, Hoss.  Good points.

Beyond that, this is a problem that transcends Tulsa's official borders.  Those south of the river likely consider themselves "Tulsans".  And OKC can build "additions" clear out past Wellston.  It is Stupid - with a capital S.  Infill has been horribly neglected for the entire history of the country.

We literally follow the same approach of "slash and burn" that is used in the Amazon jungle.  Cut down the forest, farm a few years, then move to the next section of forest.

In the US, we move from the old area into the new.  Live there a while.  Then move to the next/new area, leaving the debris behind (old houses, roads, infrastructure, etc.)  This "walk away from it" approach is taking millions of acres of ranch/farm/orchard land out of use every year, just so we can have our temporary McMansions.  (Just like the Amazon forest becomes transformed to wasteland incapable of supporting forest any more after just a few years.)

Here is my main heresy for the powers that be;  development for the sake of development is wrong.  Wasteful.  Unsustainable.  Immoral.

[cynical]

Y'all are making it too complicated.  All Tulsa needs to become another Vancouver is:

1.  Snow-capped mountains with ski resorts overlooking the city;
2.  A natural harbour (Canadian spelling) that is the main connection between the western half of the country and the Asian economic powerhouse;
3.  Subarctic rainforest where the mountains and the water allow;
4.  A mild climate without wide variations in temperature and no tornadoes, though it does rain a lot;
5.  A diverse, friendly population that enjoys its diversity; and last but not least;
6.  Far away from Texas.

[carltonplace]

Ya'll are making it too complicated "eh"

[heironymouspasparagus]

That will work.  And very well!

Texas...you really gotta be talking about Baja Oklahoma!  There is no such place as Texas.

[TheArtist]

  Lets just make sure the new comprehensive plan we worked so hard on gets implemented without being gutted (as I have heard it is) to the point that its essentially just like the old comprehensive plan.

Pretty stupid to go off thinking about having that type of urban infill or mass transit ,even if we did put in a green belt, if that kind of urban infill is illegal and there are too few easily connected pedestrian friendly areas for mass transit to ever work well.  Why go off into lala-land when we havent even got the stuff we started locked in?  We have a plan that won't be as far reaching as what your talking about, but would be a great start, but apparently we aren't even able to get that through.

[OurTulsa]

In a word: No.

To be a little more forthcoming, you're talking about a completely different set of cultural and social expectations and values.  Living densely is an accepted norm in the metro PacWest - it is a cultural aesthetic there.  It's fostered by the obvious natural settings but has now taken on a life of it's own.  Having been to Portland and other parts up there urban living and preservation of the natural habitat is ingrained broadly in the culture.  They, by and large, value the qualities you speak of.  Here, not so much even on a marginal scale nevermind broad.  And I wish this wasn't true but I've been here long enough to finally get it.  In a state like Oklahoma forget about discussing growth boundaries and land conservation.  It's just not going to get much traction, unfortunately.  

I've come to accept that in Tulsa the best hope is to find others that have a passion for all (or even parts) that is urbanism/ sustainability and work together to cultivate a slice of the pie.  There are some small efforts afoot in the Brady (district and heights), Pearl District, Owen Park, Crosby Heights, Kendall Whittier...to move towards an urban model.  PlaniTulsa (and FastForward may) helps but until we get 'the champion' in the City to move that dialog into civic policy and investment I'm not convinced it's going to take us far; though it does support others who wish to try to get there from the private sector side and our pending zoning code rewrite should help further.

You could substitute any other North American City in place of Tulsa and make the similar, if not in most cases stronger arguments.