Tulsa Comprehensive Plan - PLANiTULSA

Land Use
parT vi: ManaGinG THe PLan
Planning for new communities on undeveloped
land presents some opportunities and challenges not
found in already established areas. First, providing
infrastructure is a crucial ingredient for housing
and other development. New community plans will
languish without a carefully devised program of funding
and building the necessary infrastructure, including
linkages to Tulsa’s transit networks.
The public involvement process is also quite different.
Emphasis can focus on enhancing connectivity between
the newly planned and existing neighborhoods,
providing parks, schools, or other amenities, and
preserving important environmental or open space
features. The goal of this process should be to integrate
the new with the old in a way that minimizes conflict
and enhances an area.
planning for infill
Our Vision for Tulsa envisions a significant portion of
new growth taking the form of infill development,
the integration of new or rehabilitated buildings into
existing urban areas. Infill can revitalize neighborhoods
and main streets by providing new employment or
housing and filling “gaps” in a streetscape.
It is not easy to do, however, and will require substantial
planning, coordination, and skill to accomplish in
Tulsa. The abundance of vacant land inside and
outside the city and the development community’s
comfort and familiarity with suburban-style greenfield
development means infill projects present relatively
more risk. In addition, financial lenders (both in Tulsa
and around the country) tend to favor the tried-andtrue
methods of development — infill is usually a new
concept. Consequently, like every city that has turned
to infill as a growth and development strategy, Tulsa
will have to build confidence in and understanding of
good infill practices.
Two scales of infill development
Infill projects tend to occur at two scales, the large
multi-phase project that can cover several blocks,
and small, parcel-by-parcel projects. This dichotomy
emerges because larger projects make it possible to
combine a collection of uses, such as housing, retail,
entertainment venues, which help diversify the project
and reduce risk. Often these projects are initiated by
city governments or redevelopment agencies who solicit
developers and investors. Substantial public investment
is usually needed, especially if the project takes place
on a formerly polluted site or distressed area.
The positive aspects of the “go big” approach
include delivering a collection of amenities under the
umbrella of one project. These projects can change
perceptions about an area and serve as the initial catalyst
for more investment. The drawbacks to this approach
are the substantial risk the public must bear, both
financially and politically. A project’s failure or even a
lackluster performance can be a drag on resources and
sour a community’s view of infill and redevelopment
in general.
The second form infill takes is small, parcel-byparcel
projects that add gradually to a community.
Investors adaptively reuse existing buildings, add on
to them, or build anew. City governments can also
play a role, usually through providing financing,
development incentives, and technical assistance to
individual developers.
This can require just as much effort and attention by
public agencies as the large infill project approach.
Mobilizing small-scale capital projects is not a simple
matter, and the risk for individual investors in those
projects is not insubstantial. But, the long-term yields
of focusing on many small projects can potentially
outperform the single large project approach. Financial
and political risk to the city is diversified when spread
to many different projects. Furthermore, successful
LU
66
July 2010
Tulsa comprehensive plan – Land Use