The Orbit of PLANiTULSA

Now that results have been released from a PLANiTULSA survey that gauged public preference for how local development should proceed, city planners and consultants are putting that data to work to develop a vision that meets those preferences.

"We're trying to develop a scenario that reflects what Tulsa wants," said Theron Warlick of the city's Planning Department. "Call it Scenario T--for Tulsa."

The PLANiTULSA project is part of the process for developing a new long-range plan for the city of Tulsa, something that hasn't been done in 30 years. As part of that process, four development scenarios were presented to citizens earlier this summer. They ranged from Scenario A (Trends Continue), which most closely resembled Tulsa's traditional growth pattern outward, to Scenario D (Centered City), which represents the biggest departure from that pattern, with growth taking place downtown and in near-downtown neighborhoods.

Nearly half of the almost 6,000 people who responded to the survey indicated a preference for Scenario D, while nearly a third of voters cast their ballots for the closely related Scenario C (New Centers), which would direct growth into downtown and into other hubs of housing and employment.

Scenario B (Main Streets), calls for growth to continue to occur along main thoroughfares and was the favorite of 16 percent of respondents. Scenario A was the most poorly supported, earning the support of a mere 5 percent of those who filled out the survey.

Those results were welcome news to Jack Crowley, Mayor Kathy Taylor's former adviser on urban planning and development, who recently completed a two-year assignment to come up with a plan for downtown redevelopment. Many of the ideas Crowley included in his plan drew strong support in the survey, most notably an option for the construction of a light rail/streetcar system.

"I'm delighted people elected not to do nothing," said Crowley, who has returned to his faculty position at the University of Georgia, when informed of the survey results.

Crowley noted that the C and D scenarios were not only very similar, they are also the most aggressive development plans. He took the results to mean that Tulsans are ready for change.

"To do nothing would have been a massive amount of depression on my part," he said.

Pleased as he was, Crowley took pains to explain that change for its own sake is not what drives his plan.

"Density is all about making the city much more cost effective to operate," he said.

John Fregonese--president of Fregonese Associates, the Portland, Ore.-based consulting firm that conducted the survey--was impressed at the level of support among Tulsans for a revitalized center to the city.

"It's interesting how much people in Tulsa seemed to be committed to a vibrant downtown," he said. "That really is the heart of a city, and if you're heart's not working well, then the rest of the extremities don't work well. Even in Portland, which has a great downtown, people didn't focus on that (like the people in Tulsa)."

Despite the strong preferences toward growth turning inward that were indicated in the survey, planners won't be using those results as their only source of information when they develop Scenario T, Warlick said. He emphasized that everyone associated with the PLANiTULSA process realizes the survey was not a scientific one and is not inclusive of the views of every Tulsan.

"We certainly understand it is not a representative sample," he said. "We're very clear about that."

But it is a valuable tool, he said.

"Like John Fregonese has been saying, it's like 5,000 people showing up at a public hearing," Warlick said. "Even an election is not a representative sample--it's whoever shows up to vote. We still think (the survey) has real value here in Tulsa."

The city conducted an independent development survey of its own last year, Warlick said, and many of those findings mirrored what came back in the PLANiTULSA study.

"That tells you there's really a lot of consensus," he said. "That's a huge finding. It means we're a lot closer to seeing eye-to-eye than most people think we are."

Warlick said outreach efforts were made to encourage people from across Tulsa to participate in the survey. Input was sought from various neighborhoods and ethnic groups so the results would not be skewed in case members of one district or group responded disproportionately. In the end, Warlick believes organizers were successful in that regard.

"It looks a lot like Tulsa," he said of the demographics behind the survey.

Fregonese was impressed with the number of younger Tulsans who participated in the survey.

"This is the first time we've seen post-Boomers be the dominant voice in the planning process," he said. "Baby Boomers and people over 65 almost always dominate this process, but almost 60 percent of the people who responded to this survey were under 49, and a large number of those people were under 30. That's great, and it's never happened before."

More responses--40 percent--came from midtown than any other area of Tulsa. But Warlick said even when the results were reweighted and rebased to reflect equal input from each district, the results did not change, with Scenario D still emerging as the favorite.

"It was the highest in every case, no matter how you look at the data," he said.

Not all the results were consistent, Warlick said, pointing to the 48 percent support for a light rail system and the 21 percent support for widening existing roads that was expressed in the PLANiTULSA survey.

"This is different from our statistical survey from last year," he said. "Of course, we were just getting into the Fix Our Streets debate then, so that may have had something to do with those results.

"Also, this is a self-selecting survey, so we're going to have to look at results like this and figure out what they mean for everyone, not just those who took the survey. Nevertheless, that indicates a strong desire for streetcars. That's pretty amazing."

Nor does it necessarily mean all Tulsans are ready to embrace public transportation.

"Tulsans don't want to get rid of their cars, but they do want some alternatives," he said.

Warlick said he would have been particularly surprised by that strong interest in mass transit two or three years ago, but he believes the shock of rapidly rising gasoline prices got the attention of residents last year. Even now that prices have dropped, he said, mass transit ridership in Tulsa remains much higher than it was, a trend he believes is here to stay.

Some results from this survey seemed incongruous with others, Warlick said, contrasting the strong desire for a downtown filled with apartments, townhomes and condominiums with the finding that 52 percent of respondents still prefer to live in an existing single-family neighborhood.

"Not everyone wants to live in a mixed-use neighborhood," he said, referring to an element that would be an important part of Scenarios C and D.

It will be the job of planners to resolve those inconsistencies in Scenario T, Warlick said, adding no one will be trying to force people into any kind of living situation they don't like.

"PLANiTULSA doesn't want to disrupt those single-family neighborhoods that are working well," he said.

While no one is taking the survey results as a categorical rejection of sprawl, they believe Tulsans are ready for a change of direction.

"I think it's a rejection of the status quo," Fregonese said, adding that while development on new land will continue to take place in Tulsa, it is likely to be less common.

"We're at the very beginning of the city coming back into itself," Crowley said. "We're past the generation where the city is continuing to spread out."

Warlick said plenty of "green field" development opportunities remain in Tulsa, particularly on the north side of the city, which is likely to see substantial changes under the plan. So whatever emerges from the PLANiTULSA process "won't result in a 100-percent reversal of what we're doing today," he said.

Also, he pointed out, "When 52 percent say they want to live in a single-family house in the future, that is not a repudiation of sprawl."

But Warlick believes Tulsans clearly are asking planners to look for options that don't exist right now.

"Green field development will continue, but we'll be looking for ways to make infill more competitive in the market," he said. "This is not a repudiation of sprawl per se, but it is a repudiation of how we do business."

The next step in the PLANiTULSA process is to take the survey results, the results from the city's statistical survey last year and the results from the PLANiTULSA public workshops last fall and winter and craft them into a sort of executive summary that will be released on Sept. 15, Fregonese said. That 40- to 50-page document will outline all the elements of the plan and develop broad strategies for achieving its goals. Warlick said it will have a schematic map with it that will illustrate the changes that are proposed. Further online surveying will occur at that point, Fregonese said.

By October, he said, consultants will begin crafting the final version of the plan, which should be formally presented in January. From there, it will be up to the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission and the Tulsa City Council to take action on the recommendations.

"That's the least predictable aspect of this," he said, chuckling.

Warlick said that final version of the plan will contain detailed implementation strategies, as planners will be looking for areas in which they can spring to action.

"We want to make a positive impact early if we can," he said. "We don't want this plan to sit on a shelf and gather dust."

Warlick emphasized the new plan will not seek to rewrite the city's zoning code, but it will make recommendations.

"It will be prescriptive," he said.

He also indicated the plan is likely to include suggestions for capital improvement projects, as well.

"I don't intend that to mean anybody's talking about bond issues yet," he said, adding that any such suggestions would be revenue neutral in that they would simply re-examine how current resources are allocated.

Warlick said planners and consultants are grateful for the input they've received from Tulsans so far, and he encouraged them to remain involved in the process to its conclusion.

"We want a big dialog here, and we need it," he said. "It's possible we still haven't gotten something quite right, and this is a chance to fix it. We're trying to get citizens to speak up now."

Even when a final version of the plan has been adopted by the City Council, Warlick said, the work of his department will not have been completed.

"PLANiTULSA is not necessarily the end of planning in Tulsa," he said. "In fact, in many cases, it's the beginning. What you're left with in many areas is a quandary."

And that leaves plenty of room for disagreement, he acknowledged.

"There will be things people will like, there will be things people will love and there will be other things people will have to live with," he said. "That's how it works in a democracy. But this is a document that will serve the city well."

Those differences aside, Warlick believes the final version of the plan that is presented to the Planning Commission and City Council won't be a contentious document. Those two bodies will take the plan and craft it into the city's first comprehensive plan update in 30 years.

"We've had many, many spirited debates, and there will be many more," he said of the process thus far. "But we've got Tulsans who share a lot of common ideas, and we will get to a shared vision," he said. "We're very optimistic about that."

To get a look at the survey results, visit the PLANiTULSA Web site at www.planitulsa.org.