The Look of Cities

What are some reasons cities and neighborhoods change over time?

 I was talking to an acquaintance about the current state of our city, Tulsa. We both own homes and have for close to 10 years. We’ve both seen our respective neighborhoods improve, rates have gone up, crime is down, new stores are going up. Much of the ‘sense’ one gets about a neighborhood’s improvement is subjective though. We know when one is declining. Rent signs litter the streets, boards replace windows in tattered houses and overgrown lawns threaten to swallow cars. Sketchy drifters wander through neighborhoods.

 If you’ve lived in a place long enough the decline is felt more than being obvious.

My friend complained that Tulsa was trying too hard to attract new money and push new homes into expanding areas. “Endless suburbia” he called it, clearly he didn’t want the city he calls home to change too much. I agree on some level. It’s a common concern that an infusion of a big company will create such a hike in prices that no one will be able to afford to live in the city. Seattle and San Francisco are examples where big companies moved in (or began) and displaced large chunks of the residents. The high salaries lead to high priced homes and apartments. Only the wealthiest residents can afford to live in the city and building new homes is nearly impossible with the strict codes. Tulsa is a long way from that but an increase in cost of living is likely with even modest growth.

 Downtown Tulsa expanded quite a lot since the BOK Center opened for business (2008) and started hosting large events. It’s been the peg for a sweeping increase in building. The drillers completed a new baseball stadium, high end apartments shot up across the street, countless restaurants, bars, retailers and boutique sellers popped up like spring dandelions. I used to take classes at the college downtown; there were a few restaurants but not much entertainment. In just a few years that entire strip of empty buildings and vacant lots boomed. The transformation is great for everyone; it brings in new money and puts life into a neglected spot.

A lot of the shops can’t keep up with the rent and close up in less than a year. Building booms don’t always create economic growth. Sometimes planners underestimate the real value or available money in an area. “If you build it they will come” only applies if you have at least one product everyone wants. The BOK Center seems to be what the city needed based on how much growth that’s happened since 2008, the year it opened.

So what is the optimal level of growth that keeps high paying jobs around while keeping housing affordable? Every city presents a different challenge but the ones with high cost of living also have the strictest zoning requirements for new housing. Mostly because people who already live there want to keep their property high and their neighborhoods relatively unchanged. It’s called NIMBY ism (Not In My Back Yard) and I’m sure you’ve experienced it at some point. Whenever a new apartment building is slated to go up around the corner from your part of the city, residents vote it down.

 Understandably when apartments start to go up the surrounding houses lose value. People move to areas with good schools and low crime. Large apartment complexes change all that. It isn’t popular to explain (it seems snobby) but it’s true. So the strict zoning is understandable but not appreciated by those hoping to find a place to live. Renters want good schools too. Apartments aren’t the only development subject to NIMBYism. Prisons, industrial factories, and big retailers like Walmart all face resistance when they try to build in cities or towns. Change is expensive because most people resist it.

Cities change for better or worse every few decades without any nudging from cities or states though. Some lose a key employer depriving the city of jobs and money. Countless mill towns sit empty surrounded by dilapidated structures and scant economic activity. Most cities more than one form of raising money, Detroit being a noticeable exception. The population trend in America is toward larger cities and away from rural communities, despite the expense. Mostly it’s a reflection of changing economics and the efficiencies of modern cities. We crave convenience.

 People get nostalgic about the place they grew up to the point where all change seems bad. We forget that our town or city looked a lot different before we lived there too. It will look different in another 20 years.

How many ethnic neighborhoods have changed hands over the years? Emigration to the US during the industrial revolution (late 19^th century) came mostly from Western Europe, later Eastern Europe and Latin America. City boroughs reflected that diversity for a time but started to blend as groups moved away.  I don’t imagine there was a huge population of West Africans in the early 20^th century in any major U.S city. Today there is. Immigrants leave the city for the same reasons in every age, more land, safer neighborhoods, cheaper costs of living.

I’m encouraged about the prospect that Tulsa is set to grow. We probably won’t get an Amazon headquarters for 30,000 workers or an NFL team anytime soon, but we’ll change as much as the city can handle and still be affordable. Hopefully common sense planning prevails and efforts to turn the downtown into a destination continue.