"Nowhere Else To Grow But East"... Grow Up!
Why Norman's Rural Landowners Should Advocate For Urban Land Use Reform
Norman is unique in that a large percentage of its land is quite rural, after the city annexed this land many years back to protect the city’s watershed from development. This creates a heated political climate for the rural vs urban land owners. Rural ward 5 battling developers from paving their land is a common theme at planning commission and city council meetings. One aspect of this debate that is often overlooked by many is the benefit of urban infill development to rural land owners.
Strong Towns advocates for the “next smallest intensity by right” for developments in a city, allowing single family lots to build an accessory dwelling unit or duplex by right, without seeking approval of planning commission and city council. This “gentle density” is not high rises, or the type of density people typically think of if they fear the word. This level of density is otherwise known as “missing middle housing”, the type of housing that used to be common in cities, but is less common today due to strict government zoning regulations. Of course, these developments would still have to go through the usual building permit and inspections with the city, but a “by right” allowance means a citizen developer would not have to beg their neighbors for permission to do what they want with the lot they own.
Legalizing this type of development is good for many reasons, especially for rural land owners and farmers. Consider this: if Norman had not abandoned our traditional development pattern characterized by slightly higher density seen in our downtown and campus corner, we would not have sprawled out as far as we have. We could be perhaps half the size we are today, if not smaller. Here is a picture of a dense European city of Utrecht next to sprawling Norman, to scale:
The two cities’ urbanized areas are about the same in terms of the area they take up, maybe Norman’s is slightly larger. The main difference though, is that Norman has a population of 130,000, and Utrecht has a population of 1.3 million people. Norman takes up roughly the same amount of land as a city with a population 10 times larger than ours. Sure, we aren’t Europe. But just because we have a lot more land here doesn’t mean we must consume all of it in an irresponsible fashion.
You might also be wondering how dense Utrecht is, and how dismal it must be to live in a city like that. Well, here are a couple photos of the average street in Utrecht:
As you can see, it is not a city of towering skyscrapers and smog-ridden highways with honking cars. Most buildings are only 3-4 stories tall, and the city is overall very pleasant. This isn’t a far flung suburb either, but in the city center. In America, we are more used to towering skyscrapers, or single story suburbs with little in between. The people who live here have plenty of quick access to greenspace, many transportation options, and as a result the children in The Netherlands are the happiest and most independent children in the world.
As Americans, we have grown to believe that low density, car-dependent suburbs are our only option for housing and that nobody wants anything different. But that is not the case, and it is long past time for us to legalize more housing, and different types of it. In the “One Norman” visioning process, there was overwhelming consensus that Norman residents want to live in a walkable neighborhood. Doing this requires us to put more destinations within reach by foot, and allowing more housing near those destinations helps with that.
Here is another image to put in perspective how much land we waste in our cities:
Housing Units Per Acre
As AIM Norman - our update to our comprehensive land use plan - gets underway, the steering committee is likely going to have to choose where to put new housing based on the projected population growth in the next 20-30 years. Let’s assume all of this growth is similar to how we have grown up to this point, and the average housing density is 5 units/acre. If say, 20,000 housing units are needed, this would require 4,000 acres of land. At 5 units per acre, this density looks just about like the average suburb in Norman:
If you are wondering what 4,000 acres of land looks like, here it is if all of it were put in the rural part of East Norman:
That is a lot of sprawl.
On the other hand, here are some modest townhomes on Deans Row Avenue in core Norman:
At 3 housing units on 0.3 acres, this is a housing density of 10 units/acre. Let’s say all of our new housing was in the form of townhomes at this density, going from 5 units/acre to 10 units/acre, that would effectively cut the land we need in half to 2,000 acres.
A few weeks ago at Norman’s planning commission, a small apartment complex was approved in NW Norman near Rock Creek and 36th Avenue. This building has three, three-story buildings on it with 12 units each, totaling 36 units. Here is an elevation view of it from the plans:
This comes out to a highly more efficient housing density of 36 units/acre. If all of our new housing was in the form of these apartments (this is purely hypothetical), the land needed for that would go down from 4,000 acres, to 555 acres, or 1/7 of the land we originally needed for the next 30 years. Here is what that would look like:
That is a lot less sprawl. If you are a rural landowner, which type of housing would you prefer Norman to focus on? Of course, this is not to say we should put high density apartments that far out in East Norman. No, new housing should come in a variety of densities, and it would be best for it to be within the existing urbanized area of Norman, where we won’t need to add as many new miles of street, sewer and water.
This is to show how building even at a moderate density can have a hugely positive effect of allowing Norman to grow without consuming much land. Norman does have a lot of undeveloped land which has potential for infill development. The old Griffin Memorial Hospital site alone is about 147 acres. By legalizing more housing, allowing for duplexes, triplexes and accessory dwelling units in existing single family neighborhoods, Norman could easily curb our suburban sprawl and prevent us from becoming more like sprawling Dallas, complete with crumbling infrastructure.
Here are a few other reasons why urban infill development should be prioritized, from a rural landowner’s perspective:
Highway Expansions
Of course, I haven’t even brought up ACCESS Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority’s 15-year plan to build several new turnpike alignments around Norman. With low density suburbs, driving is a must. There are simply no other transportation options because destinations are too far apart for walking, biking and even transit in some cases. This continued outward expansion leads us to projects like ACCESS Oklahoma. If we never stop expanding out in this way, highways will never stop getting built. Urban infill leads to less driving, as can be easily seen in the photos above of slightly denser neighborhoods, where many people are out walking and biking. This is an effective way to curb sprawl, and also curb the need for more driving, and more highways. This has been talked about for years now.
Rising Taxes
Cities that sprawl outward, building lots of infrastructure with relatively few people per square mile to maintain it, requires heavy taxation to sustain that infrastructure. Norman saw a sneak peak of this just last year when we voted to raise our water rates and property taxes to pay for aging waterlines and bridges. (This tax increase only covered 1/4 of our bridges by the way). Other low density cities are running into this problem too. Cities who allow for more density are able to house people without building much more new roads, water and sewer. It also doesn’t expand the area needed to be covered by police and fire, which are the largest portions of the city budget. Density is good for the economy, and as shown in a previous article, certain developments in Norman are way more efficient at generating tax revenue than others, simply due to the difference in their development patterns.
Housing Affordability
The least affordable state in the country - California - got that way by keeping outdated zoning laws in place for decades, heavily controlling supply while demand skyrocketed. These are the exact same zoning laws we have now. As a result, many states are pursuing zoning reforms to build more housing before they too become California. After reforming their zoning laws, Minneapolis has recently seen highly favorable results for housing affordability there, compared to the increasing prices in cities across the rest of Minnesota.
Land Affordability and Property Taxes
Land is a finite resource. As more land is consumed by suburban sprawl, there is less rural land to go around. This makes land prices less affordable for prospective land owners, and it also makes housing less affordable everywhere. For small-scale infill developers, the cost of the land deal has a huge effect in determining how affordable the housing can be. For rural landowners, rising land values and rising property taxes as development encroaches on them can price people out of their homes, regardless if they want to sell to developers. By legalizing higher density infill, there will be less suburban sprawl, and more land to go around for everyone else.
Summary
For all of these reasons I’ve given, I have not even mentioned our water supply, or our relationship with our farmers. Norman cannot live on without food and water. Every rural landowner should be advocating for urban infill housing for the reasons demonstrated above, as it is good for cities, landowners and farmers. In light of the latest research on city planning, our rising taxes, and decreasing amounts of farmland, Norman should reconsider how we want to grow into the future. For rural landowners, prove that you are not just a “NIMBY.” If you are anti-sprawl, then you show everyone that you are for things too, by advocating for land use reform in urbanized Norman.