I must admit I would "vote" for denser development and all the walkable things folks seem to want on this forum, just as long as it's somewhere else. (NIMBY syndrome) It would give a place for people to live that currently flock to developments that forever devastate a quarter section of land or more with 4 or 5 houses per acre. It would lead to less traffic for me and less street maintenance for the city. And so on. Tulsa and Bixby would be more like the nodes of population that Artist talks about with the Urban Village idea. That would make it easier to connect Bixby and Tulsa with light rail since the dense areas would be defined.
I am happy to have to drive a mile or so (more when we moved here in 1971) to the grocery store as long as I don't need to fight traffic caused by people who would rather live like sardines. If Tulsa had done a better job of promoting and providing both upscale and affordable crowded living options, I could still be driving down an empty 2 lane Memorial Drive to get home. Bixby would still be about 5,000 population and Tulsa could suck in all that infrastructure income from the taxes that would be collected in Tulsa rather than Bixby, BA, Owasso, SS, Glenpool, etc. You could still have the big box centers at the edge of the city like at 71st St (at 75 and 169) to lure in all the suburban troglodytes and their money. Those spots would be out of your back yard but still fill the city's back pocket. Infrastructure from center city to these awful places could be minimal to discourage suburbanites from trespassing on any more city provided streets than necessary. Sophisticated downtowners wouldn't want or need to go there except to collect tax revenue.
[
]