Making OKC Sustainable: Capitol Hill

Melissa Navarro, Gerardo Thompson, Emily Fitzsimmons

RCPL 5813

Introduction

Environmental planning is generally important because it is critical to public health, safety, and longevity of a place. A place simply cannot survive in the long term without proper management of natural resources and energy flows as this allows for cooperation between social and economic practices and the natural environment. Often, however, environmental planning is only partially fulfilled and only focuses on environmental control without regard to the context of the natural, social, or economic ecosystem, resulting in overengineering and ultimately environmental, fiscal, and social losses. In this report, however, the researchers seek to practice holistic environmental planning and systems thinking by studying the history, socioeconomic conditions, and environmental state of the place.

As part of an effort to bring sustainability and resiliency to disinvested Oklahoma City neighborhoods, this report hones in on the Capitol Hill district of Oklahoma City. Specifically for this study area, environmental planning is an important step towards equity and reparations for a marginalized neighborhood that has been largely neglected by the city government. Topics covered in this report include a site analysis, target issues, a literature review, and proposed solutions. Data and information utilized in this report were collected from the US Census Bureau, the Oklahoma City database, the Oklahoma City Planning Department, the Association of Central Oklahoma Governments, the United Stated Department of Agriculture, and the Oklahoma Water Resources Board, and case studies from planning and academic settings.

Figure 1. IQC Capitol Hill Planning Project

Project Context

Figure 2. Oklahoma Opry Theatre in Capitol Hill

Project Context

Methodology & Motivation

The motivation behind this project was to promote a healthy and collaborative relationship between the environment and communities in a way that encourages responsible use of resources and ecosystems without compromising future generations use of the space. Likewise, the ultimate goal of this research and report is to propose holistic environmental planning strategies that address area-specific needs and that are socio-economically responsible and feasible. In particular, this research is meant provide a basis for sustainability improvements for the people currently living in Capitol Hill rather than to support gentrification of the area. This is why the research not only includes an environmental site analysis but a socioeconomic site analysis as well. To complete this project, we followed five major steps: data collection, initial analysis, literature review, in-depth analysis, and strategies and scenario planning. Specific objectives within this process consisted of:

● analyzing related case studies to gain information about environmental planning processes and practices in related places

● collecting and analyzing data about land cover and use, hydrology, soil, green space, green infrastructure, and socioeconomic conditions

● illustrating data in visual aids, including maps, diagrams, and tables

● producing physical and non-physical potential strategies and solutions

● analyzing multiple strategies using scenario planning

● compiling these components into a report that can be understood by the local community

To complete this project, the researchers utilized data and information from the US Census Bureau, the Oklahoma City database, the Oklahoma City Planning Department, the Association of Central Oklahoma Governments, the United Stated Department of Agriculture, and the Oklahoma Water Resources Board, and case studies from planning and academic settings. Analysis tools used include ArcGIS Pro, Social Explorer, and Microsoft Excel. As students, we experienced several research limitations, such as lack of resources that a professional planning team would have to conduct site visits and community engagement meetings. There was also a considerable lack of information about the area.

During the initial phases of data collection and analysis, a variety of environmental and socioeconomic issues came to light, such as deteriorating sidewalks, capped creeks, disconnected bike lanes, damaged trees, industrial land uses, close proximity to railroads and major streets, high rates of poverty, high use of personal vehicles, destruction of historic buildings by fire, and more. These observed issues were consolidated and became our list of targeted issues: stormwater management, infrastructure quality and maintenance, air pollution, soil pollution, plant and wildlife care, and heat and drought, all of which will be discussed in-depth in pages __. These targeted problems stood out not only as environmental issues but also as influences on the socio-economic conditions of the area, whether due to increased risk of property damage, health and safety hazards, or impediments to economic development.

Figure 3. Map of Study Area

Figure 4. Map of Study Area within Oklahoma City

Figure 5. Historic Photo of Capitol Hill

Study Area

Founded in 1905, the Capitol Hill district is located south of downtown Oklahoma City along the Oklahoma River. This area was initially supposed to be the location of the state’s capitol until the citizens felt they wanted to maintain their independence. At the time, the neighborhood only stretched from South Walker Avenue to South Santa Fe Avenue and SW 22nd Street to SW 29th Street (Walker). It has since expanded to South Western Avenue in the west, SW 36th Street in the south, and South Shields Boulevard in the east.

One of the most defining characteristics of the neighborhood is that it is predominately Hispanic. Additionally, this neighborhood remains one of the most historic places in Oklahoma City, as it became a part of the city in 1909. At the time, the Capitol Hill area was its own place and had a mayor, until the residents decided to become a part of Oklahoma City. One of the key buildings in the area has been Mount Saint Mary’s Academy, which is a church and Catholic school. Mount Saint Mary became a prominent place in the area as people would gather for mass and community events. The area also has many historic houses and commercial buildings from the 1940s and 1950s. However, becoming a part of Oklahoma City resulted in massive disinvestment in the area and a decline in the community’s historic structures.

During the first year of Capitol Hill being part of Oklahoma City, a resident of the area issued a complaint stating that annexation delayed their improvement and deprived them of many things that they could of have had long ago. They could have had sidewalks, paving and a city hall. Instead, Oklahoma City implemented a tax, most of which was later spent on the north side of the city. This led to Capitol Hill being a historically disinvested area (Hausbur). In the 1960s-70s, the area saw even more of a decline because of downtown Oklahoma City’s urban renewal that destroyed many of the city’s historic structures and rerouted funds away from Capitol Hill. This caused the area to lose their key businesses, such as JC Penny and other big-name stores, which had a major effect on the area’s economy (Walker). In 1997, however, the Capitol Hill main street was made, creating an opportunity for Capitol Hill to be restored (Walker).

During the last couple of decades, the area has received $14.8 million in public and private projects. As planners, we can look at case studies from other areas within and outside of Oklahoma for ideas to implement in the Capitol Hill area.

Figure 7. Vintage Postcard of Mt. St. Mary’s

Figure 6. Capitol Hill Escaramuza

Site Analysis

Figure 8. Mural in Capitol Hill

Site Analysis

This section entails a two-part site analysis. The first is an environmental site analysis consisting of a series of maps and tables of the current site conditions, zoning, floodplains, soil types, topography, elevation, slope, runoff, and green infrastructure data. Accompanying each of these maps is notable pieces of data. The second portion is a socioeconomic site analysis consisting maps and charts of demographic and economic data as well as a narrative explanation of how it applies to environmental planning.

Environmental Site Analysis

This current site conditions map was created by adding different layers like the building footprints, pavement, parks, rivers, and streams to ArcGIS. Notable information includes:

● The Capitol Hill district is located in south Oklahoma City.

● The district has an area of 1.56 mi² (4.05 km²) and is bounded by three major roads, a railroad, and the Oklahoma River (google maps)

● Within the study area, there are two creeks, Twin (Northwest) and Lighting (Southeast), and two parks Wiley Post Park (Northeast) and Oliver park (Southeast)

Figure 9. Current Site Conditions Map

Regarding land uses, most of the site is residential -- R1 and R2 -- with some commercial, C-CBD, and light industrial, I1, on the central area between the parks (“Open”). Although this distribution of land uses is typical for Oklahoma cities and marginalized neighborhoods, the large amounts of single-family housing and industrial zoning is not beneficial to the sustainability of the community.

Figure 10. Zoning Map (“Open”)

Figure 11. Commercial Land Use in Capitol Hill

Figure 12. Residential Land Use in Capitol Hill

According to the FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, most areas by the river and creeks in Capitol Hill have some risk of flooding, either 1% annual chance flood hazard or undetermined, as shown in Figure 13 (Oklahoma). Notably, however, FEMA maps do not account for the multiplier effect on flooding that impervious surfaces has. As the Capitol Hill area is made up of 42.6% impervious surfaces, this means that the area’s floodplain extends much farther than FEMA indicates (“Tree”).

Figure 13. FEMA Floodplain Map (Oklahoma)

There are 14 types of soil in the neighborhood area, as illustrated in Figure 14. We decided to study the first 7 types of soil in-depth because they are present in over 90% of the total, so they will provide information on the main soil characteristics of the study area. Detailed information about soil types in the area from the Natural Resources Conservation Service can be read in Table 1 and the subsequent index on pages 14-18.

Figure 14. Soil Types Map

As illustrated in Figure 19, there is a rise in elevation on the southwest and north sides that drop towards the creeks and the river. Higher elevations are more suitable for development because are safer during extreme rain events.

Figure 19. Digital Elevation Model Map

As shown in Figure 20, darker shades of green represent the flat areas, and yellow and orange represent the highest slopes, where slope is more suitable for human consumption. Those sites would also be more suitable for water wells.

Figure 20. Slope Percentage Map

For Figure 21, data for and from stormwater runoff directions include:

Area= 992 acres=1.55 sq. miles

Uses= (Residential 68%, Commercial 12%, Open space 20%)

Hydrology Soil group= A:0%, B:10.70%, C:40.60%, D: 48.30%

Hydraulic length = 7861 feet

Average slope= 2.53%

Figure 21. Runoff Direction Map

After running the Gordon Runoff Model based on the following data to evaluate the four scenarios, it produced the presented unit and flood hydrographs, Figures 22 and 23. The purpose of the green development scenario specifically was to get the curves closer to the pre-development conditions. However, this scenario requires rearranging land uses and doubling the open space percentage, which would be challenging for the study area as it is already heavily developed.

Hydrologic Soil Type Distribution

A: 14.70%

B: 15.80%

C: 40.60%

D: 28.90%

Stormwater runoff scenarios

1. Pre-development

● 73.5% Meadow; good condition

● 26.5% Wood or forest, thin stand; poor cover, no mulch

2. Farmland

● 25% Meadow; good condition

● 26.5% Cultivated lands without conservation treatment, 10% Pasture or range land poor condition,

● 48.5% Pasture or range land good condition

3. Conventional

● 68% Residential

● 12% Commercial

● 20% Open space

4. Green development

● Residential 53.6%, with less impervious surface

● Commercial 5% with less surface parking

● Open space 41.4% with forest and parks with 75% grass

Figure 22. Capitol Hill High School, 1968

Figure 23. Capitol Hill Aerial View

Figure 24. Unit Hydrograph

Figure 25. Flood Hydrograph

Existing green infrastructure is concentrated on the east and north edges of the district, indicating a need for more green infrastructure in the western, southern, and central portions of Capitol Hill

Socioeconomic Site Analysis

Another important aspect of site analysis is observing the socioeconomic conditions of an area. Understanding what socioeconomic strengths and weaknesses are present allows for more holistic environmental planning because interventions meant to increase environmental sustainability can also be built upon current socioeconomic advantages and improve socioeconomic shortcomings. For Capitol Hill, the area’s greatest strength is its unusually high population of immigrants and the residents’ willingness to travel in groups. The area’s greatest socioeconomic shortcomings are high rates of poverty and unemployment as well as low access to affordable housing and low numbers of elderly residents. The information in this section is based on census tract and census block group data collected from the US Census and Social Explorer; focusing on data from smaller census geographies allowed for analysis that is more specific to the site area.

Figure 26. Existing Green Infrastructure

Social Site Analysis

One of the factors that makes Capitol Hill stand out from the rest of Oklahoma City is the area’s demographics. As shown in Figures 27 and 28, Capitol Hill has a very different demographic makeup than the rest of the city, especially for minority populations: The white population for Capitol Hill and Oklahoma City are very similar while Capitol Hill’s Black, Native American, and Asian populations are all much lower than the Oklahoma City percentages. Notably, however, as seen in Figure 29, Capitol Hill has an extremely high Hispanic and Latinx population, which is why the area’s “Some Other Race” category is over double the Oklahoma City “Some Other Race” category, for the US Census does not currently have a distinct racial category for dark-skinned people who are not Black or Native American. So, although the Census’ racial distribution does not show it as well as the ethnicity distribution, Capitol Hill is a much more diverse area than much of Oklahoma City because it is a minority-majority area for Hispanic and Latinx people.

Figure 27. Race in Capitol Hill in 2019 (“Explore”)

Figure 28. Race in Oklahoma City in 2019 (“Explore”)

Another unique demographic characteristic of the Capitol Hill area is their high immigrant population. As shown in Figure 31, most of the census tracts in the district have 20%-30% of their population as foreign-born. Likewise, most of the census tracts – notably the exact same census tracts as Figure 31 -- have 20%-30% of their population as undocumented immigrants, as shown in Figure 32. These two phenomena have likely occurred due to chain migration. This area has historically been an area with high levels of people of color, but as immigrants specifically from Hispanic and Latin countries started to locate in this area, more immigrants from those same countries continued to flow in because their family was there, Hispanic businesses were established, like people were present, etc. Capitol Hill essentially became an immigrant destination for Hispanic and Latinx people, especially as migration from places like Mexico to the US are on the rise.

Figure 29. Ethnicity in Capitol Hill in 2019 (“Explore”)

Figure 30. Capitol Hill Pedestrians

Figure 31. Foreign Born Population in Capitol Hill in 2019 (Social)

One last notable social characteristic is the median age of Capitol Hill. As illustrated in Figure 34, median age ranges from 28-37 depending on census tract. This is a little below the US median age due to smaller percentages of people over 65 in the area. Though the median age is not massively different from the US median age, it is notable because Hispanic and Latinx families – the majority of the area’s population – tend to practice intergenerational living. Therefore, the median age should be higher because of higher rates of in-house elderly care.

Figure 32. Residents without US Citizenship in Capitol Hill in 2019 (Social)

Figure 33. Fiestas de las Americas in Capitol Hill

Consolidating these notable social statistics with environmental planning, policy, and design indicates a need for environmental changes that better support Hispanic and Latinx people, immigrants, and elderly residents. Specifically, there should be more immigrant-centered services and environmental design, especially for Hispanic and Latinx immigrants and undocumented immigrants; this could include Spanish signage and language translation in the built environment and public transit, support for immigrant-owned businesses, community gardens (see case study 3), and community squares and public spaces similar to those in origin nations. Additionally, there should be an investigation into what public health and safety issues are causing older folks to either move away or pass away. Based on this team’s general site analysis, some likely possibilities include lack of multimodal mobility infrastructure, lack of affordable and quality housing, lack of ADA-accessible sidewalks and parks, and poor air quality.

Economic Site Analysis

The overall takeaway from the economic site analysis is that the Capitol Hill area is not thriving economically. Data indicates very low incomes, low access to affordable housing, low rates of employment, and high vacancy rates. As illustrated in Figure 35, the median household income (MHI) for half of the census tracts in Capitol Hill is $15,000-20,000 and $30,000-$35,000 for the other half, which is a range of only 1.16-2.72 times the federal poverty level of $12,880 per person. Coincidingly, the area has high percentages of people living below the poverty line for all census age groups –minors, over 65, and in between; this can be seen in Figures 36-38. Such low incomes are likely due to the lack of jobs in the area with living wages, exploitation of immigrants, under-the-table and nonrecorded payments to undocumented immigrants, and difficulty finding jobs for non-English speakers. As shown in Figure 39, Capitol Hill has a wide range of unemployment rates between census tracts, from 0.98% to 7.99%. Compared to the average US unemployment rate of about 4%, parts of Capitol Hill suffer from very high rates of unemployment, which contributes to the issue of poverty in the area.

Figure 34. Median Age in Capitol Hill in 2019 (Social)

Figure 35. Median Household Income in Capitol Hill in 2019 (Social)

Figure 36. Minors Living in Poverty in Capitol Hill in 2019 (Social)

Figure 37. Population Age 18-64 Living in Poverty in Capitol Hill in 2019 (Social)

Figure 38. Population Age 65 and Over Living in Poverty in Capitol Hill in 2019 (Social)

The housing market in Capitol Hill is also fiscally unsustainable, as shown by data on rent, housing vacancy, and structure age. Depending on census tract, 5%-40% of renters in Capitol Hill pay 30%-49% of their income on rent, and 1%-30% pay more than 50% of their income on rent, again depending on census tract (Figures 40 and 41, respectively). The common metric for affordable housing is not spending more than 30% of one’s income on housing costs. Such high percentages of people in Capitol Hill paying 30% or more of their income on rent alone indicate a major shortage of affordable housing. On the other hand, the housing vacancy rate for the area is 15.48%, as shown in Figure 42; this is high compared to both Oklahoma and the US, which both have housing vacancy rates of about 10%. As shown in Figure 44, much of the existing housing in Capitol Hill is about 70 years old; the overall median year built for structures is “before 1960”; specifically looking at individual census tracts, median year built for structures include 1941, 1947, 1950, 1952, and 1953. Older structures can often be an asset to a community because they tend to be built better and can be marketed in the historic preservation field; however, in low-income neighborhoods, old structures are typically more of a burden because residents cannot afford to upkeep or upgrade these old buildings.

Because this is a historic area of Oklahoma City, however, density is a bit higher, as shown in Figure 45. Because of this, one would think that journey to work methods would be distributed more evenly, but because of low city investment in sidewalk, transit, and bike infrastructure, residents heavily rely on personal vehicles, as illustrated in Figures 46-50. Notably, however, carpooling is unusually popular in this area, indicating a desire for cheaper and more sustainable travel options and a willingness to travel in group transport.

Figure 39. Unemployment Rates in Capitol Hill in 2019 (Social)

Figure 40. Renters paying 30%-49% of Income on Rent in Capitol Hill in 2019 (Social)

Figure 41. Renters paying 50% or more of Income on Rent in Capitol Hill in 2019 (Social)

Figure 42. Housing Occupancy Status in Capitol Hill in 2020 (“Explore”) Figure 43. Apartments in Capitol Hill

Figure 44. Median Year Structure Built in Capitol Hill in 2019 (Social)

Figure 45. Population Density in Capitol Hill in 2019 (Social)

Figure 46. Workers Driving in an SOV in Capitol Hill in 2019 (Social)

Figure 47. Workers Carpooling in Capitol Hill in 2019 (Social)

Figure 48. Workers Taking Public Transit in Capitol Hill in 2019 (Social)

Figure 49. Workers Biking in Capitol Hill in 2019 (Social)

Figure 50. Workers Walking in Capitol Hill in 2019 (Social)

Considering this economic data in the context of environmental planning, we can distinguish specific needs and opportunities in the Capitol Hill area that can be satisfied though planning and policy. First, high rates of unemployment and poverty could be eased by establishing quality, living-wage jobs in the area focused on fields such as sustainability, environmental management, city services, infrastructure maintenance, and construction, either through the city or by incentivizing private firms to locate in the area. This could also be done by creating public spaces and support services for small businesses and local entrepreneurs. The high vacancy rate could also be lowered by working with landlords to create rent controls and section 8 housing and by marketing Capitol Hill as a welcoming place for immigrants and refugees. As proven in one of the precedent case studies, areas with high numbers of immigrants can build belonging and relationships through sustainability planning and practices. Coincidingly, the city should implement programs for structure repair so that the old structures that are currently a burden would be a historic preservation attraction to the area and would be more sustainable than new construction, as adaptive reuse saves materials, reduces emissions, and tends to have smaller footprints. Repairing older houses and businesses would not only increase equity and quality of life for current residents but also attract more people to the area. Lastly, the density of the area also presents an opportunity for more sustainable, human-scale development and transportation infrastructure. With residents’ willingness to carpool, a comprehensive and affordable public transit system would likely have high ridership in this area.

Figure 51. Pop Up Plaza in Capitol Hill

Targeted Issues

Figure 52. Damged Building in Capitol Hill

Targeted Issues

As discussed earlier in the report, initial data collection and analysis revealed a wide variety of socioeconomic and environmental problems within the study area, including but not limited to deteriorating sidewalks and structures, capped creeks, disconnected bike lanes, damaged trees, industrial land uses, close proximity to railroads and major streets, high rates of poverty, high use of personal vehicles, and destruction of historic buildings by fire. After categorizing these observations, we created a list of targeted issues to address in this report based on those observed problems; these targeted issues include stormwater management, infrastructure quality and maintenance, air pollution, soil pollution, plant and wildlife care, and heat and drought. These targeted issues are discussed not only in the context of environmental sustainability but socioeconomic sustainability as well.

Stormwater Management

Stormwater management is a particular problem in the Capitol Hill area due to capped creeks and impervious surfaces enlarging the floodplain from the river. The Capitol Hill area is made up of 42.6% impervious surfaces, 30.16% grass and low-lying vegetation, and 3.01% bare soil (“Tree”). Impervious surfaces exacerbate flooding as stormwater is not absorbed back to the groundwater flows but carried quickly streets and culverts, collecting trash and pollutants along the way, until it is quickly discharged into a local body of water. This results in water loss, water pollution, harm to plant and animal life, property damage, and public safety hazards. This problem is particularly significant in Capitol Hill as both of the creeks within the area are partially capped, which removes natural flood controls, and because of the area’s location right next to the Oklahoma River. As illustrated in Figure 13 on page 12, much of north Capitol Hill is located in a FEMA floodplain; however, FEMA does not account for the multiplying effect on flooding that impervious surfaces have. Therefore, the floodplain actually extends much further into the district. Additionally, because of the district’s proximity to large roadways and a railroad, present and past industrial land uses within and around the area, and high usage of personal vehicles, stormwater traveling within Capitol Hill and to the Oklahoma River will have large amounts of sediment, heavy metals, waste, and more that is taken to bodies of water without purification. These issues associated with poor stormwater management is further aggravated by sudden and severe storms and flashfloods that are caused by climate change.

Figure 53. Capped Creek in Capitol Hill

Infrastructure Quality & Maintenance

Infrastructure quality and maintenance are also an environmental issue prevalent throughout Capitol Hill, including stormwater, road, sidewalk, transit, and bike infrastructure. Infrastructure quality is low in many parts of the district because the infrastructure is both outdated and poorly maintained, as gray infrastructure is expensive to maintain. In particular, there is a lack of connected and ADA-accessible sidewalks throughout the neighborhood, and transit and bike infrastructure are not comprehensive. There have been recent additions of bike lanes and bus routes in the district, but they are disconnected, especially without a quality sidewalk system. Overall, these result in decreased mobility – especially for disabled people and those without drivers’ licenses, such as undocumented immigrants, children, and elderly people — which cuts residents off from employment, educational, and recreational opportunities. This also increases health and safety issues as people are less likely to integrate exercise into their daily schedule, and those who do are at an increased risk of danger due to lack of pedestrian safety. As for stormwater infrastructure, as discussed in the previous section, the area’s stormwater system has been over-engineered with gray infrastructure, resulting in a host of environmental and safety issues, such as biodiversity loss, water loss, pollution, increased flash flooding, and human safety hazards.

Air Pollution

Air pollution is another important sustainability issue, particularly in regard to public health. Within Capitol Hill, there is very low bus ridership, biking, and walking to work and, coincidingly, high use of single-occupancy vehicles (SOV). The district is also edged with major roads and a railroad, which are major emitters of air pollution, including carbon dioxide, heavy metals, and particulate matter, and the district is also home to many car-centered businesses and industrial land uses, which again pollute the air. Additionally, because many of the structures in the area are over 70 years old, many buildings will have poor insulation, causing energy loss and greenhouse gas emissions. However, air pollution does not just occur from activity within the district but from all the polluting activities around the city, the metropolitan area, and even the region, which are all very dependent on carbon-emitting power sources, SOVs, and poorly regulated industries. Air pollution is detrimental to environmental and public health, as it causes many illnesses and diseases for both humans and wildlife, such as lung disease, cancer, asthma, and other respiratory illnesses.

Figure 53. Crumbling Sidewalks in Capitol Hill

Soil Pollution

Soil pollution is prevalent in Capitol Hill largely because of the brownfields from past and current industrial uses in the area. As illustrated in the Figure 10 on page 11, Capitol Hill has a substantial amount of land zoned for industrial uses, which often contaminate the soil of the property as well as any air and water that moves through the property. This means that pollutants are not only carried throughout the community but also that those properties are safety hazards during and even after they are used as for industrial purposes. Therefore, the many brownfields in Capitol Hill contain contaminants in the soil that are eventually carried by stormwater to surface and groundwater supplies, which can ultimately cause illnesses or death for wildlife and humans.

Figure 54. Railroad Track and Major Roadway at the East Edge of Capitol Hill

Figure 55. Raised Highway at the Northeast Edge of Capitol Hill

Figure 56. Junkyard in Capitol Hill

Plant & Wildlife Care

Issues with plant and wildlife care in Capitol Hill are largely due to low tree quantity and quality, low plant biodiversity, and capped creeks. Capitol Hill’s tree canopy only makes up 22.2% of the total 817-acre area, less than a quarter of the entire area (“Tree”). Furthermore, many of the trees that are present have sustained considerable damage from Oklahoma severe weather. As this is a low-income neighborhood and arbor services are very expensive, these trees remain damaged. This not only undermines tree health and biodiversity but also presents a public safety hazard. Additionally, many lowincome and undocumented immigrants do not have house insurance, so these damaged trees potentially could damage homes from any related storms and cause severe fiscal setbacks for low-income households. Biodiversity in the area is also not being supported by the lack of trees and the lack of diverse plants. Although there are numerable empty lots in the area, they are simply grass and gravel, which are not conducive to wildlife. In fact, the area is made up of 30.16% grass and low-lying vegetation and 3.01% bare soil (“Tree”), so even the areas of dedicated green spaces are lacking in plant biodiversity and, therefore, animal and bug. Lastly, as previously mentioned, Capitol Hill has two creeks, one of which is a tributary of the Oklahoma River in the northwest section; the other runs through much of the western half of the district. Both of these creeks are largely capped and made into culverts, which undermines biodiversity my preventing animals and plants that would naturally occur there from being able to live in the creek. Plant and wildlife care may seem like a solely environmental issue, but it is a an issue for humans as well because proper care of plants and wildlife ensures access to healthy and safe natural resources and recreational areas, cleaner air, healthier soil, better stormwater absorption, and natural pest control.

Heat & Drought

Two major parts of climate change include rising temperatures and more frequent, sudden, and strong storms. Already, Oklahoma is known for its hot and dry summers as well as its severe weather, so climate change will exacerbate both of these. Capitol Hill, specifically, is a neighborhood of immigrants, people of color, and low-income residents, making it a triple target for environmental injustice, including poor environmental design, environmental mismanagement, and lack of support for sustainable and resilient infrastructure. The result is increased heat island effect, erosion, fires, and health and safety issues. With heat and drought comes an increased risk of fire; in Capitol Hill, this fire risk is even higher because of unmaintained, old buildings. After burning down, these buildings are typically torn down to empty lots with no plan of future development, resulting in a disastrous loss of history and economic potential. Moreover, increased heat, lack of trees, and excessive impervious surfaces cause urban heat island. As discussed in previous sections, 42.6% of the

Figure 57. Damaged Tree in Capitol Hill

Figure 58. Empty Lot with Grass, Gravel, and Foundation Remains

817-acre Capitol Hill is impervious surfaces, and only 22.2% is tree canopy (“Tree”). Not only do impervious surfaces exacerbate flooding, but they also absorb heat. Research of marginalized neighborhoods, such as Capitol Hill, have proven that bigoted policies that install excessive impervious surfaces and fail to plant trees and green spaces have created public health hazards due to the heat in low-income and POC neighborhoods. These health hazards include increased risk or exacerbation of heat stroke, heart attack, obesity, asthma, diabetes, blood pressure, and death (Plumer

and Popovich).

Figure 59. Severely Damaged Historic Structure in Capitol Hill Business District

Figure 60. Empty Lot in Historic Capitol Hill Business District from Demolished Structure

Figure 61. Excessive Impervious Surfaces and Few Trees in Capital Hill Commercial District

Literature Review

Figure 62. IQC Planning Project in Capitol Hill

Literature Review

In order to gain insight from other environmental planning processes and designs, part of our research was based on case studies from both the professional and academic planning fields. Each of these unique case studies influenced how we analyzed the area and what solutions we ultimately produced by providing examples of what environmental planning methods did and did not work in related communities. Descriptions of each, including brief descriptions and takeaways are detailed below.

Case Study 1. Greening America´s Communities: Oklahoma City

Location: Central Neighborhoods in Oklahoma City, including Paseo, Central park, Jefferson Park, and Edgemere Park

Historic District

Targeted problems: Flooding, sidewalks disconnected and in bad conditions, lack of biking facilities, unsafe drainage structures, and creek erosion.

Strengths: The planning process had high community involvement. The design included rain gardens, tree canopy, permeable pavement in parking lots, reorganization of the public right of way, protected pedestrian crossings, dedicated bike lanes, recessed panting roundabouts, infiltration areas, retention ponds, and planted bioswales. The project considers examples and potential funding sources.

Weakness: The report does not include details on the methods or the project’s expected impact supported with figures. Takeaways: This case study provides examples of innovative green infrastructure and sustainability initiatives designed for other neighborhoods in Oklahoma City, providing a jumping-off point for designs based on existing local community engagement (Greening).

Figure 63. Green Infrastructure Design Examples from Case Study 1 (Greening)

Case Study 2. Tulsa Sustainability Plan 2012 – Water Management

Location: The City of Tulsa

Targeted Problems: The City of Tulsa does not have a plan in action to promote Low impact development in its own facilities.

Strengths: The City recommended that they start to incorporate low impact development design elements in their city buildings such as Pervious pavement, rainwater harvesting and rain gardens. This will allow the city to collect rainwater and use it for irrigation purposes.

Weakness: This city currently has no information on how much money the LID could save the city.

Takeaways: This case study provides an example of how another large Oklahoman city handled stormwater management processes and designs sustainably (URS).

Figure 64. Green Infrastructure Design Example from Case Study 1 (Greening)

Figure 65. Tulsa Sustainability Plan 2012 (URS)

Case Study 3. “Cultivating Belonging: Refugees, Urban Gardens, and Placemaking in the Midwest, USA”

Location: Rock Island, IL

Targeted problems: Refugee and immigrant belonging, cross-cultural relationships, food deserts, concentration of poverty, immigrant disempowerment and exclusion, segregation, vacant lots, water access, soil quality, land tenure, overly restrictive land policy, access to green space and nature,

Strengths: The researchers’ methods consisted largely of in-person fieldwork, including interviews with urban gardeners, immigrants, and city officials as well as regularly volunteering at the community gardens, attending community meetings, and working with the local gardening organization to collect data, all of which was then coded into quantitative data. The case study discusses the situation in the holistic sustainability context, discussing social and cultural prosperity, economic independence, and environmental sustainability. The authors also discuss many facets of community gardening, including food sovereignty, cultural sustainability, environmental sustainability, social opportunities, network building, cross-cultural learning, entrepreneurship and financial prosperity. The authors also discuss both the issues and benefits of community gardening; it is not a one-sided or unrealistic analysis that ignores the conflict between long-term residents and migrants and the local government or the western limitations, domination, and controls that is harmful to the gardeners.

Weaknesses: Although this case study discusses all three tenets of holistic sustainability in this situation, they only seem to have collected data for the social part of holistic sustainability. There is very little environmental and place-based data and no apparent economic data. They may have collected this data to support their discussions, but that is not made clear or illustrated using graphics. As a result, their discussion of environmental and economic sustainability is not nearly as strong as their discussion of social sustainability as it relates to community gardening.

Takeaways: Environmental planning can be used as a bridge between different groups of people, particularly in areas with high concentrations of immigrants and low-income residents (Strunk and Richardson).

Figure 66. Community Farms from Case Study 3 (Strunk and Richardson)

Proposed Planning Scenarios & Strategies

Figure 67. Rooftop Garden on Historical Commercial Building

Proposed Planning Scenarios & Stategies

As discussed earlier in the report, the goal of this project is to propose holistic environmental planning strategies that address area-specific needs and that are socio-economically responsible and feasible. In order to fulfill this goal, this report includes three different proposals with different levels of intervention compared using scenario planning. The first proposed scenario consists of no changes in order to provide a base line to compare the proposed scenario to. The second proposed scenario consists of some changes that are more affordable and can be done in a relatively short span of time. The third proposed scenario consists of many large interventions in addition to the ones from the second scenario, thus creating great, long-term projects and changes. Each of these scenarios, including their challenges and benefits are detailed below.

Planning Scenario 1: No Interventions

Interventions:

● No changes, business as usual

Risks & Challenges:

● Continued heat island effect

● Continued flooding

● Continued pollution

● Continued erosion

● Continued health and safety issues

● Long-term financial costs

Benefits​:

● No immediate direct financial costs

Evaluation:

● Compare data in this report with updated flooding and green infrastructure data

● Compare data in this report with changes in socioeconomic data collected from the US Census Bureau

● Collect data on city spending on gray infrastructure since publication of this report

● Collect data on new or previously unrecorded environment-related issues occuring within the Capitol Hill Area

● Conduct community engagement meetings and surveys to compile community knowledge about the current neighborhood conditions and changes since publication of this report

Figure 9. Current Site Conditions Map

Planning Scenario 2: Some Interventions

Interventions:

● Planting of new trees and native plants

● Maintaining existing trees

● Rain barrel programs

● Community education

● Increased waste management

Risks & Challenges:

● Not enough to solve major, long-term issues in the community

Benefits​:

● Some improvements to current conditions of Capitol Hill within a relatively short time span

● Affordability

● Less intimidating for residents fearing city presence and/or gentrification

Evaluation:

● Record and map new trees, removed trees, and revitalized trees

● Record and map location of residential rain barrels

● Record the number residential block of community education partipants

● Record and map trash clearance quantity

● Compare data in this report with updated flooding and green infrastructure data, particularly in areas where new trees have been planted and existing trees have been revitalized

● Compare data in this report with updated flooding data in areas with rain barrels

● Compare data in this report with changes in socioeconomic data collected from the US Census Bureau

● Collect data on city spending on gray and green infrastructure since publication of this report

● Collect data on new or previously unrecorded environment-related issues occuring within the Capitol Hill Area

● Collect data on decreasing or mitigated environment-related issues that have occured within the Capitol Hill Area since implementation of proposed strategies

● Conduct community engagement meetings and surveys to compile community knowledge about the current neighborhood conditions and changes since publication of this report

Figure 69. Planting New Trees and Native Plants

Figure 68. Rain Barrels

Planning Scenario 3: Intense Interventions

Interventions:

● Interventions from Scenario 2 PLUS

● Green roofs on commercial buildings with flat roofs

● Community gardens in empty lots to increase access to nutritious food, provide disability-accessible exercise, improve health, build community relationships, foster belonging amongst immigrants, reduce crime, etc.

● Native and drought-resistant plants to decrease water demand, improve soil health, decrease erosion, restore native biodiversity, etc.

● Detention and retention methods that uses less gray infrastructure to allow for groundwater recharge and decrease flooding and water loss

● Buffers along creeks and streets to mitigate flooding, improve walkability, and decrease noise pollution from major roads

● Rain gardens to cleanse and slow stormwater

● Building repair programs to help prevent energy loss and fires, improve well-being for residents, and increase equity

● Brownfield rehabilitation to help mitigate soil and water pollution

● Quality multimodal transportation infrastructure, including bus rapid transit, sidewalks, and bike lanes

Figure 70. Map of Proposed Physical Interventions under Scenario 3

Risks & Challenges:

● High upfront investment needed

● Possible redistribution of land uses

● Increased risk of gentrification

● Greater leadership burden on community

Benefits​:

● Improved public health and safety

● Improved quality of life and equity

● Improved environmental health

● Decreased long-term costs

Figure 71. ADA-Accessible Community Gardens

Figure 72. Green Roofs on Flat Roofs

Figure 74. Sustainable Creek Buffer

Figure 73. Historic Preservation

Evaluation:

● Evaluation methods from Scenario 2 PLUS

● Record and map green roofs and community gardens, including number of users

● Record and map brownfield rehabilitation

● Compare data in this report with updated flooding data, especially in areas with community gardens and green roofs

● Compare data of city spending on green infrastructure and projected spending if gray infrastructure had been updated/kept/reinstalled

● Collect data on water pollution within Capitol Hill, especially in areas with buffers and rain gardens

● Compare data from this report with changes in vacancy rates and housing affordability

● Collect data on changes in business and job presence as well as job quality in the study area over time

● Compare change in land coverage and use within the study area over time

● Collect and compare data on fires within the study area over time

● Measure changes in building energy loss, electricity use, and water use

● Map the bus system, including all bus stops, within the area and rate them on whether they encourage and support ridership based on wayfinding signage, seating, and cover from elements

● Map the bike lane system within the study area and rate sections on whether they encourage and support use based on connectivity, protection and separation from vehicles, space, and smooth pavement

● Map the sidewalk system within the study area and rate sections based on connectivity, accessibility, and thermal comfort

● Conduct community engagement meetings and surveys to compile community knowledge about the current neighborhood conditions and changes in quality of life since publication of this report, including collecting information about changes in living costs, mental and physical health, percieved safety, social capital, access to nutritious food, and methods of transportationt

Figure 75. Walkable Business District

Figure 73. Residential Rain Garden

Works Cited

“Explore Census Data.” United States Census Bureau. US Department of Commerce, n.d. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/. Accessed 1 May 2022.

Greening America’s Communities: Oklahoma City. Environmental Protection Agency, 2016, https://www.okc.gov/ home/showdocument?id=11814#:~:text=Greening%20America’s%20Communities%20is%20an,and%20other%20 sustainable%20design%20strategies.

Hausbur, J. “’South of the River’ – The Community of Capitol Hill.” Metropolitan Library System. n.d. Retrieved May 3, 2022, from https://www.metrolibrary.org/node/44067#:~:text=Before%20eventually%20becoming%20a%20 suburb,petitioned%20Oklahoma%20City%20for%20annexation.

Oklahoma Water Resources Board. OWRB, 6 May 2022. https://www.owrb.ok.gov/

“Open Data Portal.” City of Oklahoma City. City of Oklahoma City, n.d. https://data.okc.gov/.

Plumer, Brad, and Nadja Popovitch. “How Decades of Racist Housing Policy Left Neighborhoods Sweltering.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 24 Aug. 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/08/24/climate/ racism-redlining-cities-global-warming.html.

Social Explorer. Social Explorer, n.d. https://www.socialexplorer.com/. Accessed 1 May 2022.

“Soil Survey.” USDA: Natural Resources Conservation Services. United States Department of Agriculture, n.d. https:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/survey/.

Strunk, Christopher, and Margaret Richardson. “Cultivating Belonging: Refugees, Urban Gardens, and Placemaking in the Midwest, USA.” Social & Cultural Geography. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, vol. 20, no. 6, 2017. PDF.

“Tree Canopy by Neighborhood Associations.” Oklahoma City Metropolitan Area Tree Canopy Assessment. Association of Central Oklahoma Governments, 30 Aug. 2021. https://tree-canopy-acog.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/ACOG::tree-canopyby-neighborhood-associations/explore?location=35.439972%2C-97.518940%2C15.00. Accessed 1 May 2022.

URS. (2012). City of Tulsa Sustainability Plan 2012. City of Tulsa. Retrieved May 11, 2022, from http://uccrnna.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/06/99_Tulsa_2011_Sustainability-Plan.pdf

Walker, Rhiannon. “The History of Capitol Hill.” The Oklahoman, Oklahoman, 16 July 2013, https://www.oklahoman. com/story/news/2013/07/15/the-history-of-capitol-hill/60899205007/.