Today’s blog post is written by Karter Flournoy, a rising high school senior at Holland Hall and participant in the TURC Junior Scholar Program. Karter is working together with team leader Katrina Henderson this summer to identify benchmark peer cities to Tulsa to assist in developing strategies to address blighted homes.
Mark your calendars for the final presentation of the TURC Housing Policy Research team on August 8th from 11:30am-1pm. You are invited to join us for a lunch and learn event as the students showcase their research findings in Helmerich Hall, Room 219 (2900 E 5th Street). Please RSVP so that we have an accurate count for lunch: https://pp.events/bVQqqkXj
Peer City Analysis: Kansas City
by: Karter Flournoy
Urban blight continues to challenge many American cities, impacting neighborhoods through vacant properties, deteriorating housing, and uneven access to resources. This post explores how two comparable cities—Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Kansas City, Kansas—are addressing these challenges through targeted programs and data-driven strategies. By examining Kansas City’s well-established initiatives like the Land Bank and Dangerous Buildings Program alongside regional planning tools such as the Mid-America Regional Council’s Housing Data Hub, this analysis highlights actionable models Tulsa can adapt. The post also compares key demographic and housing statistics between the cities to contextualize the urgency and potential impact of such programs. Ultimately, this overview aims to provide insight into effective approaches to reduce blight, promote equitable housing, and foster sustainable neighborhood revitalization.
Kansas City, Kansas serves as a valuable peer city for Tulsa when examining strategies to address blighted housing. According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, Kansas City has a population of approximately 154,776, with a median household income of $59,183 and a median home value of $147,100. The city reports a vacancy rate of 11.1%, a homeownership rate of 60.4%, and a poverty rate of 17.9%. About 20.2% of residents hold a bachelor’s degree or higher, and the city’s racial demographics include 20.4% Black and 35.0% Hispanic residents.
In comparison, Tulsa has a larger population of 412,322, but many of its housing and economic characteristics are similar. Tulsa’s median household income is $58,407, and the median home value is $189,600, noticeably higher than Kansas City’s. The city has a vacancy rate of 10.9%, a homeownership rate of 52.0%, and a poverty rate of 18.6%. Tulsa shows a higher level of educational attainment, with 33.3% of residents holding a bachelor’s degree or more, and is 14.2% Black and 19.2% Hispanic.
These overlapping characteristics—particularly in vacancy rates, income levels, and poverty—make Kansas City a relevant comparison for Tulsa. The data suggests that several of Kansas City’s blight-reduction and housing revitalization programs may be practical models to tailor for Tulsa’s efforts to meet the mayor’s priorities and reduce housing instability citywide.
Kansas City has implemented several well-established programs to identify and remediate blighted properties, two of which are especially relevant for Tulsa as it seeks scalable solutions to address housing deterioration. One of the most impactful programs is the Kansas City Land Bank, created in 2012. This publicly operated agency takes ownership of tax-delinquent, vacant, and abandoned properties that would otherwise sit idle or deteriorate further. Once acquired, the properties are made available for purchase by individuals, nonprofits, or developers who commit to improving and maintaining them within a specific timeframe. The Land Bank’s process reduces legal and bureaucratic barriers to land reuse and promotes neighborhood stabilization by returning problem properties to productive use. It is particularly effective in areas where market conditions do not attract private investment without public intervention.
The Dangerous Buildings Program complements this work by focusing on the identification and enforcement side of blight remediation. Operated by Kansas City’s Neighborhoods and Housing Services Department, the program inspects and classifies buildings that are structurally unsound, abandoned, or pose safety hazards to surrounding residents. Properties are added to a public-facing database, and owners are required to bring them into compliance or face demolition by the city. This creates a clear, consistent process for dealing with unsafe structures and helps communities feel that visible decay is being addressed systematically. The program also enables data tracking over time, allowing the city to map where blight is concentrated and monitor outcomes.
Together, these two programs offer a coordinated strategy that addresses both blight prevention and property revitalization. They reflect a combination of code enforcement, legal authority, and public engagement, which could be adapted to meet the goals laid out by Tulsa’s mayor. With similar vacancy rates and poverty levels, Tulsa faces many of the same conditions as Kansas City—making these programs strong candidates for local adaptation.
Both the Kansas City Land Bank and Dangerous Buildings Program offer practical, well-developed models that could be effectively adapted to Tulsa. Like Kansas City, Tulsa struggles with a high number of vacant and deteriorating properties, particularly in historically disinvested neighborhoods. The Land Bank model would give Tulsa a structured way to acquire, manage, and reuse abandoned properties, helping reduce vacancy and promote homeownership or community redevelopment. This aligns directly with the mayor’s commitment to addressing blighted housing through more proactive city intervention and neighborhood reinvestment.
Similarly, implementing a Dangerous Buildings-style program in Tulsa would create a consistent, transparent system for identifying and enforcing action on unsafe or neglected structures. It would also give residents and city leaders a clearer understanding of where blight is concentrated and what progress is being made—something Tulsa currently lacks in a centralized format. Combining this enforcement strategy with a land reuse mechanism like a land bank could create a comprehensive blight-to-reuse pipeline, tailored to Tulsa’s legal and administrative framework.
Given the similar economic conditions, vacancy rates, and housing challenges between the two cities, these programs are not only feasible but highly relevant. With adjustments for local governance and resource capacity, they could significantly strengthen Tulsa’s ability to reduce blight and improve long-term housing stability.
Blighted housing remains a serious challenge for Tulsa, but by learning from peer cities like Kansas City, Tulsa has a clear opportunity to build stronger, more coordinated strategies. Programs like the Land Bank and Dangerous Buildings Program demonstrate how cities can take direct action to reclaim neglected properties, enforce housing standards, and promote reinvestment in struggling neighborhoods. With similar demographics and housing trends, Tulsa is well-positioned to adapt these models to meet its own goals. By combining effective enforcement with long-term reuse planning, the city can take meaningful steps toward eliminating blight and strengthening community stability. Alongside Katrina Henderson, a TU undergraduate student, we have been working with the database she developed to identify more peer cities to Tulsa. Using that database, in the near future I will identify and compare other peer cities blight programs and see if they would be a good fit for Tulsa
Figure 1: Comparison of Key Housing and Demographic Metrics in Kansas City, KS and Tulsa, OK. This side-by-side bar chart illustrates how the two cities align and diverge on core indicators of urban stability and equity, such as vacancy rate, homeownership, poverty levels, educational attainment, and racial demographics. These similarities and differences help explain why Kansas City serves as a meaningful peer city for Tulsa in addressing blight and housing policy.