# OKCpedia > General Real Estate Topics >  Expansion of OKC and the Metro in the next 20 years

## ChrisHayes

Something I've tried to to a bit of research on is the projected expansion and population increase of not only Oklahoma City, but the metro area in general in the coming decades. I read something by Steve Lackmeyer where he said that in 20 years he sees the gaps between OKC and Yukon, and El Reno being filled in as the metro continues to expand. I was wondering if anyone had seen any population or growth projections for the city. On a related note, considering that El Reno is fairly close to Oklahoma City, I'm surprised it's growth hasn't picked up much. I know it's got a lot of beautification to do, but it would still be an appealing city to live in for some who don't want to live in the inner part of the metro.

----------


## bchris02

> Something I've tried to to a bit of research on is the projected expansion and population increase of not only Oklahoma City, but the metro area in general in the coming decades. I read something by Steve Lackmeyer where he said that in 20 years he sees the gaps between OKC and Yukon, and El Reno being filled in as the metro continues to expand. I was wondering if anyone had seen any population or growth projections for the city. On a related note, considering that El Reno is fairly close to Oklahoma City, I'm surprised it's growth hasn't picked up much. I know it's got a lot of beautification to do, but it would still be an appealing city to live in for some who don't want to live in the inner part of the metro.


Suburban expansion largely depends on school district.  Right now, there really isn't a lot of incentive to live out in El Reno if you work in OKC when you can get into good suburban schools closer in.  Personally I think sprawl will continue north and south and not so much out west.  The OKC metro area is already extremely sprawled for its size and I would like to see more infill prior to expanding further outward.

----------


## Bellaboo

> Suburban expansion largely depends on school district.  Right now, there really isn't a lot of incentive to live out in El Reno if you work in OKC when you can get into good suburban schools closer in.*  Personally I think sprawl will continue north and south and not so much out west.*  The OKC metro area is already extremely sprawled for its size and I would like to see more infill prior to expanding further outward.


If you go back 10 or 15 years, Canadian County has been one of if not the fastest growing county in the state.

----------


## bombermwc

Im pretty sure Mustang/Yukon are the majority of why that is.

----------


## Bellaboo

> Im pretty sure Mustang/Yukon are the majority of why that is.


True, but if you look at the actual city boundaries, OKC dominates the county.

----------


## rezman

> Something I've tried to to a bit of research on is the projected expansion and population increase of not only Oklahoma City, but the metro area in general in the coming decades. I read something by Steve Lackmeyer where he said that in 20 years he sees the gaps between OKC and Yukon, and El Reno being filled in as the metro continues to expand. I was wondering if anyone had seen any population or growth projections for the city. On a related note, considering that El Reno is fairly close to Oklahoma City, I'm surprised it's growth hasn't picked up much. I know it's got a lot of beautification to do, but it would still be an appealing city to live in for some who don't want to live in the inner part of the metro.


My wife's family lives in El Reno. She couldn't wait to get out of there.  And I worked out there for several years in the late 80's -early 90's.   Not much has changed.  They don't call it El Ghetto for nothing.

----------


## oklip955

> True, but if you look at the actual city boundaries, OKC dominates the county.


I'm wondering what Edmond will look like in another 20 yrs. The east of I-35 area will most likely be built out, as fast as new subdivisions are being planned. I'm also thinking of what is going to happen with all the land that is now within the 100 yr flood plain. Would be nice if it winds up as park land.

----------


## adaniel

> My wife's family lives in El Reno. She couldn't wait to get out of there.  And I worked out there for several years in the late 80's -early 90's.   Not much has changed.  They don't call it El Ghetto for nothing.


Sadly I agree. I did a lot of work in El Reno during my last job...that town is rough around the edges, to say the least and their school system is subpar compared to a lot of suburban OKC districts closer to job centers. All hope is not lost, however. I could see El Reno growing independent of the immediate OKC urbanized area. There's quite a bit of oil and gas activity out there and the Cheyenne Arapahoe Nation is headquartered there. I know the Chickasaws and Choctaws have been a huge boon for Ada and Durant respectively; C&A is not a "civilized tribe" and is limited by the BIA, but it has room to grow.

----------


## Bellaboo

The C&A is actually HQ'd in Concho about 5 miles North of El Reno, but their tribal membership mostly resides in points further West. They also have 2 Lucky Star casinos, one in Concho and the other in Clinton across the street from their cultural center.

----------


## mugofbeer

I'd add NE OK county to the high growth areas.  Those forested and rolling hills are quickly losing their stigma and are seeing a LOT of small developments.

----------


## Snowman

> I'd add NE OK county to the high growth areas.  Those forested and rolling hills are quickly losing their stigma and are seeing a LOT of small developments.


The north east of the county stigma? The NE corner of the county is just as far out from downtown as ElReno, it's main issues for growth rate seems to be there are closer options and sprawl tends to continue to move in the directions that started in the 40s.

----------


## rezman

> The north east of the county stigma? The NE corner of the county is just as far out from downtown as ElReno, it's main issues for growth rate seems to be there are closer options and sprawl tends to continue to move in the directions that started in the 40s.


Mugofbeer may mean the stigma of being out there towards the Welston area....  dilapidated singlewides, thieves and methville.  The very eastern part of Okla county and western Lincoln county has had and still has some not so savory areas.

----------


## adaniel

> Mugofbeer may mean the stigma of being out there towards the Welston area....  dilapidated singlewides, thieves and methville.  The very eastern part of Okla county and western Lincoln county has had and still has some not so savory areas.


If we are talking about this area then yeah I tend to agree. I actually thought he was referring the Oakdale/Apple Valley area east of Frontier City for whatever reason. Simply put, it is not in the best school system, not a lot of jobs out that way, and the only way to commute to OKC is a toll road with only one or two exits. I think you'll see development pick up more in eastern Edmond before Luther and Wellston start growing in any meaningful form. 




> The C&A is actually HQ'd in Concho about 5 miles North of El Reno, but their tribal membership mostly resides in points further West. They also have 2 Lucky Star casinos, one in Concho and the other in Clinton across the street from their cultural center.


You are right...I think I'm getting my wires crossed with the BIA office in El Reno, which is in some random strip mall on the edge of town.

----------


## rezman

[QUOTE=adaniel;829439]If we are talking about this area then yeah I tend to agree. I actually thought he was referring the Oakdale/Apple Valley area east of Frontier City for whatever reason. Simply put, it is not in the best school system, not a lot of jobs out that way, and the only way to commute to OKC is a toll road with only one or two exits. I think you'll see development pick up more in eastern Edmond before Luther and Wellston start growing in any meaningful form. 

I got you.  Having lived out southeast of Arcadia, ..to me,  from there to  Potawatomi Road is eastern Okla County. But I see what you're saying.  I guess anything east of I-35 could be considered Eastern Oklahoma County.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

2014?s Fastest Growing Cities | WalletHub

----------


## cxl144

Having lived in Westbury (SW 29th and Morgan Rd) area for the last 4 years, the growth in residential housing has accelerated in the last 12 months. The gaps of farmland are quickly being filled in. Castlebrook Crossing at SW 29th and Sara started on Phase III late last year and its nearly full, about 60 houses in that phase with a handful of lots left. One issue that has affected OKC in its growth trajectory I believe is the lack of homebuilders. As our growth accelerated in the late 2000's, a lot of the lending froze up cooling off the housing market. In the last 3 months now the commercial lending is finally opening up. The biggest problem right now besides crumbling roads in the WOKC/Yukon area is that retail and restaurants are virtually non-existent. As the commercial money starts to flow back into the market a lot of retail and dining options will hopefully start opening up on the west side.

----------


## ChrisHayes

Eventually all the residential development in Mustang and Yukon will spur the development of commercial areas. I'd like to see one along the routes between the two towns. We're already going to see one on the west side of Yukon along 40.

----------


## BG918

Availability of existing infrastructure, proximity to downtown OKC and existing and growing retail corridors have driven the high growth along the I-35 corridor from OKC to Moore and Norman.  Increasing gridlock though will have to be addressed, even after the widening and interchange work is finished.  You have the 1st and 3rd largest cities in the state basically sharing one major corridor.  

My hope is that commuter rail could be seen as a viable alternative and that growth continues in the south metro but more clustered around the rail stations in Moore and especially Norman (downtown/campus area).

----------


## corwin1968

We live in the far NW OKC area it is growing by leaps and bounds.  New subdivisions in the Deer Creek district, closely followed by more commercial development.  If whoever is responsible gets off their duff and expands 74 to match Hefner Parkway, that area will probably grow even faster.  Or maybe it works in the opposite direction. 

I'm fascinated by all of the what I consider "new urban" thinking on this board.  It seems to me that if that's what people wanted, that's what we would have.  Instead, urban sprawl shows little signs of slowing down which is a good indicator that people DON'T want to live in a dense and urbanized environment.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> We live in the far NW OKC area it is growing by leaps and bounds.  New subdivisions in the Deer Creek district, closely followed by more commercial development.  If whoever is responsible gets off their duff and expands 74 to match Hefner Parkway, that area will probably grow even faster.  Or maybe it works in the opposite direction. 
> 
> I'm fascinated by all of the what I consider "new urban" thinking on this board.  It seems to me that if that's what people wanted, that's what we would have.  Instead, urban sprawl shows little signs of slowing down which is a good indicator that people DON'T want to live in a dense and urbanized environment.


well, there is growing population that wants to live in urban areas, but the sprawl does show the majority of people still want to live in the suburbs.

NW OKC is starting to resemble what Frisco did back in 2005 to me when I was there except this state is extremely slow to widen roads and build new highways and will probably wait until traffic is an absolute nightmare until anything gets. This place has no clue about staying on top of things and it's a joke.

----------


## bchris02

> We live in the far NW OKC area it is growing by leaps and bounds.  New subdivisions in the Deer Creek district, closely followed by more commercial development.  If whoever is responsible gets off their duff and expands 74 to match Hefner Parkway, that area will probably grow even faster.  Or maybe it works in the opposite direction. 
> 
> I'm fascinated by all of the what I consider "new urban" thinking on this board.  It seems to me that if that's what people wanted, that's what we would have.  Instead, urban sprawl shows little signs of slowing down which is a good indicator that people DON'T want to live in a dense and urbanized environment.


I agree with this.  As PluPan pointed out, there is a growing population that wants to live in the urban core and that is a great thing.  It is NOT the majority of OKC however and this city needs both the core and the suburbs to be successful.  I think its way, way too early for OKC to be developing this urban vs suburban rivalry that seems to be developing.  The city doesn't yet have a large enough urban population in its core and at this point if the suburbs fail, OKC fails.  

Also, one only has to look at the political leanings of this board compared to the city as a whole to see that OKCTalk is definitely not a microcosm of OKC.

----------


## shawnw

SOME of the Yukon/Mustang/West OKC growth may be attributable to the growth in jobs at FAA/MMAC...

----------


## adaniel

I feel like now is a good time to point out the vast majority of growth in the metro in these past few years has been in Oklahoma County, and OKC itself is growing at a faster rate than the MSA as a whole.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> I feel like now is a good time to point out the vast majority of growth in the metro in these past few years has been in Oklahoma County, and OKC itself is growing at a faster rate than the MSA as a whole.


I'm sure a huge part of that is in NW OKC

----------


## bchris02

> I feel like now is a good time to point out the vast majority of growth in the metro in these past few years has been in Oklahoma County, and OKC itself is growing at a faster rate than the MSA as a whole.


I am sure you are aware of this, but much of what constitutes the "suburbs" in OKC is actually in the city limits of OKC itself.  The standards that apply to most cities don't apply here.  It would be interesting to compare the growth of OKC within the I-40/I-44/I-235 loop with the rest of the city limits outside of that loop.

----------


## bradh

> I am sure you are aware of this, but much of what constitutes the "suburbs" in OKC is actually in the city limits of OKC itself.  The standards that apply to most cities don't apply here.  It would be interesting to compare the growth of OKC within the I-40/I-44/I-235 loop with the rest of the city limits outside of that loop.


Especially Dallas, where there is hardly unincorporated county land like in Houston, and you not like here because OKC's boundaries are so huge.

----------


## Mel

I usually exit Mustang by going North to hit I-40 or the Turnpike. I been driving some of the other roads recently and there is a heck of a lot of construction going on everywhere. Schools and neighborhoods. I wish some of these developments could happen with out knocking down so many old growth trees. Except the cottonwoods, hate them!

----------


## ChrisHayes

I see the widening of Mustang and Sara Roads in the near future if the growth of Mustang and Yukon continues like this. Eventually the two towns will butt up against each other.

----------


## Snowman

> I see the widening of Mustang and Sara Roads in the near future if the growth of Mustang and Yukon continues like this. Eventually the two towns will butt up against each other.


While Sara Road is due some improvement, Mustang is already four lanes from Mustang to Yukon and the section between i40 & Yukon was just redone a few years ago.

----------


## ChrisHayes

Yeah, you're right. I'm trying to think of the other route connecting the two towns that's two lanes.

----------


## Urbanized

> I agree with this.  As PluPan pointed out, there is a growing population that wants to live in the urban core and that is a great thing.  It is NOT the majority of OKC however and this city needs both the core and the suburbs to be successful.  I think its way, way too early for OKC to be developing this urban vs suburban rivalry that seems to be developing.  The city doesn't yet have a large enough urban population in its core and at this point if the suburbs fail, OKC fails.  
> 
> Also, one only has to look at the political leanings of this board compared to the city as a whole to see that OKCTalk is definitely not a microcosm of OKC.


But it shouldn't be a rivalry between urban and suburban, anyway. The suburbs aren't going anywhere, ESPECIALLY in OKC. Our existing suburbs CAN be made much better, though.

If it has to be _____________ vs. _____________, it should be ALL OF US vs. unchecked new sprawl at the fringe. That sprawl has a false economy, lowers the value of the existing suburbs, and requires new infrastructure and services at a geometric rate, which is in turn subsidized by the rest of us (really, anyone who already lives/shops here. There is no economy of scale at the fringe like there is in the existing city; it merely steals from the rest of the community. The "affordability" to the individual homeowner is actually borne on the backs of the rest of us, who pay in quality of life and safety.

"Urban vs. suburban" is a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue, often by BOTH urbanism advocates AND urbanism haters. As a city, we need to provide both lifestyles - and make them as excellent as possible - but we DON'T (and shouldn't) allow poorly-planned sprawl to continue to metastasize at the fringe.

----------


## bchris02

Unchecked sprawl isn't going anywhere.  It's not a uniquely OKC problem either.  As long as there is a free market, it will continue.  In the case of OKC, the problem is virtually unfixable since so much of the "suburbs" were built to minimal standards and to be disposable.  Nothing short of coming in with a bulldozer and mowing over miles and miles of suburbia can fix certain areas of the city.  What can be done is higher standards can be put into place for new development that gets built.  High-quality development will still be attractive and valuable 20 years from now while the cheap, minimally functional development will become blighted.  However, I don't see such regulations being enforced in OKC given that the city doesn't even enforce regulations in the core, and the result of that would likely be an increase in housing prices and cost of living which most people probably wouldn't accept.

In addition to all of this, I will say this once again that an urban vs suburban rivalry at this point in OKC's development cycle is a dangerous thing politically.  OKC's urban core is still a small minority of the metro.  Right now, its the suburbs that are subsidizing downtown.

----------


## Urbanized

> ...Right now, its the suburbs that are subsidizing downtown.


I'm not arguing that point. What I AM saying is that downtown, the inner city AND the existing suburbs are subsidizing wrongheaded growth at the fringe. It has had and will continue to have devastating consequences.

----------


## bchris02

> I'm not arguing that point. What I AM saying is that downtown, the inner city AND the existing suburbs are subsidizing wrongheaded growth at the fringe. It has had and will continue to have devastating consequences.


Urbanized, what is your solution for the problem?  De-annexation?  Higher building quality standards for new subdivisions?  Tax breaks for businesses, developers, and even residents who choose the core over the suburbs and/or "sprawl taxes" on anybody who chooses to live or develop north of 63rd?

In a city on the open prairie like OKC without the land limitations of somewhere like Portland, how would you solve this problem?

----------


## Urbanized

Well, I'm no planner, so I certainly don't have all of the answers. First I would EMPOWER planners, which has never REALLY happened in OKC. Instead of planning our way around problems, we historically always stumble into them and then try to engineer our way out of them, generally with unintended consequences. Planners are professionally trained to solve these problems (even before they exist if only given a chance) and I'm certain there are a lot of tools in their anti-sprawl toolboxes.

Impact fees are an OK start. I would take those up to levels that actually take fully into account the anticipated impact on ALL services and infrastructure, now and future. It would likely help tip the scale for more suburban (and inner city) infill. I would consider some de annexation, but would also consider growth boundaries that clearly state that if you live beyond this line - fair warning - don't expect services at the same level as those who live in areas with more density (read: places to which it is less expensive for the City to provide services).

We have to break free of this notion that someone living many miles away from the city's center with only a few neighbors per square mile is automatically entitled to exactly the same level of ever services as someone living in town near existing services and thousands (or tens of thousands) of neighbors. Just because they (sometimes) pay as much (or even more) in taxes doesn't mitigate the fact that delivery of services costs geometrically more. I say sometimes because - thanks to our gerrymandered school districts and depending on where they shop - someone can live in the city limits of OKC and literally pay little or no taxes here.

I would DEFINITELY stop building huge, wide ribbons of concrete out into the middle of nowhere.

I would also explore Priority Development Areas (both urban and suburban), incentive zoning (carefully administered) and other incentive methods for encouraging development within the existing city. 

Finally, I think the City is definitely on the right track in developing cultural amenities in the middle of the community and attempting to put the school system on even footing with suburban districts. Making the inner city that much more attractive helps reverse the centrifugal force that keeps sending people to the edges (this has already begun in fact). There should be continued effort in that regard, ESPECIALLY as far as the school system is concerned. Core neighborhoods also need to be high on the list for reinvestment.

----------


## Teo9969

Excellent post Urbanized.

----------


## soonerguru

> Well, I'm no planner, so I certainly don't have all of the answers. First I would EMPOWER planners, which has never REALLY happened in OKC. Instead of planning our way around problems, we historically always stumble into them and then try to engineer our way out of them, generally with unintended consequences. Planners are professionally trained to solve these problems (even before they exist if only given a chance) and I'm certain there are a lot of tools in their anti-sprawl toolboxes.
> 
> Impact fees are an OK start. I would take those up to levels that actually take fully into account the anticipated impact on ALL services and infrastructure, now and future. It would likely help tip the scale for more suburban (and inner city) infill. I would consider some de annexation, but would also consider growth boundaries that clearly state that if you live beyond this line - fair warning - don't expect services at the same level as those who live in areas with more density (read: places to which it is less expensive for the City to provide services).
> 
> We have to break free of this notion that someone living many miles away from the city's center with only a few neighbors per square mile is automatically entitled to exactly the same level of ever services as someone living in town near existing services and thousands (or tens of thousands) of neighbors. Just because they (sometimes) pay as much (or even more) in taxes doesn't mitigate the fact that delivery of services costs geometrically more. I say sometimes because - thanks to our gerrymandered school districts and depending on where they shop - someone can live in the city limits of OKC and literally pay little or no taxes here.
> 
> I would DEFINITELY stop building huge, wide ribbons of concrete out into the middle of nowhere.
> 
> I would also explore Priority Development Areas (both urban and suburban), incentive zoning (carefully administered) and other incentive methods for encouraging development within the existing city. 
> ...


Excellent post. I would add, though, that we are already seeing a dearth of affordable for-sale housing in the inner core. Most professionally employed -- and even well paid -- people cannot afford $350k to $400k for an inner city abode. Unless you want to pay high rents, there is virtually nothing else to buy in the downtown / Midtown area. Similarly, areas like Mesta, Gatewood -- and even Jefferson Park -- are seeing a shortage of available housing. 

There is infill housing going in but even lots are becoming prohibitively expensive.

All of these factors spell doom to any fantasy that the inner core is going to become an attractive destination for a lot of folks. There is simply not enough available affordable housing stock to reverse or even slow this rush to the exurban fringe. 

You all know how excited I am by OKC's success in redeveloping its inner city, but we are reaching a tipping point of sorts.

Frankly, we need imaginative and non-greedy developers who are willing to invest in mid-rise to high-rise condos. This would create a real alternative to the suburbs that perhaps some middle class folks could afford.

I read an article quoting a local real estate expert suggesting that "land costs" are preventing developers from building for-sale housing downtown. What? Weren't most of these large-scale developments on Urban Renewal land? Didn't we virtually deed them the land once their developments were approved?

I'm getting tired of the excuses and limited thinking of the local development community. We have much to celebrate but we need some new thinking, and like Urbanized, I agree that our neutered Planning Department should be given a bigger seat at the table. We desperately need to plan right now, even amid and perhaps because of this striking boom we are experiencing.

----------


## adaniel

You can still get some good deals in inner areas for under $250K, but I otherwise agree completely with this. I was always really disappointed in the fact that in other cities that have either weaker economies or far less "ahead" in their core revitalizations you still had more housing options than you do in OKC. Gary Brooks and Marva Ellard are fantastic but the vast majority of those in development or real estate here are unimaginative and stuck in their ways. The Wheeler District could really be the first step in getting us out of this rut, but its probably going to take some out of state developer to finally get us over the hump per say.

----------


## hoya

We are going to have to build up the core bit by bit.  The good news is, if you want to look at it this way, we could build downtown housing at twice the rate we've been building it, and we won't run out of room for 30 or 40 years.  There's an immense amount of land downtown and downtown-adjacent.

I think what you'll see is that once Bricktown / Midtown / Auto Alley / Deep Deuce grow together and completely connect, urban development will start spreading out into previously blighted areas.  If you go west of Western, just a 10 minute walk from downtown, there's a huge amount of very very very low cost homes.  You don't want to live there right now, but it's available.  I think in 20 years it will be unrecognizable.

----------


## bchris02

I have met numerous people who live in Edmond who wanted to live downtown but could not find anything affordable.  The Wheeler District and other developments like it can't come fast enough.

Why did OKC miss out on the urban housing boom in the mid '00s?  Even Little Rock got a few mid-rise towers and several low-rise condo development and lofts.  OKC did have a few but nothing like what cities half its size were getting.  Is there any real reason or was the market here just not ready?  Lower Bricktown was filling in during that time and it seems to be that would have been the perfect locale for some serious residential construction.

P.S.  I in no means want this post to be taken negatively or a knock on OKC.  It is a legitimate question.

----------


## oklip955

One of the reasons people want the subs is that they want bigger lots. I'm one of them (I did work for the City of Edmond and am now retired) you cannot have 6 horses and 30 chickens in downtown OKC or Edmond for that mater. Some of us want to be able to be close eough to town to show but still have our animals/pets and garden. I for one don't want to have a close neighbor that has a dog. I'm allergic to them and just don't like them. So living out east of I-35 (which is now going single family housing developments was my choice. I've been here 30+yrs.

----------


## bchris02

> One of the reasons people want the subs is that they want bigger lots. I'm one of them (I did work for the City of Edmond and am now retired) you cannot have 6 horses and 30 chickens in downtown OKC or Edmond for that mater. Some of us want to be able to be close eough to town to show but still have our animals/pets and garden. I for one don't want to have a close neighbor that has a dog. I'm allergic to them and just don't like them. So living out east of I-35 (which is now going single family housing developments was my choice. I've been here 30+yrs.


Plus a lot of people like the idea of having a large, new home with a decent-sized yard.  In the core, they would either have to live in a development such as The Edge or an older, smaller home with a smaller yard.  A lot, if not most people prefer the suburban way of life.

----------


## Teo9969

> One of the reasons people want the subs is that they want bigger lots. I'm one of them (I did work for the City of Edmond and am now retired) you cannot have 6 horses and 30 chickens in downtown OKC or Edmond for that mater. Some of us want to be able to be close eough to town to show but still have our animals/pets and garden. I for one don't want to have a close neighbor that has a dog. I'm allergic to them and just don't like them. So living out east of I-35 (which is now going single family housing developments was my choice. I've been here 30+yrs.


Most people living north of 63rd and South of Covell have no desire to have chickens horses and tons of dogs, nor do they Garden.

There is nothing wrong with having lots of space if you use it. It's incredibly wasteful and has a net negative impact to have lots of space and *not* use it. There are a lot of reasons people have maintained sprawl…need for space is not a legitimate one.

I disagree with the premise that guru posted that we're running out of building stock to buy affordable housing in the core. Look at anything between 23rd/Penn/50th/Classen…there is a ton of housing in there that just needs a bit of gentrification.

The way I see it, we're essentially entering a time where we will have sprawling gentrification mixed with a re-urbanizing in areas where that is possible. Hopefully the sprawling gentrification is met with some retrofitting of these suburban styles, especially in places where urban fabric is extant or easily developed (36th/Youngs or 37th/Penn respectively) to create areas of urbanity that can help sustain the bettering of these "inner city" neighborhoods. Essentially what Urbanized said is the key to finding equilibrium: "Priority Development Areas (both urban and suburban), incentive zoning (carefully administered) and other incentive methods for encouraging development within the existing city."

Successful Urban development OUTside of downtown is the key to a successfully developed urban city.

Go to just about any city and Europe and ask where downtown is…you'll get a blank stare. We've created a bad definition of downtown that essentially means "The most urban area of the city". While that generally holds true, we need to not wait for downtowns to become urban utopias before we work on re-urbanizing the rest of our cities, particularly the rings that were developed before the 1960s.

----------


## Teo9969

And perhaps more key than anything was Urbanized point that we need to actually strengthen existing suburbs.

As an example: if OKC can manage to find a way to salvage the Putnam City North area so that it can maintain/rebuild a middle to upper-middle class status rather than sinking toward lower-middle class that would be a major win for OKC. That means investing in the schools and infrastructure at Hefner/Rockwell at the expense of development on Portland and 174th.

----------


## bchris02

> I disagree with the premise that guru posted that we're running out of building stock to buy affordable housing in the core. Look at anything between 23rd/Penn/50th/Classen…there is a ton of housing in there that just needs a bit of gentrification.


There is plenty of housing stock in the core that still needs gentrification.  Things are starting to look pretty good in the Paseo/Uptown area, but Classen Ten Penn could used quite a bit of work.  I also think the area along NW 36th St from about May to Broadway has great potential.  Some blocks are already gentrified and is VERY nice, some of the nicest in the city in fact, but other blocks are still dilapidated.




> And perhaps more key than anything was Urbanized point that we need to actually strengthen existing suburbs.
> 
> As an example: if OKC can manage to find a way to salvage the Putnam City North area so that it can maintain/rebuild a middle to upper-middle class status rather than sinking toward lower-middle class that would be a major win for OKC. That means investing in the schools and infrastructure at Hefner/Rockwell at the expense of development on Portland and 174th.


True.  There is still a lot of very nice housing in that area.  There are warning signs here and there but overall it's still a good area.  OKC needs to get on top of it to prevent it from going the way of the Putnam City area south of NW Expressway.  It will happen in 10-15 years if nothing changes.

----------


## Zuplar

> There is nothing wrong with having lots of space if you use it. It's incredibly wasteful and has a net negative impact to have lots of space and *not* use it. There are a lot of reasons people have maintained sprawl…*need for space is not a legitimate one.*


I agree, people don't need to have a reason. If they want it and can afford it, then go for it.

----------


## corwin1968

> And perhaps more key than anything was Urbanized point that we need to actually strengthen existing suburbs.
> 
> As an example: if OKC can manage to find a way to salvage the Putnam City North area so that it can maintain/rebuild a middle to upper-middle class status rather than sinking toward lower-middle class that would be a major win for OKC. That means investing in the schools and infrastructure at Hefner/Rockwell at the expense of development on Portland and 174th.



Still finding this discussion (and more generally, this entire topic) to be fascinating.  I moved to the Putnam City North area back in the late 90's when I got an apartment at Britton & McCarthur, right next to Lake Hefner.  Federally subsidized housing destroyed the area in which I was living and I fled to 122nd & Rockwell and a gated condo complex and then bought a house out past NW 178th. 

I had to look up the definition of "gentrification" and it turns out to be a phenomena that I'm aware of without knowing the proper term.  My question would be, where do all of the lower income people go when this happens?  They don't just disappear, they move somewhere else and that area likely suffers.  It seems that for every area that is gentrified, another suffers for it.  Is it just a cycle that goes on and on with different neighborhoods being gentrified, eventually degrading and then being gentrified again?  Do the poor and non-poor just periodically (over decades) change places?  

I really should get some reading material on community planning.  This is really interesting stuff!

I really like the idea of "new urbanism" influenced development so long as it remains completely voluntary.  I do have a problem with social engineers trying to force people, who would prefer to live in a more suburban setting, to live in urban areas.

----------


## AP

> I do have a problem with social engineers trying to force people, who would prefer to live in a more suburban setting, to live in urban areas.


When has anyone in Oklahoma ever been forced to live in an Urban setting???

----------


## Geographer

> When has anyone in Oklahoma ever been forced to live in an Urban setting???


THIS.  People get SO worked up about others promoting a revitalized urban environment...when it's simply expanding the choice for people who don't want what the majority of Oklahoma City residents want.

----------


## bchris02

> THIS.  People get SO worked up about others promoting a revitalized urban environment...when it's simply expanding the choice for people who don't want what the majority of Oklahoma City residents want.


Not necessarily.  Few people on this board actually oppose continued urban revitalization.  In fact most informed people know thats whats best for everyone in OKC.  The only place I've seen people complain about it is in the NewsOK comments.  However, there have been numerous calls from urbanists on this board and otherwise to penalize and discourage suburban development in the name of limiting sprawl.  That's what people get worked up about.

----------


## Teo9969

> I agree, people don't need to have a reason. If they want it and can afford it, then go for it.


Under current development standards on the fringe, they actually can't afford it. *WE* can afford it for them. That's the part being missed in this discussion. Just because a person buys a $350k house on 175th/MacArthur does not mean that the house cost $350k. It cost a lot more than that in "planning" developments, paving and maintaing streets, running and maintaining utilities/electric/gas, land usage, environmental stress, increased inefficiency of decentralized amenities and civil services, etc.

Sprawl is based far more in government subsidy than it is in the free market.

----------


## Teo9969

> Still finding this discussion (and more generally, this entire topic) to be fascinating.  I moved to the Putnam City North area back in the late 90's when I got an apartment at Britton & McCarthur, right next to Lake Hefner.  Federally subsidized housing destroyed the area in which I was living and I fled to 122nd & Rockwell and a gated condo complex and then bought a house out past NW 178th. 
> 
> I had to look up the definition of "gentrification" and it turns out to be a phenomena that I'm aware of without knowing the proper term.  My question would be, where do all of the lower income people go when this happens?  They don't just disappear, they move somewhere else and that area likely suffers.  It seems that for every area that is gentrified, another suffers for it.  Is it just a cycle that goes on and on with different neighborhoods being gentrified, eventually degrading and then being gentrified again?  Do the poor and non-poor just periodically (over decades) change places?  
> 
> I really should get some reading material on community planning.  This is really interesting stuff!
> 
> I really like the idea of "new urbanism" influenced development so long as it remains completely voluntary.  I do have a problem with social engineers trying to force people, who would prefer to live in a more suburban setting, to live in urban areas.


The solution to the problem you posited lies way outside of development practice and more on the development of society as a whole. As a society, the goal should be to reach a point where lower income residents do not bring down the value of a neighborhood. 

But the answer to your question lies in history. Look at the rest of the cities in the world. The center has always been (one of) the strongest/richest area of the city and the poor have always lived (generally) on the outskirts. What we've created in the United States is actually somewhat mind-blowing in how it opposes historical precedent and was only made possible on the scale that it was because of a very unique set of circumstances in the world at the time. Cities could never have developed as such as recently as the early-mid 20th century.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> When has anyone in Oklahoma ever been forced to live in an Urban setting???


Protesting any new highway proposal, road widenings, and criticizing any suburban development is something a lot of urbanist are notorious for and in a way, that is attempting to force people to live in an urban area closer to the core.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> Under current development standards on the fringe, they actually can't afford it. *WE* can afford it for them. That's the part being missed in this discussion. Just because a person buys a $350k house on 175th/MacArthur does not mean that the house cost $350k. It cost a lot more than that in "planning" developments, paving and maintaing streets, running and maintaining utilities/electric/gas, land usage, environmental stress, increased inefficiency of decentralized amenities and civil services, etc.
> 
> Sprawl is based far more in government subsidy than it is in the free market.


Well, people are choosing to sprawl out. No one is forcing that. People are choosing that on their own free will because the majority prefer it at this time.

Dallas is a great example. They are building a great mass transit system while still choosing to build massive freeways, and guess what... people are choosing their cars over DART and the other mass transit options Dallas offers and is constantly improving.

----------


## Zuplar

> Under current development standards on the fringe, they actually can't afford it. *WE* can afford it for them. That's the part being missed in this discussion. Just because a person buys a $350k house on 175th/MacArthur does not mean that the house cost $350k. It cost a lot more than that in "planning" developments, paving and maintaing streets, running and maintaining utilities/electric/gas, land usage, environmental stress, increased inefficiency of decentralized amenities and civil services, etc.
> 
> Sprawl is based far more in government subsidy than it is in the free market.


The irony there is place that same house in a more 'urban' setting and the price could double. People will go where the cheap land is.

----------


## adaniel

> Dallas is a great example. They are building a great mass transit system while still choosing to build massive freeways, and guess what... people are choosing their cars over DART and the other mass transit options Dallas offers and is constantly improving.


No, Dallas is building massive TOLLWAYS that are starting to generate quite a bit of opposition right now. And you are being quite charitable in calling DART rail "great." 

In any event, there are lots of cities out there...more than just one city for OKC to emulate. Nobody should be holding Dallas or Houston as models of good planning IMO.

As far as what people are choosing...last time I checked cities are collectively growing faster than their suburbs at the current moment. So there's that.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> No, Dallas is building massive TOLLWAYS that are starting to generate quite a bit of opposition right now. And you are being quite charitable in calling DART rail "great." 
> 
> In any event, there are lots of cities out there...more than just one city for OKC to emulate. Nobody should be holding Dallas or Houston as models of good planning IMO.
> 
> As far as what people are choosing...last time I checked cities are collectively growing faster than their suburbs at the current moment. So there's that.


DART rail is great and is being expanded. There is one controversial project  that Dallas is proposing which is the Trinity River Toll and get this, I actually oppose that.

Dallas is a great model for city planning, imo, but I think OKC should set its own way. We don't need to copy anyone in planning our city as a whole. 

We can have a great urban, dense urban core served by an amazing mass transit system, but I will still support multi-billion dollar highway being built out in the suburbs fed by six-lane streets. This is not an either or issue. Someone living in NW OKC should most certainly be able to have the same services as someone in downtown, but substitute the mass transit for 6 lane roads and 10 lane highways.

I'm am aware that cities have passed suburbs in growth, but we'll see how long that lasts. Suburbs aren't going anywhere anytime soon, and that is said for a lot of cities. I was in Jacksonville and New Orleans, both cities with great urban areas, and they still have huge highway under construction and big suburban investments. It's more than just Texas cities. As I've also stated, even London has suburbs with new suburban development taking place.

----------


## Teo9969

> The irony there is place that same house in a more 'urban' setting and the price could double. People will go where the cheap land is.


The price could double based on supply/demand, free market economics, not at all because of infrastructure and the need for municipal resources.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> The price could double based on supply/demand, free market economics, not at all because of infrastructure and the need for municipal resources.


Yeah, and it's the infrastructure where the new-urbanist try to prohibit suburban growth.

People will go will cheap land is, but there's more to it than that for a lot of people.

----------


## Teo9969

> Well, people are choosing to sprawl out. No one is forcing that. People are choosing that on their own free will because the majority prefer it at this time.
> 
> Dallas is a great example. They are building a great mass transit system while still choosing to build massive freeways, and guess what... people are choosing their cars over DART and the other mass transit options Dallas offers and is constantly improving.


1. We're not forcing it, we're subsidizing it.

2. It's not a great mass transit system because you cannot have a great mass transit system in a sprawled city. It's functional and does well for what it is, but the system doesn't have hundreds of thousands of riders per day because it doesn't service hundreds of thousands of riders. Why does it not service hundreds of thousands of riders in a metro of more than 6 million? Because you can't service low density development with public transit. See the OKC bus system.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> 1. We're not forcing it, we're subsidizing it.
> 
> 2. It's not a great mass transit system because you cannot have a great mass transit system in a sprawled city. It's functional and does well for what it is, but the system doesn't have hundreds of thousands of riders per day because it doesn't service hundreds of thousands of riders. Why does it not service hundreds of thousands of riders in a metro of more than 6 million? Because you can't service low density development with public transit. See the OKC bus system.


Well, first off even mass transit is subsidized. We used federal funds for the street car, did we not?

Also, I was speaking giving the core mass transit and the suburbs wide highway and roads. The suburbs can also be served by light-rail and a bus or two to the downtown areas, but the core will get well served bus service, street car, light-rail, subways, bike lanes, etc.

----------


## Teo9969

> Yeah, and it's the infrastructure where the new-urbanist try to prohibit suburban growth.
> 
> People will go will cheap land is, but there's more to it than that for a lot of people.


The question is why are the new-urbanists the only one's trying to prohibit this growth. If I live in suburbia in Lansbrook at MacArthur and Britton Road, why do I want to encourage people to sprawl just to lessen the value of not just my property, but the entire community I'm involved with? Why do I want to pay the high taxes I already pay to subsidize even more sprawl? Where is the end? The connecting of Tulsa and OKC via Suburban Sprawl? How do you all think Warr Acres is feeling about right now? Bethany? 

Again, the point is that the people using the services are not the one's paying for it. This is not cheap land. This is subsidized land.

----------


## AP

Why do you still not understand that Cities can not afford to keep building the way we have for decades? Everyone understands that you love this stuff but cities can't afford it. It is time for cities to become more responsible in the way the plan and develop, and if that leads to a more urban setting than what you like, I'm sorry. But you can't always get what you want. It's silly that people are still having to be convinced of facts.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> The question is why are the new-urbanists the only one's trying to prohibit this growth. If I live in suburbia in Lansbrook at MacArthur and Britton Road, why do I want to encourage people to sprawl just to lessen the value of not just my property, but the entire community I'm involved with? Why do I want to pay the high taxes I already pay to subsidize even more sprawl? Where is the end? The connecting of Tulsa and OKC via Suburban Sprawl? How do you all think Warr Acres is feeling about right now? Bethany? 
> 
> Again, the point is that the people using the services are not the one's paying for it. This is not cheap land. This is subsidized land.


I understand what you're saying.

I wasn't saying it was strictly new-urbanist, but a large majority of them are.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> Why do you still not understand that Cities can not afford to keep building the way we have for decades? Everyone understands that you love this stuff but cities can't afford it. It is time for cities to become more responsible in the way the plan and develop, and if that leads to a more urban setting than what you like, I'm sorry. But you can't always get what you want. It's silly that people are still having to be convinced of facts.


So as cars get more fuel efficient, new materials come out for road surfaces that are cheaper and last longer, what's to say it can't be done?

----------


## AP

> So as cars get more fuel efficient, new materials come out for road surfaces that are cheaper and last longer, what's to say it can't be done?


Where are these resources you keep dreaming about? We needed them a long time ago.

----------


## Teo9969

> So as cars get more fuel efficient, new materials come out for road surfaces that are cheaper and last longer, what's to say it can't be done?


Tell you what, when it is done, I'll be fine with it. In the meantime, let's charge the impact fees necessary. So when houses on NW 150th and Council sell for $425k instead of $350k, then we'll all be happy because free-market capitalism is finally working.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> Tell you what, when it is done, I'll be fine with it. In the meantime, let's charge the impact fees necessary. So when houses on NW 150th and Council sell for $425k instead of $350k, then we'll all be happy because free-market capitalism is finally working.


if that's what they're worth than why aren't they selling for that much? Not trying to be a smart ass or anything, I really don't know.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> Where are these resources you keep dreaming about? We needed them a long time ago.


Well, the cars, as you know, are becoming more fuel efficient and more eco friendly as we introduce new fuel types to help off-set pollution. Look at hydrogen fuel cell, it releases water vapor.

HowStuffWorks "How Fuel Cells Work"

As for the road and highway surfacing, there are new composite materials being tested.

I'll search for the article about the composite cement. I saw it on Popular Science a few years back.

----------


## hoya

If I had my choice, I would live in a huge castle in an enchanted forest with my pet dragon.

Now I seriously cannot afford that, but if the government wanted to subsidize that way of life (and they would have to subsidize it a _lot_), then I might be able to afford it.  They could build a castle for me, plant a forest around it, build some huts and move renaissance fair-loving midgets in there, and buy me a trained Komodo dragon.  Unfortunately, the government seems to think that would be a waste of money.  Thanks, Obama!

If we spend billions in public money on building bigger highways to connect places that are currently empty fields with our downtowns, then of course people are going to move out there.  You're giving them access to incredibly cheap land, and giving them a state-funded connection to their front door.  If you _stop doing that_, then they will stop moving out there.  It's wasteful and inefficient.

For a city with our population, there's no reason we should have people building homes on NW 206th and Rockwell, and yet we do.

If the government was giving free land downtown to any developer who wanted to build a 30 story condo tower, gave them massive tax credits, and had been doing so for the past 60 years, is there any question that our downtown would have a lot more towers?

----------


## Teo9969

> if that's what they're worth than why aren't they selling for that much? Not trying to be a smart ass or anything, I really don't know.


Because they're not worth that much, but that's what they should actually cost.

Developers know that people aren't going to pay 20% more for those homes in this market.

----------


## soonerguru

> Protesting any new highway proposal, road widenings, and criticizing any suburban development is something a lot of urbanist are notorious for and in a way, that is attempting to force people to live in an urban area closer to the core.


Then I'm all for it!

 :Smile: 

But seriously, I was advocating for more affordable alternatives in the inner core, and then I was quickly corrected by people suggesting we have a horde of available housing in the inner city. Wut?

----------


## corwin1968

> If we spend billions in public money on building bigger highways to connect places that are currently empty fields with our downtowns, then of course people are going to move out there.  You're giving them access to incredibly cheap land, and giving them a state-funded connection to their front door.  If you _stop doing that_, then they will stop moving out there.  It's wasteful and inefficient.


I think you are putting the cart before the horse.  People aren't following the highways, the highways are following the people.  This public money you mention is just that, money taken from the public in the form of taxes and fees and it's spent on what the public wants......access to a nice house and yard in the suburbs.   Your scenario is uncomfortably close to the "elites" deciding how to plan a community which then "forces" the people to live in a certain place.  Sort of like I mentioned in my previous post.

----------


## soonerguru

> I think you are putting the cart before the horse.  People aren't following the highways, the highways are following the people.  This public money you mention is just that, money taken from the public in the form of taxes and fees and it's spent on what the public wants......access to a nice house and yard in the suburbs.   Your scenario is uncomfortably close to the "elites" deciding how to plan a community which then "forces" the people to live in a certain place.  Sort of like I mentioned in my previous post.


You need to read some history on the development of the highway system and how it affected American life.  Of course once suburbs were built, houses were made bigger, two car garages became the norm, that appealed to people in the post-World War II era. Right or wrong, this lifestyle was subsidized and continues to be subsidized. This isn't an "elitist" statement. 

It has not been all bad for America. It has also not been all good. Allowing our cities to rot from the center, decentralizing and spreading out services to far-flung areas, and spreading blight to larger areas of our cities have not been good. 

This isn't an "urban versus suburbs" discussion. The discussion is on how to improve our inner city, how to expand that improvement to yesterday's forgotten suburbs, and how to provide choice to people in how they live, regardless of lifestyle choice. Also, please be careful when you start discussing "forcing" people how and where to live. As you'll note from reading this board (if you read it as closely as you say), there are people clamoring to have an alternative to the suburban lifestyle that are struggling to find options. In many ways, they have been "forced" to accept the lifestyle your prefer. 

And as to taxation, those of us who are living in the city have been "forced" to subsidize inefficient distribution of city services to areas such as 178th and May. This has caused us to have stretched city budgets, which often means dismal city services like our poor transit system.

----------


## bchris02

> This isn't an "urban versus suburbs" discussion. The discussion is on how to improve our inner city, how to expand that improvement to yesterday's forgotten suburbs, and how to provide choice to people in how they live, regardless of lifestyle choice. Also, please be careful when you start discussing "forcing" people how and where to live. As you'll note from reading this board (if you read it as closely as you say), there are people clamoring to have an alternative to the suburban lifestyle that are struggling to find options. In many ways, they have been "forced" to accept the lifestyle your prefer.


Well to be fair, comparing OKC with its peers, the lack of living options in the core today can be tied to developers being afraid to bet on downtown OKC during the 2000s.  That is all changing in a huge way but its going to take some time to catch up. The city widening Penn from two to four lanes between 150th and 178th has little to do with the lack of housing options in the urban core.

----------


## AP

> Well to be fair, comparing OKC with its peers, the lack of living options in the core today can be tied to developers being afraid to bet on downtown OKC during the 2000s.  That is all changing in a huge way but its going to take some time to catch up. The city widening Penn from two to four lanes between 150th and 178th has little to do with the lack of housing options in the urban core.


It has to do with continuing to prioritize and subsidize the suburbs over the core.

----------


## Teo9969

> I think you are putting the cart before the horse.  People aren't following the highways, the highways are following the people.  This public money you mention is just that, money taken from the public in the form of taxes and fees and it's spent on what the public wants......access to a nice house and yard in the suburbs.   Your scenario is uncomfortably close to the "elites" deciding how to plan a community which then "forces" the people to live in a certain place.  Sort of like I mentioned in my previous post.


http://www.google.com/maps/@35.66112...i2lnGfGCaQ!2e0

. . .This is at 18000 - 19000 N Meridian. . .Let's pretend that street cost roughly 10% as much to build as 4000-5000 Western Avenue and costs 10% the amount of upkeep that Western Ave. Would you like to guess which one pays for itself quicker?

Now, I'm not saying that we can't have that road there, but that road likely serves less than 0.1% of the metro area. Why are people at SW 29th/Robinson, NE 50th/Lincoln, SE 59th/Shields, and Hefner/Britton paying their taxes to build and maintain that infrastructure and those services.

There are two lots that face that road. They collected a grand total of $2,015 in taxes last year. 

Let's be conservative and say that between 4000-5000 N Western, 100 lots are served, and tax collections are a total of $85,000.

Let's say that to build Western over that distance, it cost $1,000,000 and Meridian $100,000.

That means that in tax revenue, that stretch of Western is paid for in 11 years. The Meridian parcel? 49 years.

Why did we build that road? What was the purpose? How does it serve the 600,000 people of OKC?  By making life easier for, at most, 20 people (something like .003% of the population)? 

Now if those particular people paid for that all by themselves, good on 'em. But this is what I mean when I say this is SUBSIDIZED living. It's called Oklahoma *CITY*Urban development ought to be the expectation not the exception. If people want to live in a town, Kingfisher is right down the road.

----------


## bchris02

> It has to do with continuing to prioritize and subsidize the suburbs over the core.


How has the widening of roads in west Edmond stifled growth downtown?  What housing developments downtown have been killed thanks to suburban infrastructure investment?

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> It has to do with continuing to prioritize and subsidize the suburbs over the core.


continuing? Who is continuing to do it? Again, even Dallas is starting to pump huge amounts of money into its core and yet you still have a small minority of people with loud voices bitching up a storm about sprawl, highways, and road widenings.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> http://www.google.com/maps/@35.66112...i2lnGfGCaQ!2e0
> 
> . . .This is at 18000 - 19000 N Meridian. . .Let's pretend that street cost roughly 10% as much to build as 4000-5000 Western Avenue and costs 10% the amount of upkeep that Western Ave. Would you like to guess which one pays for itself quicker?
> 
> Now, I'm not saying that we can't have that road there, but that road likely serves less than 0.1% of the metro area. Why are people at SW 29th/Robinson, NE 50th/Lincoln, SE 59th/Shields, and Hefner/Britton paying their taxes to build and maintain that infrastructure and those services.
> 
> There are two lots that face that road. They collected a grand total of $2,015 in taxes last year. 
> 
> Let's be conservative and say that between 4000-5000 N Western, 100 lots are served, and tax collections are a total of $85,000.
> ...


You know what, you can make that same case for saying the entire city should be living in 3-5 city blocks downtown in huge skyscrapers, but who the hell wants to do that.

The denser the better, eh? No. That's a ridiculous argument. There is ton of new development happening downtown, we're getting a street car,  the bus system is receiving more funding, possible commuter rail is trying to get established, but booooooy I bet when they announce an new highway loop or expansion in OKC, which they will just sit and watch, it will be very predictable to see which ones bitch and moan about how we're supporting sprawl, lowering property values... blah blah blah...

----------


## bchris02

In OKC in the year 2014 the suburbs are subsidizing the core.  Let the city de-annex everything north of NW 63rd, south if SW 59th, west of I-44 and east of I-35 and watch what happens to tax revenues.  MAPS3 could not be funded.  The city would not have enough revenue to provide incentives for businesses to relocate here.  The current urban renaissance would cease.  OKC needs the suburbs and the core to be successful.  This isn't Chicago where the urban core is self sustaining and could exist entirely independent of the suburbs.  In OKC, urban dwellers still have to rely on the suburbs for basic amenities such as retail.  I am a heavy supporter of urban development, MAPS, the streetcar, and all the exciting things going on downtown.  I am also a realist.

This urban vs. suburban rivalry is ridiculous in a city of 600,000 that is 73rd in the nation in the number of people living downtown. (Source: America's Downtowns Ranked by Number of Residents | Metro Jacksonville )

----------


## ChrisHayes

I'm 34, and personally I like a lot of the north side suburban developments that are being built. Especially between May and Western, and north of NW 122nd street and around. Not everyone wants to live in the core. I know I wouldn't. If I did, I would want to live in the Deep Deuce district. But that's not version of the American Dream. My American Dream is having a couple acres of land so I have enough room for my pool and detached garage for my business. The suburbs couldn't survive without the core and the core especially can't survive without the suburbs. I like OKC the way it is. I don't want it to be a small New York City where everyone is living in apartment buildings. Apartments are fine, but it's not for everyone.

----------


## Canoe

> http://www.google.com/maps/@35.66112...i2lnGfGCaQ!2e0
> 
> . . .This is at 18000 - 19000 N Meridian. . .Let's pretend that street cost roughly 10% as much to build as 4000-5000 Western Avenue and costs 10% the amount of upkeep that Western Ave. Would you like to guess which one pays for itself quicker?
> 
> Now, I'm not saying that we can't have that road there, but that road likely serves less than 0.1% of the metro area. Why are people at SW 29th/Robinson, NE 50th/Lincoln, SE 59th/Shields, and Hefner/Britton paying their taxes to build and maintain that infrastructure and those services.
> 
> There are two lots that face that road. They collected a grand total of $2,015 in taxes last year. 
> 
> Let's be conservative and say that between 4000-5000 N Western, 100 lots are served, and tax collections are a total of $85,000.
> ...


Teo my man, let me drop some knowledge on you.  First all new residential developments in the City require the developer to bring the water lines and sewer lines to the property.  The City's Trust does not extend the public mains for private residential developments.  These costs get rolled into the cost of the lots.  Second,  the City (Public Works) uses Bond money to pay for roadway widening projects.  There is a proposal in front of the City Planning commission to enact an impact fee to recover part of the cost of these roadway widening projects.  So if you are in favor of the far suburban developments paying more to widen the section lines then please let the planning commission know your wishes.  Lastly this does not address the long term problem any City faces when tax revenue is not high enough to maintain the infrastructure.

----------


## AP

There is no damn rivalry. You are proving the point everyone is making. "a city of 600,000 that is 73rd in the nation in the number of people living downtown" The issue is, for decades OKC subsidized living in the suburbs. Even if people wanted to live downtown, they couldn't. There is no way that people could have even known if they wanted anything other than the suburbs because the only option is the suburbs. Why is this so hard to understand. Expanding the suburbs is dumb. If you can't find what you need, in the vast expanse that is the OKC suburbs, and need to continue to move further out, you might have a problem.

----------


## hoya

> I'm 34, and personally I like a lot of the north side suburban developments that are being built. Especially between May and Western, and north of NW 122nd street and around. Not everyone wants to live in the core. I know I wouldn't. If I did, I would want to live in the Deep Deuce district. But that's not version of the American Dream. My American Dream is having a couple acres of land so I have enough room for my pool and detached garage for my business. The suburbs couldn't survive without the core and the core especially can't survive without the suburbs. I like OKC the way it is. I don't want it to be a small New York City where everyone is living in apartment buildings. Apartments are fine, but it's not for everyone.


I don't think you understand what the pro-urban people on this site are asking for.  OKC would have to completely stop all suburban development and build up its urban neighborhoods for a century or more before we looked anything like New York City.  You don't have to worry.

Right now this city is about 99.9% suburban.  Deep Deuce could expand to 50 times its current size and we'd still have more suburban and exurban areas than we'd know what to do with.

----------


## bchris02

> There is no damn rivalry. You are proving the point everyone is making. "a city of 600,000 that is 73rd in the nation in the number of people living downtown" The issue is, for decades OKC subsidized living in the suburbs. Even if people wanted to live downtown, they couldn't. There is no way that people could have even known if they wanted anything other than the suburbs because the only option is the suburbs. Why is this so hard to understand. Expanding the suburbs is dumb. If you can't find what you need, in the vast expanse that is the OKC suburbs, and need to continue to move further out, you might have a problem.


The free market is starting to respond to the desire of some OKC residents to live downtown.  A decade ago you would never have developments like the Metropolitan and the Steelyard.   Huge public investments will be coming online in the coming decade such as the streetcar, central park, and new convention center, all of which should spur a wave of private investment.  This is all great stuff.  The core is coming back and its just getting started.

However, if a homebuilder wants to build a subdivision at 178th and Western, why should they be prohibited from doing so?  OKC needs to be thankful that it has so much affluent suburban real estate within its city limits and therefore can collect the tax revenue from it.

----------


## Teo9969

> You know what, you can make that same case for saying the entire city should be living in 3-5 city blocks downtown in huge skyscrapers, but who the hell wants to do that.
> 
> The denser the better, eh? No. That's a ridiculous argument. There is ton of new development happening downtown, we're getting a street car,  the bus system is receiving more funding, possible commuter rail is trying to get established, but booooooy I bet when they announce an new highway loop or expansion in OKC, which they will just sit and watch, it will be very predictable to see which ones bitch and moan about how we're supporting sprawl, lowering property values... blah blah blah...


This coming from the guy who is not okay with the government paying for its citizens Healthcare…

The argument is not "the denser the better"

The argument is ROI.

How is building a road that nobody uses and will take a century to pay itself off acceptable? 

Not a single person here has said that suburban development is the devil. But it is not getting more efficient as time goes on…it's getting worse. We're wasting resources at an incredible rate an stretching our wealth super thin. Why are you okay with this? 

You want to know why it takes forever to fix the interchanges and highways in this damn state? Because we have tons and tons and tons of concrete that are wasting away unused, all so two families who lives 3 miles away from the edge of the city can drive on paved roads, and so that just in case a developer wants to buy land and build a subdivision, he doesn't have to worry about how his potential clientele will access his development.

----------


## bradh

Because Portland, duh! (in response to bchris02...Teo snuck one in there before me)

The driving factor is schools, period.  You want to curb rampant growth of the fringe, do all you can to help fix OKCPS.  I'm not gonna lie, after looking in the core (and experiencing what soonerguru already has laid out about lack of reasonable housing...sorry Classen Ten-Pen isn't really up my alley so don't throw that at me), we're building within OKC city limits but one mile north of Kilpatrick.  We love the core and spend a large amount of our free time down there, but in the end, with two cars (could MAYBE shed one if we moved downtown), a large dog and kid, a 1000 sq ft condo/townhome or century old house that requires more maintenance than these two working parents are willing to deal with.  Was a tough decision and one that honestly we may have days we regret, but we're comfortable with it.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> There is no damn rivalry. You are proving the point everyone is making. "a city of 600,000 that is 73rd in the nation in the number of people living downtown" The issue is, for decades OKC subsidized living in the suburbs. Even if people wanted to live downtown, they couldn't. There is no way that people could have even known if they wanted anything other than the suburbs because the only option is the suburbs. Why is this so hard to understand. Expanding the suburbs is dumb. If you can't find what you need, in the vast expanse that is the OKC suburbs, and need to continue to move further out, you might have a problem.


no. OKC is providing the infrastructure out to where people want to live. You can call it whatever you want, but the fact is, people want to live out there and the city is building the roads to support the will of the people.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> This coming from the guy who is not okay with the government paying for its citizens Healthcare…
> 
> The argument is not "the denser the better"
> 
> The argument is ROI.
> 
> How is building a road that nobody uses and will take a century to pay itself off acceptable? 
> 
> Not a single person here has said that suburban development is the devil. But it is not getting more efficient as time goes on…it's getting worse. We're wasting resources at an incredible rate an stretching our wealth super thin. Why are you okay with this? 
> ...


Correct. I do not approve of the government paying for people's healthcare. I do approve of the government paying to build highways, roads, utility lines to support suburbia. Problem?

Now, if you're seriously suggesting nobody uses Meridian, you are living under a rock. I was stuck in rush hour traffic on that road the other dropping a customer off and it packed.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> I don't think you understand what the pro-urban people on this site are asking for.  OKC would have to completely stop all suburban development and build up its urban neighborhoods for a century or more before we looked anything like New York City.  You don't have to worry.
> 
> Right now this city is about 99.9% suburban.  Deep Deuce could expand to 50 times its current size and we'd still have more suburban and exurban areas than we'd know what to do with.


Is there any facts to support that we could keep building at this rate and not be filled for a century? Even if so, how the hell is that relevant?

Have you seen the proposed and speculated developments? Both Pete and Steve have hinted at major new developments coming in the future. Infill is happening all over the place and will only increase. We are booming and showing no signs of slowing down or stopping. Yes, there are huge amounts of undeveloped land in the core, but don't keep telling yourself that over and over like some security blanket or something because before you know it, that won't be true anymore.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

Couple of other things here




> Not a single person here has said that suburban development is the devil. But it is not getting more efficient as time goes on…it's getting worse. We're wasting resources at an incredible rate an stretching our wealth super thin. Why are you okay with this?


I disagree with you in saying it is not getting more efficient. With mixed-use developments like Chisholm Creek, where there are pockets of dense urban developments that are basically miniature cities, they add more tax dollars and are buried within the wide roads, highways, and suburbia in general. So with those, I am also noticing developments in the suburbs becoming denser and being built with better quality materials.




> You want to know why it takes forever to fix the interchanges and highways in this damn state? Because we have tons and tons and tons of concrete that are wasting away unused, all so two families who lives 3 miles away from the edge of the city can drive on paved roads, and so that just in case a developer wants to buy land and build a subdivision, he doesn't have to worry about how his potential clientele will access his development.


Why does it take so long to build and fix interchanges and highways, because ODOT can't take out loans and has to spread the project out over 10 years. They can't focus on any one project because it would be unfair to other parts of the state.

----------


## adaniel

> Because Portland, duh! (in response to bchris02...Teo snuck one in there before me)
> 
> The driving factor is schools, period.  You want to curb rampant growth of the fringe, do all you can to help fix OKCPS.  I'm not gonna lie, after looking in the core (and experiencing what soonerguru already has laid out about lack of reasonable housing...sorry Classen Ten-Pen isn't really up my alley so don't throw that at me), we're building within OKC city limits but one mile north of Kilpatrick.


You bring up a good point about the schools. I don't think anyone would disagree that OKCPS needs some work, as with any urban school district. 

At the same time, I look at cities that are outstripping their suburban areas in terms of growth (Denver, Seattle, Minneapolis, New Orleans, DC, among others) and none of them strike me as having vastly superior school systems to OKC. What's their "special sauce" that allows them to step around this issue?

----------


## Teo9969

> Teo my man, let me drop some knowledge on you.  First all new residential developments in the City require the developer to bring the water lines and sewer lines to the property.  The City's Trust does not extend the public mains for private residential developments.  These costs get rolled into the cost of the lots.  Second,  the City (Public Works) uses Bond money to pay for roadway widening projects.  There is a proposal in front of the City Planning commission to enact an impact fee to recover part of the cost of these roadway widening projects.  So if you are in favor of the far suburban developments paying more to widen the section lines then please let the planning commission know your wishes.  Lastly this does not address the long term problem any City faces when tax revenue is not high enough to maintain the infrastructure.


I'm not going to pretend to know anything and everything about who pays for what exactly. That's not so much my point.

Business can occur anywhere, and I strongly support investment of public resources anywhere where the commercial market can provide sustenance for the general immediate community. I may not like Memorial, but I want it to do well. OKC's major economic corridors are fine, but we have plenty of them, and the problem is that our penchant for sprawl leads to neglect and diminished effectiveness of these corridors. It's not about suburban vs. urban for me. This is about approaching development from a conservative perspective. Our resources need to be invested in sustaining and bettering what already exists. 

What are we doing to keep 39th in good shape? In an area that is growing increasingly poorer, are we buffing up the police staff to help prevent crime, or are we sending that position to the North because hundreds of homes are being built up that direction?

What big name businesses have come to NW Expressway in the last 20 years? How has NW Expressway done since Kirkpatrick opened? 

------------------------------------------

There are forces driving this engine that need to be checked. This is ultimately a societal issue and has very little to do with development theory/practice. Development is simply a symptom to a much larger issue.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> I'm not going to pretend to know anything and everything about who pays for what exactly. That's not so much my point.
> 
> Business can occur anywhere, and I strongly support investment of public resources anywhere where the commercial market can provide sustenance for the general immediate community. I may not like Memorial, but I want it to do well. OKC's major economic corridors are fine, but we have plenty of them, and the problem is that our penchant for sprawl leads to neglect and diminished effectiveness of these corridors. It's not about suburban vs. urban for me. This is about approaching development from a conservative perspective. Our resources need to be invested in sustaining and bettering what already exists. 
> 
> What are we doing to keep 39th in good shape? In an area that is growing increasingly poorer, are we buffing up the police staff to help prevent crime, or are we sending that position to the North because hundreds of homes are being built up that direction?
> 
> What big name businesses have come to NW Expressway in the last 20 years? How has NW Expressway done since Kirkpatrick opened? 
> 
> ------------------------------------------
> ...


Well, in respect to NW Expressway, we are starting to see some smaller developments. Multiple shopping centers renovated, couple of new Oncue's, Golds GYM, new Fuze Restaurant, Tiffany Apartments renovation, D&B, New 7-11 concept. . . nothing big, but some nice small developments. 

I suspect it's only a matter of time before we start seeing a couple large office complexes announced along that corridor. OKC hasn't been exploding with growth that long and we're pretty much just getting started so give it some time.

Oh, and to the question of how NW Expressway has been doing since Kirkpatrick; I'd say it's doing fine. A lot of traffic every time I'm on it, so that indicates something.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

Oh, and as for 39th, this isn't going to earn me an medals with you, but I'd turn that into a freeway with interstate standards continuing I-44 and connecting it with Kirkpatrick. I assumed that was the plan anyways due to the extremely large setbacks.

----------


## bchris02

> At the same time, I look at cities that are outstripping their suburban areas in terms of growth (Denver, Seattle, Minneapolis, New Orleans, DC, among others) and none of them strike me as having vastly superior school systems to OKC. What's their "special sauce" that allows them to step around this issue?


The "special sauce" is time.  Those cities are all way ahead of OKC in terms of urban revitalization and development and have been at it for much longer.  OKC has only really been in the game for about a half of a decade.  What has been revitalized in such a short amount of time is very impressive but the fact is the city has a lot of catching up to do.  Recent developments show that it can and will happen as long as the economy holds up.  As OKC's core gets built up and as it begins to offer amenities that today only exist in the suburbs, population growth will accelerate.  

No matter how revitalized the inner city becomes however, there will still be growth in the suburbs because many simply prefer that lifestyle.

----------


## Teo9969

> Correct. I do not approve of the government paying for people's healthcare. I do approve of the government paying to build highways, roads, utility lines to support suburbia. Problem?
> 
> *Now, if you're seriously suggesting nobody uses Meridian, you are living under a rock.* I was stuck in rush hour traffic on that road the other dropping a customer off and it packed.


PluPan, man, do you even read what people write? I was very explicitly talking about 18k to 19k Meridian…North of 178th. 




> I disagree with you in saying it is not getting more efficient. With mixed-use developments like Chisholm Creek, where there are pockets of dense urban developments that are basically miniature cities, they add more tax dollars and are buried within the wide roads, highways, and suburbia in general. So with those, I am also noticing developments in the suburbs becoming denser and being built with better quality materials.


I'll give that to you, but I didn't clearly articulate earlier: I'm not talking about efficiency of new development. I'm talking about the efficiency of the economic centers that are part of our suburban fabric as a whole. Sure Memorial is doing great, but there are many other centers that have suffered because of Memorial's success.

----------


## Teo9969

> Oh, and as for 39th, this isn't going to earn me an medals with you, but I'd turn that into a freeway with interstate standards continuing I-44 and connecting it with Kirkpatrick. I assumed that was the plan anyways due to the extremely large setbacks.


You think that was the plan when the setbacks have been like that since the 60s…since before Putnam City North was a thing?

----------


## Canoe

> You think that was the plan when the setbacks have been like that since the 60s…since before Putnam City North was a thing?


Isn't is a part of historical route 66?

----------


## Teo9969

> Isn't is a part of historical route 66?


It is. 66 Bowl, etc.

I love that we just completely ignore that. It's a grand part of American history draping right through the middle of our city and we….ignore it?

I've met Europeans who specifically came over to travel Route 66 …

----------


## Plutonic Panda

Even the portions that are interstate stands I44 are Route 66. Turning it into a 6 lane freeway doesn't ignore that.

----------


## bradh

Dude, no one travels Route 66 to feel like they are traveling on a freeway.  Even driving through the old route in Tucumcari (one of that last great remaining stretches of the original road since it was only bypassed in the early 80s) is a great step back into time.  The original route was already bypassed, leave what is there be for what it was.

----------


## bchris02

> Dude, no one travels Route 66 to feel like they are traveling on a freeway.  Even driving through the old route in Tucumcari (one of that last great remaining stretches of the original road since it was only bypassed in the early 80s) is a great step back into time.  The original route was already bypassed, leave what is there be for what it was.


I agree with this. I-40 runs parallel to old Route 66 going out west but if you want to do a real Route 66 tour, you take the old road, not the freeway.  I wish OKC would capitalize on that more and spruce up 39th St.

----------


## soonerguru

> Well to be fair, comparing OKC with its peers, the lack of living options in the core today can be tied to developers being afraid to bet on downtown OKC during the 2000s.  That is all changing in a huge way but its going to take some time to catch up. The city widening Penn from two to four lanes between 150th and 178th has little to do with the lack of housing options in the urban core.


I agree. And that would be a preposterous statement to make, but it's quite similar to the statement made by corwin when he suggested "social engineers" were trying to take away his God-given right to live in the suburbs. And there are many more reasons that have led us to where we are. But it is very true that spending money in less dense areas to support that lifestyle has consequences: budgets are finite. We have had poor roads throughout our city. We have a substandard public transportation system. We have challenges hiring and paying enough police and fire personnel. OKC has done well with what it has to work with overall but there are choices that have to be made, and there are still far too many populous areas in the city core that lack quality bus service or sidewalks.

----------


## soonerguru

> The free market is starting to respond to the desire of some OKC residents to live downtown.  A decade ago you would never have developments like the Metropolitan and the Steelyard.   Huge public investments will be coming online in the coming decade such as the streetcar, central park, and new convention center, all of which should spur a wave of private investment.  This is all great stuff.  The core is coming back and its just getting started.
> 
> However, if a homebuilder wants to build a subdivision at 178th and Western, *why should they be prohibited from doing so?*  OKC needs to be thankful that it has so much affluent suburban real estate within its city limits and therefore can collect the tax revenue from it.


Do you have reading comprehension problems? No one has suggested people be "prohibited" from building. They've said we should stop subsidizing it.

----------


## soonerguru

> I agree with this. I-40 runs parallel to old Route 66 going out west but if you want to do a real Route 66 tour, you take the old road, not the freeway.  I wish OKC would capitalize on that more and spruce up 39th St.


Talk to Bethany and Warr Acres about "sprucing up 39th." Most of the ratty areas are in their purview.

----------


## hoya

Some people need to call a doctor, because their hard-ons for the interstate have lasted way longer than they should.

----------


## bchris02

> I agree. And that would be a preposterous statement to make, but it's quite similar to the statement made by corwin when he suggested "social engineers" were trying to take away his God-given right to live in the suburbs. And there are many more reasons that have led us to where we are. But it is very true that spending money in less dense areas to support that lifestyle have consequences: budgets are finite. We have had poor roads throughout our city. We have a substandard public transportation system. We have challenges hiring and paying enough police and fire personnel. *OKC has done well with what it has to work with overall but there are choices that have to be made, and there are still far too many populous areas in the city core that lack quality bus service or sidewalks.*


I agree with the last sentence especially.  Certain neighborhoods in OKC lack sidewalks but given their age they should have them.  I can definitely understand subdivisions built during the golden age of the suburb lacking sidewalks, but areas like Classen Ten Penn and Uptown should logically have them yet some streets do not.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> Dude, no one travels Route 66 to feel like they are traveling on a freeway.  Even driving through the old route in Tucumcari (one of that last great remaining stretches of the original road since it was only bypassed in the early 80s) is a great step back into time.  The original route was already bypassed, leave what is there be for what it was.


That's fine. Half of Route 66 is already gone anyways. There's still plenty to travel on. 

Sorry but I don't think much of it. If it were  me, I'd then 39th Expressway into a highway with interstate standards. But I'm not in control of that and end of story.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> Do you have reading comprehension problems? No one has suggested people be "prohibited" from building. They've said we should stop subsidizing it.


subsidize, subsidize, subsidize!!!!!! What a word. How is mass transit paid for! Oh, and by subsidize you mean pay for, which is why we have a government, to build our roads and pay for them. Let's call it subsidizing!!!

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> Talk to Bethany and Warr Acres about "sprucing up 39th." Most of the ratty areas are in their purview.


Or we can talk to ODOT about turning it into a freeway. Sure is funny how many different excuses few will come up with to protest a highway.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> Some people need to call a doctor, because their hard-ons for the interstate have lasted way longer than they should.


The same could be said for the pro mass transit crowd as well.

----------


## HOT ROD

> You bring up a good point about the schools. I don't think anyone would disagree that OKCPS needs some work, as with any urban school district. 
> 
> At the same time, I look at cities that are outstripping their suburban areas in terms of growth (Denver, Seattle, Minneapolis, New Orleans, DC, among others) and none of them strike me as having vastly superior school systems to OKC. What's their "special sauce" that allows them to step around this issue?


Those cities have large amounts of growth in residents that are not families or are upper crust to not 'depend' upon the inner city public schools. Seattle has a very large population of young people residing in the inner core - these people are unmarried and/or childless for the most part. They are students or professionals just starting out. They're not dependent upon the schools system, as Seattle's School District is just about the same population size as Oklahoma City's (both city districts are the largest in their state) despite Seattle having far more residents in the Seattle district vs. OKC.

If OKC wants to model this, then the city should focus on attracting young urban professionals to the core (who clearly want to live in the core and typically wait on having family) in addition to the current focus on empty nesters. What does this mean? 

Downtown OKC needs = Large supply of High Quality Rental properties! High Quality/Paying Office Jobs! Service Industry (ie retail) commensurate to the Office/Commercial Core! A high degree of entertainment options (including dance clubs. lol).

By the way, this is what Downtown Seattle offers (Live, Work, Play) despite having not so great schools nearby.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

Any rate I'm going to chime on out of this thread. I want both the core and suburbs to do well and I want options for all. 

This doesn't have to be an either or scenario. 

I will say the core of the city is the brain and heart. Whenever I have visitors, we take them downtown. As it stands, downtown is going to change so much in the future and it's for the better! 

I'm out before people start to think I'm trolling because I've made my point on my view of highways and such.

----------


## soonerguru

> subsidize, subsidize, subsidize!!!!!! What a word. How is mass transit paid for! Oh, and by subsidize you mean pay for, which is why we have a government, to build our roads and pay for them. Let's call it subsidizing!!!


Hey, we don't disagree here. I want more services subsidized for the more urbanized part of the city, because simple economics makes this a better investment. People should feel free to move half way to Kingfisher if they want. They should be able to build the most spectacular faux-Tuscany manor they want. But at some point, it doesn't make sense for most of us to be paying for it. Urban growth boundaries are a good idea.

----------


## Teo9969

> Any rate I'm going to chime on out of this thread. I want both the core and suburbs to do well and I want options for all. 
> 
> This doesn't have to be an either or scenario. 
> 
> I will say the core of the city is the brain and heart. Whenever I have visitors, we take them downtown. As it stands, downtown is going to change so much in the future and it's for the better! 
> 
> I'm out before people start to think I'm trolling because I've made my point on my view of highways and such.


If your point is that you like highways and suburban development, you've definitely made a point. If your point is that you hold a particular belief, you've definitely made your point.

If your point is that we are making a good investment as a community, you have unequivocally failed. Next time the subject comes up, maybe you'll find a way to do such thing. You've failed to produce a rebuttal to the claim that our mode of developing the suburbs hurts not the core, but the existing suburbs the most. This, in essence, makes you anti-suburb and pro waste.

----------


## soonerguru

> Because Portland, duh! (in response to bchris02...Teo snuck one in there before me)
> 
> The driving factor is schools, period.  You want to curb rampant growth of the fringe, do all you can to help fix OKCPS.  I'm not gonna lie, after looking in the core (and experiencing what soonerguru already has laid out about lack of reasonable housing...sorry Classen Ten-Pen isn't really up my alley so don't throw that at me), we're building within OKC city limits but one mile north of Kilpatrick.  We love the core and spend a large amount of our free time down there, but in the end, with two cars (could MAYBE shed one if we moved downtown), a large dog and kid, a 1000 sq ft condo/townhome or century old house that requires more maintenance than these two working parents are willing to deal with.  Was a tough decision and one that honestly we may have days we regret, but we're comfortable with it.


I agree about "fixing" the schools. Huge factor. That takes money too, though. Dammit. 

What I was speaking to is the rapid increase in land / real estate values in the core. How would you feel about, say, a 1,300 sq foot condo that is affordable in the inner city? Maybe even with a tiny yard for the grill? Or at least a balcony? And something you could buy for about $200k? It would be tempting, no?

But the real estate speculation is so great that there's not really an organic rise in values. It's almost like OKC is already Portland, with a dense urban core, and not the city we see with vast empty lots. The prices are rising very fast and there's little variety to the inner-city housing stock. I'm excited about the big rental megaplexes but that's all we're getting right now. Does every developer have to clear millions to make a project work?

----------


## bradh

At 200k hell yeah.  At the 300k plus we were finding?  Not so much

----------


## Geographer

> Oh, and as for 39th, this isn't going to earn me an medals with you, but I'd turn that into a freeway with interstate standards continuing I-44 and connecting it with Kirkpatrick. I assumed that was the plan anyways due to the extremely large setbacks.


That would be so pretty...plowing right through downtown Bethany.

----------


## Urbanized

Nah...you'd have to remove downtown Bethany entirely. Problem solved!

----------


## bchris02

NW 39th St has the potential to be an amazing corridor but not as a freeway.  Even if ODOT had unlimited money and resources I don't see the benefit of converting that thoroughfare to Interstate standards.  What would OKC gain from such a conversion that would be worth the loss of all the businesses currently located there as well as the loss of downtown Bethany?  I would love to see 39th St improved and spruced up but converting to an Interstate just wouldn't make sense.

----------


## bradh

If Bethany wasn't dry it would help lol.  I see why the Flat Tire Burgers there failed, went in there one night with the wife to grab a burger and beer, and when half of that equation was missing we left.

----------


## bchris02

> Do you have reading comprehension problems? No one has suggested people be "prohibited" from building. They've said we should stop subsidizing it.


There have been several in this thread and others state there should be urban growth boundaries in an attempt to restrict sprawl.  That I strongly disagree with.  As for subsidizing sprawl, its the city's job to provide services where the people live, whether thats the CBD or 192nd and Portland.  Perhaps a de-annexation movement should be started as that would prevent the city of OKC from being required to provide services to development farther and farther out.  As long as something is in the city limits, the city is obligated to provide city services.

----------


## Canoe

> What I was speaking to is the rapid increase in land / real estate values in the core. How would you feel about, say, a 1,300 sq foot condo that is affordable in the inner city? Maybe even with a tiny yard for the grill? Or at least a balcony? And something you could buy for about $200k? It would be tempting, no?


I can/could build you a 1300 s.f. house in HHE for 225k give or take with a yard and a garage and the best downtown elementary school, no balcony.  Were you serious about the quoted text above?

----------


## Chicken In The Rough

I would like to see the city establish some density corridors - I've always thought the 39th Expressway is an ideal candidate for such. This would be a longer term look at growth strategies with the ultimate goal of establishing some sort of rapid transit. 39th Expressway is wide enough to accommodate a BRT, streetcar, or most any other transit mode. It probably can't support the transit now, but with 20 years of targeted density, it could become a very strong economic engine.

----------


## td25er

People are going to favor places like Edmond over the "urban core".  You can begin and end the argument with the school system.  Next subject.

----------


## Teo9969

> People are going to favor places like Edmond over the "urban core".  You can begin and end the argument with the school system.  Next subject.


Especially because those millennials are getting married and popping out babies like mad...

----------


## Chicken In The Rough

This is only partly true. Schools are important, however, cities all across America, including OKC, are experiencing a rapid rebirth of their cores despite under-performing school districts.

----------


## Zuplar

This is because school districts are really only important to those who have or are going to have children. If not for that I'm sure many would 'shop' around.

----------


## bradh

Then what's "the sauce?"  I think bchris02 hit the nail when he said it's time.  

Millenials will have kids, just later (good on them, that's the way you should do it).

----------


## bradh

> This is because school districts are really only important to those who have or are going to have children. If not for that I'm sure many would 'shop' around.


Which is of course true.  Without kids we'd be right in the thick of it in a heart beat.  I truly think the only ones who wouldn't would be those who truly want to spread out on 1+ acres.

If you believe what most millenials say, our population will eventually just evaporate because they are just too cool and busy to have families.

----------


## DoctorTaco

There are good schools in the urban core. Rex, Wilson and Cleveland, Nichols Hills for elementary. Classen SAS, Belle Isle for middle school. Classen SAS, Harding for high school. All these schools are rated as high as any in the state.

Granted, living in the Wilson or Nichols Hills feeder areas is cost-prohibitive for many. But Cleveland is imminently doable, and many people I know transfer their kids to Wilson, Nichols Hills, Cleveland or now Rex even though they don't live in the designated feeder areas. 

So this old saw about it being "all about the schools" is really tiring to me. If you want to live in the city, and have kids, you can make it work. Many do. It is admittedly slightly harder than just living in Deer Creek and never thinking once about which school your kid is heading off to. But then again, commuting a half hour each morning and again each afternoon is harder than not doing so. So it is a trade off. 

Wanting extra land. Not wanting an old house. These are legitimate reasons to live in the sprawl. Living in the sprawl and then making off like a victim because the schools "forced you into it" is more or less pure B.S.

----------


## adaniel

> Especially because those millennials are getting married and popping out babies like mad...


I posted that “secret sauce” post partly because I do think some on here are really underestimating the massive demographic changes happening in this city and country right now.

Some millennials will eventually have kids but a lot will not. I think of my own circle and very few people my age (late 20's-early 30's) have children, and a good # of those without are actually planning on keeping it that way. That is merely a continuation of a trend that's been gaining steam for about 40 years. It should be noted that 57 percent of households in this country are childless. 

Same with marriage rates...for the first time in this country's history there are more single adults than there are married ones. I don't see that bouncing back even if there's dramatic improvement in the economy.

In fact, the “Leave it to Beaver” family of married parents with one or more kids is, for better or worse, the vast _minority_ in this country right now…only about 20 percent of households. This change will have dramatic consequences on a lot of things in our society, good and bad. 

And yet, we are building housing for this “Leave it to Beaver” group and really nobody else. Is it any wonder why the housing market has been coming back since the end of 2010, and yet the home ownership rate has and still is _declining_? Among other things, we are simply not building the types of housing or communities that are aligned to our new reality. 

I don't want to dismiss the importance of good schools and a family friendly enviornment, but it tends to be used as a crutch/excuse for a lot of things when in fact it is simply not important to a lot of people.

----------


## soonerguru

> People are going to favor places like Edmond over the "urban core".  You can begin and end the argument with the school system.  Next subject.


Very open minded.

----------


## oklip955

I don't know about other single adults but I love living on an acearage. I don't think I could live in the urban core. With that said, let there be a variety of housing choices for all. My concern is if the core is improved and housing cost increase where does it push the poor and never do wells to? If you clean up blight in one area, where does it move to??

----------


## bradh

to the burbs...and then lets see how much some of these people care.  it's easy to hate on the suburbs now because because it's filled with mostly affluent.  if it was filled with the poor, i wonder how many would still talk about limiting services out there.

----------


## oklip955

Look at the income level of Bethany and tell me its Affluent. I worked in Edmond so Edmond was a natural choice as far as housing.

----------


## bchris02

> to the burbs...and then lets see how much some of these people care.  it's easy to hate on the suburbs now because because it's filled with mostly affluent.  if it was filled with the poor, i wonder how many would still talk about limiting services out there.


The old assumption that suburbs = affluent hasn't been the case for quite a while now.   I remember back in the '90s that was usually the case but today some suburbs are every bit as distressed as some inner city areas.  Nonetheless, I believe people's argument is that the city of OKC shouldn't provide the same level of services to far-flung areas that are still within the city limits, such as 192nd and Western, as it does to residents who live in the core.  Nobody is saying that towns like Edmond and Bethany shouldn't exist or provide their own services.

----------


## DoctorTaco

> The old assumption that suburbs = affluent hasn't been the case for quite a while now.   I remember back in the '90s that was usually the case but today some suburbs are every bit as distressed as some inner city areas.  Nonetheless, I believe people's argument is that the city of OKC shouldn't provide the same level of services to far-flung areas that are still within the city limits, such as 192nd and Western, as it does to residents who live in the core.  Nobody is saying that towns like Edmond and Bethany shouldn't exist or provide their own services.


A voice of reason!

----------


## hoya

> to the burbs...and then lets see how much some of these people care.  it's easy to hate on the suburbs now because because it's filled with mostly affluent.  if it was filled with the poor, i wonder how many would still talk about limiting services out there.


Del City is totally rich.

----------


## bradh

Sorry let me clarify, I was talking about the far flung stretches within the city limits, not other cities.  If the poor were really ever to be pushed out to the outer limits and all urban areas gentrified, would you care still about limiting services to those out there?

----------


## hoya

The issue isn't limiting services.  The issue is stopping incredibly inefficient sprawl.

----------


## bradh

> There are good schools in the urban core. Rex, Wilson and Cleveland, Nichols Hills for elementary. Classen SAS, Belle Isle for middle school. Classen SAS, Harding for high school. All these schools are rated as high as any in the state.
> 
> Granted, living in the Wilson or Nichols Hills feeder areas is cost-prohibitive for many. But Cleveland is imminently doable, and many people I know transfer their kids to Wilson, Nichols Hills, Cleveland or now Rex even though they don't live in the designated feeder areas. 
> 
> So this old saw about it being "all about the schools" is really tiring to me. If you want to live in the city, and have kids, you can make it work. Many do. It is admittedly slightly harder than just living in Deer Creek and never thinking once about which school your kid is heading off to. But then again, commuting a half hour each morning and again each afternoon is harder than not doing so. So it is a trade off. 
> 
> Wanting extra land. Not wanting an old house. These are legitimate reasons to live in the sprawl. Living in the sprawl and then making off like a victim because the schools "forced you into it" is more or less pure B.S.


There are a couple good schools, you are correct (although I don't think Cleveland is where you think it is...yet).  It is cost prohibitive to live in some of these zones, and if you're having to transfer your kids to somewhere you're not zoned to, you're completely defeating the purpose of going urban.  What good does it to do move downtown, send them to Rex through 6th (something we really wanted to do), if after that you have to drive them to Belle Isle MS for 7th & 8th?  Kinda defeats the purpose.  Harding is a lottery, so you can't count on that being an option, and I don't know enough about Classen, but that's an application process with limited spots as well, no?

It's no guarantee to get into Rex either unless you are in it's zone.  They didn't even make it through all of the second tier applicants this year.

Schools by all means aren't the only reason, you're correct, but it's a bigger deal than what you are trying to diminish it for.  My wife grew up in old homes, saw the work her folks constantly put in to it.  For two working parents, I can see why some don't want to mess with it.  I also see a 30 minute commute as a breeze, but I also grew up in Houston and lived in Phoenix & DFW, so 30 minute commutes are nothing in those places  :Smile:

----------


## bradh

> The issue isn't limiting services.  The issue is stopping incredibly inefficient sprawl.


Okay, not worth arguing over anyway because it's about a theoretical that will likely never happen, stupid of me to go down that road anyhow.

----------


## Richard at Remax

They are building in the burbs because that is desirable for some folks and they are selling. They are also building in the core because that is also desirable and because they are selling. 

The best thing to take away with it is, compared to 10 years ago, there are options for all living. People will live where they want to live for all reasons, and now it seems to be easier than ever.

----------


## turnpup

It's really a matter of priorities when it comes to the whole where to live/where to school issue.  We sought out an old home in an historic neighborhood in the urban core because that's what we really, really wanted.  We also knew that, in so doing, schools would be an issue if we were to have children some day.  Sure enough, when the child came along, we had a big decision to make (which I've posted at length about in the thread on OKC public schools).  In our particular case, we went private.  It costs a fortune, and it involves a 20- to 30-minute commute twice daily, but that was what we knew we were getting into and that's what we've prioritized.  

Others we know have different priorities.  Example:  A family in the neighborhood paid big bucks for their two children to attend daycare every day for the first five years of their lives, yet balked at the idea of paying for their formal schooling when the time came (which probably would've cost the same or even less than day care).  Instead, they are attending one of the above-mentioned "better" public schools in another part of the city.  That's their choice.  Just like the people that really don't have the urge to live downtown or live in old houses, or perhaps simply prefer to live in the suburbs, or specifically do that for the better public schools, make their choices.

Having said that, it is a shame that there aren't more viable inner-city options for public schooling.  It's a pain in the butt to have to give something up (or pay for it) in order to get to live where you want.

----------


## Laramie

This should be a shot in the arm for the Oklahoma City metro economy:

Relocation for Seattle employees who want to keep their jobs.

*Boeing's big move could mean 900 jobs for OKC:*




> Boeing could relocate about 900 defense and support-related jobs to Oklahoma City as part of a plan to shift defense-related jobs away from Washington state.
> 
> The aerospace company already employs 2,000 in Oklahoma City, and the latest expansion could represent nearly a 50 percent increase in its presence in the city, said Roy Williams, president and CEO of the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber.


 Oklahoman_--September 30, 2014_

Boeing moving Washington jobs to Oklahoma City, St. Louis | Local & Regional | Seattle News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News | KOMO News

----------


## MadMonk

> This should be a shot in the arm for the Oklahoma City metro economy:
> 
> Relocation for Seattle employees who want to keep their jobs.
> 
> *Boeing's big move could mean 900 jobs for OKC:*
> 
>  Oklahoman_--September 30, 2014_
> 
> Boeing moving Washington jobs to Oklahoma City, St. Louis | Local & Regional | Seattle News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News | KOMO News


LOL, as if the Seattle folks didn't have enough to hate OKC for already.   :Wink:

----------


## David

Hey, if we just slowly move all of the jobs and employees  and employers in Seattle to OKC, it's _kind_ of like them getting the Supersonics back.

----------


## Rover

A year or so ago I was on a car rental shuttle bus from Seatac Airport and was the only one on the bus.  The driver struck up a conversation with me and asked "where are you from".  Oklahoma City, I replied.  His response....."What are you up here to steal this time?"

Yes, they are still smarting from the Sonics moving.  LOL.

----------


## Urbanized

How the Suburbs Got Poor

----------


## Mississippi Blues

> A year or so ago I was on a car rental shuttle bus from Seatac Airport and was the only one on the bus.  The driver struck up a conversation with me and asked "where are you from".  Oklahoma City, I replied.  His response....."What are you up here to steal this time?"
> 
> Yes, they are still smarting from the Sonics moving.  LOL.


I was at Sea-Tac in June and I wore a Thunder t-shirt that day and while I was in line for screening, a TSA agent walked passed me and said "we want a refund".

----------


## Laramie

> A year or so ago I was on a car rental shuttle bus from Seatac Airport and was the only one on the bus.  The driver struck up a conversation with me and asked "where are you from".  Oklahoma City, I replied.  His response....."What are you up here to steal this time?"
> 
> Yes, they are still smarting from the Sonics moving.  LOL.


My experience in Seattle for the Huskies-Sooners football game in 2008 was a real surprise.   Several people  who saw me in my Oklahoma Sooners attire did casually mention the Sonics relocation.   "Yes, the Sonics are headed to Oklahoma." I got the feeling that most of them really didn't care.

The Seattle area was impressive.  They had skyscrapers everywhere.   The nickname 'Emerald City' fits Seattle.   Bellevue looked like a larger modern version of Corpus Christi, TX .

----------


## roboticbrad

On the Census website it shows the city of Oklahoma City 2013 estimated population at 610,000. Does anybody know of any estimates for the future population of OKC? Like 2023? Just curious.

----------


## LakeEffect

> On the Census website it shows the city of Oklahoma City 2013 estimated population at 610,000. Does anybody know of any estimates for the future population of OKC? Like 2023? Just curious.


2050: 891,000 or so (see page 48: http://www.planokc.org/docs/2014/080...Appendices.pdf)

----------


## bchris02

It's really impossible to accurately figure population growth years out.  Cities never grow at a set rate continually.  Even the census estimates can be very wrong, as seen when the 2010 census numbers were revealed.

----------


## soonerguru

What would be considered "critical mass" for OKC Metro area population? We're going to hit 1.5 million fairly soon.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

I'm willing to bet OKC's population will explode and beat projections.

----------


## bchris02

> I'm willing to bet OKC's population will explode and beat projections.


Charlotte's population exploded from 540,828 people in 2000 to over 700,000 in 2010.  If growth really takes off, I think OKC could see 800,000 in the next twenty years, well before 2050.

----------


## Thundercitizen

> A year or so ago I was on a car rental shuttle bus from Seatac Airport and was the only one on the bus.  The driver struck up a conversation with me and asked "where are you from".  Oklahoma City, I replied.  His response....."What are you up here to steal this time?"
> 
> Yes, they are still smarting from the Sonics moving.  LOL.


They better watch out.  Keep it up and we're taking the Seahawks.  Some "redneck hillbilly" from "hicktown" will somehow go in and finesse the Seahawks away from Seattle.  How dumb hicks from Oklahoma City "stole" the Sonics from Mensa City is a mystery to me.

----------


## warreng88

So, I remember hearing 100 people a day were moving to Austin and thought that was a staggering number. So, I did some research and found the population of the OKC metro area was 1.25 million in 2010 and has gone to an estimated 1.41 million in 2014. That is a difference of 160,000 people in four years, 40,000 per year or 109.6 per day. Now, that is not just people moving here, it is also people being born and dying. Any idea what an accurate estimate would be for this? Maybe 50/day?

----------


## bchris02

> So, I remember hearing 100 people a day were moving to Austin and thought that was a staggering number. So, I did some research and found the population of the OKC metro area was 1.25 million in 2010 and has gone to an estimated 1.41 million in 2014. That is a difference of 160,000 people in four years, 40,000 per year or 109.6 per day. Now, that is not just people moving here, it is also people being born and dying. Any idea what an accurate estimate would be for this? Maybe 50/day?


Where did you see the metro estimate is now 1.41 million?  I am not doubting that but last I checked, the OKC metro had just crossed the 1.3 million mark.

----------


## warreng88

> Where did you see the metro estimate is now 1.41 million?  I am not doubting that but last I checked, the OKC metro had just crossed the 1.3 million mark.


Oklahoma City Population 2014 - World Population Review

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> In 2014, Oklahoma City has an estimated population of 1.31 million people.


Says 1.3 +

but then this says 


> In 2014, Oklahoma City metro is home to 1.41 million residents


I don't get it.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

Google has us at 1,252,987

https://www.google.com/search?q=okc+...m=122&ie=UTF-8

----------


## warreng88

> Says 1.3 +


It also says 1.41 in the second paragraph, but that could have been a typo. So if the 1.31 is correct, that brings the number to 60,000 people in four years, 15,000 per year, or 41/day.

----------


## bchris02

> It also says 1.41 in the second paragraph, but that could have been a typo. So if the 1.31 is correct, that brings the number to 60,000 people in four years, 15,000 per year, or 41/day.


Yeah 1.31 seems like the correct number.  1.41 is likely a typo.  OKC may reach 1.4 by 2020 if current trends continue.  The Google estimate is the official 2010 census count.

----------


## adaniel

This website is a great resource for accurate population numbers:

Oklahoma City, OK MSA Population and Components of Change -- Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University Home

According to this, the OKC MSA is 1.319 million as of June 2013, while the OKC CSA (MSA+Pottowatomie County) is 1.39 million. If someone is extrapolating current growth rates to now, OKC CSA is likely over 1.4 million. 

Further more, if you total up all the net migration (both domestic and international), OKC has added just shy of 37,000 people over a three year period. 

I'm a bit of a statistics nerd and could prbably see how this stacks up to our peer cities if someone was interested.

----------


## warreng88

> I'm a bit of a statistics nerd and could prbably see how this stacks up to our peer cities if someone was interested.


I'm interested.

----------


## adaniel

Cool. May have to wait for get off of work this evening...I have to be somewhat productive today LOL. There does seem to be a lot of debate on here as to whether OKC is really seeing meaningful population growth or is merely trending slightly above average in that department.

----------


## Jake

Dat net domestic migration.

----------


## SOONER8693

> I'm interested.


Me too. Please.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> Yeah 1.31 seems like the correct number.  1.41 is likely a typo.  OKC may reach 1.4 by 2020 if current trends continue.  The Google estimate is the official 2010 census count.


I bet OKC will reach 1.4 way before 2020 and if Adaniel is right, we are already there.

----------


## bchris02

> I bet OKC will reach 1.4 way before 2020 and if Adaniel is right, we are already there.


If you include Pottawatomie County (Shawnee) then yes, the metro is already there.  Personally I feel Shawnee is just disconnected enough to not be included.  Right now, the US Census Bureau feels the same way being that its designated as a CSA, meaning there still are commute patterns into Oklahoma County but not enough for it to be considered part of the MSA.

----------


## PWitty

> This website is a great resource for accurate population numbers:
> 
> Oklahoma City, OK MSA Population and Components of Change -- Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University Home
> 
> According to this, the OKC MSA is 1.319 million as of June 2013, while the OKC CSA (MSA+Pottowatomie County) is 1.39 million. If someone is extrapolating current growth rates to now, OKC CSA is likely over 1.4 million. 
> 
> Further more, if you total up all the net migration (both domestic and international), OKC has added just shy of 37,000 people over a three year period. 
> 
> I'm a bit of a statistics nerd and could prbably see how this stacks up to our peer cities if someone was interested.


It's crazy looking at the international and domestic migration trends for some of the largest cities. NYC, for instance, had a staggering net loss of 107K domestic migrants, but that was more than offset by a net gain of 126K international migrants. Crazy.

----------


## Thundercitizen

> there still are commute patterns into Oklahoma County but not enough for it to be considered part of the MSA.


Interesting.  Wondered about criteria for CSA vs MSA inclusion.  Shawnee did seem too distant.  What about Chickasha?  Same criterion, probably.  Not a strong enough commute pattern.

I also had been interested in an off-topic for another thread; TV market size.  How Ogden is lumped in with Salt Lake City and why Tulsa wouldn't be included in the OKC/Thunder TV market.  Anyway, back to topic.

----------


## adaniel

Alright folks, without further adieu, here are the requested population growth rates for OKC as well as it's peer metros. For my highly unscientific comparisons, I am using the 5 metros that are gradually bigger and gradually smaller than OKC as of estimates done by the census in 2013. They are, in order of size, Virginia Beach, Providence, Milwaukee, Jacksonville, and Memphis for metros bigger than OKC. And Louisville, Richmond, New Orleans, Hartford, and Raleigh as MSA's smaller than. The components of population growth have been broken down and are from 2010-2013. I am emphasizing the total growth number and total migration number. 

*Norfolk-Virginia Beach, VA*
2013 Population: 1,702,484
Change from 2010: _30,801_
Births-Deaths Surplus: 29,592
Int'l Migration: 15,656
Domestic Migration: -17,728
Total Migration:  _-2,072_

*Providence-Fall River, RI-MA*
2013 Population: 1,604,291
Change from 2010: _3,439_
Births-Deaths Surplus: 6,736
Int'l Migration: 13,365
Domestic Migration: -17,253
Total Migration: _ -3,888_

*Milwaukee-Waukesha, WI*
2013 Population: 1,569,659
Change from 2010: _13,751_
Births-Deaths Surplus: 21,568
Int'l Migration: 6,547
Domestic Migration: -14,282
Total Migration: _ -7,735_

*Jacksonville, FL*
2013 Population: 1,394,624
Change from 2010: _49,028_
Births-Deaths Surplus: 18,512
Int'l Migration: 9,760
Domestic Migration: 16,932
Total Migration: _26,692_

*Jacksonville, FL*
2013 Population: 1,394,624
Change from 2010: _49,028_
Births-Deaths Surplus: 18,512
Int'l Migration: 9,760
Domestic Migration: 16,932
Total Migration: _26,692_

*Memphis, TN-AR-MS*
2013 Population: 1,333,175
Change from 2010: _17,075_
Births-Deaths Surplus: 24,364
Int'l Migration: 4,874
Domestic Migration: -13,575
Total Migration:_ -8,701_

_Oklahoma City, OK_
2013 Population: 1,319,677
Change from 2010: _66,690_
Births-Deaths Surplus: 23,706
Int'l Migration: 6,759
Domestic Migration: 30,086
Total Migration: _36,845_

*Louisville, KY-IN*
2013 Population: 1,312,039
Change from 2010: _28,473_
Births-Deaths Surplus: 14,324
Int'l Migration: 6,752
Domestic Migration: 5,469
Total Migration: _12,221_

*Richmond, VA*
2013 Population: 1,296,680
Change from 2010: _38,429_
Births-Deaths Surplus: 15,432
Int'l Migration: 9,599
Domestic Migration: 11,006
Total Migration: _20,605_

*New Orleans-Metaire, LA*
2013 Population: 1,219,225
Change from 2010: _51,461_
Births-Deaths Surplus: 14,799
Int'l Migration: 8,652
Domestic Migration: 21,371
Total Migration: _30,023_

*Hartford, CT*
2013 Population: 1,215,211
Change from 2010: _2,830_
Births-Deaths Surplus: 5,873
Int'l Migration: 15,206
Domestic Migration: -18,979
Total Migration:_ -3,773_

*Raleigh-Cary, NC*
2013 Population: 1,214,516
Change from 2010: _84,026_
Births-Deaths Surplus: 27,228
Int'l Migration: 10,875
Domestic Migration: 38,088
Total Migration: _48,963_

**FWIW, only Raleigh exceeded OKC's total population growth as well as the total migration number.

----------


## AP

I'm really impressed with those numbers.

----------


## bchris02

nm

----------


## bchris02

Very impressed by this.

Raleigh is a special case because it's really one urbanized area along with Durham, very similar to Dallas/Ft Worth.  For some reason they are still separate MSAs according to the Census Bureau.

----------


## josh

> So, I remember hearing 100 people a day were moving to Austin and thought that was a staggering number. So, I did some research and found the population of the OKC metro area was 1.25 million in 2010 and has gone to an estimated 1.41 million in 2014. That is a difference of 160,000 people in four years, 40,000 per year or 109.6 per day. Now, that is not just people moving here, it is also people being born and dying. Any idea what an accurate estimate would be for this? Maybe 50/day?


Whenever anyone says "X amount of people moved to X city a day" all they're doing is taking the population growth in one year, including births, and diving that number by 365.

For instance, San Antonio grew by 43,000 people from 2012 to 2013. That's 117 people a day moving to San Antonio. But that's not accurate as that includes births.

A more accurate number would just use the domestic and international migration to a city in a year. For San Antonio, that would be 26,000 people, which is 71 people a day moving to San Antonio.

For Oklahoma City, the 2012-2013 growth was 22,000, which is 60 people a day moving to Oklahoma City, but the more accurate domestic/international migration number was 14,000, which is 38 people a day moving to Oklahoma City.

Whenever you see the claim of X amount of people moving to a city, it's always the birth/domestic/international number and not the more accurate domestic/international number.

Also, to clarify your claim, the OKC metro population was 1,252,987. In 2013 the population was 1,319,677, which is a growth of 66,000 or an average of 22,000 a year. 

This is the website I used for the figures for OKC. They use official census data.

----------


## bchris02

OKC's growth is impressive compared to many of its peers, but Texas cities are currently in a league of their own.  San Antonio gets overshadowed by Austin but there is quite a bit going on there as well.  I always thought San Antonio was better suited to be a major city than Austin simply because of its infrastructure.  Austin clearly was never meant to be a large as its become.

----------


## josh

> OKC's growth is impressive compared to many of its peers, but Texas cities are currently in a league of their own.  San Antonio gets overshadowed by Austin but there is quite a bit going on there as well.  I always thought San Antonio was better suited to be a major city than Austin simply because of its infrastructure.  Austin clearly was never meant to be a large as its become.


A lot more going on in San Antonio than most people assume. For instance, the two metro aeas grew by 395,000 and 394,000 respectively between 2000 and 2010. But if you asked most people, you'd think San Antonio's growth during that decade was comparable to Omaha or something, in comparison to the rest of Texas.

It's quite bizarre.

Although, I think recently San Antonio's national perception has greatly changed and continues to with the development and growth of Southtown and Midtown (more so the Pearl) since 2009.


If

----------


## warreng88

This is hypothetic, probably out of the rhelm of possibilty question: What is something that could happen in OKC to bring Austin/DFW/Charlotte kind of growth to the city? We are seeing a major movement of Boeing moving/hiring 900 people to work in OKC. Would there have to be a major corporate relocation with tens of thousands of jobs?

I feel like we are in the middle/on the cusp of a huge amount of growth and I know we will never be NYC, Chicago or LA, but I do want to see OKC grow and people to stop asking "where is that?"

If we can update our liquor/brewing laws (not a big deal to some, but probably a big deal to millenials), OKC public schools start to improve more and it becomes more walkable, I think we can get there.

----------


## bchris02

> This is hypothetic, probably out of the rhelm of possibilty question: What is something that could happen in OKC to bring Austin/DFW/Charlotte kind of growth to the city? We are seeing a major movement of Boeing moving/hiring 900 people to work in OKC. Would there have to be a major corporate relocation with tens of thousands of jobs?
> 
> I feel like we are in the middle/on the cusp of a huge amount of growth and I know we will never be NYC, Chicago or LA, but I do want to see OKC grow and people to stop asking "where is that?"
> 
> If we can update our liquor/brewing laws (not a big deal to some, but probably a big deal to millenials), OKC public schools start to improve more and it becomes more walkable, I think we can get there.


High-paying jobs is the #1 thing that will drive long term growth and improvement in OKC.  People for the most part choose where they live based on job, friends, and family first and foremost followed by lifestyle.  As the city grows, especially if that growth is mostly educated professionals, the amenities will come which will drive even more growth.  OKC today is a much easier sell to out of state young professionals than it was ten or even five years ago.  It will only get better in the future.

Oklahoma's severe weather season likely gives a lot of out of state transplants second thoughts.  It's laughable to a born and bred Okie to be fearful of tornadoes but its a big issue to people who didn't grow up around tornado culture.  If there is anything that will help keep a check on runaway growth a-la Austin, it will be that.

OKC is doing a pretty good job already at pushing walkable development.  As the city continues to grow urbanization will continue.  The city needs to stop granting variances to auto-oriented proposals in the urban core.

Unfortunately, I strongly doubt there will be any meaningful liquor law reform for the foreseeable future.  There really isn't the political will in this state to make it happen.  However, it would be nice (and may be even realistic) to make a few changes to make the existing laws more workable such as later closing times and legalizing refrigerated beer.  Even that though is highly unlikely.  Legalizing brewpubs is probably the biggest thing that is needed at the present time.  I doubt the liquor laws are a huge factor weighing into people's decisions to move to OKC.  They are more of an annoyance to people after they get here.

----------


## HOT ROD

I think the LCB should offer variances to certain establishments zoned in an entertainment district or something to that effect. If there were specific areas of the city where the city and businesses agree to have amped up security but also allow more relaxed/urbanized amenities, I think it could be a huge boon and allow the city to have even more props when folks visit/move.

---------

As an OKC expat, I can offer my opinion on the other question. I'd LOVE to come back home to OKC if it were not for the weather (not a hot fan). The weather is not going to change but I am very excited about the growth and renaissance of the city and would love to be a part of it. I ONLY wish the renaissance could have started before 1990, some of my decisions might have been different and I might have stuck it out. But now, the trade-off of my occupation and where I am in Seattle vs. moving back to OKC haven't swung in that direction so I don't consider returning as I'm too entrenched here. If OKC gets a strong finance or corporate sector (and things grossly change with my company) then I would strongly consider moving back despite the weather. 

So that's it, nothing to do with OKC's image or past reputation or not being on the coast/mountains or whatever tier this or that for me - just a case of where I am professionally and the fact that it isn't available in OKC at the moment, no offense. There are plenty of options for me (at least on paper) here in Seattle or in SF and certainly in Chicago and NYC if I dared to go that relocation route. Now things could change, as my previous employer is now making significant investments in OKC at the moment; and if I was still an engineer at Boeing - I'd likely be moving to OKC (lol). 

Who knows? Maybe if _DEEP POCKET_ OKC investors emerge again but this time buy out a certain Seattle-area multinational that I work at and move the HQ to a new home in downtown OKC - then I would very likely and gladly move with it. I'd strongly consider a move if we opened up an office in OKC too.  :Smile:

----------


## HOT ROD

That aside, I'll happily continue being one of your confirmed tourists every year. You can count on 3 butts-in-seat at least once a year and a significant influx of Seattle based dollars into your local economy. Like our trips back to China, I love to see the progress/renaissance in OKC. In some respects it seems as if my wife's city/state in China and OKC are making similar civic/economic investments and improvements and I love to see it. 

The biggest improvement that I've observed in OKC (aside from infrastructure and OPTIONS!!!) is the attitude and pride of_ most_ of the residents in the city. People don't apologize too much anymore and definitely prepare to have someone defend OKC now-a-days. Used to be I'd come visit and everyone from the shuttle driver to the hotel staff to the restaurant folks to the airline staff would be apologizing that OKC wasn't this or didn't have that or downright putting the city down (as of 'why would you want to come here?' seriously, I actually had hospitality people IN OKC ask me this). ... Those scenarios were frankly embarrassing, particularly since I am an expat from OKC, to return home to that. I am so GLAD those days are gone - forever! And with the improvements to come, I expect more swagger and confidence from people in OKC and hopefully more things to show off the city matures.

----------


## boitoirich

+22,000/year and the high rate of in migration reinforces the importance of Plan OKC for me.

----------


## gopokes88

> High-paying jobs is the #1 thing that will drive long term growth and improvement in OKC.  People for the most part choose where they live based on job, friends, and family first and foremost followed by lifestyle.  As the city grows, especially if that growth is mostly educated professionals, the amenities will come which will drive even more growth.  OKC today is a much easier sell to out of state young professionals than it was ten or even five years ago.  It will only get better in the future.
> 
> Oklahoma's severe weather season likely gives a lot of out of state transplants second thoughts.  It's laughable to a born and bred Okie to be fearful of tornadoes but its a big issue to people who didn't grow up around tornado culture.  If there is anything that will help keep a check on runaway growth a-la Austin, it will be that.
> 
> OKC is doing a pretty good job already at pushing walkable development.  As the city continues to grow urbanization will continue.  The city needs to stop granting variances to auto-oriented proposals in the urban core.
> 
> Unfortunately, I strongly doubt there will be any meaningful liquor law reform for the foreseeable future.  There really isn't the political will in this state to make it happen.  However, it would be nice (and may be even realistic) to make a few changes to make the existing laws more workable such as later closing times and legalizing refrigerated beer.  Even that though is highly unlikely.*  Legalizing brewpubs is probably the biggest thing that is needed at the present time. * I doubt the liquor laws are a huge factor weighing into people's decisions to move to OKC.  They are more of an annoyance to people after they get here.


That is actually slowly becoming a reality. The political will power is there for it and it doesn't have to go before state voters it can be changed procedurally with ABLE.

----------


## warreng88

> Unfortunately, I strongly doubt there will be any meaningful liquor law reform for the foreseeable future.  There really isn't the political will in this state to make it happen.  However, it would be nice (and may be even realistic) to make a few changes to make the existing laws more workable such as later closing times and legalizing refrigerated beer.  Even that though is highly unlikely.  Legalizing brewpubs is probably the biggest thing that is needed at the present time.  *I doubt the liquor laws are a huge factor weighing into people's decisions to move to OKC.* They are more of an annoyance to people after they get here.


I was thinking more about retailers that want to move here but so much of their business is reliant on wine and higher point beer that they can't do it yet.

----------

