OKC defintely needs to de-annex. Why? Take a look at a wall map. The huge swaths of land in NE OKC all the way out to Jones and SE OKC out past Newalla, are NEVER going to see development. EVER. Infrastructure doesn't go out that far, except electricity, to any rural subdivisions that DO exist, but cable won't go that far, neither will sewer.

But, what does spread our resources out thin are police and fire protection. If someone's house catches fire WAY out on Triple X Road, who has to haul there equipment way out there? Yes, OKCFD. Then the police and rescue have to show up as well, and let's all hope that who ever was in the house got out.

I think OKC can stand to lose 250 square miles easily without any loss of population (maybe 5k at the most). That would put us at 358 square miles, and with 546,000 (2008 est.) our population density would be 1,525 per square mile.

True, but this development is chump change compared to the growth of Catoosa, Claremore, Owasso, Broken Arrow, Bixby, Jenks, Glenpool, Sapulpa, and Sand Springs. The S.W. area and the part on the Creek Turnpike (by New Tulsa haha) are it 50 years from now their is no new land. With the clowns like Roscoe Jack and John Eagleton on the council refusing to annex areas north of the city, there is little hope, they instead waste their time on a bid for the 2020 games. Most of the SW land is in Jenks schools and its almost gone. The NW area is in Tulsa schools, thats not gonna boom anytime soon, sorry. The leadership of Tulsa, minus Kathy Taylor is not thinking about the future (KT was smart enough to push sales tax growth on Tulsa's borders Tulsa Hills TIF, and Target at 101st and Memorial) however now Tulsa is back in the hands of clowns. As a former Tulsan, the outlook is bleak and the brain drain is on.

There is still plenty of land in SW Tulsa and it is far from being built out but moving in that direction. You mentioned New Tulsa which Tulsa annexed in the 90's, that area is also growing along the Creek Turnpike north of BA. And if there is a highway built northwest Tulsa will grow fast. Yes it's in Tulsa schools but they would be new schools considering there is nothing there currently. Not many cities the size of Tulsa have a large area of empty land just 3-4 miles from downtown. There is also a good deal of infill in midtown Tulsa where some older neighborhoods feel almost completely new.

OKC could lose some of its land area far to the west and especially east and be in better shape. Both cities need to focus on existing areas anyway.

Would it be possible for Penn Square to expand upward versus outward. I know of some shopping malls that were 1 level at first and expanded to 2 levels. Don't know if this is possible going from 2 to 3 levels.
It would probably be cost prohibitive, they had to tear up a lot of the existing mall when they went from one story to two stories in the 80's and back then Penn Square was pretty empty so it was an easier thing to do than it would be now. Building an extension towards the northwest corner and associated parking garages would be the mos likely direction for expansion. If they were to pick up another anchor the only places that it could go would be that NW corner or along NW Expressway, anything built new could easily be designed/built for a possible upward expansion.


lBut look at Dallas, they aren't suffering and they aren't anywhere near 600 square miles and are LINED with suburbs in every direction. Chicago even more so.

all I am saying, is yes I am thinking of today - and yes OKC is not sustainable given such a large area and a relative lack of population to justify having development go ONLY to the fringe (unless there is a tax break). Why didn't OKC take Dallas's model.

I agree Dallas was stupid in not creating a watershed big enough. But again, other cites have shown it to be successful despite having suburbs or unincorporated in the way.
You aren't looking far enough back, Dallas has suffered greatly from being landlocked, especially when I lived there in the early 90's when everything inside Loop 12 was pretty much abandoned. That was all the City of Dallas talked about for 15-20 years since the oil bust in the early 80's. The burbs exploded in population and tax base while Dallas proper was decaying. Dallas was in worse shape than OKC has ever been. Most of the more expensive residential areas "in Dallas" were not in the city limits of the City of Dallas and located in the small towns like Highland Park or University Park, which also had more of the high end retail. The City of Dallas would love to have a portion of OKC's "problem". It took a nationwide look to the urban areas of cities all over the country to "correct" many of the problems that Dallas has, they still have many more issues that I don't think will ever be resolved. Dallas gets by with a lot that places like OKC or Tulsa couldn't just by the combined population of the metro area.

I'm not saying keeping OKC territory as is, is the answer but being landlocked creates a whole other mess of issues if everyone around you is growing. When I lived in Dallas in the early 90's 121 & Preston was nothing but a two lane blacktop in the middle of fields. Dallas proper could have used up a ton of that growth that Plano, Frisco, McKinney and others have had.

OKC defintely needs to de-annex. Why? Take a look at a wall map. The huge swaths of land in NE OKC all the way out to Jones and SE OKC out past Newalla, are NEVER going to see development. EVER. Infrastructure doesn't go out that far, except electricity, to any rural subdivisions that DO exist, but cable won't go that far, neither will sewer.

But, what does spread our resources out thin are police and fire protection. If someone's house catches fire WAY out on Triple X Road, who has to haul there equipment way out there? Yes, OKCFD. Then the police and rescue have to show up as well, and let's all hope that who ever was in the house got out.

I think OKC can stand to lose 250 square miles easily without any loss of population (maybe 5k at the most). That would put us at 358 square miles, and with 546,000 (2008 est.) our population density would be 1,525 per square mile.

Saying Never and Ever is a ridiculous statement. That may be true in our lifetime but too many people in this thread refuse to see beyond the end of their noses. Probably within the next 20 years the area between Mustang and Yukon will be totally developed and that is something I could have never imagined. I promise you, also, that if OKC hadn't annexed that area it would all be part of Yukon and Mustang city limits and guess who would be getting the retail tax dollars from that area.

If the ultimate destination is 100% build-out why don't we just do that now and start reaping the benefits now. At some point the long term benefit needs to be achieved otherwise it was never a goal, it was just a illusion.

De-annex now.



Kerry, because deannexation does nothing to achieve 100% build-out within the currently developed area. It won't stop new rural or suburban developments at all. One more time, I'm not arguing against density, just the means you propose to achieve it.

But look at Dallas, they aren't suffering and they aren't anywhere near 600 square miles and are LINED with suburbs in every direction. Chicago even more so.

The situation may not correlate exactly, but if Dallas and Fort Worth had annexed all of the land between them instead of Arlington, Irving, etc. all of the main new tourist and sports attractions in that area wouldn't be taking tax dollars away from Dallas. They wouldn't have had to fight Arlington for the new football stadium and lost.

IMO, one thing that would help OKC's NE growth almost immediately isn't the lack of utilities (which can be extended if development warrants) but the school system. If there was a way OKC public schools could deannex a lof of that NE land in favor of Edmond Schools, you would see larger scale development almost immediately - economy being considered, of course.

The situation may not correlate exactly, but if Dallas and Fort Worth had annexed all of the land between them instead of Arlington, Irving, etc. all of the main new tourist and sports attractions in that area wouldn't be taking tax dollars away from Dallas. They wouldn't have had to fight Arlington for the new football stadium and lost.

Then why doesn't OKC just annex the rest of the State of Oklahoma? Why settle for 650 sq miles? Let's go out and get the whole state that isn't already part of another city. Think of all the tax dollars OKC is missing out on.

Then why doesn't OKC just annex the rest of the State of Oklahoma? Why settle for 650 sq miles? Let's go out and get the whole state that isn't already part of another city. Think of all the tax dollars OKC is missing out on.

And why shouldn't OKC just deannex everything except one square mile around downtown? Then we could have great density and tons of tax dollars from it.

And why shouldn't OKC just deannex everything except one square mile around downtown? Then we could have great density and tons of tax dollars from it.

Any idea how flushed with cash a city of only 1 sq mile around downtown would be? That would be a bonanza. You could patrol the whole thing with a dozen police men, one (maybe 2) fire stations, minimal road maintenance (Project 180 alone would cover a good portion of road maintenance), a school district with hardly any schools, tons of property tax money that could be used to lure in retailers, infrastructure that is already 100% complete, and on and on. Stay away from social spending and it would be an urban utopia.

I don't think you thought your rebuttal all the way through.

Any idea how flushed with cash a city of only 1 sq mile around downtown would be? That would be a bonanza. You could patrol the whole thing with a dozen police men, one (maybe 2) fire stations, minimal road maintenance (Project 180 alone would cover a good portion of road maintenance), a school district with hardly any schools, tons of property tax money that could be used to lure in retailers, infrastructure that is already 100% complete, and on and on. Stay away from social spending and it would be an urban utopia.

I don't think you thought your rebuttal all the way through.

Kerry, I thought it through entirely and my suggestion made just as much sense as your suggestion about annexing the entire state. If you want to live in a one square mile utopia, more power to you. That isn't the lifestyle that the vast majority of Oklahomans want and it never will be. As I've told you over and over, I'm not against density, just your method of achieving it.

As I've told you over and over, I'm not against density, just your method of achieving it.

How would you do it?

Kerry, I thought it through entirely and my suggestion made just as much sense as your suggestion about annexing the entire state. If you want to live in a one square mile utopia, more power to you. That isn't the lifestyle that the vast majority of Oklahomans want and it never will be. As I've told you over and over, I'm not against density, just your method of achieving it.

Kerry's idea sounds good to me. It is what most asian country's do. Small footprint cities with large populations.

Kerry's idea sounds good to me. It is what most asian country's do. Small footprint cities with large populations.

It is how it works here in the US as well. I used to live in Tampa. The City of Tampa is very small and has about 300,000. The rest of us lived in Hillsborough County, population 1,000,000. Somehow Tampa manages to have a every top retailer in the country. Now I understand that Tampa/St. Pete/Clearwater is pushing 3 million total but St. Pete has a small city limit with about 250,000 people and Clearwater is even smaller.

I don't disagree with smaller being better but, I don't think Okla. City is going to de-annex any of it's area.

So, with that being said, how should Okla. City better itself being that it is and likely will remain 620 square miles?

I don't disagree with smaller being better but, I don't think Okla. City is going to de-annex any of it's area.

So, with that being said, how should Okla. City better itself being that it is and likely will remain 620 square miles?

Beg your pardon, 608 square miles. The rest is under water. :)

Beg your pardon, 608 square miles. The rest is under water. :)

Well there you go. We just need more water.

okclee - you are right, I don't think OKC will ever de-annex any land so you have to yourself this question, do the people of Oklahoma City want a denser city. My guess is that a lot of them don't, even if it meant a lower tax bill. I think they take a lot of pride in being the largest non-consolidate government city in the US even if they pay more in taxes than they should to do it.

What are some ideas / suggestions to add density in Okla. City, without the de-annex?

Redo the zoning laws ensuring large amounts of the outlying city are maintaned for agricultural uses.

Make it more difficult for developers to build huge housing developments outside present areas. This can be done by requiring they expand any major section line road at their own expense. Require they widen any bridges. Require they expand utilities at their own expenses and require electric services to be under ground. Hookup fees should be raised significanty. I am not knowledgeable about this so some of these things may already be required.

Real estate is based on location. One factor of location are schools which, within the OKC limits are a major hiderance to redevelopment of the inner city. OKC schools should become open enrollment meaning that you can send your child to whatever school you want as long as they have room. Schools that don't compete are free to become charter schools. Maybe someone else out there has more ideas on how you can legally increase the quality of OKC public schools without running afoul of constitutional issues of equal funding and such.

OKC public schools could look to deannex some of the outlying areas to other public school districts that might be willing to take them.

Lower property taxes for inner city areas that need to be redeveloped while raising them for the outlying area. Perhaps some sort of formula that determines the additional costs of city services for outlying areas lower costs for older areas can be developed.

What other ideas are out there?

OKC public schools could look to deannex some of the outlying areas to other public school districts that might be willing to take them.




I like all of your ideas except this one. I don't see what it would accomplish for adding density to the city. The conventional wisdom seems to be that consolidating school districts would be better for financial reasons.

How would you do it?

Kerry, now you're being practical. It's much better to have a realistic discussion about achieving goals instead of just hoping that something that will never happen does happen. As others have mentioned, deannextion isn't going to happen. Better planning, zoning, and incentives are the only thing that make density happen.

OK - here is the plan then. If we can't deannex the land then OKC could treat it like it was deannexed.

The city shouldn't pay for any infrastructure outside the current urbanized area. As mug said, any infrastructure improvements will need to be built by the developer at their own cost. This includes schools, fire stations, police, utilities, etc. I wouldn't even do zoning. Let it be a free for all.

OK - here is the plan then. If we can't deannex the land then OKC could treat it like it was deannexed.

The city shouldn't pay for any infrastructure outside the current urbanized area. As mug said, any infrastructure improvements will need to be built by the developer at their own cost. This includes schools, fire stations, police, utilities, etc. I wouldn't even do zoning. Let it be a free for all.More or less what is done now.

^^ Flintysooner.....Are you stating a fact or is that a question?

^^ Flintysooner.....Are you stating a fact or is that a question?Experience.

OK - here is the plan then. If we can't deannex the land then OKC could treat it like it was deannexed.

The city shouldn't pay for any infrastructure outside the current urbanized area. As mug said, any infrastructure improvements will need to be built by the developer at their own cost. This includes schools, fire stations, police, utilities, etc. I wouldn't even do zoning. Let it be a free for all.

Now we're starting to agree. Moving to a rural area and expecting full city services should have a price tag. Those who were already living in those areas when they were annexed have a better argument but there aren't many of them left. Schools are a different matter. School districts and city limits have nothing to do with each other and funding doesn't depend on what city you're in or even if you're in a city at all. I don't agree about the lack of zoning, however.