Looks like we are on our way to the 4 million mark this decade.

I believe Oklahoma will experience double digit growth in this decade maybe even the next. Just believe perceptions, business growth, and improved QofL througout the State will lead to a new influx of both natives returning and new residents looking for a great place to live.

OKC was mentioned by CNBC this morning as one of the 10 best cities to buy a home.

very good news! it looks like the population has grown by about 64,301 over last year, which is the highest population gain for oklahoma in years. if that growth holds steady, we could hit 4,000,000 by 2014.

Any clue as to when we'll have individual city pops?

Any clue as to when we'll have individual city pops?

Of this 300,000 gain, how much of it do you think is in metro OKC? I say all of it.

I'm going to say at least 200,000 of it. Have to give Tulsa some gain as well.:)

Of this 300,000 gain, how much of it do you think is in metro OKC? I say all of it.

Well, keep this in mind. OKC and Tulsa are growing but the rest of the state is LOSING. It's quite possible that OKC could have grown by 250,000 and Tulsa by 200,000 and it still balance out as 300,000 net for the state. In fact, some of the losses are directly to the metros, but a lot is to Texas and the coasts. We're retaining our youth better than ever in OKC, and Tulsa's never had the problem as bad as others, but rural Oklahoma is doing absolutely nothing and making absolutely zero headway on retaining Oklahoma youth in general, so those youth still are no more likely to wind up in OKC or Tulsa. Just some perspective on the 300,000 gain.

I haven't seen the numbers yet, but we all know the deal.

Hopefully the OKC Metro has hit 1.3 million.

Well, keep this in mind. OKC and Tulsa are growing but the rest of the state is LOSING. It's quite possible that OKC could have grown by 250,000 and Tulsa by 200,000 and it still balance out as 300,000 net for the state. In fact, some of the losses are directly to the metros, but a lot is to Texas and the coasts. We're retaining our youth better than ever in OKC, and Tulsa's never had the problem as bad as others, but rural Oklahoma is doing absolutely nothing and making absolutely zero headway on retaining Oklahoma youth in general, so those youth still are no more likely to wind up in OKC or Tulsa. Just some perspective on the 300,000 gain.

I haven't seen the numbers yet, but we all know the deal.

You don't think a lot of the rural youth go to OKC and Tulsa? I'd say quite a few do, especially the ones that attend college in Oklahoma. I don't have a problem with rural areas continuing to empty, and it's happening all over the country but especially in the South and Midwest. Some predict the Great Plains will be nearly completely empty in the next 50 years.

I would imagine OKC is over 1.3 million for the metro and Tulsa may be over 1 million for the first time. It will be close.

Well, keep this in mind. OKC and Tulsa are growing but the rest of the state is LOSING. It's quite possible that OKC could have grown by 250,000 and Tulsa by 200,000 and it still balance out as 300,000 net for the state. In fact, some of the losses are directly to the metros, but a lot is to Texas and the coasts. We're retaining our youth better than ever in OKC, and Tulsa's never had the problem as bad as others, but rural Oklahoma is doing absolutely nothing and making absolutely zero headway on retaining Oklahoma youth in general, so those youth still are no more likely to wind up in OKC or Tulsa. Just some perspective on the 300,000 gain.

I haven't seen the numbers yet, but we all know the deal.

While you bring up good points, what data are you basing your analysis on?

While you bring up good points, what data are you basing your analysis on?

Oklahoma's rural counties have been losing population lately. This is a fact. But I am still waiting to see county data, which I don't think has been released yet.

Check out how our growth has accelerated in the last half of the decade, from 06-10. We actually had our best year BY FAR in the last year, with 64,000 and 1.74% annual growth. When you rank the states by % growth between 2009 and 2010, Oklahoma is 7th (all the states that beat us are less than 3 million population). By numeric growth, we were 11th in the nation.


OKLAHOMA
Total Pop POPULATION Numeric change % change
April 1, 2010 ... 3,751,351 ... 64,301 ... 1.74%
July 1, 2009 ... 3,687,050 ... 43,025 ... 1.18%
July 1, 2008 ... 3,644,025 ... 31,839 ... 0.88%
July 1, 2007 ... 3,612,186 ... 37,852 ... 1.06%
July 1, 2006 ... 3,574,334 ... 41,565 ... 1.18%
July 1, 2005 ... 3,532,769 ... 18,320 ... 0.52%
July 1, 2004 ... 3,514,449 ... 15,762 ... 0.45%
July 1, 2003 ... 3,498,687 ... 13,933 ... 0.40%
July 1, 2002 ... 3,484,754 ... 20,025 ... 0.58%
July 1, 2001 ... 3,464,729 ... 10,786 ... 0.31%
July 1, 2000 ... 3,453,943...


-------

TOP 50 STATES+DC BY NUMERIC GROWTH 09-10

1 TX 363,259
2 CA 292,292
3 FL 263,341
4 NC 154,599
5 VA 118,434
6 PA 97,612
7 NJ 84,155
8 MD 74,074
9 AL 71,028
10 HI 65,123
11 OK 64,301
12 SC 64,122
13 IN 60,689
14 WA 60,345
15 NV 57,466
16 CT 55,809
17 TN 49,851
18 NM 49,508
19 LA 41,296
20 IA 38,499
21 MN 37,711
22 KS 34,371
23 WV 33,217
24 WI 32,212
25 NE 29,722
26 AR 26,468
27 ND 25,747
28 KY 25,254
29 ID 21,781
30 WY 19,356
31 MS 15,301
32 MT 14,426
33 DE 12,812
34 AK 11,758
35 ME 10,060
36 OR 5,417
37 CO 4,448
38 VT 3,981
39 DC 2,066
40 SD 1,797
41 MO 1,347
42 RI -642
43 OH -6,141
44 NH -8,105
45 UT -20,687
46 MA -45,958
47 IL -79,777
48 MI -86,087
49 GA -141,558
50 NY -163,351
51 AZ -203,761

TOP 50 STATES+DC BY % GROWTH 09-10

1 HI 5.03%
2 ND 3.98%
3 WY 3.56%
4 NM 2.46%
5 NV 2.17%
6 WV 1.83%
7 OK 1.74%
8 AK 1.68%
9 NE 1.65%
10 NC 1.65%
11 CT 1.59%
12 AL 1.51%
13 VA 1.50%
14 MT 1.48%
15 TX 1.47%
16 DE 1.45%
17 FL 1.42%
18 ID 1.41%
19 SC 1.41%
20 MD 1.30%
21 IA 1.28%
22 KS 1.22%
23 NJ 0.97%
24 IN 0.94%
25 LA 0.92%
26 AR 0.92%
27 WA 0.91%
28 TN 0.79%
29 CA 0.79%
30 PA 0.77%
31 ME 0.76%
32 MN 0.72%
33 VT 0.64%
34 KY 0.59%
35 WI 0.57%
36 MS 0.52%
37 DC 0.34%
38 SD 0.22%
39 OR 0.14%
40 CO 0.09%
41 MO 0.02%
42 OH -0.05%
43 RI -0.06%
44 NH -0.61%
45 IL -0.62%
46 MA -0.70%
47 UT -0.74%
48 NY -0.84%
49 MI -0.86%
50 GA -1.44%
51 AZ -3.09%

These are some pretty impressive numbers. I've always been a skeptic, but am now becoming a believer! I can't wait to see the city numbers, too.

Just a shot in the dark guess...

OKC- 582,011
OKC MSA - 1,263,681

Hope it is higher. Hitting 600,000 puts Oklahoma City in new demographic radars.

TOP 50 STATES+DC BY % GROWTH 09-10

1 HI 5.03%
2 ND 3.98%
3 WY 3.56%
4 NM 2.46%
5 NV 2.17%
6 WV 1.83%
7 OK 1.74%

I guess the North Dakota boom continues. Fargo has done an incredible job recruiting high tech. Excellent city management.

The death of the Great Plains has been greatly exaggerated.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/02/the-great-great-plains.html

This is also interesting:


Several businesses now have major operations in the community including Microsoft, Navteq and Cetero Research. The city's major retail districts on the southwest side have seen rapid expansion as has the downtown area due, at least, in part to investments made by the city and private developers in the Renaissance Zone. Planning agencies have also been active in promoting housing rehabilitation in older sections of the city such as the Roosevelt neighborhood to stem blight and strengthen the city's core. Indeed, during the 1990s most central city neighborhoods such as Hawthorne, Jefferson, and Horace Mann actually lost population even as rapid growth occurred along the edges of the city in sprawling new developments. As Fargo has grown and matured, however, the city has placed a growing emphasis on long-range urban planning. Furthermore, several developers desiring to bring in additional "big box" retail stores on the far south end of Fargo have been rebuffed by planning officials and nearby residents alike arguing that the developments do not conform to new long-range planning guidelines.

TOP 50 STATES+DC BY % GROWTH 09-10

1 HI 5.03%
2 ND 3.98%
3 WY 3.56%
4 NM 2.46%
5 NV 2.17%
6 WV 1.83%
7 OK 1.74%

I guess the North Dakota boom continues. Fargo has done an incredible job recruiting high tech. Excellent city management.

The death of the Great Plains has been greatly exaggerated.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/02/the-great-great-plains.html

This is also interesting:


Several businesses now have major operations in the community including Microsoft, Navteq and Cetero Research. The city's major retail districts on the southwest side have seen rapid expansion as has the downtown area due, at least, in part to investments made by the city and private developers in the Renaissance Zone. Planning agencies have also been active in promoting housing rehabilitation in older sections of the city such as the Roosevelt neighborhood to stem blight and strengthen the city's core. Indeed, during the 1990s most central city neighborhoods such as Hawthorne, Jefferson, and Horace Mann actually lost population even as rapid growth occurred along the edges of the city in sprawling new developments. As Fargo has grown and matured, however, the city has placed a growing emphasis on long-range urban planning. Furthermore, several developers desiring to bring in additional "big box" retail stores on the far south end of Fargo have been rebuffed by planning officials and nearby residents alike arguing that the developments do not conform to new long-range planning guidelines.

The northern Plains states are similar geographically to Oklahoma, but culturally are very different. There is a much higher emphasis put on education and crime is much lower. Fargo and cities like Minneapolis, Des Moines and even Omaha are doing well because, even with the harsh winter, they have a highly educated workforce and plenty of urban amenities, especially the Twin Cities which is a beautiful and very urban/walkable city. Oklahoma is unfortunately much more aligned with the South with the bottom feeders on all quality of life rankings i.e. Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana. Kansas though is more like its northern neighbors even though it shares a long border with us...

Oklahoma's rural counties have been losing population lately. This is a fact. But I am still waiting to see county data, which I don't think has been released yet.

This is true, but not in all cases. There are counties in eastern Oklahoma that are continuing to gain population, but not by large measures.

Check out how our growth has accelerated in the last half of the decade, from 06-10. We actually had our best year BY FAR in the last year, with 64,000 and 1.74% annual growth. When you rank the states by % growth between 2009 and 2010, Oklahoma is 7th (all the states that beat us are less than 3 million population). By numeric growth, we were 11th in the nation.


OKLAHOMA
Total Pop POPULATION Numeric change % change
April 1, 2010 ... 3,751,351 ... 64,301 ... 1.74%
July 1, 2009 ... 3,687,050 ... 43,025 ... 1.18%
July 1, 2008 ... 3,644,025 ... 31,839 ... 0.88%
July 1, 2007 ... 3,612,186 ... 37,852 ... 1.06%
July 1, 2006 ... 3,574,334 ... 41,565 ... 1.18%
July 1, 2005 ... 3,532,769 ... 18,320 ... 0.52%
July 1, 2004 ... 3,514,449 ... 15,762 ... 0.45%
July 1, 2003 ... 3,498,687 ... 13,933 ... 0.40%
July 1, 2002 ... 3,484,754 ... 20,025 ... 0.58%
July 1, 2001 ... 3,464,729 ... 10,786 ... 0.31%
July 1, 2000 ... 3,453,943...


-------

TOP 50 STATES+DC BY NUMERIC GROWTH 09-10

1 TX 363,259
2 CA 292,292
3 FL 263,341
4 NC 154,599
5 VA 118,434
6 PA 97,612
7 NJ 84,155
8 MD 74,074
9 AL 71,028
10 HI 65,123
11 OK 64,301
12 SC 64,122
13 IN 60,689
14 WA 60,345
15 NV 57,466
16 CT 55,809
17 TN 49,851
18 NM 49,508
19 LA 41,296
20 IA 38,499
21 MN 37,711
22 KS 34,371
23 WV 33,217
24 WI 32,212
25 NE 29,722
26 AR 26,468
27 ND 25,747
28 KY 25,254
29 ID 21,781
30 WY 19,356
31 MS 15,301
32 MT 14,426
33 DE 12,812
34 AK 11,758
35 ME 10,060
36 OR 5,417
37 CO 4,448
38 VT 3,981
39 DC 2,066
40 SD 1,797
41 MO 1,347
42 RI -642
43 OH -6,141
44 NH -8,105
45 UT -20,687
46 MA -45,958
47 IL -79,777
48 MI -86,087
49 GA -141,558
50 NY -163,351
51 AZ -203,761

TOP 50 STATES+DC BY % GROWTH 09-10

1 HI 5.03%
2 ND 3.98%
3 WY 3.56%
4 NM 2.46%
5 NV 2.17%
6 WV 1.83%
7 OK 1.74%
8 AK 1.68%
9 NE 1.65%
10 NC 1.65%
11 CT 1.59%
12 AL 1.51%
13 VA 1.50%
14 MT 1.48%
15 TX 1.47%
16 DE 1.45%
17 FL 1.42%
18 ID 1.41%
19 SC 1.41%
20 MD 1.30%
21 IA 1.28%
22 KS 1.22%
23 NJ 0.97%
24 IN 0.94%
25 LA 0.92%
26 AR 0.92%
27 WA 0.91%
28 TN 0.79%
29 CA 0.79%
30 PA 0.77%
31 ME 0.76%
32 MN 0.72%
33 VT 0.64%
34 KY 0.59%
35 WI 0.57%
36 MS 0.52%
37 DC 0.34%
38 SD 0.22%
39 OR 0.14%
40 CO 0.09%
41 MO 0.02%
42 OH -0.05%
43 RI -0.06%
44 NH -0.61%
45 IL -0.62%
46 MA -0.70%
47 UT -0.74%
48 NY -0.84%
49 MI -0.86%
50 GA -1.44%
51 AZ -3.09%

These number are fascinating, and put to rest some myths, such as:

1. Some posters here have been saying that people are leaving California in droves. Um...not really.
2. I thought Utah was some economic miracle. Hmmm.
3. How many of these Forbes lists have been touting Colorado as this booming magnet? Not according to these numbers.
4. I keep hearing that Pennsylvania is some rusty dying state. Wait, it's growing?
5. What the hell is happening to Arizona? Will the last person to leave please turn out the lights?

Stuff like this fascinates me.

TOP 50 STATES+DC BY % GROWTH 09-10

1 HI 5.03%
2 ND 3.98%
3 WY 3.56%
4 NM 2.46%
5 NV 2.17%
6 WV 1.83%
7 OK 1.74%

I guess the North Dakota boom continues. Fargo has done an incredible job recruiting high tech. Excellent city management.

The death of the Great Plains has been greatly exaggerated.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/02/the-great-great-plains.html

This is also interesting:


Several businesses now have major operations in the community including Microsoft, Navteq and Cetero Research. The city's major retail districts on the southwest side have seen rapid expansion as has the downtown area due, at least, in part to investments made by the city and private developers in the Renaissance Zone. Planning agencies have also been active in promoting housing rehabilitation in older sections of the city such as the Roosevelt neighborhood to stem blight and strengthen the city's core. Indeed, during the 1990s most central city neighborhoods such as Hawthorne, Jefferson, and Horace Mann actually lost population even as rapid growth occurred along the edges of the city in sprawling new developments. As Fargo has grown and matured, however, the city has placed a growing emphasis on long-range urban planning. Furthermore, several developers desiring to bring in additional "big box" retail stores on the far south end of Fargo have been rebuffed by planning officials and nearby residents alike arguing that the developments do not conform to new long-range planning guidelines.

Another huge growth center in the Dakotas is also Sioux Falls, although in SD.

Of this 300,000 gain, how much of it do you think is in metro OKC? I say all of it.

LOL.

OKC would be lucky to have half of that growth based on current estimates. For 2000 to 2009 the MSA growth estimate was about 120k.


1. Some posters here have been saying that people are leaving California in droves. Um...not really.

Um...they are. ALL of that growth in California is due to international/illegal immigration and natural increase.

Net domestic migration of the Los Angeles MSA (2000-2009): -1.4 million
Net domestic migration of the San Diego MSA ('00-'09): -340k
Net domestic migration of the San Francisco-Oakland MSA ('00-'09): -230k

http://www.brookings.edu/metro/StateOfMetroAmerica/Map.aspx#/?subject=7&ind=72&dist=0&data=Number&year=2009&geo=metro&zoom=0&x=0&y=0

You are right, however, that the notion of mass migration of Californians to Oklahoma is overblown. OKC's growth has been driven much more by natural growth compared with cities like Austin, Charlotte, Raleigh and Dallas that have had large amounts of domestic in-migration.

Well, keep this in mind. OKC and Tulsa are growing but the rest of the state is LOSING. It's quite possible that OKC could have grown by 250,000 and Tulsa by 200,000 and it still balance out as 300,000 net for the state. In fact, some of the losses are directly to the metros, but a lot is to Texas and the coasts. We're retaining our youth better than ever in OKC, and Tulsa's never had the problem as bad as others, but rural Oklahoma is doing absolutely nothing and making absolutely zero headway on retaining Oklahoma youth in general, so those youth still are no more likely to wind up in OKC or Tulsa. Just some perspective on the 300,000 gain.

I haven't seen the numbers yet, but we all know the deal.

Instead of speculating wildly, why not simply look up this information on the Census Bureau website?

Estimates are made every year for cities, MSAs, CSAs, etc. Historically, they have been quite accurate.

I'll save you the trouble of searching. Here is the estimates data:

http://www.census.gov/popest/estbygeo.html

First of all, let me point out that those who are participating in this thread who have proven themselves to be totally ignorant of population threads have yet to prove what I said to be totally wrong or wrong in any way. Soonerliberal had a good point that some of the regional centers actually are still growing, and this certainly is true.

But you want me to prove with facts a statement as simple as "the sky is blue" when you probably ask that knowing that it's difficult to prove. I'll just show population change for a bunch of rural counties in Oklahoma in alphabetical order stopping after a while, for lack of any more scientific way to prove this without giving up my day job.

Oklahoma avg 2000-2009 6.9%
Adair County 3.9%
Alfalfa County -10.1%
Atoka County 4.5%
Beaver County -10%
Caddo County 0.8%
Carter County 5.9%
Choctaw County -3.1%
Cotton County -5%
Comanche County -1.5%
Coal County -2.9%
Craig County 1.4%
Custer County 2.2%
Dewey County -7.1%
Ellis County -3.6%
Garfield County 1.9%
Garvin county 0.4%
Grant County -16.1%
Greer County -3.8%
Harmon County -13.4%
Harper County -5.2%
Haskell County 5.1%
Hughes County -2.4%
Jackson County -10.8%
Jefferson County -7.3%
Johnston County -0.4%
Kay County -4.1%
Kingfisher County 3.3%
Kiowa County -11%
Latimer County -0.7%

I didn't even realize that there were so many counties with double digit population loss in just 9 years, and I hadn't even gotten all the way through the L's yet. I think my point about rural Oklahoma hemorrhaging population stands pretty true, lol. Essentially Ardmore's growth is able to carry Carter County, and Enid (Garfield) is growing by 1.9%, and that's it in terms of positive news here.

Well, probably the majority of rural Oklahoma counties have been slowly declining or at best stagnant since the 1930s and the Great Depression. So the problem has been an old story.

I don't know. I think the regional centers used to hold their own pretty well and for the most part were very nice cities, but now maybe even those places are losing people.

With the exception of Minneapolis,the whole Northern Plains region is doing quite well despite the bad economy elsewhere. Here in Western North Dakota, the unemployment rate is below 3%, jobs are plentiful, wages are increasing, and housing is scarce. It is the result of three factors primarily. Commodity prices are boosting agriculture and ag-related businesses. The energy sector is booming (Western North Dakota is predicted to become the nation's #1 oil producer over the next 20 years - beating even Texas). Lastly, Canadians are flocking to our malls on the weakness/strength of the dollar. The small, rural towns continue to lose population, but cities like Fargo, Grand Forks, and Bismarck are doing very well, and Minot and Williston are bursting at the seams from growth.

First of all, let me point out that those who are participating in this thread who have proven themselves to be totally ignorant of population threads have yet to prove what I said to be totally wrong or wrong in any way. Soonerliberal had a good point that some of the regional centers actually are still growing, and this certainly is true.

But you want me to prove with facts a statement as simple as "the sky is blue" when you probably ask that knowing that it's difficult to prove. I'll just show population change for a bunch of rural counties in Oklahoma in alphabetical order stopping after a while, for lack of any more scientific way to prove this without giving up my day job.

...

In other words, you need to be spoon-fed information because you're too lazy to look it up. It would probably take less time to look up the data in question than it did to type up your silly post.

Y'know, it really isn't difficult to "prove" this one way or another. Here ya go:

2009 CSA population of OKC: 1,297,552
2000 CSA population of OKC: 1,160,942

I'll save you the trouble of subtracting--that's a change of 136,610 for the CSA which includes Pottawatomie County.

Given that the Census Bureau estimates are almost always less than +/- 5% of the actual population counted by an official Census, these numbers absolutely trump any other "evidence" you might be able to conjure up.

First of all, let me point out that those who are participating in this thread who have proven themselves to be totally ignorant of population threads have yet to prove what I said to be totally wrong or wrong in any way. Soonerliberal had a good point that some of the regional centers actually are still growing, and this certainly is true.

But you want me to prove with facts a statement as simple as "the sky is blue" when you probably ask that knowing that it's difficult to prove. I'll just show population change for a bunch of rural counties in Oklahoma in alphabetical order stopping after a while, for lack of any more scientific way to prove this without giving up my day job.

Oklahoma avg 2000-2009 6.9%
Adair County 3.9%
Alfalfa County -10.1%
Atoka County 4.5%
Beaver County -10%
Caddo County 0.8%
Carter County 5.9%
Choctaw County -3.1%
Cotton County -5%
Comanche County -1.5%
Coal County -2.9%
Craig County 1.4%
Custer County 2.2%
Dewey County -7.1%
Ellis County -3.6%
Garfield County 1.9%
Garvin county 0.4%
Grant County -16.1%
Greer County -3.8%
Harmon County -13.4%
Harper County -5.2%
Haskell County 5.1%
Hughes County -2.4%
Jackson County -10.8%
Jefferson County -7.3%
Johnston County -0.4%
Kay County -4.1%
Kingfisher County 3.3%
Kiowa County -11%
Latimer County -0.7%

I didn't even realize that there were so many counties with double digit population loss in just 9 years, and I hadn't even gotten all the way through the L's yet. I think my point about rural Oklahoma hemorrhaging population stands pretty true, lol. Essentially Ardmore's growth is able to carry Carter County, and Enid (Garfield) is growing by 1.9%, and that's it in terms of positive news here.

You'll note that with the exception of Hughes and one or two others, the counties in eastern Oklahoma are gaining population. It's the counties in western Oklahoma that are losing people -- with the exception of Texas county which has seen a large influx of Latino workers.

You'll note that with the exception of Hughes and one or two others, the counties in eastern Oklahoma are gaining population. It's the counties in western Oklahoma that are losing people -- with the exception of Texas county which has seen a large influx of Latino workers.

OKC is probably seeing a net influx of people from the rural western counties. It would be interesting to see the data of where these people are going. The eastern half of Oklahoma has always had a higher population density but that divides seems to be growing with things really falling off as you head west of the OKC metro. Though at the same time Guymon has seen a population boost due to the hog farms and natural gas activity in Texas County. Guymon is more of a regional center though as there aren't many other sizable towns in a 100 mile radius around the Panhandle.

Well, probably the majority of rural Oklahoma counties have been slowly declining or at best stagnant since the 1930s and the Great Depression. So the problem has been an old story.

Farming is much more efficient and continues to get so. One person can farm many more acres than 20 years ago because of automation, etc. Therefore there are less jobs on the farms. Less jobs on the farms means shrinking towns as there are less consumers of goods and services. This has indeed been going on since automation of farm processes.

Consistent with this is that they move to cities where they perceive it easier to find a job. It is all about the creation of jobs...whether to the cities or to certain parts of cities. OKC is doing a credible job of creating and retaining jobs.

On the brighter side, some of the bigger towns in rural Oklahoma aren't losing population at all as in Ada, Woodward, Enid, and Stillwater. I think such places are attractive in otherwise declining areas, because they are viewed as good places to cocoon, so to speak, unlike surrounding towns and counties, they do better at providing jobs, housing, play and shopping, all in one place. As an indicator of this cocooning, 81 to 93% of the people who work in those 4 towns also live in them, according to city-data.com.

Well Stillwater went from 39,000 to 52,000 in the last decade. Pretty impressive, but they are becoming more and more dominated by OSU has the college continues to grow and as Stillwater's manufacturing areas continues to diminish. 3 of the nicest places in Oklahoma are Enid, Ponca City, and Bartlesville--all are showing signs of being in deep trouble if their main employer walks away. Ponca City is seeing it happen right now. Bartlesville is okay for now. Enid looks like they're going to lose CR. Bartlesville had some major growth earlier this decade but became stagnant recently when the economy flatlined, maybe the growth will pick up again, who knows. Ponca City may actually be seeing significant losses..Kay County lost 4% through 2009? Wow.

Here's a story from the Stillwater News Press that comments on the census: http://www.stwnewspress.com/local/x2018342599/Stillwater-officials-hope-for-growth-in-census

One rather interesting comment: “The majority of communities over the past few years have been more focused on retaining jobs than getting new ones.”