Educated 20- and 30-somethings are flocking to live downtown in the USA's largest cities, even urban centers that are losing population.......

According to the USA today this is NOT happening here in Okc!!

Read this report and see the chart.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-04-01-1Ayoungrestless01_ST_N.htm

Only thing I would argue is that our supply and inventory is way low compared to most of those cities. We only have one "high rise" living in regency tower. Give it 5 years and it will increase. I live in Edgemere Park and its all full of young people, but i guess this is the core they are talking about.

Only Birmingham and New Orleans had smaller growth, with New Orleans losing young people understandably.

Downtown OKC is the fastest growing residentail area in the State of Oklahoma. Give it a few more years.

Downtown OKC is the fastest growing residentail area in the State of Oklahoma. Give it a few more years.

Let me have some of what you're smoking!

It COULD have been...

Let me have some of what you're smoking!

It COULD have been...

It is in the US census. There is a thread on it somewhere. The census district that covers downtown OKC has the highest growth rate in the state.

I fit the demographic, I am 30 years old, have a Masters In Public Administration, and I live in Moore (Rock Creek Estates). I could have lived in downtown OKC, but there is no housing downtown that I like. But I do work in the city, but why would I live downtown, when I can have a nice home, with front and backyard, and land in the suburbs, with all the amenities I need for the same price? Downtown doesn't have anything to attract my demographic right now, and it only takes me 15mins to get to work.

I fit the demographic, I am 30 years old, have a Masters In Public Administration, and I live in Moore (Rock Creek States). I could have lived in downtown OKC, but there is no housing downtown that I like. But I do work in the city, but why would I live downtown, when I can have a nice home, with front and backyard, and land in the suburbs, with all the amenities I need for the same price? Downtown doesn't have anything to attract my demographic right now, and it only takes me 15mins to get to work.

There are plenty of people + / - your age that do not want a house with a front and backyard, or any land for that matter. I'm one that could care less about having "land" but also do not want a condo or apartment. There are not enough options for townhomes in the inner city right now. With a townhome you get the benefits of a house (larger floor plan, garage) without the downsides (yard to maintain). Currently there is demand but no supply.

Before I moved to Moore, I lived in Norman 12 years, and Norman is a lot more dense than people think. After living in the dorms, and apartments/condos with roommates, the last thing I wanted was to live in another apartment. The cost of living downtown is too high, for downtown not offer any amenities to the young/educated demographic.

I think at least some of this can be explained by two factors:
1. In Oklahoma, people tend to marry and start families younger than in more urban areas.
2. In Oklahoma, the salaries rend to be lower.
Don't get me wrong, there are thousands of exceptions. But anecdotally, it seems that by the time a lot of young adults in OKC are in a position to buy something or pay a substantial amount of rent, they are already thinking kids/schools. In other parts of the country, there's more of a "gap" period, say 28 to 35, when young adults have the means to live well and are still focused on other things besides yards, suburban "amenities." I'm not sure OKC is ever going to have the armies of tens of thousands of wealthy, educated young urbanites without kids. At least not for a while.

stlokc-you hit it right on! I do have a family also, and that was a major factor, of the suburban lifestyle. However, before I got married, I still wasn't attracted to downtown. I mean there is no park for me to relax in, no leisure activities (basketball, soccer, etc.) Not a reasonable gym, grocery store, anything. Downtown OKC right now is catered to entertainment, and not actual everyday living.

Downtown OKC has Watonga living amenities, with an OKC cost of living, lol.

stlokc............did you see where St. Louis placed in percentage change?

There are plenty of people + / - your age that do not want a house with a front and backyard, or any land for that matter. I'm one that could care less about having "land" but also do not want a condo or apartment. There are not enough options for townhomes in the inner city right now. With a townhome you get the benefits of a house (larger floor plan, garage) without the downsides (yard to maintain). Currently there is demand but no supply.

This is what I would like as well. A three story town/row house with a garage accessed via an alley and maybe a small backyard to let the dog loose in.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/Toronto_Row_Houses.jpg/220px-Toronto_Row_Houses.jpg

I would love to live in something like Notthing Hill London. I was hoping that is what Core 2 Shore was going to be but the rendering all show single family homes.

(no single picture does it justice so you will need to look it up yourself)

Totally agree with BG918...demand is there, but the supply for this demographic is lacking. I worked with several young engineers who had a difficult time finding something reasonably priced downtown. They found it, but I was shocked at their rent. They can afford it as long as they stay single and aren't trying to save up for a down payment.

[QUOTE=G.Walker;417897]stlokc-you hit it right on! I do have a family also, and that was a major factor, of the suburban lifestyle. However, before I got married, I still wasn't attracted to downtown. I mean there is no park for me to relax in, no leisure activities (basketball, soccer, etc.) Not a reasonable gym, grocery store, anything. Downtown OKC right now is catered to entertainment, and not actual everyday living.

Downtown OKC has Watonga living amenities, with an OKC cost of living, lol.[/]

This is simply untrue. I live near downtown and within walking distance of two parks, there is the downtown and Midtown Y, homeland is 5 minutes away and Walmart 10 minutes. I am within walking distance of 3 great coffee shops and numerous gret restaurants.

People who complain about options downtown are glass half empty people, IMO. We're not Chicago/Portland/Seattle but our urban lifestyle has improved dramatically!

G. Walker, thanks for responding. You're 30 and already have a family which is what I was thinking when I made my comments. Most of my friends weren't even married at 30. That's neither good nor bad, just different.
As far as "amenities," everybody is going to define that differently, which is why the well-rounded region would have parks and basketball courts and golf courses AND urban lofts and the ability to roam without a car. We'll get there someday.
I did see that STL grew it's inner core rapidly. Not surprising. They are focusing like a laser beam on it. Lots of other city neighborhoods are not getting the same treatment, hence the overall population loss. Another topic.

I think at least some of this can be explained by two factors:
1. In Oklahoma, people tend to marry and start families younger than in more urban areas.
2. In Oklahoma, the salaries rend to be lower.
Don't get me wrong, there are thousands of exceptions. But anecdotally, it seems that by the time a lot of young adults in OKC are in a position to buy something or pay a substantial amount of rent, they are already thinking kids/schools. In other parts of the country, there's more of a "gap" period, say 28 to 35, when young adults have the means to live well and are still focused on other things besides yards, suburban "amenities." I'm not sure OKC is ever going to have the armies of tens of thousands of wealthy, educated young urbanites without kids. At least not for a while.

This is very true, and I'll expand on the 2nd one. At the risk that I'm sounding like I'm a huge snob, there is a culture in OK of putting value over substance. Look at the amount of Wal Marts, Family Dollar's, etc. in this town, compared to the struggles it takes to lure any sort of upscale retailers and shops here.

As long as Oklahoma languishes at 45-46 out of 50 in household income it may be a continuing struggle to turn this around. Most people in OKC who have amassed the kind of wealth to look at $1000/month apartments probably are married with kids, and are probably going to bail to the suburbs.

Does anybody think that any of the relocating Continental employees are going to look at dowtown, midtown, or even a in-town neighborhood, or are they going to fly out to Blanchard, Piedmont, Choctaw, etc.?

ADaniel- You are not a snob, you're exactly right. The civic boosters like to tout OKC's lower cost of living but the biggest chunk of that has to do with real estate. I have not found that the prices of other goods and services are that much cheaper in OKC. Plus, the tremendous sprawl means that OKC is disproportionately harmed by high gas prices. This means the average OKC resident is a value shopper above all else. (Again, with exceptions). There's just not as much disposable income. Particularly among the 28 year olds that already have kids. When you're stretching the pocketbook, the trendy dinners, concert tickets, higher-end consumer goods are the first things to go.

Where do you think the tendency to have families young comes from though ultimately?

Conservative ethos that say you aren't contributing without taking care of others, making kids grow up too fast, poor birth control practices...?


At the risk that I'm sounding like I'm a huge snob, there is a culture in OK of putting value over substance. Look at the amount of Wal Marts, Family Dollar's, etc. in this town, compared to the struggles it takes to lure any sort of upscale retailers and shops here.

I agree, although ironically, I feel like there is more of a rat race here among the lower and middle classes; people try too hard. It just seems like in other places I've been the rat race is more confined to the upper classes and average people are more "live and let live". Just an observation...

The problem with downtown residential developers is that they charge too much. I have friend who I work with, who was looking at Deep Deuce apartments, and was astonished at the price for what she was getting, when she could get more square footage, on NW side of town, and rent would be less. Developers are charging these out right high prices for what? Location? there is nothing downtown that attracts young people to live there at this point, being in walking distance to Bricktown, and walking home drunk at 3am gets old after a while.

I've written before of my wish to be downtown, but ultimately chose Founders because the market isn't there for purchase in downtown Oklahoma City at the level of Founders Tower. The decision also came down to so much being literally a short drive away. While there are certainly cultural amenities downtown that are attractive, the practical things I do each and every day are a skip and a jump from here - and they're a relatively long drive from downtown OKC. People make investments based on how things are today. Nobody wants to invest $200,000+ and be told they should do it as an incentive for retail and other amenities down the line. I hear that argument a lot in Oklahoma City, but see very few actually doing that - unless they wanted to be downtown anyway for other reasons. Nobody wants to lay down large investments in housing as an experiment in their investment being a magnet for some company out of town to decide to locate in the center city. We only live once.

It is in the US census. There is a thread on it somewhere. The census district that covers downtown OKC has the highest growth rate in the state.

Can we bring that up again? Are you sure it wasn't like an inner south side census district? I find it hard to believe that a census district for Deer Creek or Moore where in the 2000 Census there was nothing and now there is sq mi's of neighborhoods is not "faster growing" simply by going from 0 to 60...

Kerry's signature says it all.... Oklahoma City is the surprise your family's been looking for. Just not for the older 20 something single guy with enough disposable income to feed a village in a third world country for a year.

I think at least some of this can be explained by two factors:
1. In Oklahoma, people tend to marry and start families younger than in more urban areas.

True, but this is about what's happening in Oklahoma City, not the entire state. Things may be different in Oklahoma City.


2. In Oklahoma, the salaries rend to be lower.

Salaries are higher in OKC than the rest of the state, and have grown considerably since 2005. Even then, the U.S. Census shows the state of Oklahoma ranking 34 out of 50 in median household income in 2009. Tennessee and Georgia had lower median incomes than Oklahoma. And based on current trends, the dynamics of income are going to continue to change.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/statemedian/index.html, click on Median Household Income by State - Single-Year Estimates.



Don't get me wrong, there are thousands of exceptions. But anecdotally, it seems that by the time a lot of young adults in OKC are in a position to buy something or pay a substantial amount of rent, they are already thinking kids/schools. In other parts of the country, there's more of a "gap" period, say 28 to 35, when young adults have the means to live well and are still focused on other things besides yards, suburban "amenities." I'm not sure OKC is ever going to have the armies of tens of thousands of wealthy, educated young urbanites without kids. At least not for a while.

This I cannot argue with, because I am married with children, and so upon my return to OKC I will be joining the armies of tens of thousands of educated urbanites/suburbanites with kids.

As long as Oklahoma languishes at 45-46 out of 50 in household income it may be a continuing struggle to turn this around.

As cited in my previous post, 34 out of 50 in median household income, and according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis... 34 out of 50 in per capita personal income.

However, I agree with the rest of your post.

819

I attached an image of my data source from http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map. The darker teal sections show strong growth. The beige areas show stronger decreases. The lighter colors show slower to neutral growth or decrease.

Okay guys, here is a quick breakdown of the analysis for downtown...

Census tract 1032 - bound by 9th, Western, Robert S Kerr and Broadway Ave
Population (2010): 3,498, +17.4%

Census tract 103601 - Downtown core
Population (2010): 226, -32.7%

Census tract 103602 - just west of downtown Bound by Robert S Kerr, Western Ave, Oklahoma River and Lee Ave.
Population (2010): 704, +63%

Census tract 1091 - bound by 10th, Broadway Avenue, Reno, and the tracks
Population (2010): 251, +18.4%

Census tract 1038 - all of Bricktown
Population (2010): 467, +201.3%

Largest growth occured north of Bricktown, west of downtown and in the medical district. Whites, Asians and Hispanics are the groups with the largest increases in population. Looks like slow growth in MidTown, Heritage Hills and Edgemere Park.

As cited in my previous post, 34 out of 50 in median household income, and according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis... 34 out of 50 in per capita personal income.

However, I agree with the rest of your post.

OKCPulse, I wanted to show you where I got my numbers. I received them from the 2005-2009 American Community Survey, which is referenced clearly on this wikipedia article (go down about 2/3 down the pg).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_united_states

It does show OK at 46 out of 51 in household income, however, when adjusted for the current CPI it does change the rankings. Of course this makes the poorest state high-cost Hawaii, which goes against the conventional wisdom that MS is the poorest. I guess that neither of us are "wrong."

A lot of big marketing execs don't dig for that kind of info. They look at the numbers given to them, oftentimes not adjusted for things like that, and make their decisions. That has really hurt OK IMO as far as outside investment.

I'll mention that a previous poster found Deep Deuce to be ridiculously expensive compared to apartments on the NW side of town. Coming from Dallas, I think Deep Deuce is high but pretty reasonable. This is just my personal take, but it kind of proves my point about the "value shopper" mentality. So in a way it may not matter that your dollar tends to go farther here.

Keep in mind I went straight to the Census Bureau's website. The figures I have are from 2009 and are not adjusted.

This isn't to prove either of us wrong, but my point is that Oklahoma's demographics are changing year over year and that is being reflected in the 2009 figures for median household income.

Also remember that Oklahoma's per capita income has ranked in the bottom ten since the early 2000's. In 1995, our state ranked 46.

I agree, big marketing execs don't look at detailed data, nor are they ever given the latest and greatest data. I have someone at my company that still thinks Oklahoma's population is 3.2 million. Yeah... in 1994. It also shows that even marketing firms aren't doing their homework completely. Makes me wonder what figures were given to Whole Foods execs to open a store here. I wouldn't be surprised if it was five year-old data. I'm a data junkie and I can't stand that.

When Clay Bennett was looking at moving the Sonics, there was a lot of talk about how low per capita/per household income for OKC is. So, just for fun I looked at average income in Seattle, average income in OKC, average housing prices, property taxes, homeowners' insurance and a few other fairly easily estimated household expenses. What I found was that the average Oklahoma family has a higher amount of annual disposable income, by about a thousand dollars, than Seattle. Now, I'm not an accountant and this was all for fun, but I've rarely seen anyone look at disposable income. Per capita income is a terribly inexact way to look at the potential of a city to support anything, but I seriously doubt many people look beyond that.

When Clay Bennett was looking at moving the Sonics, there was a lot of talk about how low per capita/per household income for OKC is. So, just for fun I looked at average income in Seattle, average income in OKC, average housing prices, property taxes, homeowners' insurance and a few other fairly easily estimated household expenses. What I found was that the average Oklahoma family has a higher amount of annual disposable income, by about a thousand dollars, than Seattle. Now, I'm not an accountant and this was all for fun, but I've rarely seen anyone look at disposable income. Per capita income is a terribly inexact way to look at the potential of a city to support anything, but I seriously doubt many people look beyond that.

You betcha. I worked full time in Virginia and that was necessary to pay the bills, although much of my income went to savings. I haven't needed to work in OKC - but we're still saving just as much.

Many in this city, particularly younger population, want suburban prices and the urban lifestyle. In most cities they have to choose which they want. Here they just want cheap downtown.

Okay guys, here is a quick breakdown of the analysis for downtown...

Census tract 1032 - bound by 9th, Western, Robert S Kerr and Broadway Ave
Population (2010): 3,498, +17.4%

Census tract 103601 - Downtown core
Population (2010): 226, -32.7%

Census tract 103602 - just west of downtown Bound by Robert S Kerr, Western Ave, Oklahoma River and Lee Ave.
Population (2010): 704, +63%

Census tract 1091 - bound by 10th, Broadway Avenue, Reno, and the tracks
Population (2010): 251, +18.4%

Census tract 1038 - all of Bricktown
Population (2010): 467, +201.3%

Largest growth occured north of Bricktown, west of downtown and in the medical district. Whites, Asians and Hispanics are the groups with the largest increases in population. Looks like slow growth in MidTown, Heritage Hills and Edgemere Park.

Thanks OKCPulse - 201% growth is pretty good. I am a little confused over tract 103601. You show it with a 32.7% decline but it seems like Park Harvey and Montgomery would have caused a postive jump. What went away that caused a 33% drop at the same time 217 rental units were being added?

I fit the demographic, I am 30 years old, have a Masters In Public Administration, and I live in Moore (Rock Creek Estates). I could have lived in downtown OKC, but there is no housing downtown that I like. But I do work in the city, but why would I live downtown, when I can have a nice home, with front and backyard, and land in the suburbs, with all the amenities I need for the same price? Downtown doesn't have anything to attract my demographic right now, and it only takes me 15mins to get to work.

What you're saying that you prefer would apply then no matter what city you live in. It really has nothing to do with just OKC, you just prefer a home with a yard in the suburbs.

Thanks OKCPulse - 201% growth is pretty good. I am a little confused over tract 103601. You show it with a 32.7% decline but it seems like Park Harvey and Montgomery would have caused a postive jump. What went away that caused a 33% drop at the same time 217 rental units were being added?

I am wondering if Regency Tower had anything to do with the drop. But I could be wrong in my guess. Trying to think of any other properties that were/are residential in that tract.

This is what I would like as well. A three story town/row house with a garage accessed via an alley and maybe a small backyard to let the dog loose in.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/Toronto_Row_Houses.jpg/220px-Toronto_Row_Houses.jpg

I would love to live in something like Notthing Hill London. I was hoping that is what Core 2 Shore was going to be but the rendering all show single family homes.

(no single picture does it justice so you will need to look it up yourself)

The pics in the Core to Shore report showed the whole gamut of housing. High rise...town homes...apt/condos...single family etc. Granted they had it divided up to "neighborhoods (all the single family over here...high rise on the river banks...townhouses/mid rises fronting the Convention Center and the Park

Also remember that Oklahoma's per capita income has ranked in the bottom ten since the early 2000's. In 1995, our state ranked 46.

I would like to correct myself. Oklahoma has NOT ranked in the bottom ten since the early 2000's in terms of per capital income.

Per capita income is a terribly inexact way to look at the potential of a city to support anything, but I seriously doubt many people look beyond that.

Per capita income is the best way to measure the concentration of wealth of any geographical area. However, I agree with you in this case. Why? San Antonio's per capita income has rarely been higher than OKC, and they've supported the Spurs for years. Same with Orlando, FL and Salt Lake City. Neither one of those cities has had the higher per capita incomes of most metro areas, but has supported their NBA teams for years.

stlokc-you hit it right on! I do have a family also, and that was a major factor, of the suburban lifestyle. However, before I got married, I still wasn't attracted to downtown. I mean there is no park for me to relax in, no leisure activities (basketball, soccer, etc.) Not a reasonable gym, grocery store, anything. Downtown OKC right now is catered to entertainment, and not actual everyday living.

Downtown OKC has Watonga living amenities, with an OKC cost of living, lol.

I just moved to midtown. I am in my late 20s and you couldn't be more wrong. I live within 1 mile of 2 YMCAs. There are definitely parks. I don't understand the grocery store thing. Are there gorcery stores in the middle of suburban neighborhoods? I have to get in a car and drive 3 minutes to get to a gorcery store. Are you closer than that? Having said that, if I had a family I would probably have to move three blocks north to the Mesta neighborhood. My end point is that I've found midtown a very "liveable" place to live on a daily basis.

Movie theatres, art museums and galleries, coffee shops, restaurants, basketball, baseball, hockey,bike paths on the river. There's a lot more for me to do downtown than anywhere else I've lived in OKC. And really, not that far off what I had to do when I lived just outside downtown Denver. We did have a King Soopers though and there's certainly nothing to top that!

THere have been huge changes downtown in recent years. THis situation will soon change - especially if we have $5 gasoline.

betts, I also used to live just outside of Denver cbd, and am very aware of the area you are talking about near the King Soopers near the road to Araria Campus. ....

Good times, and you're right - OKC isn't that far away from Denver's setup. Just need a few more tweaks of things, which I DO see coming. ...

I think what would really really help OKC is if they would build a downtown college campus. Talk about bringing young trendy people living to downtown. ... It wouldn't need to necessarily be a 4-year university either, but something like Oklahoma City Community College (like what Araria is, Portland also with PSU). This should be 'some' of the goal of Core2Shore in my opinion - and would lend credence to all else that downtown OKC is trying to accomplish.

Denver (and Portland) really have a LOT of similarities/accomplishments/amenities that OKC should really benchmark.

I fit the demographic, I am 30 years old, have a Masters In Public Administration, and I live in Moore (Rock Creek Estates). I could have lived in downtown OKC, but there is no housing downtown that I like. But I do work in the city, but why would I live downtown, when I can have a nice home, with front and backyard, and land in the suburbs, with all the amenities I need for the same price? Downtown doesn't have anything to attract my demographic right now, and it only takes me 15mins to get to work.

This. We're a victim of our own great housing market when it comes to moving downtown.

Also, if you want a front and backyard, you're probably not the kind of person who is going to live downtown regardless. If you don't already like housing styles downtown, there are probably never going to be housing styles to like. We've already got a range of styles, from the Hill to the Central Ave. Villas. If you're not into walkability, professional sports or art, it's true that there aren't really amenities downtown that aren't available elswhere.

If it were me, if I wanted a yard and I wanted to live near downtown, I'd build a skinny house in SoSA.

Oh, and Kerry, the Core to Shore renderings actually had a theoretical housing development right on the central park that is just like Notting Hill. The entire block was lined by townhouses with a small park/backyard in the middle. Obviously it was just a drawing, but someone was thinking along the same lines you are.

It is in the US census. There is a thread on it somewhere. The census district that covers downtown OKC has the highest growth rate in the state.

Not hardly... One tract grew 201%, but that was with a population of just 500... Try May to County Line between 164th and Memorial- 268% growth and population of over 5,000. Two adjacent tracts in southern Moore along I-35 with 360-380% growth, combined population of almost 7,000. 300-325% growth in two adjacent Broken Arrow tracts with over 10,000 people.

I read a site the other day that pointed out that there were only three cities in the US where there was actual in-migration over the past decade....Austin, San Antonio and Oklahoma City. All others continued the de-urbanization trend since WW2. It pointed out that for all the talk about re-urbanization the reality is that in almost every city it is just talk.

I read a site the other day that pointed out that there were only three cities in the US where there was actual in-migration over the past decade....Austin, San Antonio and Oklahoma City. All others continued the de-urbanization trend since WW2. It pointed out that for all the talk about re-urbanization the reality is that in almost every city it is just talk.

Well, I was just visiting friends in Uptown Dallas and it's amazing how many young people (20s, 30s) live in that area. Reminds me that despite our progress, we have a long way to go to have that type of core of young people in the downtown area. (I'm not saying I want to emulate Uptown. I'm just pointing out how much is going on in that area)...

I read a site the other day that pointed out that there were only three cities in the US where there was actual in-migration over the past decade....Austin, San Antonio and Oklahoma City. All others continued the de-urbanization trend since WW2. It pointed out that for all the talk about re-urbanization the reality is that in almost every city it is just talk.

Maybe we have different definitions of "re-urbanization," but I see it as gentrification of and migration to the core of a city--not obvious when averaging over the entire city, but quite evident when you analyze migration patterns on a more local level, such as by census tract. As pointed out above, and as suggested by the USA Today article, areas like Uptown Dallas gained thousands of new residents over the past decade (i.e., in-migration) while there was a tremendous out-migration over other parts of the city, resulting in a city-wide net out-migration. (See this map (http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map?hp).)

By contrast, cities like San Antonio and OKC saw little re-urbanization over the past decade compared to cities like Austin and Dallas. OKC may have seen net in-migration (I suspect that is domestic in-migration that you are referring to) but little of it was in the core. In short, I don't think the city-wide migration trends are at all indicative of re-urbanization.

I read a site the other day that pointed out that there were only three cities in the US where there was actual in-migration over the past decade....Austin, San Antonio and Oklahoma City. All others continued the de-urbanization trend since WW2. It pointed out that for all the talk about re-urbanization the reality is that in almost every city it is just talk.

Well, it's not really just talk. If you look at a lot of the cities, even those that have lost population, you see that the cores are the healthiest part of the city. Check out Chicago, where the Loop had tracts ranging from 50-200% population growth despite the city losing over 200k. Philadelphia another great example. Charlotte. St. Louis very dramatic, also KC. Zoom in on some cities on this map (http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map), even OKC, and you will see the pattern. Cities have large swaths of declining population, surrounded by growing suburbs. But in the center, the downtowns, there are high-growth areas, and we know (anecdotally) that suburbs are slowing while this urban core growth is increasing.

Why is their debate in this thread? Is anyone really disputing the fact that we still aren't attracting enough "young, educated adults" call them what they want?

I mean, metro hasn't even chimed in yet to remind us that that's his "demographic!" :-)

Why is their debate in this thread? Is anyone really disputing the fact that we still aren't attracting enough "young, educated adults" call them what they want?

I mean, metro hasn't even chimed in yet to remind us that that's his "demographic!" :-)

Spartan I agree, and as a middle class African American, I can tell you native, college educated African Americans are leaving for not only better jobs but african american centered entertainment and social options which are almost non existent in OKC.

Spartan I agree, and as a middle class African American, I can tell you native, college educated African Americans are leaving for not only better jobs but african american center
ed entertainment and social options which are almost non existent in OKC.

Please don't get me wrong, but what in the world us African American entertainment? I thought the point was to integrate and desegregate races. How is that ever going to happen with places specifically designed for certain races?

Back on topic, Rover, I agree with the other posters' remarks about your comment. Even Tulsa grew significantly in downtown and certain parts if midtown. Even though the city lost overall population (we've grown nearly 10,000 sine 2005 though), we still saw a reurbanization of the core.

Spartan I agree, and as a middle class African American, I can tell you native, college educated African Americans are leaving for not only better jobs but african american centered entertainment and social options which are almost non existent in OKC.

I disagree, as I am a post-grad African-American, and I enjoy living in the Oklahoma City metro. I enjoy the culture, momentum, and progressive approach that Oklahoma City is fostering. When I graduated from OU, most of my African-American classmates, migrated to Dallas, for "jobs", but most of them were from Texas anyways, lol. But I stayed, weathered the storm, and now reaping the benefits. I tend to stay and raise my family here, and I want to say, "I witnessed the true renaissance of Oklahoma City, from the ground up".

Well, it's not really just talk. If you look at a lot of the cities, even those that have lost population, you see that the cores are the healthiest part of the city. Check out Chicago, where the Loop had tracts ranging from 50-200% population growth despite the city losing over 200k. Philadelphia another great example. Charlotte. St. Louis very dramatic, also KC. Zoom in on some cities on this map (http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map), even OKC, and you will see the pattern. Cities have large swaths of declining population, surrounded by growing suburbs. But in the center, the downtowns, there are high-growth areas, and we know (anecdotally) that suburbs are slowing while this urban core growth is increasing.

I will see if I can find the report again, but it clearly disputed what you are saying about the core of cities growing with residents. It was saying that it was a myth in all but three cities (larger cities) in the US, and those were Austin, San Antonio and OKC. Now, am I saying that OKC is doing any great things to urbanize...no. We have a long way to go, but we aren't exactly late to this game over the last 50 years.

I disagree, as I am a post-grad African-American, and I enjoy living in the Oklahoma City metro. I enjoy the culture, momentum, and progressive approach that Oklahoma City is fostering. When I graduated from OU, most of my African-American classmates, migrated to Dallas, for "jobs", but most of them were from Texas anyways, lol. But I stayed, weathered the storm, and now reaping the benefits. I tend to stay and raise my family here, and I want to say, "I witnessed the true renaissance of Oklahoma City, from the ground up".

There ya go. One of the great things about being in a young state is getting to see it come of age.

There ya go. One of the great things about being in a young state is getting to see it come of age.

That's funny, considering that most people who are pushing for OKC to be better could care less about (and would rather ignore) this entity we call "state." Most would resoundingly agree that OKC would be better off if it were in another state, and didn't have to serve as this oasis of culture and other things along with Tulsa.

What impact does anything related to the state, unless you have lots of relatives out in Gotebo, especially the "state coming of age" have to do with someone's life in OKC? I'm at a loss for that. In all honesty, what it means is that we don't have properly aged neighborhoods, unfortunately. Of course milestones are always cool, unless they're as corny as Oklahoma's Centennial was a few years ago. Talk about disappointment.

And that's especially lame to use as an excuse for why young people should give Oklahoma a chance. Furthermore, I don't view this thread as why recent graduates should give Oklahoma a chance. The point though is that they aren't. I do think it's notable that more are now, than were 10 years ago. That's progress. But everyone was making progress at that time. Having been to many of these inner cities in the last two years or so, it's nice to be able to numerically quantify the difference between say, downtown St Louis, and downtown OKC. I was really pleasantly surprised how awesome downtown St Louis was. Every time I go somewhere like that it does make me feel disappointed in OKC.

If we want to debate a CAUSE, here's a cause (and I think it's already been mentioned): The simple lack of real estate options. The only thing that will change that is developers. Thank goodness for Deep Deuce right now. We need a LOT more of that. If recent graduates had that option thrown at them more, I don't think it's even questionable that a lot more of them would stay. That's how developing more real estate targeted at one specific demographic could do more for OKC than other ranges, if someone wants to get into a class debate.

I get the impression that a lot more of the downtown housing that has arrived in St. Louis, Dallas, Houston especially, Charlotte, Atlanta especially, Memphis, Kansas City, et al., is being filled mostly by recent graduates. In OKC that's not the case. There is more demographic diversity, that comes with good things and bad things. The bad thing is that it makes downtown less of an oasis for young graduates, which is the role downtown usually serves in other cities. In OKC I would honestly say Western Ave is more of an oasis for young graduates than downtown. Bricktown nightlife is just college cheerleaders and small town people trying to be seen in "the city"...

That's funny, considering that most people who are pushing for OKC to be better could care less about (and would rather ignore) this entity we call "state." Most would resoundingly agree that OKC would be better off if it were in another state, and didn't have to serve as this oasis of culture and other things along with Tulsa.

What impact does anything related to the state, unless you have lots of relatives out in Gotebo, especially the "state coming of age" have to do with someone's life in OKC? I'm at a loss for that. In all honesty, what it means is that we don't have properly aged neighborhoods, unfortunately. Of course milestones are always cool, unless they're as corny as Oklahoma's Centennial was a few years ago. Talk about disappointment.


And that's especially lame to use as an excuse for why young people should give Oklahoma a chance. Furthermore, I don't view this thread as why recent graduates should give Oklahoma a chance. The point though is that they aren't. I do think it's notable that more are now, than were 10 years ago. That's progress. But everyone was making progress at that time. Having been to many of these inner cities in the last two years or so, it's nice to be able to numerically quantify the difference between say, downtown St Louis, and downtown OKC. I was really pleasantly surprised how awesome downtown St Louis was. Every time I go somewhere like that it does make me feel disappointed in OKC.

If we want to debate a CAUSE, here's a cause (and I think it's already been mentioned): The simple lack of real estate options. The only thing that will change that is developers. Thank goodness for Deep Deuce right now. We need a LOT more of that. If recent graduates had that option thrown at them more, I don't think it's even questionable that a lot more of them would stay. That's how developing more real estate targeted at one specific demographic could do more for OKC than other ranges, if someone wants to get into a class debate.

I get the impression that a lot more of the downtown housing that has arrived in St. Louis, Dallas, Houston especially, Charlotte, Atlanta especially, Memphis, Kansas City, et al., is being filled mostly by recent graduates. In OKC that's not the case. There is more demographic diversity, that comes with good things and bad things. The bad thing is that it makes downtown less of an oasis for young graduates, which is the role downtown usually serves in other cities. In OKC I would honestly say Western Ave is more of an oasis for young graduates than downtown. Bricktown nightlife is just college cheerleaders and small town people trying to be seen in "the city"...


Why does Oklahoma City have to be like other cities? Why can't they foster their own culture, their own way of growing? Who cares is people flocking downtown are in their 50's? As long as we have people living downtown, no matter the age, money will flow to stimulate the economy. Oklahoma City is a young city, all the other cities you mention had a 40-50 year head start, I am tired of people comparing us to cities who have years ahead of us in development. The good thing about being behind, is that we can observe what other cities done wrong and right in their development efforts, and use that to our advantage.

I walked the streets of Bricktown when I was a freshman in college, when it still had orange cones, and dirt mounds, when the finishing touches were being put on At&t Ballpark, and now 12 years later, I still walk in Bricktown, with my family, eating at nice restaurants, going to ball games, and stimulating the Bricktown economy with my hard earned money.

I will see if I can find the report again, but it clearly disputed what you are saying about the core of cities growing with residents. It was saying that it was a myth in all but three cities (larger cities) in the US, and those were Austin, San Antonio and OKC. Now, am I saying that OKC is doing any great things to urbanize...no. We have a long way to go, but we aren't exactly late to this game over the last 50 years.

Yeah there have definitely been articles saying that.. Essentially the argument is that if cities are doing so great then they ought to have gained population, and it shows that many lost population overall so the urban revitalization is a myth. But they ignore the finer data showing that the strongest part of many supposedly declining cities is the urban core. Just look at the map and you can visually see the actual Census results telling the story.

Check out this article: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2011/03/16/the-downtown-renaissance-extends-its-reach/

* Baltimore lost 4.6% of its population since 2000
* Chicago: -6.9%
* Cincinnati: -10.4%
* Cleveland: -17.1%
* Pittsburgh: -8.6%
* St. Louis: -8.3%
-------
* Baltimore‘s downtown residential population has grown by 11.6% since 2006 and now provides living space for more than 40,000 people.
* Chicago‘s Loop saw a 76% increase in inhabitants since 2000 and the Near South Side more than doubled in population over the same period (even as the number of jobs downtown declined by 60,000).
* Cleveland‘s most central census tracts tracks each gained 20% or more in population between 2000 and 2010.
* St. Louis‘ central neighborhoods gained several thousand people in total. (Update: A new post from NextSTL provides more insight into changes in the city.)

And growing cities too,

* Los Angeles added 2.6% to its citywide population since 2000 (reaching a historic peak)
* Newark: +1.3% (first gain in a decennial census since 1950)
* New Haven: +5.0%
* Philadelphia: +0.6% (first gain since 1950)
* Portland: +10.3% (historic peak)
* San Francisco: +3.7% (historic peak)
* Seattle: +8.0% (historic peak)

----------

* Los Angeles‘ downtown, once assumed to be dead for good, grew from 35,884 to 51,329 in the number of people calling it home.
* Philadelphia‘s Center City District increased in population from 60,000 in 2000 to more than 70,000 in 2010, accounting for more than the entire city’s growth during that period (which was about 8,600).
* San Francisco‘s South of Market Mission district, adjoining downtown, increased in population massively.
* Seattle‘s downtown and the adjacent South Lake Union neighborhood expanded from around 16,000 to more than 23,000 people.

Please don't get me wrong, but what in the world us African American entertainment? I thought the point was to integrate and desegregate races. How is that ever going to happen with places specifically designed for certain races?

Back on topic, Rover, I agree with the other posters' remarks about your comment. Even Tulsa grew significantly in downtown and certain parts if midtown. Even though the city lost overall population (we've grown nearly 10,000 sine 2005 though), we still saw a reurbanization of the core.

I think you have to stretch the definition of midtown to come up with parts of midtown Tulsa that "grew significantly". According to the New York Times map, every single census tract in the areas of Tulsa most would call Midtown lost population.

G Walker, it would be nice to meet you, I like how you think. I am very happy to hear that you and hopefully other young, educated African Americans are choosing to remain or even move to Oklahoma City. I must admit, however, that when I return to OKC, (I was there 23-26 March), I most often hear from African Americans representing the demographic to which I was speaking about the dearth of entertainment and cultural offerings geared towards them and I do not mean just clubs. I could very well be wrong in my assessment, I really hope so. By the way, I intend to move back to the State (probably OKC) for retirement in about 4 years.

Why does Oklahoma City have to be like other cities?

I didn't suggest we have an Arch like St. Louis. I said, gee, it would be nice to have the massive numbers of downtown housing that St. Louis has.


The good thing about being behind, is that we can observe what other cities done wrong and right in their development efforts, and use that to our advantage.

Actually, this is always exactly what OKC does. In reality there is no good thing to being behind. What OKC does in reality is observes for ten years, keep doing certain development patterns that have gone "out of fashion" a decade ago until OKC does said development pattern in the grandest fashion, after everyone else already discovered the problems with that.

Example: we had one of the grandest (if not the grandest) urban renewal scheme for downtown, some 20 years after the first urban renewal plan, and 5-10 years after people realized how bad that was. Look at the brand-new sprawl of Memorial Rd., I-35/Moore, Edmond, I-40, and other places...again, 5-10 years after other cities have stopped doing that.

There is no positive way to spin OKC's constantly being 10 years behind in terms of development. Every city in the NBA has some form of fixed guideway transit except for us. Now cities are moving onto Complete Streets, a concept that likely won't come here until another 2020.

Eternal optimism is a good thing. But, sometimes it's also a good thing to critically evaluate things and face the facts. Sometimes cold hard realities can be motivating forces.