Using that Wikipedia chart, OKC was 10th in growth percentage wise with metros with a million or more people.
1. Austin +9.72%
2. Raleigh +7.43%
3. Houston +6.63%
4. San Antonio +6.30%
5. Orlando +6.25%
6. Denver +6.05%
7. Dallas-Fort Worth +5.99%
8. Washington DC +5.56%
9. Charlotte +5.34%
10. Oklahoma City +5.32%

Oklahoma has about $500 million its rainy day fund coffers. Does it have to be raining to tap the fund :) & fix the state capitol building and complete construction of the American Indian Cultural Center Museum in OKC--the state owns this project & should finish it. We're in jeopardy of losing the $40 million in private donations & pledges already collected to match the state's portions. It's costly to let this center remain unfinished as costs to secure the site accumulates each year.


https://sp3.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.607993152477137831&pid=15.1

American Indian Cultural Center & Museum (AICCM)

Oklahoma City


Our city is experiencing an important phase of growth; this is not the time to stagnate that growth.

The rainy day fund has accumulated as a result of cuts, shifts, exchanges & transfers over the years to valuable programs like education. A percentage of funds the state receives from the state lottery & the Indian gaming casinos goes toward education. Once the Indian casinos & state lottery were approved; Oklahoma cut the general education funds earmarked for education replacing some of it with revenue taxes collected from the casinos & the state lottery. Does anyone know where we rank in this region (Kansas, Missouri, Colorado, Texas, Arkansas, New Mexico) among states in per pupil funding for education?

Compare States Education Spending for 2014 - Charts (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/compare_state_education_spend)



http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif "Oklahoma City looks oh-so pretty... ...as I get my kicks on Route 66." --Nat King Cole.http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif

Oklahoma has about $500 million its rainy day fund coffers. Does it have to be raining to tap the fund :) & fix the state capitol building and complete construction of the American Indian Cultural Center Museum in OKC--the state owns this project & should finish it. We're in jeopardy of losing the $40 million in private donations & pledges already collected to match the state's portions. It's costly to let this center remain unfinished as costs to secure the site accumulates each year.


https://sp3.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.607993152477137831&pid=15.1

American Indian Cultural Center & Museum (AICCM)

Oklahoma City


Our city is experiencing an important phase of growth; this is not the time to stagnate that growth.

The rainy day fund has accumulated as a result of cuts, shifts, exchanges & transfers over the years to valuable programs like education. A percentage of funds the state receives from the state lottery & the Indian gaming casinos goes toward education. Once the Indian casinos & state lottery were approved; Oklahoma cut the general education funds earmarked for education replacing some of it with revenue taxes collected from the casinos & the state lottery. Does anyone know where we rank in this region (Kansas, Missouri, Colorado, Texas, Arkansas, New Mexico) among states in per pupil funding for education?

Compare States Education Spending for 2014 - Charts (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/compare_state_education_spend)



http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif "Oklahoma City looks oh-so pretty... ...as I get my kicks on Route 66." --Nat King Cole.http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif

I think we are 49th in spending. In an economic energy boom! I know "throwing money at education" is not "the" answer, but that argument has become stale and hollow. You get what you pay for. You prioritize what's important. Paying educators is not a priority of our leadership; if it were, they would work just as hard for teachers and students as they do the oil titans they reward with ridiculous tax incentives. This oil and gas is our God-given resource. If we were like North Dakota, we could tax people to extract our resources to pay for our quality of life. And it wouldn't affect their willingness to drill or frac one iota.

And policy wise, we are not moving in the right direction. Barresi's "my way or the highway" approach probably sounds great to angry conservative activists, but it is a disaster in practice. Yesterday's testing debacle, the second in two consecutive years, is unacceptable. I understand that occasionally outsourcing government services is wise and efficient, but is the GOP's answer to everything "privatize?" As with the military, it often costs more to privatize government services and contracts. We're paying that stupid testing company multimillions and they are bungling the job. I don't know about most of you, but I grew up in this state and our standardized testing was seamless. A couple of sharpened number 2 pencils was all that was required.

How did things get this bad this fast?

One other note on edit: Our state's voters passed a constitutional amendment many years ago that makes it nearly impossible to raise taxes. That's why any tax cutting should be seriously debated up front. What value are we going to receive for a 1/4% income tax cut? What are we sacrificing? The fact is that whether or not we cut income taxes we have to fund services; we cannot run a deficit like the Feds. So in the end, we'll end up paying more for our tires, being taxed to put solar panels on our homes, paying more for our car tags, and other forms of regressive taxation that disproportionately impact those of us who have to work for a living. This is a phantom tax cut, because they'll make up the revenue somehow, some way, and it won't be in our best interest, while we continue to strangle the budgets for education, corrections, and roads.

I've never self identified as a "conservative," obviously, but we have had many great Republican leaders in Oklahoma over the years. We have one running our city right now. But the ALEC-funded, Koch Brothers, religiously dogmatic government we have in Oklahoma is not in any way conservative. Reactionary would be a better description. Because I'm not a Republican I have no impact on what happens in that party, but for those of you who are, please nominate responsible leaders for office. Win or lose, we need statesmen / women running our government, regardless of party. We are seriously lacking in that area right now and the state's legislature is the worst I've ever seen it, and I cannot think of a worse governor than what we have right now.

soonergugu:

True, you've brought up some good points.

We can't throw funds at education then look for immediate results; it takes time. The state's funding system is flawed; yet we continue to give tax breaks/incentives to companies who pay very little in taxes.

School bonds & millage elections are hitting the aging property owners who no longer have a stake in public education because their children are grown. Funds need to grow in proportion with the growth of education. Oklahoma wants to do away with state income taxes--they believe that this will put them on a more level playing field to compete with Texas for jobs. :rolleyes:

Salute MAPS II for Kids which helped with renovations and several new school buildings (capital improvements) in the Oklahoma City metropolitan areas. An environment that's conducive to learning is a start. Schools use other sources (candy money, vending machines, fund-raising) to supplement the individual school's general fund accounts.

If we want to attract & maintain teachers; bottom line, you're going to have to pay them or they will relocate. There are separate fund sources the state allocates for capital improvements & teacher salaries.

The investment in an individual's higher education has skyrocketed. The average college student invests nearly $15,000 per semester--leaving a four year degree program with debts in the neighborhood of $125,000. Out-of-state tuition & fees are much higher. These government & private student loans have to be repaid.



http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif "Oklahoma City looks oh-so pretty... ...as I get my kicks on Route 66." --Nat King Cole.http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif

And then there's this. No, I didn't write this article.

Oklahoma faces budget crisis despite economic boom | News OK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-faces-budget-crisis-despite-economic-boom/article/4303195)

And then there's this. No, I didn't write this article.

Oklahoma faces budget crisis despite economic boom | News OK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-faces-budget-crisis-despite-economic-boom/article/4303195)

I tried to start an article with this because we've been discussing it. Just a damn shame. This type of nonsense is going to hurt Oklahoma.

I agree, Mary Fallin is an embarassment. But I wanted to comment on the population charts. Clicking the link to newgeography, I found that all metropolitan areas listed except for one (Philadelaphia at -0.01%) have experienced popultion growth from 2010 to 2013. For example, New York has gained 400,000 residents since 2010. Think about that. New York City has absorbed nearly as many residents as the entire population of OKC - in three years. American cities and suburbs are growing, because the entire population of the country is growing. We have one of the higher birth rates in the developed world, we have a lot of immigrants, and domestically people are leaving small towns for big cities. We imagine that people are leaving New York, Chicago, Cleveland, and St. Louis, and Buffalo, but in fact all of those metropoliltan areas are growing.

Rust Belt cities are great on foreign migration. That said, I don't think it's that bad to be in a list with New York, Chicago, Cleveland, St Louis, Buffalo, and Providence. Those are great cities with high quality of life. Austria, Denmark, and Sweden are also losing population.

And then there's this. No, I didn't write this article.

Oklahoma faces budget crisis despite economic boom | News OK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-faces-budget-crisis-despite-economic-boom/article/4303195)

Good reporting by the Oklahoman's Sean Murphy.


This approach “is an important way to stimulate the economy, create jobs and help middle class families,” Fallin said defending her plan. :rolleyes:

Mary Fallin stood up against the Republican controlled legislature when she was lieutenant governor; as governor, she reminds me of a puppet on a string.


http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif "Oklahoma City looks oh-so pretty... ...as I get my kicks on Route 66." --Nat King Cole.http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif

I'm so sick of Fallin, Inhofe, Kern, Shannon, and these other dumb retreads. We need a modern government to run this state, not a bunch of corrupt hayseeds. Come on millenials, help move us into the 21st Century.

Please put down the artisan porters and IPAs long enough to register and vote!

Guru - great post, what exactly does a corrupt hayseed look like?

Here ya go, Sparty.

7600

When you click on the image you notice the strange, grimacing faces of Bobby Jindal and that other dude behind her. By the looks on their faces it's as if she allowed a rancid flatulence to escape.

Here ya go, Sparty.

7600

When you click on the image you notice the strange, grimacing faces of Bobby Jindal and that other dude behind her. By the looks on their faces it's as if she allowed a rancid flatulence to escape.

Escape? Thank goodness that her sphincter muscle allowed for it to seep out or she would have blown the top off Mount Manitoba.

She does look as though she cut some cheese or expelled some lethal gas. Could have saved the state some money on the upcoming executions; the poor guy behind her looks faint. Governor Jindal appears stunned.


http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif "Oklahoma City looks oh-so pretty... ...as I get my kicks on Route 66." --Nat King Cole.http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif

^ Lol. You guys are a gas!

The city population estimates for 2013 are supposed to be released in May. Well it is the 20th so it should be any time. Also, unless we had a serious downturn in our economy in the last year, we should surpass the 600,000 mark in 2013.

I am also awaiting the revised projections. We are closing in on Memphis and Jacksonville

My guess is around 612,000!

^Memphis is still quite a bit larger by about 55,000 people, and OKC trails Jacksonville by about 237,000 people.

OKC is closing in on Louisville, however. Portland would be a contender as well but that's a tough call. Portland and OKC grew at exactly the same rate from 2010-2012 and Portland was larger by about 4,000 people.

I'm also going to guess that Louisville falls 2 spots from #27 to #29, while OKC and Portland move up a spot each to #28 and #27 respectively. San Jose is very close to 1,000,000 and Austin to 900,000.

We all know its ultimately metro area population that really matters. I would definitely not consider Portland, Oregon a peer city of OKC despite city populations being relatively close. Their metro population is almost double plus their is the boutique factor so there is nothing in OKC that can remotely compare to Portland.

We all know its ultimately metro area population that really matters. I would definitely not consider Portland, Oregon a peer city of OKC despite city populations being relatively close. Their metro population is almost double plus their is the boutique factor so there is nothing in OKC that can remotely compare to Portland.

I usually stay out of the comparison discussions, but was that last line really necessary? People are talking about city populations here, nothing more. Don't worry, we don't have enough hubris to think we compare to Portland in anything but city population. But, we're improving faster than they are. Portland had its leap out of obscurity a couple of decades ago. We're doing that now. In addition, Portland has no Tulsa equivalent to compete with for population. The state of Oregon has about the same population as Oklahoma. So it's no surprise their metro population is bigger.

We all know its ultimately metro area population that really matters. I would definitely not consider Portland, Oregon a peer city of OKC despite city populations being relatively close. Their metro population is almost double plus their is the boutique factor so there is nothing in OKC that can remotely compare to Portland.
Are you serious? Literally nothing you said changes the fact that OKC proper and Portland proper are close in population. That's all anyone was saying. No one said "peer city" or "metro area" in any of the posts above you. Give it a rest, man.

We all know its ultimately metro area population that really matters. I would definitely not consider Portland, Oregon a peer city of OKC despite city populations being relatively close. Their metro population is almost double plus their is the boutique factor so there is nothing in OKC that can remotely compare to Portland.

Absolutely correct, Portland has more short and stubby office towers compared to OKC.

And the Trailblazers are not as good as the Thunder.

Absolutely correct, Portland has more short and stubby office towers compared to OKC.

And the Trailblazers are not as good as the Thunder.

Portland also has nearly a full 2.0% higher unemployment rate and around 70 fewer clear/sunny days per year than OKC. #stillcantbeatcharlotte


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Absolutely correct, Portland has more short and stubby office towers compared to OKC.

And the Trailblazers are not as good as the Thunder.

Portland has a less impressive skyline but at steet level it's one of the most impressive cities in the US. OKC doesn't have anywhere that can really compare. The diversity and cultural vibrancy in Portland is unmatched anywhere in the South except for maybe in Austin. They may be a lot rainier but their weather is overall milder in both summer and winter and they don't have a severe weather season. Their natural terrain is beautiful as well. Their basketball team isn't as good as the Thunder but you never hear of people moving to Portland for the sports. Portland is liberal, sometimes mindnumbingly and oppressively so. OKC is just as conservative as Portland is liberal. Portland and OKC are in many ways complete opposites.

And in Oregon, Portland does benefit from being the only real city in the state. Tulsa hurts OKC in some ways by siphoning off population and amenities that would otherwise go to OKC.

Portland has a less impressive skyline but at steet level it's one of the most impressive cities in the US. OKC doesn't have anywhere that can really compare. The diversity and cultural vibrancy in Portland is unmatched anywhere in the South except for maybe in Austin. They may be a lot rainier but their weather is overall milder in both summer and winter and they don't have a severe weather season. Their natural terrain is beautiful as well. Their basketball team isn't as good as the Thunder but you never hear of people moving to Portland for the sports. Portland and OKC are in many ways complete opposites.

And in Oregon, Portland does benefit from being the only real city in the state. Tulsa hurts OKC in some ways by siphoning off population and amenities that would otherwise go to OKC.

Preachin' to the choir.

Back to OKC please...

Assuming that the city grew at least as fast as the metro (OKC has actually exceeded the growth rate of the metro the past few estimates) @ growth of 1.65% that should put us around 609K.

Portland has a less impressive skyline but at steet level it's one of the most impressive cities in the US. OKC doesn't have anywhere that can really compare. The diversity and cultural vibrancy in Portland is unmatched anywhere in the South except for maybe in Austin. They may be a lot rainier but their weather is overall milder in both summer and winter and they don't have a severe weather season. Their natural terrain is beautiful as well. Their basketball team isn't as good as the Thunder but you never hear of people moving to Portland for the sports. Portland and OKC are in many ways complete opposites.

And in Oregon, Portland does benefit from being the only real city in the state. Tulsa hurts OKC in some ways by siphoning off population and amenities that would otherwise go to OKC.

Again with so many points completely irrelevant in a thread titled "Population Growth for OKC" in which we compared the POPULATIONS on Portland and OKC. I didn't realize tornadoes and level of hipsterness factored into total population figures. You do realize we are just throwing out random facts for the sole purpose of making fun of you, right?

Here's to BChris, who will never miss an opportunity to slam OKC no matter the thread subject.

I think Portland would be the perfect place for bchris02 to move to, AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

Portland has a less impressive skyline but at steet level it's one of the most impressive cities in the US. OKC doesn't have anywhere that can really compare. The diversity and cultural vibrancy in Portland is unmatched anywhere in the South except for maybe in Austin. They may be a lot rainier but their weather is overall milder in both summer and winter and they don't have a severe weather season. Their natural terrain is beautiful as well. Their basketball team isn't as good as the Thunder but you never hear of people moving to Portland for the sports. Portland is liberal, sometimes mindnumbingly and oppressively so. OKC is just as conservative as Portland is liberal. Portland and OKC are in many ways complete opposites.

And in Oregon, Portland does benefit from being the only real city in the state. Tulsa hurts OKC in some ways by siphoning off population and amenities that would otherwise go to OKC.

And if you remember back in the early '80's, Mt St. Helens blew it's stack and covered Portland in severaL inches of ash. I was there in 1987 and it still had large mounds of grey ash piled up in parking lots where it had been cleared years earlier. As a side note, I bought a '66 Shelby Cobra from a man in Portland, he said his reason for selling was that it could only be driven 3 months out of the year. It is a beautiful place though.

My guess is somewhere in the 610,000 range.

I am also awaiting the revised projections. We are closing in on Memphis and Jacksonville


American FactFinder - Results * (http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk)

We should take Memphis in the 2016 census estimates. We gaining 20,000 a year to their 1,000 in Metropolitan population.


The city population estimates for 2013 are supposed to be released in May. Well it is the 20th so it should be any time. Also, unless we had a serious downturn in our economy in the last year, we should surpass the 600,000 mark in 2013.

No results yet...


http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif "Oklahoma City looks oh-so pretty... ...as I get my kicks on Route 66." --Nat King Cole.http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif

We all know its ultimately metro area population that really matters. I would definitely not consider Portland, Oregon a peer city of OKC despite city populations being relatively close. Their metro population is almost double plus their is the boutique factor so there is nothing in OKC that can remotely compare to Portland.

I was simply comparing city proper populations between OKC and Portland, nothing more.

I was simply comparing city proper populations between OKC and Portland, nothing more.

I know. I was wrong to start comparing OKC and Portland in this thread. My point was that metro population is the only number that really matters. OKC is larger than Atlanta if you go by city population alone yet few would argue with the fact that Atlanta is one of the most important cities in the US.

Memphis and Louisville are great comparisons because their city and metro population numbers are similar. Memphis has been relatively stagnant for years now. OKC should pass them up nicely.

I know. I was wrong to start comparing OKC and Portland in this thread. My point was that metro population is the only number that really matters. OKC is larger than Atlanta if you go by city population alone yet few would argue with the fact that Atlanta is one of the most important cities in the US.

Memphis and Louisville are great comparisons because their city and metro population numbers are similar. Memphis has been relatively stagnant for years now. OKC should pass them up nicely.

Memphis and Louisville are great comparisons because of their similarities.

It's time for Oklahoma City to move beyond these cities (Memphis, Louisville). We have leadership ready to take us to the next level. Our city has experienced expansion at nearly ever level. MAPS III has the elements to kick-start us as we position ourselves for growth into the twenties--especially if we get the Convention Center/mega hotel and commuter rail on track. This is where we will realize the fruits of our labor.


http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif "Oklahoma City looks oh-so pretty... ...as I get my kicks on Route 66." --Nat King Cole.http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif

Again with so many points completely irrelevant in a thread titled "Population Growth for OKC" in which we compared the POPULATIONS on Portland and OKC. I didn't realize tornadoes and level of hipsterness factored into total population figures. You do realize we are just throwing out random facts for the sole purpose of making fun of you, right?

Here's to BChris, who will never miss an opportunity to slam OKC no matter the thread subject.

Good post, but if you were me you'd have four or five idiots telling you to apologize for being snarky. Lol

Lol I wouldn't be one of them in this case


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good post, but if you were me you'd have four or five idiots telling you to apologize for being snarky. Lol
Typical snarkyness(make that a word) from Spartan ;)

Typical snarkyness (make that a word) from Spartan ;)
Nay, nay. PQ is responsible for the renewal of the word "snarky". Hey,
she's very smart, per her posts, and provides an eloquent denouncement
of stupidity.

Arguing with PQ is like saying water can't boil. Believe me, water can boil.

Don't be stupid.

I don't understand how city populations can be compared for Portland and OKC.

The land size for the city of Portland is 133 square miles while the land size for the city of Oklahoma City is 607 square miles. That's a ridiculously unfair comparison.

I don't understand how city populations can be compared for Portland and OKC.

The land size for the city of Portland is 133 square miles while the land size for the city of Oklahoma City is 607 square miles. That's a ridiculously unfair comparison.

What does the land size have to do with population?

What does the land size have to do with population?

Population density and what it costs to provide the normal utilities and services expected in a modern city. The more people per given amount of land, the lower it costs to serve those people. It is a legitimate consideration and issue especially if people would like to keep taxes at a reasonable level.

So how does that apply to OKC's population growth? The pyramid scheme we have created and continue to perpetuate by the manner the city has spread out - just because it could without any thought given to what happens when all that infrastructure that serves a relatively small number of people for the investment required to maintain and eventually replace. Why don't we incentivize redeveloping areas that are now considered blighted or "going downhill" rather than facilitating building another subdivision in the next empty field outside the ones being built today? Do that until the population is high enough to justify another ring. This is the usual debate we see on the site, but it is one we should have. I don't know anyone ready to bulldoze existing suburbs but we can do better if we are smarter with future development.

What does the land size have to do with population?

Because it's a much much wider net for OKC.

In a vacuum, the city vs. city population for OKC and Portland is very symmetric because of the large land area advantage for OKC and the small land area disadvantage for Portland.

600,000 in a 607 square mile area is not as impressive as 600,000 people in a 133 square mile area. The density difference is tremendous.

The same can be said for San Antonio and San Francisco. San Antonio has a city population of 1.4 million within 461 square miles. The city likes to brag about being the '7th" largest city in the US, which is factually correct but means very little when a city like San Francisco has 840,000 people within an area of 47 square miles. That's impressive. Imagine if San Francisco expanded its city boundaries by another 414 square miles. They'd be a top 3 or 4 city with regards to population. If San Antonio reduced their city boundaries by 414, it'd have a much smaller population, way outside the top 10. What exactly does that change other than meaningless bragging rights?

San Francisco will still be San Francisco and San Antonio will still be San Antonio.

City populations in this day and age are very arbitrary and mean very little. Metro and urban populations are much more tangible and valuable.

Visual representation if 1 pixel equaled 1 square mile. (http://i.imgur.com/CKjk0xQ.png)

I'm not going to argue the relative population densities of OKC and Portland, but in general just because a city has a larger area doesn't mean that its population is evenly distributed throughout that area. A city may have an area of 400 sq miles, but if 80% of the city's population is in the inner 200 sq miles then does the total area even matter in regards to relative comparisons?

I'm not going to argue the relative population densities of OKC and Portland, but in general just because a city has a larger area doesn't mean that its population is evenly distributed throughout that area. A city may have an area of 400 sq miles, but if 80% of the city's population is in the inner 200 sq miles then does the total area even matter in regards to relative comparisons?

I agree. OKC's Wikipedia figure of 600 sq miles is misleading because a majority of that is undeveloped. I am not sure how many sq miles of OKC actually are developed but the numbers aren't as bad as they seem at first glance. OKC really has to be treated like a city/county consolidation when it comes to density. Louisville is in the same boat today.

Because it's a much much wider net for OKC.

City populations in this day and age are very arbitrary and mean very little. Metro and urban populations are much more tangible and valuable.

While you make a good point I strongly disagree with this statement. City populations are very important and if you don't think so just remember how many places fought the Census in 2010 to dispute their official count. This is how we determine pretty basic things like how much representation or tax funding a city gets.

Yes we all know that Atlanta has more recognition and economic importance than Mesa Arizona even though Mesa is bigger. All the census is trying to do is count how many people are in a muncipality, nothing more.

While you make a good point I strongly disagree with this statement. City populations are very important and if you don't think so just remember how many places fought the Census in 2010 to dispute their official count. This is how we determine pretty basic things like how much representation or tax funding a city gets.

Yes we all know that Atlanta has more recognition and economic importance than Mesa Arizona even though Mesa is bigger. All the census is trying to do is count how many people are in a muncipality, nothing more.

I get both sides of the argument. In terms of getting Federal (or State) funding, the population within a city's borders is extremely important. However, when talking about retail collection areas, transportation planning, etc., city borders don't matter, the region does.

I'm not going to argue the relative population densities of OKC and Portland, but in general just because a city has a larger area doesn't mean that its population is evenly distributed throughout that area. A city may have an area of 400 sq miles, but if 80% of the city's population is in the inner 200 sq miles then does the total area even matter in regards to relative comparisons?

This is the Portland city boundary (blue) laid over the Oklahoma City boundary (white) for comparison.


http://i.imgur.com/7qTxUAD.jpg

I would love to see OKC deannex a lot of that land.

Me too. I've thought about that a lot.

This is the Portland city boundary (blue) laid over the Oklahoma City boundary (white) for comparison.


http://i.imgur.com/7qTxUAD.jpg

A lot of the land within the blue area actually belongs to Nichols Hills, Warr Acres, the Village, and Bethany. There's some overlap into Del City as well.

Now I am not saying OKC is even close to the kind of density Portland has, but if you counted only developed area, it would probably look a lot better than most think.

This is the Portland city boundary (blue) laid over the Oklahoma City boundary (white) for comparison.


http://i.imgur.com/7qTxUAD.jpgHere are some comparisons for you.

http://i1.likes-media.com/uimg/4f55eacdde14b15d182de43875c5aff8.600x

NYC overlapped in OKC

http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/current-events-open-topic/5572d1387839792-30-maps-will-blow-your-mind-manhattan-over-okc.jpg

That is from KayneMo's post in 30 maps thread

Manhattan has a population of a little over 1.6 million in 23 square miles.
OKC has an urban population (not including Norman but including Edmond) of about 865,000 in 411 square miles.

So just because OKC is bigger in terms of land mass, doesn't really mean it's unfair to compare it with Portland. OKC is a bit behind Portland, but we can catch up pretty quick if our economy keeps improving and we experience a boom.

I would love to see OKC deannex a lot of that land.I disagree. It is nice to have that much because in the future, it will allow us to have much higher population counts that will benefit us. Mustang might want to consider annexing some land to the southwest, but other than that, I think what we have is fine.

I think it usually does. So if 80% of the population is within that inner 200 square miles, should they have to subsidize the 20% who want to live beyond existing city services? Our development patterns of the last several decades are not efficient nor sustainable long term. Since people often whine government should act more like business, would a business build infrastructure in that manner or would they maximize the use of a smaller system? There are ways to grow smartly that includes suburbs, but you generally don't keep building homes in the next pasture and let the inner areas rot.

I think it usually does. So if 80% of the population is within that inner 200 square miles, should they have to subsidize the 20% who want to live beyond existing city services? Our development patterns of the last several decades are not efficient nor sustainable long term. Since people often whine government should act more like business, would a business build infrastructure in that manner or would they maximize the use of a smaller system?The same could be said for people that live directly downtown. How many people live downtown vs. the suburbs that provide tax dollars for OKC?

The same could be said for people that live directly downtown. How many people live downtown vs. the suburbs that provide tax dollars for OKC?

Not really - that infrastructure was built in parallel with the growth of the city. OKC's growth pattern has been skewed tremendously toward low density inefficient development. That really isn't debatable.

Not really - that infrastructure was built in parallel with the growth of the city. OKC's growth pattern has been skewed tremendously toward low density inefficient development. That really isn't debatable.You're right, it isn't debatable. The fact of the matter is that more people live in the suburbs and provide more money than people living in DD, Midtown, and any other place in the core. The people voted for MAPS which has transformed our city for the better with sales tax that were mainly provided by people living in suburban areas of the city and Edmond, Norman etc.

The same could be said for people that live directly downtown. How many people live downtown vs. the suburbs that provide tax dollars for OKC?

But how many people provide tax dollars for OKC at the same level of density in those *neighborhoods*. What produces and has produced more (sales) tax dollars, Hefner/MacArthur/Council/Memorial or 235/Reno/Pennsylvania/23rd?

PCN, Westmoore, Founder's District and Quail Springs don't all get to be called "The Suburbs" collectively. They're all individual units and the question is do they produce on the same level as downtown? Maybe 4 to 8 other areas produced on the same level as or higher than the Core did when MAPS originally passed…now…maybe 3: I-240, Memorial (Quail Springs), Expressway (& May).

But how many people provide tax dollars for OKC at the same level of density in those *neighborhoods*. What produces and has produced more (sales) tax dollars, Hefner/MacArthur/Council/Memorial or 235/Reno/Pennsylvania/23rd?

PCN, Westmoore, Founder's District and Quail Springs don't all get to be called "The Suburbs" collectively. They're all individual units and the question is do they produce on the same level as downtown? Maybe 4 to 8 other areas produced on the same level as or higher than the Core did when MAPS originally passed…now…maybe 3: I-240, Memorial (Quail Springs), Expressway (& May).It doesn't matter. What matters is, where it is coming from. Anyhow, I'll you or anyone have the last word. This is about population growth, not tax income.

Because it's a much much wider net for OKC.

In a vacuum, the city vs. city population for OKC and Portland is very symmetric because of the large land area advantage for OKC and the small land area disadvantage for Portland.

600,000 in a 607 square mile area is not as impressive as 600,000 people in a 133 square mile area. The density difference is tremendous.

The same can be said for San Antonio and San Francisco. San Antonio has a city population of 1.4 million within 461 square miles. The city likes to brag about being the '7th" largest city in the US, which is factually correct but means very little when a city like San Francisco has 840,000 people within an area of 47 square miles. That's impressive. Imagine if San Francisco expanded its city boundaries by another 414 square miles. They'd be a top 3 or 4 city with regards to population. If San Antonio reduced their city boundaries by 414, it'd have a much smaller population, way outside the top 10. What exactly does that change other than meaningless bragging rights?

San Francisco will still be San Francisco and San Antonio will still be San Antonio.

City populations in this day and age are very arbitrary and mean very little. Metro and urban populations are much more tangible and valuable.

That's all fine but it misses the point of my post. I was responding to a post that it wasn't fair to compare the population of OKC to Portland because of the difference in land area. You can certainly compare population size without having to consider the land area. We weren't talking about population density.

2013 figures released. OKC at 610,613, a 1.8% increase from 2012 (10,934).

Tulsa at 398,121, a 1% increase (3,772). Norman is 3rd at 118,197.

Just saw an article on USA Today that stated with the current trends, Oklahoma City will surpass Baltimore in population.